'It was clear that they really love what we do'

No arrests were made

News The Corsair Code Chris Hemsworth to Star in Film Adaptation of “The Corsair Code” The project is being adapted from a short story written by the screenwriter for The Adam Project. By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on July 24, 2024 Screenshot: Warner Bros. Comment 0 Share New Share Screenshot: Warner Bros. Jonathan Tropper, the scribe behind Sean Levy’s The Adam Project and the director’s upcoming Star Wars film, also writes short stories from time to time. And according to Deadline, he sold one of those stories, a sci-fi mystery adventure called “The Corsair Code,” to Apple Wild State, a production company run by actor Chris Hemsworth and his business partner, Ben Grayson. We don’t have details on Tropper’s tale other than it’s “high-octane” and falls in the “sci-fi mystery adventure” camp. A corsair, for those not up on archaic pirate terms, is a name for a pirate ship and/or a privateer (aka a nation-backed pirate), both of which were all the rage a few hundred years ago. Will Hemsworth, who is on board to star in the film as well as produce, be a sci-fi version of a corsair? Or will he need to crack a code to find a certain corsair’s buried treasure? Or does the upcoming feature involve none of these things, meaning the title reveals truly nothing about the story’s contents? We’ll likely have to wait a bit to get answers to the questions above. The project is still very much in its early days, so no news yet on who will co-star with Hemsworth, who you can see in Furiosa (pictured above) or the Thor film of your choice. We also don’t know when the movie will go into production, much less when it will make its way to your eyeballs via Apple TV+. [end-mark] The post Chris Hemsworth to Star in Film Adaptation of “The Corsair Code” appeared first on Reactor.

The bitter Sunday afternoon announcement that President Joe Biden would end his reelection bid spurred hours of live network television coverage. With all that time to talk, it was guaranteed that the TV newsers would start worrying out loud about a new Kamala Harris presidential campaign. CBS News really demonstrated the protective liberal urges. The news wasn’t two hours old before Robert Costa warned that the Republican attacks were going to be “rough-and-tumble like we’ve never seen it.” Costa received a text from Donald Trump Jr. “already attacking Vice President Harris, saying she owns the entire policy of President Biden, [is] even more liberal, and he’s saying she’s not competent!” Stop. What in that statement is rougher than we’ve ever seen? The Democrats and their staunch media allies compare Donald Trump to Hitler and other mass-murdering dictators. They explicitly call him an “existential threat” to democracy. How is it then “rough” to say Harris is ultraliberal and incompetent? The impression you get is that attacking Harris is exponentially worse because she’s a “woman of color.” She’s automatically “historic,” which apparently means “beyond criticism.” “CBS Evening News” anchor Norah O’Donnell joined in: “I remember the 2020 Republican National Convention, not the one we had last week, but in 2020 and the attacks against Kamala Harris then were very, very personal.” But I can’t find any Harris attacks in the 2020 speeches of Trump or Mike Pence or Nikki Haley or even Donald Trump Jr., let alone a “personal” attack. “Face the Nation” host Margaret Brennan then uncorked this whopper: “I can only imagine that, and a woman at the top of the ticket will take slings and arrows that a male candidate won’t. That’s just the facts and we know it.” Once again, in 2016, journalists such as Carl Bernstein called Trump a “neo-fascist sociopath.” How is a “male candidate” somehow getting it easy? But suggesting Harris makes “word salads” or “cackles” is just beyond the pale! An hour later, O’Donnell repeated the theme, talking about Hillary Clinton and Trump in 2016: “It was personal. He called her nasty, he called her a lot of other words. I wonder whether those same types of attacks would work in 2024? There will be a different dynamic running against a black woman.” Let’s repeat: “Nasty” is less harsh than “authoritarian” or “Hitler.” In her 2016 convention speech, Clinton said Trump didn’t have the temperament to be president: “Donald Trump can’t even handle the rough-and-tumble of a presidential campaign.” Today, CBS feels the need to protect Harris from the slightest rumble. Four hours after Biden withdrew from the race, O’Donnell recounted talking to a top Democratic strategist who said, “They are eager to have Vice President Harris run against, in their words, a convicted rapist.” That could be described as “very, very personal.” It also can be described as false. In a civil trial—with no real requirement of evidence—a jury of New York City Democrats found Trump liable for sexual assault of E. Jean Carroll, but not rape. (Naturally, they didn’t mention that Carroll also claimed in 2019 that she was assaulted by Les Moonves, the longtime CEO at CBS.) O’Donnell said she told this Democrat strategist to recall Trump running against Hillary, and wondered: “How will suburban women in 2024 react to attacks on the first woman of color to lead a party’s ticket?” She’s suggesting it’s political suicide to criticize Harris because of her race and gender. This is coming from journalists, who are supposed to be about accountability and democracy. At every turn, the media make plain they are about damaging Republicans and helping Democrats. COPYRIGHT 2024 CREATORS.COM We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post CBS News Implies Kamala Harris Should Be Exempt From Criticism appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Netanyahu: 'America Has Our Back -- Both Sides of the Aisle'

Since Vice President Kamala Harris was severely lacking in actual accomplishments from her time in the Biden administration, and was now the presumptive Democratic Party nominee for president, the liberal media were frantically trying to gaslight Americans on her abysmal record as President Biden’s border czar and sterilize it. In this effort, media outlets such as ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Time, TIME magazine and Axios have taken to lying about Harris’s role in failing to get the crisis at the border under control. The New York Times was one of the earliest. In an article published on July 17, during the Republican National Convention, titled “Why Republicans Keep Calling Kamala Harris the ‘Border Czar’” reporters Jazmine Ulloa and Nicholas Nehamas huffed, “Republicans at their national convention this week have trained some of their most intense criticism on Vice President Kamala Harris…But perhaps no phrase has been deployed more than this one: ‘border czar.’”     “But Ms. Harris was not, in fact, appointed border czar, nor was she tasked with addressing the broader problems plaguing the border itself,” they falsely suggested. They tried to split hairs by adding: “Rather she was deputized by President Biden with the diplomatic mission of solving the ‘root causes’ of migration from countries like Guatemala, El Salvador and Honduras, tackling the issues that spur people to flee in the first place, like drug violence and lack of economic opportunity.” Axios’s framing was arguably the most ridiculous. In a Wednesday article lamenting how “Harris border confusion haunts her new campaign,” reporter Stef W. Kight proclaimed: “The Trump campaign and Republicans have tagged Harris repeatedly with the ‘border czar’ title — which she never actually had.” She also suggested Harris’s duties didn’t pertain to the border directly and only the “root causes” in Central and South American countries. But Kight’s own reporting contradicts that framing. “President Biden is putting Vice President Harris in charge of addressing the migrant surge at the U.S.-Mexico border, senior administration officials announced on Wednesday,” she reported in an article simply titled: “Biden puts Harris in charge of border crisis.” Axios was majorly bodied on X as the Community Notes called them out for referring to Harris as the “border czar” in their own articles. “The number of unaccompanied minors crossing the border has reached crisis levels. Harris, appointed by Biden as border czar, said she would be looking at the ‘root causes’ that drive migration,” wrote Shawma Chen in 2021. So embarrassing was the shellacking Axios took on social media, that they had to issue an editor’s note on Kight’s denial article, which said: “Editor's note: This article has been updated and clarified to note that Axios was among the news outlets that incorrectly labeled Harris a ‘border czar’ back in 2021.” TIME magazine got in on the action with an article from Vera Bergengruen, brazenly titled: “Kamala Harris Was Never Biden’s ‘Border Czar.’ Here’s What She Really Did.” She lamented the infamous soundbite of Harris telling Guatemalans “do not come,” and decried the border czar title as “a misleading label they applied after she was charged with helming diplomatic efforts to address the root causes of migration from Central America to the U.S.” In June of 2021, CNN senior national correspondent Ed Lavandera repeated the framing of Harris as border czar: “The Vice President is expected to in El Paso in about an hour and a half… and this will be her first visit to the U.S.-Mexico border region since she was appointed as the border czar by President Biden.” Journalists were using this same language as recently as last week. During the ABC News Live coverage of the RNC, anchor Kanya Whitworth remarked that the speakers “were very critical of Kamala Harris, especially in her role as border czar.” Politico’s whining about the border czar label dates back to when Harris was appointed border czar. In fresher gripes about Republicans from over the weekend, they reported: “Despite insisting that she not be made the face of the administration’s border policies, Harris was tasked with stemming migration from Central American countries. That prompted GOP attacks on her as ‘border czar,’ a narrative the White House did little to combat.” Along with: “During the Republican convention last week, many speakers labeled Harris as the “border czar,” since Biden appointed her to take the lead on working with Central America to deter migration at the southern border.” But Politico had no problem with unilaterally labeling then-Vice President Mike Pence the “coronavirus czar.” “In the end, President Donald Trump got a coronavirus czar — without having to call it a czar,” they said at the time. They suggested Trump was “installing a czar-like figure under him.” A czar-like figure without calling it a czar, you say? That sure sounds familiar. But if the liberal media had their way, the fact that Harris was the border czar would be purged the record like an Orwellian nightmare.

When she’s not hosting her own show, Andrea Mitchell doubles as MSNBC’s chief foreign affairs correspondent, and on Wednesday’s Katy Tur Reports, she condemned Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for not being “conciliatory” towards the Iranian-funded protestors who want to see his country destroyed. It sounded like Mitchell had preplanned what she was going to say regardless of what Netanyahu actually said because she declared, “But it was a red meat speech, as you have said. This was—aides have told the White House that this was going to be, and the State Department, this was going to be a conciliatory speech and a moderating speech, a bipartisan speech, Katy. It was anything but.”     In fact, Netanyahu was gracious towards President Joe Biden, thanking him for supporting Israel throughout his career, including after October 7. Facts aside, Mitchell rolled on: He was shouting for much of the speech. He was targeting Iran, but in particular, he was accusing the protesters of not only being funded by Iran, and certainly there is suspicion that some Iranian money has been fomenting the protests here in the U.S., but accusing them of being funded by Iran, standing with terrorists who attacked Israel on October 7 of standing with Hamas basically. He said that literally. So, there was nothing ‘conciliatory’ in this speech. Again, Netanyahu’s source for Iran funding the protestors was the Biden Administration itself, and why should Netanyahu be “conciliatory” with people who spew anti-Semitic blood libel and chant “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”? Democrats demanded Netanyahu wait to attack Rafah, and he listened. They have demanded he not attack Hezbollah in full force, and he has listened. They demanded he not escalate after Iran launched over 300 aerial munitions against Israel, and he listened. To pay Netanyahu back for taking their concerns seriously, several Democrats boycotted Netanyahu’s speech, but for Mitchell, that is still Netanyahu’s fault: Even some of the senators who went out of respect for the office, and the alliance, Senators Murphy, Senator Warnock, they were sitting on their hands. It was an extraordinary moment, more than three dozen boycotting it entirely, including Patty Murray, the third in line of the succession for the presidency, who should have been on the podium behind him. Instead, she was replaced by Senator Ben Cardin, who’s the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. Ultimately, Mitchell’s lamentations bring back memories of an old cartoon with former Secretary of State John Kerry.   This is what you sound like when you call for a ceasefire. What’s amazing is that this cartoon is 10 years old. pic.twitter.com/4sMuN0SSdE — Yael Bar tur ?️ (@yaelbt) October 21, 2023   Here is a transcript for the July 24 show: MSNBC Katy Tur Reports 7/24/2024 3:05 PM ET ANDREA MITCHELL: In fact, the hostage families who were here, some in the gallery, some boycotting it, watching it from nearby, they wanted to hear him accept the deal that's on the table and what they heard instead is first of all, that they’ve suspended Israel's participation in the negotiations until he gets back from the U.S., wanting the outcome of his talks with President Biden to influence whatever happens next, so from their standpoint, they're missing several more days.  But it was a red meat speech, as you have said. This was—aides have told the White House that this was going to be, and the State Department, this was going to be a conciliatory speech and a moderating speech, a bipartisan speech, Katy. It was anything but.  He was shouting for much of the speech. He was targeting Iran, but in particular, he was accusing the protesters of not only being funded by Iran, and certainly there is suspicion that some Iranian money has been fomenting the protests here in the U.S., but accusing them of being funded by Iran, standing with terrorists who attacked Israel on October 7 of standing with Hamas basically. He said that literally. So, there was nothing “conciliatory” in this speech. Even some of the senators who went out of respect for the office, and the alliance, Senators Murphy, Senator Warnock, they were sitting on their hands. It was an extraordinary moment, more than three dozen boycotting it entirely, including Patty Murray, the third in line of the succession for the presidency, who should have been on the podium behind him. Instead, she was replaced by Senator Ben Cardin, who’s the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.

A FedEx driver is accused of stealing a $5,500 French bulldog while making deliveries in North Carolina. Unfortunately, the alleged dog theft has a tragic ending. On July 7, the Harnett County Sheriff's Office received a phone call about a stolen dog.The dog owners reportedly had not seen Tori — their tan and white French bulldog — for days. According to court documents, the French bulldog was valued at $5,500. The family posted flyers on social media about the missing dog and offered a reward. The body of the missing dog allegedly was found July 10 on the side of a road in Lillington. The sheriff's office on July 11 issued an arrest warrant for 44-year-old Kimani Joehon Marshall of Fayetteville in regard to the missing dog. Sheriff's office investigators determined that Marshall on July 3 was delivering packages in the area of U.S. 421 South. During one of his stops, investigators believe Marshall stole the French bulldog. "Investigators believe that K-9 Tori died due to heat-related issues as she traveled inside the FedEx truck as temperatures were reportedly in the 90s," Sheriff Wayne Coats told NBC News.Marshall turned himself in Monday and was charged with larceny of a dog, possession of stolen property, and cruelty to animals. He was taken to the Harnett County Detention Center and later released on a $50,000 secured bond.FedEx said Marshall no longer works at the company. "We extend our deepest sympathies to the family on the loss of their beloved pet," the company said in a statement. "We understand the importance of people’s pets in their lives and deeply regret the pain that this has caused. The driver is no longer providing service on behalf of FedEx."Marshall declined to comment to NBC News on the arrest.Time reported in 2021, "Before COVID-19, some 2 million pets were stolen on average each year in the U.S., according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund." A study released in April found that emotional turmoil caused by a stolen dog is similar to a parent losing a child. HealthDay said, "When faced with the theft of a pet, owners tend to feel a similar sense of powerlessness, grief, and loss. In fact, some study participants felt the loss of a dog was more intense than the death of a friend or relative, owing to the closeness of the bond they had with their pet but not with some family members."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Massachusetts, the nation's only right-to-shelter state, is rolling out additional restrictions on its overflow shelters and offering illegal aliens free plane tickets to go elsewhere, according to a recent announcement from Governor Maura Healey's office.Starting August 1, the administration will impose a five-day stay limit on its "temporary respite center[s]." This latest announcement comes just weeks after the state began sending out 90-day eviction notices to push some families to leave the state-run accommodations by September 29.'A serious disconnect between Governor Healey and the actual conditions on the ground in Massachusetts.'Currently, those residing in the state's overflow sites are subject to a 30-day stay limit with an option to reapply. After the new rules go into effect, individuals residing at the respite centers will have to wait six months or more to be placed in the state's emergency family shelter system.According to Healey, there are currently 300 families residing in the state's overflow sites.As part of Massachusetts' "reticketing" program, the state will cover the airfare and travel expenses for illegal aliens interested in leaving the state. During a Tuesday press conference announcing the changes, Healey said, "I want to be clear, particularly to people outside of Massachusetts who may have gotten word that this is a place to come, that we do not have room here in Massachusetts.""We've also offered them the alternative path that they may wish to go to family members or ones they know elsewhere, communities elsewhere in the country, and I think that is a humane and appropriate thing to do," she said.Healey asserted that the five-day stay limit was "in line with the policies of other cities facing similar challenges as Massachusetts and will help give families some relief for a few days while they access the diversion services we can provide, such as reticketing."Healey previously declared in November that the state's shelter system had reached capacity, supporting roughly 7,500 families. Since then, the administration has relied on temporary overflow sites to provide shelter to illegal immigrants on the waiting list for more stable accommodations. As part of Healey's recent announcement, the administration claimed it is not seeking to open additional overflow sites to handle the influx of new illegal arrivals. Those who become homeless because of a no-fault eviction or sudden emergencies, such as floods or fires, will be prioritized to receive shelter space. Families with infants, veterans, and those with significant medical conditions will also be considered first for accommodations. Paul Craney of the Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance told Blaze News, "These are exactly the type of reforms that people have been asking her to make for months. That it took her this long to get to this point boggles the mind and points to a serious disconnect between Governor Healey and the actual conditions on the ground in Massachusetts. For the past months, the conversation has been all about the need to amend the state's right-to-shelter law. The fact that Governor Healey has felt she's had the power to unilaterally make these changes this whole time and chose to do nothing points to a serious lack of judgment on her part and should be investigated by the legislature."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

President Joe Biden stepped aside as the Democratic Party's presidential nominee after it became clear to his party that he would lose to Donald Trump this November. But will Democrats fare any better with Vice President Kamala Harris atop their ticket? According to CNN polling expert Harry Enten, it's likely that Democrats are no better off with Harris. 'Kamala Harris is going to have to do better than this if she wants to win the popular vote.' "For all of the excitement that Democrats have over Kamala Harris, it is going to be difficult to beat Donald Trump," Enten explained Tuesday. The reasons for his tempered expectations are clear. Pointing to recent polls surveying Trump's popularity, Enten acknowledged that Trump "has historically been unpopular" but explained the tides are quickly changing in Trump's favor. "The fact is, Donald Trump is more popular now than he ever has been before. So, yes, Democrats can make this switch-a-roo, but they're still going to have to beat Donald Trump — a Donald Trump who is stronger than he has ever been before," Enten said. — (@) Not only is Trump's favorability increasing, but he maintains a narrow lead over Harris nationally. That narrow margin, however, is misleading because it measures voter sentiment — a metric akin to the popular vote — whereas the president is elected via the Electoral College. That means Democrats need a significant polling advantage over Trump to feel safe about their odds on Election Day. But the problem for Democrats, Enten explained, is that "at this point, Donald Trump is running five points better than he was four years ago against Joe Biden." "Kamala Harris is going to have to do better than this if she wants to win the popular vote, but more than that, if she wants to win the Electoral College, which she'll likely have to outperform how she's done nationally because the fact is, if you've got a tie in the national popular vote, that is probably not good enough if you are Kamala Harris," he said. Meanwhile, the Harris campaign argues that Harris is going to perform excellently among young voters. But that's not true. In fact, Harris performs "much worse" against Trump than Biden among young voters, Enten said Wednesday. — (@) Democrats undoubtedly have their work cut out for them.Not only is Harris a far-left Democrat — which makes her less appealing to moderate voters — but a growing share of the groups of voters that historically vote for Democrats are increasingly becoming Republicans. This includes young voters, according to Enten, and black and Hispanic voters. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!