Dear celebrities: Stop making political videos

CNN least trusted news network

CNN is less trusted by likely voters than its competitors at MSNBC and Fox News, according to a new study.

The study, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, said that 75 percent of likely voters tend to watch at least some cable news per week to keep up with politics. Among that group, 42 percent watch Fox News, 35 percent watch CNN, and 19 percent watch MSNBC.

However, the poll said a larger portion of Fox News and MSNBC viewers trust those networks...

Rafsanjani Was Iran’s Mythical ‘Moderate’

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani was the original Mr. Moderation. Western observers saw the former Iranian president as a sort of Deng Xiaoping in clerical robes: a founder of the Islamic Republic who was destined to transform the country into a normal state. Rafsanjani, they thought, was too corrupt to be an ideologue.

Yet Rafsanjani, who died Sunday at 82, consistently defied such hopes. His life and legacy remind us that fanaticism and venality aren’t mutually exclusive. It’s a lesson in the persistence of Western fantasies about the Iranian regime...

How Edward Snowden Helped Terrorists Succeed

In his latest book, investigative journalist and former Harvard professor Edward Jay Epstein analyses how Edward Snowden’s massive leaks regarding U.S. security enabled an entire generation of terrorists to circumvent government intelligence.

In How America Lost Its Secrets: Snowden, the Man and the Theft , which will be released this week,  Epstein explains how terrorists, whom the government was once able to track down and stop, have taken Snowden’s advice on how to evade security services. To our detriment, they have been successful.

In an excerpt from the book published by Newsweek magazine, Epstein outlines exactly how government agencies operated before Snowden’s disclosures and how they now have been left bereft of many important tools.

Specifically, Snowden exposed:

The Reach of the PRISM Program

Before Snowden’s disclosure, jihadis overseas – from Iraq to Syria, Afghanistan and Pakistan believed  their communications were safe because of encryption as well as other safeguards used by Apple, Google, Twitter and WhatsApp. What they didn’t know was their information could be intercepted before it was encrypted.  This was because all data on the internet traveled first through fiber cables in the U.S. and the Bahamas...

Fans of Homeland will get a real treat out of Netflix's "Fauda"

For a small country of only 8 million people, Israel packs a lot of artistic talent, People who watch and read the credits of Showcase's hit series Homeland know that it's based on an Israeli TV series. (That series, upon which the American show was very liberally based, was called Prisoners of War.)

For fans of taut, gritty, realistic espionage shows, you're not likely to find anything more entertaining and engrossing than another Israeli show called Fauda.

It centers on Doron, a retired Israeli security forces agent, running his own small winery, who is brought back into service to hunt down a Palestinian terrorist mastermind called Abu Ahmed thought to have been killed, but is very much alive and planning a massive terror attack.

The show's creator and star, Lior Raz, was a member of an Israeli counter-terrorist unit and his experience brings realism and intensity to the show that is like nothing else on television now.

The series, the title of which translates to "riot" or "chaos," explores the lives and families of both Israeli security agents and Palestinian terrorists. The acting is superb and the casting different than the sort of thing you see in most television. These people don't look like actors, they look like the people they are meant to portray.

The show is in Hebrew and Arabic with English subtitles, and the first season, consisting of 12 episodes, is currently available on Netflix.

Sen. Cruz: Congress Must Cut U.S. Taxpayer Funding to the United Nations Unless It Repeals Disgraceful Anti-Israel Resolution

Sen. Cruz called for cutting U.S. taxpayer funding to the United Nations unless the U.N. Security Council repeals its discriminatory anti-Israel resolution #2334.

“President Obama and John Kerry's actions were designed to secure a legacy, and in that they have succeeded,” said Sen. Cruz. “History will record and the world will note that Barack Obama and John Kerry are relentless enemies of Israel. Kerry's speech, through stunning moral equivalence between our great friend and ally Israel and the Palestinian authority, which is currently formed in a unity government with the vicious terrorists of Hamas. Secretary Kerry declared the Hamas regime radical in the same way he declared the duly elected government of Israel extreme. That moral equivalence is false and it is a lie. The [Israeli Defense Forces], defending the people of Israel, protecting people and keeping them safe, is not the same moral equivalent of terrorists who strap bombs to their body and seek to murder innocent women and children. Kerry declared the vicious terrorism sponsored by Hamas equal to the Israeli settlements in the West Bank. And he equated Israel's celebration of its birth with the Palestinian description of this event as a disaster.”

Cruz continued: “Unlike Barack Obama and John Kerry, I do not consider the existence and creation of Israel to be a disaster. And the government of the United States should not be suggesting such a thing. Kerry's speech attempted to lay out an historic and seismic shift toward the delegitimization of our ally Israel. And it is a sign of their radicalism and refusal to defend American interests that Obama and Kerry chose to attack the only inclusive democracy in the Middle East, a strong, steadfast ally of America, while simultaneously turning a blind eye to the Islamic terrorism that grows daily.”... 

Obama's Legacy of Failure - The US House of Representatives Repudiates Obama, stands with ally Israel and "Rejects President's Dangerous UN Decision"

Washington, D.C. – Tonight the House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce’s (R-CA) bipartisan legislation – H. Res. 11 – which opposes the anti-Israel United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 and calls for its repeal.

On the House floor prior to the vote, Chairman Royce delivered the following remarks (as prepared for delivery):

“I want to thank the Ranking Member, the gentleman from New York, Mr. Engel, for working with me in a bipartisan manner to bring this important resolution to the floor today. And I appreciate the Leader for working with us to ensure this resolution was brought quickly to the House floor.

Today, we put Congress on record objecting to the recent U.N. Security Council Resolution that hurt our ally Israel and, I believe, puts an Israeli-Palestinian settlement of two states for two people further out of reach.

Mr. Speaker, the United States has long recognized that a solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict can only come about through direct, bilateral negotiations between the two parties.

That’s why it is longstanding U.S. policy to veto the many one-sided or anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council that violate that principal.

But just the other week, the Obama Administration broke with this longstanding U.S. policy by failing to veto UN Security Council Resolution 2334. This dangerous resolution effectively states that the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and the Western Wall – Judaism’s holiest site – are “occupied territory.”

Yes, the Western Wall.

It also lends legitimacy to efforts by the Palestinian Authority and its many sympathizers worldwide to put pressure on Israel through the UN and puts wind in the sails of the shameful Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Unquestionably, this U.N. Security Council action damages the prospects for peace. The resolution – and the bullying and harassment of Israel that it will spur – only happened for one reason – the Obama Administration let it happen.

And that went against the distinct warnings from this body.  Mr. Engel and I engaged in letters and conversations with senior Administration officials, seeking their assurance that the United States would veto one-side anti-Israel resolutions. And in November, the House unanimously passed a resolution which warned the Administration against taking such last minute action.

With that resolution—H.Con.Res. 165—the House unanimously stated that “the United States Government should continue to oppose and veto United Nations Security Council resolutions that seek to impose solutions to final status issues, or are one-sided and anti-Israel.”

Yet, the Administration rejected the call from Congress, and chose a course that will bring harm for years to come by failing to veto UN Security Council Resolution 2334.

If the Palestinians want a lasting peace, they must accept that Israel, not the UN, is their negotiating partner. That means ending incitement to violence against Israelis in mosques, schools, newspapers and on TV.

It also means ending their “pay-to-slay” scheme. Since 2003, it has been Palestinian law to reward Palestinian terrorists in Israeli jails with a monthly paycheck. That amounts to $300 million per year, by one estimate.

That’s why today’s action is so important – to demonstrate our united opposition to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2334 and call for its repeal; to head-off any more moves the Obama Administration might have in the next few days; and to provide the foundation for the next Administration to move forcefully to counteract its dangerous impact.”

Source: United States' Congressional Foreign Affairs Committee 

Bill C-16 – What’s the Big Deal?

…anything that forces someone to express opinions that are not their own is a “penalty that is totalitarian and as such alien to the tradition of free nations like Canada even for the repression of the most serious crimes.” National Bank of Canada v. Retail Clerks’ International Union et al. (1984) SCC; Slaight Communications Inc. v. Davidson (1989) SCC.

With that statement, the Supreme Court of Canada set down the basic principle in Canada, that any government action or legislation which has the effect of forcing its citizens to mouth thoughts or opinions that are not their own, is unconstitutional and an unreasonable infringement on section 2 Freedom of Expression in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  This principle was reaffirmed by the same court in the case of Slaight Communications. 

BILL C-16
There has been much in the news lately regarding federal Bill C-16 which passed the house of commons and is now in the Senate.  The bill has brought with it a fair amount of media attention likely on account of its subject matter, but also, the implications of the bill. 

Proponents of the bill identify that it is a much needed progressive development in the law to protect historically marginalized groups.  There are also critics of the bill.  This blog post will examine one of the more intriguing issues; namely, that the bill on its face introduces government mandated compelled speech into federal legislation...

How George Soros destroyed the Democratic Party

...Soros turned over the Democrats to political fanatics least likely to be able to recognize their own errors. His protégés repeated the great self-destruction of the Soviet Union on a more limited scale

Soros fed a political polarization while assuming, wrongly, that the centers of power mattered, and their outskirts did not. He was proven wrong in both the United States of America and in the United Kingdom. He had made many gambles that paid off. But his biggest gamble took everything with it.

"I don’t believe in standing in the way of an avalanche," Soros complained of the Republican wave in 2010.

But he has been trying to do just that. And failing.

"There should be consequences for the outrageous statements and proposals that we've regularly heard from candidates Trump and Cruz," Soros threatened this time around. He predicted a Hillary landslide.

He was wrong.

As Soros plowed more money into the left, its escalating radicalism alienated more of the country. Each “avalanche” was a reaction to the abuses of his radicals.  It wasn't Trump or Cruz who suffered the consequences. It wasn't even his own leftists. Rather it was the conservative and eventually the moderate wings of the Democrat party who were swept away by his left-wing avalanches...

Real Housewives of ISIS is infuriating humorless "Social Justice" Wankers

Did I say humorless "Social Justice" Wankers? Then I repeat myself.

A sketch clip from BBC's Revolting is pissing off the usual suspects.

Prominent climate scientist retires from academia due to the "craziness" and politicization of the field

...Curry actually believes, along with the vast majority of climate scientists, that humans are warming the planet, and was even an outspoken advocate of the issue during the George W. Bush years. She was among the first to connect global warming to hurricanes, for example, publishing an influential study in Science in 2006. But where she breaks with the majority opinion is over just how much humans are actually causing global temperatures to rise.

Where many scientists say that humans are the primary cause of warming, Curry believes natural forces play a larger role. She also believes that uncertainty around climate models means we don't have to act so quickly and that current plans would do little to mitigate warming. She also questions the assertion made by a majority of climate scientists who believe humans have significantly contributed to climate change. In the Obama years, she has become a contrarian of sorts, often criticizing those who rely on climate models to prove that humans are warming the planet at an unprecedented rate.

In announcing her retirement, Curry wrote about what she called her "growing disenchantment with universities, the academic field of climate science and scientists." She said a deciding factor for leaving the ivory tower was that "I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science," adding that research and funding for it are highly politicized...

The Age of Liberal Unreason

...In the Obama years, a cottage industry developed around the revelation that the president’s grassroots opponents had some nutty views that they freely confessed to pollsters. The Democratic firm Public Policy Polling routinely flattered the left with partisan drivel; for example, asking Republicans whether they wanted to bomb the fictional Middle Eastern city in the Disney film Aladdin or if Hillary Clinton personally murdered Vince Foster. There is no policy relevance to this kind of polling, but it does satisfy a desire among liberals to perceive themselves more tethered to reason and logic than their opponents. A nonpartisan firm, YouGov, has shattered that comforting liberal self-conception in a recent survey that showed 52 percent of Democrats believe Russia tampered with the “vote tallies” in order to get Donald Trump elected. There is no evidence to support this opinion, but there are plenty of news outlets lending it credence.

“The NSA Chief says Russia hacked the 2016 election,” declared the Mother Jonesheadline. “Obama vows to hit back at Russia over election hacks,” the Financial Times echoed. “Trump, mocking claim that Russia hacked the election, at odds with GOP,” read the New York Times headline. And on and on. The notion that “Russia hacked the election” may be shorthand to describe Russian-linked espionage efforts that revealed private Democratic communications to the public, but it’s also maliciously misleading. It fuels an effort, led by irresponsible liberals like former Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein, to convey to her devotees that Donald Trump is an illegitimate president.

Those are her words. On Monday, Stein declared her intention to go to Washington D.C. on January 20 to “Occupy” the inauguration. Her mission will be “sending a message to Trump that we reject his illegitimate presidency from the very start.” A reasonable political movement would have no part of anything associated with this woman; not after she managed to convince thousands of bereft liberals to contribute nearly ten million dollars to a recount in swing states. That effort was well-funded despite the fact she won less than a percent of the popular vote nationally and admitted the overabundance of funds would be directed wherever she wanted.

Stein, a regular contributor on the Kremlin-funded network RT and Vladimir Putin’s guest of honor at the network’s anniversary gala, may seem an odd channel for anti-Trump sentiment. Yet the idea of “resistance” to Trump is so popular among a cast of liberals convinced that they are the final bulwark against a fascist takeover of the United States that anyone who caters to this fancy enjoys purchase...

Crumbling ‘Consensus’: 500 Scientific Papers Published In 2016 Support A Skeptical Position On Climate Alarm

...What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that humans have dominated (with ~110% attribution) weather and climate changes since about 1950, which is what we have been told by the UN IPCC?   What if scientists do not overwhelmingly agree that natural factors exert effectively no influence on weather and climate changes anymore — now that humans have taken over? 

These are compelling questions.  Because in 2016 alone, 500 peer-reviewed scientific papers published in scholarly journals seriously question just how settled the “consensus” science really is that says anthropogenic or CO2 forcing now dominates weather and climate changes, and non-anthropogenic (natural) factors no longer exert much, if any, role.

Instead of supporting the “consensus” science one must believe in (to avoid the “climate denier” label), these 500 papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in climate modeling and the predictions of future climate catastrophes associated with anthropogenic forcing.  Furthermore, these scientific papers strongly suggest that natural factors (the Sun, multi-decadal oceanic oscillations [NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO], cloud and aerosol albedo variations, etc.) have both in the past and present exerted a significant or dominant influence on weather and climate changes, which means an anthropogenic signal may be much more difficult to detect in the context of such large natural variability.  Papers questioning (and undermining) the “consensus” view on paleoclimate (Medieval) warmth, ocean acidification, glacier melt and advance, sea level rise, extreme weather events, past climate forcing mechanisms, climate sensitivity to CO2, etc., are included in this collection...

Charities linked to terrorism at record high: extremists pose deadly threat by abusing fundraising groups, warns commission chief

Reports of alleged links between charities and terrorism or extremism have surged to a record high, the charity watchdog has warned.

The number of times the Charity Commission has shared concerns about links between charities and extremism with police and other agencies has nearly trebled from 234 to 630 in just three years.

The Commission also opened eight compliance cases and four formal inquiries into “allegations of abuse of charities for terrorist or extremist purposes” in 2015/16. 

In an interview with the Telegraph, William Shawcross, the Commission’s chairman, warned that extremism was “the most potentially dangerous and deadly” problem faced by charities.

He said: “It is the most dangerous because of the threat of Islamist extremism. It is not the most constant threat – it is the most potentially deadly threat.”

The 630 disclosures, which Commission sources said was a record figure, concerned “allegations made and concerns about abuse of charities for terrorist or extremist purposes, including concerns about charities operating in Syria and other higher risk areas, in which terrorist groups operate”...

Celebrity attempt at Milo book ban backfires biggly

“Dangerous” topped the charts at number one the day after the announcement, proving the boycott may have backfired. Yiannopoulos celebrated his book's success on Facebook.

 In a comment on the post he addressed his fans:

“Thank you all for helping to make this happen. It's magical watching them all so incredibly mad.”...

A proposal to let people in need in Toronto help themselves

Prometheus' Gate by John Clapp

My friend John Clapp is one of Toronto's most talented artists. But he's been going through a bit of a tough spell recently. He's been involved with the system that, while ostensibly created to relieve poverty, in reality does little more than to provide a good living for an industry of "poverty pimps" who pocket close to or better than six-figure salaries while doing nothing to really improve the lives of the disadvantaged.  This system is made worse by the cozy, insidious relationship between City Hall and the poverty pimps, by which their enablers in the political class get support from activist 'boots on the ground' in exchange for taxpayer money. Your money, which is often being grossly misused.

As an alternative, John has a proposal by which, with a little help, those in need can be given the opportunity to help themselves:

How about helping the homeless by helping them stay housed in market rent tenancies, rather than building an industry on homelessness? 

And let's be honest, that's all this city has done. And they've used poverty reduction transfer payments to that end. 

Let me ask you the public, something. Over the past approximately 20 years since the city has been investing (millions if not billions of dollars) in the T.C.H.C. and the shelter system, has poverty been reduced? Has it?! Has socio-economic marginalization been reduced? Or again, has the City merely built an industry on poverty and socio-economic marginalization? 

I would argue from the evidence, that the City has done more to perpetuate the issues of poverty, socio-economic marginalization and homelessness than it has to resolve those issues exactly in order to build that industry. For example, I'm on O.D.S.P. and have been denied twice over the past 2 months for support from the so-called Housing Stabilization Fund. And the two denial letters presented two mutually inconsistent reasons respectively...

Read the whole post HERE

And you can hear a proposal from Conservative Senator Hugh Segal that addresses some of these issues:

Vandal Changes Famed Hollywood Sign Overnight To Read ‘Hollyweed’

Here's some irony - the guy in charge of security for the Hollywood sign when it was changed by a prankster to "Hollyweed" is named Trudeau.

HOLLYWOOD (CBSLA.com) — Authorities say someone managed to modify the famed Hollywood sign to read “Hollyweed” in an overnight act of trespass.

Sgt. Trudeau of Security Services says the incident unfolded around midnight Sunday after a thrill-seeker climbed the mountain and threw two tarps over the “O’s” to make them appear like “E’s.”

The sign as of 10:45 a.m. had been restored to read, “Hollywood.” It remains unclear who was involved in the incident, which was being investigated as a misdemeanor charge of trespassing, according to police...

AUREL BRAUN: Save the fake outrage: Obama has known about Russian hacking for years

Like Captain Renault in Casablanca, feigning shock that there was gambling at Rick’s club and ordering it closed, President Barack Obama has expressed his outrage at Russian hacking and has now ordered a variety of retaliatory measures. Yet Washington has been long aware of Russian cyberwarfare and the need to counter it. So why now, and to what effect?

To be sure, Russia has employed cyberwarfare and information warfare extensively, not only against the United States but many other countries. Much of this is well-known. Part of Russian hybrid warfare, cyberwar in the past several years has become an increasingly crucial tool of foreign policy in the eyes of Russian leaders. Additionally, cyberwar and information warfare are key parts of the 2013 Gerasimov Doctrine (named after General Valery Gerasimov) that holds that “non-linear war” is the way of the future and that covert tactics are essential since there is no longer a clear line between peace and war.


The open secret is that Russia has made extensive efforts to recruit all possible talent, including some with a shady past, to help its cyber efforts. The Ministry of Defence even advertised for coders on VKontakte, the most popular Russian social network.

Further, for years now, the Kremlin has sought to influence elections throughout Europe, so there should have been little surprise they did this in the United States. In fact, the FBI had informed the Democratic National Committee of hacking back in the fall of 2015 and Mr. Obama certainly was apprised about Russian efforts in April, 2016, when Hillary Clinton’s path to victory seemed assured. The Russian hacking consortium, named Fancy Bear, which also targeted the DNC, was known in the U.S., and the group proudly and publicly adopted its moniker.

So why did Mr. Obama wait so long to act?...

Putin checkmates Obama after symbolic sanctions manoeuvre

It was one of the most brilliant geopolitical chess moves in over a decade, and it involved doing nothing, according to Eurasia senior analyst Lauren Goodrich.

An expert on Russian politics at the intelligence firm Stratfor, Goodrich was referring to Russian President Vladimir Putin's response, or lack thereof, to the recent sanctions imposed on his country by U.S. President Barack Obama. 

Instead of retaliating for Obama's order Thursday to expel 35 Russian diplomats and close down two Russian compounds, Putin insisted he would not reciprocate. 

And, for good measure, he invited the children of U.S. diplomats accredited in Russia to the New Year's and Christmas parties in the Kremlin.

"Putin deciding not to retaliate and say I'm going to wait for the Trump administration, delegitimizes Obama's decision on one side and then also puts extra pressure on Trump to act more conciliatory when he comes in," said Goodrich...

Obama green lighted a tally of funding for Iranian terrorism: Over $10 Billion in Cash, Gold

WASHINGTON—In the three years since a preliminary nuclear deal was struck with Iran, Tehran has received more than $10 billion in sanctions relief from around the world in the form of cash and gold, according to current and former U.S. officials.

The large shipments of gold and cash, from oil funds unfrozen in numerous countries, represents the kind of financial relief that made Iran’s leaders eager to complete the international nuclear accord. Some of the cash and gold went to Iran while the U.S. and other world powers negotiated with Tehran on a final nuclear deal. More shipments took place after final deal went into effect last January.

This tallying of the sanctions relief to date includes payments previously announced and others that haven’t been. In one previously unreported payment, the U.S. authorized Iran to receive $1.4 billion in sanctions relief between when the final deal was struck in July 2015 and when it took effect, according to the U.S. officials.

Some U.S. lawmakers and Middle East allies contend that the shipments of cash and gold, a highly liquid form of money, can be used to fund Iran’s allies in the region, including the Assad regime in Syria, the Lebanese militia Hezbollah and the Houthi political movement in Yemen.

Forking over cash and gold to the world’s leading state sponsor of terror is incredibly dangerous,” said Rep. Ed Royce (R., Calif.), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, who sponsored a House-passed bill to ban such payments...

Read the rest at The Wall Street Journal