Category: Politics


Pope Francis attends a religious ceremony at the Vatican on February 25, 2017 (Photo by AFP).

Pope Francis attends a religious ceremony at the Vatican on February 25, 2017 (Photo by AFP).

Pope Francis has warned against the ramifications of aggravating water scarcity across the globe, saying that the crisis could lead to a third world war.

“The right to water is essential for the survival of persons and decisive for the future of humanity,” Pope Francis said during a meeting with international experts participating in a ‘Dialogue on Water’ at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Friday.

“All people have a right to safe drinking water. I ask [myself] if in this piecemeal third world war that we are living through, are we not going toward a great world war for water?” he said.

Pope Francis pointed to the latest figures on water published by the United Nations and said that the world should not remain indifferent to the issue.

“Every day, a thousand children die of illness linked to water and contaminated water is consumed by millions of people every day… This situation must be stopped and reversed. Fortunately, this is not impossible, but it is urgent,” the pontiff said.

A report released by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) this month warns that “groundwater sources are being depleted rapidly,” and described “water scarcities” as one of the key global problems.

“Mankind’s future ability to feed itself is in jeopardy due to intensifying pressures on natural resources, mounting inequality, and the fallout from a changing climate,” it said.

According to a 2016 UN report, nearly 663 million people “lack ready access to improved sources of drinking water, while the number of people without reliable access to water of good enough quality to be safe for human consumption is at least 1.8 billion.”  

http://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2017/02/25/512077/Pope-water-third-world-war

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

As a black man and former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you might think I would be surprised to face a charge of racism — but I was not

As a black man and former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you might think I would be surprised to face a charge of racism — but I was not

The day I was accused of being racist, I knew political correctness had gone mad, writes TREVOR PHILLIPS

A few weeks ago, I observed that Barack Obama’s iconic status as the first African-American U.S. President should not obscure his mixed political record.

For that, I was accused by one Radio 4 commentator of peddling a ‘racist narrative’.

As a black man and former chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, you might think I would be surprised to face a charge of racism — but I was not.

For at a time when this country is crying out for frank discussion on issues such as race and sexuality, debate is being closed down because those who find offence in every-thing cry ‘racist’ or ‘sexist’.

The result — as I argue tonight in a TV programme — is that our political and cultural elite seem unable to speak plainly about things that concern many citizens.

While our rulers seem to have all the time in the world to debate who should use which lavatory (in deference to the transgender lobby), they dismiss anxieties about overcrowded schools or doctors’ surgeries as merely a bigoted dislike of migrants.

How has this come about?

Forty years ago, ‘identity’ politics was about trying to end discrimination. It led to revolutionary legislation on gender, disability and race.

But recently the recognition of diversity has grown into a cancerous cultural tyranny that blocks open debate.

In higher education, it has spread like wildfire.

Efforts to keep real racists off university platforms have been perverted so bans are imposed on, for example, speakers with unfashionable views on transsexuals.

Harmless academics are falling prey, too. Sensible people are appalled at the way Nobel Laureate Sir Tim Hunt was hounded out of his post at University College London for a weak joke about women crying in laboratories.

Hardly a day goes by on campuses without a demand for a statue to be removed or for ‘safe spaces’ where sensitive students can be sheltered from robust views in a cultural debate or sexual violence in a classic literary text.

But how is a young person to understand how precious are the freedoms we enjoy today without learning what the world was like before them?

Should I not tell my children about the agony and struggle for liberation of their own ancestors, who were once slaves on sugar plantations?

Unfortunately, this thin-skinned refusal to engage with the challenging realities of life is not restricted to academia.

There is no hiding place from the language police, even if you belong to a ‘vulnerable’ group.

Ten years ago, I suggested Notting Hill Carnival had become an international event and outgrown its roots in the West Indian community — hardly a deeply provocative observation.

In response, the then Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, opined I had become so Right-wing I really belonged in the British National Party.

Sometimes the pressures to conform are subtle and insidious but no less powerful.In 2009, several Labour MPs, including some ministers, mounted a private campaign to get Prime Minister Gordon Brown to dismiss me from the chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC).

My principal sin, I think, had been to support the appointment of a leading black evangelical Christian.

I thought the thousands of black and Asian Christians who are reviving our churches should be represented…

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-4251306/Political-correctness-gone-mad-writes-TREVOR-PHILLIPS.html#ixzz4ZnPOltOk
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Photo credit: Wikipedia Commons

As inequality ravages the American and world economies, denial grows right along with it.

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Unprecedented growth marked the era from 1948 to 1973. Economists might study it forever, but it can never be repeated. Why?

Newly built Volkswagen Beetles ready for shipping from Hamburg in 1972. Photo by Thomas Hoepker/Magnum

Marc Levinson is an economist, historian and journalist whose work has appeared in The Harvard Business Review, The Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg.com, among others. His latest book is An Extraordinary Time: The End of the Postwar Boom and the Rise of the Ordinary Economy (2016). He lives in Washington, DC.

The second half of the 20th century divides neatly in two. The divide did not come with the rise of Ronald Reagan or the fall of the Berlin Wall. It is not discernible in a particular event, but rather in a shift in the world economy, and the change continues to shape politics and society in much of the world today.

The shift came at the end of 1973. The quarter-century before then, starting around 1948, saw the most remarkable period of economic growth in human history. In the Golden Age between the end of the Second World War and 1973, people in what was then known as the ‘industrialised world’ – Western Europe, North America, and Japan – saw their living standards improve year after year. They looked forward to even greater prosperity for their children. Culturally, the first half of the Golden Age was a time of conformity, dominated by hard work to recover from the disaster of the war. The second half of the age was culturally very different, marked by protest and artistic and political experimentation. Behind that fermentation lay the confidence of people raised in a white-hot economy: if their adventures turned out badly, they knew, they could still find a job.

The year 1973 changed everything. High unemployment and a deep recession made experimentation and protest much riskier, effectively putting an end to much of it. A far more conservative age came with the economic changes, shaped by fears of failing and concerns that one’s children might have it worse, not better. Across the industrialised world, politics moved to the Right – a turn that did not avert wage stagnation, the loss of social benefits such as employer-sponsored pensions and health insurance, and the secure, stable employment that had proved instrumental to the rise of a new middle class and which workers had come to take for granted. At the time, an oil crisis took the blame for what seemed to be a sharp but temporary downturn. Only gradually did it become clear that the underlying cause was not costly oil but rather lagging productivity growth – a problem that would defeat a wide variety of government policies put forth to correct it.

The great boom began in the aftermath of the Second World War. The peace treaties of 1945 did not bring prosperity; on the contrary, the post-war world was an economic basket case. Tens of millions of people had been killed, and in some countries a large proportion of productive capacity had been laid to waste. Across Europe and Asia, tens of millions of refugees wandered the roads. Many countries lacked the foreign currency to import food and fuel to keep people alive, much less to buy equipment and raw material for reconstruction. Railroads barely ran; farm tractors stood still for want of fuel. Everywhere, producing enough coal to provide heat through the winter was a challenge. As shoppers mobbed stores seeking basic foodstuffs, much less luxuries such as coffee and cotton underwear, prices soared. Inflation set off waves of strikes in the United States and Canada as workers demanded higher pay to keep up with rising prices. The world’s economic outlook seemed dim. It did not look like the beginning of a golden age.

As late as 1948, incomes per person in much of Europe and Asia were lower than they had been 10 or even 20 years earlier. But 1948 brought a change for the better. In January, the US military government in Japan announced it would seek to rebuild the economy rather than exacting reparations from a country on the verge of starvation. In April, the US Congress approved the economic aid programme that would be known as the Marshall Plan, providing Western Europe with desperately needed dollars to import machinery, transport equipment, fertiliser and food. In June, the three occupying powers – France, the United Kingdom and the US – rolled out the deutsche mark, a new currency for the western zones of Germany. A new central bank committed to keeping inflation low and the exchange rate steady would oversee the deutsche mark.

Postwar chaos gave way to stability, and the war-torn economies began to grow. In many countries, they grew so fast for so long that people began to speak of the ‘economic miracle’ (West Germany), the ‘era of high economic growth’ (Japan) and the 30 glorious years (France). In the English-speaking world, this extraordinary period became known as the Golden Age…

more…

https://aeon.co/essays/how-economic-boom-times-in-the-west-came-to-an-end

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Resultado de imagem para images obama vacation hawaii
image edited by Web Investigator
WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Regan_BR

FRIENDS FORMING FAMILIES: The TV series The Golden Girls portrayed a different family model, in which unrelated single women formed a household together.ABC Photo Archives / Contributor / Getty Images

Thinking out of the nuclear family box.

by Nathaniel Mauka, Staff Writer, Waking Times 

The future of warfare is guaranteed if the Pentagon and Silicon Valley technocrats have any say.

With government promises to counter ISIL without a centralized command on the complicated battlefields of Northern Iraq or Syria – which arguably, the U.S. government helped to create – what technologies will ensure that 69 cents of every stolen tax dollar will continue flooding into war profits?

If you complete a successful airstrike, ISIL fighters usually just migrate somewhere else. Is tried and true technology even the answer to “ending war” as is so often promised?

Former Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, gives us a hint in a recent interview with Wired,

“I think if there is going to be something ever that rivals nuclear weapons in terms of the pure fearsomeness of their destructiveness it’s more likely to come from biotechnology than any other technology. Looking back decades from now, I do think the biological revelation could rival the atomic revolution for the fearsomeness of the potential. I think that’s one reason we need to invest in it. And although biotechnology has not been a traditional area for Defense, the new bridges that they build should not only be to the IT tech community but also to the biotech communities in the Valley.”

In fact, the Valley has been creating advanced sensors to combat their own weapons of germ-fare for decades now. They don’t seem to care about harming the population in “tests” of their advanced germ technologies either. The military industrial complex with technocratic support has done this for more than 70 years now.

The people of San Francisco were exposed to biowarfare tests in the 1950s when a Navy Ship sprayed microbes into the air from a giant hose just off the coast. The germs were tested on a population of 800,000 without their knowledge or consent. An additional 239 tests were conducted in the region.

Biowarfare is known as the “poor man’s atomic bomb,” since it can be developed and dispersed with a much lower capital investment than in nuclear weapons or trillion-dollar bombers. This type of biowarfare is complicated, though.

As Gregory Koblentz, a professor in public policy at George Mason University in Virginia argues, in sharp contrast to nuclear weapons seen from a strategic perspective, biological weapons have features that complicate international security strategy.

He notes that this is true particularly due to the “multi-use” nature of the biological agents and their precursors, as well as the necessity for secrecy in protecting biological weapons programs. After all, if the ‘enemy’ knows what kind of germs you are brewing, they could rather easily create an antidote, making your weapon obsolete.

The ambiguity of these bioweapons programs should not be lost on the average American. A defensive biological weapon could be used just as easily on civilians, and the military has already shown it has tested these agents on its own population.

An article titled, Part One: Bush and 9/11 Using Explosives, Part Two: Rockefellars And a Coup, Using Bioweapons, questions why FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security have been venturing down into the subway systems over the last couple of years. Some suggest they could be completing recon to poison on water systems. We’ve already been poisoned with fluoride with no good explanation, it isn’t so far-fetched to consider what other toxins might be used against an unsuspecting public.

In other recent events, a light bulb in a New York Subway system was filled with bacteria and shattered contaminating an area from 14th to 58th Street, and the Midwest has been contaminated with bacteria which was sprayed by plane that affected areas as much as 1,200 miles away in just a few days.

By their own admission, Silicon Valley biotech companies have been working with the Pentagon to create new forms of bio-terror, and even Tesla’s Model X has a bioweapons defense system. An inside hunch? Or is something else going on with the technocrats deciding our country’s future foray into warfare?

About the Author
Nathaniel Mauka is a researcher of the dark side of government and exopolitics, and a staff writer for Waking Times.
This article (Silicon Valley and the Pentagon – The New Pioneers of Bio Warfare) was originally created and published by Waking Times and is published here under a Creative Commons license with attribution to Nathaniel MaukaIt may be re-posted freely with proper attribution and author bio.

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2017/02/20/silicon-valley-pentagon-new-pioneers-bio-warfare/

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

Submitted by Matthew Continetti via FreeBeacon.com,

How bureaucrats are fighting the voters for control of our country

Donald Trump was elected president last November by winning 306 electoral votes. He pledged to “drain the swamp” in Washington, D.C., to overturn the system of politics that had left the nation’s capital and major financial and tech centers flourishing but large swaths of the country mired in stagnation and decay. “What truly matters,” he said in his Inaugural Address, “is not which party controls our government, but whether our government is controlled by the people.”

Is it? By any historical and constitutional standard, “the people” elected Donald Trump and endorsed his program of nation-state populist reform. Yet over the last few weeks America has been in the throes of an unprecedented revolt. Not of the people against the government—that happened last year—but of the government against the people. What this says about the state of American democracy, and what it portends for the future, is incredibly disturbing.

There is, of course, the case of Michael Flynn. He made a lot of enemies inside the government during his career, suffice it to say. And when he exposed himself as vulnerable those enemies pounced. But consider the means: anonymous and possibly illegal leaks of private conversations. Yes, the conversation in question was with a foreign national. And no one doubts we spy on ambassadors. But we aren’t supposed to spy on Americans without probable cause. And we most certainly are not supposed to disclose the results of our spying in the pages of the Washington Post because it suits a partisan or personal agenda.

Here was a case of current and former national security officials using their position, their sources, and their methods to crush a political enemy. And no one but supporters of the president seems to be disturbed. Why? Because we are meant to believe that the mysterious, elusive, nefarious, and to date unproven connection between Donald Trump and the Kremlin is more important than the norms of intelligence and the decisions of the voters.

But why should we believe that? And who elected these officials to make this judgment for us?

Nor is Flynn the only example of nameless bureaucrats working to undermine and ultimately overturn the results of last year’s election. According to the New York Times, civil servants at the EPA are lobbying Congress to reject Donald Trump’s nominee to run the agency. Is it because Scott Pruitt lacks qualifications? No. Is it because he is ethically compromised? Sorry. The reason for the opposition is that Pruitt is a critic of the way the EPA was run during the presidency of Barack Obama. He has a policy difference with the men and women who are soon to be his employees. Up until, oh, this month, the normal course of action was for civil servants to follow the direction of the political appointees who serve as proxies for the elected president.

How quaint. These days an architect of the overreaching and antidemocratic Waters of the U.S. regulation worries that her work will be overturned so she undertakes extraordinary means to defeat her potential boss. But a change in policy is a risk of democratic politics. Nowhere does it say in the Constitution that the decisions of government employees are to be unquestioned and preserved forever. Yet that is precisely the implication of this unprecedented protest. “I can’t think of any other time when people in the bureaucracy have done this,” a professor of government tells the paper. That sentence does not leave me feeling reassured.

Opposition to this president takes many forms. Senate Democrats have slowed confirmations to the most sluggish pace since George Washington. Much of the New York and Beltway media does really function as a sort of opposition party, to the degree that reporters celebrated the sacking of Flynn as a partisan victory for journalism. Discontent manifests itself in direct actions such as the Women’s March.

But here’s the difference. Legislative roadblocks, adversarial journalists, and public marches are typical of a constitutional democracy. They are spelled out in our founding documents: the Senate and its rules, and the rights to speech, a free press, and assembly. Where in those documents is it written that regulators have the right not to be questioned, opposed, overturned, or indeed fired, that intelligence analysts can just call up David Ignatius and spill the beans whenever they feel like it?

The last few weeks have confirmed that there are two systems of government in the United States.

The first is the system of government outlined in the U.S. Constitution—its checks, its balances, its dispersion of power, its protection of individual rights. Donald Trump was elected to serve four years as the chief executive of this system. Whether you like it or not.

The second system is comprised of those elements not expressly addressed by the Founders. This is the permanent government, the so-called administrative state of bureaucracies, agencies, quasi-public organizations, and regulatory bodies and commissions, of rule-writers and the byzantine network of administrative law courts. This is the government of unelected judges with lifetime appointments who, far from comprising the “least dangerous branch,” now presume to think they know more about America’s national security interests than the man elected as commander in chief.

For some time, especially during Democratic presidencies, the second system of government was able to live with the first one. But that time has ended. The two systems are now in competition. And the contest is all the more vicious and frightening because more than offices are at stake. This fight is not about policy. It is about wealth, status, the privileges of an exclusive class.

“In our time, as in [Andrew] Jackson’s, the ruling classes claim a monopoly not just on the economy and society but also on the legitimate authority to regulate and restrain it, and even on the language in which such matters are discussed,” writes Christopher Caldwell in a brilliant essay in the Winter 2016/17 Claremont Review of Books.

Elites have full-spectrum dominance of a whole semiotic system. What has just happened in American politics is outside the system of meanings elites usually rely upon. Mike Pence’s neighbors on Tennyson street not only cannot accept their election loss; they cannot fathom it. They are reaching for their old prerogatives in much the way that recent amputees are said to feel an urge to scratch itches on limbs that are no longer there. Their instincts tell them to disbelieve what they rationally know. Their arguments have focused not on the new administration’s policies or its competence but on its very legitimacy.

Donald Trump did not cause the divergence between government of, by, and for the people and government, of, by, and for the residents of Cleveland Park and Arlington and Montgomery and Fairfax counties. But he did exacerbate it. He forced the winners of the global economy and the members of the D.C. establishment to reckon with the fact that they are resented, envied, opposed, and despised by about half the country. But this recognition did not humble the entrenched incumbents of the administrative state. It radicalized them to the point where they are readily accepting, even cheering on, the existence of a “deep state” beyond the control of the people and elected officials.

Who rules the United States? The simple and terrible answer is we do not know. But we are about to find out.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-17/who-really-rules-united-states

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

PRIVACY
Photo Illustration: Vocativ

Taser has started its own in-house AI unit, laying the groundwork for police body cameras that record fully-searchable video evidence

Last week, Taser, the stun gun company that has recently become an industry leader in body-mounted cameras, announced the creation of its own in-house artificial intelligence division. The new unit will utilize the company’s acquisition of two AI-focused firms: Dextro, a New York-based computer vision startup, and Misfit, another computer vision company previously owned by the watch manufacturer Fossil. Taser says the newly formed division will develop AI-powered tech specifically aimed at law enforcement, using automation and machine learning algorithms to let cops search for people and objects in video footage captured by on-body camera systems.

Moreover, the move suggests that body-worn cameras, which are already being used by police departments in many major cities, could soon become powerful surveillance tools capable of identifying different objects, events, and people encountered by officers on the street — both retroactively and in real time.

The idea is to use machine learning algorithms to streamline the process of combing through and redacting hours of video footage captured by police body cameras. Dextro has trained algorithms to scan video footage for different types of objects, like guns or toilets, as well as recognize events, like a foot chase or traffic stop. The result of all this tagging and classifying is that police will be able use keywords to search through video footage just like they’d search for news articles on Google, allowing them to quickly redact footage and zoom in on the relevant elements. Taser predicts that in a year’s time, their automation technology will reduce the total amount of time needed to redact faces from one hour of video footage from eight to 1.5 hours.

Screen Shot 2017 02 15 at 1.14.40 PM

A Dextro demonstration shows real-time classification of people and objects in video

Taser
Searchable video will also have major implications for civilian privacy, especially since there are no federal laws preventing police from trawling through databases to track people en masse.

Taser has previously expressed interest in adding face recognition capabilities to its body camera systems. A Department of Justice study published last year also found that at least nine different body camera manufacturers either currently support face recognition in their products or have the ability to add it later. And according to a recent Georgetown University Law report, roughly half of all American adults have been entered into a law enforcement face recognition database, meaning there’s decent chance that any random person walking down the street can be identified and tracked in secret by a camera-equipped cop.

A Taser representative told Vocativ that while Dextro’s computer vision technology will allow Taser’s law enforcement customers to detect faces for the purpose of redacting them from videos, it does not currently support face recognition…

more…

http://www.vocativ.com/402771/ai-body-cams-cops-google/

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

By Matthew Voegtli

Why should Americans feel obligated to open our borders for Muslims to move here en masse?  Foreign nationals in foreign countries do not have U.S.  Constitutional rights.  As the Supreme Court has held, an unadmitted and nonresident alien “had no constitutional right of entry to this country as a nonimmigrant or otherwise.” (Mandel, 408 U.S.  at 762; see Plasencia, 459 U.S.  at 32.)  Beyond this fact, the president has plenary power over foreign affairs and this includes, under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, the power to suspend or impose restrictions on the entry of foreign nationals if he determines their entry “would be detrimental to the interest of the United States.”  The president as commander-in-chief is given this power, not New York Times columnists, not wailing Democrats, not the Council on American-Islamic Relations and the many activists groups calling for massive increases in Muslim immigration.

Remarkably many supporters of enhanced vetting to protect Americans have gone into a protective crouch and have not articulated reasons why we should be very careful about admitting more and more Muslims into America.

But we should be concerned.

There are claims that not one Muslim from the seven nations named in Trump’s executive order has been implicated in terrorism.  The New York Times in a lead editorial stated that not one person from those nations has engaged in terrorism, despite a Somalian refugee going on a rampage at Ohio State University last year.   Seattle-based  District Court Judge James Robart asked a federal prosecutor how many citizens of those seven countries were arrested for terrorism since September 11.  “Let me tell you, the answer to that is none, as best as I can tell.”

Then he issued an injunction freezing Trump’s executive order.  More significantly, even the San Francisco appeals court that upheld that injunction turned a blind eye (justice is supposed to be blind but not this type of blind) to the fact that 72 persons from the seven mostly Muslim nations covered by Trump’s extreme vetting order have been convicted of terrorism — not arrested, not indicted but convicted Deroy Murdock of National Review provides a few thumbnail sketches of some of those immigrants who have terrorized or planned to terrorize Americans and is correct to conclude that Trump’s executive order is meant to protect us from real-life mayhem

Scott Johnson, one of the founders of Powerline, has one superb work in uncovering the terrorism epicenter that the Somalian community of his hometown of Minneapolis has become over the years.  Many  Syrian refugees (and many other refugees from other Muslim majority nations)  support ISIS, according to a poll by the Arab Center for Policy and Research Studies; they harbor anti-Semitic and anti-Western ideologies and are primed to turn those views into action,

What has also been pronounced is the media blackout and amnesia over the litany of Muslim terror attacks over the years in America.  Here is a sampling: the first World Trade Center bombing, 9/11, Boston Marathon massacre, San Bernardino, the Orlando nightclub massacre, Fort Hood, Chattanooga, the aforementioned Ohio State attack, and on and on and more to come (for a much longer list see, “A Complete List of Radical Islamic Terror Attacks on U.S.  Soil Under Obama”).  There have also been planned attacks that were not successfully completed, among them the Underwear Bomber and the plot to blow up Times Square.

Apologists are wont to say some of these attacks were done by U.S.  citizens.  That is true, but they are often the sons of Muslim immigrants, and members of the second generation of Muslim immigrants too often become alienated from America and radicalized by mosques in America or by online campaigns to stoke terrorism against America.  The conclusion can be made that but for their parents moving to America there would be fewer murdered Americans.

Terror groups have openly boasted of their efforts to slip terrorists into the stream of immigrants coming into America from Muslim nations.  James Comey, head of the FBI, and James Clapper, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, warned that vetting procedures were inadequate to protect us from the threats of terrorists coming to America .

Sometimes the future is visible in the present, and this is one of those times, since we can see how the European experiment with open borders and welcoming of Muslim refugees has turned out for them: mass terror attacks that have become so routine that even James Taylor has given up trying to bring solace to the beleaguered and endangered Europeans.  Crime waves have followed refugee waves.  Too many Europeans have paid a price for the generosity they have shown to Muslims, who have reciprocated by upping their demands, truck attacks, nightclub attacks, stadium attacks, Louvre attacks, attacks on women, beheading of  priests, desecration of churches, torture of Jews, London subway and bus bombings, and beheading a British soldier.  Are there any safe zones for Europeans?

more…

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2017/02/why_should_muslims_feel_ementitledem_to_move_to_america.html#ixzz4YwdtXZuf
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

 

WIKK WEB GURU

WIKK WEB GURU

%d bloggers like this: