Site has no Description

News Masters of the Universe Live-Action Masters of the Universe Casts Alison Brie as Evil-Lyn By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on September 5, 2024 Credit: Beth Dubber/Netflix Comment 0 Share New Share Credit: Beth Dubber/Netflix After many attempts, a live-action Masters of the Universe finally looks likely to head to theaters. This project helmed by Amazon MGM Studios and Mattel Films sees Nicholas Galitzine (The Idea of You) take over the role of He-Man from a previous iteration that saw Kyle Allen in the part. Previous news also announced that Camila Mendes was on board to play Teela, who is the captain of the royal guard and likely romantic interest for Galitzine’s character. The Hollywood Reporter also recently broke the news that none other than Alison Brie (GLOW, Community, Mad Men) has joined the cast as the villainous Evil-Lyn. Evil-Lyn’s name says it all—she’s an evil sorceress and Skeletor’s second-in-command, helping him do evil things with her power over the dark arts. The role may seem a departure for Brie, unless you’ve seen GLOW and her wrestling persona there (pictured above). The movie is helmed by Laika co-founder Travis Knight. While the details of the plot haven’t been shared beyond the proviso that the movie would center on “Prince Adam of Eternia who, thanks to his Power Sword, turns into the muscular He-Man and is imbued with superhuman strength and abilities. With his assortment of allies, he defends the planet from the evil Skeletor and his armies.” That’s a pretty vague description—it’s hard to imagine a He-Man movie that didn’t follow that overarching arc—but here’s to hoping we’ll get more details—and a Skeletor—soon. The script comes from Chris Butler, who worked off drafts written by David Callaham, and brothers Aaron and Adam Nee. Masters of the Universe is currently set to premiere in theaters on June 5, 2026. [end-mark] The post Live-Action <i>Masters of the Universe</i> Casts Alison Brie as Evil-Lyn appeared first on Reactor.

News Laika Laika’s Live-Action Sci-Fi Thriller Nabs Dune Writer to Direct By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on September 5, 2024 Screenshot: Warner Bros. Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Warner Bros. Laika, who is known for animated features including Coraline, ParaNorman, and Missing Link, is heading into the live-action space. Its latest project is a sci-fi thriller that, according to Deadline, “tells the tale of a woman investigating a mystery that took place during a week she cannot remember.” Today, the studio announced that it has tapped Jon Spaihts, the writer behind the recent Dune films as well as Doctor Strange and Prometheus, to not only pen the script for the project but also direct. The film will be Spaihts’ first time in the director’s chair. “This is an original passion project I’ve been eager to turn to for a while, and I couldn’t ask for better partners,”  Spaihts said. “Laika has a clear creative vision, and a tradition of meticulous, bespoke storytelling that suits this project very well.” Matt Levin, Laika’s President of Live Action Film & Series, added that Spaihts is “one of the most imaginative and inventive storytellers working today, and we’re honored to partner with him as he brings his unique vision and soul to the director’s chair for the first time with a wholly original idea that is as thought-provoking as it is moving.” This project is still very much in its early days, so no news yet on casting, or even what the final title of the project will be. [end-mark] The post Laika’s Live-Action Sci-Fi Thriller Nabs <i>Dune</i> Writer to Direct appeared first on Reactor.

In the run-up to November’s election, Vice President Kamala Harris is attempting to rewrite history and absolve herself of her administration’s policy of facilitating mass illegal migration into the U.S. through reckless releases of aliens caught at the border and bogus alien “parole” programs. Against much existing evidence, a new ad her campaign is running claims Harris is a border hawk, touting her past prosecutions of gang members and recent support of a twice-defeated Senate border bill that actually would have codified into law many of the Biden-Harris administration’s open-border policies. Though in 2017, Harris said, “An undocumented immigrant is not a criminal,” her campaign staff recently told Fox News, “the vice president’s position is the same as the administration’s—unauthorized border crossings are illegal.” In an Aug. 29 interview on CNN, Dana Bash asked Harris about her change of mind. The vice president said, “I believe there should be consequence” for entering the U.S. illegally, because “we have laws.” Indeed, we do. Our laws say aliens entering the U.S. illegally “shall be detained” pending their immigration court hearings. But under the Biden-Harris administration, they are caught and almost all are then immediately released, often with federally funded tickets to wherever in this country they want to go. So, what “consequence” did Harris have in mind? Dana Bash didn’t follow up, but if the past three years are any guide, Harris does not seriously contemplate any more enforcement than the feckless norm of the last three years. Meanwhile, amid all the smoke and mirrors of a hot electoral campaign, the Biden-Harris mass parole programs continue to bring in around 70,000 inadmissible aliens a month. But in early August, the Department of Homeland Security paused one program that allows in 30,000 inadmissible aliens a month from Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. What was the reason they paused it? It wasn’t because it was against the law and flouted the clear intent of Congress to create only a very limited parole power for the executive branch, as Art Arthur of the Center for Immigration Studies explains. It wasn’t because DHS has no way to vet the applicants for criminal histories in these four countries, which are either too disorganized to have records or too hostile to share them with us. And it wasn’t because many recipients of this parole have drained the public purse as recipients of taxpayer-funded food, clothing, and shelter; increased urban disorder; and committed crimes, including murder. No, they paused the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela parole program because the blatant fraud permeating it had temporarily become an embarrassment. With political appointees at the top of every federal agency, evidence of dysfunction is usually kept under wraps, but a recent U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services report obtained by the Federation for American Immigration Reform exposed to lawmakers and the public how bad things were. Entities within the U.S. applied to be “financial supporters” of the paroled migrants, using fake Social Security numbers or those of dead people. According to U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, a “financial supporter” can be any person or entity “who agrees to provide financial support to the beneficiary [the paroled alien] while they are in the United States for the duration of the parole authorization period.” Multiple supporter applications came from the same address, email, or phone number, or used the same exact wording. Nearly 600 financial supporters applied using one Florida warehouse as an address. There were 3,200 mega-supporters who together applied to bring in a total of 100,000 applicants, or over 30 apiece. In short, the sponsorship application process was a joke, though that didn’t stop DHS from approving close to half a million financial supporters and the aliens they vouched for. By the end of August, DHS was ready to start the parole program up again. During the short shutdown, it made some tweaks “to better validate the identity and qualifications of the supporter(s) and perform additional background checks and security vetting.” In a notice announcing an “emergency revision” of the online sponsorship application, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services also said it “will require submission of biometrics by supporters,” presumably fingerprints, and a $30 fee. All this tells you that, first, Citizenship and Immigration Services was doing little to validate “supporters” before, and second, it knew its existing background security checks were worthless. Even with a few rushed improvements, the parole sponsorship concept is laughable. First, according to the agency’s guidance, “there is no requirement regarding the financial supporter’s immigration status in the United States.” This means that a paroled alien, one claiming asylum, or one fighting deportation could be a sponsor. Second, “If the petitioner is unable to find a financial supporter who alone has sufficient means to support the beneficiary in the United States, the petitioner may indicate more than one financial supporter”—just keep adding until you win. Third, “a beneficiary may also demonstrate that they are financially self-sufficient”—meaning that the Biden administration will allow an inadmissible alien to sponsor himself to enter and live here, whatever our laws say. There’s hardly a way to lose this game. DHS was embarrassed by the fraud report into making some token changes to the parole program, which is just one single lane in their open-borders superhighway. DHS can revise the financial supporter form all they want, but the fraud will persist—for two reasons. First, many people seeking to enter the United States who can’t get a visa will say whatever it takes unless the consequences for fraud are real—I’ve seen this firsthand, over a quarter century, on four continents. Second, there are no consequences for a fraudulent U.S.-based supporter. Financial supporters can lie all they want to DHS without fear of being prosecuted. DHS told NBC News that “serial filers who … appear to be exploiting or abusing the process will be non-confirmed.” In other words, they will not be allowed to be financial supporters. That’s it. Only those supporters who shake down aliens for money “will be referred to law enforcement for potential prosecution.” (And translate that “potential” as “will never happen.”) As the Immigration Reform Law Institute’s Matt O’Brien told the Daily Caller, the Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, and Venezuela parole program “relies on a ‘sponsor’ relationship that is impossible to verify and imposes no enforceable obligations on sponsor or beneficiary.” If a financial supporter is “confirmed” but fails to support his alien parolee, the government won’t do a thing. Witness Corey Alvarez, a Haitian accused of raping a disabled girl in a Boston-area Comfort Inn earlier this year. He was paroled into the country based on a sponsor in New Jersey who wasn’t even housing him, let alone taking responsibility for his conduct. The Biden-Harris administration is resuming the program not because it has solved the underlying fraud liability, but because at this point, the administration just doesn’t care. To paraphrase Civil War Adm. David Farragut, it’s full speed ahead and “damn the torpedoes.” The program pause was a minor inconvenience that won’t stop the administration’s effort to release, parole, and facilitate as many inadmissible aliens as possible to enter the United States for as long as it can. The BorderLine is a weekly Daily Signal feature examining everything from the unprecedented illegal immigration crisis at the border to immigration’s impact on cities and states throughout the land. We will also shed light on other critical border-related issues such as human trafficking, drug smuggling, terrorism, and more. Read Other BorderLine Columns: Despite Tough Talk, Biden-Harris Admin Rolls Out Red Carpet for Illegal Alien Gangs Biden Administration’s Latest Illegal Immigration Scam How Ruling Elites Continue to Stifle Debate Over Immigration Policy NJ Town Prioritizes Protecting Illegal Aliens From ICE Over Public Safety A Successful US Immigration Policy Would Send Venezuelans Home to Rebuild The post Biden-Harris Admin Restarts Fraud-Riddled Illegal Immigrant ‘Parole’ Program: The BorderLine appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., is asking two federal health agencies to review new data from the government of the Czech Republic on mortality rates from COVID-19 vaccines.  Johnson—who has conducted oversight into the government’s handling of the pandemic—wrote Wednesday to Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Dr. Robert M. Califf as well as Dr. Mandy K. Cohen, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. “The Czech data evidences the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (Spikevax) increased all-cause-mortality (ACM), as measured over a 12-month period from the time of vaccination for every age, compared to the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine (Comirnaty),” Johnson writes in the letter to Califf and Cohen, a copy of which was obtained by The Daily Signal. Johnson is the ranking member and former chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs subcommittee on investigations. He previously conducted Senate oversight of the government’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic. In the letter, Johnson cites Steve Kirsch, a Silicon Valley philanthropist who founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. Kirsch translated and reviewed official Czech Republic government data on COVID-19 vaccines administered there. Kirsch obtained the information through a public records request.  Johnson’s letter also references analysis by diagnostic pathologist Dr. Clare Craig regarding the Czech data. Craig concurred with Kirsch’s findings. “I urge you to review the official Czech government data on COVID-19 vaccines administered in the Czech Republic, and Mr. Kirsch’s and Dr. Craig’s analysis on the ACM [all-cause-mortality] of the Moderna and Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines,” Johnson writes.  He specifically asks the FDA and CDC to review the “one-year and two-year mortality rates from second shot mortality rate for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna vaccine for those injected in 2021, by 5-year age categories.” Johnson also asks the two agencies to review the “one-year mortality rate ratio for both Moderna and Pfizer, for those who died in high COVID-19 versus low COVID-19 months.”  “Please explain if your agency is certain that the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines are equally safe,” Johnson writes the two public health officials, “and if so, on what data or studies do you base your opinion?” Finally, the Wisconsin Republican asks: “Has your agency determined if there is any COVID-19 mortality or any other effectiveness difference between the Moderna and Pfizer vaccines?” FDA press officer Cherie Duvall-Jones, responding to an inquiry from The Daily Signal, said only: “When the FDA receives a letter from a member of Congress, the agency reviews and responds to the member directly.” A CDC spokesperson told The Daily Signal, “CDC has received the request from Sen. Johnson and is working to respond.” The Daily Signal sought comment Thursday morning from the media relations offices of Moderna and Pfizer about Johnson’s letter and the Czech data. Neither responded by publication time Thursday afternoon.  SenJohnson-2024.09.04 RHJ to CDC FDA on Czech COVID-19 Vaccine DataDownload The post EXCLUSIVE: Sen. Ron Johnson Pushes FDA, CDC to Review COVID-19 Vaccine Mortality appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Kamala Harris Might Have More Success Running A Charter Bus Company Than Running For President

Flip Flop and You Don't Stop: Kamala Harris Was Against the Border Wall Before She Was For It

The Meta Oversight Board has come forward with conceivably its most hypocritical ruling since its creation. The board ruled on Wednesday that the phrase “From the River to the Sea” is allowed on Meta-owned social platforms, despite its anti-Semitic implications. The expression is used by terrorist organizations and radical Islamists to advocate for Jewish genocide and the abolishment of the nation of Israel. This decision exposes a glaring double standard in the board’s ruthless approach to so-called hate speech, particularly posts about policies relating to transgender and non-binary individuals. The board has advocated for the shielding of LGBTQI+ groups from online free speech to such an extent that it included them among its seven strategic priorities.  Flashback: Globalist Meta Oversight Board Absurdly Lists ‘Gender’ Among ‘Seven Strategic Priorities’ Since its inception in 2020, the board has scolded Meta for not doing enough to censor content deemed detrimental to LGBTQI+ policy priorities; pressured Meta to expedite the censorship of content falsely linking the spread of COVID-19 to Asian Americans; and upheld the infamous suspension of then-President Donald Trump after Jan. 6 for allegedly violating Meta’s Community Standards on Dangerous Individuals and Organizations. However, the board’s concern for those who it described as marginalized or vulnerable individuals went out the window when it came to Jewish people.  The board ruled that users sharing posts or comments containing the phrase “From the River to the Sea” do not violate Meta’s rules on “Hate Speech, Violence and Incitement or Dangerous Organizations and Individuals.” The phrase, the board bafflingly claimed, simply shows “solidarity with Palestinians.” The decision stemmed from three Facebook posts that featured the genocidal phrase. The board specifically contended that the posts contained “no language calling for violence or exclusion” and did “not glorify or even refer to Hamas, an organization designated as dangerous by Meta.” The board’s rule left many perplexed given the phrase’s genocidal origins, which some trace to the 1960s. The phrase — which is embedded in the constitution of Hamas, the foreign designated terrorist group behind the Oct. 7 attack on the nation of Israel — calls for the establishment of a Palestinian state from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, essentially advocating for the destruction of the Jewish state. Critics, including Sen. John Fetterman (D-PA), swiftly denounced the board’s refusal to apply its standards against hate speech concerning the infamous phrase. “F*ck that,” Fetterman commented on X. “It’s blatant antisemitic hate speech calling for the elimination of Israel from the map.” MRC Free Speech America Vice President Dan Schneider had a different take. He said, “The oversight board got this wrong in two different ways. First, the phrase used by anti-Israel terrorists is obviously hateful. There’s no getting around that genocide is motivated by the most vile kind of hate.”  Schneider, who is Jewish, continued, “But the board incorrectly assumes that speech opposing sex-change operations for minors is also hateful. The right answer about when to allow the free expression of ideas is to allow and encourage more of it. Censoring some political discussions but allowing others never turns out well.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand that Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency, clarity on hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored, contact us using CensorTrack’s contact form, and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Trump-loathing liberals were delighted when New York Times publisher Arthur Gregg Sulzberger wrote a long op-ed in The Washington Post attacking Donald Trump as a threat to press freedom. Start with Sulzberger-coddling Brian Stelter:  NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger is out with a crucial new essay about risks to press freedom. Read it: https://t.co/ezBi68doY7 pic.twitter.com/31eN7zHtfL — Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) September 5, 2024 The headline? How the quiet war against press freedom could come to America Some foreign leaders have ruthlessly curtailed journalism. U.S. politicians could draw from their playbook. Sulzberger compared Trump to the leaders of Hungary, India, and Brazil.  "As they seek a return to the White House, former president Donald Trump and his allies have declared their intention to increase their attacks on a press he has long derided as “the enemy of the people," he wrote. This article essentially argues Trump is the enemy of the people, a consistent leftist-media theme. He then quotes from Trump making threats of having them "scrutinized." Sulzberger and others equate scrutiny or criticism of the press with somehow undercutting freedom of the press. So using your First Amendment right to say "The New York Times is a leftist rag" is somehow against the First Amendment. Sulzberger preposterously claimed he believes in "independent journalism," recounting the words of his great-great grandfather Adolph Ochs saying the times would report "without fear or favor." Anyone who thinks the Times doesn't favor the Left isn't reading the Times. He proclaimed:  As someone who strongly believes in the foundational importance of journalistic independence, I have no interest in wading into politics. I disagree with those who have suggested that the risk Trump poses to the free press is so high that news organizations such as mine should cast aside neutrality and directly oppose his reelection. It is beyond shortsighted to give up journalistic independence out of fear that it might later be taken away. Okay, so "I have no interest in wading into politics, but this Trump guy is a danger to freedom of speech." So that would suggest "don't vote for Trump." The Times has officially opposed Trump. They've endorsed every Democratic nominee for president since JFK in 1960. That's "neutrality" and "independent journalism" for you. So what about Biden and Harris? Biden has never granted an interview to Sulzberger's paper since he became president. Yeah, that's unfortunate, Sulzberger says, but he's for the free press in his rhetoric, if not his behavior:  Every president since the country’s founding has complained about the pesky questions of reporters who seek to keep the public informed. This includes President Joe Biden, who spoke glowingly about the importance of the free press but whose systematic avoidance of unscripted encounters with independent journalists has defied long-standing precedent and allowed him to evade questions about his age and fitness. But "Trump stands out for his aggressive and sustained efforts to undermine the free press." Trump operates on a transactional basis: You come after me, I come after you. But the press arrogantly proclaim themselves to be the most essential players in democracy, even as they seek to rig every election with their biased output. PS: Sulzberger knows his paper emptied a dump truck or two on the Hunter Biden laptop. As I wrote shortly after the 2020 election:  Add the spin in The New York Times front-page headline the Sunday before Election Day: "Foiled Once, Giuliani's Team Peddles More Dirt." There were three photographs in the story: one of President Donald Trump's lawyer Rudy Giuliani, one of former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and one of Chinese billionaire Guo Wengui. The story focused much more on their machinations than on Hunter's. One could just as easily demonize the daily output of The Times in a similar way by referencing The Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger in a headline: "Foiled in 2016, Sulzberger's Team Peddles More Dirt on the Trumps."

Democratic vice presidential candidate Tim Walz was subpoenaed for records related to a $250 million alleged fraud scheme during the pandemic. The massive fraud scheme involved funds being paid out to a nonprofit called "Feeding Our Future" that claimed to be set up to help feed poor children in Minnesota but instead apparently stole millions to enrich the plotters. 'The Committee today is proceeding with a subpoena to compel responses.' House Education and Workforce Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-N.C.) says that Walz, who is the governor of Minnesota, was unresponsive to a request for information about the alleged scam. Although some documents have been produced for the committee, Foxx says that they were not produced in a timely matter nor did they answer her questions about Walz's oversight of the program. A U.S. attorney charged 70 people in relation to the scam in 2022, and to date, five individuals have been convicted of fraud. Others are awaiting trial on charges including bribery, wire fraud, conspiracy, and money laundering. Officials say that the stolen money was used to buy real estate, luxury cars, and other illegal purchases. An audit found that Minnesota's Department of Education failed to catch warning signs of fraud from the nonprofit and didn't force organizers to meet program requirements. “After MDE, under Governor Walz, failed to respond to previous attempts by the Committee to garner information necessary to uncover how the Governor and the USDA allowed such fraud to occur, the Committee today is proceeding with a subpoena to compel responses,” wrote Foxx. "This was an appalling abuse of a federal COVID-era program," read a statement from a Walz spokesperson to Axios. The Axios report said that some Republicans are uneasy about the subpoena because of the possibility of political backlash from the appearance of political motivation. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!