Things are heating up on this season of The Voice and Reba McEntire wants to stay on top. Reba won last season, as two contestants from her team battled it out during the finale. This year, she wants to remain on top and used a bit of strategy during the latest episode, hoping to secure a win. During the battle episode, Gwen Stefani’s team member, Gabrielle Zabosky, competed against Frankie Torres. The pair sang Never Tear Us Apart by INXS. Ultimately, Gwen could only choose one to remain on her team. Reba encouraged her to pick Gabrielle, but it seemed she was being sneaky. Reba McEntire Stole Frankie Torres During The Latest Episode Of “The Voice“ Just as Frankie Torres was about to leave the stage and thank the judges, Reba McEntire slammed down her steal button, a first for this season of The Voice. She said to Gwen, “I loved her singing. I did a little play there because I did say Gabrielle, so you’d go with Gabrielle [and] I could have Frankie.” Reba then told Frankie, “Either way, I was gonna steal because I love your performance, your singing, everything about it.” Frankie shared an interview in which she said her very first concert was Reba McEntire. “She was my first concert. Her and Kelly Clarkson. I went for Kelly, and I stayed for Reba, and it was amazing.”  Reba told Frankie, “I can’t wait to go through songs with you.” Fans of The Voice loved Reba McEntire’s slick move snatching Frankie Torres. “Frankie is a great rocker chick and the first 4 chair turn that Reba McEntire has ever stolen,” a fan wrote on YouTube. Lots of fans hope to see Frankie and Gabrielle meet again during the finals. “These two are mad. I think and believe they are they have best ever vocals on the voice this season. They should be the finalists this season n give us one more hell of a battle.” The source of this story’s image can be found here. The post Reba McEntire Pulls A Fast One To Steal Phenomenal Singer On “The Voice” appeared first on InspireMore.

Make sure you know exactly what you’re getting into

'This is a gang whose propensity for violence and ruthlessness is well documented'

Caitlin Clark could potentially be $150 million richer

Harris-supporting celebrities did not bat an eye after accusations against Emhoff emerged

What do you think?

Cover songs have long played a significant role in music history, offering artists the chance to reinterpret the work of their predecessors and sometimes even surpass the original in terms of cultural impact and commercial success. This article isn’t about debating whether the remakes are better or more artistically superior than the originals—that’s a matter of personal taste. Instead, we focus on ten rock covers that undeniably became more popular, more culturally ingrained, or more commercially successful than the original versions. The remakes of these songs gained a wider audience, cementing their place in pop culture, often due to the The post 10 Rock Cover Songs More Popular Than The Originals appeared first on ClassicRockHistory.com.

Bread crumbs in the polls may point to a likely victory by Donald Trump over Kamala Harris in the swing state of Michigan, nationally known pollster Steve Mitchell says. “There’s been a major realignment in Michigan and national politics, with former Democrats now becoming Republicans and former Republicans becoming Democrats,” Mitchell, president of Mitchell Research & Communications Inc., told The Daily Signal. One of the most hotly contested swing states, Michigan may determine the outcome of the 2024 presidential election. Voters have eight choices for president on the Nov. 5 ballot, including former President Trump, Vice President Harris, independent Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Green Party candidate Jill Stein, and libertarian Chase Oliver. In the eight-way race, Trump and Harris are in a dead heat in the polls. In a two-way race, which isn’t what is on the Michigan ballot, Trump has a one-point lead over Harris, according to Mitchell’s latest poll. But, Mitchell said, polls about voters’ support for Trump can be skewed because “shy” voters won’t admit they’re voting for him, even through online polling platform SurveyMonkey. One way to get around that hesitancy, he said, is to ask for whom most of the person’s “friends and neighbors” are voting. “When we asked that question, by a 10-point margin, 46-36%, voters said that their friends and neighbors were voting for Donald Trump,” said Mitchell, who is not related to this correspondent. “That’s an indication that Trump may win Michigan, or is doing better in Michigan than the poll results.” Trump’s jump in support from members of labor unions marks a massive change in this realignment of voters, Mitchell said. Although Trump was trailing Harris by about three percentage points in nonunion households, to which about three-quarters of Michiganders belong, Trump was up eight points in union households, according to an Oct. 16 poll by Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. Mitchell’s survey was conducted Oct. 14 by text-messaging registered voters randomly selected from a list of cell phones and directing them to a SurveyMonkey poll. The margin of error is plus or minus 4.04 percentage points. 10-21 APPENDIX III MI News Source-MIRS MI Press Release 10-16-24 343PM (1)Download Voters said Trump was the most likely candidate to solve their biggest problem, the poll found. In that question, by a margin of 3%, respondents chose Trump over Harris. Meanwhile, 64% of Michigan voters surveyed said they think America is on the wrong track, spelling trouble for the party in power. “Chances are the incumbent who’s got those numbers is going to lose,” Mitchell said. Polls have stacked a slow progression toward Trump in the seven swing states, according to RealClearPolitics averages, he noted. “Trump is ahead in all seven battleground states right now, by very narrow margins,” Mitchell said. “But nevertheless, as slowly and as incrementally as the lead has grown, it has grown. It’s gone in one direction only, and that is toward Trump.” Betting markets have switched from favoring Harris to favoring Trump, as have predictions from those who use algorithms to run simulations of the election, he said. Mitchell said he wouldn’t be surprised if the election results in Michigan are unknown until midday Nov. 6 because of how close the Harris-Trump contest will be. He predicted that Trump would appear to be winning by a landslide at midnight, before absentee ballot counts are ready. This is because more Republicans vote in person, more Democrats vote by mail, and in-person ballots are quickest to count. “Trump is going to be way ahead, then Detroit is going to come in at the end of the night and dump a couple 100,000 votes toward Harris, and all of a sudden, a race that showed Trump winning by 3 or 4 or 5% is going to be very, very tight at the end,” Mitchell said. “That’s just the way it’s going to be, because Democrats vote early, Republicans vote on Election Day.” Proof that Michigan’s election system is honest, Mitchell said, is that Trump won the state over Hillary Clinton in 2016 by about the same number of votes that he got in 2020, when he lost narrowly to Joe Biden. “The only difference between the two years is [that] in 2020, Trump got 5,000 more votes than he did in 2016. So he actually did better,” Mitchell said. “But everybody thinks it was stolen because the votes came in late.” The post Polls Hint at Trump Surge in Michigan as Key Swing State Prepares for Showdown appeared first on The Daily Signal.

While serving in the U.S. Senate, Kamala Harris celebrated the Democrat primary victory of Philadelphia progressive prosecutor Larry Krasner—and the controversial policies he would later champion as the city’s district attorney.  “As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail,” Harris wrote on social media, May 17, 2017.  As I said yesterday, progressive prosecutors are key to criminal justice reforms like rolling back mass incarceration and ending cash bail. https://t.co/r0PqTVrQ9a— Kamala Harris (@KamalaHarris) May 17, 2017 Progressive prosecutors, also referred to as rogue prosecutors, are those who, in the name of social justice, “have usurped the legislative power by refusing to prosecute large categories of crimes,” according to Zack Smith and Charles Stimson, authors of “Rogue Prosecutors: How Radical Soros Lawyers Are Destroying America’s Communities.”  Before being elected as Philadelphia’s district attorney, Krasner worked as a criminal defense and civil rights attorney. He “sued the Philadelphia Police Department dozens of times over the decades, ran to be Philadelphia’s district attorney and received almost $1.45 million in campaign spending from George Soros in the process,” Smith and Stimson, previously reported for The Daily Signal.  On his website, Krasner touts that under his watch, “the office broke its information-sharing contract with [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement], has “stopped prosecuting nearly all simple drug possession cases,” and “Other drug possession cases are diverted toward treatment.”  Harris served as a prosecutor in California in the 1990s and was later elected district attorney of San Francisco in 2003. In 2010, she was elected attorney general of California and won reelection in 2014. While serving in these roles, Harris implemented policies championed by the progressive prosecutor movement.  In 2004, black gang member David Hill shot and killed San Francisco police officer Isaac Espinoza. Harris, who was the district attorney of San Francisco at the time, did not pursue the death penalty.  In 2012, while serving as attorney general, Harris issued a bulletin to law enforcement in California regarding an Immigration and Customs Enforcement program called Secure Communities that enables ICE to detain and deport criminal illegal aliens. In the bulletin, Harris told law enforcement that they were not required to fulfill individual ICE immigration detainers but could instead “make their own decisions” about detainer requests.  Despite her past embrace of policies progressive prosecutors have been known to advocate for, Harris has pegged herself as a tough on crime criminal prosecutor on the campaign trail.  Within days of launching her campaign, Harris used her record as a prosecutor in an effort to contrast herself with former President Donald Trump.  “I took on perpetrators of all kinds: predators who abused women, fraudsters who ripped off consumers, cheaters who broke the rules for their own gain,” she said at a campaign event in Wisconsin in July. “So hear me when I say I know Donald Trump’s type.” During her debate with Trump on Sept. 10, Harris said she was “the only person” on stage to have “prosecuted transnational criminal organizations for the trafficking of guns, drugs, and human beings.” Harris, who wrote the book “Smart on Crime” in 2009, has previously received criticism for her support of “soft on crime” policies, such as her pledge to “never charge the death penalty” during her 2004 inauguration speech to the office of San Francisco’s district attorney.  During her 2020 campaign for president, Harris issued a memo in which she detailed her support for ending mass incarceration.  Harris advocated for “significant federal investments in policies that would end mass incarceration and especially into evidence-based, non-carceral social supports and programs at the state and local level to improve public safety and reduce violence,” she said.  In the same 2020 campaign memo, Harris called for the end of cash bail.  “Our bail system is unjust and broken,” Harris said, adding, “450,000 Americans sit in jail today awaiting trial because they cannot afford to pay bail. Excessive cash bail disproportionately harms people from low-income communities and communities of color,” she wrote.  Harris’ 2024 presidential campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal’s request for comment, but the campaign’s previous statements indicate Harris still backs ending cash bail.  “On the issue of cash bail, she believes that we need a system where public safety, not wealth, determines who should stay behind bars following an arrest,” James Singer, a spokesperson for the Harris campaign, told Fox News Digital in August. “Anyone who is a danger to society should be detained regardless of how wealthy they are.”  The post Uncovered: Old Harris Tweet Celebrates ‘Progressive Prosecutors’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In an interview Tuesday, Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic presidential nominee, dismissed the idea of religious exemptions for abortion. Hallie Jackson, senior Washington correspondent for NBC News, asked Harris what kind of concessions she would be willing to make with a hypothetical Republican-majority Congress in order to pass legislation protecting abortion if she wins the Nov. 5 election. “What concessions would be on the table? Religious exemptions, for example, is that something that you would consider?” Jackson asked. “I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body,” Harris replied. Harris’ campaign did not respond to The Daily Signal‘s request for comment clarifying her position on religious exemptions. Religious Exemptions Federal law provides, and has provided, multiple religious-freedom protections for doctors, nurses, hospitals, and taxpayers who object to being forced to participate in an abortion. The Biden-Harris administration has vocally opposed the Hyde Amendment, the nearly half-century-old legislation that would protect taxpayers from footing the bill for procedures that kill the unborn, but the administration has acknowledged that federal law protects other exemptions. During Supreme Court oral arguments in March, Justice Brett Kavanaugh asked U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar whether it is true that “under federal law, no doctors can be forced against their consciences to perform or assist in an abortion.” Prelogar confirmed that “federal conscience protections provide broad coverage” on that issue. CONSCIENCE CLAUSE — RL34703Download Prelogar cited the Church Amendments, named for then-Sen. Frank Church, D-Idaho, which Congress passed and the president signed into law in the 1970s. These amendments prevent the government from forcing health care institutions that receive federal assistance to make their facilities available for abortion or sterilization. They also prevent entities receiving federal funds from discriminating against health care providers who refuse to perform abortions or sterilizations. CHURCH AMENDMENTS 42usc300a7Download Similarly, the 1996 Coats-Snowe Amendment prohibits the federal government and any state or local government receiving federal funds from discriminating against any health care entity on the basis that the entity refuses to perform abortions or to undergo training in performance of abortions. The amendment takes its name from its Senate cosponsors, then-Sens. Dan Coats, R-Ind., and Olympia Snowe, R-Maine. The Weldon Amendment, originally passed as part of a bill funding the Department of Health and Human Services for 2005, stipulates that no HHS appropriations may fund any federal agency or program that discriminates against health care providers that refuse to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions. It takes its name from then-Rep. David Weldon, R-Fla. The Hyde Amendment, which protects taxpayers from footing the bill for abortion, remains in effect, since Congress included it in 2022 funding legislation. Even if the Hyde Amendment fails, federal law will still provide various religious exemptions that protect Americans who believe abortion constitutes the killing of an unborn human being. Under current law, hospitals can refuse to perform abortions, refuse to let others perform abortions using their facilities, and refuse to train health care professionals to perform abortions. Doctors, nurses, and other medical professionals can refuse to perform abortions, assist in performing abortions, and undergo training for abortions. Pharmacists can refuse to dispense abortion-inducing drugs, and employers can decline to cover abortion-inducing drugs for employees. One out of five hospital beds in the U.S. sits in a religious-based hospital, and Catholic hospitals make up three-quarters of those religious hospitals, according to a University of California at San Francisco study. What Is Harris’ Position? The Harris campaign did not respond to questions about whether the vice president opposes these religious exemptions. While she did not explicitly call for the repeal of the Church Amendments, the Coats-Snowe Amendment, or the Weldon Amendment, her flat rejection of even the idea of offering religious exemptions as a potential compromise on the issue suggests a firm opposition to any religious exemptions. Furthermore, Harris’ framing—”I don’t think we should be making concessions when we’re talking about a fundamental freedom to make decisions about your own body”—suggests she would remove any exemptions from a law to codify abortion protections. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment about what punishment Harris considers appropriate for anyone who declines to participate in abortion, should the religious exemptions be struck down. This issue may carry salience for Catholics and many evangelical Christians, whose faith condemns abortion as a form of murder. Biden, when he served in the U.S. Senate, firmly supported the Hyde Amendment as part of his stance that he was “personally opposed” to the practice, while he would allow it legally. He abandoned the Hyde Amendment while campaigning for the presidency in 2020. The Biden administration has sought to roll back religious exemptions. Would a Harris administration do the same? The post Would Kamala Harris Force Catholic Hospitals and Doctors to Perform Abortions? appeared first on The Daily Signal.