Report: Public Opinion Polls Probably Underestimate Donald Trump's Popular Support

I argued that the polls were underestimating Trump's strength back in the summer months, particularly with reference to the left's monstrous sanctuary city policies. And now here comes statistical evidence that polls are likely shorting the Manhattan real estate developer's support.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Polls may actually underestimate Trump's support, study finds":

Donald Trump leads the GOP presidential field in polls of Republican voters nationally and in most early-voting states, but some surveys may actually be understating his support, a new study suggests.

The analysis, by Morning Consult, a polling and market research company, looked at an odd occurrence that has cropped up repeatedly this year: Trump generally has done better in online polls than in surveys done by phone.

The firm conducted an experiment aimed at understanding why that happens and which polls are more accurate -- online surveys that have tended to show Trump with support of nearly four-in-10 GOP voters or the telephone surveys that have typically shown him with the backing of one-third or fewer.

Their results suggest that the higher figure probably provides the more accurate measure. Some significant number of Trump supporters, especially those with college educations, are "less likely to say that they support him when they’re talking to a live human” than when they are in the “anonymous environment” of an online survey, said the firm's polling director, Kyle Dropp.

With Trump dominating political debates in both parties, gauging his level of support has become a crucial puzzle. The Morning Consult study provides one piece of the solution, although many other uncertainties remain.

Among the complicating factors is this: The gap between online and telephone surveys has narrowed significantly in surveys taken in the last few weeks. That could suggest that Republicans who were reluctant to admit to backing Trump in the past have become more willing to do so recently.

Another issue is that not only can polls change over time, but Trump's support in pre-election surveys might not fully translate into actual votes. He has not invested as heavily as some of his GOP rivals in building the kind of get-out-the-vote operation that candidates typically rely on, particularly in early voting states.

Some of the polls that show heavy support for Trump have also shown him doing better among self-identified independents who lean Republican than among regular GOP voters. At least some of those independents may not be in the habit of voting in primaries and caucuses, which could make a robust turnout operation even more necessary.

On the other hand, a candidate of Trump's level of celebrity may simply not need much of a get-out-the-vote operation. No one really knows...

And that was something I also suggested, in my post the other day, "Donald Trump Campaign Lags in Mobilizing Iowa Caucus Voters." With Trump's celebrity, is old-time voter mobilization passé?

We won't know until February.

But keep reading.

Police Shut Down Mathilde Grafström Photography Exhibition

Heh, a little too naturalistic, it turns out.

At London's Daily Mail, "Police shut down photo exhibition of naked women because they’re too ‘indecent’ for display in public square."

And check it out, at the Mathilde Grafström homepage.

Ah, very natural, you might say.

Season 5 Finale of 'Homeland'

Hmm, it was a pretty surprising finale.

Spoilers ahead, at WSJ, "‘Homeland’ Season 5 Finale: An Intelligence Expert Weighs In."

Once You've Declared 'War' on Bourgeois Values, You're Pretty Much Screwed

Postcards from the nihilist left. See David Thompson, via Ed Driscoll, at Instapundit:

“LEFTIST POSTURING IS OFTEN ANTITHETICAL TO PRACTICAL SUCCESS AND PRACTICAL HAPPINESS,” David Thompson writes:

To take a vivid and familiar example, imagine if your children, nieces and nephews took to heart the operatic blatherings of Laurie Penny, who tells her readers to “Fuck social mobility… Fuck money. Fuck rising above your class… Fuck marriage, mortgage, monogamy, and every other small, ugly ambition.” These, she says, are things “we should have abandoned.”

Well, okay. But where exactly does that leave a young person, or a person not-so-young? Once you’ve declared “war” on bourgeois values, once you’ve abandoned the conventional foundations of material and emotional reward, where do you go? How will that radicalism serve you later in life, when you’re no longer a stroppy teenager or a twenty-something poseur? Is a mix of contrarianism, hypocrisy, resentment and a colossal sense of entitlement a sound footing for an adult life? After all, those “small, ugly ambitions” are what gave Laurie her own comfortable upbringing and advantages in life, such that she can now flit around the world tweeting about how oppressed she is.

As noted before, it’s one of the classic problems for self-imagined radicals. In denouncing bourgeois habits (usually while enjoying the benefits of such behaviour, at least residually), they have little of practical use to offer their followers. If you do away with marriage, monogamy, responsibility, deferred gratification, personal territory, etc., you’re basically left with a recipe for failure, dependency and unhappiness. Though of course the resentment that follows can be very useful to would-be prophets of the left. If encouraging needless misery, and then exploiting it, is your thing...

The hideous prog-trolls who used to comment here used to hate being called nihilists, but that's exactly what they are.

Still more.

Suicide Bomber Kills Six American Soldiers In Afghanistan (VIDEO)

At the Wall Street Journal, "Bomb Kills Six American Troops in Afghanistan."

Actually, a "bomber" killed the troops. The bomb itself was just the weapon of destruction.

Yuliya Lasmovich's Lovely Lingerie Shoot

Well, I'm really into Russian history --- and culture, lol.

On Instagram. (And Maxim, "WHAT A BEAUTIFUL GIRL WANTS: YULIYA LASMOVICH.")

And at the Superficial, "Yuliya Lasmovich Lingerie Photos."

One Dead and Dozens Injured as Driver 'Intentionally' Rams Pedestrians on Las Vegas Strip (VIDEO)

At the Los Angeles Times, "One person killed, 37 injured after car hits pedestrians on Las Vegas Strip."

Also at the Las Vegas Sun, "At least one dead, 36 injured when car strikes pedestrians on the Strip."

The suspect is identified as motherfucking black bitch Lakeisha Holloway.

More from last night, at ABC News 13 Las Vegas:

Buy The German War with Two-Day Shipping

I think my mom's going to give me Nicholas Stargardt's, The German War: A Nation Under Arms, 1939–1945, for Christmas.

Well, at least I asked for it, lol. Who knows what she picks up, heh.

Remember though, if I like it, it might take me weeks to read Orlando Figes', A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924, so we'll see. It's really long, but I'm fascinated by Soviet history right now, for some reason.

Actually, I've been meaning to get back to reading Nazi history. I started Michael Burleigh's, The Third Reich: A New History, a year or two back, and I've been meaning to return to it. It's also one of those massive Tolstoy-esque tomes, so it might not be for awhile. I'll go for Stargardt first and then decide. Not only that, there's a lot of good works in American political science I need to read, especially on the voting patterns of Millennials.

More on that later though.

Shop for Stargardt at Amazon. Click two-day shipping to receive it in time for Christmas.

Starting Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy

I've finished Stephen Kotkin's, Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928.

I'm going to pick up now with Orlando Figes', A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924.

It really needs to grab my attention, for it's another lengthy tome (longer than Kotkin's book, excluding notes, at 824 pages).

In any case, I love this time of year!

Shop for it Amazon.

Finished Stephen Kotkin's Stalin

An amazing book.

It's projected as the first of three volumes, and if volume 2 was available, I'd start reading it right now.

In any case, if you're still shopping, Amazon's got two-day shipping in time for Christmas.

Here, Stephen Kotkin, Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928.

3.1 Earthquake Hits Near Costa Mesa

It was a pretty decent shaker, of course I'm located just a few miles away from the epicenter.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Earthquake: 3.1 quake strikes near Costa Mesa."

I tweeted right when it hit.

Earthquake!

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 20, 2015

'CBS wanted its own tidy narrative of patriotic Muslims who have no problem with this president...'

Following-up, "Muslims in America Focus Group (VIDEO)."

At Instapundit, "THE PALACE GUARD DEFENDS THE PALACE: CBS Edited Out Harsh Critique of Obama, U.S. ‘Militarism’ by Muslim Focus Group":

“They ripped into Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but CBS wanted its own tidy narrative of patriotic Muslims who have no problem with this president.”

Plus:

He shut me down when I said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton has killed many Muslims under the administration when we were discussing Trump, and ironically for a GOP strategist, he shut me down when I talked about how Democrats have enacted some of the most deadliest and discriminatory policies against Muslims. . . .

The edited version of the focus group interview was mainly about proving our American identity, condemning terrorism, and Trump’s bashing of Muslim-Americans. This is problematic.

He kept saying how he felt bad that no one listens to Muslims and how he wanted to give us an opportunity to talk to the general population. But how can that happen when we’re manipulatively edited to have us fit their own narrative and agenda?

They call that journalism, these days. Interesting that they muted criticism of Obama and Hillary, but focused on complaints about Trump.

The Democrats Are Totally Unserious (VIDEO)

From Noah Rothman, at Commentary, "Not a Serious Party":

Democrats are understandably enjoying themselves as Republicans flirt with handing their presidential nomination over to an individual who is objectively unqualified in character, experience, and temperament for the job. They shouldn’t be begrudged a moment or two of schadenfreude as their opposition elevates their only candidate who consistently loses and loses badly in head-to-head polls against their likely nominee. The GOP frontrunner speaks in vagaries, frequently contradicts himself, and displays almost no grasp of the fundamentals of geopolitics. The fact that Republicans are celebrating a neophyte doesn’t itself render Democrats a serious party. For those Americans who were without plans on a Saturday night the weekend before Christmas, they were privy to a series of fictions Democrats find pleasing but which do not amount to a serious set of foreign policies.

Perhaps the most galling of contradictions was offered by Hillary Clinton in her defense of the creation of a “no-fly” over Northern Syria. “[O]ne of the reasons why I have advocated for a no-fly zone is in order to create those safe refuges within Syria, to try to protect people on the ground both from Assad’s forces, who are continuing to drop barrel bombs and from ISIS,” Clinton said. “And of course, it has to be de-conflicted with the Russians, who are also flying in that space.”

“Of course,” as though that was a minor detail. This administration already negotiated “de-confliction” of the space over which NATO forces and Russian warplanes operate, but that did not prevent Turkish forces from shooting a Russian fighter jet out of the sky.

Clinton repeatedly insisted that a “no-fly zone” over Syria would, by virtue of its very existence, stop the outflow of refugees over the Turkish border. She did not, however, speculate on the kind of forces that would be needed to secure a safe zone on the ground in Syria in which refugees could be safe. Much to Ankara’s consternation, a substantial portion of Syria’s north is occupied by Kurdish forces, but not all of it is in the hands of pro-Western militias. Worse than the present humanitarian crisis associated with the exodus of refugees (most of whom aren’t spilling over the Turkish border) would be the prospect of a poorly secured safe zone that becomes a kill box for Assad or ISIS.

When asked if she would shoot down Russian or Syrian warplanes that penetrate that space, Clinton said she did not “think it would come to that.” What else is the point of a no-fly zone but to prevent through force its penetration by enemy air forces? Clinton went on to strike an even more incoherent posture: “The no-fly zone, I would hope, would be also shared by Russia,” Clinton claimed. “If they will begin to turn their military attention away from going after the adversaries of Assad toward ISIS and put the Assad future on the political and diplomatic track, where it belongs.” Pardon?

The administration finally caved to Moscow’s demand that a transitional Syrian government minus Assad is no longer in the cards. Barack Obama’s 2011 contention that Bashar al-Assad must go has been abandoned, but the region-wide Sunni insurgency against a regime that killed over a quarter million people and deployed chemical weapons against civilians will never abate so long as Assad rules in Damascus. The Russians got what they wanted from Barack Obama, and Clinton declined to criticize that about-face. So, why should Russian behavior change? What Clinton means by her wish that Russia would stop trying to prop up Assad militarily and instead do so diplomatically is anyone’s guess.

To Clinton’s credit, her delusion was still more concrete and realistic than the policies of any of her competitors...

Look, pushing gun control after San Bernardino is more important than serious efforts to stop another attack on U.S. soil.

The Democrats have disqualified themselves from office. Only the stupidity of large segments of the American electorate will give them another chance.

Keep reading, in any case.

Demi Lovato Stuns in Plunging Swimsuit at St. Bart's

She's a good lady.

At London's Daily Mail, "Having the time of her life! Demi Lovato is launched from the water by Wilmer Valderrama as couple recreate iconic Dirty Dancing lift on St. Barts trip."

Olivia Wilde Bikini Pics

Well, it's Sunday --- and that means it's Rule 5 day!

At London's Daily Mail, "Olivia Wilde looks stunning in tiny bikini as she enjoys a day at the beach with her 20-month-old son Otis and husband Jason Sudeikis."

She's shapely. Nice legs especially.

Public Schools Struggle with Lessons About Islam Amid Renewed Fears of Terrorism (VIDEO)

Teachers pushing the ideology of Islamic jihad in the classroom should be fired.

At LAT:

The assignment on world religions that was handed out to students at Riverheads High School in rural Virginia seemed pretty simple, on its face.

A teacher's printout explained why calligraphy was religiously significant to Muslims. The assignment asked students to re-create the complex strokes for the Shahada, the Islamic statement of faith, "to give you an idea of the artistic complexity of the calligraphy."

The Shahada was not translated, but in Arabic, it states, "There is no god but God, and Mohammed is his messenger."

It was religious indoctrination, parents charged. The angry calls and messages that flooded the district grew so intense last week that Augusta County school officials shut down the district Friday, keeping 10,500 students home "out of an abundance of caution."

The incident was just the latest in a series of disputes involving Islam and the classroom, which come as the nation experiences a rise in anti-Muslim attacks and vandalism and renewed fears of terrorism after the bloodshed in Paris and San Bernardino...

More.

Really.

Who would be so stupid as to assign that project? Only an America-hating leftist.

Redlands Tea Party Speaks Out Against Syrian Refugees After #SanBernardino Attack

Great piece, at LAT, "After the San Bernardino shootings, voices rise on both sides of the refugee debate":

Bill Whittle scanned the crowd of more than 200 Redlands Tea Party Patriots and Unite Inland Empire members gathered for the yearly Christmas party. The tables in the Western-themed barbecue restaurant were decorated with stickers hailing the 2nd Amendment and proclaiming: "Don't Tread on Me."

"To say that this is a war on terror is designed to make sure that we don't say that it's a war on Islam," Whittle told the crowd last week.

"Amen!" a woman shouted.

"The president said just a few nights ago [that] America is not at war with Islam," Whittle, a conservative blogger and political commentator, continued. "I think that's probably true. But Islam is at war with America, and they have been for some time now."

The Dec. 2 terror attack in San Bernardino, which left 14 dead and injured 22 others, has intensified the debate over whether the U.S. should accept Syrian refugees and inspired some people — most notably GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump — to oppose allowing any Muslims into the country.

For some in this swath of Southern California, which has strong conservative undertones, the massacre at the Inland Regional Center provided a "told you so" moment."

John Berry, a California state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots and a cabinet member of the Redlands chapter, said the terrorist attack by Syed Rizwan Farook and Tashfeen Malik validated what he and others have been saying for years.

"I take no satisfaction in saying, 'I told you so.' None, because this is a horrible, horrible atrocity," Berry said. "But in some ways I'm surprised it hasn't happened before."

More.

Bernie Sanders Apologizes to Hillary Clinton for Stealing Voter Data (VIDEO)

At Bloomberg, via Memeorandum, "Bernie Sanders Apologizes to Hillary Clinton for Data Breach."

And watch, at ABC News:

Remaining Holiday Shipping Deadlines for Amazon

Heh.

Following-up my previous entry, "Holiday Shoppers Wait Until the Last Minute for Deals."

Here's USA Today, "Heads up! Amazon holiday shipping deadlines near."

It's too late for standard shipping, if you want to put your gifts under the tree; but you can opt for two-day shipping, and there's lots of additional fast shipping options if you're an Amazon Prime member.

And thanks for all the readers who've shopped Amazon through my links at American Power. It's greatly appreciated.

More here, Take 25% Off Holiday Shopping.

Holiday Shoppers Wait Until the Last Minute for Deals

Online retailing has forever changed the nature of holiday shopping.

At WSJ, "‘Super Saturday’: Holiday Shoppers Wait Until the Last Minute for Deals."

Tin Fey Opts Out of the Left's Culture of Demanding Apologies for Everything

Thank goodness.

A Hollywood icon stands up to the bullies of the collectivist left.

At the Independent Journal Review, "Tina Fey is Stirring Outrage on the Left by Refusing to Give Them Any More Apologies."



Photo Credit: Wikimedia Commons.

Donald Trump Campaign Lags in Mobilizing Iowa Caucus Voters

Well, Trump's running an unconventional campaign, but if mobilizing voters at the base is the be-all-end-all of Iowa caucus politics, we're in for an ultimate test.

At the New York Times:

DES MOINES — Donald J. Trump has dominated much of this political season, excited an often-ignored part of the electorate, filled huge arenas with followers and upended the rules of how modern campaigns are run.

But now he faces an urgent question: Can he actually win crucial early contest states?

Translating a personality-driven campaign to the voting booth is no easy feat, especially for a candidate who has never run before.

But here in the state with the first nominating contest, about six weeks away, Mr. Trump has fallen behind in the nuts and bolts of organizing. A loss in Iowa for Mr. Trump, where he has devoted the most resources of his campaign, could imperil his leads in the next two nominating states, New Hampshire and South Carolina, where his get-out-the-vote organizations are even less robust.

A successful ground game is crucial in Iowa because of the state’s complicated method of caucus voting, but the Trump campaign has lagged in reaching some of its own benchmarks.

Mr. Trump’s Iowa director predicted that he would recruit a leader for each of the state’s 1,681 Republican precincts by Thanksgiving. Instead, the first major training session for precinct leaders, heavily promoted in emails and conference calls, drew only about 80 people to West Des Moines last weekend, with about 50 participating online.

Some of Mr. Trump’s Republican rivals have spent months calling and knocking on doors to identify potential supporters to draw them out to caucuses, but Mr. Trump does not appear to have invested in this crucial “voter ID” strategy until recently.

The Trump campaign hopes to attract a surge of independents and disaffected Democrats on caucus night, but the latest data from the Iowa secretary of state show no significant growth in Republican registrations.

Interviews in Iowa with Mr. Trump’s campaign workers, his volunteers and dozens of attendees at his rallies over two months, as well as observations of voter outreach, conference calls and confidential training sessions, indicate that Mr. Trump’s support in the Feb. 1 Iowa caucuses may fall short of his poll numbers in the state. He is now trading the lead position with Senator Ted Cruz of Texas....

If you've noticed, a lot of political commentators, especially movement conservatives, have spoken with absolute certainty that Trump wont' be the nominee. If that proves true, it'll be because of grassroots organization issues like this. Remember, Barack Obama won Iowa in 2008, largely on the strength of youth mobilization through new media (which at that time was Faceback and Obama's own innovative campaign website, BarackObama.com).

And the Times piece in fact underestimates the impact of a Trump loss in Iowa. It won't just hurt him organizationally, or in terms of primary polling. Trump's momentum is sustained by the illusion of insurmountable victory --- he just keeps rising in the polls like the Energizer bunny on steroids. If he loses in Iowa, it will be the most crushing blow egotistically. He won't be able to make a bunch of funny faces and wave his hands frantically. It's going to be push comes to shove.

In any case, more at the link.

Free One Day Shipping Available for Select Watches, Jewelry, and More

Good to December 22nd.

At Amazon, Shop Amazon Fashion - Free One-Day Shipping.

Up to 85% Off Kindle Book Holiday Deals — BUMPED!

At Amazon, Shop - Kindle Book Holiday Deals.

Plus, Home & Kitchen - Cuisinart Gift Ideas.

BONUS: From Robert Spencer, The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS. And Pamela Geller, Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide to the Resistance.

Ana Cheri, Playboy's Miss October 2015, on a Trampoline with Skittles (VIDEO)

This lady is great!

Watch, "Miss October 2015 Ana Cheri Jumps on a Trampoline in a Bikini With Thousands of Skittles."

PREVIOUSLY: "Go Behind the Scenes with Playboy's Miss October 2015, Ana Cheri! (VIDEO)," and "Ana Cheri, Playboy's Miss October 2015."

Public Policy Trolling

Heh, totally.

At iOTW Report.

And see the Guardian UK on the PPP poll, via Memeorandum, "Poll: 30% of GOP voters support bombing Agrabah, the city from Aladdin."

PPP is an establishment Democrat Party polling outfit, contracted with Markos Moulitsas' Daily Kos, so it figures. Here, at Memeorandum, "Trump Lead Grows Nationally; 41% of His Voters Want to Bomb Country from Aladdin; Clinton Maintains Big Lead."

Donald Trump Slams Jeb Bush as 'Low Energy' (VIDEO)

God, Trump gives hilarious interviews, heh.

And of course Jimmy Kimmel's the best!

'There are 48 of those seats, terraced in three rows, in the suite controlled by Jones...'

I'm watching the Cowboys tonight, not the freakin' Democrat-communist debate.

At the New York Times, "Cowboys Owner Jerry Jones Wows Those Gathered at ‘the Fifty’":

Ima watch @NFL football tonight. Screw the @TheDemocrats' debate, freakin' commies.

— Donald Douglas (@AmPowerBlog) December 19, 2015

ARLINGTON, Tex. — The offer to watch the Dallas Cowboys play from the owner Jerry Jones’s suite is extended during the summer, but the formal invitation is not sent until a week before the game.

The package arrives by overnight mail for out-of-town guests — it is hand-delivered by team security personnel to those in the area — and contains a box holding an acrylic tray with the Cowboys star logo etched in the middle. Nestled inside the tray is a card requesting that the recipients join the Jones family “on the fifty” (as in yard line), along with tickets, a parking map and a parking pass.

All visitors receive valet privileges, but only some are afforded the luxury of driving beneath AT&T Stadium, to the base of an elevator that lifts them directly into the suite.

“It’s the most valuable thing we have,” said Jones’s daughter, Charlotte Jones Anderson, an executive vice president of the team. “Even better than the seat.”

There are 48 of those seats, terraced in three rows, and one of Anderson’s unofficial duties is teaming with her mother, Gene Jones, to determine how each is filled — who, exactly, is granted entry into one of the most exclusive spaces in the sporting realm.

Los Angeles does not have a football team, so on Cowboys game days, Hollywood comes to AT&T Stadium.

As the irrepressible owner (and general manager) of the N.F.L.’s richest team, Jones wields considerable power on league matters, though he offers only occasional input on the composition of his own suite. His wife and daughter strive for a convivial atmosphere and a diverse crowd filled with business associates, arts patrons, political figures, celebrities, friends and family members.

For Saturday’s game against the Jets, they are expecting a crowd of about 62, with the overflow content to mingle by high-top tables and chairs and watch the game on television. As she sauntered through the seats Thursday afternoon, more than 48 hours before kickoff, Anderson peeked at the names stenciled on the place cards at each spot.

There, in the front row, the chancellor of the University of Texas system, William McRaven. Some seats down, the chief executive of MillerCoors, Gavin Hattersley. Behind McRaven, the former mayor of Arlington, Robert Cluck, a treasured friend of the family. As a city councilman, he told Jones that he was going to run for mayor of Arlington, and when he won, that he wanted Jones to build a stadium there.

It was only the first iteration of the seating chart, Gene Jones cautioned, and for every game, that task concerns and vexes her like no other. As if hosting a dinner party, she sketches out a schematic in pencil, always mindful of guests’ interests and personalities, and then solicits thoughts from her daughter up until their guests arrive.

“People get moved,” Gene Jones said.

“There’s a little massaging,” Anderson said.

“It’s a nightmare,” Gene Jones said.

There are always last-minute cancellations and accommodations and additions, like the late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, who informed his friend, the injured quarterback Tony Romo, that he would like to attend Saturday’s game. Romo called Anderson and, she said, told her, “I would put him in my suite, but I feel like he deserves to be in yours.”

Kimmel explained that he just wanted to come, that he did not even need a seat. Nonsense, Anderson said. Kimmel is sitting right beside her, in the front row...

Jimmy's really cool. I'd pull the stops out for him too.

Continue reading.

Corona Residents Surprise Thieves with 'Package of Poop on the Porch' (VIDEO)

That's the best!

At CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Bernie Sanders Campaign Meltdown (VIDEO)

Sanders is getting the raw deal, if you ask me.

A data breach, and the Sanders staffer has been fired? Okay, but then cut the Sanders campaign off from the DNC database, which holds all of Sanders' campaign data? Overreaction much?

At LAT, "Fallout from data breach threatens Bernie Sanders' campaign":

A technological transgression is threatening to derail the insurgent White House bid of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, and it set off a fierce battle Friday between Sanders and the national Democratic Party, which cut off his campaign from a crucial voter database.

The dispute was rooted in Sanders staffers peeking at confidential voter files owned by rival Hillary Clinton’s campaign. By the end of the day, after a dizzying volley of charges and counter charges, it had landed before a federal judge. That was after the Sanders technology advisor who oversaw the snooping had been fired and open political warfare had erupted between the party and progressives backing Sanders, who accuse it of meting out a punishment that doesn’t fit the crime to give Clinton a leg up in the race.

It was all an unwelcome development for Sanders on the eve of a presidential debate Saturday in New Hampshire, where he is under pressure to rekindle some of his early momentum. The senator needs a strong showing at the event, in a state that has become almost a must-win for him. He has struggled to gain leverage over Clinton since the focus of voter attention shifted from the economy to national security, an area where she has considerably more experience. Now Sanders is faced with having to answer questions about the data breach.

The dispute also underscores the ever-growing role that data play in modern presidential campaigns, where resources are marshaled around precise formulas that factor in such details as where voters live, their latest purchases at big-box retailers and what magazines they read. The lawsuit the Sanders campaign filed against the Democratic National Committee late Friday alleges the party is breaking its contract with the campaign by cutting it off from a database that is the lifeblood of the campaign.

“The campaign is hamstrung without access to the voter data,” the campaign said in the lawsuit. It said the campaign is losing an estimated $600,000 in contributions each day it does not have access to the data, which is used to target donors. “However the damage to the campaign’s political viability, as a result of being unable to communicate with constituents and voters, is far more severe, and incapable of measurement,” the complaint said.

The electronic snooping at issue came after the contractor that handles the DNC database temporarily dropped the firewall that prevents one campaign from seeing data that belongs to another.

The Sanders campaign responded aggressively to the party's move, saying it had fired the employee who made the decision to peek at the Clinton files and accusing the DNC of trying to “sabotage” Sanders’ campaign by blocking its access to critical voter information.

Sanders campaign manager Jeff Weaver accused the DNC of holding the campaign’s data “hostage,” which he said was an attack on "the heart and soul" of the Sanders operation. He said the DNC was using the breach as an excuse to do the Clinton campaign’s bidding. Blocking access to the voter database, he said, would prevent the Sanders campaign from using even its own voter information.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), the DNC chair, denied that the committee was being unfair. She likened Weaver’s demand for access to the voter file to a burglar who entered a house through an unlocked door, stolen items and then continued to insist on having access to the house.

Blocking the voter database is the only way to “protect the integrity” of the files until an independent audit can determine what information Sanders’ staff may have taken, she said in an interview on CNN. "The Sanders campaign doesn't have anything other than bluster at this moment."

The Clinton campaign piled on, saying Sanders' team had misrepresented what happened.

"This was an egregious breach," said Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook. "Our data was stolen. ... This was not an inadvertent glimpse into our data."

Still more.

More video at Fox News, "Sanders campaign: We don't need dirty tricks."

ADDED: At Politico, via Memeorandum, "Bernie Sanders' campaign sues DNC."

Donald Trump Surges to 39 Percent in Latest Fox News Poll (VIDEO)

The survey was conducted after Tuesday night's GOP debate.

At Fox, "Fox News Poll: Trump jumps, Cruz climbs, Carson sinks in GOP race."

Orlando Figes, A People's Tragedy

Stephen Kotkin's, Stalin: Volume I: Paradoxes of Power, 1878-1928, is almost 1,000 pages long, including notes and the bibliography. I've got not quite 200 pages to go, and I'm enjoying it.

I think I'm going to stay on Russian history, and especially Soviet Marxism-Leninism. I've got a few books I need to order from Amazon, but in the meanwhile I've got Orlando Figes', A People's Tragedy: The Russian Revolution: 1891-1924, on my shelf.

I think I might give it a go when I'm done with Kotkin, which should be in about two or three days, heh.

Social Class Differences Increasingly Affect Children's Success

Any educator serious about student success has to deal with the one thing that's not politically correct to discuss: influences from students' home life are perhaps the most powerful indicators of academic success. A classic book on this is Annette Lareau's, Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race, and Family Life. I only have students for one semester in my classes, but I try my hardest to impart as many basic life skills to students as I can. A lot of this is simply modeling values of hard work and professionalism, and then providing as much real-life examples of up-from-the bootstraps work ethics as possible. I also provide handouts and overheads on what it means to be a successful student, something that isn't appreciated by young people, especially those from non-traditional backgrounds.

Often, one semester is just not enough for students to make big changes, but at least the most conscientious students will have a chance to build on that foundation, internalizing those crucial tips from my classes, to increase their levels of student success. It's an entire culture that we have to battle against, and economic class disadvantages are extremely difficult to overcome.

In any case, at the New York Times, "Class Differences in Child-Rearing Are on the Rise":

The lives of children from rich and poor American families look more different than they have in decades.

Well-off families are ruled by calendars, with children enrolled in ballet, soccer and after-school programs, according to a new Pew Research Center survey. There are usually two parents, who spend a lot of time reading to children and worrying about their anxiety levels and hectic schedules.

In poor families, however, children tend to spend their time at home or with extended family, the survey found. They are more likely to grow up in neighborhoods that their parents say aren’t great for raising children, and their parents worry about them getting shot, beaten up or in trouble with the law.

The class differences in child rearing are growing, researchers say — a symptom of widening inequality with far-reaching consequences. Different upbringings set children on different paths and can deepen socioeconomic divisions, especially because education is strongly linked to earnings. Children grow up learning the skills to succeed in their socioeconomic stratum, but not necessarily others.

“Early childhood experiences can be very consequential for children’s long-term social, emotional and cognitive development,” said Sean F. Reardon, professor of poverty and inequality in education at Stanford University. “And because those influence educational success and later earnings, early childhood experiences cast a lifelong shadow.”

The cycle continues: Poorer parents have less time and fewer resources to invest in their children, which can leave children less prepared for school and work, which leads to lower earnings.

American parents want similar things for their children, the Pew report and past research have found: for them to be healthy and happy, honest and ethical, caring and compassionate. There is no best parenting style or philosophy, researchers say, and across income groups, 92 percent of parents say they are doing a good job at raising their children.

Yet they are doing it quite differently.

Middle-class and higher-income parents see their children as projects in need of careful cultivation, says Annette Lareau, a University of Pennsylvania sociologist whose groundbreaking research on the topic was published in her book “Unequal Childhoods: Class, Race and Family Life.” They try to develop their skills through close supervision and organized activities, and teach children to question authority figures and navigate elite institutions.

Working-class parents, meanwhile, believe their children will naturally thrive, and give them far greater independence and time for free play. They are taught to be compliant and deferential to adults.

There are benefits to both approaches. Working-class children are happier, more independent, whine less and are closer with family members, Ms. Lareau found. Higher-income children are more likely to declare boredom and expect their parents to solve their problems.

Yet later on, the more affluent children end up in college and en route to the middle class, while working-class children tend to struggle. Children from higher-income families are likely to have the skills to navigate bureaucracies and succeed in schools and workplaces, Ms. Lareau said.

“Do all parents want the most success for their children? Absolutely,” she said. “Do some strategies give children more advantages than others in institutions? Probably they do. Will parents be damaging children if they have one fewer organized activity? No, I really doubt it.”

Social scientists say the differences arise in part because low-income parents have less money to spend on music class or preschool, and less flexible schedules to take children to museums or attend school events.

Extracurricular activities epitomize the differences in child rearing in the Pew survey, which was of a nationally representative sample of 1,807 parents...

More.

Killin' It with Abigail Ratchford (VIDEO)

She's smokin'!

Via Maxim:

Bar Refaeli Arrested for Tax Evasion (VIDEO)

At Variety, "Supermodel Bar Refaeli Arrested in Israel for Tax Evasion."

And watch, at Euronews, "Bar Refaeli questioned for 12 hours over tax evasion claims."

Plus, flashback Bar Refaeli nude photo shoot for Elle in 2012 (VIDEO).

Conservative Anger Grows Over Marco Rubio and Illegal Alien Amnesty (VIDEO)

It's definitely an Achilles Heel of his campaign.

Here's yesterday's entry, "Open-Borders Money Backs Marco Rubio."

And at the New York Times, "Conservative Ire Grows Over Marco Rubio's Past on Immigration":

WASHINGTON — Senator Marco Rubio made a big bet on an immigration overhaul that failed – and he has been running away from it since. Now his past is catching up with him, stoking old grievances from conservative rivals who are reopening one of the most vulnerable episodes in his past.

The anger toward Mr. Rubio on the right has only grown in recent days as he has taken to aggressively questioning Senator Ted Cruz’s toughness on illegal immigration, a line of attack that some Republicans say they find disingenuous.

On talk radio, on the campaign trail and on televisions in states like Iowa, Mr. Rubio is suddenly facing a torrent of criticism from within his own party unlike anything he has faced so far in the presidential race.

Mr. Cruz’s campaign, which was initially rattled by the criticism, is retaliating with a new ad that makes the case that the 2013 immigration bill Mr. Rubio helped write would have left the country exposed to attacks from Islamic State infiltrators. It shows Mr. Rubio standing with a group of conservative adversaries like Senator John McCain as Mr. Cruz says: “Their misguided plan would have given Obama the authority to admit Syrian refugees, including ISIS terrorists. That’s just wrong.”

People who saw Mr. Rubio speak near Des Moines the other day found their windshields plastered with black-and-white fliers that mocked him as “Chuck Schumer’s amnesty pitchman.” If Mr. Rubio is elected president, warned the fliers, which were noticed by a freelance journalist, he would support liberal immigration policies and “impose them by force on Americans.”

Mr. Rubio’s struggle to mollify Republicans who believe he betrayed conservative principles for political convenience – two years of outreach, apology and labored professions of a lesson learned – has never had higher stakes. Right now he is trying to break out beyond the third- or fourth-place spot he holds in many polls by peeling away support from conservative favorites like Mr. Cruz and Ben Carson.

His recent attacks on Mr. Cruz are backfiring as some influential conservatives are now rallying to Mr. Cruz’s side and denouncing Mr. Rubio.

Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is a hero of the anti-immigration reform movement on the right, went on a conservative radio program Thursday to defend Mr. Cruz and say that Mr. Rubio would be held accountable by conservative voters who rallied around killing the 2013 legislation.

“I think Senator Rubio has to answer for things that were in that bill,” Mr. Sessions said on the “Howie Carr Show.”

He continued, “This presidential election is going to decide who runs the White House: the crowd that pushed this legislation or the crowd that opposed it.”

Mark Levin, who has one of the largest followings on conservative radio, has been leading much of the effort lately on the air and online to criticize Mr. Rubio. He has accused the senator of “utter incoherence” in trying to tear down Mr. Cruz and paper over his own involvement in the immigration overhaul. “Such unprincipled ambition has not and will not go unnoticed by conservatives,” he cautioned.

Rush Limbaugh told his listeners: “Marco Rubio was part of the Gang of Eight trying to secure amnesty and wishes he wasn’t. Ted Cruz never was.”

The Rubio campaign’s effort to sully Mr. Cruz’s record on immigration is something even the Texas senator’s most ardent critics say distracts from the reality of the situation...

More.

No Matter Who Wins the GOP Nomination, Hillary's Going to Have a Fight On Her Hands

It's going to be virtually 50-50 heading into November 2016. All the usual indicators of campaign success will be in play, especially voter mobilization. Ignore polls that show Hillary beating Donald Trump. Conservatives will rally to his flag if it means the crushing Democrat power.

In any case, from Jonathan Last, at the Weekly Standard:

Tuesday's debate wasn't boring, exactly. There was a good deal of substance and some demolition derby, too. Also, there was some real news toward the end when Trump doubled down on staying in the Republican party and not running a third-party candidacy if someone else is the nominee. But I don't know that the debate altered the strategic balance of power in this race in any meaningful way.

But it did get me thinking about the general election. To my mind, the most likely nominees, in descending order of probability, are Rubio, Cruz, and Trump. And watching them, it struck me that the consensus views about each of their chances against Hillary Clinton may not be correct.

Let's start with Rubio, who remains my favorite to win the nomination. (And please understand that I mean "favorite" in the Vegas sense, i.e. "the guy with best odds to win"; not "the guy I want to win.") The theoretical poll match-ups show Rubio with a slim lead over Clinton. I think this vastly understates his potential. Watch Rubio on the debate stage and he looks like a creature genetically engineered in a lab to crush HRC. By dint of his youth and energy, he turns her greatest strengths into weaknesses. He's a devastatingly good debater. As he showed Tuesday night, he can take a punch. And his political instincts are brilliant.

Have a look at Rubio's first moment of the night. The debate opened with a question about Trump's Muslim immigration/visa pause, which Jeb Bush scoffed at, over and over, as "not serious." Wolf Blitzer then turned to Rubio and noted that a majority of Republican voters supported the idea. It was an invitation to pile on Trump and disavow a "crazy" position. Instead of disavowing it, Rubio explained why Republican voters support it and then shunted the blame onto Barack Obama:

Well, I understand why they feel that way, because this president hasn't kept us safe. The problem is we had an attack in San Bernardino. And we were paying attention to the most important issue we have faced in a decade since 9/11, and then all the talk was about this proposal, which isn't going to happen.

But this is what's important to do is we must deal frontally with this threat of radical Islamists, especially from ISIS. This is the most sophisticated terror group that has ever threatened the world or the United States of America. They are actively recruiting Americans. The attacker in San Bernardino was an American citizen, born and raised in this country. He was a health inspector; had a newborn child and left all that behind to kill 14 people.

We also understand that this is a group that's growing in its governance of territory. It's not just Iraq and Syria. They are now a predominant group in Libya. They are beginning to pop up in Afghanistan. They are increasingly involved now in attacks in Yemen. They have Jordan in their sights.

This group needs to be confronted with serious proposals. And this is a very significant threat we face. And the president has left us unsafe. He spoke the other night to the American people to reassure us. I wish he hadn't spoken at all. He made things worse. Because what he basically said was we are going to keep doing what we're doing now, and what we are doing now is not working.

If Rubio wins the nomination, I suspect he'll beat Clinton like a drum. A 7-point, realigning victory would not be out of the question and Clinton's best-case scenario would be a narrow win eeked out by the smallest margins.

With Ted Cruz, current polls and conventional wisdom suggest that Clinton would have a much easier time: That Cruz is too conservative for mainstream voters; that his personality is too abrasive. I tend to agree with this, to a point. But watching him in these debates it's clear that Cruz isn't Barry Goldwater. He's not looking to run a capital-C Conservative campaign in order to prove a point. He wants to win and his ambition and strategic cleverness make him perfectly willing to be ambiguous when he believes it necessary.

His general election beta window might be shifted down a couple points from Rubio's, but I doubt he would be an easy out for Clinton.

Which brings us to Trump...

A great essay.

And keep reading for the Trump analysis.

Muslims in America Focus Group (VIDEO)

Leftists don't care about Muslims. Well, they care about them to the extent that Islam helps take down America. Frankly, the most racist, regressive people you could possible know are leftists. They're hateful, hideous ghouls.

In any case, Frank Luntz admits that he backed off his usual high-pressure style in focus group settings, certainly in fear of being attacked as "racist" and "Islamophobic."

Watch, at CBS This Morning, "Focus group of American Muslims talks politics, fear and faith."

Woman's Body Found Inside Refrigerator in Santa Ana (VIDEO)

Man, that's grisly.

At the O.C. Register, "Santa Ana police find woman's body inside fridge."

And watch, at CBS News 2 Los Angeles:

Senator Jeff Sessions: Omnibus a 'Betrayal', Increases Foreign Workers, Fully Funds Obama Immigration Agenda (VIDEO)

At Big Government.

Open-Borders Money Backs Marco Rubio

Following-up from yesterday, "A National Security History Lesson for Marco Rubio."

From Michelle Malkin:

Political analysis of the Las Vegas debate immigration dust-up between Sens. Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio is missing a key ingredient: the money factor.

You can read the lips of the candidates till the cows come home. But you’ll get to the truth much faster when you learn where pro-amnesty power brokers have placed their bets and hitched their wagons.

Rubio’s brazenly fraudulent campaign to paint Cruz as soft on illegal immigration is a flabbergasting attempt to distract from the Florida junior senator’s faithful allegiance to the open-borders donor class.

Here’s what you need to know:

Facebook, Microsoft and Silicon Valley back Marco Rubio. Mark Zuckerberg is a social justice CEO who panders to Hispanics with his pro-amnesty, anti-deportation advocacy; Facebook is an H-1B visa dependent company working hard to obliterate hurdles to hiring an unlimited stream of cheap foreign tech workers. It’s no coincidence that Facebook’s lobbying outfit, FWD.us, was waging war on Sen. Cruz online this week in parallel with Sen. Rubio’s disingenuous onstage attack.

The D.C. front group, which Zuckerberg seeded in 2013 with nearly $40 million during the Gang of Eight fight, has consistently provided political protection for Rubio as he carried their legislative water.

FWD.us’s GOP subsidiary, “Americans for a Conservative Direction,” showered Rubio and pro-illegal alien amnesty Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., with millions of dollars in media ad buys. The group also funded a deceptive, $150,000 ad campaign for immigration sellout Rep. Renee Ellmers, R-N.C., which falsely claimed she opposed amnesty to help her fend off a primary challenge. In all, FWD.us spent an estimated $5 million on TV and radio spots in more than 100 GOP districts before the Senate passed the Gang of Eight bill in June 2013.

Zuckerberg personally donated to Rubio, as have pro-H-1B expansionist Silicon Valley CEOs from Oracle, Cisco and Seagate. Microsoft, founded by leading H-1B/amnesty cheerleader Bill Gates, has been Rubio’s No. 2 corporate donor the past five years.

Paul Singer backs Marco Rubio. The hedge fund billionaire announced his support for Rubio in October. Amnesty is and always has been a top agenda item for Singer, who helped fund the National Immigration Forum along with fellow hedge fund billionaire George Soros. NIF propped up a faux “grass-roots” initiative of religious conservatives, dubbed the Evangelical Immigration Table, to lobby for the Gang of Eight.

NIF was founded by far-left attorney Rick Swartz, who opposes tracking/deporting visa overstayers and opposes employer sanctions against companies that violated immigration laws. Swartz also served as an advisor to Microsoft.

The Singer/Soros-funded NIF helped sabotage the Immigration Act of 1990, which was intended to impose modest restrictions on immigration, and turned it into “one of the most expansionist immigration bills ever passed,” as one expert put it. On Capitol Hill, Swartz worked closely with immigration expansionist Sen. Spencer Abraham’s legislative director Cesar Conda and Sen. Sam Brownback’s legislative director (now GOP House speaker) Paul Ryan—-who is busy this holiday season fronting an omnibus bill that will open the floodgates to 250,000 unskilled foreign guest workers.

Side note: Beltway establishment fixture Conda previously worked for the pro-amnesty U.S. Chamber of Commerce and mentored Ryan from the age of 19. Conda guided newbie Rubio as his Senate chief of staff from 2011-2014 and remains his powerful immigration Svengali behind closed doors.

Rove/Bush-tied front groups back Marco Rubio. The American Action Network is a Big Business GOP lobbying organization led by former Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and co-founded with John McCain adviser/fundraiser Fred Malek. AAN shares [clarification: shared] its offices with amnesty peddler Karl Rove’s American Crossroads in D.C. AAN’s “action arm,” the American Action Forum, was founded in February 2010 and proceeded to spend a whopping $25 million to attack conservatives who opposed amnesty. [Correction: AAN embarked on the anti-conservative spending campaign.] Jeb Bush sat on the AAF board.

In 2013, the group dumped more than $750,000 into primetime, Fox News Channel ad buys pushing the Gang of Eight immigration bill, including $100,000 in ads to support leading GOP voices for amnesty, including, you guessed it, Sen. Marco Rubio.

Open-borders Democrats love Marco Rubio. As Sen. Schumer brayed last month: Rubio “was not only totally committed, he was in that room with us. His fingerprints are all over” the Gang of Eight monstrosity. Indeed, Sens. Durbin and Rubio plotted strategy during early morning workout sessions at the Senate gym.

Rubio hired Enrique Gonzalez, a Democratic donor and partner with the global immigration law firm, Fragomen Del Rey, to be his chief adviser on the bill. Gonzalez specializes in obtaining H-1B guest worker visas (tripled in the Gang of Eight bill) and EB-5 visas for wealthy foreign investors. After the bill passed, Gonzalez returned to his law firm as managing partner of the Florida office, where he brags about his role as Rubio’s “special counsel” and “principal advisor/negotiator”—read: bill writer.
Bottom line?

Cruz kept his promise to voters. He voted against the Gang of Eight giveaway. Period.

Rubio broke his promise: He paid lip service to border security and the American Dream, while scheming with Sens. Schumer and Durbin on the 180,000-word, 1,200-page Christmas tree for Big Biz, Big Tech and ethnic lobbyists.

Rubio didn’t just vote for the bill. He and his staff were integral to crafting it, shilling for it, and cashing in on the legislative boondoggle dubbed a “permanent pension plan for immigration lawyers.”

When you need the truth about which Beltway crapweasels are selling out America, always follow the money.

Kate Hudson for Harper's Bazaar December 2015

Absolutely stunning.

See, "YES, IT'S FUN TO BE KATE HUDSON."

Enrique Marquez Accused of Plotting Terrorist Attacks Against Riverside City College and 91 Freeway

At the Riverside Press-Enterprise, "SAN BERNARDINO SHOOTING: Marquez charged with conspiracy to commit terrorism":

Enrique Marquez, the former neighbor and close friend of San Bernardino shooter Syed Rizwan Farook, has been charged with conspiring with Farook in 2011 and 2012 to commit crimes of terrorism, including attacks on Riverside City College and the 91 freeway.

The U.S Attorney's Office filed the conspiracy charge against Marquez, 24, of Riverside, on Thursday, Dec. 17. His arrest Thursday morning was the first stemming from the investigation into Dec. 2 attack at the Inland Regional Center that left 14 people dead and 22 injured.

Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik, who had both become radicalized several years ago before their marriage, were killed in a shootout with police.

Federal prosecutors said there was no evidence that Marquez participated in the Dec. 2 attack or had advance knowledge of it.
The charges against Marquez include conspiring with Farook to provide material support – including himself, a firearm and explosives – for crimes of terrorism.

"Marquez was also charged today with the unlawful purchase of two assault rifles used in the deadly shooting two weeks ago," the U.S Attorney's Office said in a statement.

"A three-count criminal complaint filed this afternoon additionally charges Marquez with defrauding immigration authorities by entering into a sham marriage with a member of Farook’s family."

Marquez, who was raised Catholic, was married to a Russian woman whose sister was married to Farook's brother, Syed Raheel Farook.

An affidavit by FBI Special Agent Joel T. Anderson filed with the criminal complaint said Marquez moved to Riverside in 2004 and met Farook, his neighbor on Tomlinson Avenue. "In late 2005, Farook introduced Marquez to Islam and began educating Marquez about religion."

Marquez converted to Islam in 2007, the affidavit says...

More.

The L.A. Schools' 'Not Credible' Threat

From Robert Spencer, at FrontPage Magazine, "“I’m kinda tired of hearing all this ISIS,” but they’re still coming":

When the Los Angeles Board of Education closed all its schools Tuesday because of a terror threat, officials in New York City, which had received a similar threat, were contemptuous. New York Mayor Bill de Blasio characterized the threat as “so generic, so outlandish” that it was beneath serious notice. “It would be a huge disservice to our nation,” he declared, “to close down our school system.” New York Police Department Commissioner Bill Bratton said “we cannot allow ourselves to raise levels of fear. Certainly raise levels of awareness. But this is not a credible threat.”

Fair enough. But there is enough of a credible threat in general to warrant taking every precaution. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-California), said that the threat (which was initially reported, of course, as a generic “terrorist threat,” with no indication that it was Islamic,” lacked “the feel of the way the jihadists usually write.” He pointed out, according to the Los Angeles Times, that “the roughly 350-word message did not capitalize Allah in one instance, nor did it cite a Koranic verse. He said the elements of the threatened attack also seemed unlikely, such as the claim that it would involve 32 people with nerve gas.”

Sherman claimed that “there isn’t a person on the street who couldn’t have written this.” Smearing the flyover states with Hollywood insouciance, he added: “Everybody in Nebraska could have written this.” He even suggested that an “Islamophobe” wrote the threat: “I don’t know whether this was sent by a radical Islamic jihadist or somebody who had an anti-Islamic agenda or just a prankster.”

Maybe the threats did come from someone with “an anti-Islamic agenda or just a prankster.” But those with an “anti-Islamic agenda” don’t really need to work that hard. Islamic jihadis are doing a fine job of issuing threats all by themselves. In September 2014, the Islamic State issued a lengthy communiqué calling upon Muslims in the West to murder non-Muslims. It included the exhortation to “strive to your best and kill any disbeliever, whether he be French, American, or from any of their allies.” It followed this up with a quotation from the Qur’an: “O you who have believed, take your precaution and [either] go forth in companies or go forth all together” (4:71).

The Islamic State exhortation continued...

More.

And previously, "Don't Let Fear Undermine Freedom?"

Holiday Savings in Fashion

At Amazon, Take 25% Off Holiday Savings in Fashion.

And, Shop Fashion - Free One-Day Shipping.

Plus, Shop Electronics, Computers & Accessories.

BONUS: See Oleg Khlevniuk, Stalin: New Biography of a Dictator.

Highland Park Church Gets City Funding to Shelter Homeless During Cold Stretch (VIDEO)

Jeez, you'd have to be heartless to abandon the church just as it's getting the homeless out from the cold.

At the Los Angeles Times, "Homeless shelter in Highland Park gets city funding to stay open during El Niño."

City regulators said that church pews weren't up to code for sleeping accommodations. Can you believe that? Official reversed course, knowing that they'd be getting hammered by public outrage.

Watch, at CBS News Los Angeles:

The Mystery of Missing Inflation

Following-up, "Federal Reserve Raises Short-Term Interest Rates."

At the Wall Street Journal, "The Mystery of Missing Inflation Weighs on Fed Rate Move":

Federal Reserve officials this week are expected to raise interest rates for the first time in nine years on the expectation that employment and inflation will hit targets reflecting a healthy U.S. economy.

But Fed officials face a troubling question: Jobs are on track, but inflation isn’t behaving as predicted and they don’t know why. Unemployment has fallen to 5%, a figure close to estimates of full employment, while inflation remains stuck at less than 1%, well below the Fed’s 2% target.

Central bank officials predict inflation will approach their target in 2016. The trouble is they have made the same prediction for the past four years. If the Fed is again fooled, it may find it raised rates too soon, risking recession.

Low inflation—and low prices—sound beneficial but can stall growth in wages and profits. Debts are harder to pay off without inflation shrinking their burden. For central banks, when inflation is very low, so are interest rates, leaving little room to cut rates to spur the economy during downturns.

The Fed’s poor record of predicting inflation has set off debate within the central bank over the economic models used by central bank officials. Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen, in a 31-page September speech on the subject, acknowledged “significant uncertainty” about her prediction that inflation would rise. Conventional models, she said, have become “a subject of controversy.”

Ms. Yellen faces dissent from Fed officials who want to keep interest rates near zero until there is concrete evidence of inflation rising, voices likely to try to put a drag on future rate increases.

While the job market is near normal, “I am far less confident about reaching our inflation goal within a reasonable time frame,” Charles Evans, president of the Chicago Fed, said in a speech this month. “Inflation has been too low for too long.”

For a generation, economists believed central banks had control over the rate of inflation and could use it as a policy guide: If inflation was too low, then lower interest rates could boost the economy; high inflation could be checked by raising rates.

Inflation’s about-face

Today’s conundrum over low inflation marks a turnabout. Former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker tamed persistently high double-digit inflation in the 1980s, after a decade of stagflation—a period of rising prices, slow growth and high unemployment that confounded economists. For years afterward, central banks adopted slow and steady inflation growth targets of 2%.

The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation rose an average of 2.038% a year between 1992 and 2007, bolstering confidence that economists understood how inflation worked. The price of a Fourth of July barbecue, for example, closely tracked the 2% annual target over that period: Average prices for a pound of ground beef went to $2.70 from $1.91; American cheese climbed to $3.91 a pound from $3.01; a 16-oz bag of potato chips rose to $3.65 from $2.84. Wages also rose modestly so workers kept pace.

Central bankers “thought that it must be their own doing,” said Jon Faust, the director of the Center for Financial Economics at Johns Hopkins University, who served two stints at the Fed during that period. “We thought we figured out macro policy, and we could deliver low, stable inflation and stable output and low unemployment and all things good.”

The financial crisis deflated that confidence. Confronted by low inflation and sluggish economic growth, the U.S. and U.K. nearly seven years ago—and the eurozone three years later—slashed interest rates to near zero...

Raising rates might restore a little stability to the economy, especially on housing. It's not a bad thing. And for goodness' sake, a 1/4 point increase is virtually unnoticeable.

More.

Long Beach Unified Schools to Stay Open After 'Non-Credible' Threat

Well, I hope they have real experts evaluating those threats.

See the Los Angeles Times, "Long Beach schools remain open after emailed threat called 'non-credible'."

And previously, "Don't Let Fear Undermine Freedom?"

Kohl's to Stay Open 24-Hours-a-Day for Christmas Shopping (VIDEO)

This is so wild.

At the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, "Kohl's stores will stay open 24 hours in week before Christmas."

And at CBS This Morning:



ADDED: More at KCRA News 3 Sacramento, "Kohl's to stay open for more than 170 hours before Christmas."

Shkreli, CEO Reviled for Drug Price Gouging, Arrested on Securities Fraud Charges

Heh.

I just love that headline, at Bloomberg, via Memeorandum.

Martin Shkreli's a real asshole.

Don't Let Fear Undermine Freedom?

I don't know. I'd support my kid's school if they received a threat. I'd want my kid home.

In any case, here's the libertarian O.C. Register, "L.A. schools closure: Don't let fear undermine freedom":

Regardless of whether the threats were sent by a wannabe terrorist or a prankster, we can acknowledge and reaffirm that this is the new age of terrorism. But while we understand that the LAUSD did not want to take any chances with student safety, we must balance our fear with a resolute stand to maintain our way of life and the freedoms that make it possible. Once we surrender to fear the ideals that made this nation great, we will have ceded a victory to the terrorists.

RTWT.

Word is the L.A. Unified threat was a shoddy hoax, easily decipherable as fake. But then, an "abundance of caution" isn't a bad thing. Americans expect more attacks.

More here, "After San Bernardino shootings, no one is taking chances with safety":

FULLERTON – The note found taped on a door Wednesday at Sunny Hills High School included no bomb threat, no link to terrorism.

But two weeks after a radicalized couple killed 14 people in San Bernardino, and one day after a threatening email closed Los Angeles public schools, the note was deemed worrisome enough. Principal Allen Whitten, along with a team of teachers, soon began ushering students off campus, and the school was shut for the day.

Fullerton police would not elaborate later on the details of the note, and Sunny Hills was expected to reopen Thursday. But the swift and decisive reaction to what once might have been dismissed as a prank highlighted a hyper-vigilance about public safety that has become routine in Southern California in the wake of the Dec. 2 terrorist attacks and other recent mass shootings.

“This is my children’s lives. What if it wasn’t a hoax?” said Brenda Matto, the mother of two Sunny Hills students. “Am I willing to take that chance?”

In Orange County this week, it has been clear that no one charged with protecting the public’s safety is taking any such chances...

More.

'Teflon Trump' Popularity Climbing After Republican Debate (VIDEO)

Watch, at ABC News "The Republican front-runner mocked Jeb Bush's decline in the polls yet played nice with perceived rival Ted Cruz."

Worker Saves Kitten from Trash Compactor at NorCal Recycling Center (VIDEO)

Wow, what a story.

Who would put a kitten in the garbage?

At LAT, "Worker at recycling center saves kitten on conveyor belt."

And watch, at KCRA News 3 Sacramento, "Kitten saved from trash compactor."

Donald Trump Rally in Mesa, Arizona (VIDEO)

Here's the full clip, "FULL Donald Trump Rally in Mesa, AZ."

And at ABC News 15 Phoenix:

Public's View of Race Relations at Lowest Point in Two Decades

And Obama was supposed to be the great uniter, a post-partisan leader for the ages. Boy, was that a load of crap.

At WSJ, "Americans’ View of Race Relations at Two-Decade Low — WSJ/NBC News Poll":

Americans’ view of race relations is as grim as it has been in 20 years, in the wake of a series of deaths of unarmed black men in confrontations with police officers, the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll shows.

This month, only 34% of Americans believe race relations in the U.S. are fairly good or very good, down from a high of 77% in January 2009, after the election of Barack Obama as America’s first black president.

The figure is the lowest since 34% in October 1995, after the acquittal on murder charges of African-American former football star O.J. Simpson, a traumatic and racially polarizing event.

“This is a very sad chart,” Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies, a Republican polling firm that conducted the poll for The Wall Street Journal and NBC News, said of the figures. “It’s a reminder… what a continued rupture point in our country race is.”

Just Wednesday afternoon, a judge declared a mistrial in the criminal trial of a Baltimore police officer charged in connection with the death of an African American man last April

Over the past two decades, blacks and Hispanics have always had slightly more negative views on race relations in the U.S. than whites. But for about four years following the election of Mr. Obama in November 2008, majorities of the three demographic groups viewed race relations in the U.S. as very or fairly good.

In February 2012, a white volunteer neighborhood watchman named George Zimmerman shot and killed 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, who was black and unarmed, at an apartment complex in Florida, after reporting to police he had seen a “suspicious person” and was stepping from his vehicle to investigate. Mr. Zimmerman was acquitted of murder in July 2013.

Since then, a series of police killings of unarmed black teenagers or men – in Missouri, New York City, South Carolina, Chicago, Cincinnati and beyond, have sparked outraged protests and have significantly diminished views of race relations among all racial groups, the polls show.

“We know the march is not yet over.  We know the race is not yet won,” Mr. Obama said in March at the 50th anniversary of the marches from Selma to Montgomery, Ala., a seminal moment in the history of the civil rights movement. “We know that reaching that blessed destination where we are judged, all of us, by the content of our character requires admitting as much, facing up to the truth… There’s nothing America can’t handle if we actually look squarely at the problem.”

Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research Associates, which also conducts the WSJ/NBC poll, said Americans’ views on race relations began to decline in polls in 2013, after the Zimmerman/Martin episode and continuing with high profile police shootings of African Americans.

In an unhappy irony, the gloomy view on race relations is a rare point of agreement among blacks, whites and Hispanics who are divided on so many other issues.

In the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, 26% of African Americans, 33% of whites and 38% of Hispanics view race relations as very or fairly good.

The issue is not free from partisan divide, however...

Baltimore Protests After Mistrial Declared in Trial of Officer in Death of Freddie Gray (VIDEO)

Totally predictable.

The story's at the Baltimore Sun, via Memeorandum, "Mistrial declared in trial of Officer William Porter in death of Freddie Gray."

Federal Reserve Raises Short-Term Interest Rates

It's not that big of a deal. And it wasn't unexpected. The Fed's been telegraphing this move for some time.

At WSJ, "Quarter-Point Increase Marks First Rise in Almost a Decade."

And, "Fed Raises Rates After Seven Years at Zero, Expects ‘Gradual’ Tightening Path":

The Federal Reserve said it would raise its benchmark interest rate from near zero for the first time since December 2008, and emphasized it will likely lift it gradually thereafter in a test of the economy’s capacity to stand on its own with less support from super-easy monetary policy.

Fed officials said they would move up the federal funds rate by a quarter percentage point on Thursday, to between 0.25% and 0.5%, and would adjust their strategy as they see how the economy performs. At these low rates, they added, policy remains accommodative.

“The [Fed] expects economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual increases in the fed funds rate,” the Fed said in a statement following its two-day meeting. To hammer home this point, officials added in a second place in their statement that they anticipated “gradual adjustments” in rates.

Fed Chairwoman Janet Yellen won a unanimous vote.

New projections show officials expect their benchmark rate to creep up to 1.375% by the end of 2016, according to the median projection of 17 officials, to 2.375% by the end of 2017 and 3.25% in three years. That implies four quarter-percentage-point interest rate increases next year, four the next and three or four the following.

That is a slower pace than projected by officials in September and much slower compared to earlier series of Fed rate increases. In the 2004-06 period, for example, the Fed raised rates 17 times in succession, an approach Fed officials don’t intend to repeat. In September seven Fed officials believed the fed funds rate could rise to 3% or higher by 2017; now just four do.

When the Fed moves next will depend importantly on how inflation evolves. The Fed’s preferred measure of inflation has run below its 2% objective for more than three years. The central bank focused extra attention on the inflation outlook in its statement, saying it would “carefully monitor” actual and expected progress toward the goal. This point implied the Fed will be reluctant to raise rates again unless it sees inflation actually moving up. For now, officials said they were “reasonably confident” inflation would rise.

Ms. Yellen, in a speech and in testimony earlier this month, said a rate increase represented a vote of confidence in the U.S. economy after the deep 2007-09 recession and a long, often-disappointing recovery. Still, uncertainties abound about how markets and the economy will respond in the months ahead.

Any number of factors might throw the central bank off its plans...

Keep reading.

Republican Elites Don't Want Donald Trump Elected. But Millions of Voters Do

This is what I love about Donald Trump.

From Thomas Edsall, at the New York Times, "Can This Really Be Donald Trump’s Republican Party?":

John Feehery, a prominent Republican lobbyist with roots on the South Side of Chicago, understands that he embodies the Republican predicament.

He warns that while the party’s establishment used to be able to call the shots when it came to the selection of presidential nominees,

We are now living in a post-recession world where fundamental assumptions have changed. In this new reality, Republicans can’t just do the bidding of big donors. Our guys are too in tune with donors and not with the concerns of regular voters. Donald Trump has tapped into a new reality.

Raised in a middle-class Irish-Catholic family, Feehery graduated from Marquette in 1986 and rose quickly in the ranks of the party. His most prominent jobs were as communications director for the former House majority leader Tom DeLay and later for House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Since giving up work as a staffer in 2005, Feehery, 52, has done well. He is president of the public relations arm of QGA Public Affairs, a major Washington lobbying firm. QGA’s clients include AT&T, United States Steel, State Farm and Zurich Financial Services.

Feehery believes that as Democrats have made gains among well-educated and relatively affluent whites, Republicans “have to rely much more on the white working class than on white upper middle-class voters.”

When I asked Feehery what the party needed to do to get back on track, he paused and said, “I’m not sure it’s fixable.”

Despite what liberals might think, Trump’s success in capitalizing on voter animosity to immigration and to political correctness has shocked many conservative Republicans.

Matthew Continetti, the editor in chief of the Washington Free Beacon, warned in a column on Dec. 11, “The Party Divides: A Trump nomination would be the end of the GOP”: Homegrown terrorism, demographic panic, racial tension, income stagnation, and Trump’s persona may catalyze a political realignment along the lines we have seen before in our politics and see currently in Europe’s. Continetti goes on to ask:

Have conservatives and Republicans thought through what would happen next? What choices we might have to make? Or are we too afraid to acknowledge the possibility that the movement and party to which we belong is no longer our own?

Reihan Salam, executive editor of National Review, told The New Yorker:

Trump is not someone I consider an ideal candidate — he does not represent my line of thinking. But he is proving that certain beliefs the professional political class had about who Republican primary voters are — what they respond to, what they care about — were just incorrect.

For those on the traditional right, one of the most infuriating aspects of Trump’s ascendance is the sense that a man described by Jeb Bush, according to Politico, as “a buffoon” and a “clown,” has wrested control of their party, an institution they have spent five decades turning into the home of principled ideologues.

Rich Lowry, the editor of National Review, looks at Donald Trump and does not see a conservative. Together with Ramesh Ponnuru, a senior editor, Lowry wrote in the October 19 essay “Trump Wrongs the Right” that Trump:

basically never says “freedom” or “liberty.” He gives no indication of caring about the Constitution. He talks only sparingly about the federal debt. He has, in short, ignored central and longstanding conservative tenets that seemed to have become only more important in the tea-party era — and he has not only gotten away with it, but thrived.

Although “Trump is not a conservative and does not deserve conservatives’ support, Republicans can nonetheless learn from him,” Lowry and Ponnuru write. He

has exposed and widened the fissures on the American right. If conservatives are to thrive, they must figure out how to respond creatively, sensibly, and honorably to the public impulses he has so carelessly exploited.

Lowry and Ponnuru make a point similar to Feehery’s:

The fact that Trump’s polling did not suffer even a modest drop after his soak-the-rich comments should tell other Republicans that the priorities of the donors they meet at fundraisers are not the same as those of the voters whose support they need.

Trump, the survivor of many financial ups and downs — including four Chapter 11 corporate bankruptcies – has emerged as uniquely positioned to capitalize on the thwarted aspirations and economic vulnerability of much of the electorate...

Keep reading.

And flashback to September, "The Political Establishment's Terrified by Donald Trump's 'Tangible American Nationalism'."