Christian Democrats in the United States
Global Issues - Free TradeThe reality of world trade and the benefits of personal freedom of choice in economics cannot be denied. We object that U.S. jobs have been exported overseas when done so as a means to exploit labor of the poor. The only way to make the U.S. competitive again in its exports is to level the playing field around the world. This doesn't mean sacrificing our standards for workers. It means exporting our standards for workers. If free trade means fair trade, U.S. workers have a fair chance.
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
7:06 PM
caution in Columbian politics
Columbians are too quick to swallow the official line that FARC was behind the recent killing of Gov. Luis Francisco Cuellar of Caqueta. Only a fair, truthful state will triumph over the crazed goals of armed narco-terrorists. In the absence of a public claim of responsibility, officials of any fair state have an obligation to prove the guilt of the responsible party before announcing in global media who that is. Without a voluntary confession or forensic and investigative proof, a quick denunciation may mean that Gov. Cuellar was killed by the government. Many politicians make political enemies. Such a brazen, overt act of war by FARC would be thought to be useful in the eyes of a deceived deceiver to bolster political control by the government for whatever acts of brutality the government cares to commit. In the absence of voluntary confession by FARC or forensic proof by the government, that hypothesis is just as likely. This is especially true considering Uribe's attempts to repeal his term limits and take power as a dictator wearing opposite colors next door to Venezuela's Chavez. The United States must adopt a consistent policy toward Venezuela and Columbia in support of truth, justice and the rule of law - not political assassinations and media manipulation.> detail, links and comments >>
Monday, November 9, 2009
11:24 PM
elections come from people, not their leaders
The world must accept the November 29th elections in Honduras, because regardless of the legislature's actions to remove President Zelaya, elections are the right of all people, and will be the decision of the people to appoint a new leader. As long as all law-abiding Honduran citizens are free to participate and to run in the election, it is the legitimate will of the people expressed. Furthermore, the legislature and courts of Honduras must accept the people's vote, and they will have no basis to throw out a new President. It's up to the Honduran voters to decide their future. Will they will be divided by petty loyalties into self-destructive conflict, increasing their vulnerability to conquering forces from both "right" and "left?" Mr. Zelaya cares more about his own ego than the continued unity of his country, and the Hondurans are capable of seeing through his sham. Will the Honduran people choose to move forward into a peaceful and self-ruled future? The election is the only hope for them to make that decision. Their leaders cannot make it for them. Even if acting President Micheletti's rule is illegitimate, a new election is necessary to a new legitimate government. We must support the people's right to a free and fair election. It may literally be their only hope of survival.> detail, links and comments >>
Friday, September 4, 2009
10:56 AM
The congress of Honduras, legally elected representatives, removed their President Manuel Zelaya, because of his communist/populist manipulation of vocal protestors to agitate for removal of his term limits. We say this was good too.
So, for the same reasons, the U.S. must encourage Columbian President Álvaro Uribe to step down and not seek to remove his term limits.
Even though Uribe's goals coincide with U.S. interests, we cannot continue policies of supporting one strong man over another. We must support other democratic republics, like ours, in which individuals are free to seek both profit and justice.
Executive offices of governments become stagnant and withdrawn over time if the same person leads. Alliances form within the organization, which suppress dissent and alternative ideas. Because alternative ideas are suppressed, and reality changes, any stagnant government cannot keep pace with the natural progress of peoples' culture and intellect. Because alternative ideas are not tolerated, ultimately arguments are settled by use of violence, which is to say, the arguers never reach a shared conclusion, but one or the other chooses to change the subject to the bullet or the cell.
If the U.S.-based or multi-national corporate interests think that Uribe is the only person in Columbia who can lead the country, then they are more stupid than we thought. Surely there is another in Columbia who can lead with strength and honor. And, honor requires the toleration of other opinions.
What Columbia cannot tolerate is an independent army of cocaine-funded and fueled terrorists who consider themselves immune to justice for their actions. This is true whether or not you believe that the source of addiction is the problem, not the supply, or whether you believe free people in an open society should have the liberty to use drugs like a mature adult without the a priori suspicion that they will cause damage or harm to others or their property. The cartels are murdering terrorists who only care about themselves, and believe they can murder, enslave and rob people without any repercussions. No government can remain stable under that constant threat.
Similarly, to remain stable, any government in Columbia must have regard for those principles that are disregarded by the narco-terrorists. Soldiers must be kept in line, and disciplined. If the soldiers are worse to the common people than the terrorists are, the people will choose the terrorists, and Columbia will be lost to anarchy, no matter how much support, training or money the U.S. pours in. War is not a solution. Everyone loses a war.
The most important principle that any modern government can follow, is to stay by the side of the common people, fighting for their lives, for their freedom, for their livelihoods. If government constantly fights for them, working for justice to right the wrongs people do to each other, working for freedom for education and religion side by side, then no cartel of smugglers can bring it down.
To be close to the people, people leading the government must hand over power to successors, who may have different approaches or opinions, but value the continuity of the nation.
The people's power to overthrow their government is very real, and it is always real, no matter how much force a government might inflict on us. No matter how much a government's officials deny that reality, the people can and will rise up at a moment's notice, and our sheer numbers would overwhelm any army.
That's why democracy works. The people are constantly reminded of our power, so we don't forget about it and let it languish. If the people use our power in little bits every now and again, bringing grievances to court to be resolved fairly, freely speaking our minds in public meetings, and voting for officials, then we don't have to use it all at once. Democracy works because it's the way people work: it embraces the reality of change, it channels change positively in small increments instead of forcing it to happen negatively, all at once.
It is inevitable that any long-term executive officer will use the government's bureaucracy to gain an unfair advantage in elections. It always happens. It must be avoided, because the consequences are disastrous. It doesn't matter what side of the "fence" the leader sits on, the results are always the same.
The duly elected representatives of Honduras ousted their leader to stop that dangerous tendency of power seekers to hold onto power. The duly elected representatives of Venezuela denied their leader's aspiration to become a dictator. The U.S. State Department must apply its principles and policies consistently in the case of President Uribe in Columbia. The safety of the People cannot be guaranteed by any single person. Any single person holding power for too long endangers the safety of the People.
US should encourage transition of power in Columbia
We say that it is good the Venezuelan legislature did not approve the petition of President Hugo Chavez to remove his term limits.The congress of Honduras, legally elected representatives, removed their President Manuel Zelaya, because of his communist/populist manipulation of vocal protestors to agitate for removal of his term limits. We say this was good too.
So, for the same reasons, the U.S. must encourage Columbian President Álvaro Uribe to step down and not seek to remove his term limits.
Even though Uribe's goals coincide with U.S. interests, we cannot continue policies of supporting one strong man over another. We must support other democratic republics, like ours, in which individuals are free to seek both profit and justice.
Executive offices of governments become stagnant and withdrawn over time if the same person leads. Alliances form within the organization, which suppress dissent and alternative ideas. Because alternative ideas are suppressed, and reality changes, any stagnant government cannot keep pace with the natural progress of peoples' culture and intellect. Because alternative ideas are not tolerated, ultimately arguments are settled by use of violence, which is to say, the arguers never reach a shared conclusion, but one or the other chooses to change the subject to the bullet or the cell.
If the U.S.-based or multi-national corporate interests think that Uribe is the only person in Columbia who can lead the country, then they are more stupid than we thought. Surely there is another in Columbia who can lead with strength and honor. And, honor requires the toleration of other opinions.
What Columbia cannot tolerate is an independent army of cocaine-funded and fueled terrorists who consider themselves immune to justice for their actions. This is true whether or not you believe that the source of addiction is the problem, not the supply, or whether you believe free people in an open society should have the liberty to use drugs like a mature adult without the a priori suspicion that they will cause damage or harm to others or their property. The cartels are murdering terrorists who only care about themselves, and believe they can murder, enslave and rob people without any repercussions. No government can remain stable under that constant threat.
Similarly, to remain stable, any government in Columbia must have regard for those principles that are disregarded by the narco-terrorists. Soldiers must be kept in line, and disciplined. If the soldiers are worse to the common people than the terrorists are, the people will choose the terrorists, and Columbia will be lost to anarchy, no matter how much support, training or money the U.S. pours in. War is not a solution. Everyone loses a war.
The most important principle that any modern government can follow, is to stay by the side of the common people, fighting for their lives, for their freedom, for their livelihoods. If government constantly fights for them, working for justice to right the wrongs people do to each other, working for freedom for education and religion side by side, then no cartel of smugglers can bring it down.
To be close to the people, people leading the government must hand over power to successors, who may have different approaches or opinions, but value the continuity of the nation.
The people's power to overthrow their government is very real, and it is always real, no matter how much force a government might inflict on us. No matter how much a government's officials deny that reality, the people can and will rise up at a moment's notice, and our sheer numbers would overwhelm any army.
That's why democracy works. The people are constantly reminded of our power, so we don't forget about it and let it languish. If the people use our power in little bits every now and again, bringing grievances to court to be resolved fairly, freely speaking our minds in public meetings, and voting for officials, then we don't have to use it all at once. Democracy works because it's the way people work: it embraces the reality of change, it channels change positively in small increments instead of forcing it to happen negatively, all at once.
It is inevitable that any long-term executive officer will use the government's bureaucracy to gain an unfair advantage in elections. It always happens. It must be avoided, because the consequences are disastrous. It doesn't matter what side of the "fence" the leader sits on, the results are always the same.
The duly elected representatives of Honduras ousted their leader to stop that dangerous tendency of power seekers to hold onto power. The duly elected representatives of Venezuela denied their leader's aspiration to become a dictator. The U.S. State Department must apply its principles and policies consistently in the case of President Uribe in Columbia. The safety of the People cannot be guaranteed by any single person. Any single person holding power for too long endangers the safety of the People.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
11:22 PM
Original post:
I am confused why everyone thought the Honduran congress, supreme court and military did something wrong by impeaching and removing their President Manuel Zelaya. After all, if anyone has the authority in a republic to remove an executive, it is the elected congress, reviewed by the supreme court and enforced by the military. A president is not a king. Manuel Zelaya was proposing a law which would make one person a king, a president for life. The longer a person holds an office, the easier it is to stay there. This is not a good idea in a top executive officer, because they tend to turn against their own people in the end.
For a democratic republic to be true to that name, it cannot be some sham lie supporting dictators like the obvious North Korea or Iran or the not so obvious ones that spend a lot of money telling you they are not dictators. With due respect to the lady of Windsor and the thriving democracy she has fashioned, she is not my queen, nor would I ever wish for one.
Doubtless the freshest thing in our memory here is the servile impeachment of President Clinton for lying about a blow job, and though I think Clinton is a well-intentioned man he's too "smart" for his own good, and saying that lie on the record was a wuss move. If he's going to have his cupcake, he has to eat it too. (Wait, did I say that?)
More seriously, Nixon resigned before he certainly would have been impeached and convicted for a major crime, an offense against any self-honest democracy. He had no respect for the people, and thought he could drum up enough support that he could get away with breaking into the opposition's headquarters and rigging the election. If democracy is not conducted in a civil spirit so that no matter who wins the match, the people are all winners, it is not democracy at all, it is merely a small group of people addicted to money and power responding to threats to their self-interest.
Now, shooting a sitting president, that's a coup. We've been through that, we've cried that cry, we've hurt that hurt already. We hurt so much, we threw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on a sacrificial fire in Vietnam. Never again.
Before that was Andrew Johnson. Johnson was trying to reconstruct the South, but his Republican colleagues wanted to turn the South into subject colonies like England had wanted America to begin with. But it was very unpopular, and good men's careers were ended for voting their conscience against conviction, which was a vote for unity of the nation after the civil war.
Johnson's impeachment and acquittal is usually held up as an example of mob rule in a legislative body, and why it's a good idea to resist those urges of the moment. Those things are true, but Johnson's case is not comparable to Manuel Zelaya in that way.
Andrew Johnson's acquittal meant that Presidents of the United States were more free to pursue their personal, individual ideals and goals even when they are unpopular, which is a great quality of republics with a strong executive, that the President is one human being, just magnified large. However, we are honest enough with our own nature as human beings that we know we cannot allow one person to wield that power for very long. We let Franklin D. Roosevelt go a while because we were in dire straights and he was effective, but then we realized we had to write our long tradition of term limits into our constitution, to limit our power to give away our power.
Johnson was trying to protect the union of our republic by rebuilding the South, and the strength and promise that union brings to a free society where all people are entitled to participate in all stations of government based on their skills, merit and with the will of the people. In Honduras, Zelaya was directly threatening the structure of the republican government, making it possible for him to seize power just as Hitler did by stoking the fire of anger in the people. There is a big difference.
The Honduran congress could have had more respect for the citizens by communicating their opinions and campaigning against Zelaya, convincing the people the truth that Zelaya is a con-man who wanted to become a king, or to make someone else a king. Probably if a fair share of the representatives were more honest businessmen, the people would be less quick to let Zelaya fan their passions, and more willing to be patient and reasonable. Zelaya suggested several reforms of the Honduran Constitution that were popular and may be good ideas, but it became apparent in the judgment of their congress that Zelaya only suggested those so he could push through a measure to consolidate executive power, which would make them useless - at that point, why not give all power to the President?
I think history will show that the Honduran congress, supreme court and military did the right thing, even if it was an unpopular choice. If Zelaya had been allowed to put the unlimited term measure to the people, and the people gave away their future consent for his rule and put the military under his or his successor's control permanently, that power would corrupt any human being.
The Honduran Congress probably saved Honduras from a future war that would have killed thousands of innocent people and torn the country apart. It may be unpopular now, but if the Honduran Congress were to get their acts together and educate their people about history, they would not have such a hard time doing the right thing.
Honduran congress did the right thing in the wrong way
Editor's note Sept. 29 2009: If they want to reinstate Zelaya and then hold an election that is great. Whatever they need to do to achieve democratic peace without tyranny is a good thing. Sounds like they have to rewrite their constitution to give them an impeachment process and formalize term limits for both the President and Congress. I hope they can work it out without violence. War in Latin America is avoidable, by working together to resolve differences and to compromise on individual goals without compromising the liberty and safety of the people.Original post:
I am confused why everyone thought the Honduran congress, supreme court and military did something wrong by impeaching and removing their President Manuel Zelaya. After all, if anyone has the authority in a republic to remove an executive, it is the elected congress, reviewed by the supreme court and enforced by the military. A president is not a king. Manuel Zelaya was proposing a law which would make one person a king, a president for life. The longer a person holds an office, the easier it is to stay there. This is not a good idea in a top executive officer, because they tend to turn against their own people in the end.
For a democratic republic to be true to that name, it cannot be some sham lie supporting dictators like the obvious North Korea or Iran or the not so obvious ones that spend a lot of money telling you they are not dictators. With due respect to the lady of Windsor and the thriving democracy she has fashioned, she is not my queen, nor would I ever wish for one.
Doubtless the freshest thing in our memory here is the servile impeachment of President Clinton for lying about a blow job, and though I think Clinton is a well-intentioned man he's too "smart" for his own good, and saying that lie on the record was a wuss move. If he's going to have his cupcake, he has to eat it too. (Wait, did I say that?)
More seriously, Nixon resigned before he certainly would have been impeached and convicted for a major crime, an offense against any self-honest democracy. He had no respect for the people, and thought he could drum up enough support that he could get away with breaking into the opposition's headquarters and rigging the election. If democracy is not conducted in a civil spirit so that no matter who wins the match, the people are all winners, it is not democracy at all, it is merely a small group of people addicted to money and power responding to threats to their self-interest.
Now, shooting a sitting president, that's a coup. We've been through that, we've cried that cry, we've hurt that hurt already. We hurt so much, we threw hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people on a sacrificial fire in Vietnam. Never again.
Before that was Andrew Johnson. Johnson was trying to reconstruct the South, but his Republican colleagues wanted to turn the South into subject colonies like England had wanted America to begin with. But it was very unpopular, and good men's careers were ended for voting their conscience against conviction, which was a vote for unity of the nation after the civil war.
Johnson's impeachment and acquittal is usually held up as an example of mob rule in a legislative body, and why it's a good idea to resist those urges of the moment. Those things are true, but Johnson's case is not comparable to Manuel Zelaya in that way.
Andrew Johnson's acquittal meant that Presidents of the United States were more free to pursue their personal, individual ideals and goals even when they are unpopular, which is a great quality of republics with a strong executive, that the President is one human being, just magnified large. However, we are honest enough with our own nature as human beings that we know we cannot allow one person to wield that power for very long. We let Franklin D. Roosevelt go a while because we were in dire straights and he was effective, but then we realized we had to write our long tradition of term limits into our constitution, to limit our power to give away our power.
Johnson was trying to protect the union of our republic by rebuilding the South, and the strength and promise that union brings to a free society where all people are entitled to participate in all stations of government based on their skills, merit and with the will of the people. In Honduras, Zelaya was directly threatening the structure of the republican government, making it possible for him to seize power just as Hitler did by stoking the fire of anger in the people. There is a big difference.
The Honduran congress could have had more respect for the citizens by communicating their opinions and campaigning against Zelaya, convincing the people the truth that Zelaya is a con-man who wanted to become a king, or to make someone else a king. Probably if a fair share of the representatives were more honest businessmen, the people would be less quick to let Zelaya fan their passions, and more willing to be patient and reasonable. Zelaya suggested several reforms of the Honduran Constitution that were popular and may be good ideas, but it became apparent in the judgment of their congress that Zelaya only suggested those so he could push through a measure to consolidate executive power, which would make them useless - at that point, why not give all power to the President?
I think history will show that the Honduran congress, supreme court and military did the right thing, even if it was an unpopular choice. If Zelaya had been allowed to put the unlimited term measure to the people, and the people gave away their future consent for his rule and put the military under his or his successor's control permanently, that power would corrupt any human being.
The Honduran Congress probably saved Honduras from a future war that would have killed thousands of innocent people and torn the country apart. It may be unpopular now, but if the Honduran Congress were to get their acts together and educate their people about history, they would not have such a hard time doing the right thing.
> detail, links and comments >>
Sunday, September 14, 2008
9:09 PM
That said, it's important for the United States and for the business interests of Bolivia to understand where Sr. Morales is coming from. The poor people of that country had been oppressed for far too long by business interests who gave democracy and freedom a bad name. So it is little wonder that the poor of Bolivia, suddenly with a powerful advocate, are quick to respond in authoritarian ways themselves — this is how they have been treated, so that is how they think they should act when they have power.
Sr. Morales has made some mistakes that backfired on him, resulting in the tragic death of an unarmed minister of God at the hands of the military, who lost his life in service of peace, and gained his life with the Lord.
Morales is a little confused about history. I'm pretty sure no civilization in the world has ever had a totally equal, communal, peaceful life. That's why we're praying for God to show us how — I hope he does someday. From my understanding, before European colonization, the major civilizations of the Americas like the Incas, the Mayans, and the scattered tribes of North America all had wars, they all faced periods of upheaval, of starvation, etc. Some of them had bizarre religions centered around human sacrifice. Is that something that we want to return to?
But Morales seems like he had some good intentions at heart when he won the Presidency of Bolivia. Whereas Hugo Chavez of Venezuela seems like a generic hot-headed dictator who seeks power for the sake of power, Morales seems like he wants power to help the poor. He is finding out that power is the problem, regardless of who wields it or what their goals are.
That's why democracy — real democracy that works toward compromise for competing interests — is the only system that works well enough in practice to be stable in the long term. Some redistribution of wealth is inevitable since it was so bad in Bolivia for some people that they elected Morales to help them. But totally even redistribution of wealth is impossible, and a leader choosing an absolute side between the poor masses and the wealthy aristocracy has never worked out for anyone. Things simply cannot get better all at once.
I read in the paper today a commentator who said that Morales is facing a challenge to his constitutional state and has no choice but to defend the state against the wealthier districts. That is a narrow, fascist view from someone who wants to watch violence for entertainment, and it's not clear that is the case. I'm reading Spruyt's book The Sovereign State and Its Competitors at the moment. The early French Kings paid off the aristocracy while raising the citizenry of the towns as civil servants. The King had to balance competing interests to benefit himself and both economic classes, and successfully formed a strong state. In Germany, the Emperors refused to bargain with the newer towns and their trade leagues, relying on the aristocracy, but the city-leagues had incentives not to fully standardize their economies and unite. In Italy, the aristocracy of each city-state were in competition and refused to unite separate city-states into a larger nation. Neither Germany nor Italy formed successful sovereign states during that period of history. When technology and international politics changed and they lost their holds on Baltic and Mediterranean trade, they were not able to adapt, and their prosperity was lost.
If Sr. Morales does not balance the competing interests within his country, then Bolivia will not succeed in maintaining its sovereignty, will be vulnerable to foreign imperialists like Hugo Chavez or big oil, and will descend into civil war. Then all of his gains for the poor will be lost in chaos.
Evo Morales & business revolt in Bolivia
Sr. Morales is learning that governing a nation is not a matter of issuing edicts, waving one's hands, snapping the fingers and saying "Make it so," like Captain Picard. A lesson that U.S. Americans involved in law and governance often forget as well because our institutions have so much momentum on their own.That said, it's important for the United States and for the business interests of Bolivia to understand where Sr. Morales is coming from. The poor people of that country had been oppressed for far too long by business interests who gave democracy and freedom a bad name. So it is little wonder that the poor of Bolivia, suddenly with a powerful advocate, are quick to respond in authoritarian ways themselves — this is how they have been treated, so that is how they think they should act when they have power.
Sr. Morales has made some mistakes that backfired on him, resulting in the tragic death of an unarmed minister of God at the hands of the military, who lost his life in service of peace, and gained his life with the Lord.
Morales is a little confused about history. I'm pretty sure no civilization in the world has ever had a totally equal, communal, peaceful life. That's why we're praying for God to show us how — I hope he does someday. From my understanding, before European colonization, the major civilizations of the Americas like the Incas, the Mayans, and the scattered tribes of North America all had wars, they all faced periods of upheaval, of starvation, etc. Some of them had bizarre religions centered around human sacrifice. Is that something that we want to return to?
But Morales seems like he had some good intentions at heart when he won the Presidency of Bolivia. Whereas Hugo Chavez of Venezuela seems like a generic hot-headed dictator who seeks power for the sake of power, Morales seems like he wants power to help the poor. He is finding out that power is the problem, regardless of who wields it or what their goals are.
That's why democracy — real democracy that works toward compromise for competing interests — is the only system that works well enough in practice to be stable in the long term. Some redistribution of wealth is inevitable since it was so bad in Bolivia for some people that they elected Morales to help them. But totally even redistribution of wealth is impossible, and a leader choosing an absolute side between the poor masses and the wealthy aristocracy has never worked out for anyone. Things simply cannot get better all at once.
I read in the paper today a commentator who said that Morales is facing a challenge to his constitutional state and has no choice but to defend the state against the wealthier districts. That is a narrow, fascist view from someone who wants to watch violence for entertainment, and it's not clear that is the case. I'm reading Spruyt's book The Sovereign State and Its Competitors at the moment. The early French Kings paid off the aristocracy while raising the citizenry of the towns as civil servants. The King had to balance competing interests to benefit himself and both economic classes, and successfully formed a strong state. In Germany, the Emperors refused to bargain with the newer towns and their trade leagues, relying on the aristocracy, but the city-leagues had incentives not to fully standardize their economies and unite. In Italy, the aristocracy of each city-state were in competition and refused to unite separate city-states into a larger nation. Neither Germany nor Italy formed successful sovereign states during that period of history. When technology and international politics changed and they lost their holds on Baltic and Mediterranean trade, they were not able to adapt, and their prosperity was lost.
If Sr. Morales does not balance the competing interests within his country, then Bolivia will not succeed in maintaining its sovereignty, will be vulnerable to foreign imperialists like Hugo Chavez or big oil, and will descend into civil war. Then all of his gains for the poor will be lost in chaos.
> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
8:30 PM
Hugo Chavez - also the devil?
Hugo Chavez is an egotistical nitwit using George Bush as a scapegoat for his country's economic problems. Perhaps his efforts today to secure his place as the tired stereotype of the Latin American dictator for life will be the final time that the masses of uneducated poor fall for that tired old lie, that he promises them the world, but takes everything for himself, and uses force to eliminate anyone who dares to think differently. We should all pray for the Venezuelan people and encourage our government to make every peaceful effort to enable them to get that idiot out of office.> detail, links and comments >>
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
7:30 PM
Free Trade
The reality of world trade and the benefits of personal freedom of choice in economics cannot be denied. We object that U.S. jobs have been exported overseas when done so as a means to exploit labor of the poor. The only way to make the U.S. competitive again in its exports is to level the playing field around the world. This doesn't mean sacrificing our standards for workers. It means exporting our standards for workers. If free trade means fair trade, U.S. workers have a fair chance.> detail, links and comments >>
Archives May 2007 / August 2007 / September 2008 / August 2009 / September 2009 / November 2009 / December 2009 /