Wikileaks revealed earlier this month that the chairman for Univision Haim Saban thought the Clinton campaign was being too soft on Donald Trump’s hard stance on immigration, an issue that catapulted the billionaire to clinch the GOP nomination. Saban, who is also a wealthy businessman himself, as his career in music and television (his company produced Power Rangers) made him a billionaire, emailed Clinton’s aides in June of 2015 to demand they hammer Trump more aggressively on his proposals, which Team Hillary agreed (via McClatchy):
…a series of emails pirated from the Democratic National Committee and published in the past week by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks show that within days of Trump’s June 16, 2015, announcement of his candidacy, Univision’s chairman, Haim Saban, was urging the Clinton campaign to take a tougher stance on Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda.
“Haim thinks we are underreacting to Trump/Hispanics. Thinks we can get something by standing up for Latinos or attacking R’s (Republicans) for not condemning,” Clinton campaign Chairman John Podesta wrote July 3, 2015, in an email to other Clinton staffers.
The email drew an immediate response from Jennifer Palmieri, a former White House spokeswoman who is communications director for the Clinton campaign: “Haim is right – we should be jamming this all the time.”
A spokeswoman for Saban, Stephanie Pillersdorf, said the media tycoon’s support for Clinton’s presidential bid had not influenced Univision’s news coverage. “Not even one iota. Zero, zero, zero,” Pillersdorf said.
“He has been a supporter of Hillary separate and way before his involvement with Univision,” Pillersdorf said.
McClatchy, who gave a shout out to our sister site Hot Air, also mentioned that Saban’s involvement with Univision is separate from his support of Hillary Clinton, and that he doesn’t his news department what to cover after former associate editor Noah Rothman (who has since moved over to Commentary) wrote how Univision is a being used as a hub of pro-Clinton coverage, a deluge of good press.
“I have nothing to do with it. I NEVER tell our news DEP what to cover . . . unlike some of my peers,” Saban wrote in an emailed response to this post to the Clinton team.
Hilary Clinton will host her Election Day party at the Javits Center in Manhattan. The location choice seems largely symbolic, as it is located about two miles from Trump Tower and also features a glass ceiling.
FYI this is what the Javits Center ceiling looks like. Get it? pic.twitter.com/JUDGQ1tNAt— Gabriel Debenedetti (@gdebenedetti) October 26, 2016
Trump has not revealed where he will be spending Election Day, but sources report that he is also expected to be in New York.
Most of the mainstream media portrayed Republican nominee Donald Trump's ribbon cutting ceremony in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday as a break from the campaign trail and even suggested that he was using the media coverage as free advertisement for his newly opened hotel.
CNN's Dana Bash quickly moved in on Trump after the ceremony and inferred that he was using the election to benefit his business.
Trump was not happy with the question.
"I say the following: You have been covering me for the last — long time. I did yesterday eight stops and three major speeches, and I've been doing this for weeks straight," Trump said.
"For you to ask me that question is actually very insulting because Hillary Clinton does one stop and then she goes home and sleeps. And yet you'll ask me that question. I think that's a very rude question, to be honest with you."
Anyone in their right mind knows that Trump uses his business to prove to the American people that he can get things done ahead of schedule and under budget. This is the 'mindset' that he talks about while campaigning across the country.
A perfect example of federal agency disasters is the F-35 program. What was supposed to be one of the 'next great things' has turned into an economic and strategic disaster. The program is six years behind schedule and tens of billions of dollars over budget. And now, 16 years after the F-35 prototypes made their first flights, military officials are finally admitting the horrific repercussions of an untamed budget.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office, to execute the program as planned, the Department of Defense will have to increase funds steeply over the next 5 years and sustain an average of $12.6 billion per year through 2037 to keep the F-35 program afloat.
It was reported today that nearly 100 percent of political donations from federal employees just like the one's involved in the F-35 program are being donated to the Clinton campaign. They don't want Trump in office because they know he will put an immediate halt to the unrestricted money flow from the American taxpayer.
Projects like the Trump hotel in Washington are exactly the reason why Trump has won the hearts and minds of the American people.
As everyday Americans grapple with healthcare premium increases of 116 percent on top of losing their primary care doctors and networks, the White House and Democrats are attempting to do damage control.
During a speech last week in Miami, President Obama said rate increases have nothing to do with him. Just Today, Democrat presidential nominee Hillary Clinton argued she'll "fix" the imploding program.
Obama's claim of non-responsibility particular draws a lot of critical attention considering the great promises he made to the American people in order to pass the "Affordable" Care Act without a single Republican vote in the dead of night.
In 2010, he said Obamacare would decrease employer offered healthcare premiums by 3000 percent. Today employers are dumping healthcare coverage for employees in droves.
Obama also repeatedly said families would see their premiums decrease by $2500.
Considering Hillary Clinton essentially wrote Obamacare in the 1990s with Hillarycare and that Obama is actively campaigning on her behalf, she owns this. Trump would do well to stay on message about the ever cascading broken promises and destruction of healthcare the vast majority of Americans used to enjoy.
For the first time in almost 25 years, the U.S. has opted to abstain from an annual United Nations General Assembly vote condemning the United States’ ongoing embargo against the Communist government of Cuba.
The annual vote has no legal binding, but gives countries an open platform to publicly criticize America and its policy towards Cuba – a nation which oppresses its people and boasts an enormous resume of human rights abuses.
A large number of countries vote in favor of the measure - which has taken place every year since 1992 – with America voting against and a dwindling few voting alongside. In 2015, only the United States and Israel voted against the resolution (191 to 2).
The abstaining vote would have taken place a year sooner. The Obama administration was willing to do so as long as Cuba agreed to soften a few parts of the resolution. Unlike the Obama administration, the Cuban government was unwilling to capitulate, so the groundbreaking vote-change did not occur in 2015.
Before the vote on Wednesday, the American ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, explained the change in position. She noted America was not willing to go so far as to vote “yes," but would abstain this year.
"Abstaining on this resolution does not mean that the United States agrees with all of the policies and practices of the Cuban government. We do not. We are profoundly concerned by the serious human rights violations that the Cuban government continues to commit with impunity against its own people.”
With food, medicine, and other basic needs in desperate short supply, looting is rampant. People are eating out of garbage cans. They’re breaking into zoos to eat animals for food. There’s a food police unit that arrests people waiting in lines outside of grocery stores; lines outside bakeries are also banned. It is all part of a pernicious game the government is playing to prevent the media from seeing the failure of 21st Century Socialism—and it has failed miserably. The government has not solutions. They’re broke. There’s no more financial assistance coming from China, who decided to pull the plug on a decade-long investment in the country. And now the referendum push to recall the late Hugo Chavez’s successor, Nicolas Maduro, has been shut down. In an October 21 op-ed for The Washington Post, Francisco Toro, a blogger who operates out of Venezuela and Canada, said it’s just time to call Venezuela a full-blown dictatorship:
All this year, as they trudged through an unprecedented economic implosion, Venezuelans have been gearing up for what was meant to be the defining political event of the year: a referendum on whether to recall our increasingly loathed authoritarian president, Nicolás Maduro. The tense buildup suddenly ended Thursday as five separate (and supposedly independent, but c’mon now) lower courts approved injunctions to suspend the recall, closing down Venezuela’s last best hope for a peaceful solution to its long-running political crisis.
Even for battle-hardened Venezuelans, it all came as quite a shock. A major signature-gathering drive to officially activate the recall vote was scheduled for next week. Opposition activists were busy preparing their plans to get out their voters to sign. No one, not even the military, seemed to have been expecting this.
There’s no need to hyphenate it anymore. Venezuela is just a dictatorship.
So, with the government incapable to providing the people basic needs (hospitals are lacking basic items like gloves and soap) what should the people do? What will the military do now? Will there be a civil war? It’s a harrowing reminder of what happens when you entrust the government with too much power. Remember, the late Hugo Chavez was granted decree powers for 18 months during his presidency. Venezuelans are now suffering the perilous nature of authoritarian rule, brought on by the fact that they voted for people who espoused this notion that an all-powerful government could enact social change. All they got was starvation, looting, crime, and economic torpor.
In a press call with the Independent Women's Voice on Wednesday, Dr. Eric Novack, an orthopedic surgeon in Arizona, offered a bleak review of the Affordable Care Act's impact on his state - particularly the newly announced premium hikes.
"Patients being decimated by increases," he said.
Arizona has been hit especially hard by Obamacare's price tag. While the average 2017 premium hike will be 25 percent, for Arizona it is in the 50-75 percent range. In some markets, it is 100 percent. As a result, Arizonans are having to make "huge life decisions" based on whether they can afford both their rent and their high deductibles, Novack explained.
Instead of saving and spending money for their children, parents now have to worry about spending that money on premiums. The price hike has an "enormous ripple effect," he said.
Novack then excoriated the Obama administration for continuing to make lofty promises they know to be untrue.
"The trajectory is unsustainable," he said. "The middle class is being destroyed on several levels," he said, but health care is a “major battlefront.”
The way Obamacare has been projected by the president and his advisors proves that the government is "out of touch" with the general public, Novack added.
Grace-Marie Turner, a health policy expert, agreed. She noted, however, an ideal alternative. The House of Representatives introduced the Better Way initiative, which offers patients more choices regarding doctors and health care plans and lowers costs.
"We are not a one-size-fits-all country," she said. Americans "need more choices."
Regardless of who wins the White House, if the GOP holds onto the House, they are going to have leverage to negotiate how changes to the ACA are made.
So let me get this straight: The woman who invented Obamacare in 2008 -- a plan that Obama initially mocked and rejected as a candidate, before adopting it as president -- is going to waltz in and "fix" the mess that she created, and has recently claimed is "working" for consumers? Sure. She has no credibility on this issue, and no good answers. But given the predictable crisis precipitated by Obamacare's harmful failures, she has no choice but to say things like this to anxious voters:
"We’re going to make changes to fix problems like that," Clinton said in an interview Wednesday with WHQT HOT 105.1 Miami. "The president and I have talked about it." "We’re going to really tackle that," she added. "We’re going to get co-pays and premiums and deductibles down. We’re going to tackle prescription drug costs. And we can do that without ripping away the insurance that people now have. That’s the plan of my opponent." Jonathan Gruber, a former key advisor on the law, said on CNN on Wednesday that one such fix would involve raising the penalty for people who forgo insurance, to get more healthy people paying into the system, which could lower costs for others. Even under the rosiest scenarios for Democrats, most political analysts believe Republicans would retain control of the House, which has voted dozens of times to repeal Obamacare. GOP leaders are under intense pressure from their core voters to keep pressure on defeating the law and have shown no appetite to work with Democrats to fix it.
Republicans should urge Democrats to follow the advice of known liar Jonathan Gruber, who recommends that Washington raise the individual mandate tax penalty on people who can't afford the unpopular, unaffordable law they jammed through on a party-line vote. Punish people harder; that'll be popular. How about it, Democrats? Propose it. I dare you. And Hillary's promises sound awfully familiar don't they? Lower costs! People can keep their plans! This was all part of the original, dishonest Obamacare pitch that is disintegrating before our very eyes. Besides inflicting more painful tax penalties on middle class and working class consumers (and backdoor bailouts), Democrats are also suggesting even more government control, requiring more taxpayer dollars, to create a "public option" on the exchanges. This government program would undercut private insurer rates with massive taxpayer subsidies, driving even more providers away from the law -- and tempting more employers to dump their employees into government-sponsored programs. Currently, the tens of millions of Americans who have employer-provided coverage have only been impacted by relatively modest premium hikes (underscoring another broken promise). If the public option "solution" is imposed by Democrats, many millions will lose their existing plans, and will be dumped into the Obamacare mess. It is, and should be, a non-starter for Congressional Republicans. We discussed the richness of Hillary pretending that she can rectify these problems on today's episode of Outnumbered:
Healthier people will avoid buying Affordable Care Act health insurance plans as premiums climb, threatening the stability of the market, Aetna Inc. Chief Executive Officer Mark Bertolini said. “As the rates rise, the healthier people pull out because the out-of-pocket costs aren’t worth it,” Bertolini said at Bloomberg’s The Year Ahead Summit in New York. “Young people can do the math. Gas for the car, beer on Fridays and Saturdays, health insurance.”
Yup. And if something terrible should befall them, insurers must cover them in the next open enrollment, by law. Young, healthy people look at the exorbitant prices, understand the dynamics, and choose not to spend thousands of dollars a year on "coverage" that wouldn't even kick in until they'd exhausted big deductibles anyway. The unaffordability of the "Affordable" Care Act is the driving factor of its slow demise. And the phenomenon described in that quotation explains why major insurers are abandoning the failing law. One of the best things Donald Trump said in any of the three debates is that Obamacare cannot be fixed. He's right.
Hillary Clinton turned 69 today, so her Twitter account wished herself a happy birthday along with a photo of herself as a child. And even though the election is just under two weeks away, she’s already declared herself the winner, apparently.
Happy birthday to this future president. pic.twitter.com/JT3HiBjYdj— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 26, 2016
In a separate tweet, her account encourages people to find out what she was doing the year they were born.
Today is Hillary's birthday! Find out what she was doing the year you were born: https://t.co/xWnRW2boOg— Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) October 26, 2016
Ironically, abortion radical Clinton was named chair of the board of The Children's Defense fund the year I was born.
Rapper and producer Jay Z will soon be hosting a ‘Get Out the Vote’ concert for Hillary Clinton in Cleveland, Ohio. The concert is said to be a last-ditch effort to mobilize young voters in an important battleground state.
The Clinton campaign released statement saying, “Jay Z will be joined at the concert by special guests to encourage unity, and urge Ohioans to support Clinton by voting early or on Election Day,” according to BuzzFeed.
The concert is set to take place on Friday, November 4 - just four days before the election.
This isn't the first time Jay Z has gotten political. In 2008 and 2012, he publicized his support for Barack Obama. And in 2012, he put on a similar event, along with Bruce Springsteen, in Columbus for President Obama’s re-election campaign. Obama even spoke at the event.
Jay Z and his wife Beyoncé endorsed Clinton earlier this year.
The Clinton campaign website is currently offering a sign-up for free tickets, which will be allotted on a first-come, first-serve basis.
While Clinton hits the campaign trail denouncing Trump for his lewd comments about women, she has apparently forgotten that Jay Z built his business on derogatory lyrics. The rapper sings songs like “B****** and Sisters” or “That’s My B**ch,” which he performed with Kanye West - another Clinton supporter. Jay Z’s song “99 Problems” features the words “b**ch,” “hoes” and the N-word. And who could forget the classy song “P***y”?
If you’re going to say you’re a champion of women, using Jay Z to appeal to voters seems more than a bit hypocritical.
A Maine woman had a rather unorthodox excuse for why she stole 40 Donald Trump signs: she thought there were just too many of them. Betta Stothart, of Falmouth, Maine, wrote an op-ed for the Washington Post where she describes how seeing the 40+ Trump signs in her hometown caused her to "snap" and "become unhinged" and then steal them with two of her friends. Stothart claims the presence of the numerous Trump signs was disrupting the "equilibrium" of the community, which is one of Maine's richest. She also said that she felt "assaulted" by the amount of signs.
The escapade was not premeditated: We simply jumped into my Jetta wagon, drove down to the strip and got to work. In all, it took less than 20 minutes. We grabbed about 40 signs and threw them in the hatchback. I hadn’t really thought about what I would do with the signs; I just wanted them gone. At the time, we believed we were doing the right thing. There were so many Trump signs up and down our main drag — it was destroying all sense of equilibrium in our community.
But the Falmouth police happened to spot us as we were preparing to leave the scene of the crime. The officer was kind, informing us that we had stolen someone else’s personal property, which had not really entered into my mind while I was doing it. He took the signs and sent us home.
Stothat also asserts that she didn't realize stealing signs actually constituted a crime and that the signs were someone's property. Under Maine law, Stothat is actually subject to a $250 fine--per sign.
Although a supporter of Hillary Clinton (with her own yard sign to boot), Stothat says that she's actually not all that political. In an article about the theft published in the Portland Press Herald, Stothat says that she intends on apologizing to the chairman of the Making Maine Great Again PAC, which purchased the signs.
Stothat isn't the only Trump sign thief in the Pine Tree State. Also in mid-October, someone stole several signs that were planted by the marsh in the town of Scarborough.
This is absurd. While there are a lot of political signs everywhere, as far as I know no laws have been broken and they are allowed to be where they were planted. To say that an abundance of signs is an "assault" is laughable at best and is offensive to people who have actually been victims of assault. A person does not have the right to take property that does not belong to them, and if this were any other kind of theft, the criminal probably wouldn't be permitted to publish a smug op-ed in a major newspaper attempting to explain away their actions.
People need to grow up.
Earlier this week the White House announced Obamacare premiums across the country will increase yet again this year, despite President Obama promising the law would save families $2500 per year back in 2010. In Arizona, rate increases of 116 percent are expected, while other states brace for hikes of at least 25 percent.
But despite making a laundry list of promises about decreased costs thanks to the "Affordable" Care Act, all of which have been broken, President Obama isn't taking responsibility for the healthcare takeover he once bragged about. In fact, he's saying he has nothing to do with the current rate crisis.
"A lot of the times, they [media] just report 'premium increases' and everybody thinks 'wow, my insurance rates are going up, it must be Obama's fault,'" Obama said late last week during a speech in Miami. "I had nothing to do with that."
Just last week, Obama compared the collapsing Obamacare system to exploding Samsung 7 phones.
I'll leave you with this, a montage of Obama making it clear why people might believe rate increases are his responsibility.
In February, Marie Claire was set to publish a series of data points and essays about women and guns in America, which included pieces from campus carry advocate Amanda Collins, Carly Fiorina, and how the NRA is rebranding by bringing more women into the fold. It also included a piece from Hillary Clinton.
As Wikileaks airs more of Clinton’s dirty laundry, there’s this January 12 exchange, where some aides seem happy that a black teen’s death would help push Clinton and the Democratic Party’s agenda concerning gun control. Speechwriter Lauren Peterson emailed Amanda Renteria, Clinton’s National Political Director, Corey Ciorciari, who is with the policy wing of the campaign, and De'Ara Balenger, Director of Engagement, Office of the Vice Chair, about the Marie Claire articles that were to be published in conjunction with the publication’s work with Harvard on the study about women and guns in America.
Peterson offered her draft of the essay by Clinton for the magazine, which was co-authored by Megan Rooney, another Clinton speechwriter. It was a typical “are there any edits” communication, with Peterson warning Balenger that there were mentions of Clinton’s meeting with mother who have lost their children to gun violence in Chicago and was double-checking to see if that was fine.
Everyone seemed content with the piece, edits were attached, but Balenger was wondering if there was another shooting that was not racially motivated. She felt it could be a distraction from Clinton’s gun agenda, as a racially motivated shooting takes the focus off firearms.
This concerns the Jordan Davis shooting in Florida in November of 2012. The shooter, Michael Dunn, was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to life without parole after it was discovered that he did not call the police after the shooting (he went back to his hotel room and ordered a pizza with his girlfriend) and there were no weapons found in the car Davis was in the car with three other occupants who were also shot; Dunn alleged that after an argument at a gas station in Jacksonville, Davis threatened to kill him and pointed a shotgun forcing Dunn, a concealed carry holder, to shoot and kill Davis. There were also racial undertones in the case.
“This is great. My edits are attached. The only flag here is that Jordan Davis was killed by a white man, so arguably - this crime was racially motivated, which takes this outside the discussion of gun violence. Was there another mother in the Chicago meeting where the shooting was NOT racially motivated? If yes, we should use that story instead of Jordan Davis,” wrote Balenger.
“You know where I stand on this. It can be racially motivated and gun violence should still very much be part of the discussion. Even more so here given that Jordan's mom is one of the leading gun violence prevention proponents in the country,” replied Ciorciari.
“I'm telling y'all - when I [sic] white man kills a young black boy - it is FIRST racial,” wrote Balenger.
In the end, Jordan Davis
At the same time, if she thinks she can use this incident as a carrot for those of us who support Second Amendment rights to help her accomplish Australian-style gun control in America, she’s on bath salts. No way should anyone who calls himself or herself a gun owner or Second Amendment supporter/enthusiast vote for this woman…ever.
Still, the whole notion that they couldn’t use the death of a black teen to make a point about gun violence in America because it was too racially charged is rather craven, especially since the victim’s mother is a gun control advocate.
Georgetown Right to Life tried to exercise their right to free speech and display moving pro-life messages on campus. Here's what happened.
(photo credit: Amelia Irvine)
The vandals turned messages such as, "End Abortion" into "End Hate," and "End Abortion" into "End Racism." The message, "Choose Both," which encourages us to honor both the mother and unborn baby, vandals crossed out "both" and replaced it with "women."
The president of the club, Sophomore Amelia Irvine, responded to the vandalism.
"We at Georgetown Right to Life will continue to emphasize our message of love," Irvine said in a new statement. "Abortion is a social justice issue, and we hope that we can find common ground with those with whom we disagree."
This is not the only recent incident in which pro-lifers have been silenced. At DePaul University, the president banned a poster that read, "Unborn Lives Matter," argued those three words hid a bigoted message.
Donald Trump responded Tuesday to Vice President Joe Biden’s statement that he wishes he and Trump were in high school so he could take Trump “behind the gym” for his remarks about women.
“Did you see where Biden wants to take me to the back of the barn? Me,” Trump said at a rally in Tallahassee, Florida. “I'd love that. I'd love that. Mr. tough guy. You know, he's Mr. tough guy. You know when he's Mr. Tough Guy? When he's standing behind a microphone by himself.”
“He wants to bring me to the back of the barn. Ohhh,” Trump said with derision. “Some things in life you can really love doing.”
Last Friday at a Clinton campaign stop in Pennsylvania, Biden was discussing Trump’s lewd comments about women. “[Trump] said because I’m famous, because I’m a star, because I’m a billionaire I can do things other people can’t. What a disgusting assertion for anyone to make,” Biden told the crowd. “The press always ask me don’t I wish I were debating him? No, I wish we were in high school I could take him behind the gym—that’s what I wish.”
During an interview Tuesday evening, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews jokingly gave Biden a pair of boxing gloves, saying that might help him in his “new endeavor.”
Biden doubled down, saying: “I’m ready. I’m ready.” He explained that he was “trying to make a point.”
“People didn’t act in the locker room like he [Trump] talks about,” Biden said. “That’s not true. And you and I both know, if in the locker room in a school I went to, one of the guys said, ‘this is what I’m going to do because I’m the star halfback or quarterback, I’m the boss,’ and my sister and her girlfriends are out there, I would take the guy behind the gym.”
“The point I was making is…he’s insulting everybody in the neighborhoods I come from, and the people who played ball,” Biden explained. “This is just absolutely unacceptable behavior, period.”
During Tuesday’s rally, Trump also used Biden’s comments as an opportunity to point out the media’s obvious bias.
“And by the way, if I'd said that they [the media] would say, 'He's violent. How could he have done that?’"
Trump’s campaign manager Kellyanne Conway did the same on CBS Wednesday.
“I think if Donald Trump said anything even remotely close to that we would’ve had our hair on fire for three days,” said Conway. “We would’ve had high school psychologists coming in and talking on air, we would have been talking about bullying and violence.”
Conway also labeled Biden a “bully” during the interview.
“I thought he acted like a bully,” said Conway. “ [It] was very disappointing to hear the Vice President of the United States suggest violence the old-fashioned way.”
Of the nearly $2 million that was donated to presidential campaigns by 14 different federal agencies this past year, $1.9 million, or 95 percent, was donated to Hillary Clinton, according to The Hill.
Unbelievably, employees of the Department of Justice, who were responsible for investigating Clinton’s private email scandal, gave Clinton 97 percent of their donations.
The analysis states:
Employees at all the agencies analyzed, without exception, are sending their campaign contributions overwhelmingly to Clinton over her Republican counterpart. Several agencies, such as the State Department, which Clinton once led, saw more than 99 percent of contributions going to Clinton.
And from IRS employees, Clinton received 94 percent of donations. From Department of Education employees this cycle, Trump received three donations totaling $220. Clinton received 724 donations for more than $74,000. In all, she received 99.7 percent of donations from employees of the department. Donations from the State Department, which Clinton ran from 2009 to 2013, were even more slanted in her favor. State Department employees gave Trump 39 donations, for $4,652. Over the same time period, they gave their former boss 2,518 donations, for $425,525.
It's plain and simple why federal employees are afraid of a Trump presidency. It's not an email scandal, it's not trillions wasted on foreign wars, and it's not the fear of running up the national debt past $20 trillion.
It's two words:
Tuesday night, Adele surprised her fans by endorsing Hillary Clinton during her concert in Miami.
According to Tamara Gitt, a Clinton aide and political campaign embed at Fox News, Adele told the audience “I am English, but what happens in America affects me too.”
Adele then told her fans not to vote for Trump; “Don’t vote for him. That’s what I’m saying."
NBC’s Adam Kuperstein caught the moment on camera.
“I can’t vote, but I am 100 percent for Hillary Clinton,” she concluded. “I love her, she’s amazing.”
Coincidentally, Clinton was at the concert Tuesday night. However, NBC’s Monica Alba said it was “unclear” whether Adele knew that she was in the audience.
Clinton has made it known that she is a fan of singer. In March she told SiriusXM, “I’m currently into Adele. That is my go-to voice."
In Northern Virginia, illegal immigrants are door knocking. They can’t vote, but they’re making sure others, especially those in the burgeoning Hispanic population who can vote, cast a ballot for Democrats on November 8. Casa In Action is the group spearheading these operations. Based in nearby Maryland, these illegal immigrants are doing this for one reason only: a secure path to citizenship. They’re betting that those odds fade with Donald Trump in the White House, so it’s almost like a fight for survival for them. With Clinton in the lead in Virginia (she’s most likely going to win the state big), they’re now focusing on vulnerable Rep. Barbara Comstock of the 10th congressional district (via WaPo):
The vote-seekers are some of the 750,000 recipients of temporary legal status under the Obama administration’s 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program. They are acutely aware that Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has pledged to deport the nation’s 11 million illegal immigrants and that under a GOP-controlled Congress, past attempts at immigration reform have failed.
The Maryland-based group is behind the Virginia campaign and a similar one in central Pennsylvania. Similar efforts are underway in Arizona and other battleground states. The Clinton campaign launched a separate effort earlier this year, “My Dream, Your Vote,” in which young undocumented immigrants, many of them brought to this country as children, urged Latino voters in North Carolina, Nevada, Florida and elsewhere to cast ballots for the Democratic nominee.
In Virginia, where Clinton is leading by double digits, the group has turned its focus to the suddenly close race in the 10th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Barbara Comstock (R-Va.) faces an aggressive challenge from Democrat LuAnn Bennett.
CASA is also targeting voters in Prince William County, where more immigrants live and where Trump also has more support.
In the 10th District, which stretches west from McLean, through Loudoun County, toward the West Virginia border, Comstock backed Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) in the state’s GOP primary. She has kept her distance from Trump and, after the revelation of a 2005 recording of the nominee’s remarks about women, she declared that he would not get her vote.
But Trump’s history of controversial remarks about women, Mexican immigrants and Muslims have nonetheless weighed Comstock down among voters in the largely wealthy district that includes steadily growing Latino and Asian immigrant populations. Although the incumbent initially was favored, several political analysts have recently said the race is a toss-up.
The Post did mention that it’s not entirely a successful canvassing operation, as some residents have already voted for Donald Trump, though the urgency and the personal ties the run deep with many this election cycle should worry Republicans. These people are on our side this year—and if there is a feeling that a Trump presidency would entail impending doom to their families and communities, these Latino voters will turn out hardcore at the polls, especially in states with large Hispanic populations (Colorado, Arizona, etc.), which could make a possible Trump loss an even bigger hole for the GOP to climb out of for 2020. Hillary may be old, sick, and a liar, but she has powerful allies, even ones who are here illegally and can’t vote, trying to push her party over the top. It’s unbelievable.
We're just 13 days away from the 2016 presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Polls are tightening and the stakes feel higher than ever.
Although Trump is still trailing Clinton nationally, a new Bloomberg poll out today shows him leading in Florida and catching up in Pennsylvania. The race isn't over.
During an interview with Fox News Wednesday morning, Trump surrogate and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani condemned the naysayers and said the campaign still has a few moves "up their sleeves" to lock down a win on November 8.
"I'm sorry, I don't believe in polls. Every election I ever won, I outperformed the polls," Giuliani. "I think he's [Trump] got a surprise or two that you're going to hear about in the next few days. I mean, I'm talking about some pretty big surprises."
"We're not going to go down and certainly won't stop fighting. We've got a couple things up our sleeve that should turn this around," he continued.
Mitt Romney made it pretty clear this past March that he was no fan of Donald Trump. While some people who were opposed to Trump have since changed course, it's looking like Romney won't be one of them. In a rare tweet, Romney sent out a message encouraging people to vote Republican--for the Senate, House of Representatives, and for local elections.
Be sure to head to the polls for GOP Senate, House and statehouses; they are essential to defend and advance constitutional conservatism.— Mitt Romney (@MittRomney) October 26, 2016
Notably absent, obviously, is a reminder to vote for the Republican nominee for president.
Romney has not revealed who, if anyone, he will be voting for this November.
The leaks, the relentless character attacks, the absence of an inspiring alternative; many voters feel this is the most dismal election in U.S. history. Here are ten clever cartoons that expertly wrap up popular voter sentiment around the country.
At least we agree on something.
by Jerry Holbert (10/21/2016)
by Steve Kelley (10/13/2016)
Is it over yet?
by Lisa Benson (10/11/2016)
A real lose-lose situation.
by Nate Beeler (9/30/2016)
by Jerry Holbert (10/4/2016)
A classic game of would you rather.
by Jerry Holbert (10/6/2016)
Everything’s lost its shock value.
by Lisa Benson (10/18/2016)
There’s been more than one disaster this year.
by Robert Ariail (10/9/2016)
“Should I stay, or should I go?”
by Jerry Holbert (9/27/2016)
This is all a big joke, right?
by Gary Varvel (10/9/2016)
With less than two weeks to go, the light at the end of the tunnel is near.
DeRay Mckesson, an activist and leader in the Black Lives Matter movement, wrote an op-ed Wednesday morning announcing his support for Hillary Clinton. In the piece, Mckesson explains the differences he has with the Democratic nominee, but concludes that she is the best option available.
I am voting for Hillary Clinton.
Make no mistake, I do not agree with Clinton on everything. For that matter, there are few people in the world with whom I agree on everything.
Her platform should call for an end to the death penalty. It should end the federal government’s “Equitable Sharing Program,” which helps police take cash and property from people who are never convicted of wrongdoing. And when I met with her last week, I asked her to address not only how the federal government should treat nonviolent drug offenders but also the many others whose lives have been impacted by the system of mass incarceration.
But I agree with Clinton more than I disagree with her.
Also, Mckesson had some extremely harsh predictions under a possible Trump presidency.
Trump wants to take us back to a time when people like him could abuse others with little to no consequence, when people like him could exploit the labor of others to build vast amounts of wealth, when people like him could create public policy that specifically benefited them, while suppressing the rights and social mobility of others.
Talking about the exploitation of labor, Mckesson has gained notoriety for defending the rioting and looting of retail shops. After obtaining a lecturing position with Yale, the BLM activist went off syllabus to make the case to students that looting stores is justified and claimed such acts are comparable to the Boston Tea Party.
Here’s Mckesson arguing with Wolf Blitzer over his puzzling philosophy.
Will Clinton accept the endorsement from man who openly supports violence against peaceful store owners?