A group of 51 refugees were brutally assaulted outside a night club in Murmansk, Russia, after they groped and molested women at a night club Saturday.
The refugees had previously been ordered to leave Norway for “bad behavior” and tried their luck in Russia. What they didn’t realize when they went out clubbing in Murmansk is that Russians have less tolerance when it comes to sexual assault on local women than other European countries.
The refugees allegedly groped and harassed women in a similar manner as the assaults in Cologne on New Year’s Eve. A group of male Russian took them aside to “educate” them that “Cologne is 2,500 kilometers south of here.”
The refugees tried to flee but were quickly captured by the Russians. They then took them out to the street and gave them a beating they will remember. Police arrived to break up the fight but locals report that they threw a few punches at the refugees before arresting 33 of them. Eighteen refugees were in such bad condition they had to be take to the hospital.
Police decided to let the beatings slide and didn’t file a report. The only thing they could confirm was that there was “a mass brawl involving refugees.”
The FBI conducted more gun-related background checks this January than in any other January since the system was created.
With 2,545,802 checks processed through the National Instant Background Check System, January 2016 beat the previous record, set in January 2013, by 50,326 checks. Though January’s number represents a drop from the all-time single month record set in December 2015, it is also marks the ninth month in a row that has set a record. It is also the third month in a row with more than two million background checks.
The number of background checks conducted by the FBI is widely considered the most reliable estimate for gun sales in the country since all sales conducted through federally licensed gun dealers and some sales conducted by private parties are required by law to obtain a check.
However, the number is not a one-to-one representation of gun sales. Many private sales are not included in the system. Also, in some cases a single background check can apply to the sale of multiple guns. Some states use background checks for their gun carry permitting process, which does not involve the sale of a gun.
The new record comes in the wake of President Obama’s executive action targeting gun sales. The White House had signaled that those selling even one firearm in their lifetime could be subject to federal licensing requirements, though it was later revealed that the written guidance issued by the ATF was at odds with the administration’s public comments.
A steady stream of comments supportive of gun control by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton may also have contributed to record sales.
A move by Virginia Democrats to unilaterally eliminate gun carry reciprocity agreements with 25 states also received national attention in January. The policy was instituted by the state’s attorney general after the party failed to recapture the state Senate despite millions from gun control advocates. The backlash to the plan was strong enough that the state’s Democratic governor reversed it in a deal with Republicans.
The Second Amendment Foundation said the continued spike in gun sales was in line with other indicators from around the country.
“The Boston Globe reported last week that tens of thousands of new gun licenses were issued in Massachusetts last year,” Alan Gottlieb, the group’s founder, said in a statement. “In New Jersey, with tough gun laws, applications for gun purchases last year nearly tripled over what they were in 2005. One Missouri county reported a three-month back-up in processing permit applications. A county sheriff in North Carolina is so overwhelmed, he’s asking that citizens make appointments.”
“Add to this the fact that scores of sheriffs and police chiefs have encouraged citizens to arm themselves. Suddenly, gun ownership sounds like a very good idea to people concerned about personal safety,” Gottlieb said.
Highly classified Hillary Clinton emails that the intelligence community and State Department recently deemed too damaging to national security to release contain “operational intelligence” – and their presence on the unsecure, personal email system jeopardized “sources, methods and lives,” a U.S. government official who has reviewed the documents told Fox News.
The official, who was not authorized to speak on the record and was limited in discussing the contents because of their highly classified nature, was referring to the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails that the State Department announced Friday it could not release in any form, even with entire sections redacted.
The announcement fueled criticism of Clinton’s handling of highly sensitive information while secretary of state, even as the Clinton campaign continued to downplay the matter as the product of an interagency dispute over classification. But the U.S. government official’s description provides confirmation that the emails contained closely held government secrets. “Operational intelligence” can be real-time information about intelligence collection, sources and the movement of assets.
The official emphasized that the “TOP SECRET” documents were sent over an extended period of time – from shortly after the server’s 2009 installation until early 2013 when Clinton stepped down as secretary of state.
Separately, Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who sits on the House intelligence committee, said the former secretary of state, senator, and Yale-trained lawyer had to know what she was dealing with.
“There is no way that someone, a senior government official who has been handling classified information for a good chunk of their adult life, could not have known that this information ought to be classified, whether it was marked or not,” he said. “Anyone with the capacity to read and an understanding of American national security, an 8th grade reading level or above, would understand that the release of this information or the potential breach of a non-secure system presented risk to American national security.”
Pompeo also suggested the military and intelligence communities have had to change operations, because the Clinton server could have been compromised by a third party.
“Anytime our national security team determines that there’s a potential breach, that is information that might potentially have fallen into the hands of the Iranians, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or just hackers, that they begin to operate in a manner that assumes that information has in fact gotten out,” Pompeo said.
On ABC’s “This Week” on Sunday, one day before the Iowa caucuses, Clinton claimed ignorance on the sensitivity of the materials and stressed that they weren’t marked.
“There is no classified marked information on those emails sent or received by me,” she said, adding that “Republicans are going to continue to use it [to] beat up on me.”
Clinton was pressed in the same ABC interview on her signed 2009 non-disclosure agreement which acknowledged that markings are irrelevant, undercutting her central explanation. The agreement states “classified information is marked or unmarked… including oral communications.”
Clinton pointed to her aides, saying: “When you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
But according to national security legal experts, security clearance holders are required to speak up when classified information is not in secure channels.
“Everybody who has a security clearance has an individual obligation to protect the information,” said national security attorney Edward MacMahon Jr., who represented former CIA officer Jeffrey Sterling in the high-profile leak investigation regarding a New York Times reporter. “Just because somebody sends it to you… you can’t just turn a blind eye and pretend it never happened and pretend it’s unclassified information.”
These rules, known as the Code of Federal Regulations, apply to U.S. government employees with security clearances and state there is an obligation to report any possible breach by both the sender and the receiver of the information. The rules state: “Any person who has knowledge that classified information has been or may have been lost, possibly compromised or disclosed to an unauthorized person shall immediately report the circumstances to an official designated for this purpose.”
The Clinton campaign is now calling for the 22 “TOP SECRET” emails to be released, but this is not entirely the State Department’s call since the intelligence came from other agencies, which have final say on classification and handling.
“The State Department has no authority to release those emails and I do think that Secretary Clinton most assuredly knows that,” Pompeo said.
Meanwhile, the release of other emails has revealed more about the high-level exchange of classified information on personal accounts. Among the latest batch of emails released by the State Department is an exchange between Clinton and then-Sen. John Kerry, now secretary of state. Sections are fully redacted, citing classified information – and both Kerry and Clinton were using unsecured, personal accounts.
Further, a 2009 email released to Judicial Watch after a federal lawsuit – and first reported by Fox News – suggests the State Department ‘s senior manager Patrick Kennedy was trying to make it easier for Clinton to check her personal email at work, writing to Clinton aide Cheryl Mills a “stand-alone separate network PC is… [one] great idea.”
“The emails show that the top administrator at the State Department, Patrick Kennedy, who is still there overseeing the response to all the inquiries about Hillary Clinton, was in on Hillary Clinton’s separate email network and system from the get-go,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said.
Kennedy is expected to testify this month before the Republican-led Benghazi Select Committee.
Hillary Clinton was finally asked on Sunday about a non-disclosure agreement she signed in Jan. 2009 which completely undermines the defense she uses to downplay the existence of classified information on her private email server. But as is often the case with the Democratic presidential candidate, she dodged the question and gave an inconsistent answer.
“You know, you’ve said many times that the emails were not marked classified,” said ABC News “This Week” host George Stephanopoulos.
“But the non-disclosure agreement you signed as secretary of state said that that really is not that relevant,” he continued.
He was referring to the “Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement” – or Standard Form 312 – that Clinton signed on Jan. 22, 2009, a day after taking over as secretary of state.
“It says classified information is marked or unmarked classified and that all of your training to treat all of that sensitively and should know the difference,” said Stephanopoulos, describing the document.
Clinton responded to Stephanopoulos but did not address the meat of his question. In fact, she appeared to reject the language of the SF-312, saying that “there has to be some markings” on classified information.
“I take classified information very seriously,” Clinton said. “You know, you can’t get information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system, no matter what that system is.”
“We were very specific about that and you – when you receive information, of course, there has to be some markings, some indication that someone down the chain had thought that this was classified and that was not the case.”
However, as the SF-312 makes clear, classified information does not have to be marked as such in order to require being handled as classified information. The document applies not just to physical documents and emails but also to oral communications.
Clinton revised her defense of the classified information on several occasions, as federal agencies release more damaging information about her home-brew email system.
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified materials,” she said in March, when news of her personal email account and server first broke.
In July, after the State Department began retroactively classifying many of Clinton’s emails, she revised her claim saying that she was “confident” that she “never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent or received.”
Days later, she changed her tune again, adopting the now-familiar claim that she did not send or receive information that was “marked” as such. That was after it was reported that the Intelligence Community’s inspector general had found highly classified emails which were classified when originated.
Clinton’s statement to Stephanopoulos about the inability to transfer “information off the classified system in the State Department to put onto an unclassified system” also fails to hold water.
Earlier this week, Fox News reported on a 2013 video showing Wendy Sherman, who served as Clinton’s Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, discussing how State Department officials often used Blackberries during overseas negotiations to send and receive information that “would never be on an unclassified system.”
We wrote here about the refugee crisis in Europe, including the fact that hundreds of Moroccan “youths” have taken over Stockholm’s central train station, stealing, assaulting women and attacking security guards. Last night, fifty or more Swedish men, described in some accounts as suspected soccer fans, decided they had had enough and swept through the train station, attacking and driving out the Moroccans who were living there.
The Daily Mail reports:
Before the attack, the group of 200 people handed out xenophobic leaflets with the message “Enough now”.
Swedish media reported that the thugs, allegedly linked to Sweden’s football hooligan scene, were targeting unaccompanied minors with a “foreign” background…
The mob, wearing all-black balaclavas and armbands, “gathered with the purpose of attacking refugee children” Stockholm police spokesman Towe Hagg said. “Police are now looking into the leaflets that were handed out by masked people before the attack”.
Authorities confirmed that at least 40-50 people went on a rampage at 9pm on Friday night attacking migrants.
This video shows the scene, which doesn’t appear to have been very violent:
“All over the country, reports are pouring in that the police can no longer cope with preventing and investigating the crimes which strike the Swedish people,” reads the leaflet.
“In some cases, for example, in the latest murder of a woman employed at a home for so called ‘unaccompanied minor refugees’ in Molndal, it goes as far as the National Police Commissioner choosing to show more sympathy for the perpetrator than the victim,” it continues.
We wrote about that incident, and the perverse reaction of Swedish authorities, here.
“But we refuse to accept the repeated assaults and harrassment against Swedish women. We refuse to accept the destruction of our once safe society. When our political leadership and police show more sympathy for murderers than for their victims, there are no longer any excuses to let it happen without protest.
“When Swedish streets are no longer safe to walk on for normal Swedes, it is our DUTY to fix the problem,” the leaflet reads.
“This is why, today, 200 Swedish men gathered to take a stand against the north African ‘street children’ who are running rampage in and around the capital’s central station.
“Police have clearly showed that they lack the means to stop their progress and we see no other way than to hand down the punishment they deserve ourselves.
“The justice system has walked out and the contract of society is therefore broken – it is now every Swedish man’s duty to defend our public spaces against the imported criminality.”
Is such vigilante action a good thing? Of course not. But it is inevitable when a nation’s authorities put ideology above their most basic duty to protect the citizenry. Across much of Western Europe, the authorities would rather cling to their discredited illusions than do their jobs.
Thus we have the absurd spectacle of the leaders of the European Union denying any connection between the sexual assaults perpetrated against hundreds of women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve and the million migrants who have recently entered Europe:
The sex attacks that took place in Cologne on New Year’s Eve were simply a “matter of public order” and had nothing to do with the refugee crisis, Jean-Claude Juncker’s inner circle believe.
The European Commission will be the “voice of reason” and tell the public that there is no link between the migration crisis affecting the continent and attacks on women in Germany, internal minutes disclose, amid growing concerns at a “xenophobic” backlash.
The minutes of the European Commission’s weekly cabinet meeting from January 13 hint at officials’ fears that the events in Cologne could turn public opinion sharply against the million migrants who have entered Europe.
That and many other events, yes.
“As far as the crimes in Cologne were concerned, he said that these were a matter of public order and were not related to the refugee crisis,” the minutes say.
European democracy is broken, to an even greater extent than our own.
Donald Trump’s presidential campaign said the GOP front-runner plans to skip the Fox News debate Thursday in Des Moines, the final one before the Iowa caucuses, in the latest turn in its long-running dispute with the TV network.
Mr. Trump told reporters Tuesday he would likely skip the televised event. Shortly afterward, his campaign manager, Corey Lewandowski, said the candidate had decided to bypass the debate.
“He is definitely not participating in the Fox News debate on Thursday,” Mr. Lewandowski said.
The announcement came amid a long-running public spat between Mr. Trump and the network. The billionaire businessman had threatened to boycott the debate if Fox’s Megyn Kelly served as a moderator, calling her “biased.”
A Fox News spokesman later Tuesday criticized Mr. Trump’s decision not to participate in the debate, calling it “near unprecedented.”
“We’re not sure how Iowans are going to feel about him walking away from them at the last minute, but it should be clear to the American public by now that this is rooted in one thing – Megyn Kelly, whom he has viciously attacked since August and has now spent four days demanding be removed from the debate stage,” the spokesman said.
“Capitulating to politicians’ ultimatums about a debate moderator violates all journalistic standards.” The spokesman added that Mr. Trump is still welcome to attend Thursday’s debate and would be “treated fairly,” but added: “He can’t dictate the moderators or the questions.”
Aside from Mr. Trump, seven other Republican candidates are slated to appear on the prime-time stage.
Earlier in the day, Fox News issued a tongue-in-cheek news release, suggesting that a presidential candidate should be prepared to deal with those he thinks will treat him unfairly.
“We learned from a secret back channel that the Ayatollah and Putin both intend to treat Donald Trump unfairly when they meet with him if he becomes president – a nefarious source tells us that Trump has his own secret plan to replace the cabinet with his Twitter followers to see if he should even go to those meetings,” a Fox News spokesman said.
At a news conference here, Mr. Trump took credit for the high ratings that Republican presidential debates have drawn and presumed advertising revenue Fox News has earned from the events. He also said he had called on Fox News to donate a portion of the revenue to wounded warriors and suggested that while the rest of the GOP field appeared on stage Thursday, he would use the time to raise money for wounded veterans himself.
“Why should I make Fox rich?” he said. “Let me make the wounded warriors rich. Let me make the veterans rich.”
“Let’s see how they do with the ratings… We’ll have our own event,” he said.
Donald Trump’s campaign announced Wednesday that the GOP front-runner will hold a “special event” to benefit veterans during Fox News’ Republican debate.
The event on Thursday, hosted at Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa, will start with a pre-program at 8 p.m. ET, and the main event will start at 9 p.m. ET, a statement said.
No other information was provided, with the statement only saying “additional details to follow.”
A 16-year-old German girl is more articulate and honest than most adults on the matter of the Muslim invasion and the transformation of Europe. Bibi Wilhailm has just made an extraordinary 20-minute video that I urge every reader to watch. In it she expresses her terror as she faces tectonic shifts in Germany’s cultural landscape. She makes stark and accurate observations while also sharing personal stories that highlight the nightmare that is now life in Germany. She speaks with unabashed clarity, best summed up by her own statement: “It’s really a sad truth.”
Like many of us, she struggles to make sense of what is happening – how the German government would admit throngs of people who behave in violent and threatening ways, how the police don’t seem to care, while also begging German men to step up to the plate to protect women and girls.
She states that her once beautiful Germany (and the rest of Europe) has been ruined.
She wonders how a person can be a guest in a country and behave in such a violent way and wonders why Germany is not doing anything about it. She wonders why “immigrants” chanting on the streets of German cities their intention to kill Germans are not deported. She states a theme repeated throughout the video: she cannot understand it.
How blind do you have to be that you don’t notice that there will soon be a war?
She says she does not want to live in a world like this and that she is “truly speechless.”
She reflects on Islamic supremacy, wondering why Muslims push Allah on everyone else and can’t let people believe what they want.
She notes how the media covers demonstrations in Germany against immigration but are silent about the havoc “migrants” are wreaking across the country.
She mocks the recommendation the mayor of Cologne made for women to keep an arm’s length between themselves and strangers, stating: “Who [s***] in your brains?” She continues: “Do you really think when someone attacks you, you do this [gestures by extending her arm]? That’s the solution. Yes. OK. I wanted to rape you, but you stretched out your arm. I can’t do it anymore. Bummer.”
She imagines how “migrants” must be laughing at how stupid Germans are, while noting that the entire German government is also laughing because they don’t take their citizens seriously when they say they are scared. Her desperation is palpable as she implores listeners for help while observing the government dragging the country down farther and farther.
About a third of the way through the video, she makes a desperate plea, one first directed to the men of Germany and then to politicians:
Protect your children and women… We need this protection. We are really afraid to go out. Protect them. Be there for them, and don’t let them go out alone. Like shopping when it’s already dark. We are afraid. It’s a cry for help, and you still don’t do anything. You politicians sit there in your mansions, slurp your cocktails, and do nothing. I don’t know in what world you are living, but people are afraid. Please, finally help us. It can’t go on like this. Please do something. I really can’t understand this anymore… I am, we are all very frightened. Please, please, please do something.
She shares many stories of her experiences and those of people she knows, including an experience of a Muslim who verbally degraded her because she was wearing a tee-shirt. She says: “People, we are in Germany. Yes, I wear a tee-shirt. I will not wear a headscarf. I will not mummify myself.” She continues, as if speaking to the barbarians directly, telling them they have no right to insult, to grope, to touch, to sexually assault, to rape German girls because of what they wear.
She notes that the German government has abandoned its people and that “sometime the German citizens will take the matter into their own hands,” adding, “believe me, that won’t be funny.”
Near the end of the video, she wonders if Germany still has a chance to survive, if it can “regenerate from this big crisis.” She makes a plea to everyone listening not to give up on Germany. She urges every German citizen to pour into the streets for peaceful demonstrations. And she begs people to do it for their women and children.
She hopes the government will change its immigration policy and wonders what is wrong with Merkel, questioning her state of mind while making a general comment that things aren’t “normal anymore.” She calls Merkel out for playing with “the German psyche” and doubts that Merkel even knows what she’s doing.
She hopes her video will have an impact, thanks people for watching it, and makes a final plea: “Protect the women and us girls because it is a cry for help that everybody ignores right now.”
She hopes something changes for the better soon, “because nobody wants to live in such a world… Protect us.”
To say the video is heartbreaking would be a vast understatement. This young woman has stated what so many are thinking and feeling. And she has done so with incredible clarity. And bravery. She has summed up the situation, posed the questions so many have, and ultimately begs for help in this mad, mad crisis that was all unavoidable and is entirely inexplicable.
My heart goes out to this girl, and to every single human being feeling the weight of Islamic supremacy fall upon him and his country – falling that much faster because the country will not protect and defend itself. We are all somewhere on that curve right now with no end in sight.
May God help us all. And with a special prayer for Bibi Wilhailm, that He keep her safe. And may her urgent pleas be answered.
We reported a lot about the fascist professor at the University of Missouri that smacked a photojournalist who was covering their racist temper tantrum last year.
Well, we can all sigh in relief because the totalitarian ginger has been charged with assault:
More from USA Today:
A misdemeanor assault charge was filed Monday against a University of Missouri assistant professor who received nationwide attention when she called for “some muscle” to help remove a student journalist from a campus protest in November.
Melissa Click, who works in Missouri’s communication department, faces a Class C misdemeanor simple assault charge for the incident, in which she was filmed having physical contact and berating a student journalist, according to the office of Columbia, Mo., prosecutor Steve Richey. The student was trying to conduct interviews at a site set up on the university’s quad by students protesting the treatment of African Americans by administrators.
A video of the confrontation, which was taken by student journalist Mark Schierbecker and went viral on the Internet, begins with a group of protesters yelling and pushing another student journalist, Tim Tai, who was trying to photograph the campsite. At the end of the video, Schierbecker approaches Click, who calls for “some muscle” to remove him from the protest area. She then appears to grab at Schierbecker’s camera.
Schierbecker filed a simple assault complaint with the campus police department days after the incident.
Richey’s office confirmed that charge has been filed but declined further comment. If convicted, Click could face up to a $300 fine and 15 days in jail.
The incident occurred as the campus had been embroiled in weeks of protests over school administrators’ handling of a series of a racially charged incidents on campus. Shortly before the confrontation, the state’s university system president, Tim Wolfe, and Missouri chancellor R. Bowen Loft announced their resignations. Click was at the campsite to show her support for the student protesters.
Under fire, Click resigned her courtesy appointment with the journalism school the day after the incident but remains an assistant professor in the university’s Department of Communication.
Yes, it’s a small victory, but I can dig it.
The news comes on the heels of a harsh cover story from National Review, penned by 21 conservative columnists, calling Donald Trump a “menace to American Conservatism,” to which Trump and the RNC fired back.
“National Review is a dying paper, it’s got – its circulation is way down. Not very many people read it anymore. I mean, people don’t even think about the National Review, so I guess they want to get a little publicity, but that’s a dying paper,” Trump said Thursday night, speaking at the Outdoor Channel awards show, which includes the annual “Shot Show.”
“Donald Trump is a menace to American conservatism who would take the work of generations and trample it underfoot in behalf of a populism as heedless and crude as the Donald himself,” National Review’s cover story out Friday reads.
Trump says, though, that the GOP is beginning to accept him. “I think they are warming up. I want to be honest, I have received so many phone calls from people that you would call ‘establishment,’ from people – generally speaking, conservative Republicans that want to come in our team,” Trump added.
And he may be right, as National Review publisher Jack Fowler wrote Thursday that his publication was being stripped of its hosting duties for a GOP debate with CNN in late February.
“Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our ‘Against Trump’ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald,” Fowler wrote.
RNC spokesperson Sean Spicer confirmed to ABC News that National Review will no longer be participating in next month’s GOP debate.
National Review was originally meant to share hosting duties for the debate with NBC, but earlier this month the broadcaster was also disinvited and CNN was given the debate.
From the UK Guardian:
Donald Trump has been roundly denounced by MPs from all parties in a debate in the British parliament. But most of those MPs who spoke were critical of the call in a petition signed by 575,000 people for Trump to be banned from the UK because of his proposal for Muslims to be prevented from entering the US and the debate, which took place in an annex outside the main Commons chamber, ended without a vote. One of the functions of a parliament is to allow a nation to let off steam and effectively that is what happened this afternoon.
And with that little snippet, please allow me – an American – to spout off to this miserable pack of limey ASSHOLES for a moment.
Look here, it’s one thing for a U.S. citizen to criticize, mock and even damn one of his own, but when a bunch of pasty-faced, neo-socialist politicians from another country decide to spend the afternoon repeatedly labeling the front-runner for the GOP presidential nomination every variety of bigot known to humanity, that’s where I draw the line!
To put it in terms that everyone on both sides of the pond can understand, FUCK YOU!
In the first place, The Donald ISN’T a bigot. He may be a loud, obnoxious prick at times, but he’s always been an equal opportunity prick in my estimation, so every time somebody in the Jurassic media accuses him of trashing women or Hispanic illegals, understand that they are intentionally leaving out the fact that he has trashed far more men and Caucasian citizens over the years.
As for his position on banning Muslim migrants from our shores, keep in mind that he is only talking about what he intends to do in the short-term, and his main concern is with people who hail from a country in the Middle East that is currently embroiled in a civil war and whose various factions are ALL hostile to the west. In fact, he probably wouldn’t have even brought up the subject if our lunatic president hadn’t promised to force thousands of these unvettable people upon our society despite opposition from the vast majority of Americans.
Sure, Trump says dopey, unrealistic shit every once in a while. So what? The smoothest politicians say dopey, unrealistic shit too, only they’re more practiced at sounding reasonable when they do it, and in the final analysis, they’ve generally been far less successful at getting things done over the years than The Donald has.
But whatever your opinion on the matter, that’s an argument for we, the people of the United States of America to have, isn’t it? What it definitely is NOT is a subject for the men and women of Parliament to discuss in their capacity as representatives of the BRITISH people!
In case you self-loathing, dhimmi bastards hadn’t noticed, Donald Trump isn’t a citizen of your rapidly declining nation. He’s a citizen of OUR rapidly declining nation, so mind your own business, you incessant whiners, and try expending your energies on saving YOUR country from the growing threat of Islam instead of pissing on everyone in the world who happens to recognize just how completely buggered your leftist opinions are!
By the way, I’m an American of both Irish and English lineage, but today I consider myself completely Irish. I, hereby, disassociate myself from my English heritage, because if England is a country where its leaders don’t have the balls to stand up for the fundamental right of all people to speak their minds plainly and openly without fear of reprisal, then England is a fascist, pussy nation.
In fact, I ban MYSELF from Great Britain!