Mediaboss Marketing

Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time

Gangster Gangaraju is an upcoming Telugu movie which is gearing up for the grand release very soon. The movie is directed by Eeshaan Suryaah and will feature Nihar Kapoor, Laksh Chadalavada, Vedieka Dutt, Vennela Kishore and Srikanth Iyyengar as lead characters. The movie also has Goparaju Ramana, Satyakrishan, Raviteja Nannimala, Charan Deep,Srikanth Iyenger, Rajeshwari Nair, Sammeta Gandhi, Rajendra, Anu Manasa, Lavanya Reddy, Annapoorna, and others in the important roles. According to the latest update, Gangster Gangaraju has completed the censor formalities and received U/A certificate from the censor board. The movie has crisp run time of 2Hrs 12Mins.

g-Ad

In the month of August last year, the makers of Gangster Gangaraju , unveiled the first look poster of Laksh Chadalavada who was spotted wearing an under cool outfit. He was seen sipping the coconut water.

The upcoming action entertainer Gangster Gangaraju is funded by well-known producer Padmavathi Chadalavada under the banner of Sri Tirumala Tirupati Venkstwshwara Films while Chadalavada Brothers are presenting this upcoming drama, which has the music by Sai Kartheek. The promotions of the film are going on in full swing. While the first look and songs of Gangster Gangaraju got a wonderful response. Being made with a different and first-of-its-kind storyline, the upcoming drama Gangster Gangaraju has all the thrilling elements for the movie lovers.

Read the original:
Gangster Gangaraju Censor report and run time - Tollywood

While the freezes were bad news for Bitcoin investors that are already suffering a historic downturn, they also expose a contradiction at the heart of the cryptocurrency world.

For all the industrys promises of decentralising finance, those who have exchanged their cash for crypto have done little more than put their faith in one financial gatekeeper over another.

Binance and Celsius customers savings were no more free for being in Bitcoin. They were still subject to the whims of an intermediary with the power to shut its doors and cut off users, just as they would be with a bank.

The key difference is that if a cryptocurrency company goes bust, there is no regulation protecting deposits.

Yes, Bitcoin technically operates independently of any institution or country, governed only by computer code and the network of miners that maintain it. This is why, strictly, it can never be regulated. You can download your bitcoin on to a hard drive and truly own it.

But most people dont: it is not worth the hassle or the risk. Instead, they store their cryptocurrencies in an online exchange where it can be easily withdrawn and liquidated.

Convenience wins over idealism, and as the current crop of Silicon Valley monopolies has shown, consumers drift towards centralisation.

Once it sits in an exchange where it can be converted, Bitcoin must interact with the rest of the financial system, making it subject to regulation.

Coinbase, one of the worlds biggest exchanges, deals with hundreds of law enforcement requests a week. Those operating in Britain are regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. Criminals are finding it increasingly difficult to convert stolen crypto into cash, because it is often seized when it enters an exchange.

As cryptocurrency companies come under closer scrutiny, they will start looking less representative of the libertarian ideal on which Bitcoin was founded and more like the ageing banks it was meant to replace.

At that point, we might start to wonder where its value comes from. If a couple of companies have the power to crash the entire market, Bitcoin does not look so free after all.

Go here to see the original:
The crypto crash proves it Bitcoin's libertarian dream is over - The Telegraph

With the potential overturning of Roe v. Wade, the Federalist Society appears poised for a triumph. This organization of conservative and libertarian lawyers and law professors and students turns 40 this year.

Yet contrary to progressive perceptions, the societys function has not been solely, or even primarily, to roll back abortion and other elements of the sexual revolution. If you look at the full scope of its activities, you will notice that a far more important mission has been to mount an economic revolution of its own, on behalf of corporations and other powerful market actors.

The Federalist Society has become a judicial pipeline of the Republican Party, helping to supply numerous nominees to the federal bench. In the progressive imagination, the society is a secretive cabal of theocrats and cultural reactionaries. In reality, it is best understood as a professional-development club for what the writer Michael Lind calls libertarians in robes who shift power from working-class voters to overclass judges.

The society was largely one of many institutions nurtured by the right wing of the American donor class to roll back the legal and material achievements of U.S. workers dating back to the New Deal and to elevate economic deregulation to high moral and constitutional principle. In tandem, other right-of-center institutions emerged to solidify Americas status abroad as a hegemon guarding the rule of global capital against rival claimants for organizing world order.

None of this is news to leftist critics of 20th-century conservatism. But a growing number of dissidents within conservatism view these legacy institutions not just the Federalist Society but also the Heritage Foundation, National Review Institute and others as ultimately hostile to core commitments that ought to inform the right. These would include cultivation of republican and personal virtue that rests on common prosperity and, yes, a measure of material equality; robust social-democratic support, especially for working families, who shouldnt have to choose between paying their bills and having children; and modesty about Washingtons role in foreign affairs.

Yet the institutions of Conservatism Inc. persist in advancing a pro-business agenda despite opposition from the large populist-right segment of the Republican rank and file. While the G.O.P. has never been a workers party, many of its voters are. Yet Conservatism Inc. refuses to embrace a multiethnic, working-class ethos.

Having seen the workings of institutional conservatism firsthand for several decades, we believe that the best way to understand the contemporary conservative intellectual movement is by examining the material interests that underwrite its workings and shape its mission. Those material interests arent all perfectly in agreement with one another, which is why the organizations in question dont always play nice together. There are disagreements at the margins. But the North Star of all is rule by large corporate and financial power, and support for militarism and cultural aggression abroad.

The Federalist Society itself offers the best illustration of the misguided development of movement conservatism. Hot-button social questions are sometimes fiercely contested among those with ties to the society. For instance, it was Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch who in 2020 led a majority of the court in ruling that sexual orientation and gender identity apply to the 1964 Civil Rights Acts definition of sex. And Edward Whelan, an originalist stalwart, countered arguments in favor of constitutional protection of fetal personhood the likely next stage in the anti-abortion battle if or when Roe falls.

Where the society has been supremely effective and far more united is in the realm of political economy. In the same decades of progressive ascendancy on cultural issues, society-certified judges on the federal bench pushed through a raft of decisions aimed at thwarting collective action by workers and government action against monopolies.

Over the past several decades, society heroes like Justice Antonin Scalia upended decades of settled law and clear congressional intent to expand the use of commercial arbitration to employment and consumer contexts. This was despite the manifest imbalance in power between the parties agreeing to arbitrate their disputes.

The conservative legal scholar Robert Bork proposed reforms to U.S. antitrust law by arguing that it should focus on consumer welfare, often understood to mean lower prices, even if monopoly power means a less competitive economy lorded over by a few giant companies.

The Federalist Society is not the only conservative institution to pursue a similar, pro-corporate agenda. Others, like the Heritage Foundation, the Hudson Institute and National Review Institute, also receive large sums from wealthy individuals and trusts and have similarly too often equated conservatism with a neoliberal, imperial agenda.

What does this tell us about whether the right can really be realigned with the working class? There are a number of smaller right-of-center institutions trying meaningfully to adapt, but Conservatism Inc. at best pays only lip service to working-class concerns. The largest institutions are still dedicated to inventing, often from whole cloth, as the Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich revolutionaries also did, a version of movement conservatism that holds at bay authentic American traditions that run counter to corporate interests.

In the republican tradition, the political economy must be embedded, with state intervention as needed, within a moral order. Yet the longstanding American tradition that fretted over compromises to civic virtue and democratic self-rule demanded by unchecked financial power and imperial expansion has very little institutional expression in todays Conservatism Inc.

In his farewell address, in 1961, President Dwight Eisenhower warned his compatriots about just this threat: the rise of a military-industrial complex that shuts out the primacy of public order and the common good to secure the economic commitments of corporate entities. This is what the conservative movement became, the jackals of Mammon. And it is what threatens the common good of the nation.

Sohrab Ahmari is a founder and editor of the journal Compact. Patrick Deneen is a professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame. Chad Pecknold is an associate professor of systematic theology at the Catholic University of America.

View original post here:
Opinion | The Federalist Society Has Helped Create a Corporate-Friendly Court That Hurts U.S. Workers - The New York Times

Once a month, the local Republican Party of Dane County, Wisconsin gathers for an evening event called Pints and Politics. Tonights gathering is taking place on a June night at a small public park with a pavilion in Sun Prairie, Wisconsin, one of several cities besides Madison in the heavily Democratic county. Some years back I was banned from the groups events for having written an accurate public account of one of them, but all has since been forgiven, and now I am as welcome as anyone.

Tonights lineup of speakers features seven candidates, including state representative and gubernatorial contender Tim Ramthun, who will be speaking last. The event organizer is Rolf Lindgren, a local libertarian of my long acquaintance. We talk soon after I arrive. He calls Donald Trump the most libertarian president weve had . . . ever: He got rid of the reviled Section 215. (Remember Michael Moore yelling about the Patriot Act?) He didnt start any new wars. He presided over a large drop in the number of federal prisoners. He banned the shackling of pregnant women in prison. And so on. Lindgrens priorities speak well of him.

About 50 people mill about, and even though they were invited to bring or cook food, hardly anyone is eatingor even drinking, which is unusual in Wisconsin. Scott Grabins, the local party chair, starts things off at 6 p.m.

We have an opportunity here, he tells the gathering. We have that . . . red wave coming. All you have to do is go down to the gas station. Rim shot, please.

Grabins is one of the ten Wisconsin Republicans who met in secret on Dec. 14, 2020after Trump lost Wisconsin by nearly 21,000 votesto sign an official-looking document purporting to declare Trump the winner on the authority of the states Republican electors. (At the same timein the same state capitol buildingthe states real electors were holding an official ceremony to authorize the states votes for Biden.) Republicans attempted the ruse in several states with the goal of giving Vice President Mike Pence an excuse to throw the election to Trump, which he declined to do. Two of Wisconsins actual electors recently filed suit against the pretend ones in the hope that doing so would prevent the losing side from attempting to subvert election outcomes in this manner in the future.

Notwithstanding the pending lawsuit against him, Grabins is jazzed tonight about the role that local Republicans will play in key races. Dane County has the third-largest number of Republicans in the state of Wisconsin, he says. We will determine who the next governor is, who the next attorney general is, who the state treasurer is, the secretary of state. We will determine whether Senator [Ron] Johnson goes back to the Senate.

He might be right. While Dane County is heavily Democraticin the 2020 election, Joe Biden beat Trump 77 percent to 22 percentthe level of enthusiasm that the people at this gathering can bring to bear on behalf of Republican candidates in the August 9 primary could prove pivotal in the November election.

Another speaker, candidate for state treasurer John Leiber, notes that the upcoming elections represent the GOPs best chance in half a century to clinch total control of Wisconsin state governmentnot just both houses of the legislature, but the offices of governor, lieutenant governor, attorney general, state treasurer, and secretary of state. Its a distinct possibility.

In fact, what happens in this falls elections in Wisconsin could sway the outcome of the next presidential election, should Republicans regain the governors office and seize control of the states electoral apparatus. That is their stated intent. All anyone has to do is listen.

Early in the program, Lindgren points out to the audience me and journalist Dylan Brogan, playfully reminding everyone present that whatever they say might end up in the news.

The speakers are not noticeably inhibited.

Andrew McKinney, a candidate for state assembly and Sun Prairie School District employee, explains that Democrats conned him into running as a Democrat in a previous race and have since made him keep his mouth shut. No more: McKinney shares that when the HR director at a nonprofit he worked for pressed him to give his pronouns, the ones he gave her were motherfucker and motherfuckers.

Another speakerMatt Sande, legislative director of Pro-Life Wisconsincalls the likely repeal of Roe v. Wade a great first step, adding that his group will then work to remove the exception for saving the life of the mother from the 1849 Wisconsin anti-abortion law that could go back into effect if Roe is overturned. This is a spiritual battle, he says, urging people to just pray they stick to this [leaked draft] Alito decision.

Secretary of state candidate Jay Schroeder, who came close to beating the longtime incumbent, Democrat Doug La Follette, in 2018 and is now one of three Republicans vying for the chance to oppose him in November, tells the gathering that the person holding this office has to sign a sheet of paper to certify the states electors in the presidential election. Had he had this power in 2020, I would not have signed it. (Its not clear whether this would make the document invalid. La Follette, who signed it in 2020, tells me in an email that he doesnt know.)

But the nights most extraordinary speaker on the issue of election security is Jefferson E. Davis, chair of an ad hoc committee on voter integrity. Davis directs his attention to me and fellow reporter Brogan, hoping to end up in the news. He points to his car, a black Saab parked on the street. That car, he announces, is full of receipts and data that he would share afterward with the two of us to show how the election was stolen in Wisconsin.

If you think Joe Biden won the state of Wisconsin by 20,682 votes, if you think hes the sitting president . . . then Im the starting quarterback for the Green Bay Packers, he tells the gathering. Davis is not the Packers starting quarterback.

While a smooth speaker with plenty of ready-to-hand figures and percentages, Davis doesnt have much in the way of evidence to share with the larger group. He claims that Democrats visited tens of thousands of nursing home residents on election day to steal as many of their votes, their dignity, and their identity as possible. They also connived to send out as many absentee-ballot request forms as they could, even to people who didnt ask to receive them. Theyre gonna do it again in 2022, he warns.

Davis is immediately followed by Orville Seymer, a longtime conservative activist, who circulates a handout outlining an exciting new idea for Republican electoral success: Make a list of people you know, look up their voting history on the Wisconsin Elections Commissions website, and request that they be sent absentee ballot request forms; then swoop in to do everything for them except sign it. Youve just doubled your vote, and youve done it completely legally, he notes, correctly.

At last, the floor goes to the candidate Lindgren introduces as Radical Tim Ramthun. Ramthun gives a long, rambling talk that rotates like an elliptical around an idea he puts this way: When election integrity doesnt happen, and nefarious acts and illegal acts result in [the] wrong people being in seats, youve got problems like we have now in our society. Its a big deal.

Ramthun is vying for the GOPs gubernatorial nomination against former Lieutenant Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and businessmen Kevin Nicholson and Tim Michels. He tells the group he spoke with Trump for seven minutes and 45 seconds in December (He said, Youre my kind of guy.) and again at Mar-a-Lago in April, after which he heard from others that he would be getting Trumps nod. Instead, in May, Trump endorsed Michels. Ramthun is still scratching his head: I heard Reince Preibus was involved. Moneys probably involved.

Ramthun also recounts his clashes with Robin Vos, the Republican who is speaker of the Wisconsin assembly. At Trumps instigation, Voslaunched a probe into the 2020 election result that had already survived a recount and a state supreme court ruling. The probe that has thus far cost taxpayers nearly $900,000 and uncovered no fraudexcept the unsupportable claims made by those conducting it. After Ramthun falsely accused Republicans of signing a pact with Hillary Clinton to authorize voting dropboxes, Vos stripped him of his sole staff member. Radical Tim assures the gathering that he is undaunted.

People continue just to tell me, Well, Tim, youre a conspiracy theorist or Its not constitutional. The only word that comes to mind for me is ignorance. The facts, he says, continue to pour out: You cant dispute the data. The geospatial ping data qualifies [as] fact. Period.

Ramthun at one point refers to the Democrat-orchestrated riot that happened on January 6thYes, I said it that way; write that down, he notes to me and Broganbut he doesnt elaborate on the claim. So, at the end of his talk, I raise my hand and ask Ramthun to explain what he meant. Here is what he says:

In my opinion, I am aware of seven states that were coming to that certification event on January 6th to object to it. It is my opinion that Democrat leadership knew of that and did not want the objection to happen. The seven states were the swing states, including Nevada and New Mexico, Arizona, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin. So the reason I said it is because the plan is clear: They were going to object to the certification on January 6th on the floor, and every state was going to have to vote independent. It was going to string it out and be a big deal and it was going to be chaotic for the side that wanted it donethey wanted to rubber stamp it, they didnt want that, so lets cause a deflection. Lets create something, and well just make it happen automatic and no one will know better, because theyll be focused on the other thing that happenedwhich, by the way, worked very well. My opinion.

Who needs congressional hearings when you can have the events of January 6th explained as clearly as this?

By the way, at no point during the event does anyone concerned about election integrity mention Grabinss participation in an actual plot to subvert the 2020 election result.

As the event concludes, Jefferson Davis tries to follow through on his offer to show me and Brogan the receipts and other evidence hes keeping in his Saab that the states 2020 election was stolen. Its late, the Brewers are playing, and Im hungryas is everyone else who came to this cookout but didnt eat, I imagineso I leave. Later, Brogan texts a photo of Davis with some of the papers and offers this disappointing report: guy talked to me for 40 mins, pulled out a bunch of binders with spreadsheets but finally admitted nothing he showed was proof, but thats coming.

I can hardly wait.

Read the original post:
Fear and Loathing in Dane County - The Bulwark

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The House passed a bill Tuesday to increase security for Supreme Court justices' immediate families, with 27 Democrats voting against, less than a week after a man was arrested for allegedly plotting to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

The bill that's now headed to President Bidens desk for final approval provides for 24-hour protection for Supreme Court justices' families, similar to what is already provided for some members of the executive and legislative branches.

The House voted 396-27, approving a measure that had already been passed by unanimous consent in the Senate in May just days after a leaked draft Supreme Court opinion suggested it intends to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, N.Y., was one of the Democrats to vote against providing additional protections for Supreme Court justices and their families. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

Democrats who opposed the bill argued that it also needed to include protection for court staff, including clerks, and their families.

ISSA SLAMS AOC, PELOSI OVER SCOTUS SECURITY BILL STALL: IT IS ASTONISHING

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., boasted in an Instagram video on Saturday about initially blocking the bill.

"I wake up this morning and I start to hear murmurs that there is going to be an attempt to pass the Supreme Court supplemental protection bill the day after gun safety legislation for schools and kids and people is stalled," she said in the video.

"Oh, so we can pass protections for us and here easily, right? But we can't pass protections for everyday people?" she continued. "I think not."

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

All those who voted "no" on the Supreme Court Police Parity Act on Tuesday were Democrats. They are:

Rep. Joyce Beatty, D-Ohio

Rep. JamaalBowman, D-N.Y.

Rep. Cori Bush, D-Mo.

Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas

Rep.Adriano Espaillat, D-N.Y.

Rep. Chuy Garcia, D-Ill.

Rep. Sylvia Garcia, D-Texas

Rep.Joshua Gottheimer, D-N.J.

Rep.Ral Grijalva, D-Ariz.

Rep.Steven Horsford, D-Nev.

Rep.Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.

Rep.Brenda Lawrence, D-Mich.

Rep. Barbara Lee, D-Calif.

Rep. Tom Malinowski, D-N.J.

Rep. MarieNewman, D-Ill.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.

Rep. Bill Pascrell, D-N.J.

Rep.Donald Payne, D-N.J.

Rep. Ed Perlmutter, D-Colo.

Rep. Ayanna Pressley, D-Mass.

Rep.Mikie Sherrill, D-N.J.

Rep.Albio Sires, D-N.J.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.

Rep.Norma Torres, D-Calif.,

Rep.Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif.

Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J.

Jessica Chasmar is a reporter for Fox News Digital. Story tips can be sent to Jessica.Chasmar@fox.com and on Twitter: @JessicaChasmar.

The rest is here:
These 27 Democrats voted against protections for Supreme Court justices ...