Backstory:  David Sirota’s post, our correction, his spin, and go:

Starting with David: (note - heavy spin in my bold).

Here's the gold-standard: The 2008 BBC World Service Poll of 34,500 people. It reports: "In 22 out of 34 countries around the world, the weight of opinion is that 'economic globalization, including trade and investment,' is growing too quickly." Looking country-to-country on page 9, you find large segments of the developing world unhappy with the current NAFTA-style trade model epitomized by the Colombia Free Trade Agreement

On page 9 you do find large segments of the world, developing and developed, uneasy about the "pace of economic globalization".  This poll is about globalization, including trade and investment, not trade agreements.  As Ezra Klein points out:  "Trade agreements -- ranging from big ones like NAFTA to small ones like Peru -- attract a ton of political controversy because they're the only tangible political manifestations of globalization that anyone can actually fight for/against. But, in reality, what's driving trade is much more fundamental than free trade agreements. It's transportation, communication, and container technologies. it's the development of labor giants like China and India. It's the internet. It ain't NAFTA. But since no one is going to fight against the internet or shipping advances, all we can really do is have symbolic battles over so-called 'free trade agreements.'"

Back to David:

CLAIM: Because legislators vote for something, it means the public supports it.

The Chamber claims that NAFTA-style trade deals that throw farmers off their land, privatize social services and inflate medicine prices in the developing world are wildly popular among the masses in the developing world. The proof? "Over the past four years, democratically-elected legislatures in Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Guatemala, Honduras, Panama and Peru all approved trade agreements with the United States with more than 85% of legislators voting in favor."

FACT: Democratic legislatures are very often bought off (see Congress, United States).

You have to look no further than our own U.S. Congress or state legislatures to know that "democratically-elected legislatures" often become the rubber stamp of corporate policies that the vast majority of the country opposes...Citing support from a "democratically elected legislature" for a corporate-written policy that crushes workers and the environment proves nothing more than those legislatures are as bought off as our own.

You will notice the repetition of "NAFTA-style trade deals", someone has certainly swallowed the talking points.  This portion of the post is what I like to call the "pesky voter" problem.  If only we would stop electing these corrupt people and turn over decision making to a benevolent elite it would all be puppies and flowers.

The remainder of his "fact-checking" is basically just more of the same tired "Down with the imperialist running dogs" screed.  The anti-trade crowd has bombarded us with misleading information about union violence in Colombia for several months, that disinformation campaign didn't do the trick.  Unfortunately  this new tact is just as wrong.