*(THIS IS THE RELIGION OF PEACE) – CULTURALLY ENRICHED MALMO, SWEDEN IS THE MOST DANGEROUS CITY IN WESTERN EUROPE

screen-shot-2017-02-20-at-11-19-44-am

43% foreign population brings soaring crime, murder

| Infowars.com – FEBRUARY 20, 2017

Multicultural Malmo, Sweden is the most dangerous city in western Europe according to newly released figures, debunking mainstream media claims that Donald Trump is lying when he focuses on the Scandinavian country as an example of the perils of mass immigration.

Trump was ridiculed by the media after referring to an “incident” in Sweden that happened on Friday night. Trump later clarified his remarks, insisting that he actually meant to refer to Sweden’s soaring violent crime rate.

This led to an onslaught of propaganda claiming that mass immigration has had no negative impact on Sweden, including a Sky News report that asserted, “Sweden’s crime rate has fallen since 2005, despite the country taking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants from war-torn countries such as Iraq and Syria.”

The facts suggest otherwise.

According to statistics analyzed by the Sydsvenskan newspaper, Malmo has a “murder index” of 3.4 when homicides for one hundred thousand inhabitants are taken into account, a “a very high figure” according to the report.

This compares to bigger but less dangerous cities in western Europe like Paris (1.8), London (1.3), Copenhagen (1.1) and Berlin (1.0).

Having recorded 11 murders in 2016, Malmo is easily the most dangerous city in the entire Nordic region.

Mass riots, torching of vehicles and sexual assaults have become routine in Malmo and other cities since Sweden opened its doors to mass immigration. The influx of new migrants as a result of the refugee crisis has only made the situation worse.

The situation in Sweden is so dire that even some Somali immigrants are considering returning home, saying that areas of some Swedish cities are more dangerous than their notorious homeland.

Malmo is the perfect example of what happens when mass immigration is allowed to swamp a city. Malmo is now known as “Sweden’s Chicago”.

43% of the population are from a foreign background, with the largest contingent of immigrants coming from Iraq.

screen-shot-2017-02-20-at-11-27-56-am

Areas of Malmo like Rosengard are 90% Muslim. Last year, Chief Superintendent Torsten Elofsson retired after serving 42 years on the Malmo police force.

“Malmo is infamous for explosions. Yet thankfully nobody has been killed by the explosions yet – some of them are just used to frighten people,” Elofsson told Breitbart. “We had one case in Rosengard where a group were given a court order to leave an apartment because they were a disturbance for the neighbours. And then suddenly hand grenades and explosions outside the office of the real estate company.”

Elofsson said immigration has caused a crime surge in Malmo, with migrants comprising the “majority” of people being arrested in the city. Police are afraid to visit some “no-go” areas because their vehicles are attacked.

One electricity maintenance company even announced that it could no longer serve customers in Malmo due to safety concerns over its employees.

Although Sweden’s de facto official religion is political correctness, with hard crime stats being censored by authorities for fear of causing offense, the situation is so dire that people on the inside are finally beginning to speak out.

Earlier this month, veteran police officer Peter Springare blew the whistle on how almost all of the serious crimes in his city were being carried out by Muslims.

Springare revealed that the crimes he is processing, which include rape, assault, violence against police, drug trafficking and murder, were almost exclusively committed by someone named “Mohammed” or a variation of that name. The suspects were also invariably from Iraq, Turkey, Afghanistan, Somalia, or Syria.

After his Facebook post received media attention, Springare was hit with an internal investigation on the grounds of “racial agitation”.

Springare’s warning was backed up by Gothenburg police officer Tomas Åsenlöv, who revealed that cops were being told to implement Code 291 rules to hide “all information about the immigration-related crime.”

If the establishment left really wants to hijack Trump’s gaffe about a Swedish “incident” to start an argument about the wonderful impact mass immigration has had on Sweden, it’s going to lose….badly.

SUBSCRIBE on YouTube

60% OF REFUGEE ARRIVALS SINCE JUDGE HALTED TRUMP’S ORDER COME FROM 5 TERROR-PRONE COUNTRIES

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-9-25-05-am

Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted

Patrick Goodenough | CNS News – FEBRUARY 16, 2017

(CNSNews.com) – Sixty percent of the refugees admitted into the United States since a federal judge halted President Trump’s executive order designed to prevent “foreign terrorist entry into the United States” originate from five of the seven countries identified by the administration and its predecessor as most risky.

Of the total 2,576 refugees resettled in the U.S. from around the world since U.S. District Judge James Robart’s February 3 restraining order, 1,549 (60.1 percent) are from Syria (532), Iraq (472), Somalia (363), Iran (117), and Sudan (65). No refugees have arrived from the other two applicable countries, Yemen and Libya.

Of the 2,576 refugees to have arrived since Feb. 3, 1,424 (55.3 percent) are Muslims – 817 Sunnis, 132 Shi’ites, and 475 refugees self-identified simply as Muslims, according to State Department Refugee Processing Center data.

Of the refugees hailing from the specified countries of terrorist concern, Muslims accounted for the overwhelming majority of those admitted in all cases except for Iran.

Muslims comprised 99.6 percent of the admissions from Syria; 73.5 percent of those from Iraq; 99.7 percent of those from Somalia; and 93.8 percent of those from Sudan. Of the Iranian refugees admitted, by contrast, only 9.4 percent were Muslims, while just under 60 percent were Christians of various denominations.

Trump’s Jan. 27 order barred entry to the U.S. of all refugees for 120 days; prohibited entry to refugees from Syria indefinitely; and blocked all entry – immigrant and non-immigrant – by nationals of Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia, Sudan, Libya and Yemen for 90 days.

(The order does not itself name the seven countries, referring instead to “countries referred to in section 217(a)(12) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1187(a)(12).” That law, signed by President Obama in Dec. 2015, required additional security for arrivals from Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Sudan and any other country designated by the Department of Homeland Security as a source of legitimate terrorism concerns. Two months later Obama’s DHS added Somalia, Yemen and Libya to the list of “countries of [terrorist] concern.”)

In the week between Trump’s inauguration and his Jan. 27 executive order, a total of 2,090 refugees were admitted to the U.S., of whom 918 (43.9 percent) were from the identified countries: 296 from Syria, 218 from Iraq, 211 from Somalia, 155 from Iran, 37 from Sudan, one from Yemen and none from Libya.

The following seven-day period – from the day of the executive order to the day before the judge’s restraining order – only 19 refugees were admitted from the countries of concern (18 Somalis and one Iraqi, all but two arriving on the actual day of the order). Those 19 comprised just 2.2 percent of the total 861 arrivals over that period.

screen-shot-2017-02-16-at-9-30-05-am

The next week, from Feb. 3 to Feb. 9, saw 1,180 refugees arrive, 882 (74.7 percent) of whom were from the countries of concern.

Last Saturday, Trump tweeted that 77 percent of refugee admissions since Robart’s ruling, which was subsequently upheld on appeal, “hail from seven suspect countries.”

(The actual figures at that time, according to the Refugee Processing Center data, were 402 refugees from Syria, 340 from Iraq, 155 from Somalia; 115 from Iran; 38 from Sudan; and none from Yemen or Libya, amounting together to 71.7 percent of the total admissions.)

Since then the proportion of refugees from the countries of concern has declined somewhat, although the countries continue to account for a disproportionate number of the total contingent of refugees admitted since Feb. 3.

While those five countries alone – Syria, Iraq, Iran, Somalia and Sudan – have provided 60.1 percent of the refugee arrivals from Feb. 3 until today, another 22 countries have together accounted for the remaining 39.9 percent.

Those 22 countries are Afghanistan (25), Bangladesh (2), Bhutan (96), Burma (147), Burundi (2), Central African Republic (12), China (1), Cuba (17), Democratic Republic of Congo (347), El Salvador (23), Eritrea (48), Ethiopia (15), Honduras (3), Moldova (10), Pakistan (24), “Palestine”(2), South Sudan (6), Russia (22), Tanzania (1), Uganda (4), Ukraine (213) and Vietnam (8).

Apart from the majority of 1,424 Muslims, other religions represented among the refugees admitted since Feb. 3 include Christians, (including Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox and evangelicals, from countries including Iraq, Iran, DRC, Ukraine and Burma), Buddhists (mostly from Bhutan), Hindus (from Bhutan), Baha’i (from Iran), Yazidis (from Iraq) and Ahmadis (from Pakistan).

‘Focus on ISIS, not starting WWIII’: Trump blasts Senators McCain & Graham

The latest targets of US President Donald Trump’s ire are fellow Republican Senators John McCain & Lindsey Graham, who Trump says should focus on important issues “instead of always looking to start World War III.”

capture

The president tweeted the rebuke in response to a joint statement by veteran GOP legislators who criticized Trump’s executive order placing a temporary travel ban on seven predominantly Muslim countries. McCain and Graham said the move was hasty and “not properly vetted,” and may ultimately work contrary to the stated goal of improving national security.

“This executive order sends a signal, intended or not, that America does not want Muslims coming into our country. That is why we fear this executive order may do more to help terrorist recruitment than improve our security,” the statement said.

The Republican hawks joined the loud chorus of largely left-wing condemnation of the executive order, commonly known as the ‘Muslim ban’ by critics. McCain and Graham have criticized Trump on a number of issues, including his plans to work alongside Russia in fighting terrorism in Iraq and Syria. The senators consider Russia a major threat to America.

capture

In addition to accusing McCain and Graham of being warmongers, Trump issued a statement defending his decision to impose the travel ban.

capture

“The seven countries named in the Executive Order are the same countries previously identified by the Obama administration as sources of terror. To be clear, this is not a Muslim ban, as the media is falsely reporting,” the statement said.

“This is not about religion – this is about terror and keeping our country safe. There are over 40 different countries worldwide that are majority Muslim that are not affected by this order. We will again be issuing visas to all countries once we are sure we have reviewed and implemented the most secure policies over the next 90 days,” it added.

Critics accuse President Trump of hypocrisy for citing the 9/11 terrorist attacks as an example of what he hopes to prevent with the travel ban. The perpetrators of the plane hijackings were nationals of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Lebanon, but none of the countries were affected by the executive order.

THE LEFT GOES ALL IN ON OPEN BORDERS

“No borders. No nations. F**k deportations!”

Daily CallerJANUARY 30, 2017

“No borders. No nations. F**k deportations!”

That was the rallying cry of protesters demonstrating at San Francisco International Airport Saturday against President Donald Trump restricting immigration from seven Muslim-majority nations.

All across America, protests have erupted at airports — already notorious centers for human misery — to show disgust for Trump’s executive order, which has earned the false title of a Muslim ban. Whether in New York or in Chicago, demonstrators made it clear that they thought Trump’s move to temporarily block migration from these nations went against American principles and laws

According to these demonstrators, preventing anyone from coming to this country based on their nation of origin or their religion was prohibited by both the Constitution and “our American values.”

Obviously, there are issues that arise with Trump’s order. Travelers with citizenship in one of the seven banned nations but permanent green cards in the U.S. were detained, which was one of the reasons a New York judge halted the president’s action. That measure may be beyond the original intent of the executive order and the White House has already indicated that they are changing course on stopping green card holders from entering the country.

There’s also the perception that the law unfairly targets an entire religion and bans its adherents from America. However, the order only affects — temporarily to boot — a small percentage of the world’s Muslims and is based on national origin, not religion. In many ways, it’s only an expansion of Barack Obama’s 2011 executive order banning Iraqi refugees from the U.S. for six months over terror concerns. (RELATED: Majority Of World’s Muslims Untouched By Trump Visa Ban)

Shockingly, there were no hysterical airport protests then.

While concerns over green card holders and targeting a religion were aired amid the demonstrations, the San Francisco protesters took it a step further by explicitly calling for open borders, the eradication of the nation-state and, needless to say, the total non-enforcement of immigration law. (On Sunday, they had toned down “fuck deportations” to “stop the deportations.”)

It seems that the West Coast demonstrators were more blunt in expressing the moral thrust of those gathering at America’s transportation hubs. Rather than a squabble over the semantics of immigration law, the guiding principles of the protest apparently see open borders as morally desirable and that no person should be refused entry to the U.S.

The hashtag of this movement is #NoBanNoWall, which isn’t too far away from #NoRestrictionsNoBorder. The inevitable signs lecturing the American public that “No person is illegal” were out in full-force, suggesting everyone has the right to come to this country.

What’s been elevated in these demonstrations in the growing support on the Left for what essentially amounts to open borders — a proposal once only associated with anarchists and fringe libertarians. Now it looks like the hot-new position of woke progressives.

That’s a major change from only a few months ago. During the election, “fact checkers” fell over themselves to wag their fingers at Trump and his supporters for claiming Hillary Clinton backed open borders — even though she gave a whole speech where she declared how she dreamed of an open borders future. Clinton herself at least put up the pretense she cared about immigration and said she was not for open borders.

That pretense appears no longer needed.

The protesters don’t seem to want any restrictions on immigration or enforcement of our present laws. All refugees are welcome. All illegals should be given citizenship. Banning people from this country — unless they’re white racists! — is absolutely wrong. This is the rhetoric emerging from the airport protests and which will likely shape our political discourse over the coming years.

In years past, Democrats and liberals would argue that they believed in strong security measures when it came to immigration. They supported the construction of a border wall in 2006, and agreed to hiring more border security to put an end to illegal immigration in 2013 as a part of the Gang of Eight deal.

Now those measures are equated with fascism in the liberal discourse of 2017.

The Left is now staking the ground that immigration is the core principle of America and newcomers must be welcomed, regardless if they come from a country that is producing a disturbingly high number of jihadis. (RELATED: The Statue Of Liberty Poem Is Now A Weapon In America’s Culture War)

The lionization of the airport protests by the media and celebrities only further enshrines open borders as the emerging consensus of the Left. To think otherwise is un-American, apparently. One wonders how “open borders is as American as apple pie” will pair with the leftist notion that America is also based on white supremacy.

Last weekend shows a nation that is drawing very sharp battle lines over the issue of immigration: with one side favoring open borders and the other side wanting immigration significantly curtailed.

The days when the center-right and center-left could dream of “common sense” immigration reform appear to be vanishing amid a cacophony of “no borders, no nations” chants.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/29/the-left-goes-all-in-on-open-borders/#ixzz4XGDbwPqN

Seven Inconvenient Facts About Trump’s Refugee Actions

By John Hayward

The sober and logical reasons for President Donald Trump’s executive order on refugees and visitors are rising above the noise after an evening of hysterical over-reactions and emotional meltdowns on the nation’s TV networks.

Advocates of sane, secure immigration policy have long noted that it’s almost impossible to have a reasonable discussion of the refugee and immigration issues, because it’s been sentimentalized and politicized beyond the realm of rational thought.

This weekend brings them another superb example of media-magnified shrieking about fascism, bleating about “white nationalists,” howling about “religious persecution,” false invocations of the Constitution, and theatrical sobbing on behalf of the Statue of Liberty.

For readers who want to wallow in the emotion, examples can be found in this handy dossier of hysteria compiled by the Washington Post. But clear-eyed adults prefer to examine plain facts about Trump’s executive order:

1. It is NOT a “Muslim ban.” You will search the Executive Order in vain for mentions of Islam, or any other religion. By Sunday morning, the media began suffering acute attacks of honesty and writing headlines such as “Trump’s Latest Executive Order: Banning People From 7 Countries and More” (CNN) and printing the full text of the order.

Granted, CNN still slips the phrase “Muslim-majority countries” into every article about the order, including the post in which they reprinted its text in full, but CNN used the word “Muslim,” not Trump. The order applies to all citizens of Iraq, Iran, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It does not specify Muslims. The indefinite hold on Syrian refugees will affect Christians and Muslims alike.

As Tim Carney at the Washington Examiner points out, the largest Muslim-majority countries in the world are not named in the Executive Order.

More countries may be added to the moratorium in the days to come, as the Secretary of Homeland Security has been instructed to complete a 30-day review of nations that don’t provide adequate information for vetting visa applicants.

It’s also noteworthy that the ban is not absolute. Exceptions for “foreign nationals traveling on diplomatic visas, North Atlantic Treaty Organization visas, C-2 visas for travel to the United Nations, and G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4 visas” are expressly made in the order. The Departments of State and Homeland Security can also grant exceptions on a “case-by-case basis,” and “when in the national interest, issue visas or other immigration benefits to nationals of countries for which visas and benefits are otherwise blocked.”

There is a provision in the Executive Order that says applications based on religious persecution will be prioritized “provided that the religion of the individual is a minority religion in the individual’s country of nationality.”

This has been denounced as a “stealth Muslim ban” by some of the very same people who were conspicuously silent when the Obama administration pushed Christians – who the most savagely persecuted minority in the Middle East, with only the Yazidis offering real competition — to the back of the migration line.

2. The order is based on security reviews conducted by President Barack Obama’s deputies. As White House counselor Kellyanne Conway pointed out on “Fox News Sunday,” the seven nations named in Trump’s executive order are drawn from the Terrorist Prevention Act of 2015. The 2015 “Visa Waiver Program Improvement and Terrorist Travel Prevention Act of 2015” named Iraq, Iran, Sudan, and Syria, while its 2016 update added Libya, Somalia, and Yemen.

“These are countries that have a history of training, harboring, exporting terrorists. We can’t keep pretending and looking the other way,” said Conway.

3. The moratorium is largely temporary. Citizens of the seven countries named as security risks are banned from entering the United States for the next 90 days. Refugee processing is halted for 120 days. The longest-lived aspect of the ban may prove to be the halt on Syrian refugees, but that isn’t given a time frame at all. It will last “until such time as I have determined that sufficient changes have been made to the USRAP to ensure that admission of Syrian refugees is consistent with the national interest,” as President Trump wrote.

4. Obama banned immigration from Iraq, and Carter banned it from Iran.
“Fact-checking” website PolitiFact twists itself into knots to avoid giving a “true” rating to the absolutely true fact that Jimmy Carter banned Iranian immigration in 1980, unless applicants could prove they were enemies of the Khomenei theocracy.

One of Politifact’s phony talking points states that Carter “acted against Iranian nationals, not an entire religion.” As noted above, Trump’s Executive Order is precisely the same – it does not act against an “entire religion,” it names seven countries.

As for Barack Obama, he did indeed ban immigration from Iraq, for much longer than Trump’s order bans it from the seven listed nations, and none of the people melting down today uttered a peep of protest. Richard Grenell summed it up perfectly in a Tweet:

capture

5. Trump’s refugee caps are comparable to Obama’s pre-2016 practices: David French, who was touted as a spoiler candidate to keep Donald Trump out of the White House during the presidential campaign – in other words, not a big Trump fan – wrote a lengthy and clear-headed analysis of the Executive Order for National ReviewHe noted that after the moratorium ends in 120 days, Trump caps refugee admissions at 50,000 per year… which is roughly the same as President Obama’s admissions in 2011 and 2012, and not far below the 70,000 per year cap in place from 2013 to 2015.

Obama had fairly low caps on refugees during the worst years of the Syrian civil war. He didn’t throw open the doors to mass refugee admissions until his final year in office. Depending on how Trump’s review of Syrian refugee policy turns out, he’s doing little more than returning admissions to normal levels after a four-month pause for security reviews.

6. The Executive Order is legal: Those invoking the Constitution to attack Trump’s order are simply embarrassing themselves. The President has clear statutory authority to take these actions. As noted, his predecessors did so, without much controversy.

Most of the legal arguments against Trump’s order summarized by USA Today are entirely specious, such as attacking him for “banning an entire religion,” which the order manifestly does not do. Critics of the order have a political opinion that it will in effect “ban Muslims,” but that’s not what it says. Designating specific nations as trouble spots and ordering a pause is entirely within the President’s authority, and there is ample precedent to prove it.

It should be possible to argue with the reasoning behind the order, or argue that it will have negative unintended consequences, without advancing hollow legal arguments. Of course, this is America 2017, so a wave of lawsuits will soon be sloshing through the courts.

7. This Executive Order is a security measure, not an arbitrary expression of supposed xenophobia. Conway stressed the need to enhance immigration security from trouble spots in her “Fox News Sunday” interview. French also addressed the subject in his post:

When we know our enemy is seeking to strike America and its allies through the refugee population, when we know they’ve succeeded in Europe, and when the administration has doubts about our ability to adequately vet the refugees we admit into this nation, a pause is again not just prudent but arguably necessary. It is important that we provide sufficient aid and protection to keep refugees safe and healthy in place, but it is not necessary to bring Syrians to the United States to fulfill our vital moral obligations.

French’s major objection to the Executive Order is that applying it to green-card holders is “madness,” but unfortunately many of the terrorists who attacked Americans during the Obama years were green-card holders. Daniel Horowitz and Chris Pandolfo addressed that subject at Conservative Review:

Both liberals and conservatives expressed concern over hundreds of individuals going over to fight for ISIS. We are already limited in how we can combat this growing threat among U.S. citizens. Given that it is completely legal to exclude non-citizens upon re-entry, Trump extended the ban to legal permanent residents as well.

If a Somali refugee is travelling back to Somalia (so much for credible fear of persecution!), government officials should have the ability to prevent that person from coming back when necessary. Obviously, there are some individuals from these seven countries who already have green cards and we might not want to exclude. That is why the order grants discretion to the State Department to issue case-by-case exemptions for “religious persecution, “or when the person is already in transit and denying admission would cause undue hardship.” A CBP agent is always stationed at any international airport from which these individuals would board a direct flight to the United States (Paris and Dubai, for example). That individual would not allow anyone covered by this ban onto a U.S.-bound flight unless he grants them a hardship exemption.

Indeed, it appears that green card holders returning yesterday from those seven countries were all granted entry.

Because he is a progressive globalist, Obama deliberately blinded us to security threats, in the name of political correctness and left-wing ideology. Ninety or 120 days isn’t much time for Trump to turn all that around, especially because it is unlikely much will change in the seven countries Trump named.

The hysterical reaction to Trump’s order illustrates the very thing that worries advocates of strong immigration security: Americans’ security is the lowest priority, far below progressive ideology, crass political opportunism, and emotional theater.

We’re being effectively told by the theatrical class to tolerate a certain amount of Islamic terrorism because their feelings would be hurt by the tough measures we need protest ourselves from a tough enemy. But this time, President Trump is proving tough enough to push our security up into the top priority.

 

PANIC MODE: MUSLIM MAYOR OF LONDON LOSES IT, DEMANDS TRUMP’S TRIP TO UK IS CANCELLED

In an interview with Sky News, the first mayor of London Sadiq Khan, has demanded that President Trump’s visit to the UK is cancelled due to Trump’s recent executive order restricting travel into the United States from several Muslim-majority countries.

During the interview, the mayor didn’t mince words when discussing his opinion on President Trump’s travel plans to the UK.

 

I don’t think he should be coming on a state visit while the ban is in place, I couldn’t be clearer.

Khan also expressed his feelings on the ban and urged others to oppose making the president feel welcomed.

I am quite clear, this ban is cruel, this ban is shameful, while this ban is in place we should not be rolling out the red carpet for President TrumpKhan has had a history of feuding with President Trump. Most recently in May 2016 when the mayor called Trump “ignorant” for his views on Islam.

Howleye

good old jihadi major of london ,,, get fucked sadiq
SCE2AUX2

No Sadi, you should leave the UK.
Yotto O.

Fuck off, Sadiq. You don’t own the UK.
Sokar

Get the fuck outta here you irrelevant apologist twat
Liam Mason

Go home to Porkistan and there express your opinion
Jason Donnelly

Let the muslim countries take them. We have enough in the USA.
Matt

I wonder what Winston Churchill would think of this schmuck.

Zuckerberg Lectures America on Immigration. He’s a Hypocritical Dumbass…

BY TEAM CROWDER

Censorship aficionado and world’s leading douche bucket Mark Zuckerberg (see Report Confirms Facebook Wanted to Ban Trump Posts and Leaked Docs Reveal Employees Manipulate ‘Facebook Trending’) has traveled the country quite a bit lately. In that time, Zuck has said that while he wants to leave the border wall around his Hawaiian fortress (to see how real people live), he’s not currently looking to run for President. A slam against Trump, sure, but also a statement for which zero tears have been shed.

Some context: Mark recently bathed in hot water for trying to boot Native Hawaiians from their land, so he could have even MOAR land. Please bear that in mind here…

capture

We know this political schtick. See how he disagreed with X and agreed with Y? Zuckerberg is so fair and balanced! So special and enlightened, is he.

Sure, most of his “argument” is boilerplate leftist tripe. He’s making use of a common misconception among social justice warriors – that there’s no difference between a legal and illegal immigrant (see NOT SATIRE: Liberal Doesn’t Know the Difference Between Illegal and Legal Immigrants…).

Yes, Mark, hundreds of years ago, we were a country of immigrants (read Actually, No. Immigrants Are Not the “Backbone of America.” America Is…). What we’re talking about today are ILLEGAL immigrants. Please do try and keep up. Maybe stop getting news from Facebook.

Lesson? Smarmy hobgoblins like Zuckerberg make up the puke collage of the modern left. You can usually gauge a liberal’s insanity by how hypocritical they are. Take Mark’s situation, for instance. A wall for me, but not for thee. He can’t wait to protect his land with giant fences and anti-immigrant security. But the rest of America? Nope, you’re hateful immigrant haters.

Someone has to exercise “tolerance,” after all. And better you Facebook users than the Facebook creator…