Hillary slightly widens gap in 1st post-debate poll

(NOLA) — Democrat Hillary Clinton led Republican Donald Trump 43-38 percent in the first tracking poll since their record-setting televised presidential debate Monday (Sept. 26). Clinton’s advantage grew slightly, but only because Trump dropped a percentage point. Clinton’s support remained unchanged.

That’s according to The Times-Picayune/Lucid Presidential Tracker, a non-probability survey based on more than 400 likely voters responding online each day. The results are based on a rolling, three-day weighted average. Likely voters are defined as those who self-identify as being registered to vote and who say they are likely to vote Nov. 8.

The results, released Wednesday, indicate the nationwide race is still deadlocked.


Clinton rape accuser drops Twitter bomb on Chelsea

Former President Bill Clinton with daughter, Chelsea (Photo: Twitter)

Former President Bill Clinton with daughter, Chelsea (Photo: Twitter)

Juanita Broaddrick (Photo: Twitter)

Juanita Broaddrick (Photo: Twitter)

After Bill and Hillary Clinton’s daughter attacked GOP nominee Donald Trump for daring to mention her father’s sexual “transgressions” this week, Juanita Broaddrick – who famously accused former President Bill Clinton of raping her – took to Twitter Wednesday to deliver the bad news to Chelsea Clinton: “Your parents are not good people,” and “Your father was, and probably still is, a sexual predator.”

A series of six tweets came from Broaddrick, who says Clinton raped her in a hotel room 38 years ago. WND recently reported that a nurse who treated her after the alleged sexual assault confirmed Broaddrick’s account.

After the first presidential debate Monday, Trump said he didn’t want to discuss the issue of Clinton’s sexual “transgressions” because the former first daughter was present at the event.

“I didn’t want to do it with Chelsea … I didn’t want to say what I was going to say with Chelsea in the room,” Trump told ABC News.

Chelsea responded to Trump’s statement during an interview with Cosmopolitan magazine:

“It’s a distraction from his inability to talk about what’s actually at stake in this election and to offer concrete, comprehensive proposals about the economy, or our public school system, or debt-free college, or keeping our country safe and Americans safe here at home and around the world. …

“And candidly, I don’t remember a time in my life when my parents and my family weren’t being attacked, and so it just sort of seems to be in that tradition, unfortunately. And what I find most troubling by far are Trump’s — and we talked about this when you interviewed me the night before the Iowa caucus — are Trump’s continued, relentless attacks on whole swaths of our country and even our global community: women, Muslims, Americans with disabilities, a Gold Star family. I mean, that, to me, is far more troubling than whatever his most recent screed against my mom or my family [is].”

That’s what prompted Broaddrick to send the following six tweets to Chelsea:






As WND reported, Broaddrick has accused Hillary of concealing her husband’s sex crimes.

In 1978, during then-Arkansas Attorney General Bill Clinton’s gubernatorial bid, Broaddrick was a nursing home administrator and volunteer for the Clinton campaign.their-lives

She told Clinton noticed her during a campaign stop.

“He would just sort of insinuate, you know when you are in Little Rock let’s get together. Let’s talk about the industry,” she recalled during a November interview on “Aaron Klein Investigative Radio.” “Let’s talk about the needs of the nursing homes, and I was very excited about that.”

In the spring, Broaddrick attended a convention in Little Rock, along with her friend and nursing employee Norma Rogers. The two women stayed in a room at the Camelot Hotel.

“Their Lives: The Women Targeted by the Clinton Machine” – available at the WND Superstore – is a wake-up call to Americans everywhere to re-evaluate this ruthless power couple and prevent Hillary Clinton from returning to the White House.

When Broaddrick checked in with the Clinton campaign, she said she was given instructions to contact Clinton at his private apartment.

“I called his apartment and he answered,” she said. “And he said ‘Well, why don’t we meet in the Camelot Hotel coffee room and we can get together there and talk. And I said ‘That would be fine.’”

But then Clinton decided to meet her inside her room, rather than at the hotel coffee shop.

“A time later and I’m not sure how long it was, he called my room, which he said he would do when he got to the coffee shop,” she said. “And he said ‘There are too many people down here. It’s too crowded. There’s reporters and can we just meet in your room?’”

She continued, “And it sort of took me back a little bit, Aaron. But I did say, ‘OK, I’ll order coffee to the room,’ which I did and that’s when things sort of got out of hand. And it was very unexpected. It was, you might even say, brutal. With the biting of my lip.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she says Clinton raped her

Juanita Broaddrick, right, with residents of her Arkansas retirement home and Bill Clinton in April 1978, the same month she says Clinton raped her

A lip-biting fetish

Broaddrick didn’t go into detail about the alleged rape, as she said most of the information has been reported through the years.

In 1999, she said Clinton kissed her and began biting her lip as she tried to pull away. Then, she claims, Clinton pushed her down onto the bed. She told NBC’s “Dateline”: “I just was very frightened, and I tried to get away from him and I told him ‘No,’ that I didn’t want this to happen but he wouldn’t listen to me. … It was a real panicky, panicky situation. I was even to the point where I was getting very noisy, you know, yelling to ‘Please stop.’”

At that point, she says, Clinton held her right shoulder down and continued biting her lip.

After the assault, she told “Dateline,” “[Clinton] got up and straightened himself, and I was crying at the moment and he walks to the door, and calmly puts on his sunglasses. And before he goes out the door he says ‘You better get some ice on that.’ And he turned and went out the door.”

In the November interview, Broaddrick recalled how her friend returned to their room to look for her after she noticed Broaddrick had been absent from the convention.

“I was in a state of shock afterward,”  she told Aaron Klein.  “And I know my nurse came back to the room to check on me because she hadn’t heard from me. … She came up and it was devastating to her and to me to find me in the condition that I was in.

“We really did not know what to do. We sat and talked and she got ice for my mouth. … It was four times the size that it should be. And she got ice for me and we decided then I just wanted to go home. I just wanted to get out of there, which we did.”

Broaddrick’s account is backed up by Norma Rogers, the nurse who said she treated her in the hotel room after the incident. Asked if she has any doubts about Broaddrick’s story, Rogers said, “Oh, absolutely none whatsoever.”

“The Clintons’ War on Women” is available at the WND Superstore

Broaddrick’s claim that Clinton bit her lip repeatedly is reminiscent of a similar charge by former Miss America pageant winner Elizabeth Ward Gracen, who had a consensual affair with Clinton. Gracen reported that Clinton bit her lip during their sexual encounters.


Hillary and Bill approach Broaddrick

After three weeks had passed, Broaddrick told Klein, Hillary approached her at a private fundraiser.

“And so then about that time, I see them coming through the kitchen area. And some people there are pointing to me,” she recalled. “He goes one direction and she comes directly to me. Then panic sort of starting to set in with me. And I thought, ‘Oh my God, what do I do now?’”

Broaddrick told Klein that Hillary said, “It’s so nice to meet you.”

“And [Hillary] said, ‘I just want you to know how much Bill and I appreciate the things you do for him.’ And I just stood there. I was sort of you might say shell-shocked.

“And she said, ‘Do you understand? Everything you do.’

“She tried to take a hold of my hand and I left. I told the girls I can’t take this. I’m leaving. So I immediately left.”

Broaddrick added, “What really went through my mind at that time is, ‘She knows. She knew. She’s covering it up and she expects me to do the very same thing.’”

Then, in 1991, Clinton approached Broaddrick at a meeting at the Riverfront Hotel in Little Rock.

When the Clinton campaign learned Broaddrick was at the meeting, she said, “they called me out of the meeting and pointed to an area to go down around the corner by an elevator area. And I walked around the corner and there he stands.”

“And he immediately comes over to me with this gushing apology. Like, ‘I’m so sorry for what happened. I hope you can forgive me. I’m a family man now. I have a daughter. I’m a changed man. I would never do anything like that again.’”

Broaddrick said she believed Clinton was remorseful until one week later – when he announced his campaign for the White House.

“But still I have to thank him for that day because the blame then went off of me and on to him. And I knew that it wasn’t my fault. I knew that I didn’t use good judgement but I knew that the incident was no longer my fault.”

The rape is described by Juanita Broaddrick to Candice Jackson in gruesome detail here.


Computer prof: ‘It’s possible’ for hackers to sway election

(POLITICO) — Hackers could influence the outcomes of November’s elections, a computer science professor who has demonstrated security weaknesses in voting machines told lawmakers on Wednesday.

“It’s possible,” said Andrew Appel, a professor at Princeton University, at a House Oversight IT subcommittee hearing focused on election cybersecurity.

But Appel, who has hacked voting machines used in many states, was the only one to reply affirmatively when subpanel Chairman Will Hurd (R-Texas) asked for a “yes” or “no” answer to the question, “Can a cyberattack change the outcome of our national elections?


Congress slaps Obama with 1st veto override of presidency

Sept. 11, 2001

Sept. 11, 2001

WASHINGTON – Congress has finally overridden a veto from President Obama, the 13th bill he has rejected, but at least a pair of leading conservatives tell WND that lawmakers picked the wrong fight.

The House joined the Senate Wednesday afternoon in overwhelmingly voting into law the Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, or JASTA.

The law will allow U.S. families of victims to sue the government of Saudi Arabia for alleged involvement in the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on America.

Many of those families, and other critics, have long contended Saudi officials helped in the planning and financing of the attacks.

The bill originally passed unanimously in both the House and the Senate, and the veto override required a two-thirds vote in both chambers.

The override passed in the Senate by a vote of 97 to 1, with only Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., voting against it, and Sens. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and Bernie Sanders, D-Vt., abstaining because they are on the road campaigning on behalf of Democratic Party presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

The House voted 348-77 to override the veto, with one member voting present.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi defended her vote by saying, “It isn’t anti-the president.”

While it is the first time Obama has had a veto overridden, his immediate predecessors were also rarely overruled. President George W. Bush suffered just four veto overrides; President Clinton, just two. Most frequently overridden in modern times were presidents Ford and Truman, both experiencing a dozen reversals.

However, despite the overwhelming bipartisan support for JASTA, the issue is not so cut and dry.

Two leading critics of the law belong to conservatives who have long and substantial records of opposing Islamic extremism: Former Rep. Bachmann, R-Minn., and Andrew McCarthy, the former federal prosecutor, constitutional expert and National Review columnist.

Like the reporting you see here? Sign up for free news alerts from WND.com, America’s independent news network.

They are both lawyers, and both are concerned about the effect the law could have upon what’s called the principle of sovereign immunity.

JASTA allows an exception to a legal and diplomatic principle that effectively prevents one country from being sued in the court of another country.

Andrew McCarthy

Andrew McCarthy

The law’s proponents say its wording is narrowly tailored to allow only the relatives of the 9/11 victims to sue Saudi officials who may have been complicit in supporting the terror attacks, without violating the sovereign immunity principle.

But the president and other critics say that is not true.

“I think, the more I hear it, that the ‘narrowly tailored’ claim is nonsense,” McCarthy told WND before the veto override was passed.

“The issue is not how tightly we can draft a statute to apply solely to a unique case; it is what other countries will do in response, which will not be at all affected by our effort to be narrow,” he continued.

And, McCarthy warned, “Once you abandon the principle involved here, all bets are off. This is a political issue for diplomacy, not a litigation matter for the courts.”

Bachmann agreed, telling WND, “Andy is exactly right.”

She made the comment while at an airport, between flights, so the former lawmaker did not have time to elaborate. But Bachmann made sure to make clear she was voicing support for the principle, not the president, adding, “Obama’s vaunted diplomacy skills are a failed chimera.”

And it wasn’t not just those two conservatives who are expressed doubts before the bill became law. Leading members of the Republican establishment appeared to suddenly develop having second thoughts.

Last Wednesday, House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., seemed to take both sides of the issue, musing, “I worry about trial lawyers trying to get rich off of this. And I do worry about the precedent. At the same time, these victims do need to have their day in court.”

And Sens. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., and Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., called for changes to the bill that would make it harder to sue U.S. officials in foreign courts.

The European Union sent a letter opposing the bill to the U.S. State Department last week.

Additionally, a group of former national security officials who served in both Democrat and Republican administrations sent a letter to Obama expressing legal concerns over the weakening of sovereign immunity, as well as political concerns about undermining relations with the Saudis.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

Former Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn.

In vetoing the bill, Obama expressed great sympathy for the relatives of the victims of the 9/11 attacks, but in listing his reasons for rejecting the bill, he contended JASTA could open the way for U.S. officials to be sued in foreign courts, even including American troops.

And McCarthy agreed, telling WND he stands by what he wrote in a piece last week in National Review titled, “Obama Is Right to Veto Bill Enabling Suits against the Saudis.

Because the U.S. has interests and troops around the world, and because those troops are often involved in deadly operations while pursuing national interests and defense, McCarthy argued, “Our nation has far more to lose than most nations by playing this game.”

His key points in the article:

  • “Relations between governments are best handled through diplomacy, not legal proceedings.”
  • “Legal cases can be unpredictable due to the differences in the predispositions and skill levels of the individual judges and litigators.”
  • The potential for bad court decisions “is why countries mutually grant their officials diplomatic immunity, which bars prosecution of even serious crimes committed by diplomatic personnel.”
  • “It is why a country’s diplomatic installations are considered its sovereign territory even on foreign soil.”
  • “[T]he fervor for this legislation is indeed ironic for Republicans who complain — quite justifiably — that Obama regards international terrorism as a law-enforcement matter to be pursued in the courts.”
  • “The judiciary is no more proper a forum for conducting diplomacy than it is for dealing with a national-security challenge.”
  • “Obviously, even if it is sued successfully, the Saudi government is never actually going to pay any judgments.”
  • “[T]here is also no reason why the Obama administration could not negotiate with the Saudis in an effort to create a fund to compensate 9/11 victims.”
  • “Furthermore, there is no restriction, and should be none, on civil lawsuits against individual Saudi citizens and entities that are complicit in terrorism, including the 9/11 attacks.”

McCarthy made it clear he was not sympathetic to the administration’s concerns that the law would enrage the Saudi regime, stating, “We should be enraging them.”

“The United States should stop pretending that the Saudis are a reliable counterterrorism ally,” he continued. “We should be exposing and condemning the regime’s enforcement of barbaric sharia corporal penalties, as well as sharia’s systematic discrimination against women, apostates, non-Muslims, Muslim minorities, and homosexuals.”

Get the hottest, most important news stories on the Internet – delivered FREE to your inbox as soon as they break! Take just 30 seconds and sign up for WND’s Email News Alerts!

Before the override, McCarthy also wondered about the politics of it all.

“Why,” he asked, “when the Republican-controlled Congress is finally willing to fight President Obama to the point of forcing and potentially overriding a veto, do they pick an issue on which Obama is right?”

Indeed, why did GOP lawmakers pick a fight on this issue when they refused to use the power of the purse to defund his entire agenda, including Obamacare, executive orders on immigration, and government funding of Planned Parenthood?


Perhaps because they saw the issue as a political slam-dunk.

McCarthy called its a “grandstanding exhibition” by Congress in support of “the most sympathetic imaginable” private litigants, “the families of 9/11 victims.”

Adding to that perception may be the belief those families now have additional evidence to win in court.

In July, the Obama administration released a redacted and declassified version of a document dubbed the “28 pages” (actually, 29) from the 2002 congressional report on the 9/11 attacks that was withheld from the public.

The pages revealed contacts between some of the the 9/11 hijackers and Saudi officials, including a link between an al-Qaida conspirator and former Saudi ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan.

An unlisted number in the conspirator’s phone book was traced to a company that managed Bandar’s estate in Aspen, Colorado, and another unlisted number belonged to a bodyguard who worked at the Saudi Embassy in Washington.

There is also evidence Saudi royals paid operatives in contact with the hijackers.

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of Stae Condoleeza Rice, President Geroge W. Bush, Saudi King Abdullah

Former Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, President Geroge W. Bush, Saudi King Abdullah

In April, radical Islam expert Paul Sperry wrote a bombshell article in the New York Post, based on well-placed government sources, directly tying Bandar to the 9/11 conspiracy. Bandar was Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States from 1983 to 2005. If Bandar was involved, it would likely mean support for the 9/11 attacks went to the highest levels of the Saudi government.

“If a foreign country commits an act of war against you, they are not your ally or your friend no matter who they are. They are your enemy, and they should be treated as such, especially when that enemy continues to fund jihad and build radical mosques and propagate anti-Western hate,” Sperry emphatically told WND in an interview, after the Post article appeared.

Sperry is the former WND Washington bureau chief, former Hoover Institution media fellow and author of “Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives Have Penetrated Washington,” and the WND book, “Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld that’s Conspiring to Islamize America.”

His article in the Post charged “the U.S. covered up the Saudi role in 9/11” and that case agents he interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces said “virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.”

Sperry told WND, “It’s no coincidence that the Saudi minister of religion and mosques happened to be staying at the same Dulles airport hotel as those 5 Saudi hijackers the night before they flew out of Dulles and attacked the Pentagon.”

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001

“There is no doubt in my mind that officials working at the time in the Saudi Embassy in Washington and the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles, at a minimum, knew about the 9/11 plot as early as 2000, if not earlier, and there is a ton of circumstantial evidence that some of them actually facilitated the attacks based on phone records, financial transactions and other evidence,” he added.

He asserted the Saudis’ “involvement was deliberately covered up at the highest levels of our government.”

For what it called reasons of “national security,” the Bush administration removed the 28 pages of the bipartisan “Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001” that was published in 2002.

“Saudis forward-deployed a number of radical clerics here in the run-up to Sept. 11, 2001, installing them at the Saudi embassy and the Los Angeles consulate and other consulates while giving them diplomatic cover and pretending they were legitimate employees. Of course, they weren’t diplomats at all – they in fact were recruiters and trainers and groomers of jihadists including the hijackers,” charged Sperry.

In the Post article detailing how the federal government, including the FBI, allegedly stonewalled investigators trying to catch the plotters after the 9/11 attacks, Sperry explained how, “Even Anwar al-Awlaki, the hijackers’ spiritual adviser, escaped our grasp. In 2002, the Saudi-sponsored cleric was detained at JFK on passport fraud charges only to be released into the custody of a ‘Saudi representative.’”

“Many of them worked out of a Saudi Islamic center in northern Virginia chaired by Bandar. One of the lecturers there happened to be Anwar al-Awlaki, who was the American field commander for the hijackers.” Awlaki as killed by the CIA in a drone strike in 2011.

Sperry told WND it was time to cut ties with the Saudis.

“Our relationship with Saudi Arabia has always been a snake pit, but now more than ever, it’s time to slam the lid shut on that snake pit,” he reflected unequivocally.

“There hasn’t been the political will to do it – to stop appeasing and kowtowing to the Saudis – but I think the tide may finally be turning now.”

The Saudis may be sensing that turning tide, too.

King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia

King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia

Zalmay Khalilzad, the former U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, Iraq and the United Nations, wrote in Politico last week, that during his most recent trip to Saudi Arabia a top official told him, “We misled you,” and admitted the kingdom had, in fact, long supported Islamic radicals.

The official explained it as a way of defeating anti-royal nationalists, resisting the former Soviet Union and countering Iran.

But then, the radicals the Saudis supported turned on them.

“We did not own up to it after 9/11 because we feared you would abandon or treat us as the enemy,” the Saudi senior official reportedly conceded. “And we were in denial.”

The official maintained the Saudi regime was now committed to a program of modernization, reforming radical Islamic teachings and discontinuing support of Islamist schools abroad.

That would be such a damning admission, and such a radical transformation, that Islamic experts WND contacted were hesitant to comment on the record, instead adopting a “let’s wait and see” attitude.


Former Army officer says U.S. has lost control of military

A former Army Special Operations officer says the Obama administration’s inability to officially say the U.S. has a no-first-use nuclear policy is a sign that military top brass want to antagonize Russia and China.

Asked about whether he thought it was a good idea for U.S. leaders to unequivocally pledge that the nation would only use nuclear weapons in a defensive capacity, Defense Secretary Ash Carter told reporters:

“It has been the policy of the United States for a long time to extend the – its nuclear umbrella to friends and allies and — thereby to contribute to the deterrence of conflict and the deterrence of war and many of our friends and allies have benefited from that over time. And our future plans will retain for the United States the capability to meet those alliance commitments in the future.”

Confused reporters asked the official to clarify whether he’d just said ‘yes’ or ‘no.’ Carter’s response remained unclear.

“It has been our policy for a long time and it’s part of our plans going forward,” he said.

Since the U.S.’s use of nuclear bombs to end WWII, presidential administrations have made clear that nuclear technology would only be used again as a matter of last resort.

But earlier this year, Obama administration officials began discussing whether the administration should ratify the longstanding unwritten policy with an official pledge.

Senior military officials, including Carter, rejected the proposal, saying any such move would signal weakness to nuclear powers like Russia and China. Despite his desire to make decreasing international reliance on nuclear weapons part of his legacy, Obama has now abandoned the proposal.

Scott Bennett, a former Army psychological warfare officer who is now a whistleblower, said in an interview with the Iranian-backed PressTV that all of this is a sign elected officials in the U.S. may be losing control of the military.

“Essentially what I see [military leaders] doing is positioning the United States Pentagon – the Department of Defense – in a military gun road within the United States that is headed up by psychopaths and uniforms that are really blood-drunk with war for the past 15 years, setting them up for a long-term military conflict with Russia, Iran and China,” he said.

Bennett called for the White House to regain control of what he sees as a military apparatus engaging in provocation of other nations for its own benefit.

“The military in the United States is now off the chain, it’s not obeying President Obama, it is not obeying the United States Congress, instead you have a small cabal within the Pentagon and specifically the US Central Command commanding the Middle East theater, positioning itself for a long-term war,” he said.

Bennet added that Americans should be particularly alarmed of the possibility of conflict with Russia “given the positioning of the batteries of missile silos now in Romania and Poland” the U.S. military is currently beefing up.

The post Former Army officer says U.S. has lost control of military appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


Trump should remind voters how NAFTA increased illegal immigration

During this week’s presidential debate, GOP hopeful Donald Trump called the North American Free Trade Agreement “the worst trade deal maybe ever.”  And it’s worth noting that if the candidate gets his way and reworks NAFTA, the changes could provide a partial remedy to the U.S.’s illegal immigration problem.

Trump is being labeled as an anti-trade protectionist for pointing out that NAFTA is partially responsible for an exodus of some manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to Mexico where labor is considerably cheaper.

It’s been difficult for economist to pin down exactly how much NAFTA has affected the U.S. labor market— conservative estimates suggest that around 700,000 production jobs have been exported to Mexico since the trade deal’s 1994 finalization.

But what is perhaps more important than the jobs lost to NAFTA is how it simultaneously forced an uptick of illegal immigration to the U.S.

When NAFTA came on the scene, a huge portion of the Mexican economy was made up of small farm operations whose biggest cash crop was corn.

After the trade agreement was signed, U.S. corn heavily subsidized by the federal government began flowing into Mexico. The Mexican government, which also previously subsidized its corn crops, realized that its farmers would never be able to compete with government-funded factory farms in the U.S. and quickly ended its subsidies.

As a result thousands of Mexican farmers and the workers they employed rapidly lost their livelihoods.

Many of them flooded into Mexican cities in search of the new factory jobs promised by NAFTA proponents. Unfortunately, they quickly learned that the jobs weren’t all that great and that there weren’t enough employment opportunities to accommodate all of the small farmers shut down by the trade deal.

The benefit of essentially annexing Mexico as a low-wage industrial park for the U.S. was two-fold for major U.S. corporations: First, it guaranteed an endless supply of desperate workers willing to take low-wage factory jobs. At the same time, it made U.S.-based corporate operations more profitable by making it increasingly difficult for American workers to demand better pay without fear of having their positions eliminated and shipped to Mexico.

For Mexican workers, who lacked many labor protections to begin with, the problem of wage stagnation has obviously been far worse.

Sociology professor Alejandro Portes explained the result thusly back in 2006:

The response of peasants and workers thus displaced has been clear and consistent: they have headed north in ever greater absolute numbers. Before NAFTA, undocumented Mexican immigration came mainly from four or five Mexican states and a limited number of mostly rural municipalities. Since NAFTA, migrants have originated in all Mexican states, practically all municipalities, and cities as well as towns and villages. A number of formerly vibrant places are now ghost towns, all their able adults having gone abroad; about one-third of all Mexican municipalities have lost population during the last decade, some by half or more. The counterpart of this hollowing out of the Mexican countryside is the growth of the Mexican migrant population in the U.S., much of it undocumented. From a purely regional presence in the west and southwest, it has become a truly national phenomenon. States that had barely a handful of “Hispanics” in 1990 now count a sizable Hispanic population. In Georgia, for example, the Latin-origin population went from 1.7 percent in 1990 to 5.3 percent in 2000, a 312 percent increase due to an inflow of 300,000 persons, overwhelmingly from Mexico. Cities like Charlotte, North Carolina, whose “Hispanics” in 1990 consisted of a few wealthy Cuban and South American professionals, now have upwards of 80,000, mostly undocumented Mexican laborers.

Ten years later, we’ve seen those numbers increase even more dramatically. In 2014, there were nearly 6 million illegal immigrants from Mexico living in the U.S.

The post Trump should remind voters how NAFTA increased illegal immigration appeared first on Personal Liberty®.


‘Gay’-pride flag launched into stratosphere

(NBCNEWS) — Planting Peace, a nonprofit dedicated to “spreading peace in a hurting world,” launched the first Pride flag into the stratosphere on August 17 using a high-altitude balloon, and the organization released video of the flag’s journey on Wednesday. The flag reached an altitude of about 21.1 miles above earth before free-falling back down. Regardless of the flag’s longevity, Planting Peace believes the message was clear and, more importantly, the impact has been made.

“It was an honor to send the first Pride flag into space, and it provided a wonderful opportunity to show that Planting Peace will not stop fighting for LGBTQ rights until all sexual and gender minorities experience full, fundamental rights in every corner of the universe,” Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told NBC OUT.

“The backdrop of space gave us a stunning, inspiring and peaceful canvas for our message of hope to our LGBTQ family. I would love for LGBTQ children who are struggling to see this, and look up to the stars and remember that the universe shines brightly for them, and they are not alone,” Jackson added.