Rasmussen Poll: 5-in-8 Swing Voters Want to End Chain Migration to U.S.

The majority of likely swing voters say they want to end the process known as “chain migration,” wherein newly naturalized citizens can bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the United States, a new poll finds.

The latest Rasmussen Reports survey reveals that about 62 percent, or 5-in-8, swing voters said they oppose chain migration, which has been used to bring entire foreign villages to the U.S. — legally. Overall, nearly 6-in-10 of all likely voters said they oppose chain migration, while only about 30 percent said they supported the process.

Across racial lines, the majority of white Americans, black Americans, and Hispanics said they oppose chain migration. Specifically, more than 6-in-10 white voters, 53 percent of black Americans, and nearly 6-in-10 Hispanic voters said they do not support allowing newly naturalized citizens to bring an unlimited number of foreign relatives to the U.S.

Though all 2020 Democrat candidates running for president have vowed to keep chain migration — calling President Trump’s proposal to end the practice “racist” — the Rasmussen poll finds that likely Democrat voters are evenly split on the issue, with about 46 percent opposing and 46 percent supporting chain migration.

About 7-in-10 of all legal immigrants to the U.S. arrive as chain migrants, with every two new immigrants bringing on average seven foreign relatives with them. Only one in 15 legal immigrants admitted to the U.S. come to the country based on skills and employment purposes. Though roughly 150,000 employment-based Green Cards are allotted every year, half of those Green Cards actually go to the foreign relatives of employees.

As Breitbart News has reported, chain migration — if not ended — is set to bring about eight million new foreign-born voters to the U.S. over the next two decades. This massive importation of new voters has major political consequences for Republicans as Democrats have a 90 percent chance of winning any one congressional district that has a foreign-born population over 14.5 percent.

The poll surveyed 1,250 likely U.S. voters and was conducted from December 23 to 28.

John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Follow him on Twitter at @JxhnBinder

via Breitbart News

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.breitbart.com

#WalkAway – Lifelong Democrat Rips Up His Democrat Voter Registration Card, Registers as Republican and Will Vote For Trump

Bill, a lifelong Democrat decided to walk away from the Democrat party because they have moved too far left and he can no longer support them.

“Bill just walked into our office and told me he is a life long Democrat but that the party has moved so far left that he can longer support them,” Christopher, the VP for ‘Students for Trump’ at Arizona State University tweeted.

“He ripped up his Democratic voter registration card and I just registered him to vote as a Republican!” he added.

Democrat voters across the country are fed up with the Democrat party’s corruption and radical far left agenda.

A Democrat voter in Alabama recently called in to a CSPAN program as Nadler and his lawless colleagues were in session debating impeachment articles and said he is so “disgusted” with Democrats that he will be voting for Trump in 2020.

“After watching the Brett Kavanaugh hearings, that was the most disgusting thing I’ve seen,” the caller named Jason said.

“And now we have this impeachment crap,” he added.

“My party has now made me a Democrat for Trump. I’m going to back Donald Trump all the way,” he said.

How many other ‘Jasons’ and ‘Bills’ are out there?

The post #WalkAway – Lifelong Democrat Rips Up His Democrat Voter Registration Card, Registers as Republican and Will Vote For Trump appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Tucker Carlson: San Francisco Now Filthier and More Chaotic Than Downtown Mumbai, India (VIDEO)

American Dystopia: San Francisco in Decline

Tucker Carlson started a series on Monday “American Dystopia” on how politicians have destroyed America’s great cities.

Tucker sent a crew to cover the filth and drugs and sh*t on the street in San Francisco.

Carlson then dropped this bomb,

“Civilization itself is coming apart in San rFrancisco. Right there in broad daylight on the city’s sidewalks that are littered with junkies and feces and dirty needles. The jewel of our Pacific coast is now filthier and more chaotic than downtown Mumbai, India. Literally. How did that happen? We need to know.”

Via Tucker Carlson Tonight:

The post Tucker Carlson: San Francisco Now Filthier and More Chaotic Than Downtown Mumbai, India (VIDEO) appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

via The Gateway Pundit

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com

Iranian Journalist Begs U.S. Media: Don’t Fall for Iranian Propaganda

“Don’t believe Iranian propaganda about the mourning for [General Qasem] Soleimani.” That’s the message or plea from Iranian journalist and activist Masih Alinejad published by The Washington Post on Monday. Unfortunately, as NewsBusters reporting on the liberal media’s reaction to Soleimani’s demise shows, they were not heeding her warning and were willingly becoming mouthpieces for the murderous regime.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

‘Shameless:’ ‘Old White A**holes’ Preventing Teens from Getting Abortions

In Showtime’s Shameless, seedy storylines are not unusual. In fact, it’s the norm. In the episode airing January 5, titled "O Captain, My Captain", as part of a side hustle, bar owners Kevin Ball and Veronica Fisher decide to make medical abortions available to teenagers.

via NewsBusters – Exposing Liberal Media Bias

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.newsbusters.org/

Haley Blasts Democrats: They Are ‘The Only Ones That Are Mourning The Loss Of Suleimani’

Former U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley blasted the Democratic Party in a Fox News interview on Monday, saying that they are the only ones mourning the loss of Iranian terrorist Qassim Suleimani.

“What the president did left the Iranian regime completely flat-footed,” Haley told Fox News’s Sean Hannity. ” They did not see this coming. They thought they could continue to do their multiple strikes.”

“You could see the ayatollah crying today, because that was his number one strategist,” Haley continued. “That was the number one guy that has literally told all of the proxies in all of these countries who to kill, when to kill, how to kill. And that guy is now gone.”

“You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran,” Haley added several moments later. “You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members.  You’re not hearing China.  You’re not hearing Russia.  The only ones that are mourning the loss of Suleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates. No one else in the world, because they knew that this man had evil veins.  They knew what he was capable of. And they saw the destruction and the lives lost based from his hands.”

WATCH:

Transcript provided by Fox News:

HANNITY: I watch this, and I’m thinking, wow, — do they want to bribe the mullahs again?  The Clintons bribed Kim Jong-un.  That didn’t work out.  Bribing the mullahs didn’t work out.

And, by the way, there was never any place, any time inspections anyway associated with that 10-year deal that expired, for $150 billion.

To me, the Iranians have been at war with the world.  They want Iranian hegemony.

Am I wrong?

HALEY:  You know, I mean, you’ve got to look at the fact that the general provisions of the Iran deal were going to end in October.  So, we’re going towards a time where we have to bring them to the negotiating table anyway.

But make no mistake, Sean.  What the president did left the Iranian regime completely flat-footed.  They did not see this coming.  They thought they could continue to do their multiple strikes.

But when it got to the lives of Americans, the president is never going to allow that to happen.  It happened with the contractor.  When they started to threaten our diplomats at the embassy, our military personnel, the president put a stop to it.

You could see the ayatollah crying today, because that was his number one strategist.  That was the number one guy that has literally told all of the proxies in all of these countries who to kill, when to kill, how to kill.  And that guy is now gone.

HANNITY:  And killing Americans.

HALEY:  So, Iran is having to regroup and figure out, now what?

So, make no mistake.  They’re shaking in their boots.  They’re trying to figure this out.

HANNITY:  Well —

HALEY:  And I think the president showed great decisiveness, great resolve.

And I think that this was a long time coming.  If you look back two years ago, I gave a speech at the U.N. on Soleimani, and talked about the threats.  The president has had restraint all of this time since we gave that speech.

And I will tell you, we said then, he was not — by the entire Security Council, he was banned from leaving Iran.  What was he doing in Iraq anyway?

Trying to move in.

HANNITY:  Great question, yes.

What — do you agree with — listen, I have always liked General Petraeus.  He’s a great general, patriot, hero in this country.  He said, it’s impossible to overstate the importance of this particular action.  It’s more significant than the killing of bin Laden, even the death of al-Baghdadi.

And he said Soleimani was the architect, operational commander of the Iranian effort to solidify control, the so-called Shia crescent stretching from Iran to Iraq, through Syria and Southern Lebanon.

I think that’s the reason why the Jordanians, Egyptians and Saudis now are working with the Israelis, which I don’t think anybody saw coming.

HALEY:  Well, and I will tell you this.  You don’t see anyone standing up for Iran.

You’re not hearing any of the Gulf members.  You’re not hearing China.  You’re not hearing Russia.  The only ones that are mourning the loss of Soleimani are our Democrat leadership, and our Democrat presidential candidates.

HANNITY:  That is sad.

HALEY:  No one else in the world, because they knew that this man had evil veins.  They knew what he was capable of.  And they saw the destruction and the lives lost based from his hands.

And so…

HANNITY:  What a dumb — we have been hearing, oh, he’s evil, he’s a murderer, he killed Americans, and he — it’s the number one state sponsor of terror. And they’re fighting all these proxy wars, but, oh, we don’t want to make them mad.

That’s what it sounds like to me.

HALEY:  You know, and you go tell that to the 608 American families who lost a loved one.

Go tell that to the military members who lost a limb.  This was something that needed to be done, and should be celebrated.

And I will tell you right now, partisan politics should stop when it comes to foreign policy.  This is about America united.

We need to be completely behind the president, what he did, because every one of those countries are watching our news media right now, seeing what everyone’s saying.  And this is a moment of strength for the United States.  It’s a moment of strength for President Trump.

HANNITY:  I think Rouhani and the mullahs, they need to go to the refineries.  Just go visit.  Just hang out there for a few days.

All right, Governor, Ambassador Nikki Haley, thank you for being with us.

via The Daily Wire

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.dailywire.com

The media will never admit that President Obama’s policies were intentionally dangerous

There is a lot of hand wringing over President Trump’s decision to take out the murderous tyrant, General Soleimani, from Iran. They say it will make the world more dangerous. They say that both Presidents Bush and President Obama chose not to kill him when they had a chance and chose not to because they thought it would escalate violence as a reason Trump was wrong to kill the brutal terrorist.

How many additional people, including hundreds of Americans, were killed or maimed because Bush and Obama made the decision to allow the tyrant to live? Could it be that the fact that Bush and Obama let the brutal murderer roam free only empowered Iran and other terrorists and made the World more dangerous, not less?

How many people have died from terrorism or drug overdoses because Obama chose to appease Iran instead of letting law enforcement do its job by shutting down a drug operation by Hezb’allah? Were America and the world safer because we let terrorists run drugs with no ramifications to appease Iran or were the terrorists and Iran empowered?

When Obama refused to honor our commitment to provide missile shields in the Czech Republic and Poland to appease Putin, did that make the area safer or did it empower Putin?

When the Obama Administration approved the sale of U.S uranium resources to Russia, did that make the world safer or did it empower Putin? Did it also give North Korea and Iran another source to buy uranium?  Can anyone defend the policy to sell uranium to Putin?

How many people were killed or became refuges because President Obama wouldn’t enforce his red line in Syria? How many additional people have been killed in Syria because Obama/Kerry trusted Putin to monitor Assad and his chemical weapons? Did the policy decision make Syria safer or did it empower Putin and Assad?

How many additional people were killed because Obama withdrew all the troops in Iraq and allowed ISIS to expand? Did that make the Mideast and America safer or did it empower Iran and the terrorists?

How many people died in Ukraine because Obama/Biden chose to appease Russia and Putin instead of giving Ukraine weapons? Did that make the area safer or did it empower Putin?

How many people have been maimed or killed because Obama and Europe chose to appease Iran and shower them with money instead of letting their economy collapse? Is it ever smart policy for the U.S to reward a country that spreads terrorism throughout the world and has pledged death to America and death to Israel for decades? Is there any evidence that Soleimani reduced terrorism attacks after the Iran deal or because Obama/Bush allowed him to roam free? If good results don’t come from a policy doesn’t that indicate a bad policy? Didn’t the additional money that Iran got also help out North Korea, Russia and other allies of Iran by allowing Iran to purchase weapons and parts from them.

President Obama also pleased Russia, Iran and other oil producers by blocking projects in the U.S. The more dependence the U.S had on other countries, the more dangerous it was for us.

There is a new set of talking points that are being repeated endlessly by former bureaucrats, journalists and other Democrats on the supposed news channels.  (on almost all subjects we get talking puppets instead of independent thinking). The propaganda is being showered on the public that the Trump administration did not consider the consequences of killing the brutal terrorist and that these people somehow have no idea what Trump’s strategy is in the Mideast.

The Trump administration clearly knows what the Iran threats would be, and it is only propagandists or abjectly ignorant people, or congenital liars have no idea what Trump’s strategy is. How many times has Trump said that the strategy is maximum pressure to either cause Iran to collapse or start to behave like human beings? It is the same strategy that Reagan used to take down the Soviet Union. Reagan was treated by the media and other Democrats the same as Trump. He was called a dunce and a cowboy who would cause a new World War. Instead he took out the Soviet Union with brains, not bullets. President Trump clearly learned from history. His detractors, sadly, have not.

How many people are killed, raped, robbed and assaulted by people that sanctuary cities refuse to turn over to federal authorities? When politicians refuse to follow their oath to enforce laws does that make us safer or is America more dangerous? Throughout history has it ever been safer to let criminals and other people who wreak havoc like terrorists run free or is it safer to keep them away from the people?

How many people died because countries throughout Europe and the World appeased Hitler instead of taking him out? Were the Germans safer or unprotected when the government took their guns?

How many people are massacred in gun-free zones? Where, in history has it made the people safer when only the government had the guns. Haven’t many tyrants used their power to kill millions of unprotected people?

Here is a question for journalists: How many women and young girls were physically and mentally abused by powerful men because the media was so interested in protecting and electing the Clintons that they looked the other way on Epstein, Weinstein and the Clintons? The “Me Too” movement would have started decades ago if journalists, Hollywood and other Democrats had truly cared.

Photo credit: Pete Souza, Official White House Photo (croppped)

There is a lot of hand wringing over President Trump’s decision to take out the murderous tyrant, General Soleimani, from Iran. They say it will make the world more dangerous. They say that both Presidents Bush and President Obama chose not to kill him when they had a chance and chose not to because they thought it would escalate violence as a reason Trump was wrong to kill the brutal terrorist.

How many additional people, including hundreds of Americans, were killed or maimed because Bush and Obama made the decision to allow the tyrant to live? Could it be that the fact that Bush and Obama let the brutal murderer roam free only empowered Iran and other terrorists and made the World more dangerous, not less?

How many people have died from terrorism or drug overdoses because Obama chose to appease Iran instead of letting law enforcement do its job by shutting down a drug operation by Hezb’allah? Were America and the world safer because we let terrorists run drugs with no ramifications to appease Iran or were the terrorists and Iran empowered?

When Obama refused to honor our commitment to provide missile shields in the Czech Republic and Poland to appease Putin, did that make the area safer or did it empower Putin?

When the Obama Administration approved the sale of U.S uranium resources to Russia, did that make the world safer or did it empower Putin? Did it also give North Korea and Iran another source to buy uranium?  Can anyone defend the policy to sell uranium to Putin?

How many people were killed or became refuges because President Obama wouldn’t enforce his red line in Syria? How many additional people have been killed in Syria because Obama/Kerry trusted Putin to monitor Assad and his chemical weapons? Did the policy decision make Syria safer or did it empower Putin and Assad?

How many additional people were killed because Obama withdrew all the troops in Iraq and allowed ISIS to expand? Did that make the Mideast and America safer or did it empower Iran and the terrorists?

How many people died in Ukraine because Obama/Biden chose to appease Russia and Putin instead of giving Ukraine weapons? Did that make the area safer or did it empower Putin?

How many people have been maimed or killed because Obama and Europe chose to appease Iran and shower them with money instead of letting their economy collapse? Is it ever smart policy for the U.S to reward a country that spreads terrorism throughout the world and has pledged death to America and death to Israel for decades? Is there any evidence that Soleimani reduced terrorism attacks after the Iran deal or because Obama/Bush allowed him to roam free? If good results don’t come from a policy doesn’t that indicate a bad policy? Didn’t the additional money that Iran got also help out North Korea, Russia and other allies of Iran by allowing Iran to purchase weapons and parts from them.

President Obama also pleased Russia, Iran and other oil producers by blocking projects in the U.S. The more dependence the U.S had on other countries, the more dangerous it was for us.

There is a new set of talking points that are being repeated endlessly by former bureaucrats, journalists and other Democrats on the supposed news channels.  (on almost all subjects we get talking puppets instead of independent thinking). The propaganda is being showered on the public that the Trump administration did not consider the consequences of killing the brutal terrorist and that these people somehow have no idea what Trump’s strategy is in the Mideast.

The Trump administration clearly knows what the Iran threats would be, and it is only propagandists or abjectly ignorant people, or congenital liars have no idea what Trump’s strategy is. How many times has Trump said that the strategy is maximum pressure to either cause Iran to collapse or start to behave like human beings? It is the same strategy that Reagan used to take down the Soviet Union. Reagan was treated by the media and other Democrats the same as Trump. He was called a dunce and a cowboy who would cause a new World War. Instead he took out the Soviet Union with brains, not bullets. President Trump clearly learned from history. His detractors, sadly, have not.

How many people are killed, raped, robbed and assaulted by people that sanctuary cities refuse to turn over to federal authorities? When politicians refuse to follow their oath to enforce laws does that make us safer or is America more dangerous? Throughout history has it ever been safer to let criminals and other people who wreak havoc like terrorists run free or is it safer to keep them away from the people?

How many people died because countries throughout Europe and the World appeased Hitler instead of taking him out? Were the Germans safer or unprotected when the government took their guns?

How many people are massacred in gun-free zones? Where, in history has it made the people safer when only the government had the guns. Haven’t many tyrants used their power to kill millions of unprotected people?

Here is a question for journalists: How many women and young girls were physically and mentally abused by powerful men because the media was so interested in protecting and electing the Clintons that they looked the other way on Epstein, Weinstein and the Clintons? The “Me Too” movement would have started decades ago if journalists, Hollywood and other Democrats had truly cared.

Photo credit: Pete Souza, Official White House Photo (croppped)

via American Thinker Blog

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/

March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations

The gun-control group responsible for a 2018 march on Washington, D.C. raised the vast majority of its funds from undisclosed donations over six figures, a recently-released tax document shows.

The March For Our Lives Action Fund, a 501(c)(4) "social welfare" organization launched in the aftermath of the deadly 2018 shootings at Florida’s Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, is bankrolled almost entirely by large donations in excess of $100,000. The group reported $17,879,150 in contributions and grants over the course of 2018, its first year of operations. 95 percent of those contributions came from 36 donations between $100,000 and $3,504,717—a grand total of $16,922,331.

The group’s reliance on a small number of large donations raises questions about its ability to turn rally-goers and supporters into donors. It also provides ammunition to gun-rights activists who have long cast the gun-control movement as driven not by grassroots supporters, but by billionaire benefactors like Michael Bloomberg.

The group’s 990 tax form shows another 38 donations totaling between $5,000 and $100,000, which together accounted for an additional $876,114 of revenue. The remainder, just 0.5 percent of total receipts, came from those giving less than $5,000.

While March For Our Lives is not required to disclose its donors under federal law, some businessmen and Hollywood celebrities vowed to provide generous contributions for the group’s 2018 march on Washington, D.C. Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and billionaire businessman Eli Broad both gave $1,000,000, two of six donors to do so. George Clooney and wife Amal Clooney gave $500,000, as did fashion company Gucci.

The group’s spending went primarily toward its March 24, 2018 march on Washington, D.C., which garnered several hundred thousand attendees and featured speakers pushing for new gun bans and magazine limits. The event cemented March For Our Lives as one of the most prominent and radical gun-control groups in the country. The group has since called for confiscating up to 117 million firearms from Americans as part of its highly-publicized "A Peace Plan for a Safer America."

The final cost for the group’s 2018 march was $7.8 million. $4.7 million appears to have gone to Harbinger LLC, a D.C.-based marketing agency, for production services. The group later embarked on a 24-state, 60-day, $4 million summer tour to educate and register young voters.

An additional $3.8 million was put toward gun-control advocacy efforts which were "instrumental in ensuring the passage of over 50 pieces of gun violence legislation, at the state and federal level," the forms claim.

Travel grants were also cut by the nonprofit to roughly 20 organizations, including the Center for American Progress, National Urban League, InspireNOLA Charter Schools, and the PICO National Network. The PICO National Network, which has since changed its name to Faith in Action, has worked in conjunction with liberal groups like the Center for Popular Democracy to quietly target Republican politicians up for election.

Millions more were spent on independent contractors. Soze Productions Inc., a New York-based group, was paid $1.6 million for tours and production services. Michael Skolnik—liberal activist and founding partner of the Soze Agency, which works with numerous left-wing political organizations—is listed as the CEO of Soze Productions by New York state business records.

Other groups receiving money included Hand in Hand Inc., a Los Angeles-based company with practically no online presence, which was paid $1.25 million for production services. California business records show the group was launched in June 2018 and is led by Hollywood producer Evan Prager. Law firm Loeb & Loeb LLP was paid $932,000 for legal services; the group finished 2018 with $2.4 million in assets. K2 Intelligence LLC, a New York-based investigative and cyber defense company, was paid $2.1 million for security services.

March For Our Lives did not immediately respond to a request for comment on this story.

The post March For Our Lives Raised Nearly All Funding from Secret Six-Figure Donations appeared first on Washington Free Beacon.

via Washington Free Beacon

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://freebeacon.com

Levin: No more debate: ‘The Democrat Party hates America’

Monday on the radio, LevinTV host Mark Levin returned from his holiday break to weigh in on the reaction to President Trump’s decision to kill Iranian general Qassem Soleimani.

“I think it is unequivocal now. There’s simply no debate that the Democrat Party hates America. That the Democrat Party press hate America. They hate this country to its core,” Levin said.

“The commander in chief, the president of the United States, exercises his solemn duty under the Constitution to protect this nation, to protect our armed forces, to protect our embassy, to prevent a regime of almost half a century at war with the United States from conducting itself in a way that harms further American citizens.”

“And the commander in chief is under full-scale 24/7 attack by the Democrat Party media.”

Listen:


Don’t miss an episode of LevinTV. Sign up now!

The post Levin: No more debate: ‘The Democrat Party hates America’ appeared first on Conservative Review.

via Conservative Review

Enjoy this article? Read the full version at the authors website: https://www.conservativereview.com