Archive for the ‘Open borders’ category

Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance

November 12, 2017

Central Europe and the U.S.: The New Alliance, Gatestone Institute, Drieu Godefridi, November 12, 2017

The US president may be an arch-villain in Western Europe, but in Central Europe, he is a superhero. For years, Central European countries have respectfully disagreed with the Green millenarianism of the EU. Still catching up after 50 years of communism, they do not have the financial means for the “energy transition”. They see no rational reason to exchange their cheap electricity for the most expensive electricity on Earth, with no measurable impact whatsoever on “climate”. Before Trump, they felt alone, and weak in front of the economic (and moral) supremacy of Germany. Now, they know they are not alone.

************************************

Even German Chancellor Angela Merkel recognized that multiculturalism has failed. All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young European Muslims went to Syria to join ISIS. And yet, it is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path.

The European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected.

The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC. Yet, in the name of this “science”, European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in every sphere of human activity.

On immigration, on sustainable development and on many other subjects, the convergence between the United States and Central Europe is now as evident as the new divide between Western Europe and Central Europe.

The European mindset is shifting. Twenty-three of the 28 governments of the European Union now have parliamentarian majorities on the center-right of the political spectrum. Everywhere in Europe, the “left” is on the run.

This is particularly true in Central Europe. The soon-to-be Austrian Prime Minister Sebastian Kurz won the election on an anti-immigration platform and is on the verge of forming a government with the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) which owes its own success to the same topic.

In the Czech Republic, political parties on the right now hold 157 of the 200 seats in the Parliament and tycoon Andrej Babis­ ­— “the Czech Trump” — is set to be the next prime minister.

All in all, the “Visegrad Group” peoples — Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Slovaks — plus the Austrians, have voted in the most conservative governments we have seen in Europe for almost 30 years, since the fall of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom.

Pictured: The Prime Ministers of the Visegrad Group countries meet in Prague on December 3, 2015. From left to right: Slovakia’s Robert Fico, Poland’s Beata Szydło, Czech Republic’s Bohuslav Sobotka and Hungary’s Viktor Orbán. (Image source: Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland)

These people and parties have much more in common — in terms of values, priorities,Weltanschauung — with the American Right than with the milder Western-European right. To state, as Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán, has repeatedly, that people in Central Europe do not want Muslim refugees because they do not want their cities to look like Brussels, Paris or London, is Trumpian, and in no way EU-compatible.

If we go to the bones of the contention, we see that these differing perspectives between Western Europe and Central Europe are no mere trifles, temporary divergences in wait of the next synthesis. They are existential. The world view of Central Europe looks increasingly irreconcilable with that of Western Europe and the EU. Let us focus on just two matters: immigration and environmentalism.

The political elites of Western Europe have not only fully embraced the concept of “no borders”; they would also dub any form of dissent as ignorance, discrimination or racism. Merkel herself has recognized that multiculturalism has failed . All scientific studies show that a significant number of Muslims in Europe are fundamentalist; and that thousands of young Muslim Europeans have departed for Syria to join ISIS. And yet, to hear that the people of Central Europe have no intention of following the same path is insufferable to Brussels and Berlin.

Bearing in mind that under EU law — the Dublin Regulation — these countries have a legal obligation to welcome their “quota” of refugees, who are overwhelmingly Muslims coming via Greece and Italy, you can understand that Europe, that is the EU, has a real problem. It is also worthwhile to note that the European Parliament’s Civil Liberties Committee has just adopted a draft EU regulation to augment this obligation, providing that the refugees should be distributed throughout the whole of the EU immediately following their arrival on EU soil.

The more “moderate” European Commission has proposed to streamline and supplement the current rules with a corrective allocation mechanism:

“This mechanism would be triggered automatically were a Member State to be faced with disproportionate numbers of asylum-seekers. If a Member State decided not to accept the allocation of asylum-seekers from a Member State under pressure, a ‘solidarity contribution’ of €250 000 per applicant would have to be made instead.”

€250 000 per applicant! Let us say should Poland refuse a mere 1000 refugees, the penalty would be a staggering 250 million euros (which may come as a surprise since the official ideology prevalent in the EU is that refugees are of benefit to the economy).

Of course, everybody agrees that “asylum applications should be processed much quicker so those in need of protection get it sooner, while those with no right to asylum can be returned to their home country swifter,” in the words of MEP Cecilia Wikström. The plan is unfortunately of little consequence as the EU is living under the law of the infernal twins: the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU. They have made sure, through ruling after ruling, that it is virtually impossible to expel a “refugee” after his asylum request has been rejected: no collective deportation, no deportation if the country of origin does not want its national back, no deportation if the country of origin is not a nice democracy, no deportation pending the appeal, no deportation if there is a medical condition, etc. All of these exceptions are reliant upon the “refugee” not seeing fit to destroy his or her own documents, as in that case he cannot be expelled at all.

If the US system of justice regarding immigration is, in Trump’s words, “a joke,” then the EU system is a monumental joke. “Deportation of quarter of a million failed asylum seekers is almost impossible,” said Horst Seehofer, Minister President of Bavaria of Bavaria and reluctant ally of Merkel in her last coalition.

“The question of deportation is a great illusion in Germany. It is almost impossible to send back the migrants once they are in the country. There are mass complaints against courts for deportation. In most cases, papers are missing and without papers, the country of origin does not take people back. In other cases, there are health certificates missing.”

Central Europe, on the other hand has declared that it has no intention whatsoever of taking its part in the extreme policies and grotesque failure of “open borders” and forced multiculturalism of Western Europe.

And that was before there was “sustainable development”. Self-anointed moral leader, Europe, has decided to become the global poster boy for green policy. The past belongs to Fossil fuels; the future belongs to renewable energy — from the wind and sun (“our sisters”, as Pope Francis wrote in his encyclic Laudato si’). Energy transformation — essentially electric energy — has taken on gigantic proportions in Europe. Thanks to the Energiewende, in Germany the average family is now paying more than twice as much for its electricity (per kW/h) as in the US. France, the happy owner of an extraordinary nuclear production capacity, which for decades was its only substantial competitive advantage has decided to reduce the role of nuclear energy in its production of electricity from 75% to 50%, under the guidance of Minister Nicolas Hulot (by education photographer and beach guardian).

There is also the exemplary instance of Belgium. Belgium’s federal government has just decided to close all its seven nuclear reactors by 2025. Eight years! The beauty of it is that nobody knows, at this stage, how Belgium is going to replace its nuclear reactors. There seem to be two options: building gas plants or blotting Belgium’s land and sea with wind turbines. The first option is anathema to the Greens and the Left in general, as Belgium would then be emitting more CO2than now. Or, second, the wind option, which would mean that in ten years Belgian electricity will be at least twice as expensive as now. Millions would be condemned to energy poverty, meaning they would have to live partly in cold and darkness, as is already the situation in Germany.

The whole concept of “energy transition” is based on the science of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which states in report after report that the Earth is warming because of the human emission of CO2. European politicians regard the IPCC as a scientific body, and the IPCC defines itself as a scientific body, although in reality, unsurprisingly, it is a purely political body. In composition, competence or functioning, there is not a shred of science in the IPCC.

Yet, when the IPCC publishes a report, it is in Europe as if Science had spoken. In the name of this “science”, European politicians are extracting from their people trillions in additional taxes, building pyramids of new regulations and inflicting prohibitions in each and every sphere of human activity. Moreover, they stipulated in the 2015 the Paris Accord, that from then on, the West would also finance the “energy transition” of the rest of the world, via the “Green Fund”: intending to donate $100 billion per year, from the Western taxpayer to whole world (including China).

US President Donald Trump said on June 1st that enough was enough. Europeans want to build International Socialism in the name of Science? Very well, but no thank you, we are not interested. In Europe, this decision caused the vilification of Trump as archvillian (until then he had been regarded by the glitterati of the EU as nothing more than a buffoon). It is now common in the highest spheres of European politics publicly to insult the US president: “He is a climate terrorist. Millions of people will die because of such behavior”, wrote the Belgian expert Damien Ernst on October 31, after President Trump welcomed the increase in US coal production.

The US president may be an arch-villain in Western Europe, but in Central Europe, he is a superhero. For years, Central European countries have respectfully disagreed with the Green millenarianism of the EU. Still catching up after 50 years of communism, they do not have the financial means for the “energy transition”. They see no rational reason to exchange their cheap electricity for the most expensive electricity on Earth, with no measurable impact whatsoever on “climate”. Before Trump, they felt alone, and weak in front of the economic (and moral) supremacy of Germany. Now, they know they are not alone.

Of course, the European press still considers Trump to be a cosmic anomaly. They hope that a post-Trump America will come back to the greatest embezzlement in the history of mankind — the Paris Accord, in which Western countries transfer vast amounts of their taxpayers’ wealth to poorer countries in exchange for promises that they will supposedly address their carbon-emission problems in 25 years. This is wishful thinking. Climate and energy are probably the only subjects on which Trump and the Republicans agreed from the beginning. The exit of the Paris Accord is not the isolated act of an unbalanced person, it is only one of the many closely aligned rulings, nominations and deregulation making a moderate energy policy which does not demonize fossil fuels and is open to “renewable” (intermittent) energies as long as they are economical. If the trend persists, in 10 years’ time the electricity in countries such as Germany and Belgium will be at least four times as expensive as in the US. And all, ironically, in the name of “sustainable development”. No ideologically-based “science” could survive such realities; it is only a question of time.

On mass-migration, environmentalism as on many other subjects — such as gender or family values — the divide between Western and Central Europe has deepened into an abyss, aggravated by the arrogance of EU bureaucrats convinced of their own moral superiority. The European Union is a “Union” no more, and the convergence between Central Europe and the US is a new and massive geopolitical fact.

Drieu Godefridi, a classical-liberal Belgian author, is the founder of the l’Institut Hayek in Brussels. He has a PhD in Philosophy from the Sorbonne in Paris and also heads investments in European companies.

European Union Rattled by Trump’s Visit to Right Wing, Anti-Migrant Poland

June 30, 2017

European Union Rattled by Trump’s Visit to Right Wing, Anti-Migrant Poland, BreitbartLiam Deacon, June 29, 2017

AP/Evan Vucci

The event has been convened by Poland as it bids to garner influence outside the EU – which has clashed with its nationalist government over migrant policy and sovereignty.

************************

European Union (EU) officials are worried U.S. President Donald J. Trump’s visit to Poland will bolster the populist, right wing government there, encouraging their defiance of the EU, and damage “European unity”.

The president’s one-day stop-off – en route to the G20 summit in Hamburg – is for a gathering dubbed the Three Seas project, bringing together leaders from Central Europe, the Baltic States, and the Balkans.

The event has been convened by Poland as it bids to garner influence outside the EU – which has clashed with its nationalist government over migrant policy and sovereignty.

“One cannot but feel a bit suspicious if it isn’t an attempt to break up European unity,” an EU diplomat said about the Three Seas project, speaking to Reuters. Another senior EU official said it was part of Poland’s push towards “self-ghettoisation”.

Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party and Mr. Trump have similar views on migration and climate change and share a suspicion of international bodies and globalisation.

The president also backed Brexit and predicted the further break-up of the EU; his dealings with the rebellious, right wing governments of Central Europe will be watched closely by Brussels.

Poland has taken a leading rolling in opening the rift between the ex-Communist, Eastern and Central EU nations (with largely right wing governments) and liberal Western European nations.

Most recently, Poland led a resistance to the EU’s forced migrant resettlement quotas – opposed by Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, and Hungary – as the EU pushes to “sanction” nations that refuse to take thousands of Middle Eastern asylum seekers.

Polish Prime Minister Beata Szydło recently called the migrant quota policy “a madness of Brussels elites” in a speech in parliament.

“We encourage Mr. Trump to get out and travel as much as he can. He needs to understand Europe and he can do that by getting out and speaking to people, to European leaders,” said one European official, who declined to be named.

“[But] he can’t do deals with individual countries over the head of the European Union,” he added.

The president will be looking to push exports of U.S. gas on the trip as Poland attempts to reduce its reliance on Russia. Poland will seek reassurance of the president’s commitment to NATO as it faces a perceived threat from Russia.

Trump’s State Department slaps down Hungarian PM, supports George Soros

June 23, 2017

Trump’s State Department slaps down Hungarian PM, supports George Soros, Refugee Resettlement Watch, Ann Corcoran, June 22, 2017

(About halfway into the article, we learn that one of Secretary Tillerson’s spokespersons delivered the message. Did Tillerson know or approve of the message? — DM)

In one more example of the US State Department being run by the ‘Deep State,’ we learned on Monday that Sec. of State Tillerson has basically told Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban to stand down in his efforts to expose Soros’ subversive influence in that country.

Big smooch from Sec. of State Tillerson to George Soros. Why is USDOS involved in Hungarian internal affairs?

Readers should know that Orban has become a leading champion for some in Europe for speaking forcefully and taking action to close his country’s borders to the invaders*** from the Middle East and Africa.

(Poland and the Czech Republic are doing the same in order to save their culture and economy.)

So, George Soros knows that Orban must be taken down.  (As many of you know Soros (aka György Schwartz ) was born to a Hungarian Jewish family in Budapest.)

Now, using his billions earned as a ruthless investor, he works to open borders worldwide and he hates Donald Trump, so one wonders why Trump’s State Department would even get involved in this Hungarian internal issue? Does it all boil down to the globalists’ desire for open borders that Soros champions?

Frankly, this news is stunning! But, it fits what we already believe—that the ‘Deep State’ is still running the show at the DOS. See here when they pulled a trick on Trump’s White House while Trump was on his world tour last month.

Here is some of the story at the Washington Examiner (emphasis is mine):

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s spokesperson urged Hungarian leaders to scrap legislation mandating that Hungarian nonprofits supported by foreign contributors identify their donors. The bill is the latest development in nationalist Prime Minister Viktor Orban’s ongoing campaign against Soros, but his domestic and international critics regard it also as a step toward Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hungary joined NATO in 1999, when Orban was in the midst of a four-year run as prime minister. Since returning to the post in 2010 the midst of an economic crisis that required an international bailout, Orban has had a fraught relationship with the European Union. The 2015 refugee crisis created additional strain, and human rights groups criticized his efforts to constrict the flow of asylum-seekers into Hungary.

President Trump should be inviting Viktor Orban to the White House for a state dinner, not using his DOS to slap him down in his battle with George Soros!

Orban responded by attacking Soros, a campaign that hasn’t ended. “There is an important element in public life in Hungary which is not transparent and not open — and that is the Soros network, with its mafia-style operation and its agentlike organizations,” he said in June.

[….]

The Hungarian leader’s skepticism of the EU and “globalist” refugee policies, perhaps aided by Soros’ status as a prominent progressive donor, has endeared him to some American conservatives who see a likeness to Trump.

[….]

Hungary also passed legislation designed to shutter Central European University, one of the most prominent institutions in the country, due to funding from Soros. But, though Orban has praised Trump, the new president’s administration opposed that bill and continued to criticize his hostility to the nonprofits.

Continue reading here.

We already know that Soros has given millions to one US refugee contractor. https://refugeeresettlementwatch.wordpress.com/2017/02/26/hungarian-prime-minister-calls-out-george-soros-in-state-of-the-nation-speech/

“Hostility” toward nonprofits!  Is it hostile to demand to know who is funding the non-profits?

I want to know how much funding George Soros is giving to US refugee contractors and other Open borders agitation groups!

And, Hungarians have a right to know how Soros, an American, is secretly influencing their politics.

Come on Congress! How about a transparency law here in the US—call it the George Soros Transparency Act of 2017.

Afterthought!  While they are at it let’s have transparency about which Republicans in Congress are taking payola from Soros!

Go here for my complete archive on the ‘Invasion of Europe.’ It extends back many years.

Welcoming the Caliphate to Brazil

April 22, 2017

Welcoming the Caliphate to Brazil, Gates of Vienna, , April 21, 2017

(A clone of the European Union — open borders, unlimited immigration and the more Islamists the better — seems to be coming to Latin America. — DM) 

Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the inherent animosity against the USA (accused of helping the military in 1964) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and al-Khadafi, as well as their sympathy for Iran, and you have open doors for any Islamic leader to the high echelons of power.

Since the late 1990s there has been a growing presence of Saudi and UAE support for an exponential effort in building mosques and madrassas, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).

There has been also an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders of any kind to government officials at state, municipal and federal levels. There has also been increasing activity dealing with public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots, as well as increasing activity of Hezbollah in connection with organized crime.

The main intention of the Brazilian Left is the “continental integration”, i.e., that South America becomes a single Socialist entity (they have Venezuela as a model, seriously).

The mayor of São Paulo, João Dória, a Social Democrat, is selling municipal assets under the excuse that he wants to improve services. Where did he go to advertise them? To the Gulf countries. He is a strong presidential candidate for the elections next year. The prospects are not good.

*****************************

The following article about Brazil’s new open-borders law was published last night at Vlad Tepes.

New immigration law opens Brazil’s borders to drug trafficking and the Islamic Caliphate

by José Atento

This article deals with the situation of the Islamization of Brazil in light of the new Law of Immigration, approved by the country’s Senate and sent for presidential signing. It highlights steps that have been taken to increase the nonexistent Islamic presence in Brazil into become an influential power. To understand the situation one needs to understand the deterioration of the political landscape of the country, which is briefly discussed in the course of the article (keeping in mind that politics in Brazil has a huge complicating factor: endemic corruption).

During an Islamic conference in Chicago in 2008 I heard the audio of a speech from an Imam in which he described how Brazil would become an Islamic nation within 50 years. I was aware of what was happening in the West but I thought that Brazil would not be in the axis of Islamic interest. I was wrong. After all, Brazil is the powerhouse of South America not just due to the size of the country (remember, Brazil is larger than the US without Alaska) but also due to the size of its economy and influence. It is said that where Brazil goes so goes South America. Indeed.

In 1964 a democratic but USSR-leaning government was overthrown by the Brazilian military under the pretext of keeping Brazil from becoming a “New Cuba.” The military regime remained in power, relinquishing it slowly under pressure from a democratic front that encompassed politicians, civil society and the Brazilian Roman Catholic bishops, most of them adherents of the Liberation Theology. During this time communist-style guerrilla warfare took place and several of the guerrilla leaders ended up deported, mostly to Chile (under Allende), Cuba or France. In 1988, a new Constitution was promulgated and in 1989 presidential elections were held. The guerrilla leaders returned to the country under an amnesty law and joined a number of pro-Socialist parties. The most notable of them was the Labor Party (PT), led by the union leader Lula da Silva, who was compared by many to Lech Walesa and Václav Havel. The difference is that unlike Walesa and Havel, Lula wanted Socialism and Globalism.

The new civilian regime reached its apex during the presidency of Fernando Cardoso (1995-2003), of the also Left-leaning Social Democrats (PSDB). He controlled inflation and led the country to phenomenal growth, even though under accusations of rampant corruption. Lula da Silva was elected in 2003, remaining in power until 2011. He used the economic legacy of his predecessor, creating his own corruption base in an attempt to solidify power. His goal was to keep the Labor Party in permanent control of the Federal Government. He was followed by Dilma Roussef in 2012, but the economy did not survive 8 years of Lula da Silva and corruption that reached unprecedented levels. The corruption was made public by a few young and courageous judges in what has been know as Operation Car Wash. Dilma Roussef was impeached, being replaced by her vice-president, Michel Temer.

It should be mentioned that since Fernando Cardoso’s presidency, Brazil has turned towards the Left and several former guerrilla members have become Ministers of State. It continues up to today under the current president.

Then enters the unholy alliance between the Left and Islam, Brazilian style.

Most of the Left in Brazil is anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and Pro-Palestinian. Add to the equation the inherent animosity against the USA (accused of helping the military in 1964) and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and al-Khadafi, as well as their sympathy for Iran, and you have open doors for any Islamic leader to the high echelons of power.

Since the late 1990s there has been a growing presence of Saudi and UAE support for an exponential effort in building mosques and madrassas, even though the number of Muslims remains small (official records mention fewer than 100,000 whereas Islamic leaders mention two million).

There has been also an increase in the number of visits by Islamic leaders of any kind to government officials at state, municipal and federal levels. There has also been increasing activity dealing with public safety, including the arrest of several Muslims accused of terror plots, as well as increasing activity of Hezbollah in connection with organized crime.

But Islam has not made an impact on the local population as its leaders would like. The only way for a faster growth is by fostering Muslim immigration to Brazil. There has been a concerted effort linking government officials, NGOs (e.g., funded by the likes of George Soros’ Open Society Foundation and the Ford Foundation), Christian groups and Islamic leaders to open the doors for more immigrants and refugees. The halal industry is a door, but not to import enough Muslims. Meet the new Law of Immigration.

Senator Aloysio Nunes, himself a former guerrilla fighter, now Minister of Foreign Affairs, is the author of this legislation that, among other things, destroys the borders of the country. The main intention of the Brazilian Left is the “continental integration”, i.e., that South America becomes a single Socialist entity (they have Venezuela as a model, seriously). So, the new legislation targets primarily the free transit of foreigners from bordering countries, giving them full citizenship rights. But anyone who comes to Brazil, even as tourist, can claim the same. The doors are open to anyone, from anywhere.

This law, in practical terms, leaves Brazilian migration policy in the hands of international organizations (for example, the UN and The Union of South American Nations [UNASUR]), without limiting the number of immigrants coming to Brazil. As the Minister of Justice said: there may be one thousand, ten thousand, one hundred thousand per year, everyone is welcome. It turns out that Brazil cannot provide for its people, with tens of millions living in poverty; how will it provide for “one hundred thousand refugees per year”?

This law guarantees that foreigners — anyone who wants to stay in Brazil — will have access to all services — public health services, welfare — as if they were Brazilians. But Brazil is not Sweden nor Germany. Who will pay this bill?

Visitors (tourists) are considered immigrants, with all rights, they just need to say so.

Foreigners are allowed to form political parties and trade unions. Who will they represent? Are they committed to the public common good or to external forces and entities?

The law allows the creation of “common spaces”. In this way several enclaves of foreigners will be created in the Brazilian territory. No-go zones, anyone?

By creating a borderless country, this law makes it more difficult to fight drug and arms trafficking, which is already a big problem. The control of criminals is compromised, because the law allows for the “non-criminalization of immigration”, ignoring the fact that illegal or dangerous immigrants and tourists exist!

Brazil is facing confrontations of the worst kind. A crisis of confidence, a moral crisis, an economic crisis, lack of employment with tens of millions of unemployed people, an overloading of social security, a serious crisis in its public health system, and an excessive tax burden that hampers economic prosperity. There are 60,000 murders per year, 38,000 rapes, and 7.6 million illegal weapons crossing our borders, and an undisputed level of power for organized crime and drug traffickers.

Laws that allow a world without borders have failed in Europe. We need to be honest and realistic. Humanitarian discourse will not survive the lack of employment, the prejudice that will arise in the melee of disputes for bread, medicine, crumbs thrown to the wind, and this law comes with wrong values, without looking at what is inside the door. To open our doors to the unknown world is to close the door to a life worthy of Brazilians.

Before proposing a law to accept hundreds of thousands of refugees and immigrants without controls and boundaries, our representatives should understand that any absorption of migration can only be made by those who have the conditions and under the criteria on which these conditions are sustained. But it seems that our representatives are no better than the European ones.

Considering that the European Union has already expressed its interest in relocating refugees outside of Europe, Brazil is in danger of becoming the sewer of the European Union.

Just one last thing. The mayor of São Paulo, João Dória, a Social Democrat, is selling municipal assets under the excuse that he wants to improve services. Where did he go to advertise them? To the Gulf countries. He is a strong presidential candidate for the elections next year. The prospects are not good.

Mayor of São Paulo offers city to Islamic capital