Monday, December 21, 2015

Leonardo Talks about bear rape scene

The Revenant: Leonardo DiCaprio 'not at liberty' to speak about filming of bear attack that involves 'intimacy of both man and beast'

www.abc.net.au

 

Hollywood star Leonardo DiCaprio has told the ABC's 7.30 program a "ground-breaking" bear attack scene in his latest film The Revenant involved the director watching 100 different attacks.

But the actor stopped short of discussing the sequence in detail, despite some online outlets claiming it depicts DiCaprio's character Hugh Glass being raped by the bear.

Fox Studios was this month forced to deny The Drudge Report's story that claimed the film features "a shocking scene of a wild bear raping Leo DiCaprio".

The studio told US entertainment bulletin Entertainment Weekly the bear in the film is female, and attacks DiCaprio's character "because she feels he might be threatening her cubs".

DiCaprio was coy with the details, but praised director Alejandro Inarritu's approach to directing the scene.

"I'm not at real liberty to speak to you about exactly how [the director] pulled this off," DiCaprio told 7.30's Leigh Sales.

"So much of the director's technique is something that he wants to keep to himself because he loves the idea of audiences submerging themselves in something that is almost like virtual reality.

"But I will say that it involved months of rehearsal and it involved him watching 100 different bear attacks.

DiCaprio says scene is 'very raw, violent, savage'

"What he achieves cinematically is something that I think is very ground-breaking, and that is the ability for an audience to be in a sort of very raw, violent, savage bear attack, yet feel the intimacy of both man and beast."

DiCaprio said the sequence was a visceral one for the viewing audience.

"You feel the sweat, and the heat coming off the animal," he said.

"It's almost like he awakens other senses within you as an audience member, and you feel like you're some voyeuristic animal watching something that you shouldn't be watching.

"But most of that is achieved in a lot of the silent moments that he creates in that sequence."

DiCaprio said he was glad it had started a conversation about the film, which tells the story of a legendary 1800s frontiersman who must utilise his survival skills after the bear attack.

"People are talking about it because it's something incredibly ground-breaking," DiCaprio said.

"People have responded to it because it's unlike anything that they've ever seen in cinema ever, really."

External Link: The Revenant trailer

Cruz Opens Big Lead in Iowa, Trump Tops in New Hampshire, South Carolina

Listen To Military Veteran Talk Radio


Reuters
by MIKE FLYNN20 Dec 20154,325
new CBS poll shows TexasSen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) has opened a strong 9 point lead over Donald Trump in Iowa, the first state to vote in the 2016 nominating contest.
Cruz has the support of 40 percent of likely caucus goers, followed by Trump with 31 percent.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) is a distant third, with 12 percent support. Neurosurgeon Ben Carson is fourth with just 6 percent support. All other Republican candidates are at 2 percent or less, including Jeb Bush, whose allied super PAC, Right to Rise, has spent millions on advertising in the caucus state.
Together, Trump and Cruz draw more than 70 percent support from likely caucus-goers in Iowa.
Trump, meanwhile, dominates the Republican race in New Hampshire, earning 32 percent support from likely primary voters. Trump’s vote, in fact, is double the support of Ted Cruz who, with 14 percent support, is in second place. Rubio is in third, with 13 percent, followed closely by New Jersey Governor Chris Christie at 11 percent and Ohio Governor John Kasich at 8 percent.
Jeb Bush is sixth in New Hampshire, with just 6 percent support. Bush, Christie and Kasich have all spent considerable sums advertising in New Hampshire. All three campaigns, or super PACs affiliated with them, have spent several million dollars advertising in the first primary state. Christie and Kasich have clearly gained from the spending, while Bush has lost ground in the Granite State.
Trump also dominates the field in South Carolina, which votes on February 20th, soon after Iowa and New Hampshire. Trump leads with 38 percent, followed again by Cruz with 23 percent. Rubio is 3rd, with 12 percent, followed by Carson with 9 percent and Bush with 7 percent.
In all three states, one issue dominates the political discussion; national security and terrorism. In each state, at least 70 percent of all voters believe America is becoming “more dangerous and insecure.” More than 60 percent of Republicans in each state list national security as the most important issue in 2016.
While the first votes are still several weeks away, voters’ preferences in all three contests are solidifying. More than 60 percent for Republicans in all three states say their minds are made up and are unlikely to change their support. In Iowa, just 25 percent of Republicans say they might still change their minds. In South Carolina and New Hampshire, only about a third of Republicans say they may still change their minds.
After 5 debates and months of intense campaigning, the Republican field is nearing the final turn before voting begins in early February. Trump and Cruz are separating from the pack, with Rubio running a distant third. In New Hampshire, though, the middle of the pack is becoming more crowded.
The race in New Hampshire, in fact, is a reversal of recent political history. Traditionally, several conservative candidates have fought for a clear shot at the establishment frontrunner. This year, however, the establishment candidates are clawing at each other to take on anti-establishment frontrunners.
History may not repeat itself, but it does rhyme. This year, the rhythm is playing a conservative tune.
Read More Stories About:

Sarah Palin Warns ‘GOP Machine': Do Not ‘Marginalize Evangelicals’


by PAM KEY20 Dec 201590

Friday on Newmax TV’s “Newsmax Prime,” former Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK), the 2008 GOP vice-presidential nominee, warned the “GOP machine” not to “marginalize evangelicals.”

Palin said, “We make a difference in the political arena by exercising that sacred right that we have to vote, to elect Godly leaders who will reflect our values, the Judeo-Christian foundation of our nation.”

She added, “GOP well when it comes to the establishment, the GOP kind of machine that seems to want to run everything, they need to not marginalize evangelicals and those who really rely on faith and believe so strongly in those time-tested truths that are in scripture.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV2016 Presidential RaceSarah PalinSarah Palin

Establishment to Trump: You Can’t Afford to Run For President


Getty Images

by JOHN HAYWARD20 Dec 20153,080

Holman Jenkins at the Wall Street Journal took a look at Donald Trump’s finances over the weekend, and suggested the outspoken billionaire might not be able to afford to keep a serious national campaign going past the first few states:

None of his offenses against propriety seem to have dinged the support that, in a crowded race, keeps Donald Trump atop the GOP primary polls.

Republicans are now talking about a brokered convention, which could be a disaster for the country, and for the GOP, and quite possibly hand the election to Hillary Clinton without a real contest or even critique of her agenda.

So goes the fear. But unless we miss our guess, our long national nightmare-cum-sketch comedy show actually has a termination date. It will end the moment campaigning begins to threaten Mr. Trump’s finances and business interests.


Actually, as Jenkins notes further in his piece, Trump’s campaign already has already damaged his business interests:

In any case, his comments have become an opening. Already Mr. Trump’s Middle Eastern business interests are under assault. He lost a few U.S. deals early on due to his slurs on Mexican-Americans. Now a handful of Silicon Valley biggies—the CEOs of Apple, Facebook and Google—have ventured criticism without mustering quite the courage to mention him by name.

What happens when important business partners start letting Mr. Trump know, publicly and noisily, they think he’s doing serious damage to the country? By Mr. Trump’s own inflated reckoning, most of his net worth resides in the value of his name.

Our guess is that Mr. Trump has always planned on being satisfied with making a splash and ventilating his high opinion of himself. He will rightly be able to claim that he gave neglected voters a voice and transformed the debate. Notice that he manages to maintain his jolly equanimity even when being vilified. He is not grimly “on a mission” as so many candidates are whose self-image is wrapped up in electoral success.


As a direct result of his presidential campaign, Trump ended up in a $10 million lawsuit with chef Jose Andres, who was supposed to be a part of the Trump International Hotel project in Washington; lost a battle against a wind farm in Scotland; lost a merchandising relationship with Macy’s department stores; and might end up losing business at some of his properties, although the actual damage from loudly-declared boycotts is open to debate.

Jenkins makes some shrewd observations about the realities of campaign financing, especially the need to win the support of big donors.  A network of deep-pocketed special interests will shower Hillary Clinton with the kind of cash Trump simply cannot provide by tapping into his own assets.

Also, the many political assets the Republican Party would bring to the table for most other nominees won’t be there for Trump if the Establishment makes good on its threats to sit out in 2016, dumping the nation into Clinton’s claws, if Trump is the standard-bearer.  The old fear was that a frustrated Trump would run third-party and dynamite the race after failing to secure the nomination; now we’ve got Trump cheerfully assuring Republican voters in the last debate that he’ll keep his promise to stay with the party no matter what, and it’s Jeb Bush talking about signing up with Team Clinton as an unofficial junior partner if Trump’s the GOP nominee.

The enormous national polling success Trump has achieved through earned media – summoning a swarm of microphones and cameras every time he feels like making a statement – will go down in the political history books, but once primary voting begins in earnest, targeted paid advertising will matter more than the kind of media pandemonium that keeps Trump on top of national polls.

Of course, the conventional wisdom about the limits of earned media could be wrong, just as every other confident prediction about Trump has been wrong so far.

Articles like the WSJ post on Trump’s finances could be one more attempt to apply conventional political analysis to a campaign that routinely defies it… or it might be taken as a shot across the bow, a warning to Trump that he ought to deliver what Jenkins envisions as “a glorious ‘I’ve got better things to do than hang around with you losers’ exit” before he suffers the kind of financial loss he can’t recover from.

The Wall Street Journal analysis backs into an aspect of Trump’s success that our political culture has a hard time accepting: his supporters think he’s immune to the corruption sickening D.C., the Big Government corruption that Hillary Clinton is the living, breathing, influence-peddling avatar of.  At this point, everyone gets the idea that Trump is taking a serious financial hit from this campaign – they hear all the stories about boycotts and busted business deals, and it only reinforces their sense of Trump’s sincerity.

They grasp that it’s not very likely he is running for President to pad his pockets, and when they hear other billionaires are furious with Trump and scrambling to fund his competitors, it reinforces their sense that whatever else the outrageous Trump might be planning to do with the Oval Office, he won’t be using government power to enrich a network of cronies the way Obama did, and Clinton absolutely would.

Democrats are, of course, institutionally oblivious to rising public anger at corruption – they think they can manage it by spending ad money on lavish campaigns to convince their gullible voters that each new socialist figurehead is motivated by nothing but compassion.  A few Republicans understand that corruption is a ripe issue – it’s been a major theme for Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) – but perhaps even fewer understand just how incandescently angry taxpayers have become.

It’s easy to scoff at Donald Trump as an unlikely crusader against corruption – he was downright cheerful when he reminisced about buying influence in the first GOP debate, and never quite got around to explaining why it’s a bad thing that he needed to grease the right palms to get what he wanted.  But there is a real sense among his supporters that, whether his ideas are right or wrong, he’s enduring great personal expense to stay in the race and express them.  Just about every candidate talks about being a “fighter,” but Trump has real bruises.  Political analysts seem to be underestimating how much credit people give him for staying in the race when it’s obviously hurting him.

As for whether it will be prohibitively expensive for Trump to run a full-boat campaign, the Wall Street Journal figures he might have as little as $70 million in liquid assets, which is “less than what several candidates in the race (Bush, Clinton, Cruz) and their super PACs already have raised.”  But how much does that $70 million count for, when it’s mixed with Trump’s proven ability to hold the media spotlight?

If, as some have suggested, the transition to local political organizations and likely primary voters prevents Trump from winning any of the early primary states, it’s doubtful any amount of campaign cash would be enough to turn an implosion narrative around.  But if he does score some strategic early victories and keep his frontrunner narrative alive, he might be able to stretch a dollar further than anyone ever has.  Meanwhile, the Democrats stash their candidates in Saturday-night cellars to keep voters from getting a good look at them.

Read More Stories About:

Big Government2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpTed CruzHillary Clinton,2016 campaignGOP primarycampaign finance

Trump: Hillary Is a Liar — 'She Lies Like Crazy About Everything' - Breitbart

www.breitbart.com

Please enable Javascript to watch this video

by Pam Key20 Dec 20150

20 Dec, 201520 Dec, 2015

Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” while responding to Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton saying in the debate last night that he is “becoming ISIS’s best recruiter,” Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump declared that to be “just another Hillary lie.”

Trump said, “Nobody has been able to back that up. It’s nonsense. Just another Hillary lie. She lies like crazy about everything. Whether it’s trips where she was being gunned down in a helicopter or an airplane, she’s a liar and everybody knows that. But she just made this up in thin air.”

He continued, “I think my words represent toughness and strength. Hillary’s not strength. Hillary’s weak, frankly, she’s got no stamina, she’s got nothing….she couldn’t even get back on the stage. Nobody even knows what happened to her. It’s like she went home and went to sleep….She couldn’t get back on the stage last night I’ll tell you why. Because we need a president with great strength and stamina and Hillary doesn’t have that. We can not have another bad president like we have right now. We need a president with tremendous intelligence, smarts, cunning, strength, and stamina.”

He added, “She may have traveled a lot but she didn’t do the job because the entire world blew up around her. So she wasted a lot of time and energy and money and frankly she wasted a lot of lives because her policies were disaster for the world. The Middle East has blown up around her. Her decisions were horrible. and hundreds of thousands of people have been killed because of her faulty decisions.”

Follow Pam Key on Twitter @pamkeyNEN

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart TV2016 Presidential Race,Donald TrumpHillary ClintonHillary Cliinton

Saturday, December 19, 2015

Merkel: Nations Must Give Up Sovereignty On Migrant Crisis


AFP

by AFP16 Dec 20152,587

German Chancellor Angela Merkel Wednesday warned European partners against resorting to national action to deal with the current migrant crisis, rather than working towards a common solution.

“Sealing oneself off is not a sensible option in the 21st century,” she told parliament on the eve of an EU summit at which leaders will discuss issues surrounding post-war Europe’s biggest migrant influx.

“That’s why we must resist the temptation to fall back on national solutions,” she said.

Instead, the 28 members of the bloc should work together toward a “common European and international answer to sustainably reduce the number of refugees,” she said.

Despite opposition from some nations, including Hungary and Poland, Merkel insisted however that the EU must agree on a compulsory “fair distribution of refugees to member states of the EU”.

Germany is expecting to register one million asylum seekers this year alone, and Merkel’s open-door policy for people fleeing war has divided both her country and the EU.

Under pressure, Merkel has pledged to reduce the numbers of new arrivals although she has refused to put a cap on the figures.

Merkel’s promise to staunch the flow of refugees rests on medium-to-long term goals, such as tackling the root causes of the mass exodus from crisis zones, increased European solidarity in sharing the refugee burden, and greater cooperation with Turkey, the main launchpad for migrant crossings to Europe.

As part of the joint action with Ankara, Berlin wants EU members to help resettle 400,000 asylum seekers currently hosted by Turkey, German media reported.

Austrian Chancellor Werner Faymann has however cited a far smaller number of between 40,000 and 50,000 Syrians who could be resettled in Europe from Turkey.

In exchange, Turkey would do more to secure its border and allow “very few refugees” into the EU, Faymann said in comments to Germany’s Die Welt newspaper.

Read More Stories About:

Breitbart LondonGermanyEurope Migrant CrisisAngela Merkel

Democrat Leaders Dance, Gloat, Declare Speaker Paul Ryan ‘Gave Away The Store’


Getty Images

by NEIL MUNRO18 Dec 2015472

Democratic leaders are unanimous in declaring a complete victory over House Speaker 

Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)

58%

 and his close allies, who wrote the $1.1 trillion omnibus budget without asking House conservatives for any input — or even for some public objections to help their closed-door negotiations.

The Democrats’ victory, and Republican Ryan’s defeat, was garishly displayed when his omnibus got more Democratic votes in the House and in the Senate than it got Republican votes.

“I said I would not accept a lot of [conservative] ideological riders that were attached to a big budget deal,” President Barack Obama said Friday, at his end-of-year press conference. “And because of some terrific negotiations by the Democrats up on Capitol Hill and I think some pretty good work by our legislative staff here… it was a good win,” he said. “We met our goals,” he said.

In 2015, “we wanted to get rid of sequestration, we were able to do that,” gloated the Democrats’ leader in the Senate,

Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

2%

. “We wanted to make sure there is parity between defense and the middle class, we wanted to make sure that we kept these poison pills off the legislation… All three goals we had, we accomplished,” he said. Ryan’s omnibus deal “caps off a successful year for Senate Democrats,” he added.

“Well, if you would’ve told me this year that we’d be standing here celebrating the passage of an omnibus bill, with no poison pill riders, at higher [spending] levels above sequesters than even the president requested, I wouldn’t have believed it, but here we are,” Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer told reporters shortly after the $1.1 trillion omnibus bill was passed.

“Almost anything, the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms… Democrats had an amazingly good year,” he declared.

Over in the House, the Democrats’ upbeat press conference began with laughter, according to the transcript.

(Leader Pelosi. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. I know you’re out there. I see you.

[Laughter]

Some of you, for the second time this morning – thank you for coming by. We’re very pleased to say that today, we delivered sweeping victories for hard-working American families. The Omnibus bill makes vital investments that will create jobs, strengthen our future and grow the paychecks of American people… We passed the best possible, under the circumstances, appropriations bill… the Republicans’ obsession with lifting the oil-export ban, they really gave away the store. Democrats were able to strip scores and scores of poison pills, destructive poison pills, some of which they had to have, which they ended up with not having… it is a monumental improvement… But again, we feel very, very good about what it is.… and thank the Speaker for his cooperation.


You can watch it all here, including the claim by Maryland 

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD)

6%

, the Democrats’ deputy leader, that “this was an extraordinarily big victory.”

The Washington Post scored the results, and kindly give only 10 victories to the Democrats, and then four to Ryan.

At his press event, Ryan claimed a victory, but had little evidence to prove his point. “Today, the House came together to ensure our government is open and working for the American people,” he said in a statement. “This bipartisan compromise secures meaningful wins for Republicans and the American people, such as the repeal of the outdated, anti-growth ban on oil exports,” said the statement.

What did he trade to get that one win? — “scores and scores of poison pills, destructive poison pills, some of which they had to have, which they ended up with not having,” according to Pelosi.

So Ryan claimed “meaningful wins,” but very few of them.

“The legislation strengthens our military and protects Americans from terrorist threats, while limiting the overreach of intrusive government bureaucracies like the IRS and the EPA,” he said, weakly, before changing the subject by promising to do better in 2016. “Congress can now move into 2016 with a fresh start and a plan to return to regular order in order to better protect taxpayer dollars,” he claimed.

On the Michael Medved radio show, Ryan defended stepped up his claims — with a stronger adjective, but not more evidence.

We scored major policy wins for conservatives—for our country—in this bill. We advanced our principles. Did we advance all of our principles as far as we want to go? No, because we’re in divided government. But we did advance them in the right direction. So the way I look at these things, is take what you can get now, and then go fight for more later. And I think we’ve set ourselves up for more success in 2016.


Ryan didn’t tout one of the most unpopular inserts in the bill  — the GOP-approved legislation to import up to 200,000 extra foreign workers to take American’s blue-collar jobs.

Ryan’s main claim to success was the removal of the barrier to the export of crude oil — and to get that win, he gave up a huge list of conservative priorities.

“If you take a look at what’s in this bill, at what this bill actually does, it has a permanent lift—a permanent removal—of the ban on petroleum exports, on crude oil exports. That’s something we’ve been trying to do for 40 years in this country. Think of what we get by removing the ban. And the Obama administration, on oil exports—when America can export its oil, that means we can compete with OPEC. We can put OPEC out of the business of controlling the world’s oil markets. We can take Putin out of business with respect to selling oil and gas to his customers. We can create more jobs. We can become more independent. We can keep our prices low by having more control over the marketplace and create more jobs right here in America. It’s fantastic for our foreign policy. It’s really good for American jobs. And it’s something we’re actually getting done that we haven’t been able to do for decades.”


The commenters on his website tend to disagree with Ryan’s claim of “meaningful wins.”

“Ryan… just spit in the face of his constituents,” said one. “Why vote Republican? The Democrats claim this bill as a great victory for their priorities and party! Did Republicans cut the budget? NO,” said the next commenter.  “And they wonder why Trump is beating them. I suppose now that they’ve funded all of Obama’s priorities through 2018, they can play “Pretend Opposition Party” in 2016 and hope we’ll forget how they boned us,” said the next comment.

Many GOP politicians — especially the roughly 100 Representatives and Senators who voted against the deal — are very unhappy, including 

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR)

70%

, who posted this statement on his website:

A rotten process yields a rotten result, and this 2,000-page, trillion-dollar bill is rotten to its core, resulting from secret, backroom negotiations and getting dumped in the dead of the night on Americans with barely two days before the vote. Corporate lobbyists had a field day, but working Americans lost out. Take just one sordid example: this bill will quadruple the number of foreign guest-worker visas at a time when millions of Americans are still looking for full-time work and working-class wages remain stagnant.


At the Senate Democrats’ press conference, Schumer gloated at length and in great detail, unlike Ryan. He’s always worth listening to, if only because he’s expected to take over Sen. Reid’s leadership position in January 2017.

This bill is a great victory for the principles Democrats stand for. And as we look back in the year of the Senate, I think there have been three major trends, two of which are getting noticed, but the third is getting overlooked.

First, the Senate is getting things done.

Second, we are getting them done, because Democrats are not obstructing the same way Republicans did when they were in the minority, and those two points have been talked about in the media and elsewhere.

But third, the point that has been missed is that the bills were passing reflect Democratic values. We are getting, even though were in the minority, we are passing a program that we have been for all along. Today’s omnibus vote is a metaphor for that. The vote marks the end of the road the Democrats began mapping out last spring.

When Republicans made clear they were going to try to jam through partisan appropriation bills through the senate. [GOP] Senator [Mitch] McConnell thought he could jam the defense appropriation bill through, but Democrats stood firm and blocked him. Sen. McConnell said over and over again he wants to stay at sequestration levels. He said over and over again, that he wanted to put much more money into defense than into the nondefense. He didn’t get either of those, and we said the opposite, and we got what we wanted.  The relief from devastating cuts knowns as sequestration, the relief that was equal, no poison pill riders, the three principles Democrats laid out, Republicans opposed, are all laid out, are all in that bill today.

The bill were passing today, passes the test of Democratic values with flying colors and fits the framework we laid out years ago. And if you need any proof of this, look what happened on the floor a few minutes ago. Senator McConnell offered an amendment to strip out the omnibus portion of the bill, and a majority of Republicans voted for it. They don’t like it. But, our strategy worked. And the idea that we’d let people know that if the government was shut down, it would be because of their intransigence, maybe both Speaker Ryan and Leader McConnell understand that they couldn’t shut down the government and that meant they couldn’t make unreasonable demands and that meant we were going to have a budget with Democratic priorities.

But it’s not just the budget. This has happened over and over again, take the transportation bill. Democrats demanded a long-term bill with increased investments. Republicans wanted a short term bill with flat funding. What’d we get? A long term bill with increased investments.

How about the Export-Import bank? Senator McConnell said, no. Most of the Republicans said, no. We now have an export import bank.

How about when Republicans sought to hold hostage funding [in early 2015] for the Department of Homeland Security and Democrats banded together to fully fund the department and protect the president’s order on immigration. And finally, the bill that Ranking Member [Democrat Sen. Patty] Murray mentioned the Education Bill, loaded with Democratic values, attempts to switch the funding formula, attempts to do all of these other things, didn’t happen.

So, anything, almost anything, the Republican leadership in the Senate achieved this year, they achieved on Democratic terms.

By sticking together, as we have been, we’ve been unified under Harry Reid’s leadership, by fighting for the middle class, which we have focused on like a laser, while Republicans carry the water for the special interests; Democrats had an amazingly good year, as a minority party. We can only hope that our Republican colleagues will be as a cooperative minority, as we were this year, when Democrats take back the senate in 2016.

In comparison, Ryan only declared “This bipartisan compromise secures meaningful wins for Republicans and the American people, such as the repeal of the outdated, anti-growth ban on oil exports.”

“And I think we’ve set ourselves up for more success in 2016,” he says.