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.”

Top Gift Ideas

For the holidays, Amazon Gift Ideas.

More, Shop Fashion - Holiday Gift Guide.

Plus, UGG Australia Women's Dakota Suede Slipper.

Also, Kindle Keyboard, Wi-Fi, 6" E Ink Display, and Fire Kids Edition, 7" Display, Wi-Fi, 8 GB, Pink Kid-Proof Case.

BONUS: From Saul Friedlander, Nazi Germany and the Jews, 1939-1945: The Years of Extermination.

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.

Russian Submarine Targets Islamic State from Mediterranean Sea (VIDEO)

Via Ruptly:

College Students Don't Believe in Free Speech

They say they do, in principle. But when you ask them, they favor all kinds of restrictions on speech, or, at least those students interviewed at Occidental College, for Reason TV.

An excellent clip:

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.

Sexy Surfers Nage Melamed, Angie Svinarenko, and Kandace Wolshin (VIDEO)

A lovely trio:

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.

Route 66 Outtakes - Hannah Ferguson Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2015 (VIDEO)

Fabulous.

The Right to Bear Arms Isn't Up for Debate

From Charles C.W. Cooke, at the Washington Post:

It is from this understanding that all conversations must proceed. The Second Amendment is not “old”; it is timeless. It is not “unclear”; it is obvious. It is not “embarrassing”; it is fundamental. And, as much as anything else, it is a vital indicator of the correct relationship between the citizen and the state and a reminder of the unbreakable sovereignty of the individual. Unless those calling for greater restrictions learn to acknowledge this at the outset of any public discussion, they will continue to get nowhere in their deliberations.

RTWT.

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:

FBI Investigating Enrique Marquez in #SanBernardino Jihad Massacre (VIDEO)

At the New York Times, "San Bernardino Couple Spoke of Attacks in 2013, F.B.I. Says."

And here's Jan Crawford, for CBS Evening News:

Jackie Johnson's Got Your Thursday Forecast

It's been mild this week.

Donald Trump on 'O'Reilly Factor': What's Important 'Is That We Have Security for Our Country' (VIDEO)

He's a master.

A master troll. A master PR hacker. A master ringmaster. He's running circles around the entire political system. And he's completely unperturbed as the rest of the entire world melts down. It's pretty amazing.

Poll: 65% of Likely Republican Primary Voters Back Donald Trump's Ban on Muslim Entry

This is awesome!

At Bloomberg, "Bloomberg Politics Poll: Nearly Two-Thirds of Likely GOP Primary Voters Back Trump's Muslim Ban" (at Memeorandum):

Almost two-thirds of likely 2016 Republican primary voters favor Donald Trump's call to temporarily ban Muslims from entering the U.S., while more than a third say it makes them more likely to vote for him.

Those are some of the findings from a Bloomberg Politics/Purple Strategies PulsePoll, an online survey conducted Tuesday, that shows support at 37 percent among all likely general-election voters for the controversial proposal put forward by the Republican front-runner.

“We believe these numbers are made up of some people who are truly expressing religious bigotry and others who are fearful about terrorism and are willing to do anything they think might make us safer,” Doug Usher, who runs polling for Washington-based Purple Strategies, said in his analysis of the findings. "This indicates that, despite some conventional wisdom expressed in the last 48 hours, this is unlikely to hurt Trump at least in the primary campaign."

More.

Studio Headphones

At Amazon, Pro and DJ Headphones.

And for under the tree, from Greg Gutfield, The Joy of Hate: How to Triumph over Whiners in the Age of Phony Outrage.

BONUS: From Howard Schwartz, Society Against Itself: Political Correctness and Organizational Self-Destruction.

Surge in Gun Sales in Southern California (VIDEO)

Yeah, we've got loads of Islamophobes around here. Leftists are telling us that gun owners are horrible people. And this rush to purchase firearms is predicated on fear. As if it's unnatural to be worried about your safety when Islamists are trying to kill you.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Suddenly, there's a surge in interest to buy guns around San Bernardino."

Angela Merkel is TIME's Person of the Year

Well, she gets this accolade right before the CDU (and the voters) throw her out on her ass.

See, "Chancellor of the Free World."

Angela Merkel is TIME’s 2015 Person of the Year #TIMEPOY https://t.co/Be7EjFlRS2 pic.twitter.com/3YLPZJYSlq

— TIME.com (@TIME) December 9, 2015

Donald Trump Stands By Proposal to Ban Muslims to the U.S. (VIDEO)

I love this debate.

I love that Muslims have been placed on warning, them, and their leftist enablers.

At CBS News This Morning:

San Bernardino Jihadists May Have Used $28,500 Online Loan to Buy Weapons

It's been a week now since the massacre and the revelations of diabolical homegrown radical jihad just keep piling up.

At LAT, "Online loan may have helped couple fund their terror arsenal in San Bernardino attack":

In the weeks before the San Bernardino massacre, the husband-and-wife assailants obtained a $28,500 loan — an advance that authorities believe may have helped them acquire last-minute firearms, ammunition and components to build explosives, two federal officials said Tuesday.

The loan offers investigators a key new detail as they try to unravel how Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik plotted the deadliest terrorist attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. The money could also explain how they managed to pay for target practice at local gun ranges, as well as the rental sport utility vehicle they used during the Dec. 2 attack, the officials said.

Authorities were also looking into whether they left a device — made up of three bundled pipe bombs and remote-control car parts — that was intended to harm police responding to the shooting at the Inland Regional Center, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the investigation who requested anonymity in order to speak candidly.

Police radio chatter on the day of the shootings, in which 14 people were killed, mentioned a “suspicious device” in or near the conference room where the attack occurred. “We need to slow things down,” an officer ordered after the device was located. “I need you to advise all the units to move with caution.”

Left in a canvas bag, the device mirrored the crude explosives that dot the pages of Al Qaeda's “Inspire,” a publication pored over by radicals seeking guidance in planning attacks, multiple sources told The Times.

Bomb technicians do not believe the device would have detonated, the law enforcement source said, adding that the building's sprinkler system was activated during the shooting and water damage could have caused the device to malfunction.

The global investigation into the attackers' backgrounds and any possible ties to larger terror networks has examined the couple's finances.

Farook, an environmental health inspector for San Bernardino County, earned about $50,000 a year, while his wife stayed home with their 6-month-old daughter. They lived in a modest, rented town house in Redlands.

The couple received a $28,500 loan from San Francisco online lender Prosper Marketplace just weeks before the San Bernardino massacre, according to Fortune and Bloomberg News.

Prosper is a leading player in the burgeoning world of online, peer-to-peer lending, acting as a middleman matching borrowers and investors who fund their loans.

These loans are usually faster to obtain, larger and carry lower interest rates than credit cards.

People familiar with the industry say it's exceedingly unlikely that Prosper or similar lenders could have allowed terrorist groups to finance the rampage.

Borrowers first must go through the same kind of credit check used for any other credit card or loan. In addition to a standard credit check, the company, like traditional banks, runs applicants' names through a federal database of terrorists, drug traffickers and others who are prohibited from conducting business in the United States, Prosper spokeswoman Sarah Cain said...

Keep reading.

Sexiest Outtakes - Lily Aldridge Sports Illustrated Swimsuit 2015 (VIDEO)

She's fabulous:

Donald Trump Raises the Stakes

We live in interesting times, that's for sure.

At the Washington Post, "Along with Trump’s rhetoric, the stakes for 2016 have risen dramatically":

Donald Trump continues to go where no recent candidate for president has gone before, plunging the Republican Party — and the nation — into another round in the tumultuous debate about immigration, national identity, terrorism and the limits of tolerance.

Trump’s call for a ban on Muslims entering the United States marked a sudden and sizable escalation — and in this case one that sent shockwaves around the world — in the inflammatory and sometimes demagogic rhetoric of the candidate who continues to lead virtually every national and state poll testing whom Republicans favor for their presidential nomination.

Nothing in modern politics equates with the kind of rhetoric now coming from Candidate Trump. There are no perfect analogies. One must scroll back decades for echoes, however imperfect, of what he is saying, from the populist and racially based appeals of then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1968 and 1972 to the anti-Semitic diatribes of the radio preacher Charles Coughlin during the 1930s.

Historian David Kennedy of Stanford University said there are few comparisons, adding that, in branding an entire religious class of people as not welcome, Trump “is further out there than almost anyone in the annals of [U.S.] history.”

From the day he announced his candidacy in June, Trump has continually tested the limits of what a candidate can say and do with apparent political impunity. In that sense, he has played by a different set of rules. In the wake of his latest provocation, the question arises once again: Will this finally stop him? Everything to date suggests those who believe it should be tentative in their predictions.

Those already drawn to Trump have shown remarkable willingness to accept the worst and continue to support him. In reality, it will be another 60 days or more for any definitive answers to emerge. Only when voters begin to make their decisions in the caucuses and primaries that begin in February will the final verdict be delivered on the size and strength of the movement that has rallied behind him...

Really? We have to wait for the primaries to see if Trump's supporters will stay true? Actually, no. The billionaire iconoclast is already surging further ahead in the polls. The only people who are upset by this are media hacks and leftists (but I repeat myself).

See CNN, for example, "Trump nearly doubles lead in New Hampshire."

Under Armour Men's Charged Cotton Crew Socks

Heh, nice socks.

At Amazon, Under Armour Men's Charged Cotton Crew Socks (Pack of 6), Black, Large.

And from Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Heretic: Why Islam Needs a Reformation Now.

Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik #SanBernardino Terrorist Attack Planned Years in Advance (VIDEO)

Farook may have abandoned a planned 2012 attack after getting spooked by authorities.

More from Pamela Brown, at CNN, "Sources: Farook planned another attack years ago."

And at the S.B. Sun, "FBI: Syed Farook, Tashfeen Malik pre-planned San Bernardino attack."

Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit

Following-up, "Donald Trump's Plan Would Survive Constitutional Challenge."

This has got to drive leftists batshit crazy (or crazier).

At NYT:

WASHINGTON — When Donald J. Trump called on Monday for “a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States,” many legal scholars were aghast and said that such a ban would certainly be struck down by courts as blatantly unconstitutional.

But on Tuesday Mr. Trump clarified his proposal, saying that he would exclude only foreign Muslims, not Muslim American citizens who travel abroad and then seek to come home. That distinction, legal specialists said, made it far less likely the courts would strike it down.

“If a person is a Muslim, goes overseas and comes back, they can come back,” Mr. Trump said on ABC. “They’re a citizen. That’s different.”

Several legal scholars who specialize in immigration, international and constitutional law said a policy of excluding all foreign Muslims from visiting the United States would still be “ludicrously discriminatory and overwrought,” as Gerald L. Neuman, a Harvard Law School professor, put it. But he said that it was far from clear that the Supreme Court would block it.

Under a provision of immigration law, Congress has already delegated to the president broad power to issue a proclamation indefinitely blocking “the entry of any class of aliens into the United States” that he or she thinks would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” No president has ever used that power in such a sweeping way, but the text provides a potential statutory basis for a President Trump to carry out his plan, specialists said.

Still, if Mr. Trump won the White House and invoked that power as a justification to bar all foreign Muslims, people affected by that policy inside the United States — like a person seeking reunification with a family member, or a university that wanted to invite someone to come speak — could file a lawsuit challenging it.

Several legal questions would be raised by such a policy...

Interesting.

Trump has done the country a monumental favor just opening up this issue for discussion. This could be the beginning of the repeal of the 1965 Teddy Kennedy open immigration act. Seriously. A "Muslim Exclusion Act" by executive authority? God, that would be brilliant!

More at that top link.