Graffiti at California Mosques Investigated as Hate Crimes (VIDEO)

This is wrong.

But if leftists got as outraged by Islamic jihad as they do by so called "hate crimes" against Muslims, we'd probably have defeated ISIS by now.

At the New York Times, "California Police and F.B.I. Open Hate Crimes Inquiry Into Vandalism of Mosques."

'Home Grown Terror' is America's New Nightmare

A great piece, from John Schindler, at the Observer, "The Intelligence Lessons of San Bernardino":

Americans were shocked by the San Bernardino crime, and no wonder: Farook, a native-born citizen, coldly gunned down co-workers who were assembled at an office party, with help from his immigrant wife, both of whom had left their six month-old baby at home when they left for their suicide mission. While female participation in jihadist terrorism is nothing new, this was an unusually brazen and horrifying attack, particularly since given the size of their arsenal – with thousands of rounds of ammunition and multiple homemade bombs – Farook and Malik intended to kill many more people than they did.

Making matters worse, most Americans felt reasonably safe from the threat of domestic jihadism in recent years, despite repeated warnings about the rise of the Islamic State and terrible attacks like the recent mass-casualty atrocity in Paris. Although the November 2009 Fort Hood massacre, perpetrated by Army Major Nidal Hasan, killed thirteen, it happened within the confines of a military base and did not involve the general public.

Two months before that, authorities rolled up a major jihadist cell in the New York City area that was plotting complex attacks that would have rivalled the 2005 London 7/7 atrocity in scope and lethality. That plot was backed by Al-Qa’ida Central in Pakistan and might have changed the debate on terrorism in the United States, but it was happily halted before execution – “left of boom” as counterterrorism professionals put it.

In general, American domestic counterterrorism since 9/11 has been astonishingly effective. The combination of National Security Agency signals intelligence (SIGINT) providing lead information for Federal Bureau Investigation operations has disrupted dozens of terror plots over the last fourteen years. Something like eighty percent of disrupted terrorism cases in the United States begin with a SIGINT “hit” by NSA. Before San Bernardino, the NSA-FBI combination had a near-perfect track record of cutting short major jihadist attacks on Americans at home since late 2001.

Indeed, the marriage of NSA SIGINT with old-fashioned FBI gumshoe work has been so effective that civil libertarians and anti-intelligence activists have complained that it has worked too well, with the FBI using agents provocateurs to egg homegrown radicals onto the path violence – and then rapid arrest. While the issue of the limits of provocation in counterterrorism is a legitimate one that needs discussion, it’s evident that many of those castigating the FBI and NSA for being too effective are also the first to criticize them when those agencies miss a terrorist.

However, the effectiveness of the NSA-FBI counterterrorism team has begun to erode in the last couple years, thanks in no small part to the work of such journalists-cum-activists. Since June 2013, when the former NSA IT contactor Edward Snowden defected to Moscow, leaking the biggest trove of classified material in all intelligence history, American SIGINT has been subjected to unprecedented criticism and scrutiny.

The uproar that followed the Snowden leak and defection has put NSA in an unflatteringly light, which has taken a serious toll on Agency morale. The recent Congressionally-mandated halt on NSA holding phone call information, so-called metadata, has harmed counterterrorism, though to what extent remains unclear. FBI Director James Comey has stated, “We don’t know yet” whether the curtailing of NSA’s metadata program, which went into effect just days before the San Bernardino attack, would have made a difference. Anti-intelligence activists have predictably said it’s irrelevant, while some on the Right have made opposite claims. The latter have overstated their case but are closer to the truth.

While the importance of metadata to American counterterrorism will continue to be a hot-button topic, the disastrous effect of the Snowden affair and its political aftershocks on our intelligence agencies is not up for debate. Neither is the fact, as attested to by several Western intelligence chiefs, that Snowden’s leaks have made terrorists more careful in their communications, and therefore more difficult to intercept. Just as bad, several top secret NSA programs, beyond metadata, that assisted counterterrorism have been downscaled since 2013 out of fears they may “look bad” if leaked.

“Before Snowden we had a definite bias for action,” explained a senior NSA official with extensive experience in counterterrorism. “But now we all wonder how the White House will react if this winds up in the newspapers.” “It’s all legal,” the official added, “the lawyers have approved, and boy do we have lots of lawyers – but will Obama throw us under the bus again?”

That concern is widespread in American counterterrorism circles, where the Obama administration’s worries about appearing “Islamophobic” are well known. This White House early on warned intelligence personnel about using the term “Islamic terrorism” even in classified reports that would never be released to the public. “Since 2009 we’ve opened investigations of groups we knew to be harmless,” explained a Pentagon counterterrorism official, “they weren’t Muslims, and we needed some ‘balance’ in case the White House asked if we were ‘profiling’ potential terrorists.” One of the worst side-effects of the Snowden affair is the entirely false image it created of NSA as an all-listening and all-seeing agency that spies on everyone, everywhere without respite. The truth is more mundane – or worrisome, depending on your viewpoint. While 21st century SIGINT, thanks to advanced filtering technologies, can collect and process unprecedented amounts of information for analysis – phone calls, text messages, emails, online chats, and whatnot – that has in no way kept up with the global IT revolution. There is much more information out there that might be of interest to counterterrorism officials but which will never be examined closely by any NSA analyst, much less passed to the FBI for action

Investigation has revealed that Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik were radicalized long before they embarked on their mass murder spree. Both had engaged in online radicalism for years and it’s evident that a devotion to violent hatred brought the couple together; speculation in counterintelligence circles that Malik was actually the prime mover of the couple’s jihadism – and may even have been a provocateur – are plausible but not yet substantiated.

What is known, however, is that Malik, a Pakistani national who had lived for years in Saudi Arabia, had written extensively on her public social media accounts about her ardent desire to wage jihad and seek martyrdom in the name of radical Islam. Americans who are accustomed to having their social media accounts examined whenever they apply for a job have questions here, and rightly so...

Still more.

#SanBernardino Terrorist Attack: Police Find and Stop the Jihadists

This is a great report, at the Los Angeles Times, "'All Hell Broke Loose' as Police Chased the San Bernardino Shooters."

'All hell broke loose' as police chased the San Bernardino shooters https://t.co/EyyKUXrPzZ pic.twitter.com/rntIP3tne7

— Los Angeles Times (@latimes) December 13, 2015

Loretta Sanchez Attacked for Saying Between '5 and 20 Percent' of Muslims Support Terrorism (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Democrat Loretta Sanchez Says 'Between 5 and 20 Percent' of Muslims Back Terrorism to Bring Caliphate (VIDEO)."

Now, at the O.C. Register, "Rep. Loretta Sanchez attacked for saying between '5 and 20 percent' of Muslims support terrorism":

Rep. Loretta Sanchez, a Democrat from Orange running for U.S. Senate, is under fire for saying that between “5 and 20 percent” of Muslims could be extremists willing to participate in terrorism.

Critics, including Islamic and immigration-rights activists, said the statement was inaccurate, reckless and promoted a false stereotype. One group called for her to bow out of the race to replace retiring Sen. Barbara Boxer.

“At a time when bigoted, Islamophobic rhetoric is spurring troubling incidents of hate across the country - including in Orange County - Rep. Loretta Sanchez' wildly off-the-mark claims are irresponsible and dangerous,” Reshma Shamasunder, executive director of the California Immigrant Policy Center, said Friday.

“We expect California's representatives to uphold our values of inclusion and diversity, not trample them.”

Sanchez, a 10th-term congresswoman who sits on the House Armed Services and Homeland Security committees, made the comment Wednesday on the online TV program “PoliticKING with Larry King.”

“We know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20 percent, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in anyway possible,” she said.

“And again, I don’t know how big that is, and depending on who you talk to, but they are certainly — they are willing to go to extremes. They are willing to use and they do use terrorism.”

The terrorist Islamic State group known as ISIS has called for a caliphate – a worldwide Islamic government without national borders.

After her appearance on the show, Sanchez issued a follow-up statement that appeared to be an effort to quell criticism.

“I strongly support the Muslim community in America and believe that the overwhelming majority of Muslims do not support terrorism or ISIS,” she said. “We must enlist the voices of the Muslim community in our fight against ISIS instead of alienating them through fear-mongering and discrimination.”

The Muslim population is 1.6 billion worldwide and 2.8 million in the United States, according to the Pew Research Center. It is not known how many favor a caliphate, but Sanchez told PBS-TV that her estimate came from an unnamed book published by Harvard Press.

On Friday, she issued another statement, saying there was “equally compelling data to support far lower estimates.”

“I want to reiterate that my reference to those numbers does not reflect my views of the Muslim community in my district, in America or the vast majority of Muslims around the world,” she said. “I believe that Muslim Americans are fully committed to the security and prosperity of our country.”

This Blitzkrieg will be unrelenting. She'll get no respite from the far-left Islamo-enablers. Sad.

Shattering Southern California's Illusion of Safety — #SanBernardino

Following-up, "An Existential Fear of Foreign Infiltration."

Now, at the Los Angeles Times, "San Bernardino terrorist attack shatters Southern California's illusion of safety":

As terrorist attacks fueled by extreme Islamist ideology convulsed cities in the U.S. and Europe over the last 15 years, Los Angeles and its sprawling suburbs were spared.

It couldn't last forever.

The assault on a San Bernardino social services center last week by a U.S.-born Muslim man and his Pakistani wife was an event of national significance, potentially reshaping next year's presidential contest and raising Americans' fears of terrorism to levels not seen since the World Trade Center attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

But the killing of 14 people by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik has had a particular effect in Southern California, a densely populated region whose residents have at times felt themselves remote from the transatlantic waves of terror that have washed over New York, London, Paris, Madrid and Washington, D.C.

That sense of separation is deeply rooted in the state's culture and history, experts say, though it is in many ways unrealistic. The truth is that the Southland — home to more than 22 million people, as well as an entertainment industry that is arguably the foremost exporter of the secular culture denounced by Islamic fundamentalists — is as vulnerable as anywhere else in the U.S. to extremist violence in the post-9/11 era.

"We used to call California an 'island on the land.' There was a sense of — take your pick: outside history, ahead of the curve. But that's simply not true," said William Deverell, a history professor at USC who studies the American West. "The notion that this is an island that can't be breached, that's wrong. And San Bernardino has proven it."

Deverell said the attack was in a sense more jarring for having happened in the far-flung Inland Empire, where many ex-Angelenos have sought refuge from high housing costs and urban crime, rather than at an iconic location in Santa Monica or the Hollywood Hills. Security experts say assaults on "soft" targets unprepared for politically motivated violence are now as much a risk as the spectacular, symbolically resonant attacks on famous buildings or tourist sites.

Farook and Malik appear to exemplify this brand of "homegrown" or "self-radicalized" terrorist. Federal officials have said the pair may have quietly plotted a mass killing for years in relative isolation, taking inspiration but not direction from overseas terrorist groups.

"You can't think of it in terms of, 'Here is someone sitting at terrorist central control who says we have to look at California more seriously.' It's not that at all," said Brian Michael Jenkins, a national security expert at the Rand Corp. "Whether or not something in California is a target of terrorism depends on whether someone who is radicalized lives in California."

Debbie Maller, 55, has lived in San Bernardino for two decades and was at a coffee shop in the city's downtown Friday afternoon. She said she had sometimes worried about terrorist violence when visiting big cities after the 9/11 attacks, but had never had such fears in her hometown.

"I would have never thought of the words 'San Bernardino' and 'terrorism' together," she said...

Still more.

An Existential Fear of Foreign Infiltration

Fear is a natural reaction to danger. Don't let leftists berate you. They're welcoming our enemies with open arms.

At the New York Times, "Attack Spurs New Chapter in History of Dread in the U.S.":

The handsome Washington townhouse where Wayne Hickory practices orthodontics is a landmark of terrorism in America.

In 1919, an anarchist exploded a bomb at what was then the home of the attorney general. The failed assassination set off a wave of violent raids on radicals, Communists and leftists, and the deportation without due process of hundreds of innocent European immigrants — a high point of hysteria in an era known as the first Red Scare.

“Maybe there is something to learn from history,” Dr. Hickory said in a sitting room that now contains advertising for invisible braces. But asked about Donald J. Trump’s call to bar Muslims from entering the United States, Dr. Hickory said that, as implausible as it was, the proposal had prompted a necessary discussion about whether travelers from countries fraught with Islamic extremism should receive increased scrutiny. “Perhaps,” he said, “the line needs to be drawn a little bit more severely.”

An existential fear of foreign infiltration, unfamiliar minorities and terrorist attacks is not a new feeling in America. Neither is the nativist, if at times innovative, language that Mr. Trump has mastered on his way to leading the Republican presidential primary race.

But interviews this week with dozens of American voters, even those who do not support Mr. Trump and reject his ban as an indecent proposal, make clear that their anxiety is on the rise in a climate more fearful than at any time since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. From the Capitol to the campaign trail, from Mr. Trump’s childhood neighborhood to the suburbs near the Islamic State-inspired killing of 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif., voters acknowledged, almost despite themselves, the gnawing sense of insecurity that has fueled Mr. Trump’s vision and persistent appeal.

People are seeing things, and saying things...

Heh, what a bunch of Islamophobes!

But keep reading.

Fear of Terror Attack Highest Since 9/11

Following-up from yesterday, "Fear of Another Attack Lifts Trump to New High in Poll."

At the video, Major Garrett for CBS Evening News:

Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik Were in Final Planning Stages of an Assault on a Location or Building That Housed a Lot More People Than the Inland Regional Center (VIDEO)

At the Los Angeles Times, "Shooters planned bigger attack, investigators believe":

An examination of digital equipment recovered from the home of the couple who killed 14 people in San Bernardino last week has led FBI investigators to believe the shooters were planning an even larger assault, according to federal government sources.

Investigators on Thursday continued to search for digital footprints left by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, scouring a downtown San Bernardino lake for electronic items, including a hard drive that the couple was hoping to destroy, sources told The Times.

FBI agents will probably spend days searching Seccombe Lake and canvassing the neighborhood for clues after receiving a tip that the couple may have visited the area on the day of the attack, according to David Bowdich, assistant special agent in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles field office.

Farook and Malik were in the final planning stages of an assault on a location or building that housed a lot more people than the Inland Regional Center, possibly a nearby school or college, according to federal sources familiar with the widening investigation.

Investigators have based that conclusion on evidence left behind on Farook and Malik's computers and digital devices, not all of which the couple were able to destroy before they were killed in a firefight with police, the sources said.

Images of San Bernardino-area schools were found on a cellphone belonging to Farook, according to a law enforcement source. But the source cautioned that Farook may have had a legitimate reason to have the images because his work as a county health inspector involved checking on school dining facilities.

On Thursday, one of the federal government sources told The Times that Farook asked his friend and neighbor, Enrique Marquez, to buy two military-style rifles used in the attacks because he feared he "wouldn't pass a background check" if he attempted to acquire the weapons on his own. The rifles were bought at a local gun store, the source said.

The timing of the rifle purchases is significant to FBI investigators. Another federal government source previously told The Times that Farook may have been considering a separate terror plot in 2011 or 2012.

Farook was self-radicalizing around that time, FBI Director James Comey said, and met Malik soon after, eventually escorting her to the United States. Farook was a practicing Muslim. Marquez converted to Islam around the time he purchased the weapons, sources have told The Times.

FBI agents believe Farook abandoned his plans to launch the earlier attack after a law enforcement task force arrested three men in Chino in November 2012. The men were later convicted of charges related to providing material support to terrorists and plotting to kill Americans in Afghanistan. A fourth man arrested in Afghanistan also was convicted in the scheme.

Bowdich said federal agents are investigating whether the men had ties to Farook.

Marquez has emerged as a central figure in the investigation. The FBI had been conducting interviews with 24-year-old, who checked himself into a mental health facility after the attacks.

The former Wal-Mart security guard has waived his Miranda rights and cooperated with the inquiry, and it was Marquez who told FBI agents about Farook's earlier plans, according to one of the government sources, who also requested anonymity...

Still more.

Dana Loesch on Surge in Gun Sales (VIDEO)

Following-up, "Surge in Gun Sales in Southern California (VIDEO)."

Here's Dana, on point and nailing it, as always:

Huge Lead for Donald Trump in New Gravis Marketing National Poll

Well both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have huge leads nationwide, but Trump's sucking all the oxygen out of the mainstream media atmosphere. Clinton's even changing her campaign schedule in response to the latest Trump headlines. It's phenomenal.

At the Orlando Sentinel, "National Gravis poll shows big leads for Clinton, Trump":

A newly-released poll from Winter Springs-based Gravis Marketing finds both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump cruising to new highs in popularity, even after Trump's controversial comments about Muslims.

The poll was conducted Monday and Tuesday evenings, which means it came after Trump's proposal to ban Muslims from entering the United States.

"The Muslim comments have helped Trump in the polls," concluded Gravis Managing Partner Doug Kaplan. "Many people are scared."

The poll, done for One America News Network, shows Trump with a 26-point lead nationally over U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Clinton a 32-point lead in popularity over U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

When registered Republicans were asked "Assuming you had to vote today... which candidate would you vote for?" Trump drew 42 percent, a record high for him in Gravis polling, to 16 for Cruz, 11 for U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, 9 for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, 6 for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and 4 for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

When registered Democratic voters voters were asked, Clinton drew 62 percent, a record high for her, to 30 for Sanders and 9 for Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley...

Keep reading.

The poll also has head-to-head match-ups, with Clinton beating Trump 51-49 (a statistical tie).

And check the poll findings, "One America News Network Gravis Marketing National Poll Results."

Funny, though, the poll's got a partisan breakdown of 38 percent Democrats, 32 percent Republican, and 29 percent independents --- which indicates that Democrats were over-sampled, at least if compared to the results from Pew Research in April, which had "39% Americans identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans."

If so, this means the Gravis poll is underestimating Trump's support, particularly against Clinton in the head-to-head match-up.

Fear of Another Attack Lifts Trump to New High in Poll

Here's the latest New York Times survey, which was largely conducted before Trump's comments on banning Muslim migrants to the U.S.

See, "Fear of Terrorism Lifts Donald Trump in New York Times/CBS Poll":

Americans are more fearful about the likelihood of another terrorist attack than at any other time since the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001, a gnawing sense of dread that has helped lift Donald J. Trump to a new high among Republican primary voters, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

In the aftermath of attacks by Islamic extremists in Paris and in San Bernardino, Calif., a plurality of the public views the threat of terrorism as the top issue facing the country. A month ago, only 4 percent of Americans said terrorism was the most important problem; now, 19 percent say it is, above any other issue.

Mr. Trump, who has called for monitoring mosques and even barring Muslims from entering the United States, has been the clear beneficiary of this moment of deep anxiety. More than four in 10 Republican primary voters say the most important quality in a candidate is strong leadership, which eclipses honesty, empathy, experience or electability. These voters heavily favor Mr. Trump.

The survey was largely conducted before Mr. Trump’s proposal, announced Monday, to temporarily block Muslims from entering the country.

“He’ll keep a sharp eye on those Muslims,” Bettina Norden, 60, a farmer in Springfield, Ore., said in a follow-up interview. “He’ll keep the Patriot Act together. He’ll watch immigration. Stop the Muslims from immigrating.”

Republicans expressed confidence in Mr. Trump’s ability to confront terrorism: Seven in 10 voters who said they were likely to vote in a Republican primary said he was well-equipped to respond to the threat, with four in 10 “very confident” he could handle terrorism. Only Senator Ted Cruz of Texas comes close to those numbers.

But it is not only Republicans feeling renewed fear about terrorist strikes on American soil. Forty-four percent of the public says an attack is “very” likely to happen in the next few months, the most in Times or CBS News polls since October 2001, just after the deadliest terrorist assault in the country’s history. Seven in 10 Americans now call the Islamic State extremist group a major threat to the United States’ security, the highest level since the Times/CBS News poll began asking the question last year.

The public has little faith in President Obama’s handling of terrorism and the threat from the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL. Fifty-seven percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of terrorism, and seven in 10 say the fight against the Islamic State is going badly. There have been few foreign-directed terrorist attacks in the United States in the past decade, and American officials have repeatedly said that there is no credible evidence of planning for a large-scale attack in the United States by the Islamic State or its supporters.

Yet while Mr. Trump may be benefiting among Republicans from a perceived loss of safety, he remains a highly divisive figure with the broader electorate. Sixty-four percent of voters said they would be concerned or scared about what he would do if he became president. And while he occupies a commanding position among Republican primary voters, with more than twice the support of his nearest competitor, his backers are still a minority of that relatively small population.

Even as he leads the Republican field in support, he also has the most Republican primary voters, 23 percent, who say they would be most dissatisfied with him as the party’s nominee...

Popular but polarizing. That's a fascinating dynamic.

But keep reading.

Donald Trump Strong on National Security in Two New South Carolina Polls

At Fox News:

National security is the most important issue for GOP primary voters in deciding their vote.  Thirty-nine percent feel that way compared with 24 percent who prioritize economic issues.  Some 16 percent say immigration issues will be most important and 6 percent say social issues.

Trump holds a wide lead among voters who say national security is their top issue.  He receives 32 percent -- twice the support for Carson, Cruz and Rubio, who each get 16 percent among national security voters.

And those who prioritize economic issues back the same four candidates:  Trump (32 percent), Rubio (14 percent), Carson (12 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).

At the same time, the poll shows national security is an area of vulnerability for Trump:  25 percent say he is the “most qualified” Republican to handle the issue, closely followed by Cruz at 18 percent.  Another 11 percent pick Rubio.  Only 6 percent say Carson.

Compare that to the 48 percent landslide Trump gets when GOP primary voters are asked which Republican candidate is “most qualified” to handle the economy.  No other candidate even garners double digits on this measure.  The next closest are Bush and Cruz at 9 percent each, followed by Rubio at 8 percent.

Strong leadership is the top trait GOP primary voters want in their party’s nominee (26 percent), closely followed by being honest and trustworthy (22 percent).  Those characteristics outrank nominating someone who would shake things up in Washington (16 percent), have true conservative values (14 percent) and beat the Democrat (10 percent).

Voters who say strong leadership is the most important trait are most likely to support Trump by a wide 23-point margin.  He receives 36 percent among this group, followed by Cruz at 13 percent, Rubio at 12 percent and Carson at 11 percent.

While Trump still tops the list among those who prioritize honesty, it’s by a narrower 4-point margin: Trump (24 percent), Carson (20 percent), Rubio (13 percent) and Cruz (12 percent).

GOP primary voters think Trump is the Republican most likely to beat Clinton in the general election next year.  Some 42 percent feel that way.  Next is Rubio at 14 percent...

The raw internals are here.

Pluls, CNN's out with a new poll from the Palmetto State as well, "New poll shows Trump still on top in South Carolina." And from the raw internals:

The threat of terrorism stands out as the most important issue for likely Republican voters. A third of respondents said terrorism/ISIS/ISIL/terrorists is key, while the economy and immigration (not refugees), at 13% and 10% respectively, round out the top three issues.

Sixty-one percent of poll respondents said they are frustrated with the federal government; while 35% said they are angry and only 3% basically content. Of the Trump supporters, 52% were frustrated and 47% angry. “Trump seems to draw a significant amount of his support from those who express anger at the government,” Huffmon observed.

Trump supporters were more likely to favor conducting surveillance of Muslim mosques (80%) and in creating a database of all Muslims in the United States (72%).

Trump does extremely well on the issues voters care about, although he's polarizing. He could have problems winning over those who have strong antipathy for him, although he'll tell you he doesn't care: He's going to win, heh.

More.

Democrat Loretta Sanchez Says 'Between 5 and 20 Percent' of Muslims Back Terrorism to Bring Caliphate (VIDEO)

Heh.

She's gotta be running the craziest Senate campaign ever.

At BuzzFeed, via Memeorandum, "Democratic Congresswoman: “Between 5 And 20%” of Muslims Willing to Use Terrorism to Institute Caliphate."

And at Hot Air, "Dem Rep. Loretta Sanchez: I’d say, oh, 5-20% of Muslims support terrorism to bring about a caliphate."

“But certainly, we know that there is a small group, and we don’t know how big that is — it can be anywhere between 5 and 20%, from the people that I speak to — that Islam is their religion and who have a desire for a caliphate and to institute that in anyway possible, and in particular go after what they consider Western norms — our way of life,” Sanchez said on “PoliticKING with Larry King.”

Ben Sasse Comments on San Bernardino Jihad (VIDEO)

He's a good guy.

Democrats' Biggest Vulnerability in 2016: National Security

From Josh Kraushaar, at National Journal:

The dis­con­nect between Pres­id­ent Obama and the Amer­ic­an pub­lic on the ur­gency of the IS­IS threat is a prob­lem for his party in 2016, especially for Hil­lary Clin­ton.

Demo­crats are at risk of polit­ic­ally mar­gin­al­iz­ing them­selves on na­tion­al se­cur­ity in the run-up to the 2016 pres­id­en­tial elec­tion, ca­ter­ing to a base that seems dis­con­nec­ted from the grow­ing anxi­ety that the pub­lic feels over the threat from Is­lam­ic ter­ror­ism. Dur­ing a month when a hor­rif­ic ter­ror­ist at­tack killed 130 in Par­is and a homegrown, IS­IS-in­spired at­tack killed 14 in San Bern­ardino, Cali­for­nia, the Demo­crat­ic Party’s ma­jor fo­cus has been on cli­mate change and gun con­trol.

The signs of a pres­id­ent in deni­al over the threat of ter­ror­ism keep pil­ing up. Obama be­latedly ad­dressed the pub­lic’s fears in his Oval Of­fice ad­dress on Sunday even­ing, but he offered no new policies to deal with crisis. That it took four days for the pres­id­ent to un­equi­voc­ally call the San Bern­ardino at­tacks “ter­ror­ism” un­der­scored how his own in­stincts are at odds with the Amer­ic­an pub­lic’s. The de­cision to give a na­tion­ally tele­vised speech without out­lining a change of course sug­ges­ted that ad­min­is­tra­tion of­fi­cials were wor­ried about de­clin­ing poll num­bers and that he was try­ing to lim­it the polit­ic­al dam­age. And for an ad­min­is­tra­tion that likes to nar­rowly tail­or Obama’s mes­sage to his most en­thu­si­ast­ic sup­port­ers, schedul­ing a prime-time speech for many mil­lions to see (it was his first Oval Of­fice ad­dress since 2010) was a con­ces­sion that he’s not per­suad­ing the lar­ger pub­lic.

Put simply, the pres­id­ent’s cred­ib­il­ity was on the line. Last month in Tur­key, Obama testily brushed back re­peated ques­tion­ing from re­port­ers that he un­der­es­tim­ated the threat that IS­IS posed. Only a day be­fore the IS­IS at­tacks in Par­is, Obama con­fid­ently pro­claimed that the ter­ror­ist group was “con­tained.” In the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the San Bern­ardino shoot­ing, Obama told CBS News that “our home­land has nev­er been more pro­tec­ted by more ef­fect­ive in­tel­li­gence and law-en­force­ment pro­fes­sion­als at every level than they are now.”

When the pres­id­ent’s as­sur­ances are be­ing con­tra­dicted by events around him, even his own party’s rank-and-file be­come rest­ive. Demo­crat­ic voters, mostly sup­port­ive of the pres­id­ent, are ex­press­ing real con­cerns about the ad­min­is­tra­tion’s hand­ling of ter­ror­ism. A 43-per­cent plur­al­ity of Demo­crat­ic voters be­lieve the U.S. and its al­lies are “los­ing” the war against IS­IS, ac­cord­ing to a Quin­nipi­ac poll con­duc­ted just be­fore the San Bern­ardino at­tack. A whop­ping 75 per­cent of Demo­crats said it’s likely there will be an­oth­er ma­jor ter­ror­ist at­tack on Amer­ic­an soil, and 23 per­cent dis­ap­prove of Pres­id­ent Obama’s hand­ling of ter­ror­ism.

This is un­usu­al. In the wake of trau­mat­ic events, even un­pop­u­lar pres­id­ents tend to find suc­cess by call­ing for na­tion­al unity. After the Ok­lahoma City bomb­ings in April 1995, Pres­id­ent Clin­ton’s job ap­prov­al rat­ings rose above 50 per­cent for the first time in nearly a year, ac­cord­ing to Gal­lup’s track­ing poll. George W. Bush’s ap­prov­al reached 90 per­cent right after the Sept. 11 at­tacks. These mo­ments were both short-lived, but proved that the pub­lic ral­lies be­hind a pres­id­ent after fright­en­ing tra­gedies.

But in­stead of act­ing as a com­mand­er in chief, Obama has be­come a po­lar­izer in chief. Im­me­di­ately after the Par­is and San Bern­ardino at­tacks, both of which provided him an op­por­tun­ity to re­set his an­ti­ter­ror­ism policies, he in­stead chose to find “wedge” is­sues that he could use to at­tack Re­pub­lic­ans. After he was houn­ded by the press over down­play­ing the IS­IS threat, he nimbly switched the sub­ject to the GOP’s heart­less­ness on the ques­tion of tak­ing in Syr­i­an refugees, a coun­ter­punch that drew sub­stan­tial press cov­er­age. In the im­me­di­ate af­ter­math of the San Bern­ardino at­tacks, he down­played the ter­ror­ist con­nec­tions and amp­li­fied his call for ad­di­tion­al gun con­trol. Fol­low­ing the pres­id­ent’s lead, Sen­ate Demo­crats then tried to put Re­pub­lic­ans on the de­fens­ive over their fi­del­ity to gun rights by vot­ing to ban people on the no-fly list from pur­chas­ing guns. Agree or dis­agree with those policies, but both were a deliberate dis­trac­tion from the ur­gent is­sue at hand—how to com­bat IS­IS, at home and abroad...

Still more.

Obama's Terror Speech Perfectly Highlights Reasons for Trump's Rise

From Bill Schneider, at Reuters:

Here’s President Barack Obama on the war against Islamic State: “Our success won’t depend on tough talk or abandoning or values or giving into fear. . . . We will prevail by being strong and smart.”

Here’s Donald Trump: “Every time things get worse, I do better. Because people have confidence in me.” He promised, “We’re going to be so tough and so mean and so nasty.”

What we’re seeing right now in American politics is class warfare. But not the kind of class warfare Bernie Sanders would understand. It’s not the working class versus the 1 percent. It’s the working class versus the educated elite. In fact, one of the richest men in the world is leading the revolt: Trump.

Trump’s support for the Republican nomination is not defined by ideology or age or gender. It’s defined by education. Among GOP voters with a college degree in the latest CNN poll, Trump comes in fourth with just 18 percent. But he has a huge lead among non-college voters — 46 percent. No other candidate comes close.

Today, in the United States, the richer you are, the more likely you are to vote Republican. The better educated you are, the more likely you are to vote Democratic. We saw it in the last presidential race. It was Mitt Romney, the prince of wealth, versus Obama, the prince of education.

Romney lost because of his elitist economic values. He was Mr. 1 Percent, disdainful of the “47 percent” who, he argued, are dependent on government. Trump, on the other hand, is rallying white working class voters. Not around their economic interests. Around their values...

More.

After #SanBernardino Jihad Attack, Americans' Satisfaction With the Way Things Are Going Drops to 20 Percent

These are the kind of numbers that crush the ruling party at election time. We already know the public is grumbling, looking to an outsider for leadership. Now folks are more rattled than they've been in over a year, extremely dissatisfied with the way things are going.

At Gallup, "After Terror Attacks, U.S. Satisfaction Falls to 13-Month Low":

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- After the recent terrorist attack in San Bernardino, California, Americans' satisfaction with the way things are going in the U.S. dropped seven percentage points to 20%. This is the lowest level of satisfaction recorded since November 2014, but still above the all-time low of 7% in October 2008.

The San Bernardino attack, which occurred just before this Dec. 2-6 survey, almost certainly accounts for some of the downturn in satisfaction. In the attack, 14 victims died and many were wounded, and it was considered so significant that President Barack Obama addressed the incident and its aftermath in a rare prime-time speech on Sunday night.

A seven-point month-to-month drop in satisfaction is rare but not unprecedented. Satisfaction dropped seven points in 2013 during the October partial government shutdown. It plummeted 12 points in the fall of 2008 as the economy crumbled, falling to the all-time low of 7% in mid-October of that year.

The recent high point in satisfaction is 32% in January and February of this year, the highest since the end of 2012. Satisfaction levels have been lower for the rest of this year. But despite month-to-month fluctuations, at least 25% of Americans have been satisfied each month until the December reading.

Democrats' Satisfaction Declines Most

Satisfaction has dropped among all major demographic groups since early November, but not equally. Among Republicans, consistently the group least likely to be satisfied, satisfaction dropped four points, similar to independents' five-point decline. Satisfaction among Democrats dropped by a much larger 15 points. Democrats' November satisfaction was among the highest for any group, and thus it had more room to fall...

Keep reading.

Fighting Terror by Self-Reproach

From Bret Stephens, at WSJ, "How did we become a country more afraid of causing offense than playing defense?":

Nobody who watched Barack Obama’s speech Sunday night outlining his strategy to defeat Islamic State could have come away disappointed by the performance. Disappointment presupposes hope for something better. That ship sailed, and sank, a long time ago.

By now we are familiar with the cast of Mr. Obama’s mind. He does not make a case; he preaches a moral. He mistakes repetition for persuasion. He does not struggle with the direction, details or trade-offs of policy because he’s figured them all out. His policies never fail; it’s our patience that he finds wanting. He asks not what he can do for his country but what his country can do for him.

And what’s that? It is for us to see what has long been obvious to him, like an exasperated teacher explaining simple concepts to a classroom of morons. Anyone? Anyone?

That’s why nearly everything the president said last night he has said before, and in the same shopworn phrases. His four-point strategy for defeating ISIS is unchanged. His habit of telling us—and our enemies—what he isn’t going to do dates back to the earliest days of his presidency. His belief that terrorism is another gun-control issue draws on the deep wells of liberal true belief. His demand for a symbolic congressional Authorization for Use of Military Force is at least a year old, though as recently as 2013 he was demanding that Congress kill the AUMF altogether. Back then he was busy boasting that al Qaeda was on a path to defeat.

The more grating parts of Mr. Obama’s speech came when he touched on the subject of Islam and Muslims. “We cannot,” he intoned, “turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam.” Terrorism, as he sees it, is to be feared less for the harm it causes than for the overreaction it risks eliciting.

This is the president as master of the pre-emptive self-reproach—the suggestion that Americans are always on the verge of returning to the wickedness whence we came. But since when have we turned against one another, or defined the war on terror as a war on Islam?

Keep reading.

Radical Left Political Correctness and Demonization Enables Islamic Jihad Attacks on America (VIDEO)

Dana Loesch interviews Michelle Malkin:

Donald Trump Ignites Firestorm (VIDEO)

From early Wednesday morning's Nightline: