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.

Donald Trump's Plan Would Survive Constitutional Challenge

Drop the U.S. citizen Muslims from the plan and it would pass constitutional muster.

See Peter Spiro, at the New York Times, "Trump’s Anti-Muslim Plan Is Awful. And Constitutional":

In the ordinary, non-immigration world of constitutional law, the Trump scheme would be blatantly unconstitutional, a clear violation of both equal protection and religious freedom (he had originally called for barring American Muslims living abroad from re-entering the country as well; he has since dropped that clearly unconstitutional notion). But under a line of rulings from the Supreme Court dating back more than a century, that’s irrelevant. As the court observed in its 1977 decision in Fiallo v. Bell, “In the exercise of its broad power over immigration and naturalization, Congress regularly makes rules that would be unacceptable if applied to citizens.”

The court has given the political branches the judicial equivalent of a blank check to regulate immigration as they see fit. This posture of extreme deference is known as the “plenary power” doctrine. It dates back to the 1889 decision in the Chinese Exclusion case, in which the court upheld the exclusion of Chinese laborers based on their nationality.

Unlike other bygone constitutional curiosities that offend our contemporary sensibilities, the Chinese Exclusion case has never been overturned. More recent decisions have upheld discrimination against immigrants based on gender and illegitimacy that would never have survived equal protection scrutiny in the domestic context. Likewise, courts have rejected the assertion of First Amendment free speech protections by noncitizens.

Nor has the Supreme Court ever struck down an immigration classification, even ones based on race. As late as 1965, a federal appeals court upheld a measure that counted a Brazilian citizen of Japanese descent as Asian for the purposes of immigration quotas.

In the context of noncitizens seeking initial entry into the United States, due process protections don’t apply, either. This past June, the court upheld the denial of a visa for the spouse of an American citizen based on the government’s say-so, with no supporting evidence.

The courts have justified this constitutional exceptionalism on the grounds that immigration law implicates foreign relations and national security — even in the absence of a specific, plausible foreign policy rationale. The 1977 Fiallo case, for instance, involved a father seeking the admission of his out-of-wedlock son from the French West Indies — hardly the stuff of national interest.

Indeed, contrary to the conventional understanding, President Trump could implement the scheme on his own, without Congress’s approval. The Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president the authority to suspend the entry of “any class of aliens” on his finding that their entry would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States.” President Obama has used this to the better end of excluding serious human rights violators...

Spiro hates that Trump's plan is fully legal under current U.S. constitutional interpretation, so he blathers on with a bunch of namby-pampy objections about changing "popular consensus" and "constitutional norms," blah blah.

Let the voters figure out. The Constitution's not a suicide pact. A few more attacks like this and Hillary Clinton will be embracing a bar on Muslim migrants.

More, "Plan to Bar Foreign Muslims by Donald Trump Might Survive a Lawsuit."

The Truth About the War We're In

From Robert Spencer, at Amazon, Arab Winter Comes to America: The Truth About the War We're In.

And, The Complete Infidel's Guide to ISIS.

Plus, 12 Days of Deals - TV, Video, Audio.

Also, Custom Gifts for the Holidays.

More blogging tonight.

Syed Farook Practiced Firing AR-15 at Riverside County Gun Range

And he was just a "normal guy" out for a day at the firing range.

At the Los Angeles Times, "San Bernardino attacker practiced firing military-style weapon at gun range":

One of the San Bernardino attackers practiced firing a military-style weapon at a Riverside County gun range, according to an employee who described him as a "normal guy."

John Galletta, a firearms instructor at Riverside Magnum Range, said shooter Syed Rizwan Farook had practiced there before, but couldn't comment on when or how frequently.

Galletta said Farook's wife, Tashfeen Malik, had never been there.

As for Farook, a co-worker at the range described him as "a normal guy," Galletta said.

The company has turned over surveillance footage and sign-in logs to the FBI, he said.

Galletta said Farook practiced with an AR-15 and that he brought his own weapon. It wasn't clear if that is the only type of weapon he practiced with, Galletta said.

The FBI said Monday that the San Bernardino shooters had been radicalized "for quite some time," but investigators were still trying to determine whether they had links to foreign terror organizations.

Officials also said Farook and Malik, had gone to gun ranges in the Los Angeles area in the days before Wednesday's massacre, in which 14 people were killed and 21 were injured.

Federal investigators did not know how the couple had become radicalized, said David Bowdich, assistant director in charge of the FBI's Los Angeles office.

"Remember, oftentimes it's on the Internet," he said.

John D'Angelo of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives added that three of the guns recovered from the couple's shootout with police after their attack and from the couple's home were purchased by Farook between 2007 and 2012. The other two weapons were purchased by Farook's friend, Enrique Marquez of Riverside.

Marquez entered a mental hospital after the attacks, according to two law enforcement sources...

Still more.

TONIGHT: Victoria's Secret Fashion Show 2015 (VIDEO)

Hey, it's the annual extravaganza!

Here's the homepage.

And the lovely Lily Aldridge:

Pearl Harbor Survivors Honored on USS Midway Aircraft Carrier Museum (VIDEO)

There's not too many of the old guys left.

Watch, at ABC 10 News San Diego:

Donald Trump Supporters Applaud Plan to Ban Muslim Entry to the U.S. (VIDEO)

At USA Today, "Trump supporters say Muslim plan won't affect their view of him."

Lt. Col. Ralph Peters Calls Obama a 'Total Pussy' on Live TV (VIDEO)

Heh.

Good times. Good times.



Also, at USA Today, "Fox suspends Ralph Peters, Stacey Dash for profanity on air." (Stacy Dash said Obama didn't 'give a s___' about terrorism.")

Donald Trump Calls for Total Ban on Muslim Entry to U.S. (VIDEO)

This is great!

At Politico, "Donald Trump calls for ‘total and complete shutdown of Muslims’ coming to U.S." (Via Memeorandum.)



Also, via Memeorandum, "DONALD J. TRUMP STATEMENT ON PREVENTING MUSLIM IMMIGRATION."

12 Days of Deals

At Amazon, Holiday Deals in Office Supplies & Electronics.

And here's Michael Weiss's book, ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.

Also, from Walter Lord, Day of Infamy, 60th Anniversary: The Classic Account of the Bombing of Pearl Harbor.

BONUS: From Herbert Bix, Hirohito and the Making of Modern Japan.

Michael Weiss Eviscerates Obama's Oval Office Speech on Defeating Islamic State (VIDEO)

Weiss is the author of ISIS: Inside the Army of Terror.

And boy, does he unload:

Friends and Family Worried About Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, but Kept Quiet

At Instapundit, "IF YOU SEE SOMETHING, SAY SOMETHING: Friends, family worried about San Bernardino terrorists, but said nothing."

New Photo Shows #SanBernardino Terrorists Entering the U.S.

At ABC News.

Ready to assimilate:

New photo shows #SanBernardino shooters entering the US: https://t.co/Rx9zW64b3T - @BrianRoss pic.twitter.com/m0VvISZ9Kz

— ABC News (@ABC) December 7, 2015

New Poll Shows Donald Trump with 20-Point Lead for GOP Nomination (VIDEO)

At CNN, "CNN/ORC Poll: Trump alone at the top again":

Donald Trump is once again alone at the top of the Republican field, according to the latest CNN/ORC Poll, with 36% of registered Republicans and Republican-leaning independents behind him, while his nearest competitor trails by 20 points.

Three candidates cluster behind Trump in the mid-teens, including Texas Sen. Ted Cruz at 16%, former neurosurgeon Ben Carson at 14% and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio at 12%. All other candidates have the support of less than 5% of GOP voters in the race for the Republican Party's nomination for president.

Carson (down 8 points since October), former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush (down 5 points to 3%) and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul (down 4 points to 1%) have lost the most ground since the last CNN/ORC poll, conducted in mid-October.

Cruz (up 12 points) and Trump (up 9 points) are the greatest beneficiaries of those declines. Rubio is also up slightly, gaining 4 points -- an increase within the poll's margin of sampling error -- since the last CNN/ORC poll.

Republican voters are most sharply divided by education. Among those GOP voters who hold college degrees, the race is a close contest between the top four contenders, with Cruz slightly in front at 22%, Carson and Rubio tied at 19% and Trump at 18%. Among those without college degrees, Trump holds a runaway lead: 46% support the businessman, compared with 12% for Cruz, 11% for Carson and just 8% for Rubio.

Several other recent polls have shown Trump reclaiming a solid lead atop the GOP field after several weeks of near parity with Carson. But the new poll finds the businessman with both his broadest support and his widest lead in any national live-interviewer telephone poll since he announced his candidacy in June.

The poll reflects Trump's dominance over the rest of the field on the issues voters deem most important to them. He holds massive margins over other Republicans as the candidate most trusted to handle the economy (at 55%, Trump stands 46 percentage points over his nearest competitor), the federal budget (51%, up 41 points), illegal immigration (48%, up 34 points), ISIS (46%, up 31 points) and foreign policy (30%, up 13 points).

Looking at those Republicans who consider each issue to be "extremely important" to their vote, Trump's standing on each issue is even stronger. Among those Republican voters who call the economy extremely important, for example, 60% say they trust Trump to handle that issue. Among immigration voters, 55% trust Trump on the issue. On foreign policy, Trump inches up to 32%, and among those who call terrorism an extremely important issue, 49% say they trust Trump most on ISIS.

The poll was conducted before the shootings in San Bernardino, California, on Wednesday, carried out by a man reported to have been radicalized and his wife.

More generally, about 4 in 10 Republicans say Trump is the candidate who would be most effective at solving the country's problems (42% name Trump, 14% Carson, 12% Cruz, 10% Rubio) and could best handle the responsibilities of being commander-in-chief (37% Trump, 16% Cruz, 11% Carson and 10% Rubio).

And a majority of Republican voters say they see Trump as the candidate with the best chances to win the general election next November (52% say Trump has the best chances there, compared with 15% for Rubio, 11% for Cruz and 10% for Carson).

On immigration, an issue that has been a focal point of Trump's campaign, most Americans say the government should not attempt to deport all people living in the country illegally (63%), and even more say such a mass deportation wouldn't be possible (81%). About half say such an effort would be harmful to the economy (47%), while about 3 in 10 say it would help (29%).

Among Republicans, a narrow majority (53%) think the government should try to deport all of the estimated 11 million immigrants currently living in the U.S. illegally, but most think it wouldn't ultimately be possible to achieve (73%). Republicans are more likely than others to see a deportation effort as helpful to the economy (44% think it would help, 30% that it would hurt).

There's a sharp divide among Republican voters on these questions about deportation between those who back Trump and those who do not. Among Trump supporters, 67% say the government should attempt to deport all people living in the country illegally, while just 39% of Republican voters backing other candidates agree. Still, even among Trump's supporters, most say it wouldn't be possible to deport all those living in the U.S. illegally (55%).

Republican voters remain more enthusiastic about voting than their Democratic counterparts, but the gains in enthusiasm that had emerged through October appear to have stalled...

No wonder the Republican establishment is totally panicked at this point. See the New York Times, "Wary of Donald Trump, G.O.P. Leaders Are Caught in a Standoff."

The don't want him but they fear him. That's the standoff. Trump's powerful and they're scared of him retaliating.

If the primaries were held today, especially Super Tuesday, Trump would be the GOP nominee. It's won't be too long now though. And events aren't helping the establishment much. Not much at all. Trump's surging.

Obama White House Issues Retraction on Tashfeen Malik Entering U.S. on 'Visa Waiver Program'

Ahem, that's kind of a big retraction, at Twitchy, "WHOOPS! White House issues embarrassing correction to Obama’s speech."

White House admits Obama misspoke when he said the female terrorist entered US via the Visa Waiver program. She was on a K1 fiancé visa.

— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) December 7, 2015

The White House corrects Obama’s statement on Visa Waiver Program pic.twitter.com/vvsCzvnE0A

— Zeke Miller (@ZekeJMiller) December 7, 2015

Obama Seeks to Ban People on No-Fly Lists from Buying Firearms (VIDEO)

Amazingly, the president actually acknowledged the terrorist threat. He didn't utter the phrase "radical Islam," but there was a noticeable difference in his speech. A low bar, I know. But still.

No matter though. Our strategy against Islamic State will remain unchanged, while stateside the administration is ramping up its efforts to strip law-abiding citizens of their constitutional rights.

At the Wall Street Journal, "Terrorist Threat Has ‘Evolved’ Into a New Phase, Obama Says":

President Barack Obama, in a rare Oval Office address on Sunday, outlined his administration’s intensified efforts to combat “a new phase” of terrorist threats in the U.S., aiming to boost confidence in his national-security strategy after last week’s deadly attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

Mr. Obama said the attack underscores that the threat of terrorism in the U.S. “has evolved into a new phase.”

President Barack Obama, in a rare Oval Office address on Sunday, outlined his administration’s intensified efforts to combat “a new phase” of terrorist threats in the U.S., aiming to boost confidence in his national-security strategy after last week’s deadly attack in San Bernardino, Calif.

Mr. Obama said the attack underscores that the threat of terrorism in the U.S. “has evolved into a new phase.”

“This was an act of terrorism designed to kill innocent people,” he said, standing behind a podium inside the Oval Office.

The prime-time address marked a turning point in his administration’s fight against Islamic State and other terrorist groups that previously had largely played out on foreign soil. The San Bernardino massacre—the deadliest terrorist attack in the U.S. since Sept. 11, 2001—shattered any sense among Americans that the battle was one waged overseas. The challenge now for Mr. Obama lies in assuring the country that the government is doing everything it can to prevent similar attacks.

Mr. Obama didn't announce an overhaul of his counterterrorism strategy or any sweeping changes in the U.S.-led military campaign in Iraq and Syria against Islamic State. Instead, he sought to reassure a jittery nation by emphasizing a boost in national-security measures designed to blunt terrorists’ ability to strike in the U.S., and in elements of his Islamic State strategy.

“We will prevail by being strong and smart, resilient and relentless,” he said.

Mr. Obama forcefully called for Muslim leaders to do more to stop radicalization.

“Muslim leaders here and around the globe have to continue working with us to decisively and unequivocally reject the hateful ideology that groups like ISIL and Al Qaeda promote, to speak out against not just acts of violence, but also those interpretations of Islam that are incompatible with the values of religious tolerance, mutual respect, and human dignity,” he said.

The president also called on Congress to pass provisions he believes would further reduce terrorist threats in the U.S., including legislation that would ban assault weapons and gun sales to people who are on the terrorist no-fly list. Such an approach has some bipartisan support, but Republican leaders have opposed it, saying it would violate the Second Amendment rights of Americans who are on the list erroneously.

The president urged lawmakers to pass a new resolution authorizing the military campaign against Islamic State. That measure has stalled in Congress.

Mr. Obama called for a review of the program that waives visa requirements for foreigners from certain countries mainly in Europe and Asia. Last week, the Obama administration laid out changes to the program, which allows people from 38 countries, largely in Europe and Asia, to enter the U.S. without visas. The program will now include a check for any visits to countries that are considered havens for terrorists.

In the wake of the Nov. 13 Paris attacks that killed 130 people, Mr. Obama spoke out sharply against legislation in Congress to halt the resettlement of Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the U.S. But the visa-waiver program has emerged as a potential point of agreement between the two major political parties.

While Mr. Obama called for streamlining technology that allows law enforcement to better track potential threats, he didn’t seek to renew the debate on surveillance. The administration is also looking into tackling the use of encrypted messages to plan attacks.

While declaring the San Bernardino attack, which killed 14 people and injured 21, an “act of terror,” Mr. Obama on Sunday appealed to Americans to resist reacting in ways he believes would alienate Muslims in the U.S. and fuel the extremist ideology perpetuated by groups like Islamic State...

The terrorists at CAIR are rolling over in laughter. All of this plays right into their hands. Meanwhile, law-abiding Americans are going to be increasingly targeted, on gun rights, and with a crackdown on so-called "hate speech," of which there's no First Amendment exception. Leftists don't care about the legality of their agenda, of course. It's ideology all the way down.

More.

REPORT: Syed Farook's Mother Active in 'Pro-Caliphate' Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA)

Following-up from previously, "Tashfeen Malik Was Driving Force in Terror Couple's Embrace of Jihad — #SanBernardino."

The Daily Caller has the report, via Memeorandum, "Shooter’s Mother Active In U.S. Branch of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group."

And see Pamela Geller, "SB Jihadi’s Mother Active In U.S. Branch of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group":

The family knows. They know everything.  As I explain here, it was obvious  when Chris Cuomo interviewed the Bernardino shooters’ family attorneys. Cuomo gave them a free pass and the family was  hostile, unrepentant. The family blamed the victims. They were a very tight family and they didn’t see a bomb making factory in the house? The neighbors were suspicious but the family wasn’t?

They go on to say the wife had no role in the murder or in the planning. This is morbidly comical, because according to numerous news reports, she is alleged to have “radicalized” her husband.

Attorney Muhammad said Tashfeen took care of the mother in the house. Are we expected to believe that the mother never saw anything?

“Shooter’s Mother Active In U.S. Branch of Pro-Caliphate Islamic Group,” Daily Caller, December 6, 2015

Rafia Farook, the mother of San Bernardino terrorist Syed Rizwan Farook, is an active member of the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA), a Muslim organization that promotes the establishment of a caliphate and has ties to a radical Pakistani political group called Jamaat-e-Islami.

Farook’s affiliation with ICNA was revealed on Friday when MSNBC and other new outlets scoured the Farooks’ apartment in Redlands, Cal. An MSNBC reporter found a certificate of appreciation presented to Safia Farook last summer by ICNA’s sisters’ wing.

On Wednesday, Syed Farook and his wife, Tashfeed Malik, killed 14 people during a holiday party being held for San Bernardino County workers in what the FBI considers a terrorist attack...

More.

Also at Red State, "Was Syed Farook’s Mother the Linchpin in the #SanBernardinoShooting."

Tashfeen Malik Was Driving Force in Terror Couple's Embrace of Jihad — #SanBernardino

At the Wall Street Journal, "San Bernardino Wife Believed to Be Driving Force to Radicalism":

Investigators probing the couple suspected of the shooting attack in San Bernardino, Calif., last week increasingly believe the wife was the driving force behind the assault—a working theory that highlights the difficulty of trying to spot such plots and prevent them, law-enforcement officials said.

Initial evidence suggests Tashfeen Malik may have had a stronger bond than her husband to jihadist ideology, the officials said. The husband, Syed Farook, appears to have been someone who was curious but not particularly driven on his own to support terror groups, these officials said.

Agents are pursuing “the very real possibility’’ that Ms. Malik was the catalyst for the violence that killed 14 and injured 21 at a holiday office party for San Bernardino County health workers on Dec. 2, said one official. So far her husband “seems like someone who was searching for answers,’’ the official said.

Mr. Farook’s family members have told investigators they are stunned by what the couple allegedly did and that they did not see signs of radicalization in the pair or evidence that they were planning violence. So far investigators have no reason to doubt those accounts, officials said...

Well, additional information's coming out, for example, that Farook's mom was active in "pro-caliphate" Islamic groups, but keep reading, in any case. I'll have more.

Sunday Cartoons

At Flopping Aces, "Sunday Funnies."



And at Reaganite Republican, "Reaganite's SUNDAY FUNNIES," and Theo Spark's, "Cartoon Round Up..."

Cartoon Credit: Legal Insurrection, "Branco Cartoon – Wheel of Misfortune."

Leftists Go After the First and Second Amendment — #SanBernardino

Crush speech that "edges toward violence" and seize semi-automatic "military-style assault rifles."

That's been the left's agenda since last Wednesday and the jihad terror massacre in San Bernardino.

Here's Cristina Laila, on Twitter:

Islamofascists wanna take away #1A and #2A from the silent pissed off majority. We won't let it happen. pic.twitter.com/jtWdvi34QI

— Cristina Laila (@cristinalaila1) December 6, 2015

Preview of Obama's Oval Office Speech Tonight: Expect New Gun Control Measures (VIDEO)

From Fuzzy Slippers, at Legal Insurrection, "Preview of Obama’s Oval Office Speech About That Problem We’re Not Allowed to Mention."

And watch, at NBC News, "Attorney General Loretta Lynch: President Will Call on Congress to Take Action on Guns."

Marine Le Pen's National Front Leads in First Round of French Regional Elections

No surprise there.

At the Wall Street Journal, "National Front Leads in First Round of French Regional Elections":

42% ! Merci ! pic.twitter.com/gbHKWidonJ

— Marion Le Pen (@Marion_M_Le_Pen) December 6, 2015

PARIS—France’s far-right National Front was ahead in the first round of regional elections, early exit polls showed Sunday, positioning the anti-immigration party to win control of several French regions in a second vote a week from now.

Three weeks after the terror attacks that left 130 dead in Paris, Marine Le Pen’s National Front took 30.6% of the mainland France vote, according to an IFOP-Fiducial exit poll. That marked a surge from the last comparable elections in 2010, when the party won only 11.4% of the first-round vote.

President François Hollande’s Socialist party and allies came in third place with 22.7% behind Les Républicains—the center-right party of former President Nicolas Sarkozy—and its allies who garnered 27%.

The first-round results highlight the emergence of Ms. Le Pen’s National Front as a third force in French politics, capable of luring mainstream voters. With 18 months to go to presidential and legislative elections, the results also underline the fading momentum of Mr. Hollande’s Socialists and other leftist groups, who currently preside over all but one of France’s mainland regions.

The strong first-round score doesn't guarantee the National Front will take control of one of France’s regions. But their chances are better than in other local votes because the regional elections don’t necessarily end in runoffs. That means several parties can get through to the second round of voting, making it difficult for mainstream parties to unite behind one anti-National Front candidate in a runoff, as they have in the past.

The party that takes the largest share of the vote in the second round next Sunday will get a bonus of 25% of the seats at the regional assembly, which almost guarantees majority control of the region.

The strength of the National Front in the first-round vote will force the mainstream parties to scramble in the coming days to find ways to block the National Front in regions where it is ahead. Prime Minister Manuel Valls has already said that his Socialist party and Mr. Sarkozy’s Les Républicains should prepare to bury decades of rivalry and merge their lists of candidates for the second-round vote for the regional assemblies. Alternatively, one party could withdraw from the race.

The National Front had already chalked up successes in local elections in recent years after Ms. Le Pen cracked down on the anti-Semitic rhetoric that kept the National Front on the margins of French politics under the stewardship of her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen. Mr. Le Pen’s expulsion from the party in August crowned that makeover.

But the National Front has continued to endorse anti-immigration and anti European policies, combined with calls for hard-line security measures. That enabled Ms. Le Pen to bolster support after the Paris attacks by castigating Mr. Hollande for not implementing soon enough the policies she has long espoused...

Marine LePen's niece, Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, is expected to take 43 percent of the vote in the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur.

More at the Telegraph UK, "Marion Maréchal-Le Pen: The New Wonder-Girl Of France's Far-Right."

Jihadist Tashfeen Malik Attended Radical Islamic Seminary in Pakistan — #SanBernardino

Here's the breaking story at the Los Angeles Times, via Memeorandum, "San Bernardino shooting updates: Tashfeen Malik attended seminary in Pakistan; President Obama to address the nation."

And click though, at LAT, "San Bernardino assailant attended Islamic institute in Pakistan":

Two students who attended college with San Bernardino assailant Tashfeen Malik confirmed that during her time at Bahauddin Zakariya University in Multan, Pakistan, she began attending Al Huda, a chain of modern institutes of Islamic education which mainly focuses on women with the stated objective of “bringing them back to their religious roots.”

“She used to go to attend sessions in Al Huda almost every day,” said a fellow student, who asked not to be identified. “She was not too close to any class fellow."

The fellow student said that Malik did not share her thoughts on religious issues with fellow classmates in the department of pharmacology, where she studied.

"We all are in state of shock," the fellow student said.

Experts said that the majority of women who attend Al Huda institutes, located in large cities, wear the hijab. They are usually well-heeled. These institutes use the group-isolating Islamic preaching session (called ‘dars’) activity to reinvent personal identity through ‘discovery’ of Islam.

Dr. Ayesha Siddiqa, a Pakistani security analyst, said Al Huda institutes teach women "fundamentalist" ideas, though they do not necessarily promote a jihadist agenda. “I call Al-Huda the fourth generation of religious seminaries. It does not promote use of violence but takes you closer to the red line. Now, it is a personal decision to cross the red line and take or give one's life.”

She said that the impact of such institutes is widespread, because a child going to a seminary has an impact on the thinking of other members of her family. “People would be familiar with, for instance, a daughter going to an Al Huda changing the mother and eventually the entire household. This dynamic is mirrored in more traditional seminaries as well.”

Sadaf Ahmad, an assistant professor at the Lahore University of Management Sciences, has written in a book about Al Huda institutes that Farhat Hashmi’s (founder of Al Huda) denunciation of various cultural practices and disapproval of Westerners and Indians helps women redefine their own identity as Muslims.  The author found Al Huda graduates to be “very intolerant and judgmental toward people who were different from them.”

Tomi Lahren: 'God Bless America. God Bless San Bernardino' (VIDEO)

God bless this woman!

San Bernardino Jihad Causes Surge in Number of People Seeking Concealed Carry Permits (VIDEO)

Well, there's been a surge in gun purchases all around, but up in Fresno folks are also requesting permits for concealed carry.

Watch, at KFSN Channel 30 News Fresno, "SURGE IN CONCEALED WEAPON PERMIT REQUESTS."