There's a good reason‚ as substitute host Alicia Menendez said on Nicolle Wallace's MSNBC show on Wednesday evening‚ why Wallace likes to promote Michael Luttig as "a conservative's conservative." It's because Luttig nowadays likes to offer opinions that are music to the ears of the liberal media. He's an "MSNBC conservative" in the same sense that former RNC Chairman turned member of the Lincoln Project Michael Steele is an "MSNBC Republican." Thus‚ for example‚ during the Supreme Court confirmation process of far-left Ketanji Brown Jackson‚ our Alex Christy caught Luttig extolling her as the “most credentialed and experienced nominee in history.”   On Morning Joe‚ Joe Scarborough quoted from Luttig on Wednesday‚ lining him up with other "very conservative jurists" against Trump on the ballot. On Wallace's show yesterday‚ Luttig once again played the role of a useful conservative propounding views destined to delight the left. He declared that the decision of the Colorado Supreme Court banning Donald Trump from the ballot‚ supposedly pursuant to the terms of the 14th Amendment‚ to be: "a masterful judicial opinion. It is unassailable and irrefutable in every single respect." You could sense liberal hearts swooning from coast to coast! And in a statement that was either deeply naive or deeply cynical‚ Luttig said of of the Colorado court's decision:  "This is not politics. It is certainly not partisan politics. And the Supreme Court's decision yesterday was not a political decision in any sense of that word."  Really? All of the judges voting to keep Trump off the ballot were originally appointed by Democrat governors‚ and were subsequently required to run for office. So these are‚ by definition‚ partisan political Democrats in a state that in 2020 went for Biden by a 13.5% margin over Trump. Luttig also claimed that when the United States Supreme Court takes up the issue‚ it is obliged to affirm the Colorado ruling‚ saying‚ "there is no other decision that the Supreme Court could make." Interestingly‚ Luttig went on to say that should the Supreme Court nevertheless overturn the Colorado decision:  "It's the responsibility of the American people all of us‚ to accept that decision as the binding constitutional decision of this momentous issue. I have always‚ my entire life‚ held my entire life‚ the institution of the Supreme Court in great reverence. I hold this Court today in the same reverence. And if the Court were to decide this case differently than I believe it should be decided‚ I will hold the same reverence for the Supreme Court on that day that I hold the Court in reverence with today." If‚ as many predict‚ the Supreme Court does overturn the Colorado decision‚ Luttig's liberal-media invitations can be expected to quickly dry up if his reaction is to express reverence for the Court and call on all the American people to accept the decision!  Here's the transcript. MSNBC Deadline White House 12/20/23 4:02 on ET ALICIA MENENDEZ: Judge Luttig‚ you know Nicolle likes to say you are a conservative's conservative. You were short-listed for the Supreme Court by George W. Bush. Conservatives look to you for guidance‚ including‚ famously‚ VP Mike Pence. He turned to you when Donald Trump was pressuring him to interfere with the election results. We are of course hearing criticisms of this ruling from the right. It's worth remembering‚ this legal argument originated with conservative legal scholars like you. Judge‚ why is this ruling consistent with conservative legal thought?       MICHAEL LUTTIG: Thank you for having me with you this afternoon‚ Alicia. The Colorado Supreme Court yesterday decided the most consequential and pressing constitutional issue facing the country. Its decision will force the nation to decide‚ does it believe in American democracy‚ its Constitution‚ and the rule of law? The Supreme Court of Colorado issued what I characterized as a masterful judicial opinion. It is unassailable and irrefutable in every single respect.  This is a historic decision. It's of monumental significance to the nation today. And when the Supreme Court eventually decides the case‚ it will be perhaps one of‚ if not the single most important‚ consequential decision in American history.  I believe that the Supreme Dourt of the United States‚ when and if it takes this particular case‚ should affirm the Colorado Supreme Court's decision. I believe that‚ based on the objective law‚ which in this instance is section 3 of the 14th Amendment‚ there is no other decision that the Supreme Court could make.  . . .  This is not politics. It is certainly not partisan politics. And the Supreme Court's decision yesterday was not a political decision in any sense of that word. It was a pure‚ and remarkably masterful decision of constitutional law.

Show host Steven Crowder went on Piers Morgan’s show and ripped Big Tech censorship‚ listing national crises caused or worsened by suppression of free speech online. While on Piers Morgan’s show‚ Crowder cited the censorship that altered the 2020 election and Covid-19 vaccine information suppression as instances of just how transformative censorship can be for a nation. “I think it is far more dangerous for society to engage in a culture of censorship‚ of viewpoint discrimination‚ than it is to allow people to speak freely barring the committing of violent crimes‚” he insisted. There is an Orwellian future in store without free speech‚ Crowder warned. “I think that we see a far worse‚ a far worse dystopia in our future if we allow the government and these Big Tech platforms to determine who can speak and who cannot‚” he said. “They benefit from Section 230‚” he went on‚ explaining that the statute allows tech platforms to claim immunity from the liability of what people say on the platforms. “That allows them to engage in viewpoint discrimination‚ ” Crowder added. He brought up the New York Post Hunter Biden laptop story‚ which he said “would have changed the election.” A Media Research Center poll affirmed this claim‚ finding that  9.4 percent of Biden voters would have changed their vote had they been aware of the Hunter Biden scandal uncovered by The Post’s article. He went on‚ “If the government was not—and when I say colluding‚ I mean Joe Biden‚ Jen Psaki‚ Kamala Harris‚ Karine Jean-Pierre calling for the removal of Joe Rogan from Spotify‚ calling for the removal of vaccine scientists” from these allegedly public platforms. “If all information was allowed to be transmitted freely” as is supposed under the Section 230 protections‚ Crowder added‚ “guess what‚ Donald Trump would be president – I’m saying this as a matter of record and fact – millions of people would not have gotten the mRNA vaccines‚ specifically men under 30‚ and lockdowns would have lasted days‚ weeks‚ not years.”  Crowder claimed‚ “That is irrefutable‚ but you had the government and these platforms deciding which views were allowed and which views weren’t.” Crowder argued that neither he‚ nor Morgan‚ nor the government‚ nor the tech companies controlling “over 90 percent of the information in the digital sphere‚” nor anyone should be allowed to police speech that way. “It is terrifying to me‚” Crowder concluded. “So you may think I’m an absolutist‚ I think I’m reasonable.” Conservatives are under attack. Contact your representatives and demand government agencies and Big Tech be held to account to mirror the First Amendment while providing transparency‚ clarity on so-called hate speech and equal footing for conservatives. If you have been censored‚ contact us at the Media Research Center contact form‚ and help us hold Big Tech accountable.

Quite a few candidates vie for the distinction of being the worst opinion ever issued by a supreme court.Dred Scott v. Sandford‚ the infamous 1857 holding by the U.S. Supreme Court that Congress did not have the power to bar slavery in the territories‚ comes to mind immediately. So does Lochner v. New York‚ the 1905 decision in which the same court determined that no state legislature could mandate maximum hours or minimum wages for workers. And then‚ of course‚ who could forget Roe v. Wade‚ the recently overruled 1973 decision in which the high court found an implied constitutional right to end a pregnancy before fetal viability?A decision from the Colorado Supreme Court this week — Anderson v. Griswold — now joins this dubious group. Four of seven justices — all appointed by Democrats — ruled Tuesday that Donald Trump may not appear on the state’s Republican presidential primary ballot because he committed “insurrection” against the United States on January 6‚ 2021. The Colorado court claimed its decision was dictated by Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution‚ which provides‚ in pertinent part‚ that:No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress‚ or elector of President and Vice President‚ or hold any office‚ civil or military‚ under the United States‚ or under any State‚ who‚ having previously taken an oath‚ as a member of Congress‚ or as an officer of the United States‚ or as a member of any State legislature‚ or as an executive or judicial officer of any State‚ to support the Constitution of the United States‚ shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same‚ or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.One has only to read Section 3 to note that while it specifically lists “Senators‚” “Representatives‚” and “electors” of the “President and Vice President‚” it does not specifically mention presidents and vice presidents as persons covered by the provision. The great legal maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius (“to name one is to exclude the others”) would seem to apply to settle the question. Furthermore‚ an 1869 opinion by one chief justice of the United States makes this precise point in light of the fact that in an earlier draft of the amendment‚ the office of the president was specifically included‚ but in the final form of the section‚ “President” does not appear.Nevertheless‚ Colorado’s four-judge majority concluded that the language of the section referring to “any office … under the United States” includes within its terms the president. This is a stretch. Equally problematic is the court’s conclusion that Trump participated in an “insurrection” when he “incited” his supporters prior to the disturbance at the Capitol on January 6. That declaration is probably a violation of Trump’s right to due process‚ since no court has found him guilty of an “insurrection‚” which is now defined by federal statute and with which he has never been charged‚ much less tried and convicted in a court of law. It is true that a congressional committee‚ consisting of a 7-2 majority of Democrats and allowing very little freedom to mount a defense on the part of the president‚ claimed that the events of January 6 amounted to an “insurrection.” But given the failure of that body to extend full constitutionally protected rights to Trump to mount a proper defense‚ reliance on congressional findings by the Colorado court seems highly questionable.It is hard to believe that the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority didn’t know that what it was doing was suspect‚ since it actually suspended the effectiveness of its ruling to give Trump time to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court and expressly provided that if he does appeal to that court‚ his removal from the ballot is barred unless the Supreme Court orders that it is permissible.Very few‚ if any‚ constitutional law professors have gone on record defending the Colorado Supreme Court. Quite the opposite. Harvard’s Alan Dershowitz called the decision “absurd” and predicted that the Supreme Court would swiftly overrule the Colorado justices. Dershowitz is correct‚ and since similar efforts to bar Trump from the ballot in other states are under way‚ the Supreme Court will likely take the case and rule soon. This Colorado judicial travesty is likely to be overturned by a substantial majority of United States Supreme Court justices (at least six and quite possibly all nine)‚ either because the president is not included within the terms of Section 3‚ because no court has found him guilty of “insurrection‚” or for other procedural reasons expressed by the three dissenters in the Colorado case. This disturbance in the force of the rule of law will be brief‚ but it’s a reminder that Trump derangement syndrome’s baleful effect on our legal system continues.

Identity politics‚ which reduces people to group characteristics‚ is almost entirely based on the glorification of victim status. Proponents of identity politics want to see themselves — or those they claim to represent — first and foremost as members of a group‚ preferably a discriminated-against minority. They believe that the basis of an individual’s identity is membership in a “disadvantaged” group. No one’s personal circumstances‚ they assert‚ can be improved through individual achievement. All they can do is fight politically to secure rights‚ or even preferential treatment‚ for their own collective. The supposedly discriminated-against “we” is placed front and center of thought and action: Politics is all about improving life for the group‚ which will‚ in turn‚ improve my own life‚ if I can be counted as a member of the group. The successful people with disabilities I talked to or whose biographies I analyzed do not accuse or blame anyone else. Not even when they have faced massive problems. I have researched and written a book about successful people with disabilities for whom exactly the opposite is true. None of the people I profile in “Unbreakable Spirit” have ever wanted to be seen primarily in terms of their disabilities. After her sporting victories‚ the nearly completely blind runner and Olympic athlete Marla Runyan was disappointed because all of the journalists who interviewed her only wanted to talk about her blindness‚ rather than her successes on the track. Felix Klieser‚ a young man from Germany‚ is widely regarded as one of the best hornists in the world. He was born without arms. Like all successful people‚ Klieser sees himself as a shaper of his own destiny rather than a victim of adverse circumstances. “Of course‚ I could have wasted my energy on feeling sorry for myself and telling the world how mean everything is‚” he told me. “But anyone who has ever done that quickly realizes that it doesn’t achieve anything.” I spoke with gallery owner Johann König‚ one of Germany’s most successful art dealers‚ who also has a superb international reputation. He was almost totally blind when he opened his first gallery. Today‚ after a total of about 30 surgeries‚ he can see between 30 and 40 percent again. König has understood how to turn a disadvantage — his visual impairment — into an advantage. “Paradoxically‚ my disability was probably key to my success‚” König wrote in his book “The Blind Gallerist.” His blindness‚ like a drug‚ intensified his inner concentration and heightened his perception‚ helping him to “develop a distinctly personal idea of what makes good art.” Stephen Hawking was‚ according to a survey in the United States‚ the most famous “successful person with a disability.” In his autobiography‚ he wrote: “I haven’t had to lecture or teach undergraduates‚ and I haven’t had to sit in on tedious and time-consuming committees. So I have been able to devote myself completely to research.” In Hawking’s view‚ people with disabilities should “concentrate on things that their handicap doesn’t prevent them from doing and not regret those they can’t do.” I was particularly impressed by the American mountaineer Erik Weihenmayer‚ who became the first blind person to climb Mount Everest 20 years ago. He is also one of the very few people to have climbed the “Seven Summits‚” the highest peaks on each of the seven continents. When I spoke with him for my book‚ Weihenmayer confessed: I spent like 15 minutes just every day‚ envisioning myself standing on the summit — to the point where I’d hear the snow crunching under my crampons. I’d hear the slacks‚ I’d feel the sky‚ just feel the cold‚ and I’d feel the hearts of my teammates. I’d feel the tears. I’d literally start tearing up because I was there. So‚ yeah ... I think that’s what you’re talking about. And‚ when I summitted Everest‚ I had summitted it 100 times in my mind already. So‚ I think that kind of belief system and that kind of programming it into your subconscious is hugely important so that you can truly be there.” Weihenmayer campaigns for other people with disabilities. In doing so‚ his efforts are not primarily directed at political rights and quotas. He doesn’t fire off accusations against society as a whole. Rather‚ he focuses on empowering other people to take their fate into their own hands. Weihenmayer founded No Barriers‚ an organization that helps people with disabilities push themselves to the limit and beyond. The organization’s motto is “What’s within you is stronger than what’s in your way.” Three years after conquering Everest‚ he climbed a mountain near the world’s highest peak with six children from a school for the blind in Lhasa. There is even a film‚ “Blindsight‚” documenting this adventure that is well worth seeing. In principle‚ your attitude is a question of individualism versus collectivism. Proponents of identity politics always speak of “we.” They accuse the majority in society of discriminating against minorities and robbing them of opportunities in life. The successful people with disabilities I talked to or whose biographies I analyzed do not accuse or blame anyone else. Not even when they have faced massive problems. Contrast this with the philosophy of identity-obsessed politicians who tell people‚ “You are a victim of circumstances‚ and you have no chance to live a better life within these circumstances. So join us and fight against these structures.” Labeling people victims makes them helpless and powerless. In contrast‚ people who take control of their fate despite — and sometimes even because of — adverse external circumstances can be valuable models of encouragement. They represent strength‚ not helplessness.

A series of 10 separate fights broke out on Tuesday at a Maryland high school‚ according to school administrators.A number of students at Charles Herbert Flowers High School in Prince George’s County were involved in the altercations‚ but it is unclear at this time whether any children were injured.Videos of the brawls posted to social media showed chaos throughout the school day‚ with fights breaking out both inside and outside the building. Parents speculated that the fights were a result of the school’s principal‚ Dr. Gorman Brown‚ being placed on sudden administrative leave without explanation. Brown has been temporarily suspended from his position for two months; however‚ following the string of brawls on Tuesday‚ he was recently reinstated. He is expected to return after the holiday break.Brown‚ who has worked in the district for over two decades‚ was previously placed on mandatory leave in 2019 following an altercation with a student. However‚ he was later cleared of any wrongdoing.A district spokesperson told WTTG that “several” students were suspended and other disciplinary actions are being considered. The spokesperson noted that administrators do not believe any children were seriously injured.“It was like crazy – too much commotion‚” one student told WDCW. “The security guards were everywhere. Like‚ every time there was a fight‚ there would be a security guard there to break it up."The district did not reveal how many students were involved‚ when the altercations started‚ or why. The fights are still under investigation. Parent Janese Cornish told WTTG that the videos of the brawls are “absolutely ridiculous.”“Children are fighting in the hallways‚ they’re fighting the streets of Flowers High School‚ and it‚ all in my opinion‚ stems from them not having Dr. Brown to prevent any of this because none of this happened until he was not at the school‚” Cornish said.Agnes Kallon‚ a parent with a student attending the school‚ told WDCW that she is “sad and emotionally distraught.”“I don’t want my child to get involved or even be around that‚” Kallon continued. “What if someone ends up at the hospital or gets shot or killed? And you’re thinking‚ as a parent‚ you’re at work‚ your kid is safe‚ but next thing‚ you’re going to get a phone call that [says] ‘your child is in the hospital.’ It’s really concerning.”A letter from the administration was sent to parents Wednesday‚ alerting them about the “concerning series of multiple altercations.”“While we understand that conflicts may arise‚ we must emphasize the importance of resolving disputes through constructive means. We believe in fostering a positive and respectful school environment‚ and such behaviors will not be tolerated nor are they reflective of the values we aim to instill in our students‚” the letter read.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

A Biden official's Democrat-aligned group successfully got President Joe Biden's top rival removed from the ballot in Colorado ahead of the 2024 election. The 81-year-old president wasted no time justifying this limit on voter choice‚ regurgitating familiar alarmist rhetoric Wednesday night about former President Donald Trump posing a threat to democracy. Biden's remarks were not well received. The geriatric president has since been accused of "gaslighting‚" fascism‚ and hypocrisy over his projection of anti-democratic sentiments onto his now-verboten political opponent — an opponent who has been leading in the polls in several critical swing states Projection Biden took to X Wednesday to share an apparent justification for Trump's disqualification in Colorado. "Trump poses many threats to our country: The right to choose‚ civil rights‚ voting rights‚ and America's standing in the world‚" wrote the president‚ whose disapproval rating is 58% according to the latest Quinnipiac poll. "But the greatest threat he poses is to our democracy‚" continued Biden. "If we lose that‚ we lose everything." — (@) Judicial Watch president Tom Fitton wrote on X‚ "Biden tries to justify abusing Trump's civil rights and rigging the election through political prosecutions and kangaroo court proceedings. Our Republic is tottering because of Biden's abuses." Blaze TV host Mark Levin noted‚ "The Biden campaign is well underway: dehumanize Trump by using the fascist/Marxist tactic of dehumanizing your opponent and repeating the big lie that Trump is Hitler‚ block Trump from ballot access in blue states while claiming it is he who opposed democracy‚ drain Trump of personal and campaign resources through civil and criminal lawsuits aka lawfare‚ keep Trump in court after court to prevent him from running a proper campaign‚ ultimately convict him of some phony crime and sentence him to prison." Mollie Hemingway‚ editor in chief at the Federalist‚ responded‚ "Disgusting rhetoric from the president‚ showing his complete support for his administration's authoritarian attack on Republicans‚ and his support for other Democrat Party attacks on the republic." "The greatest threat to democracy is the person tied or leading me in current polls‚" wrote Stephen Miller‚ contributing editor at the Spectator. While Biden has been hyping this supposed threat for well over a year‚ Trump now appears to be recycling the accusation. During a speech Saturday in New Hampshire‚ Trump said‚ "It's no wonder Biden and the far-left lunatics are desperate to stop us by any means necessary. They're willing to violate the U.S. Constitution at levels never seen before in order to win. They will do anything to win. They'll do whatever they have‚ whatever they can. And remember‚ this: Joe Biden is a threat to democracy. He's a threat." Following Biden's Wednesday accusation‚ Trump responded on Truth Social‚ writing‚ "CROOKED JOE BIDEN IS A THREAT TO DEMOCRACY!!" While both candidates have issued the same accusation‚ the big anti-democratic maneuver this week was actully the handiwork of an outfit run by an official in Biden's administration. Biden official helps eliminate choice Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is a partisan activist group that touts itself as a government watchdog. It was optimized as an attack dog for the Democratic Party by Media Matters founder David Brock ahead of the 2016 election. The current president and CEO of CREW is Noah Bookbinder. CREW‚ under Bookbinder's leadership‚ brought the case in Colorado against Trump. Beyond CREW's partisan nature‚ there is a direct link between the anti-democratic maneuver in Colorado and the Biden administration. The Daily Caller highlighted how Bookbinder has served as a member of the Department of Homeland Security's Homeland Security Advisory Council since March 2022. The group has met multiple times‚ including in September 2023‚ taking up issues ranging from so-called "disinformation" to innovation. Bookbinder formerly served as a trial attorney for the Department of Justice's public integrity section and as chief counsel for criminal justice for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Federal Election Commission records show he repeatedly dumped cash into Democratic causes‚ especially former President Barack Obama's re-election campaign. DHS Secretary Mayorkas telegraphed the importance of Bookbinder's appointment in a March 17‚ 2022‚ statement‚ noting he and the 32 other appointees "have agreed to serve our country as members of the Homeland Security Advisory Council at a critically important time not only for the nation‚ but also for the world." The HSAC "leverages the experience‚ expertise‚ and national and global connections of the HSAC membership to provide [Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas] real-time‚ real-world and independent advice to support decision-making across the spectrum of homeland security operations‚" according the DHS site. Following the ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court‚ which is entirely composed of Democratic appointees‚ Bookbinder said the decision his outfit helped secure was "not only historic and justified‚ but is necessary to protect the future of democracy in our country." "Our Constitution clearly states that those who violate their oath by attacking our democracy are barred from serving in government‚" added Bookbinder. Like Biden‚ it appears Bookbinder figures democracy's best hopes are anti-democratic measures. The Daily Caller indicated that neither the DHS nor CREW responded to requests for comment. Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

California Governor Gavin Newsom has spent $20 billion in the last five years on the homeless population despite his claims that he could end homelessness in San Francisco when he was mayor in 2003.Newsom mapped out a 10-year plan to end the problem with "tens of millions" of federal dollars and 550 housing units‚ according to Fox News‚ saying that he didn't want to "over-promise" nor "under-deliver." He wanted to "hit the ground running."Then-Mayor Newsom said the situation in San Francisco was a "national disgrace" and that he would welcome "being judged by how he approached the homelessness crisis" after four years. He ended up winning re-election in the city in 2011 with a massive 73.66% of the vote.In 2017‚ Newsom promised another 3.5 million housing units by 2025 and stated that the "solutions must be as bold as the problem is big."Newsom has been re-elected‚ climbed the political ladder‚ and even survived a recall attempt as governor in 2021. All while homelessness has boomed in the Golden State.A Public Policy Institute of California study found that 30% of the country's homeless Americans live in California‚ including "half of all unsheltered people‚" approximately 115‚000 of the country's nearly 234‚000.Since 2020‚ there was also an increase of 17% in the homeless but sheltered population in California‚ with a 2% increase in unsheltered. At the same time‚ "California’s overall homeless population has increased about 6%‚ compared to just 0.4% in the rest of the country."As well‚ the study stated that "homeless populations are rising" in most city centers. Interestingly enough‚ with Newsom as governor‚ San Francisco has seen a decrease in homelessness from 2020 to 2022‚ while cities like Los Angeles‚ San Jose‚ Oakland‚ and San Diego all saw an increase.However‚ San Francisco still has the second-most unaccompanied homeless youth and the fifth-most unsheltered‚ homeless veterans in the country.Also under Newsom's watch‚ 67% of the state's homeless are unsheltered‚ according to a Housing and Urban Development report.After 20 years of Newsom's reign both locally and at the state level‚ it is clear that California as a whole has become worse in terms of homelessness. A reported 44 out of every 10‚000 people in the state are homeless‚ the highest in the country.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors‚ sign up for our newsletters‚ and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The book comes from the author of biographies of Freddie Mercury‚ David Bowie and Marc Bolan The post Christine McVie Biography‚ ‘Perfect‚’ Coming appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

Only 16 singles reached #1 in the U.S. in 1978. This surprise hit was one of them though the rocker never came close to duplicating the feat The post Nick Gilder’s Glitter Rock-Infused #1 Single appeared first on Best Classic Bands.

RuneScape and Old School RuneScape developer Jagex shares some potentially telling insights regarding its upcoming open-world survival game‚ perhaps hinting that a full reveal and more details may be on their way soon. Set within the universe of the classic‚ long-running MMORPG‚ the untitled game will be made using Unreal Engine 5‚ and was announced in June 2022. Since then‚ we haven’t heard much about the RuneScape creator’s upcoming project - but a new post suggests a full unveiling could be inbound. Continue reading RuneScape dev could soon reveal new open world survival game MORE FROM PCGAMESN: Best MMORPGs‚ The making of RuneScape‚ Best fantasy games