Obama’s BFFs In Iran Publish Book On How To Outwit U.S. And Destroy Israel

Iran Publishes Book On How To Outwit U.S. And Destroy Israel – New York Post

.

.
While Secretary of State John Kerry and President Obama do their best to paper over the brutality of the Iranian regime and force through a nuclear agreement, Iran’s religious leader has another issue on his mind: The destruction of Israel.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has published a new book called “Palestine,” a 416-page screed against the Jewish state. A blurb on the back cover credits Khamenei as “The flagbearer of Jihad to liberate Jerusalem.”

A friend sent me a copy from Iran, the only place the book is currently available, though an Arabic translation is promised soon.

Obama administration officials likely hope that no American even hears about it.

‘Reclaiming Muslim lands’

.

.
Khamenei makes his position clear from the start: Israel has no right to exist as a state.

He uses three words. One is “nabudi” which means “annihilation.” The other is “imha” which means “fading out,” and, finally, there is “zaval” meaning “effacement.”

Khamenei claims that his strategy for the destruction of Israel is not based on anti-Semitism, which he describes as a European phenomenon. His position is instead based on “well-established Islamic principles.”

One such principle is that a land that falls under Muslim rule, even briefly, can never again be ceded to non-Muslims. What matters in Islam is ownership of a land’s government, even if the majority of inhabitants are non-Muslims.

Khomeinists are not alone in this belief.

Dozens of maps circulate in the Muslim world showing the extent of Muslim territories lost to the Infidel that must be recovered.

These include large parts of Russia and Europe, almost a third of China, the whole of India and parts of The Philippines and Thailand.

However, according to Khamenei, Israel, which he labels as “adou” and “doshman,” meaning “enemy” and “foe,” is a special case for three reasons.

The first is that it is a loyal “ally of the American Great Satan” and a key element in its “evil scheme” to dominate “the heartland of the Ummah.”

The second reason is that Israel has waged war on Muslims on a number of occasions, thus becoming “a hostile infidel,” or “kaffir al-harbi.”

Finally, Israel is a special case because it occupies Jerusalem, which Khamenei describes as “Islam’s third Holy City.”

He intimates that one of his “most cherished wishes” is to one day pray in Jerusalem.

‘Israel fatigue’

.

.
Khamenei insists that he is not recommending “classical wars” to wipe Israel off the map. Nor does he want to “massacre the Jews.” What he recommends is a long period of low-intensity warfare designed to make life unpleasant if not impossible for a majority of Israeli Jews so that they leave the country.

His calculation is based on the assumption that large numbers of Israelis have double-nationality and would prefer emigration to the United States and Europe to daily threats of death.

Khamenei makes no reference to Iran’s nuclear program. But the subtext is that a nuclear-armed Iran would make Israel think twice before trying to counter Khamenei’s strategy by taking military action against the Islamic Republic.

In Khamenei’s analysis, once the cost of staying in Israel has become too high for many Jews, Western powers, notably the US, which have supported the Jewish state for decades, might decide that the cost of doing so is higher than possible benefits.

Thanks to President Obama, the US has already distanced itself from Israel to a degree unimaginable a decade ago.

Khamenei counts on what he sees as “Israel fatigue.” The international community would start looking for what he calls “a practical and logical mechanism” to end the old conflict.

Khamenei’s “practical and logical mechanism” excludes the two-state formula in any form.

“The solution is a one-state formula,” he declares. That state, to be called Palestine, would be under Muslim rule but would allow non-Muslims, including some Israeli Jews who could prove “genuine roots” in the region to stay as “protected minorities.”

Under Khamenei’s scheme, Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza, would revert to a United Nations mandate for a brief period during which a referendum is held to create the new state of Palestine.

All Palestinians and their descendants, wherever they are, would be able to vote, while Jews “who have come from other places” would be excluded.

Khamenei does not mention any figures for possible voters in his dream referendum. But studies by the Islamic Foreign Ministry in Tehran suggest that at least eight million Palestinians across the globe would be able to vote against 2.2 million Jews “acceptable” as future second-class citizens of new Palestine. Thus, the “Supreme Guide” is certain of the results of his proposed referendum.

He does not make clear whether the Kingdom of Jordan, which is located in 80% of historic Palestine, would be included in his one-state scheme. However, a majority of Jordanians are of Palestinian extraction and would be able to vote in the referendum and, logically, become citizens of the new Palestine.

Holocaust ‘propaganda’

.

.
Khamenei boasts about the success of his plans to make life impossible for Israelis through terror attacks from Lebanon and Gaza. His latest scheme is to recruit “fighters” in the West Bank to set up Hezbollah-style units.

“We have intervened in anti-Israel matters, and it brought victory in the 33-day war by Hezbollah against Israel in 2006 and in the 22-day war between Hamas and Israel in the Gaza Strip,” he boasts.

Khamenei describes Israel as “a cancerous tumor” whose elimination would mean that “the West’s hegemony and threats will be discredited” in the Middle East. In its place, he boasts, “the hegemony of Iran will be promoted.”

Khamenei’s book also deals with the Holocaust which he regards either as “a propaganda ploy” or a disputed claim. “If there was such a thing,” he writes, “we don’t know why it happened and how.”

This is what Iran’s leaders are preaching to their people and their allies in the Middle East. Do we really want to give succor?

.

.

Feds To Issue More Green Cards Than The Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire And South Carolina Combined

USA To Issue More Green Cards Than Populations Of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina Combined – Big Government

.

.
Breitbart News has exclusively obtained text and a chart from the Senate’s Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest, chaired by Alabama Republican Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), concerning America’s ongoing policy of massive legal immigration:

The overwhelming majority of immigration to the United States is the result of our visa policies. Each year, millions of visas are issued to temporary workers, foreign students, refugees, asylees, and permanent immigrants for admission into the United States. The lion’s share of these visas are for lesser-skilled and lower-paid workers and their dependents who, because they are here on work-authorized visas, are added directly to the same labor pool occupied by current unemployed jobseekers. Expressly because they arrive on legal immigrant visas, most will be able to draw a wide range of taxpayer-funded benefits, and corporations will be allowed to directly substitute these workers for Americans. Improved border security would have no effect on the continued arrival of these foreign workers, refugees, and permanent immigrants – because they are all invited here by the federal government.

.

.
The most significant of all immigration documents issued by the U.S. is, by far, the “green card.” When a foreign citizen is issued a green card it guarantees them the following benefits inside the United States: lifetime work authorization, access to federal welfare, access to Social Security and Medicare, the ability to obtain citizenship and voting privileges, and the immigration of their family members and elderly relatives.

Under current federal policy, the U.S. issues green cards to approximately 1 million new Legal Permanent Residents (LPRs) every single year. For instance, Department of Homeland Security statistics show that the U.S. issued 5.25 million green cards in the last five years, for an average of 1.05 million new legal permanent immigrants annually.

These ongoing visa issuances are the result of federal law, and their number can be adjusted at any time. However, unlike other autopilot policies – such as tax rates or spending programs – there is virtually no national discussion or media coverage over how many visas we issue, to whom we issue them and on what basis, or how the issuance of these visas to individuals living in foreign countries impacts the interests of people already living in this country.

If Congress does not pass legislation to reduce the number of green cards issued each year, the U.S. will legally add 10 million or more new permanent immigrants over the next 10 years – a bloc of new permanent residents larger than populations of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina combined.

This has substantial economic implications.

The post-World War II boom decades of the 1950s and 1960s averaged together less than 3 million green cards per decade – or about 285,000 annually. Due to lower immigration rates, the total foreign-born population in the United States dropped from about 10.8 million in 1945 to 9.7 million in 1960 and 9.6 million in 1970.

These lower midcentury immigration levels were the product of a federal policy change: after the last period of large-scale immigration that had begun in roughly 1880, immigration rates were lowered to reduce admissions. The foreign-born share of the U.S. population fell for six consecutive decades, from 1910 through 1960.

Legislation enacted in 1965, among other factors, substantially increased low-skilled immigration. Since 1970, the foreign-born population in the United States has increased more than four-fold – to a record 42.1 million today. The foreign-born share of the population has risen from fewer than 1 in 21 in 1970, to presently approaching 1 in 7. As the supply of available labor has increased, so too has downward pressure on wages.

Georgetown and Hebrew University economics professor Eric Gould has observed that “the last four decades have witnessed a dramatic change in the wage and employment structure in the United States… The overall evidence suggests that the manufacturing and immigration trends have hollowed-out the overall demand for middle-skilled workers in all sectors, while increasing the supply of workers in lower skilled jobs. Both phenomena are producing downward pressure on the relative wages of workers at the low end of the income distribution.”

During the low-immigration period from 1948-1973, real median compensation for U.S. workers increased more than 90 percent. By contrast, real average hourly wages were lower in 2014 than they were in 1973, four decades earlier. Harvard Economist George Borjas also documented the effects of high immigration rates on African-American workers, writing that “a 10 percent immigration-induced increase in the supply of workers in a particular skill group reduced the black wage of that group by 2.5 percent.” Past immigrants are additionally among those most economically impacted by the arrival of large numbers of new workers brought in to compete for the same jobs. In Los Angeles County, for example, 1 in 3 recent immigrants are living below the poverty line. And this federal policy of new large-scale admissions continues unaltered at a time when automation is reducing hiring, and when a record share of our own workers here in America are not employed.

President Coolidge articulated how a slowing of immigration would benefit both U.S.-born and immigrant-workers: “We want to keep wages and living conditions good for everyone who is now here or who may come here. As a nation, our first duty must be to those who are already our inhabitants, whether native or immigrants. To them we owe an especial and a weighty obligation.”

It is worth observing that the 10 million grants of new permanent residency under current law is not an estimate of total immigration. In fact, the increased distribution of legal immigrant visas tend to correlate with increased flows of immigration illegally: the former helps provide networks and pull factors for the latter. Most of the countries who send the largest numbers of citizens with green cards are also the countries who send the most citizens illegally. The Census Bureau estimates 13 million new immigrants will arrive, on net, between now and 2024 – hurtling the U.S. past all recorded figures in terms of the foreign-born share of total population, quickly eclipsing the watermark recorded 105 years ago during the 1880-1920 immigration wave before immigration rates were lowered. Absent new legislation to reduce unprecedented levels of future immigration, the Census Bureau projects immigration as a share of population will continue setting new records each year, for all time.

Yet the immigration “reform” considered by Congress most recently – the 2013 Senate “Gang of Eight” comprehensive immigration bill – would have tripled the number of green cards issued over the next 10 years. Instead of issuing 10 million green cards, the Gang of Eight proposal would have issued at least 30 million green cards during the next decade (or more than 11 times the population of the City of Chicago).

Polling from Gallup and Fox shows that Americans want lawmakers to reduce, not increase, immigration rates by a stark 2:1 margin. Reuters puts it at a 3:1 margin. And polling from GOP pollster Kellyanne Conway shows that by the huge margin of nearly 10:1 people of all backgrounds are united in their belief that U.S. companies seeking workers should raise wages for those already living here – instead of bringing in new labor from abroad.

.

.

Intel Assessment: Obama Regime’s Incompetent Response To Cyber Attacks Encouraging More Of Them

Intel Assessment: Weak Response To Breaches Will Lead To More Cyber Attacks – Washington Free beacon

.

.
The United States will continue to suffer increasingly damaging cyber attacks against both government and private sector networks as long as there is no significant response, according to a recent U.S. intelligence community assessment.

Disclosure of the intelligence assessment, an analytical consensus of 16 U.S. spy agencies, comes as the Obama administration is debating how to respond to a major cyber attack against the Office of Personnel Management. Sensitive records on 22.1 million federal workers, including millions cleared for access to secrets, were stolen by hackers linked to China’s government.

U.S. officials familiar with the classified cyber assessment discussed its central conclusion but did not provide details.

Spokesmen for the White House and office of the director of national intelligence declined to comment.

Recent comments by President Obama and senior military and security officials, however, reflect the intelligence assessment.

Obama said during a summit in Germany June 8 that he would not disclose who conducted the OPM hack. But he said such attacks would continue.

“We have known for a long time that there are significant vulnerabilities and that these vulnerabilities are gonna accelerate as time goes by, both in systems within government and within the private sector,” the president said.

Last week, Adm. Mike Rogers, commander of the U.S. Cyber Command, said the increase in state-sponsored cyber attacks is partly the result of a perception that “there’s not a significant price to pay” for such attacks.

Privately, administration officials said the assessment appears to be an indirect criticism of the administration’s approach to cyber attacks that has emphasized diplomatic and law enforcement measures instead of counter-cyber attacks.

“The administration is expecting more attacks because they’re unwilling to do anything,” said one official. “They’re preparing for more attacks because we’re failing to deter and defend against them.”

Intelligence and cyber security experts agreed with the assessment that weak U.S. responses are encouraging more cyber attacks.

“Until we redefine warfare in the age of information, we will continue to be viciously and dangerously attacked with no consequences for those attackers,” said retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, a former Defense Intelligence Agency director.

“The extraordinary intellectual theft ongoing across the U.S.’s cyber critical infrastructure has the potential to shut down massive components of our nation’s capabilities, such as health care, energy and communications systems. This alone should scare the heck out of everyone.”

James Lewis, a cyber security expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, agreed. Lewis said the defensive approach that emphasizes closing vulnerabilities to cyber attacks is not working.

“Unless we punch back, we will continue to get hit,” Lewis said.

Lewis says that conducting retaliatory cyber strikes without starting a war is difficult but not impossible.

“There are a lot of ways to do this – leaking some party leader’s bank account could be a good start,” Lewis said. “Many people think a cyber response is the best way to signal where the lines are the other side should not cross.”

“We’re all coming to the same place – that a defensive orientation doesn’t work,” he added.

Rogers, the Cyber Command chief who has stated in the past that he favors more aggressive U.S. responses, acknowledged that the U.S. response to the OPM hack has been muted compared to the government’s highly-public response to North Korea’s damaging cyber attack in November against Sony Pictures Entertainment. The Sony hack was a failed bid by the North Koreans to derail the release of a comedy film critical of dictator Kim Jong Un.

Major incidents in recent months include the Sony attack; cyber attacks against the health care provider Anthem that compromised the records of some 80 million people; attacks against State Department and White House networks from suspected Russian government-linked hackers; the OPM hacking; and an Iranian-backed cyber attack against the Sands casino in Las Vegas.

Asked about the increase in state-sponsored attacks, Rogers said during a security conference in Colorado that one factor has been a lack of response.

Rogers earlier in congressional testimony has suggested a more muscular cyber policy that would include demonstrations and threats of retaliatory cyber attacks against hackers in a bid to create deterrence similar to the Cold War-era strategic nuclear deterrence.

In addition to more capable hackers, “you’ve got a perception, I believe, that to date there is little price to pay for engaging in some pretty aggressive behaviors,” Rogers aid.

“Whether it’s stealing intellectual property; whether it’s getting in and destroying things as we saw in the Sony attack; whether it’s going after large masses of data – OPM being the most recent but go back to the summer of ’14 and we saw a successful penetration of a large health insurance company and the extraction of most of the medical records and personal data information that they had.”

Nation states are only one part of the threat. Criminal groups also are conducting large-scale cyber attacks, Rogers said.

In November, Rogers said he argued for going public in naming North Korea’s communist regime for the Sony hack and having the president make a public statement that Pyongyang would pay a price.

Rogers said some officials in the administration favored a less public response to the Sony case.

“So one of my concerns was this time it was a movie,” Rogers said. “What if next time a nation state, a group, an individual, an actor decides I don’t like the U.S. policy, I don’t like a U.S. product, I don’t agree with this particular position taken by a company, or taken by an individual. If we start down this road, this is not a good one for us as a nation.”

Rogers said he argued strongly that “we cannot pretend that this did not happen,” and that the attack had to be linked to North Korea directly.

“My concern was if we do nothing, then one of the potential unintended consequences of this could be does this send a signal to other nation states, other groups, other actors that this kind of behavior [is okay] and that you can do this without generating any kind of response,” Rogers said.

On not naming the Chinese for the OPM hack, Rogers appears to have lost out during the administration’s debate on naming the Chinese.

“OPM is an ongoing issue,” Rogers said, adding that he would not discuss the specifics of internal discussions.

“But I would acknowledge, hey, to date the response to OPM, there’s a thought process and I’m the first to acknowledge to date we have to take a different approach.”

Asked if he agreed with doing nothing about the OPM response, Rogers suggested some action might be forthcoming.

“Just because you’re not reading something in the media does not mean that there’s not things ongoing,” he said. “So I would argue, let’s step back and see how this plays out a little bit.”

He defended the more public U.S. response to the Sony hack that included limited sanctions against North Korean agencies and officials, by noting that to date no similar cyber attacks by Pyongyang have been conducted.

.

.

The Huckster: Why Wouldn’t I Bring Up The Holocaust When ‘We’re On The Verge Of Repeating It’? (Video)

Huckabee: Why Wouldn’t I Bring Up The Holocaust When ‘We’re On The Verge Of Repeating It’? – Breitbart

.

.
Republican presidential candidate and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee defended his remarks about the Iran deal, stating “we’re on the verge of repeating it [the Holocaust] again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing,” so it makes no sense to avoid bringing up the Holocaust on Monday’s broadcast of the Fox News Channel’s “The Five.”

When asked if he stood by his comments, Huckabee stated, “Absolutely I do. Absolutely I do. The last time the world did not take seriously threats that someone was going to kill massive amounts of Jews, we ended up seeing 6 million Jews murdered. We didn’t take it seriously. The Iranian government – we’re not talking about a blogger here, we’re talking about the Iranian government – has repeatedly said that it’s going to be easier to take the Jews out because they’re all concentrated in Israel, we won’t have to go all over the world and hunt them. They used the word ‘holocaust.’ They used that word in talking about what they wanted to do. They refused, in this negotiation, to recognize Israel’s right to exist. They refused to tone down their rhetoric and continued to say that the Holocaust did not exist, and that they’re going to wipe Israel off the face of the map. When people who are in a government position continue to say they’re going to kill you, I think somebody ought to wake up and take that seriously.”

Co-host Dana Perino then argued, “he [Obama] has said repeatedly anybody who is against the deal that he is making with Iran, that they are warmongers, they just want war, which is unfair and unserious. But I do think that, from a rhetoric standpoint, when you bring up the Holocaust, everybody loses.” And “I that think that for Democrats who are on the fence, of possibly refusing to go along with Obama on this deal, that then, all of a sudden, they get pushed into a position of defending the president. And you even saw Joe Manchin today of West Virginia say he’s probably going to support the deal.”

Huckabee responded, “Well, if I get credit for them supporting the deal, then I’m a much, much bigger deal than I think people thought I was. Look, here’s what I would want to remind people: If we don’t take seriously the threats of Iran, then God help us all, because the last time – it’s Neville Chamberlain all over again. We’re going to just trust that everyone’s going to do the right thing. Three times I’ve been to Auschwitz, when I talked about the oven door, I have stood at that oven door. I know exactly what it looks like. 1.1 million people killed. For 6,000 years, Jews have been chased, and hunted, and killed all over this earth, and when someone in a government says, ‘We’re going to kill them,’ I think, by gosh, we better take that seriously. And for the president to act like that the only two options are have a war or take his deal, that got nothing, got nothing. We didn’t get the hostages out. We didn’t didn’t get a concession that they would stop this rhetoric about wanting to wipe Israel out, or they didn’t stop chanting ‘Death to America.’ We got nothing. I read the whole thing, I read it, and I thought you’re kidding. This is it? This is the best deal? Why can’t we criticize it?”

Co-host Geraldo Rivera then stated that as a Jew, he thinks Huckabee’s comments were “inappropriate.” And “There are some place you cannot go. You cannot compare the slaughter of 6 million Jews to anything, other than, maybe the slaughter of the Armenians or something else in history. You cannot compare it to a negotiation over a deal like this.”

Huckabee asked in response, “Why do we have the Holocaust Museum in Washington? Why do we have Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, that I visited dozens and dozens of times? Why do we have it?” Rivera answered that those things are “sacred” and shouldn’t be politicized. He added, after Huckabee asked again “to remember.”

Huckabee continued, “Why? So that we never repeat it again. If we’re on the verge of repeating it again with a nation that is threatening to do that very thing, how do we not bring up that language?”

Geraldo responded, “We don’t even use that when there’s a slaying in a school, and multiple victims. We still don’t go there. Because this was the systematic attempt by an industrialized nation to wipe out a race of people. That is different. That is unique. You may not go there. And I’m begging you to apologize and to retract that.”

Huckabee declared, “I will not apologize and I will not recant, because the word ‘holocaust’ was invoked by the Iranian government. They used that very word.” Geraldo answered by asking, “Are we going to go there then?” And pointed to the Anti-Defamation League’s condemnation of Huckabee’s remarks

Huckabee responded by stating, “the Democrat Jewish community’s been universal in condemning it. For them, it is a political issue. For me, it is not. It’s a humanitarian issue. And when you have a government saying they’re going to kill every Jew on the planet earth, and they use the term ‘holocaust,’ I’m not sure why we have memorials about the Holocaust if we’re not going to remember why we had it, what happened to 6 million Jews, how they were systematically murdered. And the fact is Geraldo, that’s exactly what the Iranians have said for, I mean, as long as the ayatollahs have been in power, for 36 years. They have continually said, ‘We’re going to kill every Jew.’ Now, at what point when a gun is pointed to your head do you not take that seriously?”

Co-host Eric Bolling said he doesn’t take issue with the comment itself, but rather, “My problem is that it took the focus away from what President Obama said, that 99% of the world is in agreement with this deal, which I fully, fully disagree with, number one, and number two, who cares about the rest of the world? I care about what Americans think. And right now, I think there’s 50% of Americans who hate this deal right now. And can we just focus on that for a little bit? Can you answer President Obama’s comment that 99% of the world is in agreement with the deal?”

Huckabee addressed Obama’s comment by wondering why “none of the people in that neighborhood” supported the deal if it is was such a great deal. He also pointed to Israel’s opposition to the deal, which he argued was possibly “because they, too, have seen this movie before, and they know that it does not end well. I think it’s a naive deal, and it didn’t get anything. I mean, you should have had some preconditions. The precondition should have been three things, at least: Four hostages…should have been released. They should have been on the next plane home. You should have had a concession that no more anti-/death to America talk, and no more talk about wiping Jews off the face of the earth and destroying Israel.”

Co-host Tom Shillue defended Huckabee’s remarks, which he argued is “a sober statement to make, because when they announced the deal they were saying, ‘Death to America, death to Israel.’ So, it makes perfect sense to me.”

.

.

President Asshat Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting With Kurds Against ISIS

Obama Gives Turkey Green Light To Bomb Former U.S. Soldiers Fighting ISIS – Gateway Pundit

Forty to fifty Americans are fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS –

.

.
Retired U.S. Marine Jordan Matson joined the YPG Kurdish fighters to fight ISIS in September 2014.

Jordan told Greta Van Susteren in February that there are 40-50 Americans fighting with Kurdish forces against ISIS.

He also said the Kurds are very hospitable to Christians and Yazidis.

.

.
British ex-soldiers are also fighting with Kurdish forces against the Islamic State.

.

.
James Hughes, 26, and Jamie Read, 24, are fighting alongside other foreign volunteers with the Kurdish People’s Protection Units.

This week Obama gave a green light to Turkey to bomb the Kurds.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

Msg. to the American people and the US gov. : Is this a penalty because we fought against ISIS instead of the world ?

10:45 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

Turkish jets struck camps belonging to Kurdish militants in northern Iraq this weekend. This was Turkey’s first strike on the Kurds since a 2013 peace deal.

Americans and British soldiers are fighting with Kurds against ISIS.

————————————————————————————————————————–

Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

After the nuclear deal between Iran and US
Kurds= terrorists
Shiite militias (#PMF) = Forces to protect human rights.

9:40 PM – 25 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

————————————————————————————————————————–
Peshmerga
@KURDISTAN_ARMY

No Friends but the Mountains: The Fate of the Kurds
White House calls Kurdish force a terrorist group.
#PKK #Turkey
https://twitter.com/kurdistan_army/status/625118478639349760

5:19 AM – 26 Jul 2015
————————————————————————————————————————–

.

.

*VIDEOS* Cleveland Cop Pepper Sprays #BlackLivesMatter Racists After They Interfere With Arrest



.

.
H/T Weasel Zippers

.

.

*VIDEO* Trey Gowdy Destroys Obamabots During Hearing On Sanctuary Cities


.

.