News Nosferatu Robert Eggers Wants to Show You a Vampire Never Seen On Screen Before in Nosferatu The goal was to create a vampire completely unlike familiar silver screen figures of old By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on December 2, 2024 Screenshot: Focus Features Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Focus Features Robert Eggers, the director behind The Northman and The Lighthouse, has finally made the Nosferatu film he’s dreamed of since he was a kid. We’ve seen a little of the film so far via trailers, but except for some silhouettes and clawed hands, we haven’t seen much of Nosferatu, played by Bill Skarsgård. In a recent interview with Deadline, however, Eggers shares what inspired him to create the look of Orlock (a.k.a. Nosferatu). “Vampirism and Dracula is the thing that I’ve been thinking about and looking at for a long time,” he said. “I had read Montague Summers [the clergyman scholar who wrote about the occult] as a teenager, and many other authors of vampire lore, but I think, until I set out to make Nosferatu, I was still too contaminated by the cinematic tropes. And so, you’re infusing things you’re reading with cinematic tropes that aren’t there. In doing the research to write this script, I needed to be disciplined to forget what I knew. And then, you start looking at the really early vampire accounts, and you’re like, ‘They’re not even drinking blood, they’re just strangling people, or suffocating people, or f*cking them to death.’ And that was really interesting.” Eggers added that he started by thinking what a dead Transylvanian nobleman would look like, and that he wanted to give a nod to Max Schreck’s makeup design in the classic Nosferatu film. Skarsgård, according to Eggers, was taken aback when he first saw what his costume would be. “Bill sees the sculpt of the bust and he freaks out, and he’s like, ‘That doesn’t look anything like me, this guy didn’t look like me when he was even alive. What the f*ck?’ He wasn’t mean, but he was alarmed,” Eggers said. “And I was like, ‘Well, that’s the point, that you’re totally transforming into somebody else.’ And then, he’s putting the makeup on and he’s like, ‘Ugh, I look like a goblin. This is terrible.’ And then, once they put the hair on, even though the makeup wasn’t totally finished, I saw the first moment when he was like, ‘Okay, this is cool. This is a person.’ I started to see him in the mirror, playing around, trying to do something.” We’ll get to see Skarsgård’s dark performance, which also apparently included some intense vocal training, when Nosferatu premieres in theaters on December 25, 2024.[end-mark] The post Robert Eggers Wants to Show You a Vampire Never Seen On Screen Before in <i>Nosferatu</i> appeared first on Reactor.

WASHINGTON—There’s been a change in Washington since Donald Trump won the election. Democrats have begun to wonder about some of their more extreme messages. The New York Times reported Tuesday on regrets among transgender activists who now question the movement’s confrontational approach—as they realize their overboard rhetoric helped sink Kamala Harris’ bid to win the White House. Transgender activists, for example, called Rep. Seth Moulton, D-Mass., a “Nazi cooperator” after he told the New York Times, “Democrats spend way too much time trying not to offend anyone rather than being brutally honest about the challenges many Americans face. I have two little girls, I don’t want them getting run over on a playing field by a male or formerly male athlete, but as a Democrat I’m supposed to be afraid to say that.” Activists burned the books of J.K. Rowling after the Harry Potter creator declared the obvious—that letting biological males play on female teams is “deeply misogynistic and regressive.” Other critics are accused of being guilty of “genocide.” Here are some overboard tactics that activists, who are seeing the light now, see as undermining the cause, according to the Times: “attempts to police language, such as excising the words ‘male’ and ‘female’ from discussions of pregnancy and abortion; decrying the misidentification of a transgender person as violence; insisting that everyone declare whether they prefer to be referred to as he, she, or other pronouns.” At a 2022 event, Harris announced that her pronouns were “she and her.” In 2024, Team Trump responded: “Kamala is for they/them. President Trump is for you.” It’s ironic how activists who start out as champions of tolerance often turn into the most intolerant people in the arena. But I don’t think the big issue is language; I think it’s the numbers and the eruption of young people who are diagnosed with gender dysphoria. As Reuters reported, diagnoses for gender dysphoria for children aged 6 to 17 nearly tripled from 2017 to 2021. De-transitioned activists like Chloe Cole give a mournful testimony to the damage done to their bodies. “When I was 12 years old, doctors led me to believe that I was transgender,” Cole noted in remarks she posted on X. “I was told that puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries were my only options. They were wrong. Now I suffer from irreversible changes to my body and mind that I will live with for the rest of my life.” Cole then endorsed Trump after arguing that Harris pushed children into unnecessary transgender procedures. I have a lot of empathy for transgender individuals. I used to believe that no one would choose to be transgender. But in the last couple of years, I’ve seen a world in which common sense took a holiday and health care professionals at times nudged confused children into treatments that were not right for them. It was a political hysteria—and somehow Biden, Harris, and other top Democrats didn’t see the damage their agenda caused. But Trump did. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM The post Transgender Activists Look in the Mirror and See a Movement That Helped Defeat Kamala Harris appeared first on The Daily Signal.

President Joe Biden just tacitly acknowledged what conservatives have long suspected—that Hunter Biden may be guilty of far more than just lying on a gun-registration form and cheating on his taxes. On Sunday, Biden issued a “full and unconditional pardon” to his son for “those offenses against the United States which he has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from Jan. 1, 2014, through Dec. 1, 2024, including but not limited to all offenses charged or prosecuted” by the prosecutors in Delaware and California. This came just days before Hunter was to face sentencing for multiple felony convictions on gun and tax charges. The timeline raises important questions because it extends far beyond the scope of both the gun and tax prosecutions. The gun charges trace back to Hunter Biden’s claim in May 2018, when filling out a gun-registration form, that he was not addicted to drugs. The tax charges trace back to the younger Biden’s failure to pay taxes and various acts to avoid tax assessments beginning in 2016 and lasting through 2019. Why begin the pardon two years predating anything for which the son had been charged? The answer is obvious: Joe Biden either suspects that his son will face charges for something between 2014 and 2016 or he knows that some of his son’s activities during that period were not exactly aboveboard. So, what was Hunter Biden doing in 2014? Joining the board of the Ukrainian gas firm Burisma. Burisma As Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute, first exposed in his 2018 book “Secret Empires,” Hunter Biden joined the board of Burisma despite the fact that his experience in the energy industry was considerably lacking. (Read: nonexistent.) According to Reuters, sources with knowledge of Hunter Biden’s work on the board of Burisma, which began in June 2014 and lasted until April 2019, said the younger Biden gave the company advice on legal issues, corporate finance, and strategy. They said he never visited Ukraine for company business during that time, and his presence on the board did not protect the firm from its most serious challenge: criminal investigations into Burisma’s owner, Mykola Zlochevsky. Zlochevsky, a former Ukrainian minister of ecology and natural resources, faced allegations of tax violations, money laundering, and licenses given to Burisma while he served as a governmental minister. Zlochevsky remains a wanted man in Ukraine after he allegedly attempted to bribe Ukrainian authorities to drop the investigations. It seems Hunter Biden’s primary qualification for his job was none other than his last name—a last name that carried tremendous clout when then-President Barack Obama had appointed his vice president as point man on Ukraine. Last year, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released an unclassified FBI form quoting Zlochevsky as suggesting that Hunter Biden cost $5 million and Joe Biden cost another $5 million. Joe Biden further muddied the waters in 2017 by claiming that he threatened then-Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko in March 2016 that the Obama administration would pull $1 billion in U.S. loan guarantees if the country didn’t immediately fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. Shokin had been investigating Burisma for corruption at the time. It seems Biden’s bluster about getting Shokin fired in six hours was baseless. Sources told investigative journalist John Solomon that the U.S. applied pressure to fire Shokin over several months in late 2015 and early 2016. Ukrainian and U.S. officials had criticized Shokin for failing to bring enough corruption prosecutions. President Donald Trump took Biden’s bluster seriously, and asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a phone call for more information about the Shokin ouster. The then-Democrat-majority House impeached Trump over this phone call in 2019. Many commenters have dismissed as a conspiracy theory any suggestion that Hunter Biden played a role in Shokin’s ouster, and there seems to be no direct evidence he did so. Yet Joe Biden’s 2017 stem-winder about firing Shokin reveals that this incident was personally important to the former vice president, and the pardon raises further questions about it. China The Jan. 1, 2014, date also roughly coincides with the beginning of Hunter Biden’s business dealings in China. The younger Biden and his business partner, Chris Heinz (the stepson of then-Secretary of State John Kerry), had launched a firm called Rosemont Capital in 2009. The firm aimed “to strike profitable deals overseas with foreign governments and officials with whom the U.S. government was negotiating,” according to Schweizer’s book. When then-Vice President Biden went to China in December 2013 amid Beijing’s aggression in the South China Sea, Hunter traveled with him. Hunter negotiated a major deal between Rosemont Seneca Partners (an arm of Rosemont Capital) and the Chinese government-owned Bank of China. As Joe Biden discussed China’s trade with the U.S., his son was negotiating a business deal. Ten days after the Bidens visited China, the Bank of China—which provides capital for the Chinese Communist Party’s statecraft—created an investment fund with Rosemont Seneca called Bohai Harvest RST (BHR). “In short, the Chinese government was literally funding a business that it co-owned along with the sons of two of America’s most powerful decision makers,” Schweizer explains. In July 2014, Kerry visited China. He claimed that “China and the United States represent the greatest economic alliance trading partnership in the history of humankind.” Schweizer recounts that at the same time, a former subsidiary of the Chinese government, Gemini Investments, sought to acquire Rosemont Realty, another branch of the Rosemont Capital tree run by Hunter Biden, Chris Heinz, and their business partner, Devon Archer. According to Schweizer, Gemini Investments has multiple ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The company’s director, Li Ming, served for several terms as a member of the party’s elite conference, and the company’s parent company, Sino-Ocean Land, originated from the China Ocean Shipping Company (COSCO). COSCO has close ties with the Communist Party and assists the Chinese navy. Gemini Investments also purchased the Rosemont Opportunities Fund II, another Rosemont Seneca arm, for $34 million in December 2014. In May 2015, Kerry visited China again. That August, Rosemont Realty announced that Gemini Investments was buying a 75% stake in the company, including a $3 billion commitment from the Chinese. Last year, Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., released bank records showing that Owasco PC, which Hunter Biden set up as a business entity, sent direct monthly payments to Joe Biden. Owasco has links to the Chinese energy company CEFC, where Hunter Biden served as a partner. Unanswered Questions An NBC News analysis of the Hunter Biden laptop found that Biden’s surviving son and his company brought in about $11 million through his roles with Burisma and his work with a Chinese businessman now accused of fraud. President Biden has repeatedly denied ever speaking with his son about his foreign business dealings, but he has also described his relationship with his son as very close, and a former business partner claimed Hunter Biden threatened to put his father on the phone when negotiating with a foreign business partner. Joe Biden could have been protecting his son with this overbroad pardon, but he could also have been protecting himself. Questions about Hunter Biden’s business deals necessarily involve his father’s influence, and the father has every motive to want to see his son get rich. Did business concerns play any role in Biden’s negotiations with foreign countries? Biden said he didn’t discuss the business dealings with Hunter, but he also promised he wouldn’t pardon his son. Biden’s word isn’t exactly gold there. Are any of Hunter Biden’s foreign business deals still paying dividends today? If not, why did the pardon extend up to Dec. 1, 2024? President Biden justified the pardon by claiming that his son suffered from “selective” prosecution. He noted that the prosecutions came “only after several of my political opponents in Congress instigated them to attack me and oppose my election.” He said that the plea deal that the Justice Department negotiated with Hunter would have been “a fair, reasonable resolution of Hunter’s cases.” Yet the actual truth is the opposite. Two career IRS employees testified that Hunter Biden received favorable treatment due to his father’s position. The plea deal fell apart in court because a federal judge looked closely at it, and found it “atypical” and “not straightforward.” The deal would have excused Hunter from any and all criminal responsibility for any of the crimes charged against him, in that case or any other. Sound familiar? Biden’s pardon seems to be yet another attempt to brush all potential scandal under the rug. The facts remain that Hunter Biden raked in millions of dollars in foreign business deals negotiated while Joe Biden influenced U.S. policy in Ukraine and China. It remains fair to ask questions about this, even though our ostensible betters in the press and in the Democratic Party loudly condemn those questions as conspiratorial. If Joe Biden has his way, the American people may never know the full extent of this corruption. The post Joe Biden’s 11-Year Pardon for Hunter Raises Important Questions About Ukraine, China Corruption appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Joe Biden Just Razed the Democrats' Moral High Ground

In Steven Spielberg’s 1993 adaption of Michael Crichton’s popular novel “Jurassic Park,” there’s a scene in which Muldoon, the game warden, explains to the group that the velociraptors understand their caged predicament as a problem to be solved. “They were testing the fences for weaknesses systematically,” he says, as the group peers anxiously into the pen. So was McAdams really praying in earnest to the mythical snake-haired goddess you probably learned about in eighth-grade English? Of course, later in the film, when the park’s security system is shut down, the raptors do manage to escape their cage, leading to Muldoon’s bloody death. I bring this up because it reminds me of what just happened in Tulsa, Oklahoma, earlier this month. The Demon Star On November 20, an unremarkable woman named Ms. McAdams approached the podium at a Tulsa city council meeting. She was invited there to open the meeting with a prayer. And pray she did, but not to the God whom the state of Oklahoma recently decided to reinstate in its public school system by including the Bible in American history studies. Ms. McAdams prayed to Medusa. Introducing herself as a “priestess of the goddess,” she recited the following invocation. I invoke the Gorgonea, champions of equality and sacred rage. I call to Medusa, monstrous hero of the oppressed and abused. I open the eye of Medusa, the stare that petrifies injustice. I call upon the serpent that rises from this land to face the stars, the movement of wisdom unbound. May these leaders find within themselves the embodied divine, the sacred essence of the spark of the universe and the breath of the Awen. Place in the hands of these leaders the sacred work of protecting the sovereignty and autonomy of all our people. Gorgon goddess, make them ready and willing to be champions for all in this city, not just those in power. Shine a light for them that they may walk the path of justice protected and prepared, illuminating the darkness. Endow them with the fire of courage, the waters of compassion, the air of truth, and the strength of the earth itself. As above, so below; as within, so without; as the universe, so the soul. May there be peace among you all, and so it is. Why Medusa? McAdams opens by invoking the “Gorgonea,” a group of stars that make up part of the northern constellation Persesus. Consisting of four stars, the Gorgonea represents Medusa’s severed head. The brightest star among the four is named Algol — the “Demon Star.” According to the myth, of which there are several versions, Medusa was once a beautiful priestess who was turned into a snake-haired gorgon by Athena after she was raped by Poseidon in Athena’s temple. From that point forward, men (there’s no record of women) who gazed upon her would be turned into stone. The hero Perseus was sent to kill Medusa. Using a mirrored shield, Perseus was able to avoid her stony gaze and behead her. However, her severed head maintained its powers and proved to be a valuable weapon. So was McAdams really praying in earnest to the mythical snake-haired goddess you probably learned about in eighth-grade English? Yes and no. “Many Christians equate any reference to snakes or serpents directly with Satan, but I am referencing the serpents that makeup [sic] Medusa's hair. This is classical mythology and before Christianity, snakes were ancient symbols of feminine divinity, healing, and transformation," McAdams reportedly wrote in a Facebook post after her prayer sparked immediate backlash. So in a sense, yes, McAdams was really praying to the serpentine Medusa from Greek lore. However, those of us who know the truth understand that there is no snake-haired goddess dwelling among the stars who can assist the city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, in its battle for “equality” and “justice.” There is another serpent who could and would trick people into carrying out his sinister will under the guise of empathy and empowerment, but we’ll get to him in a minute. McAdams is an occult priestess, meaning she serves a specific deity — in this case, the goddess Medusa. Theoretically, all rites and rituals she performs are aligned with the will of Medusa. To do this, she must be deeply connected to what the occult calls “the otherworld” or “the spirit realm.” Modern priestesses are specifically concerned with raising consciousness and activating humans to carry out the will of the deity they serve. Notice how McAdams asks Medusa to inspire the city council members to act on behalf of certain “humanitarian” causes. During my research, I was surprised to discover that McAdams’ worship of Medusa as a powerful goddess of femininity is very common among occultists. They write and speak about her as if she is real and can be called upon for help and guidance. Many report that Medusa appears to them in dreams; others find that snakes seek them out. This is how they know that Medusa is calling to them. As I was reading, I came across multiple sources that instructed readers on how to “work with her.” It involves casting hexes on your abusers (remember: Medusa was raped), learning water magic and creating altars of seashells, coral, driftwood, and other oceanic items (Medusa was a sea deity), presenting blood sacrifices in the form of menstrual blood (Medusa is associated with feminine energy and power), and — surprise, surprise — collecting snake-related items, such as shed skin, amulets, etc. Those who engage in these types of rituals all report the same thing: Medusa will come. I believe them. I just don’t call her by that name. Beyond the Gorgon If it isn’t obvious already, Ms. McAdams and those like her are worshipping and carrying out the will of Satan — the shape-shifter who probably does appear or call to them in the form of a snake-haired goddess falsely promising righteous revenge on the male oppressors of society and deliverance for their female victims. And for the record, it doesn’t have to be Medusa. The occult worships many different deities and supernatural entities with names you’re probably familiar with. They’re all satanic. McAdams' prayer is a fusion of demonic and progressive ideologies, which are one and the same, as progressivism inverts biblical truth. She positions herself as all modern liberals do — a champion for the oppressed, in this case for women. That’s why she specifically invokes Medusa, a goddess of feminine power and the ideal figurehead for the radical feminist movement that lauds abortion and trans inclusivity but despises masculinity and the nuclear family — and wraps these ideas in deceptive platitudes of equality and freedom so that they’re widely appealing. Satan loves the modern feminist for these reasons. Breaches in the fence Like the raptors testing the security of the fences that prevent them from devouring the park tourists, Satan and his demonic legions are constantly testing the boundaries that have been erected to keep evil at bay. Their intention is also to devour. A decade ago, in Town of Greece vs. Galloway, the Supreme Court ruled that prayer before a legislative session was constitutional, so long as the opportunity was available to all faiths. I’m not surprised that Satan saw this as a chink in the fence. I’m also not surprised that we’re seeing him utilize this opening now, given Oklahoma’s recent decision to bring the Bible back into its classrooms. Further, Satan’s message is far more likely to land in this toxically empathetic society that rewards radicalism and fringe groups while demonizing anything that would fall under a Christian worldview. But Oklahoma is not the first place the demonic has brazenly shown its ugly face to the public. Last December, the Satanic Temple erected a statue of the demon Baphomet in the Iowa Capitol building in the name of religious freedom. In fact, there are multiple examples of the Satanic Temple worming its way into the political arena. These incidents are becoming more frequent as society’s “fences” become weaker and weaker. I hope we will not write off McAdams’ prayer as the dismissable ravings of a middle-aged woman who thinks Medusa is real. Medusa is real. His name is Satan.

Brexiteer Nigel Farage was de-banked last year for political reasons. While acknowledging he was a commercially viable customer, Coutts bank, part of the NatWest Group, dropped the British politician because of his comparison of Black Lives Matter rioters to the Taliban; his criticism of climate alarmism and his suggestion that "net zero is net stupid"; his "endorsements of Donald Trump"; and other expressions thought unpalatable by the powers that be. Although Britain has done its best in recent months to clamp down on perceived wrong think, including silent prayer, it is hardly exceptional when it comes to the practice of de-banking. Marc Andreessen, co-founder of Netscape and general partner at the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, recently told Joe Rogan that scores of tech founders have been de-banked under the Biden administration through a coordinated and politically motivated effort he referred to as "Operation Choke Point 2.0," an apparent update on a scandalous Obama Department of Justice initiative. In the days since the interview, numerous crypto entrepreneurs have gone online with their own de-banking tales. The 'wrong politics' After explaining that "de-banking is when you, as either a person or your company, are literally kicked out of the banking system," Andreessen told Rogan that it has hit close to home — his business partner's father was de-banked. When asked why David Horowitz, a critic of Islamic and leftist extremism, would have been de-banked, Andreessen said, "For having the wrong politics. For saying unacceptable things." "I mean, David Horowitz is, you know — he's pro-Trump," said Andreessen. "I mean, he's said all kinds of things. You know, he's been very anti-Islamic terrorism. He's been very worried about immigration, all these things." Other individuals and groups who have been de-banked in recent years were similarly on the right, which may explain why the Southern Poverty Law Center has defended the practice. 'There's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you.' In September 2023, Bank of America de-banked John Eastman, founding director of the Claremont Institute's Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and one of the attorneys also targeted by the 65 Project for his work with President-elect Donald Trump. Two months later, USAAA Federal Saving Bank similarly de-banked him. Former Nebraska state Treasurer John Murante (R) noted in an op-ed last year that Chase had de-banked multiple individuals and organizations — including the Arkansas Family Council, Defense of Liberty, and retired general Michael Flynn Jr. — over "mainstream American views." Months after JPMorgan Chase canceled the checking account for former Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback's faith-based nonprofit National Committee for Religious Freedom, Brownback reportedly received an email from Chase indicating that he was a "politically exposed person." "Under current banking regulations, after all the reforms of the last 20 years, there's now a category called a 'politically exposed person,' PEP," Andreessen told Rogan. "You are required by financial regulators to kick them off, to kick them out of your bank. You're not allowed to have them." According to a 2021 Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council document, the "term PEP is commonly used in the financial industry to refer to foreign individuals who are or have been entrusted with a prominent public function, as well as to their immediate family members and close associates." The term has also been applied to domestic individuals similarly entrusted with prominent public functions. The Financial Action Task Force on Money Laundering, an international outfit hosted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, noted in its own definition that due to their position and influence, many PEPs "are in positions that potentially can be abused for the purpose of committing money laundering offences and related predicate offenses, including corruption and bribery, as well as conducting activity related to terrorist financing." Andreessen suggested that the de-banking of domestic PEPs tends to go only one way, noting, "I have not heard of a single instance of anyone on the left getting de-banked." A private-public scheme The tech entrepreneur explained that this politically unidirectional mechanism is wielded by a combination of governmental and private forces. "There's a constitutional amendment that says the government can't restrict your speech, but there's no constitutional amendment that says the government can't de-bank you," said Andreessen. The government leans on private banking institutions to do its dirty work, which gives it the benefit of distance, such that "the government gets to say, 'We didn't do it. It was the private company that did it, and of course, JPMorgan can decide who they want to have as customers.'" Andreessen characterized the political persecution scheme as a "privatized sanctions regime that lets bureaucrats do to American citizens the same thing that we do to Iran: Just kick you out of the financial system." According to Andreessen, this "regime" has been targeting numerous crypto entrepreneurs since President Joe Biden took office. 'It's just raw administrative power.' "This has been happening to a lot of the fin-tech entrepreneurs, anybody trying to start any kind of new banking service, because they're trying to protect the big banks," said Andreessen. "This has been happening, by the way, also in legal fields of economic activity that they don't like." Thanks, Obama Andreessen suggested that this coordinated effort to crush perceived political adversaries through monetary pressures kicked off in earnest "about 15 years ago with this thing called Operation Choke Point." Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel and senior vice president of corporate engagement at the Alliance Defending Freedom, told members of the Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government in March: In the now infamous Operation Choke Point, President Obama's DOJ and FDIC spearheaded a multi-agency initiative to target legal industries like firearms dealers, tobacco sellers, dating services, coin dealers, and payday lenders. After a group of payday lenders sued the FDIC, litigation filings and subsequent federal oversight offered a rare look into the world of financial regulation. The FDIC expanded "reputational risk" to include "any negative publicity involving the third party." It then worked in conjunction with the DOJ and other agencies to pressure financial institutions to deny service to disfavored industries. The DOJ issued over 60 subpoenas; the FDIC and OCC issued related guidance on the reputation risk presented by payment processing for these entities; and the FDIC listed the above businesses as "high-risk businesses," all with the intent to cut off banking access to these industries. Andreessen suggested that the Biden administration extended the concept to apply to political opponents as well as to crypto and tech entrepreneurs. "Choke Point 2.0 is primarily against their political enemies and then to their disfavored tech startups," said Andreessen. "And it's hit the tech world hard. We've had like 30 founders de-banked in the last four years." According to the tech entrepreneur, those he knows who have been de-banked effectively had to reinvent themselves or get creative with where they put their money to "try to get away from the eye of Sauron." Tyler Winklevoss, co-founder of Gemini, noted after Elon Musk highlighted Andreessen's comments that he was de-banked and suggested that there have likely been far more than 30 individuals de-banked in the burgeoning industry. "Totally unlawful, evil behavior," said Winklevoss. Brian Armstrong, co-founder and CEO of Coinbase, responded to Andreessen's claims, noting, "Can confirm this is true. It was one one of the most unethical and un-American things that happened in the Biden administration, and my guess is we'll find Elizabeth Warren's fingerprints all over it (Biden himself was probably unaware). We're still collecting documents via FOIA requests, so hopefully the full story emerges of who was involved and whether they broke any laws." Konstantin Richter, CEO of Blockdaemon, claimed that Bank of America similarly cut his organization loose. The nature of de-banking leaves victims with few or no means to seek remedy. "You can't go sue a regulator to fix this. It's not through any kind of court judgment. It's just raw power. It's just raw administrative power," said Andreessen. "It's the government or politicians just deciding that things are going to be a certain way, and then they just apply pressure until they get it." To make matters worse, "There are no fingerprints," said Andreessen. Those behind the de-banking are virtually untouchable. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Liberal host Bill Maher had far-left celebrity Jane Fonda on his show and spent much of his time explaining to her the existence of far-left policies that had pushed so many Americans to vote for Republicans. Fonda blamed criticism of the far left on people like Maher but then appeared completely ignorant of the reasons for the criticism. Maher offered her some examples in the contentious interview. 'That shows where your politics are. That's not where mine are.' "The NAACP last year issued a travel advisory," Maher explained. "You know where they issued a travel advisory for black people not to go? Florida. Every day there's stories like that, where that just makes people roll their eyes and go, 'Are you people nuts?' Even if they don't matter that much, I don't think one person listened to this and thought, 'I can't go to Florida.' But they just suggest something to the average person." He went on to offer another example of transgender activists demanding that all of society affirm that men can get pregnant. "Do you really think men can get pregnant? You know, that kind of stuff. I understand that a trans [man] can get pregnant. That's different from a man getting pregnant," he continued. "And the way they insist on blurring that line, as if that's some sort of reasonable social cause, as opposed to just being for having full rights, respect, and protection for trans people. We get that!" "So I've never heard about men getting pregnant. I've never heard about this argument. It must be some part of what you call the 'far left' that is so minuscule that I —" Fonda interjected. "No, Jane, it's not minuscule, and I'm sorry, you can't throw this back on us," he interrupted. Maher also had to explain why many consider California over-regulated. He gave her an example from his own home, where he said that he was required to have three separate inspections when he tried to change his garage door. "You've never heard that California is over-taxed and over-regulated? That we are a one-party state where there's no checks on that sort of extreme leftism?" Maher asked her. "I don't for a minute consider California a state that is extreme leftist," she scoffed. "Not at all. Not in any way.""Well, that shows where your politics are," he said. "That's not where mine are." Fonda is famous for infuriating patriotic Americans when she posed with communist forces during the war in Vietnam in opposition to the U.S. military operation. She has since admitted that it was a mistake to do so but has continued supporting far-left causes and policies. The entire interview can be viewed on the YouTube channel for the Maher show. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Our military was not built for urban renewal projects in Kabul or to referee Sunni versus Shia conflicts in Baghdad. Its primary purpose is to protect our country from foreign invaders. If the military cannot be deployed to address the millions of people strategically funneled into the country by ruthless drug cartels — cartels that are killing hundreds of thousands of Americans with fentanyl — then what purpose does it serve? The fact that these individuals do not remain near the border does not transform mass removals into a domestic law enforcement issue; it remains a matter of national defense. Many in the media shout, “Posse comitatus!” as if invoking it magically prohibits the military from addressing the invasion, attempting to sound legally astute. Some Republicans, such as libertarian-leaning Rand Paul of Kentucky, express concern over the “optics” of using the military for mass deportations. While cutting off employment and benefit incentives would likely eliminate the need for mass deportations by encouraging many to leave on their own, we cannot legally preclude the military’s use based on a flawed interpretation of the law. Prudence or 'optics' should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve. Ulysses S. Grant signed the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act to prevent the military from enforcing domestic Reconstruction-era laws against American citizens in the South without explicit authorization from Congress. But repelling an invasion at the border — or within the nation’s interior — is precisely the kind of mission our founders envisioned for the military. Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution obliges the federal government to protect states against invasion. We owe this to border states like Arizona and Texas, as well as every state impacted by illegal migration. Article IV, Section 4 should serve as the constitutional exception to the Posse Comitatus Act prohibition on military enforcement. The Constitution itself expressly authorizes federal action to secure the nation from invasion, making this a legitimate use of the military in the face of an ongoing crisis. Even without the constitutional provision, the law itself only prohibits the military from enforcing domestic laws targeting Americans, such as tax laws or traffic regulations, under the direction of local marshals. This prohibition stems from the term “posse comitatus,” which means “the power of the county.” The 1878 law prevents the military from acting as reinforcements to enforce local laws under the authority of a county sheriff. The act responded to Attorney General Caleb Cushing’s 1854 opinion during the “Bleeding Kansas” conflict, which held that “every person in the district or county above the age of fifteen years,” including “militia, soldiers, marines,” was part of the posse comitatus and subject to the sheriff or marshal’s commands. As the Congressional Research Service notes, Congress was alarmed by this precedent even before 1878 and attempted to restrict it through an Army appropriations bill, prohibiting the use of the military to enforce territorial law in Kansas. Under Trump’s proposed plan, however, the military would focus solely on those who invaded the country and enforce national sovereignty laws. Just as states can declare an invasion, the federal government has the authority to treat the 10-million-man border incursion as an invasion. When gangs like Tren de Aragua operate across half the states, their numbers exceed the size of any force America’s founders envisioned threatening the nation during the Constitution’s adoption. Using the military in this context is entirely legitimate. Labeling it “immigration law” does not transform it into a domestic territorial matter outside the scope of national defense. During “Operation Wetback,” President Eisenhower deported up to 1.3 million illegal aliens using the U.S. military, including National Guardsmen operating under Title 10 federal orders. The operation was completed within a few months, and no court challenges were filed on the grounds of violating the Posse Comitatus Act. At the time, cartels and transnational gangs posed a far lesser national defense threat than they do today. The absence of legal challenges stemmed from the fact that deportation is not equivalent to a law enforcement action depriving someone of life, liberty, or property — protections covered under the 1878 act. As the Supreme Court ruled in Fong Yue Ting v. United States (1893): The order of deportation is not a punishment for crime. It is not a "banishment," in the sense in which that word is often applied to the expulsion of a citizen from his country by way of punishment. It is but a method of enforcing the return to his own country of an alien who has not complied with the conditions upon the performance of which the government of the nation, acting within its constitutional authority and through the proper departments, has determined that his continuing to reside here shall depend. He has not, therefore, been deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process or law, and the provisions of the Constitution securing the right of trial by jury and prohibiting unreasonable searches and seizures and cruel and unusual punishments have no application. In short, actions not governed by the laws of due process are not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act’s limitations on military use. If the goal were to prosecute and imprison illegal aliens indefinitely, that would constitute a domestic law enforcement action. However, removing individuals who invaded national sovereignty by escorting them across the international border falls squarely within the military’s legal authority. A large military force going house to house to deport illegal aliens likely won’t be necessary. Cutting off incentives such as employment, identity theft opportunities, welfare benefits, and K-12 education would prompt most to leave voluntarily. State enforcement of laws, combined with state guard units operating under Title 32 (and not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act), in red states would ensure that any encounter with the state leads to removal. This approach would deter illegal immigration, limiting active deportation efforts to targeting criminal aliens. In fact, some illegal immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, are already leaving in anticipation of Trump taking office. Prudence or “optics” should not mislead us into spreading misinformation about the legal authority we must preserve. This is about protecting territorial sovereignty — the very purpose for which America’s founders envisioned a standing army — far more than defending the fragmented territories of warring Islamic capitals.

Dick Durbin Finds the Bubble of Denial More Comforting Than Admitting Trump Can Fire an FBI Director

Ric Grenell Just Needs 3 Words to Drop Adam Schiff on His Pointy Little HEAD for Whining About Kash Patel