|Boots and Sabers Blog|
|Hot Air Blog|
|Jim Ott's Hot Air Report|
|Media Research Center|
|Real Clear Politics|
|Wall Street Journal|
|WisPolitics Budget Blog|
Could an ultra-violent video game be the inspiration for the latest wave of random violent assaults?
Grand Theft Auto V was released for xBox 360 and Playstation 3 on September 17th. Within 24 hours, it had made $800 million.
That's not a misprint.
One of the most violent video games in history made nearly a billion dollars in a day. That same day, September 17th, this video was uploaded to YouTube:
Look familiar? This video has more that 2 million views, and its popularity, as well as the popularity of the game it features, may well be the inspiration for the new round of random assaults.
To be fair, though, smoking crack does far less damage than President Obama's policies. Yahoo! News reports:
What could be worse for President Obama than having a lower approval rating than his predecessor George W. Bush ? It sounds too crazy to be true, but recent polling suggests that embattled Toronto Mayor Rob Ford actually has a slightly higher job approval rating than Obama.
The New York Daily News makes the comparison between the two political figures, noting that in a new Forum Research Poll , Ford has a 42 percent approval rating from Toronto voters. That gives him a one-point edge over Obama’s 41 percent approval rating in the most recent Gallup poll.
Naturally, over the course of the article, Yahoo! tries its hardest to contradict its own premise:
Of course, it’s a bit of a stretch to say that Rob Ford is more popular that President Obama. First of all, the polls were conducting by different agencies, so it’s far from precise to say a head-to-head comparison is by any means scientific.
Secondly, we’re talking two men in different countries, with different jobs. And while Toronto is Canada’s largest city, it’s still only a population of around 2.6 million, compared to more than 300 million people living in the U.S.
Also, Ford is facing calls to step down from his position, with 60 percent of Toronto voters in the Forum Research Poll saying he should resign, even as less than half of the same voters favor a recall.
But direct polling correlations are largely irrelevant, because the point is simple: President Obama's approval is absolutely tanking, in large measure because of his own policies (most notably Obamacare).
While President Bush was (largely unfairly) blamed for the government's response to Hurricane Katrina, President Obama's polling mess is entirely his own doing.
At least Rob Ford has had the good sense to apologize for his idiocy!
Really, really bad, according to Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, who writes in the Wall Street Journal today:
Obama administration officials have been eager to cite claims from the U.S. intelligence community that Iran has slowed its enrichment of uranium. But, leaving aside the question of whether American intelligence analysts have any better grasp of the Iranian program than they had of the Iraqi WMD program, it is eminently possible, as Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu argues, that the slowdown is occurring simply because the mullahs already have all the capacity they need to produce a bomb.
In essence, the agreement requires both an implicit trust in the Iranian government to live up to their end of the bargain and an assumption that Tehran doesn't already have a nuclear arsenal.
Both are phenomenally and dangerously shortsighted.
What, exactly, has the Iranian government done in the past, oh, three decades to indicate that they are worthy of the world's trust?
And when, exactly, have the mullahs stopped calling for the utter destruction of Israel?
And why, exactly, would anyone believe that they aren't certifiably insane enough to use nuclear weapons to bring about Israel's destruction?
So how, exactly, we wonder, does anyone in the west believe that this deal is a good idea?
If he really believs that, then President Obama is apparently a particularly delusional guy. The Washington Times reports:
President Obama, described by some as carting the most liberal-progressive vision for the nation since the days of Jimmy Carter, nonetheless claimed in a weekend address that he’s hardly an ideologue.
Just a few breaths later, he also blamed the Republican Party for much of the political troubles plaguing Capitol Hill, calling them an “impediment” to smooth governance, The Associated Press reported. That’s because they are “more focused on positioning themselves for the next election.”
At the same time, Mr. Obama was making the comments at a Democratic fundraiser on the West Coast — to help select Democrats in the upcoming election.
Among his remarks, AP reported: “I’m not a particularly ideological person” and ” [I’m] pretty pragmatic about how we get” to the point of passing certain policies and reforms.
Pragmatic? Not particularly ideological? We think the strain of the Obamacare failure has finally gotten to the president, because this is either a dishonest self-assessment or evidence of his complete and total detachment from reality!
WISN's Dan O'Donnell does, and he's compiled a pretty impressive list of liberals actually being in favor of the filibuster before they were against it.
50 years after an assassination that rocked America to its very core, WISN's Dan O'Donnell reports that the only thing about that fateful day that hasn't been thoroughly dissected is Lee Harvey Oswald's liberal socialist politics.
President Obama just congratulated Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for employing the so-called "nuclear option" to force a vote on the president's judicial nominees.
But did you know Senator Barack Obama was actually vehemently opposed to such a move? I know, I know...I'm no longer shocked by this guy's rank hypocrisy, either.
The president's Twitter account has some, ummm, interesting advice for making conversation with loved ones this holiday season.
Well, WISN's Dan O'Donnell agrees him and is offering some handy conversation starters!
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has decided to hear arguments regarding the constitutionality of the state's Voter ID law, issuing a statement today that it would take up a pair of lawsuits brought against the law almost as soon as it was enacted in 2011.
The state Court of Appeals had been scheduled to hear a suit brought by the Milwaukee NAACP and Voces de La Frontera next month, but the Supreme Court will now hear oral arguments instead and issue a ruling.
Remember, a second lawsuit filed by the League of Women voters was overturned on appeal, and the Supreme Court will also review that decision simultaneously.
We are also awaiting a federal judge's decision on yet another challenge (two of them, actually) to the law following a two-week trial in Milwaukee that just wrapped up.
In short, it seems as though Wisconsin could see some form of resolution to the Voter ID question within the next few months.
Or at least until another liberal group sues to stop it again.