Mediaboss Marketing

Nowadays Vin Diesel is known for playing the larger-than-life action lead in the 2-decade-long Fast and Furious franchise, but the actor initially kickstarted his career behind the lenses. However, it wasnt until he made an appearance in the star-studded and critically acclaimed Saving Private Ryan, which would put him on the radar, and eventually star in 2001s The Fast and Furious movie.

But it appears that the Bloodshot actor wasnt initially considered to star in the 3rd highest-grossing film of 1998, and it was Steven Spielberg who would go on to put the action star on the track.

Also read: Vin Diesel Nearly Lost Everything After Gambling His House to Produce $98M Box Office Bomb: Its not like any film Ive done

Before making his way to the top, Vin Diesel would direct and star in two underrated dramas, involving a short film, Multi-Facial, in 1995, and a feature-length film, Strays, in 1997. Although these two projects didnt put Diesel on the map, they did manage to get the attention of one of the best in business, Steven Spielberg. Even though the Bloodshot actor wasnt considered to star in Saving Private Ryan, after discovering his talent through Multi-Facial, Spielberg wrote Diesels character in the film, which would boost the actors career.

However, the Oscar-winning director was not only impressed by the Fast X stars acting skills in his projects but was also fascinated by the actors skill behind the camera. Even though Diesel hasnt been involved in many projects as a director, Steven Spielberg once advised him to direct more movies.

Also read: I gotta plead the fifth on that one: Dwayne Johnson Invoked the Fifth Amendment to Escape Vin Diesel Candy A** Question

Although getting the role in Saving Private Ryan had to deal with Vin Diesels skills as an actor, Steven Spielberg was more impressed by his work as a director. Even though his directed movies didnt make big numbers, they did manage to impress one of the greatest to stand behind a camera. Reflecting on his experience with the Jaws director, Diesel explained that Spielberg did advise him to keep directing more movies. Diesel recalled,

Speaking of Steven Spielberg, I saw him recently, and he had said to me, When I wrote the role for you inSaving Private Ryan, I was obviously employing the actor, but I was also secretly championing the director in you, and you have not directed enough. That is a crime of cinema and you must get back in the directing chair,

Also read: The peace treaty I kind of brokered it: Fast X Director Takes Credit for Forcing Dwayne Johnson-Vin Diesel Rivalry to End

Despite his resume as a director being a little empty after his two projects in the 90s, the Fast X actor did rise to the top after Steven Spielberg gave him the required push in the late 90s.

Saving Private Ryan is available to stream on Apple TV.

Source: The National

Read the rest here:
"That is a crime of cinema": After Saving Vin Diesel's Career With an ... - FandomWire

A common sentiment expressed by some voters on social media these days is the need to "move on." This viewpoint seems to be particularly popular with those deeply desirous of a Republican candidate for president of the United States who is not Donald Trump.

They readily admit that Trump's policies were far better for the economy and view Biden's administration as disastrous. Some even acknowledge that social media censorship and changes to election procedures many unlawful cost Trump the 2020 presidential election.

Even so, they say, "It's time to move on."

It's easy to chalk this up to "Trump fatigue" weariness of Trump's ego and combative personality. But an argument can also be made that this is the latest example of the public's reluctance to confront corruption and the erosion of standards in American governance. What we're watching transpire in U.S. politics right now should be galvanizing the country. But it doesn't seem to be, and we need to ask ourselves why.

Joe Biden, the president of the United States, has just had Donald Trump his primary political opponent in the 2024 presidential election indicted and arrested. That may be a common occurrence in third-world countries, but it is unprecedented in the history of this nation.

Worse than the political targeting is the legal double standard. Trump is accused of mishandling classified documents. But we now know that Biden has had classified documents in unsecured locations (including his garage) for years. And he acquired these documents when he was not the president with the constitutional power to declassify them.

Where is the indictment of President Biden?

While Biden was vice president, his son Hunter received millions of dollars from a Ukrainian natural gas company, Burisma, whose leadership was under investigation. Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid unless Viktor Shokin, the Ukrainian prosecutor conducting the investigations, was fired. "Well, son of a bitch," Biden bragged on camera, "he got fired."

After Trump was elected president, he asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to look into the decision to fire Shokin. Democrats accused Trump of using the presidency to target a political opponent and impeached him for "abuse of power."

Where are the articles of impeachment against Biden?

More information has come to light this week, suggesting not only that Joe and Hunter Biden received millions of dollars in bribes from Ukraine, but that the FBI has been covering up evidence of the bribery.

Why aren't more of us demanding accountability? Perhaps it is because we have been dismissing government corruption for far too long.

Under former President Barack Obama, the IRS improperly held up the applications of conservative nonprofits for tax-exempt status often for years crippling their fundraising efforts and support for their candidates and policies. Lois Lerner, then-director of Exempt Organizations, pleaded the Fifth Amendment in response to a congressional subpoena. Lerner was held in contempt of Congress. What penalty? She retired from the IRS with a full pension.

Move on.

Obama's attorney general, Eric Holder, was also held in contempt of Congress, after refusing to turn over information subpoenaed as part of a congressional investigation into failed "gunwalking" program Operation Fast and Furious. Guns ended up in the hands of criminals who killed dozens of Mexican citizens, as well as U.S. Border Patrol agent Brian Terry. Contempt proceedings against Holder languished in the federal court system for years until Democrats regained control of the U.S. House of Representatives and dropped the matter.

Move on.

Hillary Clinton has had her share of corruption scandals. In 2012, when she was secretary of state, our consulate in Benghazi, Libya, was attacked and four Americans killed, including our ambassador, Christopher Stevens. Clinton knew it was a planned terrorist attack, but lied to the American public that it was a spontaneous uprising in response to a video made by an obscure filmmaker named Nakoula Basseley Nakoula (who was arrested and served a year in prison). When questioned about her lies during a congressional investigation, Clinton's infamous response was, "What difference at this point does it make?"

Clinton also lied about having classified information on private, unsecured email servers and she destroyed evidence. But then-FBI Director James Comey declared that "no reasonable prosecutor" would bring charges.

Move on.

Clinton's 2016 presidential campaign illegally funneled money through law firm Perkins Coie to Fusion GPS and then former British spy Christopher Steele, looking for dirt on opponent Donald Trump. The FBI knew the information they received thereafter was false, but lied to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to get warrants to spy on Trump.

Clinton's campaign paid a modest fine. No consequences for the FBI. Move on.

The unrest at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, is supposedly another day that will live in infamy. But we don't know why FBI brass refuse to answer straightforward questions about whether federal agents in the crowd incited or contributed to violence.

But let's do "move on."

This week, major news outlets are finally admitting what was obvious three years ago that SARS-Cov-2 emerged from a laboratory in Wuhan, China, where dangerous "gain-of-function" research was being conducted. The government lied to us about the origins of COVID-19 and locked down the country, crippling the economy and doing immeasurable damage to the education of millions of children. It demanded that social media censor physicians, scientists and researchers trying to expose the truth about the virus, available drug treatments, and the vaccines Americans were being forced to take.

But let's not get into the blame game. We need to "move on."

There is no "moving on" from corruption. To wave it away is to embolden the corrupt. If we as a people do not care enough about the integrity of our laws and the proper limits of our government to enforce both, those who flagrantly disregard those laws and those limits will not stop until they destroy everything we hold dear.

To find out more about Laura Hollis and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate website at http://www.creators.com.

Photo credit: Robert Linder at Unsplash

Read the original post:
There Is No 'Moving On' From Corruption, by Laura Hollis - Creators Syndicate

If you own a business, the leftists in Congress are coming after you. The only thing standing in their way is the American Constitution.

Whether you own a mom-and-pop diner, an auto repair shop or shares in a multinational corporation, your property is at risk.

The Constitutions takings clause was designed to protect us from government grabbing our property without paying fairly for it.

Yet last year, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, they rammed through the Inflation Reduction Act, boasting that it would enable Medicare to negotiate lower prices for medications for seniors.

Negotiate is a lie. Under the new law, government can strong-arm companies to sell their most popular medications at a price Uncle Sam dictates, or be taxed out of existence in a matter of weeks.

On June 6, the pharmaceutical giant Merck sued, claiming the law violates its constitutional rights.

Amen. This lawsuit is a red flag for everyone in America who owns anything or hopes to.

The actual language of the law is breathtakingly coercive, but lets face it, most members of Congress dont bother to read bills before voting on them.

The law says that any company that refuses to sell at the governments price will be hit with a tax that starts at 186 percent of the drugs revenues on Day 1 and is hiked daily until it reaches a ruinous 1,900 percent of revenues not just from government sales but all sales.

That would mean hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes per day.

The company has no escape. Contrast this coercion with price controls in socialist-leaning European countries, where drug companies can decline to sell at the government price.

Merck explains that it will be legally compelled to sell its most valuable products for a fraction of their value, on pain of yet more draconian penalties. This is not negotiation. It is tantamount to extortion.

The law also gags the company from disclosing what Medicare officials say about price negotiations behind closed doors. Worse, the law requires the company to publicly call the price rammed down its throat fair.

Is this even America? Congress limits free speech and requires companies to state things they dont believe.

Mercks lawsuit objects, Our Constitution does not countenance compelled speech in service of state propaganda.

Congress needs a refresher course on the Constitution. The Fifth Amendment bars the government from taking your property without just compensation.

And the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing you to say something against your will. These are the bases of Mercks lawsuit.

The law being challenged is exactly what youd find in George Orwells 1984, a novel depicting socialist despotism. The government dictates the price for your product but calls it a negotiation.

If you refuse, your business is taxed to death overnight. You are gagged from disclosing what is happening and forced to declare the price fair.

If Mercks lawsuit fails, who are the next victims? Auto makers could be forced to sell cars for the federal fleet for $10,000 a piece instead of a fair price.

What about bed sheets for the Army, airplane parts for the Air Force or restaurant meals for government employees?

Mercks lawsuit raises only constitutional issues, but Americans also need to know that price controls on pharmaceuticals could be dangerous to their health.

In countries that cap prices, patients have reduced access to new drugs. Patients in France get only half the new treatments that U.S. patients get, according to University of Chicago economist Tomas Philipson.

Last week, the American Society of Clinical Oncology announced a treatment osimertinib that improves survival by 51 percent for lung cancer patients who have had surgery and face a recurrence.

As a survivor myself, I cut out the article and put it in my desk drawer, hoping I wont need it but glad its a possibility.

Many politicians think vilifying drug companies is good politics. They ignore the devastating impact of price controls on the pipeline for future cures.

This is a legitimate policy debate. But obeying the Constitution is not optional. Congress members swear an oath to it.

Mercks lawsuit is headed to the Supreme Court.

Tell Biden and leftist lawmakers to read the 4,543 words in the Constitution and honor them.

Creators.com

More here:
Left-wing Democrats Running Roughshod Over Constitutional ... - The New York Sun

Tether mints $1 billion in USDT, sparks market fear, CTO explain "it's for chain swaps" | Credit; Shutterstock

Key Takeaways

USDT and minting company Tether come into the spotlight this week for minting a further $1 billion on an Ethereum blockchain. Tether CTO clarified, this amount will be used as inventory for next period issuance requests and chain swaps. Crypto analyst draws worries that USDT might be next in the crosshairs of the US Securities and Exchange Commission.

He claimed, Why not go straight for the jugular and starve crypto of its liquidity..

This recent minting follows the previous mint, which was less than 2 months prior. Tether has minted $16 billion in 2023 alone, while its market capitalization is at $83 billion.

Understandably, the event caught the attention of many stakeholders, nudging company CTO, Paolo Ardoino to explain the move. 1B USDt inventory replenish on Ethereum Network. Note this is a[sic] authorized but not issued transaction, meaning that this amount will be used as inventory for next period issuance requests and chain swaps, tweeted Ardoino.

Chain swaps explained the process of moving crypto tokens from one blockchain to another, enabling users to utilize their tokens on multiple blockchains simultaneously. Ardoino also explained that the $1 billion mint was to make sure theres enough liquidity to enable such chain swaps.

Prior to Adoinos tweet explaining the $1 billion mint, USDT price dipped due to market fears. However, it recovered almost immediately after the CTO explained the situation. Nevertheless, many fear that Tether/USDT might become the SECs next target as the tokens continue to gain popularity in 2023.

At this point, its no secret that the SEC is at a severe war with the crypto industry. Earlier this month, the commission filed thirteen lawsuits against the worlds biggest crypto exchange, Binance, for a number of alleged crimes.

The SEC also filed a lawsuit against Ripple, for allegedly trading in unregistered securities. They even sued Coinbase, the biggest US-based crypto exchange, for allegedly committing the same crime, yet refusing to put proper regulations in place for crypto trading when Coinbase officially requested they do.

More importantly, the SEC is not only going to war against the trade of decentralized tokens, such as Bitcoin and Ethereum, but theyre also attempting to remove the legitimacy of stablecoins, as they did with BUSD.

In the documentation for the Binance lawsuits, the SEC specifically said that the exchange violated laws by Binance and BAM Trading with the unregistered offer and sale of Binances own crypto assets, including a so-called exchange token, BNB, a so-called stablecoin, Binance USD (BUSD).

According to Miles Deutscher, a crypto analyst, Tethers USD-tied token USDT makes up 76% of the entire stablecoin market. USDT, a coin that severs itself from the volatility of decentralized tokens, such as Bitcoin by basing its value on the USD while providing digital-based transfer solutions and ease of movement could potentially be the next target for the SECs rampage on crypto.

If youre the SEC and you really want to kill crypto, then your next target would be Tether. Why? 76% of all stablecoins on exchanges is USDT. Why not go straight for the jugular and starve crypto of its liquidity.. tweeted Deutscher

The SEC hasnt just gone for Binance, Coinbase, and Ripple. Other exchanges, such as Kraken and Bittrex, as well as a crypto lending platform called Nexo, have been on the receiving end of the commissions attack on the industry.

The irony is that the basis of many of the SECs allegations are based on the cryptocurrencies that they see as unregulated registers, while, as previously stated, it is the SEC that stands in the way of a proper regulatory reform on crypto.

Coin Metrics co-founder Nic Carter coined the term Operation Chokepoint 2.0, for which he details the issues created by regulators, alleging that they deliberately are destroying the crypto industry to create stricter control on the finance market.

Among the text within the legal petition sent to Washington DC are allegations such as The federal bank regulators are also refusing to perform their non-discretionary duties when doing so will benefit the cryptocurrency industry, as well as Operation Choke Point 2.0 deprives business of their constitutional rights to due process in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

It is well-settled that when a federal agency attaches a derogatory label to an individual or business, and this stigmatizing label causes the business to lose a bank account or broadly precludes them from the pursuit of their chosen trade, the agency has violated the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, unless if first afforded the individual or business a right to be heard.

Carter even tweeted I dont want to alarm, but since the turn of the year, a new Operation Choke Point type operation began targeting the crypto space in the US. it is a well-coordinated effort to marginalize the industry and cut of [sic] its connectivity to the banking system and its working.

Being the most popular stablecoin out there, USDT, created by Tether is considered the flagship of USD-based stablecoins. And, while many worry about the volatility of decentralized tokens such as Bitcoin, stablecoins provide a safe way to bridge the gap between crypto and fiat currencies.

Should the SEC go after Tether and USDT, a significant trade sum would be forced into a halt, potentially starving the market of fiat value, and consequently affecting the lives of many crypto-based businesses.

Excerpt from:
Tether SEC Action? USDT Selling Floods Liquidity Pools in Wake of ... - CCN.com

University of California, Los Angeles, alumnus and associate professor Bobby Rimas of the American legal systems course at California State University, Los Angeles Downtown LA Campus, lectured on the importance of subpoenas and what should be done to ensure compliance on May 10.

Additionally, Rimas indicated that subpoenas allow for parties to learn about information or evidence that may be used for their cases.

Rimas then introduced guest speaker Andrew Beshai, an associate attorney at Larson LLP.

Beshai spoke about the difference between civil and criminal subpoenas, how subpoenas can request for court appearance, document productions or both. Furthermore, civil subpoenas can be issued by any lawyer but not a prosecutor.

Beshai also discussed the Fifth Amendment constitutional right not to self-incriminate.

Prior to his role as a federal prosecutor, Beshai was a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, where he investigated and litigated discrimination cases against state and local entities in Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Louisiana and Colorado.

As a trial lawyer with the DOJ Civil Rights Division, Beshai also worked on complex matters, including taking depositions, developing discovery strategy and arguing motions. He graduated valedictorian from Loyola Law School, where he served for two years as an adjunct professor teaching legal drafting.

Rimas indicated that Beshais presentation was very informative and gave students a clear picture as to the significance of subpoenas and what they should consider doing when assisting their legal teams with such matters.

In addition to being an associate professor, Rimas is a paralegal at the Larson LLP law firm and an adjunct faculty member at the University of La Verne. He is also the vice chair of the special committee on diversity, equity and inclusion for a Los Angeles-based nonprofit organization and a board member for the UCLA Lambda Alumni Association.

Rimas graduated with a bachelors degree in history from UCLA and a Master of Legal Studies degree, cum laude, from the University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

He is the past chair/president of the UCLA Pilipino Alumni Association and past president of the Los Angeles Paralegal Association.

The rest is here:
Essential Education: Professor, attorney discuss importance of ... - LA Downtown News Online