France: Facebook Islamists Hunt in Packs by Yves Mamou

The “moderating hubs” for France’s social media are generally located in French-speaking countries with cheap labor, in North Africa and Madagascar. In France, rumors abound that Facebook’s moderators are located in French-speaking Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Facebook never confirms or denies outsourcing its “moderation” work to companies employing cheap Muslim labor in North Africa.

Notably, Muslim hate-speakers continue to proliferate on Facebook, while anti-Islamists face harassment and the loss of their accounts.

These Facebook users, like dozens of others, seem to be the victims of Islamist “packs”. Once the opinions and analyses of these Facebook users are noticed, they are denounced to Facebook as “racists” or “Islamophobes” and their accounts are deleted.

Fatiha Boudjalat, the co-founder of the secularist movement Viv(r)e la République, is a prominent figure of anti-Islamism in France. She is interviewed regularly on television and radio, and her op-eds are regularly published in Le Figaro. Recently, on Facebook, Boudjalat criticized strongly an Islamist government employee, Sonia Nour, for calling the Tunisian Islamist murderer of two women in Marseille, a “martyr”. A few weeks after that, Boudjalat’s Facebook account was deleted.

She is not alone in having been targeted by Islamists on Facebook. Leila Ourzik, an artist who lives in Grigny, a predominantly Muslim suburb not far from Paris, is a Muslim who eats and drinks openly during Ramadan and resists wearing the Islamic veil. Because of her un-Islamic behavior, she is openly insulted and threatened daily, as well as on social networks. On Facebook, Ourzik became a target. Islamists harassed her with insults and threats, posted her picture on pornography websites, and finally succeeded in obtaining the deletion of her account on Facebook. Suddenly, without warning, her Facebook account was shut. “Not once, many times” she says to Gatestone. Why? “I do not know, they never tell you. But one day, it is over, everything is deleted”.

Olivier Aron, a dentist and former politician, was taken off Facebook for weeks. Aron is active in debates about Islam and Islamism. He is also not shy. On Facebook, he contradicts Islamists. Islamists, however, do not seem interested in debating. They seem interested in censoring. According to Aron, many of them complained to Facebook. “I suppose they accused me of being a racist and an Islamophobe” Aron said. “Intimidation is everyplace. A man I do not even know discovered my telephone number and all my contact details and sent them to his friends”. Consequences were not long in coming. Aron’s assistant at the dental office received a frightening phone call: “Tell doctor Aron that soon ‘Kelkal’ will hit him”. Kelkal, an Algerian Islamist terrorist, was a member of the Armed Islamic Group (GIA) and responsible for the wave of attacks in France during the summer of 1995. Although Kelkal was killed by the police 20 years ago, for many radicalized Muslims, he remains the prototype of “modern” jihadist.

Last spring, Michel Renard, a history teacher in Saint Chamond, was also deleted from Facebook. “Without any warning, without any possibility of talking to someone, suddenly all my writings were gone,” he told Gatestone. Renard had posted online extremely detailed analyses of Islamism. “But,” he said, “Islamists are extremely active on Facebook. They insult you; they threaten you”. Even though Renard refused to be “friended” on Facebook by his pupils, “their parents complained to the director of the school… Intimidation is everywhere, in real life and on the Net”.

These Facebook users, like dozens of others, seem to be the victims of Islamist “packs”. Once the opinions and analyses of these Facebook users are noticed, they are denounced to Facebook as “racists” or “Islamophobes” and their accounts are deleted.

In France, Facebook deletes thousands of accounts every year. It would be interesting to know how many among them were deleted because their owners questioned Islamism, but no one knows: Facebook never communicates other than by bland boilerplate declarations that clearly seem intended to avoid explaining anything.

What we do know is that “Facebook has 4,500 ‘content moderators’ and that it recently announced plans to hire another 3,000”, according to The Guardian. 7,500 moderators for more than two billion Facebook users? That is ridiculous.

The Guardian continues: “There are moderating hubs around the world, but Facebook refuses to disclose their exact number or locations”. The question should be, in fact: Does Facebook outsource content moderation to subcontractors, and if so, to which?

In France, three companies appear to be competing as subcontractors for moderating online content: Netino, Concileo and Atchik Services. The “moderating hubs” of these companies are generally located in French-speaking countries with cheap labor, in North Africa and Madagascar. In France, rumors abound that Facebook’s moderators are located in French-speaking Muslim countries such as Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco. Facebook never confirms or denies outsourcing its “moderation” work to companies employing cheap Muslim labor in North Africa.

Notably, Muslim hate-speakers continue to proliferate on Facebook, while anti-Islamists face harassment and the loss of their accounts.

It is a symptom of the dominant denial in the French media that it keeps repeating — despite massive evidence to the contrary — that “Islamism is not at war with Western culture.” As a consequence, freedom of speech in France is now “moderated” by Muslims in Muslim countries.

What Happens in Vegas Doesn’t Stay in Reno by Mark Steyn Steyn

As readers know, I have a low regard for conspiracy theories, mainly because the reasons the world is going to hell are pretty much staring us in the face. But I can’t honestly blame anyone following the Las Vegas massacre story from taking refuge in any conspiracy theory, no matter how wild and zany. Almost a fortnight from the moment when 58 people were gunned down at a country-music festival, officialdom has so bungled the case that almost every single one of the most basic facts about the act are up for grabs.

As I had cause to remark over a week ago, I dislike the contamination of police press conferences by various politicians and bureaucrats all indulging in an orgy of mutual self-congratulation. But, in this case, the self-congratulation is entirely unwarranted. From the beginning this seemed an unusual crime that didn’t seem to line up with any other mass shooting by a nutter who flips. It has only gotten weirder in the days since.

Earlier this week whichever branch of the Keystone Kops is running this show (apparently the Feds) completely reversed their timeline of the case. Previously we were told that Mandalay Bay security guard Jesus Campos had gone up to the 32nd floor to investigate an “open-door” alert and was a hero because his intervention had distracted the perp from killing even more people – and fortunately, even as Mr Campos was taking a bullet in his leg, the cops were already pounding up the stairs.

We’re now told that that timeline was, in fact, back to front. Instead, Jesus Campos was investigating the door alert before the massacre even began. At 9.59pm, Paddock responded to Mr Campos’ arrival by emptying 200 rounds into the 32nd floor corridor. Which seems a tad excessive. Paddock then apparently took a leisurely six-minute break before going over to the window and beginning his massacre. Which seems a tad excessively relaxed. What was he doing? Having a nice cup of tea? Calling down to room service? Your guess is as good as the coppers’.

But, at any rate, it seems someone else was on the scene – maintenance man Stephen Schuck, who was also forced to take cover from those 200 rounds:

As Mr Schuck says above, when the shooting began, he used his radio to call in what was happening – including the precise location of the room from which the shots were coming. That was six minutes before Paddock began firing on the crowd. So in theory the police could have gotten there in time to prevent, if not all, then many or most of the deaths at the concert.

But they didn’t. Instead, Paddock fired on the crowd for ten minutes and then, despite having apparently prepared for a siege, decided to call a halt and shoot himself.

The Mandalay Bay resort is now disputing the police’s revised timeline. They say that officers were already in the building when Campos radioed in that he was shot and, within 40 seconds, both police and hotel security were on the 32nd floor.

So that’s three timelines.

Peter Arnold: ‘Winning’ by Default

Brexit, Trump, Macron, Wilders — the final tallies list them all as winners, but the real victors have been the disgust and despair that directed voters to outsider alternatives. Democracy in action? Absolutely, but why does Lord Acton’s famous maxim keep coming to mind?

Donald Trump did not win the US election. Yes, you read that correctly. It’s an accurate description of what happened in November, 2016. All the politician candidates lost. The prize went, by default, to the one non-politician.

Mimicking ‘the Trump phenomenon’, Emmanuel Macron did not win the French presidential election. The politicians who had, for decades, governed the country, lost.

Mark Rutte’s governing party lost seats in the Dutch parliament to Geert Wilders and other small parties. Matteo Renzi’s governing party lost the 2016 plebiscite to change the Italian constitution. Theresa May’s governing party lost ten seats to minor parties. Malcolm Turnbull’s governing party lost seats to minor parties. As further proof my thesis, Angela Merkel will lose seats next month.

What is it about governing politicians in these democracies that has caused their electorates to vote against them? The French have a word for it, a word which emerged after Mr Macron, although lacking a political party, saw his opponents fall by the wayside – dégagement. ‘Disengagement’.

The driver of a car equipped with manual gears (a rare bird nowadays) knows what happens when you disengage the clutch. There is now no connection between the motor and the wheels. What we are seeing in politics around the democratic world is a disengagement of the engine (the power of the electorate) from the parliamentary wheels which move the country.

If the electorate has, indeed, become disengaged from the politicians, why?

Edmund Burke made it clear to the electors of Bristol that he was not, in parliament, a mere mouthpiece for their views. If they had confidence in him, if they trusted him, then, once elected, he would do his utmost in the best interests of the nation as a whole.

Trust, confidence, faith.

How do today’s electors view our current politicians, whether in government or thrusting to become the next government? Federal members of Parliament ranked 23rd out of 30 professions in a recent Roy Morgan poll. State MPs took 24th place.

Reinforcing the dégagement is the spectre of senior politicians in a number of countries being successfully prosecuted for corruption or other crimes. What happens, in such circumstances, to trust, confidence and faith?

Is it any surprise that, when polls turn into elections, small parties, even small single-issue groups, take away votes from the ‘disengaged’ major parties which have presumed an entitlement to govern?

Aided and abetted by an uncaring, disinterested internet, bereft of moral scruples or ethics, facilitating the spread of ‘fake news’, ‘ false facts’ and anonymous libellous ‘blogs’, many voters now focus, when casting their votes, on “What is best for me?”, rather than “What is best for the country?”

Adding to their moral confusion is the new ‘identity politics’. Not simply the selfishness of “What is best for me?”, but also the selfishness of “What is best for people like me?”

The Nominees for Best Hypocrite in a Documentary Are… By Julie Kelly

Hollywood’s favorite plotline is when the little guy (or girl) triumphs over the powerful. Whether it’s a curious secretary, an intrepid reporter, or a low-level government bureaucrat, Hollywood has made gazillions of dollars selling a narrative that anyone can take down the evil rich guy, his abettors, and the entire power structure around him.https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/12/the-nominees-for-best-hypocrite-in-a-documentary-are/

Well, lookie what we have here. It’s Hollywood’s favorite story, but this time, it’s a reality show. The craven villain is real and his victims are real. His accomplices are not nameless, faceless flunkies; they are some of the most powerful people in the entertainment industry, media, and politics. Most of these cowards have gone into hiding, playing the “babe-in-the-woods routine,” to borrow a line from a famous mob movie. When they do finally emerge, their scripted lines are delivered as convincingly as a hostage statement. They cleverly give short-shrift to Weinstein’s actions and pivot right to “how brave the women are” who’ve come forward. Others claim they never personally witnessed the misconduct (no duh) and are shocked, SHOCKED that a Hollywood titan would behave this way.

The audience is not cheering. Americans, for the most part, are disgusted by the Harvey Weinstein drama, which is worsening by the day. The outrage is well-placed and well-deserved; the celebrity-political class that yammers about empowering women and protecting the vulnerable are now fully exposed for the frauds they are.

Not like we deplorables didn’t have a clue. These are the same people who lecture us about global warming while they own private jets and multiple mansions, demand gun control while they employ armed security details, oppose border security while they live behind gates and walls. So, giving lip service to sexual harassment while they keep the secrets about a sexual predator who gave them jobs and political donations shouldn’t be any surprise.

If they give an award for Best Hypocrite in a Documentary during next year’s Oscars, it will be a very tight category with many deserving recipients. Let’s run down the competition so far, shall we? Hit it, orchestra:

Michelle Obama: The former first lady recently said, “any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice…to me that just says, you don’t like your voice. You like the thing you’re told to like.” Since the Weinstein accusations were published last week, Mrs. O has strangely lost her own voice. Her husband released a statement on Tuesday to speak on her behalf, saying the couple is “disgusted” at the allegations.
Jimmy Kimmel: The comedian-turned-Democratic-puppet hasn’t addressed the Weinstein affair on his late-night political platform, despite the fact he interviews celebrities for a living. Kimmel’s only mention was a twitter spar with Donald Trump, Jr. where he calls the “big story” from the New York Times “disgusting.” (Notice how he masterfully calls the story, not the person, disgusting.) Even more outrageous is the fact Kimmel had Matt Damon on his show Tuesday night; Damon has been accused of helping torpedo an article back in 2004 about Weinstein procuring young women in Italy (Damon denies the claim.) Kimmel also had Mark Ruffalo on his show; Ruffalo is prolific Trump-hater and self-proclaimed champion of women and who routinely tweets about his solidarity with the softer sex. (Ruffalo has sent out one tweet about Weinstein and could also be a nominee in this category.) Kimmel did not ask either one to comment on the Weinstein accusations.
Basically everyone at NBC News: In what could become the biggest Weinstein cover-up story, Ronan Farrow revealed this week how the media succumbed to pressure from Weinstein and others to not report on the accusers coming forward. In a jaw-dropping interview on MSNBC Tuesday night, Rachel Maddow asks Farrow, “you just said one of these women spoke on camera in back in January, why did you end up reporting this for the New Yorker and not for NBC News?” When Ronan told her to ask NBC executives why it wasn’t reported, Maddow responded that “NBC executives said the story wasn’t publishable, wasn’t ready to go by the time you brought it to them.” Ronan pushed back: “It is not accurate to say it was not reportable, in fact, there were multiple determinations that it was reportable at NBC.” Think about that. NBC said it wasn’t publishable. The same network that has pushed phony Russia-conspiracy stories non-stop for a year? The same network that claimed it had Donald Trump’s tax returns? The same network whose news coverage, according to a study published last spring, is 93 percent negative against Donald Trump? Suddenly the NBC higher-up became scrupulous vetters of news stories? Gimme a break.
Alyssa Milano: In a Marie Claire story published in March, Milano said this about the women’s movement resisting President Trump: “So, with powerful hearts and pussies, we began the fight. We realized the power of our collective voices and awakened a sleeping, feminist giant. She’s smart. She’s beautiful. She’s strong. She’s pissed.” In a post Monday, five days after the New York Times article appeared, Milano said she was “sickened over the disturbing allegations” but that her statement was “complicated for me” because “Georgina Chapman (Weinstein now-estranged wife) is my friend. It is because of my love for Georgina…that I haven’t publicly commented on this until now.” The next day, she tweeted out a year-old NPR article about allegations against Trump.
George Clooney: The husband of an international rights attorney has minced no words when it comes to his criticism of Donald Trump and his support for women’s causes. The actor admitted he started hearing rumors about Weinstein nearly 30 years ago but “took those rumors with a grain of salt.” He claims he never saw any of this behavior by Weinstein even though Clooney acknowledged the producer was a bully but “you just put up with certain bad behavior because, if he yells and screams but he gets ‘Pulp Fiction’ made, who cares if he yells and screams.” Clooney also subtly blames another female reporter for not breaking the story sooner and “if she did these interviews and this investigation, she didn’t run the story, and I and a lot of other people would have liked to have known it.” (Ouch, my sides. Must stop laughing.)

The Good, the Bad, and the Better in Our History By Carol Iannone

Today we—or, rather, the remaining sane among us—commemorate the anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus. The official holiday was Monday, disconnected from the actual date of Columbus’s discovery and, as some would now have it, even from the actual event. Today we are called upon to disavow Columbus and all his works and to deny that any good came of his efforts. We are called, instead, to castigate ourselves and celebrate “Indigenous People’s Day” as if, in so doing, we can remove or negate historical sins by obsessing over them and refusing to see the good in the past.https://amgreatness.com/2017/10/12/the-good-the-bad-and-the-better-in-our-history/

In Nathaniel Hawthorne’s short story “The Birthmark,” a scientist marries a beautiful young woman who has a birthmark on her cheek. Despite her being a good and loving wife, he finds himself bothered by the mark and devises a procedure to get rid of it. As the young wife undergoes the procedure, the birthmark does indeed begin to fade. Unfortunately, however, as it fades she dies. The lesson is clear—human perfection is unattainable and the effort to achieve it through human will can lead to worsen the circumstances at the root of our imperfection.

It may not seem an exact analogy but this story always comes to mind as I read about efforts to tear down monuments, first of Confederate figures and war dead, now broadening to statues honoring Jefferson, Columbus, and other great but flawed men. If ever there was a slippery slope, this is it, for evidently even Lincoln is being targeted for what are supposed to be his politically incorrect views on race. But history is the product of many interwoven threads—pull one, and you are liable to unravel others, even some that you really need for the strength of the overall fabric.

Here’s another inexact but instructive analogy, from the histories of the two countries that occupy the island of Hispaniola, discovered (to European eyes) by Columbus, and colonized in different waves by both the Spanish and the French. The Spanish colony became the Dominican Republic while the French colony became Haiti.

As they moved toward independence, the two colonies took exactly the opposite routes. The Dominicans looked to their Spanish heritage and preserved what was useful in European culture. The Haitians, on the other hand, more or less following the totalitarian impulse of the French Revolution, destroyed everything that their colonizers had built—the entire infrastructure including roads, bridges, and machinery—and looked to a kind of indigenous identity for their model of liberation. This divergent history is reflected even in the names of the two countries.

The Dominican Republic is the largest economy in the Central American and Caribbean region and has a thriving tourist industry. Haiti is, well, Haiti. It is desperately poor—the perennial object of global charity that never seems to address its multiple problems, and it operates, if one can call it that, with a per capita income perhaps one eighth that of the DR.

In tearing down statues and monuments, rather than seeking to understand the history and culture behind their erection, sifting through the good, the bad, and the ugly of the past, radical activists may gain temporary satisfaction but may also be dismantling the interwoven strands of meaning that support our freedom, prosperity, and national unity. Every culture, including those of the indigenous peoples of the Americas, has blood on its hands. After all, Cain, the first murderer, was also the founder of the first city, and by extension, the first civilization.

You don’t have to be a Southern apologist to say that the Civil War was fought for a complexity of reasons. Slavery amounted to the foremost and final reason, yes, but there was also love of home, a sense of place, a belief in duty, and a fierce independence. Some of these qualities remain part of our cultural infrastructure today and we are foolish to dismiss them or to wish them away. Comparisons of the South to Nazi Germany are inept, inapt, and intellectually irresponsible.

In addition, all the monuments are part of the history of a relatively short and successful civil war. We shouldn’t slight this. Not every country has had this outcome. Some civil wars go on for decades, as in Angola, and sometimes the evil side wins, as in Vietnam, the latter with the help of our New Left. Korea is still divided. In some countries, like present day Yemen, there may not even be a better side. England suffered through nine years of civil wars, and decades more of turmoil before parliamentary rule could be definitively established. And in the process they had to behead a king, always a messy business fraught with unseen consequences. The Northern Irish have had to tolerate outright thugs and murderers sharing power as part of the Good Friday agreement that ended their “Troubles,” and in Russia, the Bolshevik victory in the civil war that followed the October Revolution eventually culminated in forced labor, mass purges, and state-enforced famine. Likewise in China.

Trump Expected Not to Certify Iran Compliance With Nuclear Pact Decision doesn’t mean U.S. will withdraw from deal; president will also lay out broader Iran policy By Felicia Schwartz

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump is expected to announce on Friday that he won’t certify Iran is complying with the 2015 multinational nuclear agreement and will take Tehran to task more broadly for practices ranging from missile tests to support of violent groups, U.S. officials said.

The refusal to certify Iran’s compliance doesn’t mean the U.S. will pull out of the deal, the officials added, and Mr. Trump isn’t expected to ask Congress to re-impose economic sanctions that had been lifted as part of the agreement. But it could send the White House down a road of trying to change a deal that U.S. allies still support.

Mr. Trump, a longtime opponent of the accord negotiated under his predecessor’s administration, is expected to announce his decision in a speech in which he will also lay out plans to crack down on Iran’s missile program and its support for Hezbollah and other militant groups in the Middle East, the officials said.

Mr. Trump is also likely to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Iran’s elite military branch, as a terrorist organization, a step that has been the subject of internal administration debates, according to people familiar with the deliberations.

Iran vowed a “crushing” response if the U.S. takes that step.

The venue for Mr. Trump’s remarks was the subject of debate as well. Officials said they had discussed the possibility of the speech taking place in front of the unoccupied Iranian Embassy in Washington, although that plan was set aside.

Mr. Trump’s speech will mark the end of a months-long Iran policy review by the administration and begin an uncertain process under which Congress has 60 days to consider on an expedited basis reinstating sanctions that had been lifted under the terms of the nuclear accord.

The president will speak in advance of a Sunday deadline to inform Congress about whether or not Iran is complying with the nuclear deal, under the terms of a U.S. law passed in 2015 meant to provide congressional oversight. CONTINUE AT SITE

U.S. Leaving Unesco, Capping a Stormy History State Department says decision wasn’t made lightly, cites ‘continuing anti-Israel bias’By Farnaz Fassihi

UNITED NATIONS—The U.S. will withdraw from Unesco, the United Nations culture and heritage organization, officials said Thursday, a move that could further strain relations between the Trump administration and the U.N.

The State Department said the U.S. decision to leave Unesco “was not taken lightly” and reflects American concerns over the need for overhauls in the organization, as well as its “continuing anti-Israel bias.” The withdrawal will take effect at the end of next year.

The U.S. exit is the latest development in a long and tense relationship between Washington and the Paris-based body, which promotes international cooperation in areas of education, science, culture and communication.

Washington withdrew from Unesco in 1980 because it said the organization had become politicized. It rejoined in 2003, but since 2011 has withheld funds to Unesco amounting to nearly $550 million because of its decision to confer membership on the Palestinian territories.

In a statement on his official Twitter account Thursday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country too was preparing to exit Unesco, “in parallel with the United States.”

Unesco has denied that it is biased against Israel.

Since arriving at the U.N. earlier this year, U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley has voiced criticism over what she has called a bias against Israel, both in the Security Council and at various U.N. agencies. She has signaled the U.S. also is reviewing its commitment to the U.N.’s Human Rights Council, citing concerns stemming from issues related to Israel, Iran and Venezuela and has warned that the U.S. would withdraw from the Council without changes.

In July, Unesco designated the Old City of Hebron and Tomb of the Patriarchs as Palestinian heritage sites despite diplomatic efforts by Israel and political pressure from the U.S. to derail the designation.

Overdue
The U.S. has withheld nearly $550 million in funds to Unesco since 2011 because of its decision to confer membership on the Palestinian territories.

Ms. Haley said in a statement Thursday that those designations had negatively affected the U.S. re-evaluation of its commitment to Unesco. “The United States will continue to evaluate all agencies within the United Nations system through the same lens,” Ms. Haley said.

Israel’s Ambassador to the United Nations, Danny Danon, said: “Today is a new day at the U.N., where there is price to pay for discrimination against Israel.”

The State Department said it wasn’t planning to completely disengage from Unesco and would maintain its connection with the organization as a nonmember, observer state. The statement said this would allow the U.S. to share its views and experiences on a range of issues from education to protection of World Heritage sites.

U.N. officials including Secretary-General António Guterres said they regretted the Trump administration’s withdrawal and said the U.S. had been a crucial and historic partner in helping Unesco improve education for the poor and protect culture and historical sites across the globe. CONTINUE AT SITE

THE GLAZOV GANG WARNER MOMENT: THE NEAR ENEMY VIDEOS

This special edition of the Glazov Gang presents the Dr. Bill Warner Moment with Dr. Bill Warner, the president of politicalislam.com.http://jamieglazov.com/2017/10/09/warner-moment-the-near-enemy/

Bill focused on The Near Enemy, analyzing the urgency of opening of a new front in a civilizational war.

Don’t miss it!

And make sure to watch Dr. Warner focus on How to Use the Elements of Islam to Vet Muslim Migrants, where he asks: Is the Koran wrong or right about wife-beating, sexual slavery, killing unbelievers and political assassinations?

Subscribe to our YouTube Channel and to Jamie Glazov Productions. Also LIKE us on Facebook and LIKE Jamie’s FB Fan Page.
FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share

#11 The Humanitarian Hoax of Community Organizing: Killing America With Kindness by Linda Goudsmit

The Humanitarian Hoax is a deliberate and deceitful tactic of presenting a destructive policy as altruistic. The humanitarian huckster presents himself as a compassionate advocate when in fact he is the disguised enemy.

Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief, weakened the United States for eight years presenting his crippling community organizing tactics and strategies as altruistic when in fact they were designed for destruction. His legacy, the Leftist Democratic Party and its ongoing “resistance” movement, is the party of the Humanitarian Hoax attempting to destroy American democracy from within and replace it with socialism.

Radical socialist Saul Alinsky wrote his 1971 manual Rules for Radicals to instruct future generations of radical community organizers in effective tactics to transform a capitalist state into a socialist state. Obama became the quintessential community organizer.

In May 1966, The Nation published an article written by Alinsky’s contemporaries Columbia sociologists Richard Cloward and Frances Piven. “The Weight of the Poor: A Strategy to End Poverty” described the tactics necessary to destroy capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with unsustainable demands that push society into social chaos and economic collapse. Cloward and Piven took a termite approach to destruction that collapses structures from the inside out. They specifically targeted the U.S. public welfare system to instigate a crisis that would collapse welfare and replace it with a system of guaranteed annual income.

David Horowitz explains that Alinsky and his followers deliberately “organize their power bases without naming the end game, without declaring a specific future they want to achieve – socialism, communism, or anarchy. Without committing themselves to concrete principles or a specific future they organize exclusively to build a power base which they can use to destroy the existing society and its economic system.” David Horowitz has identified the humanitarian hoax of community organizing with great precision.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy used poverty as the weapon of destruction that would collapse America and replace the government with their idealized totalitarian Marxist model. They succeeded in bankrupting New York City for a time but there was not enough pressure to destroy the economy of the country. Supplying additional pressure required Barack Obama’s particular skill set.

The Cloward-Piven experiment in New York City revealed the weakness of their strategy. Community organizing provided insufficient economic pressure – success required ideological politicians and a colluding media willing to disinform the public to be successful. 21st century politics has embraced the expanded 3-step Cloward-Piven Strategy which includes gun control advocacy to eliminate any serious resistance to the effort.

Step 1 – Politicians must overburden governmental/social institutions to the breaking point.

Step 2 – Politicians must incite social chaos through divisive policies to make the country ungovernable.

Step 3 – Politicians must disarm the public so that they cannot oppose the leftist totalitarian state that will follow.

Left-wing liberal European leaders and America under Obama added uncontrolled immigration with divisive immigration policies to both overload their respective welfare systems and create social chaos. Obama, the humanitarian huckster-in-chief spent eight years implementing the expanded Cloward-Piven strategy of economic chaos. In 2007 there were 26 million recipients of food stamps – by 2015 there were 47 million. Obama’s open border policies and calls for amnesty flooded the country with illegal immigrants further straining the system and creating economic chaos. Illegal aliens overload our welfare system, cost American taxpayers a whopping $116 BILLION, and rob legal citizens of their jobs. Obama’s executive orders created extraordinary divisiveness by importing a population of immigrants with hostile cultural norms including jihadi terrorists.

America Out of Unesco The U.S. shouldn’t finance the anti-Israel U.N. agency.

The Trump Administration isn’t known for public-relations savvy, and Thursday’s surprise that the U.S. is withdrawing from the United Nations’s main cultural agency is a case in point. The decision was still the right one.

State Department spokeswoman Heather Nauert said the U.S. will leave the Paris-based U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, or Unesco, on Dec. 31 and become a non-member observer. She cited “concerns with mounting arrears,” “the need for fundamental reform” and “continuing anti-Israel bias.” Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called the decision “courageous and ethical” on Twitter and said his country will also quit.

For decades Unesco has been a political agency masquerading as a cultural institution. The Soviets ran its education programs and its anti-American bent continues. Unesco’s current chief, Irina Bokova, is a Bulgarian with a Communist past who ran for U.N. Secretary-General with the backing of Vladimir Putin.

In 2011 Ms. Bokova let the Palestinian Authority join Unesco as a member state, triggering a U.S. law that prevents U.S. funding for any U.N. body that accepts a Palestinian state. Unesco claims the U.S. now owes about $550 million in missed payments.

In July Unesco declared Israel’s Tomb of the Patriarchs and other areas as Palestinian heritage sites, an act of political incitement. As U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley explained Thursday, the agency has engaged “in a long line of foolish actions, which includes keeping Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad on a UNESCO human rights committee even after his murderous crackdown on peaceful protestors.”

Ms. Haley also wants to reform U.N. peacekeeping and has warned the U.S. may withdraw from the Human Rights Council absent reform. The Unesco withdrawal is a good first step.