Just more proof that liberals can't be trusted to tell the truth or live up to their words

Celebs who said they’d leave country if Trump won

Dozens of celebrities vowed to leave the country if Donald Trump won the White House, saying they’d flee to everywhere from Canada to Jupiter.

The threat is a common one after any election outcome: Canada’s immigration website crashed from heavy traffic as it looked increasingly likely that Trump would win.

But after the real estate mogul clinched the presidency in a stunning victory early Wednesday morning, some of those stars will face questions about making good on their promise.

Here is a list of some of the celebs who claimed they would move out of the U.S. under a Trump administration.


Actors

Bryan Cranston said he hopes he doesn’t have to pack his bags, but would “definitely move” if Trump won. “Absolutely, I would definitely move,” the “Breaking Bad” star said on “The Bestseller Experiment” podcast. “It’s not real to me that that would happen. I hope to God it won’t.”

Samuel L. Jackson slammed Trump for running a “hate”-filled campaign and said he would move to South Africa if he wins. “If that motherf---er becomes president, I’m moving my black *** to South Africa,” the movie star quipped to Jimmy Kimmel.

Lena Dunham told Andy Cohen at the Matrix Awards that “I know a lot of people have been threatening to do this, but I really will. I know a lovely place in Vancouver.” The star and creator of HBO’s “Girls” has been a vocal advocate for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic nominee.

Neve Campbell, an actress on the political drama “House of Cards,” vowed to move back home to Canada, while “Orange is the New Black” actress Natasha Lyonne said she would hightail it to a mental hospital.


Singers

Cher tweeted this summer that if Trump gets elected, “I’m moving to Jupiter.”

Miley Cyrus wrote in an emotional Instagram post in March that tears were running down her cheek and she was unbelievably scared and sad. “I am moving if he is president,” the young pop star said. “I don’t say things I don’t mean!”

Barbara Streisand, a vocal Clinton supporter, told “60 Minutes” that “I’m either coming to your country if you’ll let me in, or Canada.”

Ne-Yo told TMZ last month that he’d move to Canada and be neighbors with fellow R&B singer Drake if the country elected Trump.


Comedians

Comedian Amy Schumer said in September that Spain would be her destination of choice.

“My act will change because I will need to learn to speak Spanish,” Schumer said in an appearance on the BBC’s “Newsnight.” “Because I will move to Spain or somewhere. It’s beyond my comprehension if Trump won. It’s just too crazy.”

Chelsea Handler said she already made contingency plans months ago.

“I did buy a house in another country just in case,” the comedian and talk show host said during an appearance on “Live with Kelly and Michael” in May. “So all these people that threaten to leave the country and then don’t — I actually will leave that country.”

Former “Daily Show” host Jon Stewart said he would consider “getting in a rocket and going to another planet, because clearly this planet’s gone bonkers” if the real estate mogul wins.

Whoopi Goldberg, co-host of the “The View”, said on an episode of the talk show earlier this year that if the country elects Trump, “maybe it’s time for me to move, you know. I can afford to go.”

Keegan-Michael Key said he would flee north to Canada. “It’s like, 10 minutes from Detroit,” the comedian told TMZ in January. “That’s where I’m from; my mom lives there. It’d make her happy too.”

Hispanic comedian George Lopez said Trump “won’t have to worry about immigration” if he takes the White House because “we’ll all go back.”


Political Figures

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg joked in an interview with The New York Times in July that it’d be time to move to New Zealand if Trump were to win.

“Now it’s time for us to move to New Zealand,” she said quoting her husband who died in 2010. “I can’t imagine what the country would be with Donald Trump as our president. For the country, it could be four years. For the court, it could be — I don’t even want to contemplate that.”

Ginsburg later apologized for her comments, calling them “ill-advised.”

Civil rights activist Al Sharpton told a reporter earlier this year that he’s “reserving my ticket out of here if [Trump] wins.”

Be seein' ya Sharpie!

If you think this quiz is hard, then you'd be in trouble with the real test! The real citizenship exam has 100 questions -- and it ISN'T multiple choice. Only around 2% of American citizens can actually pass. See if you're one of them!

http://offbeat.topix.com/quiz/2507?utm_campaign=2507-dk&utm_source=yahoo

My score....97

Movie stars and celebs don't need other peoples money to move. Good ridence to them for stating they would!

Nearly every defense and diversion employed to defend Clinton’s abhorrent political record has been debunked

Democrats have been depending on their spin machine to divert attention from the WikiLeaks revelations. Russian conspiracies, vague claims of fabricated emails without proving one single release has been fake, and claiming the content of the emails are benign without reading them have been the most frequently used damage control tactics attempted by Clinton partisans.

The Podesta emails have provided further evidence the Clinton campaign rigged the Democratic primaries for Hillary Clinton with the help of “neutral” Democratic National Committee (DNC) staff and “autonomous” mainstream media outlets that coordinated together behind the scenes.

The emails revealed the Clinton campaign lied about how early they started her campaign while the Clintons continued the highly-paid speech circuit.

Chelsea Clinton was exposed as having used the Clinton Foundation as a personal checking account, while her husband used it to find investors for his hedge fund.

It was revealed that Bill Clinton used the Clinton Foundation as a means to make the Clintons rich and he exchanged political favors with Ukrainian billionaire Victor Pinchuk for Clinton Foundation donations.

Hillary Clinton has been proven to be as inauthentic and scripted as her critics initially claimed, with her campaign staff often debating in released emails what Clinton should say and what her policies should be without the candidate making any actual input. Clinton’s highly paid PR consultant Mandy Grunwald called her “cronyistic” and said that she hasn’t driven a car in 35 years and has flown all over the world but accomplished nothing.

Several emails revealed the Clinton Campaign illegally coordinated with Super PACs.

Dubious and prolific Clinton donors George Soros and Haim Saban have unabated access to Clinton and her campaign staff.

Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook pursued foreign donations Podesta received payments from donors.

The Assistant Attorney General at the Department of Justice Peter Kadzik was tipping off the Clinton campaign to confidential dealings of the DOJ.

Mainstream media journalists allowed Clinton campaign staff to plant articles, edit and proofread, and halt negative coverage.

The Clinton campaign meddled with the dates of the Democratic and Republican primaries to benefit Clinton. Donald Trump was purposely elevated by the Clinton campaign and mainstream media in order to provide Clinton with a weak opponent in the general election.

The latest WikiLeaks emails released November 8 and the night before reveal that DNC interim chair Donna Brazile provided the Clinton campaign with more questions in advance of CNN debates and town halls. Brazile told The Washington Post in 2014 she would not be neutral in the Democratic primary. She freely admitted that she would back Clinton, despite the DNC charter demanding her neutrality in the primaries as an integral component of ensuring the process stayed fair and balanced. Brazile continuing to serve as head of the DNC after CNN severed ties with her suggests the Democratic Party favors loyalty to Clinton over maintaining any semblance of integrity.

A September 2015 email revealed MSNBC host Chuck Todd held a party for Clinton campaign communications director Jennifer Palmieri. The email provides further evidence that many mainstream media journalists had an unethical relationship with the Clinton campaign. Rather than serving to inform the public, these journalists served the Clinton campaign behind the scenes to elevate their own careers and preserve the status quo. Most of them didn’t even have the decency to admit the truth of their relationships with the Clinton campaign, either.

Despite “a fundamental conflict of interest” with Joel Benenson’s work at the White House, the Clinton campaign hired him as a pollster and advisor to the campaign in 2014.

In a 2014 email, Hillary Clinton asked Podesta—who was serving at the White House at the time, though she was no longer employed there—to disclose intelligence information on Libya.

Instead of just releasing Clinton’s speech transcripts to Wall Street firms, the campaign prepped in a March email chain for questions from friendly journalists who wouldn’t push the issue.

The WikiLeaks release of emails from Podesta have largely vindicated critics of Clinton. Nearly every defense and diversion regularly employed by the campaign to defend Clinton’s abhorrent political record has been debunked.

Thru policy killing small business, jobs, and the American dream

I personally can't believe people can be so gullible as to believe a proven liar would be a good representative of the people for the highest office in the land, but then again we're talking liberal logic... the creators of PC, the doubling of the national debt, the decline of our military, the abuse of our veterans, the lack of respect to our flag and anthem, the racial division, the war on religious liberties (all liberties for that matter), the devastation to our healthcare, the rise of corporatism and monopolies empowered by policies destroying jobs and the middle class..... basically the destruction of America, its pride, laws and values.... all in only 8 years, and they think a minimum of 4 more is going to fix anything?

Can liberals really believe repeating the same failed actions and policies will yeild them different results?

All of DC is a tragic comedy. Disconnected from the realty on main street by the money from K street and wall street.

The town halls and campaigning are simple feedings of the animals in hopes of keeping their lucrative positions wielding power over them.

They haven't a clue how to fix anything. Most of their actions are attempts to repair the damage caused by former actions they have taken and in many cases our Constitution, the laws, and the peoples rights under it be damned!

The servant becomes the master. Govt is force!

A special prosecuter should have been the 1st act in all of this mess. It's like asking a criminal to name their own guilt or innocence and deciding what the cost will be based on their choice.... facts and evidence be damned if the price is right

Business as usual. Either way the people lose. I would however rather take my chances with Trump choosing judges for the SCOTUS than Clinton who has sworn to oppose peoples rights guaranteed under our Constitution, made war on religious liberty and free speech, and wants to flood our country with unvetted Muslim migrants unwilling to assimilate to our customs, laws and values.

Of course I would be foolish not to also consider her corruption, election rigging against her rival, her lies and responsibility for the deaths of 4 Americans due to her policies and agenda while serving as SOS that have caused the rise of terrorism throughout the world, or the 9 Billion $ gone missing from the state department on her watch.

And some think her presidential including the current joke on America now in the white house?

America is ready for a woman POTUS, just not this one!

Readers not pleased with Hillary Clinton endorsement
A sample of reader response to the Free Press Editorial Board’s endorsement last Sunday of Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton for President of the United States.

How can you endorse Hillary in your Sunday paper, when she has been shown to have lied plus was also shown to carelessly handle confidential information? Is that a “mature” candidate, as your editorial board claims? Now she is being investigated for more dishonest behavior...and you tell the citizens of Michigan that she should be President. I know many who have canceled their subscriptions and I hope many more do.

Joan Rucker

Northville

When I read your Free Press editorial, I wanted to cancel my subscription. Where have you been? On another planet? Hillary Clinton is not fit to be our president. We need a leader who is honest and trustworthy, which she is not. All of the sordid baggage she has accumulated in her 30 years in politics makes her unfit. This current FBI mess could have been avoided if she had followed the law. Instead we had to find out what is in them from an outside source. So now we know that everything we thought about her is true. The mainstream media has been terribly harmful to our country with its biased reporting. It is no longer to be trusted.

Poldi Wier

Rochester Hills

Considering the constant stream of revelations about the corruption of Hillary Clinton, the Detroit Free Press should remove its endorsement. Her significant character flaws, i.e. lack of ethics was clearly demonstrated when her campaign accepted debate questions in advance of the debates with Bernie. No honorable person would do that. If a child did that in school they would receive a failing grade. Hillary Clinton fails the ethics test and the Detroit Free Press is joining the failure by accepting and endorsing such despicable behavior.

Rod Charles

Auburn Hills

I am in agreement with your endorsement of Hillary Clinton as the matured and progressive choice for president. Clinton’s candidacy has been marred with controversies. Her ideological rift with Democratic primary rival Bernie Sanders has caused his supporters to feel betrayed. I am afraid they may abstain from voting, giving Trump a tipping advantage. In my opinion winning may not be an issue for Clinton given Trump’s overall negativity, but winning the trust and confidence of Americans will be her most formidable challenge as the president.

Atul M. Karnik

Woodside, N.Y.

Shame on the Detroit Free Press Editorial Board for endorsing Hillary Clinton. Do we really want another Clinton presidency filled with scandals and corruption? Clearly the endorsement was written by someone who has not been paying attention to the realities of Clinton and Trump. Trump is not perfect. But, he has a better chance to get our country on the right path.

Jed Vier

Dearborn

Your recent endorsement of Hillary Clinton is frightening to say the least. This editorial board, in endorsing this candidate, summarily disregarded the mounting evidence that seems to indicate that the Democratic nominee for the highest office in the land, is as cavalier in her responsibilities as you are. The Detroit Free Press has ignored the verifiable actions that should have cast doubt on this candidate. At the same time, this same editorial decried the “push button” answers to complex questions proposed by the Republican candidate, Donald Trump. Isn’t it just possible that he is proposing exactly what we need?

Mark Logsdon

Sterling Heights

Your endorsement of Hillary Clinton is a complete disservice to all of your readers. While properly and completely portraying Donald Trump and the perils his presidency would bring to our nation, the analysis of Clinton ignores her history and character. There’s no mention or analysis of the other qualified third party candidates on the ballot. It’s a partisan choice that shows its politics as usual at the Free Press.

Jim O’Connor

Grosse Pointe

http://www.freep.com/story/opinion/readers/2016/11/05/readers-pleased-clinton-endorsement/93346010/

3000 black pastors each with a flock...... not bad

If I'm not mistaken I think both links were featured as "opinion".

As far as all the Trump hit pieces..... they are sure cruising the cosmos for them these days

The Clinton Campaign at Obama Justice
Emails on WikiLeaks show a top federal lawyer giving Hillary a quiet heads up.

The most obnoxious spin of the 2016 campaign came this week, as Democrats, their media allies and even President Obama accused the FBI of stacking the election. It’s an extraordinary claim, coming as it does from the same crew that has—we now know—been stacking the election all along in the corridors of the Justice Department.

This is the true November surprise. For four months, FBI Director James Comey has been the public face of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server. He played that role so well, putting the FBI so front and center, that the country forgot about Mr. Comey’s bosses. Revelations this week build the case that President Obama’s politicized Justice Department has been pulling strings and flacking for Mrs. Clinton all along.

One piece of evidence comes from WikiLeaks, in a hacked email between the chairman of the Clinton campaign, John Podesta, and Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik. It was sent in May of 2015 via a private Gmail account, which has become the favored way for Obama employees to hide communications from the public. “Heads up,” Mr. Kadzik warned, informing the campaign about a coming hearing and a recent legal filing about Mrs. Clinton’s emails.


Don’t let Mr. Kadzik’s fancy title fool you: He is a Clinton partisan. Before joining the Justice Department in 2013, Mr. Kadzik spent 30 years at the (now-closed) law firm Dickstein Shapiro, engaging Democratic causes—and Clinton causes. Mr. Kadzik’s wife, Amy Weiss, was deputy press secretary in Bill Clinton’s White House and a communications director for the Democratic National Committee. Mr. Kadzik also represented the DNC. Campaign-finance records show the two variously donated to Hillary’s Senate leadership PAC, to her 2008 presidential campaign and to her current campaign.

Mr. Kadzik is also an old buddy of Mr. Podesta’s. The two go back to Georgetown Law School. When Marc Rich was lobbying Bill Clinton for a pardon, according to a 2002 House Oversight Committee report, the fugitive financier recruited Mr. Kadzik “because he was a long-time friend of White House Chief of Staff John Podesta.” Mr. Kadzik even represented Mr. Podesta, during the Monica Lewinsky saga.

WikiLeaks emails show the two chatting about birthday parties and dinner meetings with fellow Democratic power players. A 2014 email lists donors for a fundraiser that Mr. Podesta held for his daughter, running for a school board in California. Mr. Kadzik (as he sat at the Justice Department) is shown giving $250. Also appearing are the usual Clinton glitterati: Doug Band, Harold Ickes, Neera Tanden, Betty Currie, Madeleine Albright, Carol Browner. This is Mr. Kadzik’s social circle.

The Justice Department has tried to dismiss Mr. Kadzik’s tip-off to the Clinton campaign as a note “about public information,” sent “in his personal capacity, not during work hours.” But Mr. Kadzik is a senior government official. He does not get to feed any information to a potential target of an investigation, at any hour of the day or night.

<continue>

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-clinton-campaign-at-obama-justice-1478216727

FBI Leaks: Clinton Foundation Probe a 'Very High Priority,' Will Likely Lead to an Indictment

Two sources with "intimate knowledge" of the FBI's investigations into the Clinton emails and Clinton Foundation leaked new information about both of the probes to Fox News Wednesday. The sources say that the latter investigation has been going on for more than a year and is being led by the white-collar crime division of the FBI. They also say that the Clinton Foundation "pay to play" probe has taken a "very high priority," and the FBI has re-interviewed multiple individuals involved in the case. The sources told Special Report's Bret Baier that their investigation will likely to lead to an indictment.

Additionally, Baier reported that according to Fox News' sources, Clinton's private email server had been breached by at least five foreign intelligence hackers. FBI Director James Comey said in July that he could not say definitively whether her server had been breached.

Via Fox News:

Even before the WikiLeaks dumps of alleged emails linked to the Clinton campaign, FBI agents had collected a great deal of evidence, law enforcement sources tell Fox News.

"There is an avalanche of new information coming in every day," one source told Fox News, who added some of the new information is coming from the WikiLeaks documents and new emails.

FBI agents are "actively and aggressively pursuing this case," and will be going back and interviewing the same people again, some for the third time, sources said.

Agents are also going through what Clinton and top aides have said in previous interviews and the FBI 302, documents agents use to report interviews they conduct, to make sure notes line up, according to sources.

Fox News reports that the re-opened email investigation is being run by the national security division of the FBI and that they are combing through former NY congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop. According to the sources, they've found emails that came from Hillary Clinton's private email server that appear to be new. It is not yet known if the emails contain classified information, but that will be known soon.

<continue>

http://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/11/02/fbi-leaks-clinton-foundation-probe-a-very-high-priority-will-likely-lead-to-an-indictment/

Report: FBI had secret recordings of suspect talking about alleged deals Clintons made

FBI investigators discovered possible evidence of corruption linked to the Clinton Foundation in secret recordings from an unrelated investigation, but prosecutors and Justice Department officials discouraged them from pursuing those leads, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Prosecutors viewed the statements from the recordings, which were from a suspect in another corruption investigation, as hearsay, but agents thought they had enough to pursue an investigation into whether Clinton Foundation donors got special treatment from the State Department while Hillary Clinton, now the Democratic presidential nominee, was secretary of state, according to The Journal.

Some sources who spoke to The Journal blamed Andrew McCabe, deputy director of the FBI, or the Justice Department from preventing agents from pursuing their leads in the case.

FBI and Justice Department officials met with public-integrity prosecutors in February to discuss the case, but the prosecutors weren't swayed by the FBI's presentation, according to The Journal. After the meeting, Justice Department officials reportedly sent a "stand down" order to all offices involved in the case.

One of the sources on a recording discussed alleged deals the Clintons had made, but because the person was not from inside the Clinton Foundation, prosecutors thought the evidence wasn't solid enough to justify an aggressive investigation, according to The Journal.

FBI sources told Fox News this week that an indictment is likely in the Clinton Foundation investigation that has been ongoing for more than a year.

The FBI is investigating pay-for-play allegations about the Clinton Foundation. The investigation is said to be expansive.

Clinton has strongly denied any wrongdoing.

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-secret-recordings-clintons-2016-11?r=UK&IR=T

FBI agents claim DOJ blocked Clinton investigation

They are pushing for an indictment

video
http://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-agents-claim-doj-blocked-122029433.html

ObamaCare’s Chickens Come Home to Roost
Democrats, anticipating rage over huge premium increases scheduled for 2017, are already trying to blame Republicans

Lies passed ObamaCare legislation, lies supported its implementation. As its death spiral begins, angry and panicked lies by Democratic apologists attempt to deflect accountability for its economic devastation.

ObamaCare’s economic wreckage will insure President Barack Obama’s now classic promises regarding ObamaCare will eventually scar his legacy. History is written usually by the victors. In the case of ObamaCare, the economic losers are so numerous their bitter complaints will write the titles, fill the chapters and pack the footnotes.

Here are two examples of his great falsehoods:

“If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what.” President Obama, June 15, 2009

He repeated the “keep your doctor lie” the next day, in a speech to the American Medical Association.

“No matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period.” President Barack Obama, June 16, 2009

<continue>

http://observer.com/2016/11/obamacares-chickens-come-home-to-roost/

Opinion: Five things Democrats won’t tell you about Hillary Clinton

Promises, promises. By all rights, this should be the subtext of every presidential election campaign. Candidates promise us the moon and deliver something far less celestial. All that pie-in-the-sky stuff about healing the planet and slowing the rise of the oceans? Time is running out for President Barack Obama to deliver on his 2008 campaign pledges.

The 2016 presidential campaign has been a contest between a catch-all slogan — “Make America Great Again” — and a long list of policy priorities and promises for every interest group imaginable. Unpleasant realities, such as budget constraints, get airbrushed or buried. Getting elected is the priority. And that means telling voters what they want to hear.

Ergo, it’s my job to put my ear to the ground and reveal the five things the Democrats don’t dare tell us. (Republicans, your turn is coming next week.)

1. Clinton is a neo-con in progressive clothing

It’s no surprise that some of the Republican foreign policy establishment are supporting Democrat Hillary Clinton over Republican Donald Trump. As a senator from New York, Clinton voted to invade Iraq in 2003. As secretary of state, she pressured Obama to intervene in Libya to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, later joking that “we came, we saw, he died.” And she pushed to enforce a no-fly zone over Syria.

More importantly, she’s married to Bill Clinton, who governed as a centrist Democrat. Couples don’t necessarily agree on politics, but there was nothing in Clinton’s words and deeds — at least until Bernie Sanders proved a challenge in the primary and Elizabeth Warren started nipping at her heels — to suggest she would be a progressive’s dream candidate. Only time will tell.

2. Equal pay for women equals fewer job opportunities for women

Clinton has been a long-time advocate for “women’s rights,” including equal pay for equal work. She supports the enactment of a Paycheck Fairness Act, a bill she introduced as a senator, “to give women the tools they need to fight discrimination in the workforce.”

Those “tools” for women are litigation costs for companies. Should women be paid the same as men for equal work? Of course. Is enacting a law the best way to achieve pay equality? No.

As the Republican Party's hopes of a Donald Trump presidency dwindle, congressional candidates have changed their strategy to warn of a President Hillary Clinton and the need for a congressional check on the executive office. Photo: AP

(Feminists, hold your fire. Read on.)

The private sector doesn’t have the same uniform pay scale and prescribed wage adjustments as the federal government. Two people may be hired for the same job, be it “machine tool operator” or “administrative assistant,” but they will perform differently. That’s why some people get a raise while others get a pink slip.

If businesses anticipate the expense of defending against lawsuits — in some cases, frivolous — by women who earn less than the guy sitting next to them, they will be less inclined to hire a woman. So Clinton’s best intentions will end up on that long list of initiatives that have unintended consequences.

3. Another day older and deeper in debt

Clinton claims that her extended list of spending proposals won’t add a dime to the deficit. And it’s true that her proposed tax increases on the rich and on business will almost pay for her proposed spending.

But the awful truth is that deficits and debt will explode later this decade based on current law. And nothing Clinton proposes will change that.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that publicly held debt will increase from $14 trillion, or 77% of gross domestic product, this year to $23 trillion, or 86% of GDP, in 2026 without any changes to current law. That’s more than triple the size of the debt in 2009, when Obama took office.

Not adding a penny to the deficit beyond what is circumscribed by current law is certainly better than what Trump is offering. But it is no panacea at a time when the U.S. is facing an explosion in mandatory spending — programs such as Medicare, Social Security and Medicaid, along with interest on the debt — that will swamp any modest increase in tax revenue, according to CBO.

4. Free, fair, fickle?

Trade is probably one of the few areas where the two political parties have moved closer together: closer together in their opposition to free trade. The extended hangover from the Great Recession has left blue-collar workers looking for a scapegoat. And elements of both parties have been happy to oblige with accusations that cheap foreign goods and cheap foreign workers are to blame.

Clinton was first lady when the North American Free Trade Agreement was signed into law in 1993. During her time in the Senate, she voted in favor of some trade deals and against others. And as secretary of state, she supported the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade agreement among 12 Pacific Rim nations.

Once she learned what was in it, she came out against the TPP. No doubt the public’s enthusiastic support for Sanders, who brags about opposing every trade deal in the Senate, helped nudge her to the left.

Clinton defends her current opposition to the TPP, claiming it doesn’t meet her high standard of “raising wages, creating good-paying jobs and enhancing national security,” according to the candidate’s website. But in a 2013 speech to Latin American bankers, released by Wikileaks, Clinton said her “dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders.”

Bottom line: Clinton is more closely aligned with the Democratic establishment on free trade than with its opponents. But there will be plenty of time to pivot publicly once she is settled in the White House.

5. Middle class taxes will have to go up

Clinton has pledged not to raise taxes on the middle class, which she defines as those earning less than $250,000 a year. That means the burden of underwriting all the “free” stuff she’s proposing will fall on a scant 3% of households, according to estimates by the Tax Policy Center for the year 2014. (Official IRS tax data are available only through 2013.)

There are simply not enough rich people as it is to underwrite the promises the federal government has made to the elderly. By 2026, spending on entitlements and interest payments alone will consume almost all the tax revenue coming in to the Treasury, according to CBO.

The top 5% of taxpayers already pay 59% of the federal income taxes. Are the rich really going to fork over more tax revenue with putting up a fight?

Full disclosure: Item No. 5 has been a fixture of my quadrennial columns since 2008 on what both parties are hiding. One of these years, I’m bound to be right.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/five-things-democrats-wont-tell-you-about-hillary-clinton-2016-10-26?siteid=yhoof2&yptr=yahoo

'Clinton News Network' is accurate
Michael Goodwin

Goodwin: CNN proves it deserves 'Clinton News Network' title

In his 1961 farewell address, President Dwight Eisenhower famously warned America about the “unwarranted influence” of a “military-industrial complex.” Were he speaking today, Ike might be warning about a media-political complex.

And for the same reason — the dangers to democracy and liberty of “the disastrous rise of misplaced power.”

However it ends, the 2016 presidential race will mark the low-water mark of journalism that is worthy of the First Amendment. Never before have so many media organizations, old and new, abandoned all pretense of fairness to take sides and try to pick a president.

Their cozy confederacy with the incumbent political faction is largely in opposition to public will. Although polls show a tight race for the White House, studies find staggeringly lopsided coverage, with Donald Trump getting far more negative coverage than Hillary Clinton.

A survey covering 12 weeks of the campaign after the summer conventions found that 91 percent of Trump coverage on the three largest broadcast networks was “hostile.” The Media Research Center also found that much of the focus was on Trump’s personal life, while the networks downplayed investigations into Clinton’s e-mails and her family foundation.

<continue>

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/11/02/goodwin-cnn-zucker-prove-nickname-clinton-news-network-is-accurate.html


New poll shows Americans think media wants Clinton victory

http://www.yahoo.com/news/poll-shows-americans-think-media-004838625.html


Data that puts Trump ahead is 'bad polling' says Clinton campaign

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/data-that-puts-trump-ahead-bad-polling-says-clinton-campaign-1589520?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo

[url[
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxbzdjyeVM4