Sunday, February 21, 2016

Video - Beyonce & Bruno Mars - Formation Super Bowl 2016

Video Report - Beyonce's Super Bowl Performance Unpopular With Police Unions

Video Report - DPRK: Sanctions only complicate Korean Peninsula situation

Video Report - Ukraine soldier killed in clashes between gov't and rebels

Opposition leader warns Turkey in process of ‘Pakistanization’

The leader of Turkey's main opposition party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, slammed the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) leaders for “turning Turkey into a bloodbath” and said they should be tried for “aiding and abetting terrorist organizations.”

In a speech to members of the CHP İstanbul branch, Kılıçdaroğlu said neighboring Syria has become a new Afghanistan, an operational center for all jihadist groups. “They went there under the protection offered by the government. Turkey has become embroiled in a process of Pakistanization,” he said.
The CHP leader noted 234 people were killed in six bombings across Turkey over the past six months. “No country that is not in a war has been through such a deep trauma. How can it be that 234 people have been killed over the past six months but no is held accountable politically?” he said.
Twenty-eight people, mostly soldiers, were killed when a car filled with explosives exploded as buses carrying military personnel stopped at a traffic light in downtown Ankara on Feb. 17. It was the second bombing in the city over the past four months. On Oct. 10, more than 100 people were killed when two bombs exploded seconds apart among a crowd headed to a peace rally, in the bloodiest terrorist attack in the history of the Republic of Turkey.
President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu accused the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG) of being behind the Feb. 17 attack, although its political arm, the Democratic Union Party (PYD) denied any YPG involvement. The Oct. 10 attack is believed to have been carried out by militants linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), although the government insisted that the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) terrorist group was also involved.
Kılıçdaroğlu said ISIL has emerged as a new source of trouble, as if the PKK were not enough. “You handed them guns, you turned cities into weapon warehouses. ISIL has recruited militants from 70 provinces across Turkey,” he said, adding that the AK Party leaders, including President Erdoğan, should be held accountable for what he called aiding and abetting terrorist organizations.
“Why has Turkey been Pakistanized? Because [it] aided and abetted [terrorist groups]. Everyone should be aware of this fact,” he said.
The CHP leader said the terrorist groups gained ground in Turkey because the country is not well governed and added that former President Abdullah Gül, who co-founded the AK Party, partly shares these concerns as well.
Gül, speaking to reporters on Feb. 19, said Turkey was going through the most difficult time in its history, in comments on the latest bombing in Ankara.

Video Report - CrossTalk: Turkey's Gamble

5 reasons why the threat of a global war involving Russia is overstated

Despite the growing potential for military conflict in either Europe or the Middle East, the risk of a great power war has been greatly exaggerated by the media and top political leaders.
Russian President Vladimir Putin, centre, chairs a meeting with military officials in the National Defense Control Center in Moscow. Photo: AP / Sputnik
The contemporary discussion of security interactions among major powers is depressing to participants and observers alike. Experts and politicians are warning us of an increasingly high likelihood of a military conflict – possibly a nuclear one – between Russia, on the one hand, and the U.S. or NATO, on the other.
In the West, many argue the dangers associated with a “resurgent” Russia and vow to defend themselves from Russian President Vladimir Putin’s “aggressive” actions in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Last month, U.S. Defense Secretary Ash Carteraccused Russia of threatening the world order and starkly warned: “Make no mistake, the United States will defend our interests, our allies, the principled international order, and the positive future it affords us all.”
The tensions have been growing and have become especially high since the 2014 Ukraine crisis. Russian military flights over the Baltic and Black Sea in response to NATO’s active buildup on Russia’s European borders has done little to calm these fears. The Turkish decision to shoot down a Russian warplane by claiming violation of its airspace in November 2015 revived the discussion of Moscow’s possible military conflict with Istanbul and NATO, of which Turkey is a member. More recently, the hype has been over the Kremlin’s alleged preparations to invade the Baltic States and the West’s need to respond.

In Russia, these threats and discussions are taken seriously, and the responsibility for these security tensions has been squarely placed on the Western powers. The frequently repeated charges are that the West and NATO have encircled Russia with military bases and refused to recognize Moscow’s global interests. Russian media have actively discussed the U.S. National Security Archive’s Cold War documents on a nuclear attack against Russia and China declassified on Dec. 22, 2015.
Last week, while attending the Munich Security Conference, Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev compared the contemporary security environment with the one that led to the Cuban Missile Crisis and reminded the audience of U.S. President John F. Kennedy’s words that “foreign policy can kill us."
In the meantime, contradicting Medvedev, Russian experts often bemoan the fact that the Cold War was far more predictable and less dangerous than today’s multipolar world. What many have initially viewed as a generally positive transition from the U.S. “diktat” is now presented as leading toward a great power war.
This increasingly apocalyptic mood on both sides reflects a growing international instability and breakdown of important communication channels between Russia and the West. Since the beginning of Ukraine crisis and up until the G20 meeting in Antalya in December 2015, the two sides have barely interacted. Appalled by Russia’s annexation of Crimea and support for Ukrainian separatists, Western leaders pursued policies ofsanctions and isolation, whereas the indignant Kremlin has sought to demonstrate its indifference toward such policies.
Only since Antalya have Putin and U.S. President Barack Obama resumed their attempts to regularly discuss issues of importance. Western and Russia military, too, severed their contacts although the two sides have recently begun to coordinate their actions in the Syrian airspace. The aforementioned alarmist views and arguments are misplaced because they underestimate the dangers of the Cold War and overestimate those of today’s world.

Despite some attempts to present the Cold War as generally stable, predictable, and peaceful, this is not the time to feel nostalgic about it. Multiple crises from Berlin to Cuba and Afghanistan extended across much of the Cold War era. State propaganda on both sides was reinforced by an intense ideological confrontation accompanied by drills and necessary preparations for a nuclear war.
The Oscar-nominated film “Bridge of Spies” directed by Steven Spielberg reproduces some of that hysterical atmosphere in the United States where the public was mobilized for any actions in support of the government. In the Soviet Union it was no different. For the world outside the West and the U.S.S.R., this was not a peaceful, but rather an increasingly chaotic and violent time – the conclusion well documented by scholars of the Third World.
Why today's world is less dangerous than the Cold War
Today’s world, while threatening and uncertain, is hardly more dangerous than the Cold War, for the following reasons.
First, whatever the rhetoric, major powers are not inclined towards risky behavior when their core interests are at stake. This concerns not only the nuclear superpowers, but also countries such as Turkey. The prospect of confronting Russia's overwhelmingly superior military should give pause even to someone as hot-tempered as Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan. Even if Erdogan wanted to pit Russia against NATO, it wouldn’t work.
So far, NATO has been careful to not be drawn into highly provocative actions, whether it is by responding to Russia seizing the Pristina International Airport in June 1999, getting involved on Georgia’s side during the military conflict in August 2008 or by providing lethal military assistance and support for Ukraine. Unless Russia is the clear and proven aggressor, NATO is unlikely to support Turkey and begin World War III.
Second, Russia remains a defensive power aware of its responsibility for maintaining international stability. Moscow wants to work with major powers, not against them. Its insistence on Western recognition of Russia’s interests must not be construed as a drive to destroy the foundations of the international order, such as sovereignty, multilateralism, and arms control.
Third, the United States has important interests to prevent regional conflicts from escalating or becoming trans-regional. Although its relative military capabilities are not where they were ten years ago, the U.S. military and diplomatic resources are sufficient to restrain key regional players in any part of the world. Given the power rivalry across several regions, proxy wars are possible and indeed are happening, but they are unlikely to escalate.
Fourth, unlike the Cold War era, the contemporary world has no rigid alliance structure. The so-called Russia-China-Iran axis is hardly more than a figment of the imagination by American neoconservatives and some Russia conspiracy-minded thinkers. The world remains a space in which international coalitions overlap and are mostly formed on an ad hoc basis.
Fifth, with the exception of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Greater Syria (ISIS), there is no fundamental conflict of values and ideologies. Despite the efforts to present as incompatible the so-called “traditional” and “Western” values by Russia or “democracy” to “autocracy” by the United States and Europe, the world majority does not think that this cultural divide is worth fighting for.
Despite the dangers of the world we live in, it contains a number of important, even underappreciated, checks on great powers’ militarism. The threat talk coming from politicians is often deceiving. Such talk may be a way to pressure the opponent into various political and military concessions rather than to signal real intentions. When such pressures do not bring expected results, the rhetoric of war and isolation subsides.

Then a dialogue begins. Perhaps, the increasing frequency of exchanges between Obama and Putin since December 2015 - including their recent phone conversation following the Munich conference - suggest a growing recognition that the record of pressuring Russia has been mixed at best.

Multilple blasts hit Damascus southern suburb, over 30 feared killed

Several explosions have rocked the Sayeda Zeinab district in the southern part of Syria’s capital Damascus, Syrian state television reported. Over 30 people are feared killed; suicide bombers are suspected to be behind at least two of the blasts.
Four blasts hit al-Tin Street near the al-Sadr hospital, with two explosions being car bombs and the others suicide bombers, the al-Ikhbariya channel said. According to other reports, there could have been 3 blasts.
The number of casualties is being verified. Hezbollah’s al-Mmanar TV puts the death toll at 22, while the Syrian state TV at 30. Dozens are feared injured.
However, a police source told RIA Novosti, at least 80 people were killed in the blasts, with 200 having been left injured.
Two of the coordinators of the blasts were detained by security forces in the Syrian capital, the source added.
The Islamic State (IS, Daesh, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terror group has claimed responsibility for the bomb attacks in Damascus.
The jihadists said two of its suicide bombers blew themselves up in the Sayeda Zeinab district after detonating a car bomb, the Amaq news agency, which supports IS, reported.
Earlier on Sunday, dozens of people were killed and injured in a double bombing attack in Homs. The local governor said that 34 people have died in the explosions, but RIA-Novosti cited a medical source, who said that at least 46 lives were lost, while 110 others were injured.

The Syrian Foreign Ministry said the bombing was aimed at derailing the ongoing peace talks between Damascus and rebel forces, and called on the UN Security Council to condemn the attack.
Bombings targeting civilians happen regularly in Syria, which has been riven by a five-year armed conflict.
Islamic State claimed responsibility for a bombing in Homs last month, which killed at least 24 people. Another attack in December claimed 32 lives.

How Will Russia Respond to Saudi Anti-Aircraft Missiles in Syria?

With the Syrian Army advancing across the front, Saudi Arabia has announced its willingness to escalate the conflict by supplying portable surface-to-air missiles to terrorists fighting against Syrian forces and, presumably, the Russian forces assisting them. But is it a genuine threat, or just part of Riyadh's campaign of information warfare?

On Friday, in an interview for Germany's Spiegel Magazine, Saudi Arabian Foreign Minister Adel al-Jubeir announced that Riyadh is prepared to send portable surface-to-air missile systems to Syria to help 'moderate rebels' turn the tide against government forces, which have been making significant breakthroughs in fighting across the country in recent weeks.

"We believe that introducing surface-to-air missiles in Syria is going to change the balance of power on the ground, al-Jubeir explained. "It will allow the moderate opposition to be able to neutralize the helicopters and aircraft that are dropping chemicals and have been carpet-bombing them, just like surface-to-air missiles in Afghanistan were able to change the balance of power there."

Exactly what 'moderate opposition' Mr. al-Jubeir is talking about remains unclear, given that even much of the Western media has admitted that Riyadh, alarmingly, is funding, arming and otherwise supporting Islamist militants.

For the record, the militants that Saudi Arabia supports include al-Fatah, an Idlib-based coalition of Islamist groups including al-Nusra Front, Ahrar ash-Sham and Jund al-Aqsa, all three of which are affiliated with al-Qaeda. Elsewhere across the country, Riyadh has provided assistance to other al-Nusra Front and Ahrar ash-Sham-affiliated groups, and to the Free Syrian Army, an organization which has been whittled down into a small group that actively cooperates with Islamist militants, and which the Pentagon itself has previously estimated consists of "more than 50%…extreme Islamist groups."

Perhaps it is for this reason that another German outlet, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, called al-Jubeir's remarks about supporting the "moderate opposition" a euphemism.

Having clarified who would be receiving the Saudi supplied anti-aircraft weapons (i.e. terrorists, most of them recognized as such by the State Department), the question which follows is: will they be sent at all? The fact is that Riyadh makes threats to escalate the conflict in Syria on a consistent basis, most recently with its saber-rattling claims about making preparations to invade the country, an idea which many security analysts have brushed off.

Even the threat to send anti-aircraft missile systems to Syria is not an original idea, with Riyadh making the same threat at least twice before, in February 2014, and October 2015.

Moreover, even if the latest once-a-year attempt to intimidate Damascus is not just a bluff this time, the situation on the ground in Syria makes it unclear just how the rebels are going to get the weapons, given that the Syrian Army, supported by Kurdish forces in the north, is rapidly moving to restore control over both the north and south of the country, liberating major population centers and moving to close off the once-porous borders with Turkey and Jordan, through which terrorist fighters, funds, and weapons once freely flowed.

In fact, Minister al-Jubeir's own comments to Spiegel gave away Riyadh's self-doubt with the whole idea.
"This has to be studied very carefully…because you don't want such weapons to fall into the wrong hands," al-Jubeir noted. 

With his interviewer countering by asking whether he meant that the weapons might fall "into the hands of Islamic State [Daesh]," the minister deferred to Washington, saying that "this is a decision that the international coalition will have to make. This is not Saudi Arabia's decision."

A decision for the international coalition…If this is the case, it means that the Saudis will not be sending portable anti-air systems to Syria after all. Because unless Washington has totally lost its mind, it will not look too kindly on Riyadh sending weapons to jihadists which could shoot down Western commercial passenger jets or US-led coalition planes bombing Daesh in Iraq and eastern Syria.

After all, it is a well-known fact (one which even rebel supporters now openly admit) that prior to the Syrian Army's liberation of Nubl and Zahraa in Aleppo province earlier this month, rebel factions had been actively engaged in trade with Daesh, moving fuel, food, and presumably weapons and fighters back and forth.
The US position, essentially, is what prevented Riyadh from sending anti-aircraft systems to Syria in the first place. 
In February 2014, commenting on the latest rumor of Saudi portable SAM deliveries to Syria, The Wall Street Journal pointed out that "the US has long opposed arming rebels with anti-aircraft missiles, for fear they could fall into the hands of extremists who might use them against the West or commercial airlines. The Saudis have held off supplying them in the past because of US opposition. A senior Obama administration official said Friday that the US objection remains the same. 'There hasn't been a change internally on our view', the official said." Then, as now, he who pays the piper calls the tune.

In the final analysis, even if all of the above turns out to be wrong, and Saudi Arabia does decide to open a Pandora's Box by sending mobile SAMs to Syria, the move would not change the outcome of the Syrian war. 
Speaking to International Business Times UK about the Saudi foreign minister's comments, Nic R. Jenzen-Jones, the director of the technical intelligence consultancy Armament Research Services, emphasized that "from a technical perspective, the types of MANPADS or other SAMs (surface-to-air-missiles) Saudi Arabia would be likely to supply to moderate rebel groups are probably going to be of limited effectiveness against some of the modern Russian combat aircraft operating within Syria."

The systems the Saudis would provide, Jenzen-Jones explained, "are likely to be legacy missile systems," which, for the most part, could "pose a notable threat [only] to Syrian government aircraft, particularly rotary-wing aircraft" (i.e. helicopters).

In the long term, Russian military expert Viktor Murakhovski suggests, Saudi SAM deliveries "will not significantly influence the course and outcome of the ongoing fighting in Syria."

Would they force Syrian and Russian aircraft to adjust their tactics? Definitely. Could they lead to losses for Syrian aircraft? Possibly. Could they result in Russia assisting the Syrian Air Force by providing it with modern SAM countermeasures? Certainly. Would they affect the outcome of the war? Definitely not.

Putin praises actions of Russian military in Syria

Fighting in Syria, Russian servicemen and officers are defending Russia’s interests, extinguishing terrorists who call Russia their enemy and who don’t hide their expansion plans, the president says

Actions of the Russian military in Syria deserve the highest assessment as they are meant to defend Russia’s national interests and help participants in anti-terror efforts to protect civilians, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Saturday.

"The combat skills of our military are being improved now in the military operation in Syria. Fighting in this Middle East country, our servicemen and officers are defending Russia’s interests, extinguishing terrorists who call our motherland their enemy and who don’t hide their expansion plans, including into the territory of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)," the president said at a reception in the Kremlin dedicated to the Fatherland Defender’s Day marked in Russia on February 23.

"The combat mission of Russian pilots, seamen and servicemen of support units deserves the highest praise," Putin, who is Supreme Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Armed Forces, said. "In difficult conditions, they are helping the Syrian government army, other participants in anti-terror efforts to defeat terrorists and save civilians from violence, barbarianism and outrage."

"We have always tried to settle all disputable problems exclusively by political and diplomatic means. We have always done our best to stabilize situation in different countries, to help settle acute conflict," the Russian leader underscored. "Let us do it now as well."
Russia’s aerospace forces launched pinpoint strikes against the Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra targets in Syria on September 30 after the Federation Council upper parliament house unanimously approved President Vladimir Putin’s request for the use of the armed forces against terrorists in Syria. Air strikes are delivered at military hardware, communications centers, transport vehicles, munitions depots and other terrorist infrastructure facilities. The military operation is conducted at the request of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Russia has repeatedly said it does not plan to take part in any ground operations in Syria.


Ding, dong, the dynasty is dead: so long to Jeb Bush and the family legacy

Jeb Lund 

In announcing the suspension of his campaign, Jeb Bush couldn’t have found a more apt expression for his departure from a contest that was beyond his ken than “I congratulate my competitors who are remaining on the island”. The 2016 Republican presidential primary is a thing forged in madness; as befitting the functional illogic of a reality TV show, it doesn’t make a lick of damn sense beyond itself, but the results cannot be appealed. Jeb has been voted off the island; he is the weakest link; goodbye.
There were signs long ago that he would fail to gain traction among Republican voters despite his political pedigree and all his campaign cash – not necessarily deterministic, but they were there.
The publication of his book Immigration Wars: Forging An American Solution in 2013 is one such sign: even at the time, the book seemed to be a bad idea at best. It hit bookshelves just as the Republican National Committee was putting together a postmortem on the 2012 election that noted – again – that the party needed to appeal to Latino voters.
Yet Bush’s book repudiated his own history of being an inclusive conservative politician who championed in-state college tuition for the children of undocumented immigrants, drivers licenses for the undocumented andsupported the Dream Act, so long as it wasn’t implemented by Barack Obama’s executive action. The author Bush argued against any path to citizenship for those who entered this country illegally.
Bush hadn’t even announced at that point – and Trump hadn’t yet rocketed to front runner status by stoking nativist paranoia – and already he’d tied himself into a knot on what everyone knew would be one of the biggest issues of the 2016 campaign. From then on, no position that Bush advocated could escape the label of flip-flopper because he had flip-flopped on immigration. In the purity test of any Republican primary, Jeb was already the establishment, already dangerously a RINO, but now he was also infinitely changeable on the most important policy issue of the day. He might take a hardline on some issue today, but what about tomorrow?
Then came the campaign rollouts: Bush launched The New Bush Experience by gathering around him every establishment neoconservative from either the Reagan or the Bush II years – a soulless sludge of amoral warmongering boobery that, ethically-speaking, resembled the invitees to a North Korean state dinner. (They are the sort of people who put on jackets covered with epaulettes and ribbons from armchair campaigns before mounting their rider mower and treating the lawn like they’re about to daisy-cutter Vietnam.) Bush insisted he was his own man by announcing that he’d listen to advice from the people who belonged to at least one other institutional failure.
And any question of Bush hearing their counsel but keeping his own fell flat when he stumbled over multiple answers about whether the Iraq War was a good idea. This was the one question he had to have an answer for – that, indeed, it would be absurd for any American to not have an answer for – and he flubbed it repeatedly for days, before arriving at the self-evident: he would not have invaded. The fourth time was the charm, but it wasn’t charming.
When it couldn’t conceivably get any worse, Donald Trump entered the race. Blaming Jeb’s failure on him devalues just how badly Bush could’ve simply screwed his campaign up on his own. Trump was the accelerant, but Bush had to fumble and drop a lit cigarette into his pants cuff before the Trump-branded gasoline could do its work.
Trump didn’t make Bush reply to a mass shooting with, “Stuff happens”. He didn’t make Bush, a man married to a Mexican woman and the father of mixed-race children who almost exclusively speaks Spanish in his own home, say that we shouldn’t live in a multicultural society. He didn’t make Bush say that people in this country needed to work longer hours. He didn’t tell Bush that Obama’s daughter’s name was “Malala” (which is the name of the Nobel peace prize winning Taliban shooting victim turned women’s rights activist), not “Malia”.
Yes, Trump just did his own thing, and ridiculed Jeb, but if a tree falls in a forest and there’s no one around to call it weak, it still falls down.
None of that even gets to all those weird, doomed attempts by Bush’s campaign to make him go viral: pictures of Bush flashing the liners to his blazers, showing his JEB! emblem on a white background. Or the picture of a somewhat pathetic and forlorn Jeb standing in a hoodie, staring at the camera, as if pleading to know when this ends. Or him taking a selfie in front of the “Peachoid”. Or that last, harrowing Twitter picture, of a gun with his name engraved on it; Bush simply tweeted, “America.”
So, for as much as surrounding circumstances might have sped up the process, the bumbling began with the campaign itself, and there was nothing Jeb or his advisors could do to stop it.
But, perhaps despite the sadness on his face as he took his leave of the race, and despite his wife’s tears, and despite the fact that, by comparison, he is probably a less odious person than many of the men left in the race, there’s no need to feel pity. The Bush dynasty lost this once; given what it’s done for America in the past, that might ultimately be a good thing.
The Bush clan is a pack of jackals that has skittered among the tall grass of politics now for four generations. Granddad Prescott was a senator who made his cash atBrown Brothers Harriman, in part by investing in Germany’s financial rebuilding on the road to WWII. George HW Bush worked at Brown Brothers Harriman, too, before becoming an oil wildcatter, then a congressman, the head of the CIA (where he overlooked domestic anti-communist terrorism) and finally president, where he pardoned away the dregs of Iran-Contra and solidified the post-Watergate blueprint for America’s refusal to prosecute its greatest political criminals.
You know all about Jeb’s brother, George W “Endless War” Bush. Jeb’s son, George P Bush, once reportedly crashed a car into his ex-girlfriend’s yard after failing to gain entrance via a window (her family opted not to press charges) and is now Texas Land Commissioner – after raising over $3m dollars for the race before he even had a challenger and on the basis of his extensive experience as Bush family member. Maybe Jeb’s failure means his son won’t strive for even higher office. Or maybe not.
After four generations of participating in Republican politics and appealing to Republican voters, the conservative base prefers someone who wants to build impossible walls, expel 11 million people, start trade wars with countries we distrust and bomb anything that moves. There is some consolation in seeing a dynasty of genteel political malfeasance and mass death undone by a TV showman who recognizes that the audience now wants the same product, just bigger, louder and cruder.
But this is the small justice that people seek when they know the system will forever fail them. There is no glee here, just resignation. Besides, interpreting events like that again focuses on Trump, when the visceral truth of the Bush campaign was that we finally saw the rot of their dynasty move to the surface, like cheap composite plywood puncturing through a deep wood veneer.
Jeb Bush was one of the family, and he failed. And if there is one, stark emotional legacy of the Jeb 2016 experience, it is this: despite coming from all that power and money, Jeb Bush ran a campaign so wracked with failure and so thoroughly inept that he could move millions of Americans beyond their richly earned contempt for him and his family. By the end, Jeb Bush actually made people feel sorry for him.


On the eve of the Nevada caucus, actresses America Ferrera and Eva Longoria joined Hillary Clinton for a rally in the final push before voting begins on Saturday.

Ferrera, who noted she is a millennial woman and first-generation American, made an unusual pitch for supporting Clinton.

"I really think I'd like to Netflix and chill with Hillary," Ferrera said at an outdoor amphitheater just off the Strip in in Las Vegas, adding that she'd like to have a glass of wine with her, too.

"I have a strong feeling Hillary and I could be BFFs if you'd just give me a chance," the "Ugly Betty" star joked.

Both Hillary and Bill Clinton have admitted to binge-watching television, specifically the Netflix original "House of Cards."

Longoria also made a pitch for Clinton, calling out those who say the former secretary of state leaves them uninspired.

"If Hillary doesn't inspire you, you aren't paying attention," she chided.

Both actresses, who in their speeches mentioned their Latina roots, touched on the idea of a political "revolution," taking a clear jab at Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, who often uses that word to describe his campaign. Clinton and Sanders are neck-and-neck in the polls in Nevada, and the Clinton campaign is bracing for another potential loss in an early-voting state.

"What we don't need in this country is a revolution. We need an evolution," Ferrera said.

"Hillary inspired a revolution a long time ago," Longoria added. "It's time to be a part of it."

All three Clintons -- Hillary, Bill and Chelsea -- then took the stage alongside the two celebrities.

"I love doing things for her," former President Clinton said about his wife. "She did things for me for a very long time."

Hillary Clinton delivered her standard stump speech, but continued to go after Sanders for his policy proposals.

"I don't want to over-promise," she said. "I will not make promises I cannot keep."