Poll: Heightened Fear of Terrorism is Rippling Through the Electorate

Yes, and the Democrats want to mock people for it.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Poll Finds National Security Now a Top Concern":

WSJ/NBC poll finds that after terror attacks, national security is now a top concern. https://t.co/f1uyRwCFEl

— Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) December 15, 2015

Fear of terrorism surges after attacks in Paris and California, WSJ/NBC poll finds, and likely will impact 2016 election.

Heightened fear of terrorism is rippling through the electorate, thrusting national-security issues to the center of the 2016 presidential campaign, according to a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll released on the eve of Republicans’ latest presidential debate.

Some 40% of those polled say national security and terrorism should be the government’s top priority, and more than 60% put it in the top two, up from just 39% eight months ago.

More than one quarter worry they or their family will be a victim of a terror attack. The most prominent news event of 2015, in the public’s mind, was the terrorist attack in Paris.

“For most of 2015, our country’s mood and thus the presidential election was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery, and now that has abruptly changed to fear,” said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who conducted the survey with Republican Bill McInturff.

That undercurrent of anxiety, if it lasts, has the potential to reshape the 2016 policy landscape, shifting attention to national-security issues that traditionally are Republicans’ strong suit and away from the economic issues that Democrats prefer to spotlight.

But for now, the increased concern hasn’t seemed to change the election’s fundamentals: The new poll, as ones before the recent spate of attacks, found voters evenly split on which party they want to control the White House. Still, Mr. McInturff said, candidates are now facing “a very different campaign than the one we thought we were going to be running.”

Republican presidential candidates will be trying to adapt to this environment when they meet on the debate stage Tuesday night in Las Vegas. In the run-up to the debate, candidates have increasingly focused on foreign policy as they try to promote their own leadership skills and discredit their rivals.

Businessman Donald Trump has been betting that his trademark swagger will be a selling point at a time when voters are looking for someone to stand up to terrorists. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas is talking tough about defeating Islamic State, but he has stopped short of calling for U.S. ground troops in Iraq and Syria. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has argued that Mr. Cruz has taken votes in the Senate that weakened U.S. intelligence gathering.

Overall, the mood of the electorate has turned bleaker in the weeks since the latest Journal/NBC News survey in late October—a period that included the terrorist attacks in Paris, the shootings by a lone gunman at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado, and the mass shooting in San Bernardino, Calif., by a pair of Islamic militants...

Still more.

Democrats Mock Americans' Terror Fears

It's come to this, despite overwhelming --- and bipartisan --- polling data that show a genuine anxiety about U.S. national security.

From Noah Rothman, at Commentary, "Dems Turn to Mocking Terror Fears":

In just over a year, the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria has graduated from taking and holding territory inside its nascent “caliphate” to exporting terrorism around the globe. From Sydney to Ottawa, from Copenhagen to San Bernardino, this terrorist organization is directing or inspiring jihadists to conduct heinous acts of mass-casualty terrorism. Since October of last year, three such attacks have taken place in the United States; one of those being the worst act of radical Islamic terror in America since September 11, 2001. Subsequently, Americans now rate terrorism as their number one concern. They feel unsafe and insecure. They are justifiably afraid of the threat that might be just around the next corner. Americans are lunging for the shotgun and barricading the door. And what do they get from their leaders? Reassurance? Understanding? Resolve to defeat terrorism abroad before it comes home? No, they get a lecture on their latent hostility toward the Islamic faith and practicing Muslims. Stranger still, now that it has become inescapably clear that the fear of terrorism is broad-based, the left’s mission to convince itself that these concerns are isolated to the fever swamps has become even more urgent.

For Democrats, particularly those who must defend President Barack Obama’s record on foreign affairs and terrorism, there is no good news. According to the latest New York Times/CBS News survey, seven in 10 Americans now describe ISIS as a major threat to national security. Another 44 percent of respondents believe another attack inside the United States at some point in the next few months is “very” likely, greater than at any point since October 2001. 57 percent of those polled disapprove of Obama’s handling of the issue of terrorism. According to Gallup, 67 percent believe future “acts of terrorism” inside the United States are either somewhat or very likely. Gallup further revealed that confidence in the government’s ability to keep its citizens safe is lower than it has ever been since the 9/11 attacks.

Simultaneously, a majority of Americans fear they will be the next victims of that forthcoming attack for the first time since 2001. Perhaps most ominously from a Democratic perspective, satisfaction in the direction the country is headed has not been this depressed since November of 2014 when Republicans rode a wave of voter dissatisfaction to pick up control of the U.S. Senate.

Regarding the potential political ramifications of this negative development for the president, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked today about Gallup’s numbers. Earnest’s tart reply: “Gallup predicted Mitt Romney would be president.”

There is no worthy response to this non sequitur; it was not designed to elicit one. The strategy here is clear, and it is one that this president has used to great effect in the past: Project to like minds in media that concerns over terrorism are a preoccupation of the intellectually sequestered right. To lend any credence to that notion would be to align yourself with that brutish, unthinking element in flyover country, and you wouldn’t want to be thought of by your peers in that way, would you?

Even Democrats are finding themselves the target of this rather elementary form of manipulation...

More.

U.S. Counterterrorism Officials Plan to Beef Up Social-Media Scrutiny

Folks were really fired up about this on Twitter this afternoon.

At ABC News, via Memeorandum, "Secret Policy Kept Social Media Out of Visa Vetting."

And here's WSJ, "The Department of Homeland Security is working on a plan to scrutinize social-media posts as part of its visa application process":

WASHINGTON—The Department of Homeland Security is working on a plan to expand scrutiny of social-media posts as part of its visa application process before certain people are allowed to enter the country, a person familiar with the matter said.

The move is part of a new focus on the use of social-networking sites following the shooting rampage in San Bernardino, Calif.

Currently, DHS looks at postings only intermittently, as part of three pilot programs that began in earnest earlier this year. It is unclear how quickly a new process could be implemented, and other details couldn’t be learned.

Investigators are looking for clues in Facebook posts, computer records and elsewhere that may have hinted at the intentions of the Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik, the married couple suspected of killing 14 people at a holiday gathering Dec. 2 before dying in a shootout with police.

Ms. Malik lived most of her life in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia but moved to the U.S. in 2014 on a K-1 visa given to those engaged to Americans. The day of the shooting, she pledged allegiance to the leader of Islamic State, law-enforcement officials have said, on a Facebook account registered to a pseudonym. Counterterror officials are looking to see if she made similar postings in the past.

Islamic State and other terror groups have used social media to communicate with one another and seek converts. Intelligence, law-enforcement and counterterrorism officials have spent years trying to unearth clues about attacks in such postings.

The House of Representatives on Tuesday will vote on a bill to require the Obama administration to come up with a comprehensive strategy to combat terrorists’ use of social media. Under the measure, the White House would have to inform Congress about the social-media training it provides law-enforcement officials.

That bill is the latest to respond to public anxiety following the San Bernardino killings, which investigators believe could have been inspired by Islamic State propaganda fueled by social media. House Republicans have worked to advance several bills since the rampage that aim to show they are taking concrete steps to address Americans’ security concerns.

Rep. Michael McCaul (R., Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, said the DHS move is overdue. “It is time this administration stopped worrying about the privacy of foreigners more than the security of Americans,” he said.

Separately, congressional negotiators were looking at including in a fiscal 2016 spending bill a measure to impose new curbs on travel by citizens who live in one of the 38 countries that enjoy expedited travel clearance to the U.S...

More.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: 'The Age of Anger' (VIDEO)

Watch, from earlier this evening, at Fox News, "The Age of Anger."

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."

Tarek and Christina El Moussa, Stars of HGTV's 'Flip or Flop', Cancel Events in Portland After Protests by Far-Left Rent Control Alliance

Big mistake.

If there was ever a cool inspiration for entrepreneur ship and business hustle, it's Tarek and Christina. They're really cool.

At Instapundit, "BLUE STATE IDIOCY: Stars of HGTV house-flipping series cancel events in Portland after angry residents claim seminars will only worsen the city’s ‘rental crisis’."

Kelly Brook Leaves Little to the Imagination in Very Sexy 2016 Calendar

She's still got it.

At London's Daily Mail, "Kelly Brook shows off her ample cleavage and pert posterior as she strips naked for very sexy calendar shoot."

From Decadence to Destruction in California

Check out Victor Davis Hanson's new collection of essays, The Decline and Fall of California: From Decadence to Destruction.

Plus, Hanson's classic on illegal immigration, Mexifornia: A State of Becoming.

Lily Aldridge, Candice Swanepoel Show Off Bikini Bodies at St. Bart's

At London's Daily Mail, "Lily Aldridge shows off her beautifully bronzed body in a little pink bikini for Victoria's Secret photo shoot in St. Bart's," and "All things bright AND beautiful! Bikini-clad Lily Aldridge leads the hard-to-miss Victoria's Secret Angels in neon as they show off their cheekier sides in St Barths."

Plus, "Looking heavenly! Candice Swanepoel shows off her bikini body as she poses in St Bart's for Victoria's Secret."

Take 25 Percent Off Holiday Savings

At Amazon, Shop Fashion - Holiday Savings.

Plus, Shop Amazon Pet Supplies, Up to 20% Off - Nylabone Sale.

More, Shop Amazon Fashion - 12 Days of Timex.

BONUS: Michelle Malkin's new book, Sold Out: How High-Tech Billionaires & Bipartisan Beltway Crapweasels Are Screwing America's Best & Brightest Workers.

'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.

Wow! Donald Trump Surges to 41 Percent in New Monmouth University Poll

Ah, I guess those Muslim comments didn't hurt trump too much at all.

Here's the the latest Monmouth University poll:

LATEST - National poll: Trump at 41% Cruz 14%, Rubio 10%, Carson 9% https://t.co/hwCSwPBy1I

— MonmouthPoll (@MonmouthPoll) December 14, 2015

And at Politico, "Trump hits a new high in national poll: The billionaire businessman surges to 41 percent after releasing proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S.":

Donald Trump just got a little more vault in his ceiling. Nationwide, the polling-obsessed Manhattan multi-billionaire and leading Republican presidential candidate broke into the 40s on Monday.

According to the results of the latest Monmouth University poll surveying voters identifying as Republican or independents leaning toward the GOP, Trump earned 41 percent, nearly tripling the support of his closest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who took 14 percent.

The poll underscores Trump's success at keeping voters fixated on his unprecedented presidential campaign. The latest national survey was taken after Trump landed another whopper, proposing in an emailed statement last Monday to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. The statement gave Trump another boost of media attention, and some speculated it was designed to shift the conversation away from a Monmouth poll from Iowa released earlier that day that showed Cruz with a 5-point edge in the state.

Trump was still smarting from that poll last Friday, trashing it during a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, though he may change his tune after this latest result.

“What the hell is Monmouth?” Trump asked at the rally, adding, “I only like polls that treat me well.”

Monmouth's survey also held good news for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who moved up to 10 percent support and third place, and bad news for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who plummeted from 18 percent in October to 9 percent in this latest survey. Other candidates, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, polled within the margin of error, with 6 percent remaining undecided.

Among various demographic groups, Trump picked up 13 points among those with a high-school education, earning 54 percent support with that group, and 11 points with those identifying with the tea party, earning 52 percent with that group. Cruz, however, picked up 15 points among tea party supporters, receiving 29 percent with that group. Trump's standing among women has fallen slightly, down four points since October (41 percent to 37 percent this time), though he has gained three points with men (41 percent to 44 percent). Among those with a college degree, support for Trump fell by 10 points, from 41 percent to 31 percent.

In terms of favorability, Cruz led the way with a net positive 40 points (58 percent favorable to 18 percent unfavorable), followed by Rubio at +37 points (55 percent to 18 percent) and Trump at +32 points (61 percent to 29 percent). For Trump, the latest results mark an improvement over the last two months in the Monmouth poll. In October, his favorability sat at 52 percent to 33 percent.

Regardless of whether they supported Trump, 30 percent said they would be enthusiastic if he were the nominee, compared to 37 percent who said they would be satisfied. Just 12 percent said they would be dissatisfied, while 16 percent said they would be upset...

More.

WATCH: Video Shows Suspect in Lynwood Shooting Brandishing Gun

ABC News reports, "Deadly LA Shooting Raises Questions: Was Suspect Unarmed?"

And at the Los Angeles Times, "Fuller narrative emerges after officials release new video of fatal Lynwood shooting."

Plus, watch at CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Donald Trump Surges to New High in Wall Street Journal/NBC News Poll

At WSJ, "Trump, Cruz Lead GOP Field; Support for Carson Plummets, Poll Finds":

Donald Trump has risen to a new high and Ben Carson’s support has plummeted among Republican primary voters after a tumultuous month of international and domestic terrorism, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll finds.

Mr. Trump leads the Republican field with 27% support, taking over the top position from Mr. Carson, who led in a late October Journal/NBC News survey.

Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas has vaulted into second place, amid signs that he has picked up former Carson supporters. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida placed third in the survey, but the poll also carried evidence that he stands to benefit most when the big field of GOP candidates is winnowed.

Mr. Carson, the retired neurosurgeon, dropped to fourth place, with 11% support, down from 29% in late October. As terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., heightened attention to national security in the past month, Mr. Carson has stumbled on foreign policy questions, and critics have raised doubts about his mastery of international affairs.

The shifts are a reminder that the large GOP presidential candidate field is still sorting itself out, less than two months before the nominating process begins with the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses.

Mr. Trump’s 27% support was his highest showing in Journal/NBC News polling this year and compares to 23% support in the prior survey, in late October. The results continue to defy the expectations of many political analysts and Trump rivals that the celebrity businessman’s candidacy would fade, or at least hit a ceiling, when its novelty wore off.

The poll suggests a new dynamic has arisen in the race, with Mr. Cruz becoming a formidable force. His spike in support—to 22% of GOP primary voters, up from 10% in late October—catapulted him to the poll’s No. 2 spot for the first time since the 2016 campaign began.

Mr. Cruz has been assiduously courting evangelical voters who had also been drawn to Mr. Carson, and the poll suggests his efforts are reaping benefits. Support for Mr. Cruz among “values voters”—those who most strongly support traditional marriage and oppose abortion rights—increased to 27%, from 14% in October. Meanwhile for Mr. Carson, support among those voters dropped to 14%, from 34% in October.

Similarly, Mr. Cruz’s support among voters who call themselves “very conservative’’ rose by 23 percentage points, while Mr. Carson’s support among that group dropped by 23 points.

“This is a good poll for Ted Cruz,’’ said Fred Yang, a Democratic pollster who helped conduct the survey with GOP pollster Bill McInturff. “He’s been doing things for the last 3-4-5 months that are now paying” off.

The poll offered little ground for cheer for former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, long ago considered the party’s front-runner, who like the rest of the field remained stuck with single-digit support.

Mr. Bush was the first choice of 7% of GOP primary voters; former Hewlett-Packard chief Carly Fiorina was first choice of 5%; former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie drew 3% each; and Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky each drew 2%.

The poll also tested what would happen if the field narrowed to only five candidates: Messrs. Trump, Cruz, Rubio, Carson and Bush...

More.

Attendance Skyrockets at Del Mar Gun Show (VIDEO)

At ABC News 10 San Diego:



Reminds me of a couple of years ago at the O.C. Fairgrounds, "Long Lines, Ammunition Shortages at Orange County Gun Show."

Smokin' Instagram Star Steph Claire Smith Wins Contract for Australian Lingerie Brand Intimo

She's really hot.

At London's Daily Mail, "An Insta-star on the rise! Social media darling Steph Claire Smith, 21, lands new modelling gig with lingerie brand Intimo."

Donald Trump's Rise Coincides with Decline of the Middle Class

At WaPo, "Charting Trump’s rise through the decline of the middle class":

For anyone trying to understand the emergence of Donald Trump as a force in this pre-election year, the Pew Research Center this past week provided some valuable insight. There’s little doubt that what has happened to America’s middle class has helped to create the climate that has fueled Trump’s sudden rise.

The Pew study charts the steady decline of the middle class over the past four decades. It is a phenomenon often discussed and analyzed, but the new findings highlight a tipping point: Those living in middle-class households no longer make up a majority of the population.

There has been a “hollowing out” of the middle class, as the study puts it. In 1971, the middle class accounted for 61 percent of the nation’s population. Today, there are slightly more people in the upper and lower economic tiers combined than in the middle class.

The report is not entirely gloomy. Every category gained in income between 1970 and 2014. Those in the top strata saw incomes rise by 47 percent. Middle-income Americans saw theirs rise by 34 percent. Those at the bottom saw the most modest increases, at 28 percent.

But the share of income accounted for by the middle class has plummeted over the past 4 1 / 2  decades. In 1970, middle-class households accounted for 62 percent of income; by 2014, it was just 43 percent. Meanwhile, the share held by those in upper-income households rose from 29 percent to 49 percent, eclipsing the middle class’s share.

The past 15 years have been particularly hard on wealth and income because of the recession of 2001 and the Great Recession of 2007-2009. For all groups, incomes rose from 1970 to 2000. In the next decade, incomes for all groups declined. During the past four years, incomes rose 3 percent for the wealthiest, 1 percent for middle-income Americans, and not at all for those with the lowest incomes. For those in the middle, the median income in 2014 was 4 percent lower than in 2000, according to the study.

For most families, the two recessions have wiped out previous gains and widened the wealth and income gap between the wealthiest and all others. “The losses were so large that only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth over the span of 30 years from 1983 to 2013,” according to the Pew study....

This is where the report connects directly to what’s happened politically this year. Pair those last findings from the Pew study with what recent polling shows about who supports Trump.

A recent Washington Post-ABC News survey found Trump leading his rivals overall, with 32 percent support among registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Among white people with college degrees, he was at 23 percent and led his nearest rival by only four percentage points. Among white people without a college degree, however, his support ballooned to 41 percent — double that of Ben Carson, who was second at 20 percent, and five times the support of Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Ted Cruz (Tex.), who were tied for third...

More.

In America and Europe, Right-Wing Populist Politicians Are on the March. The Threat is Real

Heh. The threat to American and European populations is from "right-wing populists," not global jihad terror?

And the Economist used to be a respectable news magazine.

Here, "Playing with fear."

Hat Tip: Instapundit, "When elites are weak, ineffectual, and dishonest — not to mention staggeringly corrupt — you get populism. If those, like The Economist, who purport to police the elites had done a better job over the past decade, maybe we wouldn’t have come to such a pass."

Kelsey Merritt Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Casting Call (VIDEO)

Lovely.

ICYMI, Winter Is Coming

At Amazon, from Garry Kasparov, Winter Is Coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the Enemies of the Free World Must Be Stopped.

Shop Tires & Wheels

At Amazon, Tires & Wheels in Automotive.

And here's the Automotive Gift Guide.

Plus, Truck Parts.

BONUS: Shop Amazon's Holiday Toy List - Toys That Go.

CBS 'Face the Nation' Roundtable: Will Donald Trump Become the GOP Nominee (VIDEO)

Who knows at this point?

My sense is, again, we're talking about things that no one else would be talking about, and that's an extremely important contribution. And I'm not ruling Trump out one bit. He could win the nomination, or at least cause the GOP to completely implode.

#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

Heavy Surf Pounds Ventura Pier (VIDEO)

Wild.

At the Ventura County Star, "Piers, campgrounds, roads closed due to high surf."

Cruz Wins Iowa, Trump Wins New Hampshire

Here's Matt Lewis, looking kinda prognostic, at the Telegraph UK, "Cruz wins Iowa, Trump wins New Hampshire - and the Republicans have a floor fight at the convention":

I haven’t seen anyone really go out on a limb yet and make predictions about the Republican primaries. So it's time to engage in some wildly premature political punditry.

This, of course, is risky. There are so many variables. What happens if one candidate drops out and scrambles things? What is more, factors in the political universe - say, God forbid, another terrorist attack - can quickly swing public opinion. (Remember how Ben Carson’s numbers declined after the Paris attacks?)

It is with all these caveats disclosed that I boldly present my picks.

The good news is that these predictions are based on a study of past primary elections, conducted by elections analyst Henry Olsen, who is the co-author of a new book, The Four Faces of The Republican Party.

If I were betting today, this is how I think things might play out in the New Year:

Texas Senator Ted Cruz wins Iowa on February 1. He’s surging there, having picked up several key endorsements, and his flavour of conservative evangelicalism matches the state’s Republican primary base. (Disclosure: my wife previously consulted on Mr Cruz’s US Senate campaign.)

A few days later, Donald Trump wins the New Hampshire primary. This is the one I’m least confident in. Trump is way ahead in the polls there, and he does surprisingly well with Republican moderates who make up the largest faction of the Granite State’s primary base (see John McCain’s success there).

Still, New Hampshire voters decide late and the state likes to surprise us by playing kingmaker. So someone like Chris Christie or Marco Rubio could conceivably mount a late surge.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio wins South Carolina on February 20. The Palmetto State is thought of as a very conservative state, but as Olsen points out, it “mirrors the nation” and usually goes for the “somewhat conservative” candidate that defines Rubio's constituency.


Cruz wins Nevada on February 23, and then performs very well in what has been dubbed the “SEC Primary” – a collections of Southern states that will hold their primaries on March 1.

At this point, Cruz will have momentum, but maybe not the numbers. His problem? Because of rules governing this primary process, delegates in these states are awarded proportionally. What this means is that Ted Cruz wouldn't receive all the delegates; he could conceivably run the table without really running up the delegate score.

After some smaller contests, the big states of Florida and Ohio vote on March 15. Importantly, these are “winner take all” states, meaning that the winner of these states could rapidly accrue delegates. And, assuming Rubio won South Carolina (my theory is that you have to win one of the first three states to remain viable), he should be well positioned to win these delegate-rich states...

Well, predictions are hard, especially about the future, heh.

More.

I'll hold off on my own predictions. I'm not so good at it, although I have a hunch Trump's going to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, which would give him enormous momentum going into the Southern states. But we'll see. We'll see.

No Political Guardrails

From Kim Strassel, at WSJ, "President Obama broke all the boundaries—and now Clinton and Trump are following suit":

Twenty-two years ago, my esteemed colleague Dan Henninger wrote a blockbuster Journal editorial titled “No Guardrails.” Its subject was people “who don’t think that rules of personal or civil conduct apply to them,” as well as the elites who excuse this lack of self-control and the birth of a less-civilized culture.

We are today witnessing the political version of this phenomenon. That’s how to make sense of a presidential race that grows more disconnected from normality by the day.

Barack Obama has done plenty of damage to the country, but perhaps the worst is his determined destruction of Washington’s guardrails. Mr. Obama wants what he wants. If ObamaCare is problematic, he unilaterally alters the law. If Congress won’t change the immigration system, he refuses to enforce it. If the nation won’t support laws to fight climate change, he creates one with regulation. If the Senate won’t confirm his nominees, he declares it in recess and installs them anyway. “As to limits, you set your own,” observed Dan in that editorial. This is our president’s motto.

Mr. Obama doesn’t need anyone to justify his actions, because he’s realized no one can stop him. He gets criticized, but at the same time his approach has seeped into the national conscience. It has set new norms. You see this in the ever-more-outrageous proposals from the presidential field, in particular front-runners Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump.

Mrs. Clinton routinely vows to govern by diktat. On Wednesday she unveiled a raft of proposals to punish companies that flee the punitive U.S. tax system. Mrs. Clinton will ask Congress to implement her plan, but no matter if it doesn’t. “If Congress won’t act,” she promises, “then I will ask the Treasury Department, when I’m there, to use its regulatory authority.”

Mrs. Clinton and fellow liberals don’t like guns and are frustrated that the duly elected members of Congress (including those from their own party) won’t strengthen background checks. So she has promised to write regulations that will unilaterally impose such a system.

On immigration, Mr. Obama ignored statute with executive actions to shield illegals from deportation. Mrs. Clinton brags that she will go much, much further with sweeping exemptions to immigration law.

For his part, Mr. Trump sent the nation into an uproar this week with his call to outright ban Muslims from entering the country. Is this legally or morally sound? Who cares! Mr. Trump specializes in disdain for the law, the Constitution, and any code of civilized conduct. Guardrails are for losers. He’d set up a database to track Muslims or force them to carry special IDs. He’d close mosques. He’d deport kids born on American soil. He’d seize Iraq’s oil fields. He’d seize remittance payments sent back to Mexico. He’d grab personal property for government use.

Mr. Obama’s dismantling of boundaries isn’t restrained to questions of law; he blew up certain political ethics, too. And yes there are—or used to be—such things. Think what you may about George W. Bush’s policies, but he respected the office of the presidency. He believed he represented all Americans. He didn’t demonize.

Today’s divisive president never misses an opportunity to deride Republicans or the tea party. He is more scornful toward fellow Americans than toward Islamic State. This too sets new norms. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid now uses the chamber to accuse individual citizens of being “un-American.” Asked recently what “enemy” she was most proud of making, Mrs. Clinton lumped “Republicans” in with “the Iranians.” Ted Cruz rose to prominence by mocking his Republican colleagues as “squishes.” Mr. Trump has disparaged women, the other GOP contenders, Iowans, wives, the disabled, Jews. (Granted, he might have done this even without Mr. Obama’s example.)

Can such leaders be trusted to administer Washington fairly? Of course not. That guardrail is also gone...

Sobering.

And there's still more.

Victoria's Secret Holiday Commercial 2015 (VIDEO)

It's the extended cut, via Theo Spark:

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.

'Big Shakeup' in Iowa as Ted Cruz Surges to Lead (VIDEO)

This has got tongues wagging, big time.

At the Des Moines Register, "'Big shakeup' in Iowa Poll: Cruz soars to lead":

Seven weeks from the caucuses, Ted Cruz is crushing it in Iowa.

The anti-establishment congressional agitator has made a rapid ascent into the lead in the GOP presidential race here, with a 21 percentage-point leap that smashes records for upsurges in recent Iowa caucuses history.

Donald Trump, now 10 points below Cruz, was in a pique about not being front-runner even before the Iowa Poll results were announced Saturday evening. He wasted no time in tearing into Cruz — and the poll — during an Iowa stop Friday night.

Ben Carson, another "Washington outsider" candidate, has plunged 15 points from his perch at the front of the pack in October. He's now in third place.

"Big shakeup," said J. Ann Selzer, pollster for The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll. "This is a sudden move into a commanding position for Cruz."

Cruz, a Texas U.S. senator famous for defying party leaders and using government shutdown tactics to hold up funding for the Obamacare health care law and abortion provider Planned Parenthood, was the favorite of 10 percent of likely Republican caucusgoers in the last Iowa Poll in October. He's now at 31 percent.

Carson's zenith was 28 percent in the poll two months ago. Trump's highest support was 23 percent back in August, when he led the field by 5 points.

And there are signs Cruz may not have peaked in Iowa yet. Another 20 percent of likely caucusgoers say he's their current second choice for president. Cruz hits 51 percent support when first- and second-choice interest is combined, again leading the field.

With Cruz's popularity and his debate proficiency, "it's certainly possible that he could win Iowa big — very big," said Frank Luntz, a Nevada-based GOP focus group guru who follows the Iowa race closely...

Keep reading.

ADDED: From Bloomberg, "Cruz Soars to Front of the Pack in Iowa Poll; Trump Support Stays Flat." (At Memeorandum.)

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.

Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points Memo: 'Explaining the Trump Surge' (VIDEO)

Watch, from last night, at Fox News, "Explaining the Trump surge."

Carly Fiorina's Not 'Snarling' at CNN's Chris Cuomo (VIDEO)

Here's Tom Boggioni --- the leftist idiot 'TBogg' --- at Raw Story (via Memeorandum), "WATCH: Carly Fiorina snarls at CNN host after he confronts her over Planned Parenthood smears."

She's not "snarling."

Watch for yourself, "Fiorina gets heated over Planned Parenthood."

Why Trump's Muslim Ban Resonates

From David Horowitz, at Front Page Magazine, "Who's the Crazy One?":

Presidential candidate Donald Trump has called for a moratorium on Muslim immigration until we can figure out why Islamic terrorists have been able to enter our country and devised ways to protect ourselves. This has caused the left and right establishments to dogpile on Trump. Echoing the sentiments of virtually all Democrats and many Republicans, a Washington Post editorial has declared that Trump’s proposal disqualifies him as a candidate because in the Post’s view what he recommends is unconstitutional and therefore un-American. But President Obama has issued executive orders – as it happens orders that sabotage our borders - that he himself has called unconstitutional (“I don’t have the authority to stop deportations”).  Has the Post editorialized that this is un-American and disqualifies him for the presidency? Has it called for Obama to be impeached? Have Democrats ridiculed Obama for his un-American prescriptions?

Consider the nature of the threat. A 2009 “World Opinion” survey by the University of Maryland showed that between 30 and 50% of Muslims in Jordan, Egypt and other Islamic countries approved of the terrorist attacks on America and that only a minority of Muslims “entirely disapproved” of them. ISIS has acknowledged its plans to use refugee programs to infiltrate its terrorists into the United States and other infidel countries. In Minneapolis we have a Somali refugee community many of whose members have returned to Syria to fight for ISIS. Other Muslim immigrants like Major Hassan and Tashfeen Malik have carried out barbaric acts of terror here at home. Today Muslim terrorists are using assault rifles and pipe bombs, but we know they have Sarin gas and other chemical weapons which they might use tomorrow. The terrorists inexorably arrive along with the other immigrants, no one in authority apparently knowing who’s who. Who, then, in his right mind does not think that Muslim immigration poses a serious security threat to us?

The outrage against Trump should properly have been directed at our president who refuses to identify the enemy as Islamic terrorism, who has opened the door to nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to the Islamic America-haters in Iran, whose policies have created the vacuums that ISIS has filled, and who even after Paris and San Bernardino is determined to bring 100,000 immigrants from Syrian war zones to our unprotected shores. This outrage is missing and it is precisely because it is missing that Trump’s unconstitutional proposal resonates with so many rightly concerned Americans. When the man in charge of our security is by general consensus out to lunch in regard to fighting the war on Islamic terror, or protecting us at home, a proposal like Trump’s, which at least recognizes the threat, is going to resonate with the public.

In middle of a crisis of national security, the Democratic Party seems to think that climate change and especially gun ownership are greater threats to our survival than the one that comes from hundreds of millions of Muslims who think America should be attacked and who believe the whole world should be put under medieval Islamic law. In the face of this threat, the Democratic Party and its leaders seem to have no problem with the fact that we have more than 350 “Sanctuary Cities” that are dedicated to sabotaging our immigration laws; that we have no southern border and as a result have 179,000 illegal alien criminals and who knows how many terrorists in our country today.

Once again we have Trump to thank for changing the surreal conversation about whether having a border at all is compatible with American values, and forcing people to focus on the dangers we face. Republicans are generally defenders of this country, but not in this controversy over Donald Trump. Would that they would use the same ridicule and outrage over the Democrats’ many betrayals of our country and its citizens through proposals to expose us to our enemies as they do over a proposal to protect us from them. Trump’s idea may be unconstitutional and unworkable, but it springs from a desire that is honorable and patriotic. The appropriate response would be to propose alternatives that recognize the same dangers and serve the same ends but do so within constitutional limits.

Donald Trump’s great contribution is saying the unsayable; putting things on the table that would otherwise be buried; calling a spade a spade in a time when political correctness has made us unable to discuss things that have to do with our basic national survival.  This is the crux of the issue.  Every time he creates a controversy like this he also tells this country that its emperors, Republican and Democrat, have no clothes. That they prefer propriety over defending the country.  That they are dedicated only to keeping the lid on a cauldron of threat and challenge they have allowed to boil over.

The 2016 election will be a referendum on the defense of this country and its survival. Let’s see who answers the call.

Donald Trump's Polling Obsession

At Politico, "The Republican front-runner's faith in the numbers is about to be tested yet again":

Week after week, month after month, Donald Trump has led nearly every poll. And it hasn't been close.

From New Hampshire, to South Carolina — and nationwide, the Manhattan mogul has commanded strong leads across a heap of surveys, despite — or perhaps because of — intemperate remarks that would doom anyone else. Now, after Trump's widely denounced call to bar Muslims from entering the U.S., the puzzled political world is again on the edge of its collective seat, wondering: Is this what finally brings him down?

It's an existential question: Poll numbers are, unlike perhaps any candidate in history, central to Trump's pitch to voters. In his telephone and in-person morning talk show interviews and his evening rallies, not to mention on his hyperactive Twitter account, he rarely lets an opportunity escape without mentioning his titanic standing. "Wow, my poll numbers have just been announced and have gone through the roof!" Trump tweeted Thursday morning.

And yet, unlike rivals who spend thousands on expensive gurus and polling firms, Trump doesn't even employ a pollster, as he often boasts. "My pollster's me," he said at an Iowa rally last week.

One Trump insider likens Trump's obsession with his poll numbers to a TV executive's hunger for ratings: "It’s a barometer of success."

But the polls also serve a legitimizing function for a candidate who has been dismissed all along as unelectable, this person added. "Strategically, it’s made his candidacy look as if it were feasible to primary voters."

And in an indication of the symbiotic relationship between Trump and those who cover him, sometimes Trump even knows the results of his national polling before the embargo lifts.

During an interview with CBS' "Face the Nation" aired Oct. 11, the show featured a segment taped the previous Friday, Oct. 9, in which host John Dickerson shared with Trump that 60 percent of registered voters did not find him honest and trustworthy, among other results collected between Oct. 4 and 8.

Pollsters have watched Trump's fixation with their work with a mixture of fascination and revulsion.

"He is given a big assist by the media when it persists in focusing on the 'horse race' in [a] way that overstates its importance, such as talking about who is in third versus fourth place, even though the polling error suggests there may be no discernible difference between the two," said Monmouth University polling director Patrick Murray. "As someone who Trump has hailed as either a hero or a goat depending on our poll numbers that day, it’s fascinating to watch. Trump saw an opening in the marketplace and decided to harness a pre-existing inclination, especially at this early stage, to reduce elections to popularity contests."

Through the course of his campaign, Trump has also touted polls with shakier methodology, such as unscientific post-debate polls on Drudge Report and online surveys with brief response windows, trashing those showing a name other than Trump in the No. 1 spot.

In a late October CBS News/New York Times poll, for example, Trump trailed Ben Carson by 4 points nationally, days after a separate ABC News/Washington Post survey "that nobody wanted to use" showed him up by 10 points on Carson. Trump groused in an interview with MSNBC's "Morning Joe" on Nov. 5 that the media covered the CBS/NYT poll "bigger than Benghazi."

"And I never really understood it, but that's the way the world of politics works, I guess," he said.

Trump doles out praise for outlets as well. After a favorable poll release from CNN last week, for instance, he tweeted his thanks to the network and political team for "very professional reporting."

It remains to be seen what effect, if any, the businessman's proposed Muslim entry ban will have on his polling nationally and in the early voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada. But betting that Trump would fade after outlandish comments has proven foolish before...

Actually, we already know: Trump's Muslim comments have given him a fresh boost in public opinion, and have freaked out the Democrats, especially Hillary Clinton.

I'm loving it!

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.

Did Trump Just Win?

From James Taranto, at WSJ:

#BestoftheWeb Did Trump Just Win? His Muslim-exclusion idea is likely to prove popular, by @jamestaranto https://t.co/Cn7V8z4v9v via @WSJ

— James Taranto (@jamestaranto) December 8, 2015

Call Islamic Terrorism by Its Name

From Rudy Giuliani, at WSJ:

In 1983 when I was the U.S. attorney in New York, I used the word “Mafia” in describing some people we arrested or indicted. The Italian American Civil Rights League—which was founded by Joe Colombo, one of the heads of New York’s notorious five families—and some other similar groups complained that I was defaming all Italians by using that term. In fact, I had violated a Justice Department rule prohibiting U.S. attorneys from employing the term Mafia. The little-known rule had been inserted by Attorney General John Mitchell in the early 1970s at the behest of Mario Biaggi, a congressman from New York.

I had a different view of using the term Mafia. It reflected the truth. The Mafia existed, and denying what people oppressed by those criminals knew to be true only gave the Mafia more power. This hesitancy to identify the enemy accurately and honestly—“Mafia” was how members described themselves and kept its identity Italian or Italian-American—created the impression that the government was incapable of combating them because it was unable even to describe the enemy correctly.

Similarly, you may hear about ISIS or ISIL or Daesh, but make no mistake: The terrorists refer to themselves as members of Islamic State. Just as it would have been foolish to fail to use the word Mafia or admit its Italian identity, it is foolish to refuse to call these Islamic terrorists by the name they give themselves or to refuse to acknowledge their overriding religious rationale.

Yes, it is essential to emphasize to the public the distinction between Islam and Islamic terrorists. That education has been in progress in the U.S. at least since 9/11. I recall that during my last press briefing on that horrific day, I urged New Yorkers not use the barbaric attacks to attach group blame—for doing so would mirror the sort of thinking that inspired the terrorists. President George W. Bush and New York Gov. George Pataki made similar appeals, and the American people overwhelmingly took that idea to heart, and still do. They knew that the attacks were the actions of people with a warped, evil interpretation of the Islamic religion.

Yet it is also essential to acknowledge that there are portions of the Islamic texts that are used by these terrorists to justify mass murder in the name and for the propagation of their faith. Unfortunately, this confusion between the religion and those who pervert its meaning is exacerbated by the Obama administration and others in prominent leadership positions who engage in euphemisms or misdirection regarding Islamic terrorism. They make it seem that they see no connection between the acts of terror and the terrorists’ interpretation of Islamic teaching and Shariah law.

For example: It was and is ludicrous for the administration to describe Nidal Hasan’s attack at the Fort Hood Army base in Texas in 2009 as “workplace violence,” particularly since as he was committing the murders he was yelling “Allahu akbar”—Allah is great. The administration was similarly reluctant to describe the San Bernardino attacks last week as terrorism, much less as Islamic terrorism, even as evidence mounted making clear the nature of the attack...

Actually, it's "Allah is greater," thus justifying murder of those with a lesser god, the infidels.

But keep reading.

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:

Jackie Johnson's Friday Forecast

Looks like some of that El Niño precipitation hit Northern California yesterday, and we had a little rain down this way.

They say it's going to be a very rainy season, but here's Jackie:

Republicans Preparing for Brokered Convention

I think it's great!

I love how American politics is completely out of whack!

At WaPo, "GOP preparing for contested convention":

Republican officials and leading figures in the party’s establishment are preparing for the possibility of a brokered convention as businessman Donald Trump continues to sit atop the polls in the GOP presidential race.

More than 20 of them convened Monday near the Capitol for a dinner held by Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus, and the prospect of Trump nearing next year’s nominating convention in Cleveland with a significant number of delegates dominated the discussion, according to five people familiar with the meeting.

Weighing in on that scenario as Priebus and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) listened, several longtime Republican power brokers argued that if the controversial billionaire storms through the primaries, the party’s establishment must lay the groundwork for a floor fight in which the GOP’s mainstream wing could coalesce around an alternative, the people said.

The development represents a major shift for veteran Republican strategists, who until this month had spoken of a brokered convention only in the most hypothetical terms — and had tried to encourage a drama-free nomination by limiting debates and setting an earlier convention date.

Now, those same leaders see a floor fight as a real possibility. And so does Trump, who said in an interview last week that he, too, is preparing.

Because of the sensitivity of the topic — and because they are wary of saying something that, if leaked, would provoke Trump to bolt the party and mount an independent bid — Priebus and McConnell were mostly quiet during the back-and-forth. They did not signal support for an overt anti-Trump effort.

But near the end, McConnell and Priebus acknowledged to the group that a deadlocked convention is something the party should prepare for, both institutionally within the RNC and politically at all levels in the coming months...

Still more at that top link.

Trump's No Longer a Laughing Matter for the Democrats

Shit's getting real.

At the New York Times, "To Democrats, Donald Trump Is No Longer a Laughing Matter":

WATERLOO, Iowa — Until Monday, when Donald J. Trump proposed a ban on Muslims entering the United States, Hillary Clinton could hardly keep herself from laughing at the mention of his name. “I’m sorry, I can’t help it,” she told ABC News on Sunday, letting out a giggle that made advisers squirm.

She is no longer laughing.

At a town hall here on Wednesday, Mrs. Clinton delivered her most damning, direct criticism of Mr. Trump, saying that he traffics “in prejudice and paranoia,” and that his Muslim proposal was “not only shameful, it’s dangerous.”

But Mrs. Clinton also strove to recognize something stirring in the electorate that Mr. Trump had clearly tapped into. “It’s O.K., it’s O.K. to be afraid,” she said. “When bad things happen, it does cause anxiety and fear,” she added. “But then you pull yourself together and, especially, if you want to be a leader of our country, and you say:‘O.K., what are we going to do about it? How are we going to be prepared?’”

The remarks bore little resemblance to Mrs. Clinton’s previous dismissals of Mr. Trump, [sic] She had portrayed him as a reality television sideshow who voiced more extreme terms beliefs that, she contended, his more serious G.O.P. rivals shared.

But since Mr. Trump’s response to the Dec. 2 terrorist attack in San Bernardino, Calif., Mrs. Clinton and her campaign, confounded by his continued strength in the polls, have had to rethink how they handle Mr. Trump and what his candidacy, and the anger in the electorate that has fueled it, means for her chances in 2016.

Some of her own voters are giving her reason to.

Bennie Stickley, a 75-year-old in Gilbertville, Iowa, who retired from a John Deere factory, said he was supporting Mrs. Clinton but agrees with Mr. Trump’s proposal to bar Muslims. “I’m for him on that,” he said. “We shouldn’t be letting those people into the country,” he added...

Yeah, when Trump starts to siphon off Clinton's supporters on the Muslim issue, it's not too funny anymore, heh.

Still more.

Image Credit: Theodore on Twitter.

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.”