|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|
MSNBC's Chuck Todd is just the latest mainstream media type to speak out against the White House's photo policy, blasting it as "propaganda."
The Cycle co-host Toure, who may actually be the stupidest person in the history of cable news, sent out this tweet on Sunday night:
Why aren't white leaders like Bill O'Reilly and Rush Limbaugh and Don Lemon doing anything to combat white on white violence??? #SOS— Touré (@Toure) December 9, 2013
Unfortunately for him, Don Lemon is not white. After being informed of this, Toure was unfazed, and sent out a follow-up tweet:
Sorry for the confusion folks. "White leaders" was meant to connote "leaders of white people" not "leaders who are white."— Touré (@Toure) December 9, 2013
We would suggest that the next time Toure engages in a little bit of race-baiting, he double check to make sure he knows which race it is he's actually baiting.
FOX News analyst Liz Peek gives a compelling comparison between Presidents Obama and Carter--with one notable difference:
Where Obama and Carter diverge is in personal integrity. Americans have been slow to fall out of love with President Obama; we are a fair-minded and trusting people. But- the mounting evidence of chicanery and deception in this White House has become hard to ignore.
Carter is considered one of the nation's worst presidents (if not the worst), so it's very telling that Obama provides almost a perfect parallel.
It's even more telling that Obama has all of Carter's incompetence...in addition to Bill Clinton's dishonesty.
Public relations and crisis management firms across the country are using the glitch-plagued rollout of HealthCare.gov as a powerful example of how not to manage a disaster. Politico reports:
Far from the world of government and politics, the botched launch of Healthcare.gov has become an instant classic. It has replaced such notorious bungles as New Coke and the BP oil spill as a real time example in the crisis management world of how not to respond when everything goes wrong. Experts are eagerly cashing in on the administration’s missteps, offering critiques in private interactions with clients, as well as publishing blog posts and op-eds on the basic rules of crisis management that were not followed.
The first rule of crisis management, of course, is to not have a crisis in the first place. Then again, this is the federal government, so that is probably impossible.
Ezekiel Emanuel, the "Architect of Obamacare," once again compromises the White House's messaging by being honest.
Remember when President Obama said this, over and over and over?
I don't recall him saying anything about paying more for your doctor, do you?
Remember when One Wisconsin Now embarrassingly tried to use Mandela's death to slam Governor Walker over Voter ID laws? Yeah, about that....
Think Progress, a liberal media outlet, praised the South African constitution while it eulogized Mandela, writing, “The truth, however, is that the United States could learn a great deal from South Africa’s constitution.”
That constitution allows for and supports a rigorous election integrity process far more stringent than anything GOP lawmakers have proposed in Wisconsin.
An October story from a South African news outlet explains in advance of the nation’s 2014 elections, “aspirant voters must produce a valid South African identity document when registering to vote and when voting.” That means procuring one of “three forms of official identification.”
Oh liberals, you just can't win for trying, can you?
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?