Yes Virginia There are No Go Zones In London

Muslims chase police out of no go zone in Peckham.

Merkel Refugee Love and European Hate Costs Her Party Elections

Merkel fights back tears announcing election results

Anti-Angela Merkel protestors have taken to the streets to vent their anger at the German minster they blame for adding further chaos to the migrant crisis.

The anger comes as many of the population head to polls today, in what is expected to deliver a crushing blow to the leader's party.

Early exit polls indicate not only was there a rise in the number of German's taking to the ballot box, support for her party has plummeted.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives lost in two out of three state elections as Germans punished her accommodative refugee policy with a big vote for the anti-immigration Alternative for Germany (AfD), exit polls showed.

The losses in both Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland Palatinate represented a worst-case scenario for Merkel, who has staked her legacy on her decision last year to open Germany's doors to over 1 million migrants - a move voters snubbed.

The backlash was also visible in Saxony-Anhalt in former East Germany, where Merkel's conservative Christian Democrats (CDU) remained the largest party but saw the AfD grab 21.5 percent of the vote as it burst into all three regional parliaments.

Merkel has faced fierce criticism since calling for refugees to head for Germany where she said they would be welcomed.

Over a million migrants have since arrived in the country.

Demonstrators who took to the streets of Germany’s capital on Saturday chanted "Merkel must go" and "We are the people" as they paraded with German flags.

The group of 2,000 were accompanied Saturday by a heavy police escort in a bid to keep them away from a nearby smaller counter-protest.

German Chancellor Merkel is accused of adding fuel to the migrant crisis with after she insisted her country would “manage” the migrants who entered.

However after registering 1.2m asylum seekers in 2015 alone the country appeared to perform a u-turn.

The mass movements of migrants across the EU bloc from war torn countries including Syria, and some from Africa, has all but broken the Schengen agreement as struggling countries erect temporary blocks at their borders.

The rallies took place near the Berlin central station.

Armed police squads are on duty at the station, on platforms and exits.

More On The Chicago Anti-Trump Riots

The Three Soros Founded and Funded Groups Behind Chicago's "Protests"

La Raza challenge at protests: Stomp flag or YOU get stomped.

The mask has fallen off the radical leftists who organized the assassination of free speech at Friday’s scheduled Donald Trump rally in Chicago.

The Daily Caller has detailed three of the groups who have braggadociously taken responsibility for the chaos.

ANSWER (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism) Chicago is the Chicago franchise of an international network started in the wake of 9/11 and among the first to protest against a response in Afghanistan; since then the group is involved in most of the radical left’s favorite causes: anti-capitalist, pro-union, open borders, anti-war, anti-police causes. The day after the Trump rally the group was holding a forum entitled “Taking Action to Support Palestine, Hamas, Hezbollah - all are our brothers.”

They sound like a swell group of people don’t they?

The group called the protest a “people’s victory” and recruited for the protest in a facebook post on Thursday.

“Stand with All Immigrants, Muslims and People of Color! Shut Down White Supremacy! Spread the word. Organize everyone you can and get them to this very important protest. Everywhere Trump goes he and his racist mob must be shut down by the people!” the post read.

Another group identified by the Daily Caller was the Illinois Coalition of Immigrant and Rights Reform.

This group was not only instrumental in creating not only the most radical local immigration ordinance but championed the case which inspired the DREAM Act.

In 2011, Cook County became the first locality to stop cooperating with the federal government on detainers; detainers became controversial among leftist groups when their use skyrocketed under the now discarded Secure Communities program.

Detainers are holds that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) places on state prisoners who they think also violated immigration law and the hold normally gives the federal government up to two extra days to get any prisoner who would otherwise be released.

Denny McCann was killed in June 2011 when an illegal alien driving about three times the speed limit didn’t stop and dragged him about two hundred feet when Denny was crossing the street. The illegal alien, Saul Chavez, was released from prison in November 2011, rather than be held for ICE, after this ordinance passed and has escaped and is presumed in Mexico: the most high-profile of numerous cases of murderers, rapists, and gang members all let free rather than deported as a result of that policy.

What a bunch of patriots.

A third group discovered by the Daily Caller was La Raza Chicago.

The Chicago branch of the notoriously radical pro-illegal immigration group had people on site and detailing the events in a post on its site.  Their Twitter feed is full of tweets as, "Fuck the ambulances, go around us we stand and don't move", "Fuck the USA - make it Mexico again", and their classic "We are not citizens, we are refugees, so fuck US laws".  BTW, they were chanting the same.

The group posted a victory statement on its Facebook page following Friday’s violent action.

“Donald Trump canceled its event Friday night at the University of Illinois at Chicago, for safety reasons, including the thousands of protesters who gathered inside and outside the venue,” read an English translation of what the group wrote in Spanish “protesting his presence, which has already caused confrontations with supporters of Trump and the authorities.”

WGN News reported, La Raza protestors also gave a challenge to protest members: Stomp the flag or YOU get stomped.  A USA flag was placed on the sidewalk and people who refused to stomp it were hauled to a nearby alley and beaten by La Raza members.

“Protests by presidential candidate rally had been organized for days by a coalition of activists, students, religious and political city, including numerous Latino organizations and African-American (organizations.),” the group added.

There can no longer be any doubt that the actions against Trump and his supporters on Friday was a well-organized disruption and not an organic protest. All well funded by their godfather and bank roller Geroge Soros.

Daily Caller, Chicago Tribune, and WGN News

Merkel Policies Push Germany Further Right

Frauke Petry

From The New York Times

In the current tussle for the future of Germany, Frauke Petry is what you might call the anti-Angela Merkel.

Where Ms. Merkel, the chancellor, has welcomed refugees, Ms. Petry, a rising far-right leader, has said border guards might need to turn guns on anyone crossing a frontier illegally.

Where Ms. Merkel has urged tolerance, Ms. Petry has embraced the angry populism now running through Europe and the United States.

“The preachers of hatred” was how the news weekly Der Spiegel characterized the new German right on its cover last month, emblazoned with a portrait of the petite Ms. Petry.

But this brisk, garrulous 40-year-old is more than Ms. Merkel’s foil. She is a disruptive, new force on the German political scene.

She and her party, the Alternative for Germany, have ridden a wave of discontent over the chancellor’s embrace of more than one million refugees to their strongest poll ratings ever.

They are now roiling Germany’s placid, consensus-driven politics and threatening to alter its political landscape as insurgent parties have done in less stable or prosperous countries around Europe.

Not unlike Donald J. Trump in the United States, she is also breaking open a political dialogue and liberating a new and impolitic — critics say racist — language in the mainstream.

“The power of the established parties is crumbling,” a jubilant Ms. Petry told supporters after her party took 13.2 percent of the vote in normally sleepy local elections in the central state of Hesse last Sunday.

This Sunday is another test, with elections in three larger and more important states — one in the east and two in the west — that are being closely watched as a referendum on the chancellor’s refugee policies and a bellwether for the nation.

In the east, support for the Alternative for Germany now nears 20 percent — about double that in the west.

But even in the west, the far-right rebellion is chipping away at the chancellor’s conservative Christian Democrats, as well as its Social Democratic coalition partners, in a country where the Nazi past looms large.

The Alternative for Germany party has already elbowed its way into five state Parliaments, and is predicted to sail into three more with up to one-fifth of the vote on Sunday.

Ms. Merkel’s push this week for European Union leaders to hammer out a deal with Turkey to stem the refugee flow was intended in no small part to beat back the challenge Ms. Petry represents.

There is no doubt that the migrant crisis changed the fortunes of Ms. Petry’s party.

Initially founded in 2013 as a protest against the euro, the Alternative for Germany shifted emphasis to protecting German identity as hundreds of thousands of migrants entered the country last year.

Ms. Petry and other nationalist-minded leaders ousted the more Europe-oriented founder of the party, then locked onto the identity issue as the embodiment of how Ms. Merkel and the German establishment were ruining the country and ignoring ordinary folk, said Hajo Funke, a politics professor at the Free University in Berlin.

Starting in the former Communist East Germany, in Ms. Petry’s home state of Saxony, they whipped “unhappiness about political and economic alienation” into anger and double-digit scores in opinion polls, Professor Funke said.

Ms. Petry has stood out, he added. “She wants power, she wants to get into government.”

Professor Funke and other leading political scientists are doubtful her success will last. But the immediate impact of the migrant crisis is undeniable, cutting across age, education, class, region and political persuasion.

Street protests rapidly descend into right-wing chants of “Merkel must go!” and left-wing cries of “Out with Nazis!” Violent attacks on asylum seekers and their housing have increased.

Now, the elections in three of Germany’s 16 states on Sunday will be the first significant voter test of both Ms. Merkel’s policy and Ms. Petry’s rapid ascent.

Both women are from former East Germany, both hold doctorates in science and both have connections to the Lutheran church — Ms. Merkel’s father was a Lutheran pastor, as is Ms. Petry’s estranged husband.

The similarities end there.

Unlike the 61-year-old chancellor, Ms. Petry sees 1990 as “a missed opportunity to really reunite.”

“Much that was successful in the East was simply swallowed by the West,” she said in an interview. In the next 25 years, she argued, a view of Germany evolved that demeaned the country, with policies against families, against nuclear power and against German traditions.

In this atmosphere, “it is not surprising that a party which argues for a self-conscious nation-state in a Europe of Fatherlands is seen as reactionary,” she said.

“That only shows how one-sided the discussion in Germany has been for years,” said Ms. Petry, a mother of four.

As for the Nazi past, she said, “the uniqueness, the singularity of German guilt has stood much too often in the forefront, and distorted the view that there are also enough positive aspects to our history.”

In a shabby hall on the outskirts of Mannheim, a city of 300,000 about 60 miles south of Frankfurt, Ms. Petry got a sympathetic hearing from some 250 listeners.

“Germany is crazy,” said Katja Kornmacher, 46, who said she works in a publishing house and holds two university degrees. “We have the feeling that we can’t say anything” against the leftist view in Germany. “It starts in school, where we are told what is correct.”

“And those who follow this line land better in life,” she continued. “The line is: ‘Right is bad, left is good.’ And then the leftists are outside shouting against this democratic event.”

Ms. Kornmacher was referring to perhaps 30 leftists who jeered those who came to hear Ms. Petry. More than 200 police officers were on duty to ensure there were no clashes.

Emotions are high since the local newspaper, the Mannheimer Morgen, ran a now-infamous interview with Ms. Petry in which she contemplated border guards using guns to keep out refugees.

Ms. Petry says her words were twisted by what she calls the “Pinocchio press” to say that she favored an order to shoot, similar to that in East Germany.

The political establishment in Germany has mostly dealt with Ms. Petry and her party by refusing to appear with them in public, and ruling out any coalition government with them.

Hotels and other institutions have even declined to rent halls to the party.

In Merseburg, a picturesque town of 36,000 in the eastern state of Saxony-Anhalt, which votes on Sunday, the Christian Democrat mayor, Jens Bühligen, 49, has managed to accommodate about 2,800 refugees, mostly spread through the town in empty apartments.

He said he has defused protests by going to them, and listening. “It works,” he said.

But some of Sunday’s prospective voters had a different view. When about 150 people rallied for the Alternative for Germany, the anger of a cluster of women, all 60 or older, was palpable.

“We were not asked!” about the refugees, they yelled.

A burly 63-year-old woman in a red anorak, who like the others declined to give her name, said she had worked for 42 years and gets 621 euros a month, about $685, from her pension.

Watching how the refugees are treated, she said, “I have never had so much hatred inside me.”

New Zealand Poll Being Manipulated By Establishment

The Choices For NZ Flag Referendum

 From the New Zealand  Herald

The reason most big decisions are not left to referendums has become blindingly clear with New Zealand's flag debate.

And we are about to be shown another classic lesson in Britain over the next four months.

Politicians cannot be trusted not to stick to the issue. They cannot be trusted not to hijack whatever question is on the block for their own purpose, be it Andrew Little on the flag, Jenny Shipley on superannuation or Boris Johnson on Europe.

That has been the case with New Zealand's own flag referendum, voting on which starts next Thursday.

Bear in mind that two years ago, when John Key first announced there would be a flag referendum, the reaction of the Labour and Green Party leaders was to welcome it and say that they too would hold a referendum if they won the 2014 election.

Between then and now the leaders of the left have persuaded their supporters to oppose the process, criticise the cost, condemn the timing, question the motives, mock the alternative, and to vote "no change" in order to embarrass a political rival.

They went into the last election promising a referendum on the flag and then cheapened the exercise because they wanted to portray it as John Key's and not the people's.

If the Labour and Greens leadership had risen above the political point-scoring and given its blessing to truly free debate on the left, David Shearer would not be the only Labour MP willing to say he is voting for the alternative among the 21 who were willing to say at all, and Kennedy Graham would not be the only Green MP voting for the alternative of the nine who were willing to say.

Hijacking the issue and potential sabotage will almost certainly occur in Britain's decision over whether to leave the European Union, or stay, as Prime Minister David Cameron wants.

It is virtually inevitable that the June 23 vote will become, for many, a referendum on Cameron's leadership - which is why he has been forced to state that he would not resign in the event of an Out vote, even though he probably would.

Labour says it will campaign to stay in Europe.

But they won't be able to help themselves. They will inevitably make it about the Conservatives, not about Europe.

The bigger threat to Cameron's leadership is from within.

Popular and populist Tory politician Boris Johnson is using the referendum to bolster his own chances of succeeding Cameron.

In a close vote, he could be a game-changer.

Johnson's announcement on Sunday that he would be joining the Outers apparently surprised some of his closest friends, who had never realised that Johnson - the son of an ex-member of the European Parliament and a former Brussels resident - was such a Eurosceptic.

One person not surprised by Johnson's position was Sonia Purnell, a former workmate at the Daily Telegraph when he worked in Brussels.

She has also written a biography recording Johnson's "blond ambition" and fierce rivalry with Cameron back to their Eton schooldays.

In the Independent this week, she said, "Johnson has always believed that Cameron's job in Downing St was rightly his: that he is cleverer, more original, more popular, more entitled to occupy the pinnacle of power in this country," and in relation to his conversion to the leave-Europe camp: "Anyone with residual doubts about Johnson's desire to expel Cameron from the premiership could hardly fail to have read the signals."

That said, a referendum to change the New Zealand flag is not in the same league as Britain leaving the EU.

Changing the flag in New Zealand is not going to have an impact on immigration numbers, the justice system, eligibility for benefits, trade deals or force the resignation of the Prime Minister.

New Zealand First MP Ron Mark has vowed never to cross the threshold of a business flying the alternative flag, but that doesn't quite equate to an impact.

New Zealand First has played a straight bat throughout the flag debate. It never wanted a referendum, it did not take part in the parliamentary committee, and does not support a change.

But New Zealand First does have experience of what it's like to have pure politics hijack a referendum.

The 1997 referendum on a compulsory retirement savings scheme was negotiated by leader Winston Peters in the 1996 coalition talks with both National and Labour.

But it was a particularly toxic post-election environment, both within the National Party and across the aisles with Labour which had been spurned by Peters.

(Labour would have won the Treasury benches if it had agreed to give Peters a turn at Prime Minister but it refused.)

Labour bagged the savings scheme ("Poodle releases turkey," said Michael Cullen) only to introduce something remarkably similar, KiwiSaver, during its second term in Government.

National MPs were given a free vote on the Peters super scheme. Jenny Shipley, who was secretly plotting for Jim Bolger's job, led the anti-savings scheme camp.

It was a prime chance for her to parade her leadership qualities to her colleagues and to deliver Peters the come-uppance they thought he richly deserved.

Her large support base had not adjusted to the realities of MMP and resented the intrusion of New Zealand First on a Government full of "born-to-rule pricks" as Cullen once described it.

But in the toxic political environment, the referendum became as much a vote on Tuku Morgan's underpants and the Tight Five as it was a vote on a compulsory savings scheme.

Not surprisingly, it was roundly rejected and Shipley rolled Bolger the following month.

The superannuation issue had had a tortured path before it was finally put to a referendum in 1997.

John Key's flag issue hadn't been a burning issue, more a slow burner.

In a speech on March 11, 2014, at Victoria University - sixth months out from the election - he announced it would be put to a referendum after the election.

At least one thing Key can't be accused of is rushing the process.

He wanted it separated from the election.

Officials worked on various options for how it could work and rated each one's level of neutrality. The most neutral process was chosen.

A committee of citizens ran the process. It was a clean process.

Some of their choices were ghastly. None was fabulous. Some were okay. The public chose the final alternative.

If you like it, vote for it. If you like the present flag better, vote for it.

Don't let anything else get in the way. Trust yourself.

61% Of Americans Oppose Immigration

Sixty-one percent of Americans agree that "continued immigration into the country jeopardizes the United States," according to a new poll commissioned by management consulting firm A.T. Kearney that revealed pessimism across a wide range of issues.

The degree of concern is remarkable considering that the question was about all immigration, including the legal kind. Even Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has said he supports legal immigration into the U.S.

A.T. Kearney gave Bloomberg Businessweek an exclusive first look at the results of the survey, which covers 2,590 respondents and is part of an America@250 study that's intended to gauge the nation's direction with 10 years to go before its 250th birthday. The study, which will be posted online later this month, was conducted last October and November by NPD Group.

The political climate may help account for Americans' immigration fears, says Paul Laudicina, chairman of the Global Business Policy Council, which is a unit of A.T. Kearney. "Given what's going on in the national discourse and the desperate state of national politics ... it makes people vulnerable to jingoistic sloganeering," he said in an interview.

A belief that immigration jeopardizes the U.S. was common across age groups, although highest among baby boomers (65 percent) and lowest among millennials (55 percent). By education, it was highest among those with just a high school education or some college (65 percent), and by region it was highest in the South, including Texas (66 percent).

There were lots of other sour findings in the survey. Fifty-eight percent of respondents agreed with the statement "I’m not confident in the U.S. economy’s ability to return to stronger growth." Fifty-two percent agreed, "U.S. businesses will be increasingly uncompetitive." And 51 percent agreed, "My vote doesn’t matter because politics in Washington will never change."

On the plus side, 85 percent of respondents agreed, "Technological progress in a range of sectors will boost U.S. productivity and economic growth."

"American public opinion is very much in a state of flux," says Laudicina. "You can make a case that people are more reasonable and more optimistic than you would be willing to guess based on the nature of the political dialogue."

The A.T. Kearney survey seems to show more negativity toward immigration than other recent surveys, although it's hard to tell because each one uses its own question wording. A Pew Research Center study conducted in August through October found that 53 percent of respondents thought immigration strengthened the U.S. vs. 38 percent who thought it burdened the U.S. In a Gallup Poll in June, 34 percent of respondents favored a decrease in immigration, 25 percent favored an increase, and 40 percent favored keeping it at current levels.

What is clear is that Americans are more down on immigration than in past eras. As recently as 2002, the Harris Poll found that only 1 percent of Americans mentioned immigration, including refugees, when asked to name the two most important issues for the government to address. That rose to 19 percent last year.

Protected Refugee Status Of Cubans Must End

American law gives Cubans special status to live in the United States and apply for a green card, provided they make it here. That has set off a rush of Cubans who have taken advantage of changes inside Cuba that make it easier to leave, and who are worried that the Obama administration’s improved relations with their government will soon erase their privileged status.

In January, the United States pledged $1 million to help provide temporary shelter, potable water, food, sanitation and hygiene kits to thousands of Cubans who were stranded in Costa Rica while trying to make their way to the American border.

Full Story: NY Times

Facebook Founder, Mark Zuckerberg, Admits To Being Zionist Fascist

Billionaire, alleged tax-dodger, CEO and all-round PC dullard Mark Zuckerberg has said Facebook is not doing enough to combat hate speech.  Also showing he is manipulated by the Zionist media to help implode free Euro-US societies under Zionist-Fascist control.  

Typical, his pro Zionist tirades are infamous according to current and former Facebook executives.  Recall the 2012-2014 Facebook policy of deleting accounts of folk who dared question Israel's genocide against Palestinians.

At a recent townhall event in Berlin he pledged to work closer with the German authorities, and even offered to fund a section of the German police, in order to help Facebook expand its view of ‘protected groups’ and restrict ‘hate speech against migrants’.

Pardon my German, but what utter scheisse.

What Zuckerberg seems to be missing is that Facebook is supposed to be about enabling the free interaction of people – all this talk of ‘protected groups’ and ‘hate speech’ should be anathema to him. But Zuckerberg subscribes to the typical metropolitan, Silicon-Valley-via-Ivy-League brand of faux-liberalism, which actually has a lot in common with the fascism he claims to despise.

‘Hate speech has no place on Facebook or in our community’, he said. ‘Until recently in Germany I don’t think we were doing a good enough job, and I think we will continue needing to do a better and better job.’

But how exactly is Zuckerberg, or anyone else, going to decide what hate speech is? It’s just as subjective as, say, people’s favourite songs. Just as one person’s ‘Stairway to Heaven’ might be another’s ‘Birdie Song’, so one person’s call for controlled migration is another’s idea of a Nuremberg speech.

Maybe you think we should open the borders, or maybe you think we should turn the boats back. The point is, both opinions (and all in between) have exactly the same right to be aired on the streets, on campuses and, yes, even on Facebook.

Believing in free speech means that everyone, whether they are a member of PEGIDA or Unite Against Fascism, should be entitled to express their view. They should also be prepared to be heavily criticised for their opinions. But they should not be silenced because a government, or a tech billionaire, disagrees with them.

In a truly free society there would be no ‘protected groups’ and there would be no bans on ‘hate speech’. Just because you approve of who the iron fist is punching today does not mean you are protected from receiving a ferrous uppercut tomorrow.

Guy Birchall

Anglo Sphere Note:

This just goes to show that Zuck sucks.  Facebook is quickly losing profiles and employees every day.  People are not cool with censorship and especially corporate cooperative censorship.

Facebook stocks fell 4.2% last week.  India banned a Facebook ap that cost FB millions in wasted money to develop and market solely for India.

Facebook is having serious troubles

Watch Hillary Mishandle BLM TWICE

In Minnesota In South Carolina

German Hospitality Intolerable To Refugees, Well F**k Them

Wow, can you believe these ungrateful greedy pigs? Countries like Germany take them in because instead of fighting for their countries and their rights, these losers run like cowards and leave their families behind. But yet they all complain and whine about how things are so tough in another? Hey Abdul, nobody asked you to come.

These losers aren't "refugees", they are a bunch of cowards and free loaders looking for hand outs and a free ride. Get the Hell out and go back to your sad pathetic third world religion dominated country. They didn't ask you to come and they really don't want you there.

Change your attitude, don't complain and bring something to contribute to a free working society and their way of life. Do that and you'll have a better shot making it. But first, fight and fix your country first before you go to a free country.

Hopefully the Western European nations learn something from this, but you know how slow the Leftist learning curve is.

With a one-way ticket home to Iraq in his hands and seven months' worth of frustration over intransigent German bureaucracy in his heart, Gazwan Abdulhasen Abdulla gave up on his dreams of a better life in Europe.

Homesick and eager to be back with his wife and four small children in Basra, Abdulla was giving up his refugee status as he boarded a crowded Iraqi Airways flight from Berlin's Tegel Airport to Baghdad that would whisk him and 150 other disillusioned former refugees back home in five hours.

Full Story at the LA Times, Refugees Return After Finding Germany Intolerable