News Late Night With the Devil David Dastmalchian Unleashes Evil‚ 1970s Style‚ in Late Night With the Devil Trailer The only thing more frightening than the fashions is THE DEVIL By Vanessa Armstrong | Published on February 8‚ 2024 icon-comment 0 Share New Share Twitter Facebook Pinterest RSS Feed 1970s late night television has a certain eeriness to it‚ especially when you have a late show host played by David Dastmalchian (Suicide Squad‚ The Last Voyage of the Demeter) who potentially summons a demon on air. That’s the premise of Late Night With the Devil‚ a movie from IFC Films coming out in theaters next month. IFC just released a teaser trailer for it‚ which captures that 1970s television feel with a very healthy dose of terror. Here’s the movie’s official synopsis: October 31‚ 1977. Johnny Carson rival Jack Delroy (Dastmalchian) hosts a syndicated late night talk show Night Owls that has long been a trusted companion to insomniacs around the country. A year after the tragic death of Jack’s wife‚ ratings have plummeted. Desperate to turn his fortunes around‚ Jack plans a Halloween special like no other‚ unaware that he is about to unleash evil into the living rooms of America.  Late Night With the Devil is directed by Colin and Cameron Cairnes‚ Australian filmmakers and brothers who were inspired by their own childhood TV watching habits. “The seed of what would become Late Night With the Devil was sown in the ‘80s when‚ as children‚ we would stay up late to watch The Don Lane Show‚ Australia’s answer to The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson‚” the two said in a statement. “Don was a curious figure‚ and nor was he Australian—he was‚ in fact‚ a 6’3” nightclub performer from the Bronx‚ who‚ through persistence and a little good luck‚ found himself hosting Australia’s most successful talk show. Local audiences were seduced as much by the accent as the genial schtick.” In addition to Dastmalchian‚ the movie stars Laura Gordon‚ Ian Bliss‚ Ingrid Torelli‚ Fayssal Bazzi‚ and Rhys Auteri. Check out the teaser trailer below: Late Night With the Devil premieres in theaters on March 22‚ 2024 and will stream on Shudder on April 19‚ 2024. [end-mark] The post David Dastmalchian Unleashes Evil‚ 1970s Style‚ in <;i>;Late Night With the Devil<;/i>; Trailer appeared first on Reactor.

Benjamin Franklin is one of the most prominent figures of American history. There was little that Franklin couldn’t do. The polymath was born into a modest family in 1706 and despite only two years of formal education‚ he would later gain acclaim as an author‚ printer‚ politician‚ scientist‚ inventor‚ statesman‚ and freemason‚ among other things. But did you also know that he was a serial... Source

Susan Shaw‚ a women’s and gender studies professor at Oregon State‚ penned a recent op-ed in Forbes titled “Transgender Swimmer Lia Thomas’ Body is Not the Problem.” But that headline relies on a fallacy increasingly recognized by the public as such: Lia Thomas’ body is exactly the problem. Not satisfied with stealing the NCAA Division I‚ 500-meter freestyle championship from a woman in 2022‚ Thomas is now suing World Aquatics in the international Court of Arbitration for Sport for its refusal to let Thomas‚ who was born male but “identifies” as transgender‚ compete in the women’s category in elite swimming events‚ such as the USA Olympic team swimming trials. Their onerous regulation? World Aquatics permits transgender women to compete in women’s events only if they transitioned before age 12 or before one of the early stages of puberty. Shaw believes that the deep divisions over transgender athletic participation are based not on research evidence on trans athletic advantages‚ but rather on “our deeply-held and rather largely unexamined assumptions about biology and gender.” But those purported assumptions are backed by hard scientific research referenced in the joint statement of the International Federation of Sports Medicine and the European Federation of Sports Medicine Associations‚ which indicated that the International Olympic Committee—with its trans-inclusive sport regulations—had failed to take proper account of “scientific‚ biological or medical aspects.” In particular‚ it ignored that “high testosterone concentrations‚ either endogenous or exogenous‚ confer a baseline advantage for athletes in certain sports … and must be mitigated.” World Aquatics later convened its own group of scientists with the aim of developing sport-specific transgender athletic regulations. In findings to file under “told you so‚” the scientists reported that “biological sex is a key determinant of athletic performance‚” with males outperforming females in sports (including aquatic sports) that are primarily determined by neuromuscular‚ cardiovascular and respiratory function‚ and anthropometrics including body and limb size. The Independent Women’s Forum compiled some of the more compelling research on physiological distinctions between men and women in its report “Competition‚” available at the group’s website. So‚ yes‚ Lia Thomas—at 6-foot-1‚ with broader shoulders‚ higher muscle mass‚ greater bone density and longer legs—has a distinct athletic benefit over even the most highly trained female aquatic competitors in the world. Like other feminists‚ Ms. Shaw stresses the “illusion of difference” between the sexes‚ claiming that if “women cut their hair the same way as men‚ wore ‘men’s’ clothes‚ and didn’t shave their legs and underarms‚ wear makeup‚ or pluck their eyebrows‚ they wouldn’t look nearly as different from men as they do.” But there is a yawning chasm of difference between looking the same and being the same. And for decades‚ feminists fought the tired trope that women are to be distinguished (from men and each other) primarily by how they look. This a strangely reductionist argument for a purported feminist to rely so much on superficial expressions of womanhood. Womanhood is not makeup‚ hairstyles‚ dresses or high heels. And even critically thinking gender zealots ought to know better. A favorite tactic of the anti-biology crowd is to force a convolution of the sexes and paint immutable differences as artificial‚ ensuring that women’s equality can be decimated sport by sport‚ bathroom by bathroom‚ program by program. Shaw strains to argue that we “can’t even define biological sex all that well.” Of course we can. Sex is defined by sexual reproduction and sex cells called gametes. Biologists recognize it. Other professors recognize it. Teenagers recognize it. Federal judges recognize it (though perhaps not all Supreme Court justices do). Even young children‚ observant as they are‚ recognize that boys and girls are different. Why else would there be a need to proselytize these same children into a world where gender unicorns‚ drag queens and subjective self-identification take the place of what their eyes know to be true? The motivating force behind significant civil rights gains for women was the understanding that while men and women are different‚ opportunities for each must be equal. Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote as much in 1996 in her majority opinion in U.S. v. Virginia: “Physical differences between men and women‚ however‚ are enduring: ‘[T]he two sexes are not fungible; a community made up exclusively of one [sex] is different from a community composed of both.’” In the battle for women’s athletic equality‚ male bodies will always be the problem. Originally published at WashingtonTimes.com Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post Denial of Lia Thomas’ Biological Advantages Doesn’t Make Them Any Less Real appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Daily Caller News Foundation co-founder Tucker Carlson could be threatened with sanctions by the European Union over his interview with Russian President Vladimir Putin‚ according to current and former members of the European Parliament. Carlson traveled to Moscow and met with Putin for a yet-to-be-released interview about the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war and its global perception. Carlson could face sanctions or a travel ban to Europe from the EU governing bodies over his interview with Putin‚ former and current parliamentary members told Newsweek. “As Putin is a war criminal and the EU sanctions all who assist him in that effort‚ it seems logical that the External Action Service examines [Carlson’s] case as well‚” Guy Verhofstadt‚ former Belgian prime minister and current EU Parliament member who has called for a travel ban to be imposed on Carlson‚ told Newsweek. “Carlson is not being a real journalist since he has clearly expressed his sympathy for the Russian regime and Putin and has constantly disparaged Ukraine‚ the victim of Russian aggression‚” Urmas Paet‚ former Estonia foreign minister and current Parliament member‚ told Newsweek. “So‚ for such propaganda for a criminal regime‚ you can end up on the list of sanctions. This concerns primarily travel ban to EU countries.” In order to impose sanctions on Carlson‚ the EU External Action Service must consider the available evidence and then turn the case over to the European Council‚ made up of the bloc’s leaders‚ for a final decision‚ according to Newsweek; Members of Parliament cannot impose sanctions on an individual at their sole discretion. One EU official told Newsweek that it would be necessary to implicate Carlson for his ties to Russia’s war effort‚ which would be “difficult and hard to prove.” Still‚ other former and current EU Parliament members insist Carlson is aiding in Russia’s hostilities and needs to face consequences for it. “He is no longer a newsman‚ but a propagandist for the most heinous regime on European soil and the one which is most dangerous to our peace and security‚” Luis Garicano‚ a former Parliament member‚ told Newsweek. Carlson said on Wednesday he did not interview Putin out of support for the dictator but rather because he felt the need to show the U.S. and the West aspects of the war. Carlson feels that Western media has left important aspects of the war out of their coverage and said most people are either misinformed or not informed at all about the issue. Carlson also warned that the war in Ukraine has “reshaped the global military and trade alliances” that have “upended the world economy.” He criticized Western media for positively portraying Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s “demand that the U.S. enter more deeply into a war in Eastern Europe and pay for it.” The EU External Action Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Originally published by the Daily Caller News Foundation Have an opinion about this article? To sound off‚ please email letters@DailySignal.com‚ and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular “We Hear You” feature. Remember to include the URL or headline of the article plus your name and town and/or state. The post EU Lawmakers Warn Sanctions Could Be Imposed on Tucker Carlson for Putin Interview appeared first on The Daily Signal.

UVA Spending Millions Arguing Against Religious Exemptions to Mandates

SF's Mayor Joins Effort to Roll Back Prop 47

Speaker Johnson Set to Endorse in Montana Senate Race ... Oops‚ Never Mind

I’ll take ‘Things I never thought I’d hear for $1000.' A transgender identifying female (so...a male) sued his ex-boyfriend after the boyfriend threw out the tranny's “preserved testicles.” Reduxx Magazine posted video testimony from Brianna Kingsley‚ who sought the return of the testicles and $6‚500 for damages over the loss of “deez nuts.” What the heck has our society come to!? Kingsley‚ a biological man‚ identifies as a Muslim woman and lives in the Detroit‚ Michigan area. Apparently Kinglsey had his testicles removed as part of his gender-affirming “care”‚ and now wants them back.  Though the story broke back in August‚ Reduxx’s post of the court hearing has re-upped concern - and mockery - over how delusional our society has gotten. “She had had her testicles removed‚” William Wojciechowsk‚ the ex‚ said in the hearing. “I believe if I recalled correctly‚ it was March 23 and they were left in the fridge. I wanted nothing to do with it. I thought it was odd but I try not to judge because everybody’s a little different.” Yeah‚ no kidding. It’s weird enough that Kingsley wanted to get his testicles removed to further convince himself that he’s a girl - but to keep them in the fridge? “Odd” is putting it nicely. “They were there from April of 2022 until July of 2023‚ when I disposed of them‚” Wojciechowsk told the judge.  The video cut to Kingsley talking again. He stood there in a turban‚ holding a fluffy dog and said‚ “that physical anomaly [the balls] has been a point of stress in my life since I can remember and my middle name that I chose is Dee because my whole life I’ve been called Big D. I’m Dee from the D and I thank God that these ‘deez nuts’ were extracted and they were put into a biohazard bag.”  “For s**ts and giggles‚ I put them in a mason jar and I put them in the fridge next to the eggs‚” Kingsley confessed. A trans-identified male in Michigan is suing his ex-partner for the return of his preserved testicles‚ which he had kept in their shared fridge following his genital surgery. Brianna Kingsley‚ who identifies as a Muslim woman‚ is demanding $6‚500 for the loss of "deez nuts." pic.twitter.com/0JRVQiqRb4 — REDUXX (@ReduxxMag) February 8‚ 2024 Firstly‚ it always baffles me when transgender people‚ who clearly don’t listen to anything the Bible or God says‚ thank God for His assistance in their transgender “care.” Secondly‚ imagine opening up the fridge to make an omelet. You reach to grab a carton of eggs and your hand grazes a jar with year-old surgically extracted human testicles inside. Related: ‘Dragging’ Kids Away from Normalcy: Groomers on the Go That takes cringe‚ and honestly the idea of a gag reflex‚ to a whole new level. But still‚ Kingsley's suing over the supposed loss. “The amount that I’m claiming is for the damages of not having these nuts with me‚” Kingsley added confidently.  What‚ was he going to snuggle them when going to sleep or something?  In response to the video posted by Reduxx‚ many individuals were in disbelief. “HOW IS THIS REAL‚” one commentedwhile another asked‚ “Is this satire?”  Others said things like‚ “Gender Ideology exacerbates existing mental disorders  and creates them where they didn't exist before‚” while another said‚ “What a time to be alive!” It really is unfortunate that this story isn’t satire. I hope Mr. Brianna gets his nuts back safe and sound and then checks himself into the psych ward. Follow us on Twitter/X: Woke of The Weak: They're here‚ they're queer‚ they're coming for your children. pic.twitter.com/LFIaGkr3pM — MRCTV (@mrctv) February 6‚ 2024  

We know about CNN Republicans and MSNBC Republicans‚ but there are also NPR Republicans. Brendan Buck‚ a former aide to Speakers John Boehner and Paul Ryan‚ is a semi-regular pundit on Meet the Press. On Thursday‚ Morning Edition anchor Steve Inskeep kept asking Buck to describe Republicans as insincere extremists who don't want to govern. Buck played right along‚ calling conservatives "post-policy."  Buck lamented that old-guard leaders like Mitch McConnell don't get enough respect: BUCK: The Senate is starting to feel a lot more like the House‚ where you have a bunch of more conservative senators who are‚ frankly‚ undermining their leadership at every turn and then turning around and saying‚ gosh‚ isn't our leadership bad? So it just feels like there isn't enough respect and trust in leadership right now to assert their will in the way that Mitch McConnell has been able to do for many‚ many years. INSKEEP: I'm wanting to argue with the labeling of conservative for some of the more conservative lawmakers. This bill that was rejected would seem from the outside to have a lot that you'd want if you're worried about border security - 1‚500 more border agents‚ more courts so that people get asylum hearings a lot faster and get kicked out a lot faster if they shouldn't be here‚ a lot of things like that - maybe things you don't like as much as well‚ but a lot. Did none of this interest Republican lawmakers at all? BUCK: So I think what we're running into is the party being somewhat post-policy‚ if you will‚ where the policy almost doesn't matter - at least it comes in second to the politics. NPR won't bring someone on to argue that the Biden policy has been a disaster‚ and that this bill would make it worse. That doesn't make Steve Inskeep feel morally superior.  INSKEEP: Democrats now will say - in fact‚ are saying - this shows Republicans don't actually care about border security policies. I feel that you're telling me that is functionally true. There may be Republicans who care‚ but politically they can't afford to care. BUCK: I think they care. They're just not willing to do anything that would potentially trigger a primary challenge or get them cross with their activists in their districts. This is why this issue never gets resolved‚ is‚ frankly‚ there is no space for Republicans to do anything that would include Democrat support as well.  Inskeep asked about Ukraine: "Do Republicans feel so strongly now against funding for Ukraine that there's really no deal they would ever accept to do that?" Buck said there's still a possibility for Ukraine aid‚ that McConnell if most interested in that (more than the border). Then Inskeep suggested conservatives are pro-Putin:  INSKEEP: I'm trying to figure out the heart of the Republican resistance to funding for Ukraine‚ and I know there's a lot of reasons‚ but if you tried to find a basic reasons‚ is it just that Biden is for it‚ so they need to be against it? Is it that they think that Vladimir Putin is a great guy? Do they really think it's all being misspent? I mean‚ what is the bottom line here? BUCK: There is a - has been and is a growing strain of isolationism in the Republican Party. And Donald Trump‚ I think‚ seized on that -- you know‚ his commentary on Iraq‚ however inconsistent it may be. There are a lot of people in the Republican Party and base Republican voters who don't like the idea of sending us taxpayer money abroad‚ period.  It's quite a contrast with the Steve Inskeep that rolls over for House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.   

Colorado had such a bad day before the Supreme Court as it tried to defend its decision to kick Donald Trump off its primary ballot that not even MSNBC and CNN could pretend otherwise. However‚ for MSNBC legal analyst‚ former Obama Solicitor General‚ and self-described “extremist centrist” on Twitter‚ Neal Katyal‚ it wasn’t because their arguments were so bad even the liberals appeared highly skeptical‚ but incompetence on the part of their lawyer. Ana Cabrera wondered if the lawyer’s lack of experience had anything to do with it‚ “Neil‚ you are somebody who's argued before the Supreme Court. We know the challengers here‚ their lawyer Jason Murray‚ this is his first time going before the Supreme Court whereas Trump's lawyers argued five times before. Did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? Or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here?”     Katyal didn’t think so‚ arguing even experienced lawyers “mess up arguments.” At the same time‚ he declared that Murray should’ve been more combative with the Court‚ “in a case of this gravity‚ you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the Court even and so‚ you need to say about the other side‚ you are gutting the Constitution‚ Donald Trump. What you need to say to the Court is‚ look‚ for years‚ you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document‚ on the original intent of the document.” Trying to insist that the states can add to Article II’s presidential eligibility requirements or that the Fourteenth Amendment gives states the right to determine if somebody engaged in a federal insurrection is quite literally the opposite of the original intent of the document when the latter says in plain English “The Congress shall have power to enforce‚ by appropriate legislation‚ the provisions of this article.”  The original case in Colorado was heard by seven Democratic appointees and even there the ruling was only 4-3. Nevertheless‚ Katyal continued to lament‚ “The original intent of the document is so clear against Donald Trump. You need to be using their methodology that they've used to say‚ look‚ you have to be consistent with what you have said before. We heard none of that today. I'm not sure why. That makes it‚ frankly‚ a really easy case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in favor of Donald Trump.” Maybe because MSNBC's legal fantasies are not real. Ultimately‚ the problem for Murray is that his client is taking a position that is so preposterous that you almost feel bad for him… Almost. Here is a transcript for the February 8 show: MSNBC Trump Ballot Battle 2/8/2024 12:25 PM ET ANA CABRERA: Neil‚ you are somebody who's argued before the Supreme Court. We know the challengers here‚ their lawyer‚ Jason Murray‚ this is his first time going before the Supreme Court‚ whereas Trump's lawyers argued five times before. Did you recognize the disparity in terms of their experience there? Or did you feel like both lawyers gave their strongest case and strongest arguments here? NEAL KATYAL: Yeah‚ I don't want to chalk it up to experience. Like‚ you know‚ as you say‚ I have had a lot of experience‚ but I’ll certainly mess up arguments‚ so experience is no‚ you know‚ guarantee of anything.  So‚ I don't want to say that‚ but I do want to say in a case of this gravity‚ you need to basically call out the other side and you need to call out the Court even and so‚ you need to say about the other side‚ you are gutting the Constitution‚ Donald Trump. What you need to say to the Court is‚ look‚ for years‚ you have staked yourself on strict construction of the document‚ on the original intent of the document.  The original intent of the document is so clear against Donald Trump. You need to be using their methodology that they've used to say‚ look‚ you have to be consistent with what you have said before. We heard none of that today. I'm not sure why. That makes it‚ frankly‚ a really easy case for the U.S. Supreme Court to decide in favor of Donald Trump.