Mediaboss Marketing

There is no denying the allure that anything Australian has for Americans. From the accent to the beaches, there is plenty to be admired about the down under lifestyle.

In 1988, Outback Steakhouse capitalized on that attraction. The fast-casual chain was born in Tampa, Fla., and quickly rose to national (and now international) prominence. Today, they are known for much more than just their Aussie aesthetic.

The legendary Bloomin' Onion, for one, is one of the best-known appetizers on the restaurant chain scene. Their slogan, which has been a mantra since the very beginning, is iconic: "No rules, just right." And, perhaps more than anything else, the sizzling steak TV commercials that helped put Outback on the map are now seared into our collective memory. You can probably still hear the "Let's go Outback tonight" jingle playing in your head.

During the decades of success, Outback Steakhouse has also filed away a few secrets. Read on to uncover the details they aren't broadcasting. For more, check out8 Worst Fast-Food Burgers to Stay Away From Right Now.

Three years ago, a former employee of Outback Steakhouse confessed on a Reddit thread that a fellow user's suspicions were correct: If you order your steak well done, the kitchen is going to dole you out a worse cut of meat.

"Honestly yes," said former employee. "We sort steaks to cook all at the same temp, at the same time. So yeah you will get a crappier cut to cook at the same time as your super nice, rare cut."

Sign up for our newsletter!

If you are familiar with authentic Australian culture, this "secret" might not be shocking. But it's true, the chain from down under actually just hails from Florida, where four people who worked in the hospitality industry decided that an Australian theme would help make their restaurant unique. At the time, none of the founders had even made the trek to the continent.

In 2017, Twitter users uncovered that, in several cities, the layout of Outback's locations looks like a pentagram. Amidst the ensuing viral conspiracy theories that Satanism was involved (you know, a practice that uses pentagrams as symbols), Outback leaned in. "If the Bloomin' Onion is evil then we don't want to be nice," they Tweeted, in a genius marketing move that kept the internet talking.

You know the bread we're talking aboutthat absolutely decadent dark brown loaf, known colloquially as "chocolate bread" (a moniker which, according to Reddit, servers resent.) According to that same former employee, you don't need to sit for an entire meal at Outback to enjoy the bread. You can likely just visit your local location and buy it from them.

Is any restaurant really off the hook with this one? Like many other chains, Outback has been outed for its microwave usage. According to a user on Quora who used to work there, the chain simply "nukes" the pre-made pasta and sauce for a minute and thirty seconds. Not exactly fine dining.

To be fair, depending on who Outback wants to appeal to, they may or may not want you to know this "secret." The chain's parent company Bloomin' Brands made 93% of its political donations to Republicans in 2016, according to Eater. The same can be said of many other major restaurant chains, including Applebee's, IHOP, Chick-fil-A, and even Wendy's.

However, Elizabeth Smith, the CEO of Bloomin' Brands, personally donated to Hillary Clinton's campaign in 2016.

Read the rest here:
7 Secrets Outback Steakhouse Doesn't Want You to Know Eat This Not That - Eat This, Not That

A federal judge on Friday ordered notorious "Pharma Bro" Martin Shkreli banned for life from the pharmaceutical industry and also ruled that he must disgorge $64.6 million in profits he earned from hiking the price of the life-saving drug Daraprim by more than 5,000% overnight.

The ruling in U.S. District Court in Manhattan came in response to a lawsuit alleging illegal and monopolistic behavior connected with Daraprim by Shkreli, who is currently incarcerated for a securities fraud conviction.

The plaintiffs in the case were the Federal Trade Commission, and seven states, including New York and California.

Those same plaintiffs last month obtained a $40 million settlement for the same claims from Vyera Pharmaceuticals, the company that Shkreli had founded, as well as a seven-year ban of his former business partner Kevin Mulleady.

"Americans can rest easy because Martin Shkreli is a pharma bro no more," said New York Attorney General Letitia James.

The other state plaintiffs in the case were Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, North Carolina and Virginia.

Shkreli is serving a seven-year federal prison term for financial crimes unrelated to his controversial price increase of Daraprim, a drug used to treat parasitic infections in pregnant women, babies, HIV patients, and others. Shkreli controversially raised the drug's price from $13.50 per pill to a whopping $750 per pill in 2015.

In her 135-page ruling Friday, Judge Denise Cote found that Shkreli, while serving as Vyera's CEO, violated federal and state laws with anticompetitive conduct to protect profits from Daraprim, which until recently was the only drug federally approved to treat the parasitic condition toxoplasmosis.

Cote, who presided over a seven-day trial in the case last month without a jury, noted in her ruling that the lifetime ban from any role in the drug industry for Shkreli that was sought by the plaintiffs "is a serious remedy and must be done with care and only if equity demands."

But, she concluded, "Shkreli's egregious, deliberate, repetitive, long-running, and ultimately dangerous illegal conduct warrants imposition of an injunction of this scope."

Cote wrote that Shkreli in 2015 "initiated a scheme to block the entry of generic drug competition so that he could reap the profits from Daraprim sales for as long as possible" when he increased the price of the drug.

"Through his tight control of the distribution of Daraprim, Shkreli prevented generic drug companies from getting access to the quantity of Daraprim they needed to conduct testing demanded by the Food and Drug Administration," the judge wrote.

"Through exclusive supply agreements, Shkreli also blocked off access to the two most important manufacturers of the active pharmaceutical ingredient ... for Daraprim."

Cote noted that with his illegal conduct, "Shkreli delayed the entry of generic competition for at least eighteen months. Shkreli and his companies profited over $64 million from this scheme."

Shkreli's lawyer, Christopher Casey, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Vyera had been known as Turing Pharmaceuticals when Shkreli ordered the stunning price hike for the drug, earning him widespread condemnation at the time from a wide range of people, including former President Donald Trump and then-Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton.

That outrage, along with his incessant trolling of critics on Twitter and stunts like purchasing a one-a-kind Wu-Tang Clan album for a reported $2 million, led to Shkreli becoming internationally infamous under the sobriquet "Pharma Bro."

In 2016, federal prosecutors charged him with defrauding investors in two hedge funds he ran years before founding Turing, and with using their funds to found another drug company, Retrophin.

Shkreli was also accused of looting Retrophin to pay back investors for their investment losses in his hedge funds.

He was convicted a trial in mid-2017 in Brooklyn federal court of several charges in the case.

Within weeks, he had his $5 million release bond revoked by a judge despite a pending appeal of his conviction after offering his followers on social media a bounty for each strand of hair they could pull off Clinton's head during her book tour that year.

In addition to his prison sentence, which is due to end in early November, Shkreli was ordered as part of his criminal conviction to pay $7.4 million in forfeiture.

That criminal penalty was satisfied last July with the sale by the U.S. government of the surrendered Wu-Tang Clan album, "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin" for what was likely at least almost $2.4 million.

The government previously had obtained $5 million held in Shkreli's brokerage account, and other assets that included the Lil Wayne album "Tha Carter V," an engraving on paper by Pablo Picasso.

Continue reading here:
Pharma Bro Martin Shkreli banned for life from drug industry in monopoly case, ordered to pay $64.6 million - CNBC

It was inevitable that the implosion of the Biden administration would lure former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton back onto the political stage. The voters showed her the door five years ago, yet she remains unable to grasp what they were trying to tell her. The latest manifestation of this learning disability began last month with an online lecture series in which Clinton holds forth on The Power of Resilience. The series culminates with a cringeworthy reading, complete with feigned attempt to hold back tears, of the speech she purportedly prepared in anticipation of victory in 2016.

My fellow Americans, today you sent a message to the whole world. Our values endure. Our democracy stands strong. And our motto remains: e pluribus unum. Out of many, one. We will not be defined only by our differences. We will not be an us versus them country. Fundamentally, this election challenged us to decide what it means to be an American in the 21st century. And for reaching for a unity, decency, and what President Lincoln called the better angels of our nature. We met that challenge.

If this undelivered unity speech seems wildly at odds with Clintons actual behavior and rhetoric, before and after the 2016 election, it is no illusion. It is impossible to reconcile it with her infamous basket of deplorables remark, in which she characterized millions of Americans as racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic and Islamophobic. The speech is also inconsistent with her oft-repeated post-election claim that Trump was an illegitimate president. Indeed, it even fails to conform to the ostensibly benign point of her lectures, part of which she devotes to slandering Trump as a bully and a creep.

Such ad hominem cheap shots are, of course, far more characteristic of the Hillary Clinton we all know rather than the circumspect observations of a seasoned leader who has learned from her mistakes. She recently offered seemingly reasonable advice to the Democrats about avoiding a far left turn before the 2022 midterms, a clear reference to the Squad. Yet she continues to attack former President Trump based on the most absurd leftwing conspiracy theory since the Russia collusion hoax. During a recent CNN interview with Fareed Zakaria about her new novel, Clinton delivered herself of the following opinion:

I do think our democracy is under continuing assault by the former president, who masterminded a coup in the attack on our Capitol, has continued to promote the false accusation that the election of 2020 was somehow rigged. I think he poses a real clear and present danger to the United States. And having lived through that presidency, when it came time to write a political thriller with my friend and collaborator Louise Penny, of course I would draw from the reality that we all have experienced.

Never mind that the Justice Department has concluded that there was no coup to mastermind. As Reuters reported last August, The FBI has found scant evidence that the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol was the result of an organized plot to overturn the presidential election result. Forget that not a single rioter has been prosecuted for treason or conspiracy to overthrow the government. Ignore the inconvenient fact that those who have been prosecuted were charged with such things as trespassing, disorderly conduct, and destruction of property. Yet Clinton doesnt hesitate to label Trump as the evil architect of a coup.

Many Democrats take this nonsense seriously. They believe, as Clinton maintains, that the republic will be in great peril if Trump runs again in 2024: I want people to understand that this is a make-or-break point. But they know how unpopular President Biden and Vice President Harris are with the voters. Consequently, high-profile Democratic operatives are casting about for a candidate who can defeat Trump. Douglas Schoen, an influential consultant, believes that Hillary Clinton may be the only Democrat who has any chance of defeating Trump in 2024. As he recently put it in the Orange County Register:

Democrats already have reason to be concerned about their presidential ticket in 2024. Indeed, voters are turning on the Biden presidency: Republicans lead in the 2022 generic vote for Congress; and in a hypothetical Trump-Biden rematch, 48% of voters say they would back Trump, compared with 45% for Biden. Clinton would offer Democrats a new approach that is separate from the Biden Administration. Clinton has the stature, the positions, and the record that Democrats need.

Schoen seems to have forgotten that whatever stature Clinton brings to the 2024 election, she would carry even more baggage than she lugged to the 2016 race. The heaviest load she carries is the role her campaign played in concocting the Russian collusion hoax. As Kimberly Strassel puts it in the Wall Street Journal, The Clinton campaign ultimately paid a Russian [Igor Danchenko] to gin up the core allegations against Mr. Trump. These tales ended up in the Steele Dossier that was deployed against Trump. In other words, the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election on behalf of the Clinton campaign.

This means the stench of corruption that has always enveloped Clinton and her associates will be more pungent than ever in 2024. Will this stop Hillary from running? Of course not. As former Clinton advisor Dick Morris recently phrased it, Ive always said that the way you could tell if Hillary is running again is check whether she has a pulse or not. There can be little doubt that Bidens many blunders has Clinton casting a lustful eye on the greasy pole once again, but can she reach its slimy pinnacle in 2024 carrying all those decades of baggage? Perhaps, but Trump will get there first, just as he did in 2016.

The rest is here:
Hillary Clinton: The Greasy Pole Beckons Again - The American ...

Hillary Clinton may end up in prison sometime after November 2022 as majority of the analysts in the world of politics believe, Republicans are going to win back control of the House of Representatives and the Republican lawmakers will use the opportunity to get revenge on Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton. It is also anticipated that with the US Congress going into the control of Republicans would initiate investigations in Hunter Bidens artwork scandal, which is seen by most of the political analysts as an indirect bribery channel of Joe Bidens scandalous son.

Florida Rep. Kat Cammack said, in an exclusive interview, that some Democrats could be headed to prison.

When we take the House back in the 118th, first and foremost, we are going to be focused on accountability, people need to go to jail, she said at Turning Point USAs AmericaFest in Phoenix, Arizona.

Im talking about the Hillary Clintons of the world, Im talking about the Eric Holders, Im talking about all these people who have continued to cause strife and division, break the law, subvert the Rule of Law, and they have never been held accountable, the congresswoman said.

Were going to go after the origins of COVID-19, were going to be looking at how we can earn the trust of the American people back, she said.

Because for so long, there has been two standards: one for thee, and then rules for the other people that dont have power, that arent well-connected.

She said she wants the new Congress to investigate election integrity and other issues including all of theissues weve had in years past that have gone unresolved, like Benghazi.

With Afghanistan now, thats going to be another one, she said.

She said that the plan is for Republicans to have an agenda that that everysingle Republican will be running on,campaigning on, and committing to putting that agenda forward.

And once we take the House, we roll hard on executing that plan, because the American people they deserve accountability, and they deserve action, she said. And those are the two things that were going to be giving when we take over the House.

House Minority Leader and California Rep. Kevin McCarthy also said in December that there would be payback for Democrats if Republicans get control of the House again in the 2022 midterms.

More:
Hillary Clinton may end up in prison in 2022 | Weekly Blitz

Dec. 7, 1941, isnt the only day that will live in infamy, as President Franklin D. Roosevelt eloquently put it in his historic speech to a joint session of Congress one day after Japan bombed Pearl Harbor. Jan. 6, 2021, as far as many Americans are concerned, was another day of infamy, a horrible day in its own right.

And one year later, we cant even agree on what to call what happened at the Capitol that day. Was it an insurrection? Domestic terrorism? Was it an attempted coup or simply a peaceful protest that got out of hand? Was it another day of infamy or much ado about very little?

What we call it depends a lot on whether were on the red team or the blue team, whether we watch Fox or CNN. We cant even agree on how the riot or insurrection or whatever we want to call it came about.

Lets compromise and simply call it what it was: a disgrace. And while were at it, lets be clear: The cast of characters who stormed the Capitol, irresponsible and thoughtless as they were, were merely playing bit parts in that pathetic show a show whose leading man was none other than Donald TrumpDonald TrumpPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Bipartisan Senate group holds call on elections amid reform chatter MORE, the man who also wrote the script.

For months before Jan. 6, 2021, Trump perpetuated the lie that the election was rigged. Then, for an hour he riled up his supporters with a fiery speech about the stolen election. The mob wouldnt have been there in the first place if Trump hadnt supplied them with dangerously false information.

Liberals know this and are all too happy to remind everybody about Trumps role in the fiasco that day. But too many Trump supporters even now pretend that what happened at the Capitol one year ago wasnt his fault, that it was some kind of leftist plot. This doesnt speak well for the red team.

Nothing you read from here going forward is intended to divert blame for what happened away from the bit players who stormed the Capitol, or from Trump himself. But nothing happens in a vacuum, especially when it comes to politics. Behavior especially when its partisan influences other behavior. One crazy theory often leads to another crazy theory, a political tit-for-tat.

So lets go back to November 2016. Just days after Trump was elected president, Gallup conducted a poll that found almost one in four Americans (23 percent) who voted for Hillary ClintonHillary Diane Rodham ClintonJan. 6 is the GOP's fault line America isn't experiencing a crime wave we're suffering a crime hoax Eleven interesting races to watch in 2022 MORE did not believe Donald Trump was legitimately elected. And one week before he was sworn in, the late Congressman John LewisJohn LewisDemocrats scramble to lock down Manchin on filibuster 60 groups urge Senate Democrats to reform filibuster for voting rights The 5 most significant hits to our legal system in 2021 MORE, the civil rights icon from Georgia whose words often conveyed moral authority, was asked if he would try to establish a relationship with the president-elect. It's going to be very difficult, he said. I don't see this president-elect as a legitimate president. In 2019, Hillary Clinton told CBS News, I believe he [Trump] knows hes an illegitimate president.

Liberals would have more credibility when they attack Trump for delegitimizing elections if they werent guilty of the same crime. Maybe if more prominent liberals had accepted the fact that Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton fair and square, thered be fewer Republicans who so easily accept Trumps phony story about how Joe BidenJoe BidenPelosi on eve of Jan. 6: Capitol rioters 'lost' bid to stop peaceful transfer of power MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell sues Jan. 6 panel over subpoena for phone records Overnight Defense & National Security Nation marks 1 year since Capitol riot MORE stole the 2020 presidential election.

And while were at it, let me remind my liberal friends that while theyre condemning Trump for concocting a story about a stolen election, theyre the same ones who champion Stacey Abrams, who, to this day, insists she would have won the Georgia governors race in 2018 except that Republicans, she claims, stole the election.

As I say, one crazy theory often leads to another crazy theory, a kind of political tit-for-tat.

And now we have a poll from CBS News that chronicles how we feel about what happened one year ago on Jan. 6.

Theres good news and bad news in the poll. The good news is that a vast majority of Americans disapprove of what happened that day 83 percent. The bad news is that 17 percent which translates to millions of Americans approve of what happened at the Capitol.

Only 3 percent of Democrats strongly approve of what happened, and only 6 percent of Republicans strongly approve. Thats more good news. But while 81 percent of Democrats strongly disapprove, only 34 percent of Republicans strongly disapprove. Thats more bad news.

So what do we have to look forward to, one year later, besides more mindless partisanship? CBS News asked, In future presidential elections, what do you expect? Thirty-eight percent of respondents said that the losing side would concede peacefully but 62 percent predicted violence.

We cant agree on much anymore in the United States. Were either on the red team or the blue team. Acknowledging that the other side may have a point is considered treason in some circles. But maybe we can leave our respective teams long enough to at least acknowledge this much: that everyone who was responsible for what happened on Jan. 6, 2021, should be held accountable and that includes the former president of the United States.

Could he be indicted by a Democratic Department of Justice for inciting a riot? If he were, might he be found guilty in a Washington courtroom? Its possible, but do we really want to throw a former American president in prison for stupid, even reckless, things he said?

I suspect thats one more thing the two sides wont agree on.

Bernard Goldberg is an Emmy and an Alfred I. duPont-Columbia University award-winning writer and journalist. He was a correspondent with HBOs Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel for 22 years and previously worked as a reporter for CBS News and as an analyst for Fox News. He is the author of five books and publishes exclusive weekly columns, audio commentaries and Q&As on his Patreon page. Follow him on Twitter @BernardGoldberg.

Follow this link:
Without the lies there would have been no Jan. 6 fiasco | TheHill - The Hill