Joining us for today's show are Donny Deutsch, Nicolle Wallace, Eugene Robinson, Kasie Hunt, Mike Barnicle, Bill Kristol, Margaret Carlson, Richard Haass, Sean Trende, Hallie Jackson, Rep. Steve King, Vali Nasr, Jeffrey Sachs, Alex Castellanos, Sara Eisen and in Taiji, Japan today, the 10th and final boat is in. Happy Blue Cove Day!!! 2015-12-15. 10:20am. #tweet4dolphins #dolphinproject. On The Season Finale Of Donny!, After making a racially insensitive comment on his show, Donny tries to right the wrong by creating his own race initiative...to disastrous results.
Trump hits a new high in national poll. The billionaire businessman surges to 41 percent after releasing proposal to ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. Donald Trump just got a little more vault in his ceiling. Nationwide, the polling-obsessed Manhattan multi-billionaire and leading Republican presidential candidate broke into the 40s on Monday.
According to the results of the latest Monmouth University poll surveying voters identifying as Republican or independents leaning toward the GOP, Trump earned 41 percent, nearly tripling the support of his closest rival, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who took 14 percent.
The poll underscores Trump's success at keeping voters fixated on his unprecedented presidential campaign. The latest national survey was taken after Trump landed another whopper, proposing in an emailed statement last Monday to temporarily ban all Muslims from entering the U.S. The statement gave Trump another boost of media attention, and some speculated it was designed to shift the conversation away from a Monmouth poll from Iowa released earlier that day that showed Cruz with a 5-point edge in the state.
Trump was still smarting from that poll last Friday, trashing it during a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, though he may change his tune after this latest result.
“What the hell is Monmouth?” Trump asked at the rally, adding, “I only like polls that treat me well.”
Monmouth's survey also held good news for Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, who moved up to 10 percent support and third place, and bad news for retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson, who plummeted from 18 percent in October to 9 percent in this latest survey. Other candidates, including former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and former Hewlett-Packard CEO Carly Fiorina, polled within the margin of error, with 6 percent remaining undecided.
Trump celebrated the favorable findings with a series of tweets and a post on Facebook, featuring a graphic, that was shortly taken down after posting, without explanation.
"Looks like we just broke another polling ceiling," he wrote to his followers. "While the establishment schemes to nominate someone they control - the voters are clearly indicating that they want someone who will fix the broken political system in DC. Thank you for your support! We will #MakeAmericaGreatAgain!"
Among various demographic groups, Trump picked up 13 points among those with a high-school education, earning 54 percent support with that group, and 11 points with those identifying with the tea party, earning 52 percent with that group. Cruz, however, picked up 15 points among tea party supporters, receiving 29 percent with that group. Trump's standing among women has fallen slightly, down four points since October (41 percent to 37 percent this time), though he has gained three points with men (41 percent to 44 percent). Among those with a college degree, support for Trump fell by 10 points, from 41 percent to 31 percent.
In terms of favorability, Cruz led the way with a net positive 40 points (58 percent favorable to 18 percent unfavorable), followed by Rubio at +37 points (55 percent to 18 percent) and Trump at +32 points (61 percent to 29 percent). For Trump, the latest results mark an improvement over the last two months in the Monmouth poll. In October, his favorability sat at 52 percent to 33 percent.
Regardless of whether they supported Trump, 30 percent said they would be enthusiastic if he were the nominee, compared to 37 percent who said they would be satisfied. Just 12 percent said they would be dissatisfied, while 16 percent said they would be upset.
Asked whether they agreed that Trump had the proper temperament to be commander-in-chief, 65 percent agreed to some degree, while 33 percent disagreed to some measure. Among voters not supporting Trump or Cruz, however, just 55 percent to 43 percent said Trump's temperament would be a good fit for the White House.
The numbers represent a boost for Trump after a Bloomberg Politics/Des Moines Register survey of likely Iowa Republican caucus participants on Saturday found that Cruz held a 10-point advantage over Trump. A Fox News poll gave Cruz a 28 percent-to-26 percent edge. In still another Iowa survey released Monday from Quinnipiac University, likely caucus-goers again indicated an essentially knotted race, with Trump at 28 percent and Cruz at 27 percent, virtually doubling Rubio's 14 percent.
On Sunday, Trump took the gloves off on Cruz, days after The New York Times reported Cruz had told donors that the judgment of all candidates, including Trump's, should be evaluated. "I don't think he's qualified to be president," Trump said on "Fox News Sunday," remarking that Cruz has been "frankly like a little bit of a maniac" as a senator.
In response, Cruz tweeted a clip of the song "Maniac" from the 1983 movie "Flashdance."
The Monmouth poll was conducted Dec. 10-13, surveying 385 registered voters nationwide who identified as Republicans or independents who indicated that they leaned toward the Republican Party. The margin of error is plus or minus 5 percentage points.
Poll of Polls: Trump dominates nationally, in NH; tight in Iowa. Watch the CNN Republican debate Tuesday, December 15 at 6:00 p.m. ET and 8:30 p.m. ET.
Washington (CNN)Donald Trump dominates the Republican presidential field nationally and in New Hampshire, while he's locked in a tight race in Iowa with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz heading into Tuesday's Republican presidential debate, according to new CNN Poll of Polls averages.
A flurry of polls released in the last few days have pointed in sometimes conflicting directions as the first debate since the terror attacks in Paris and the shooting in San Bernardino approaches, but the Poll of Polls points to clear story lines emerging nationally and in the two states set to cast the first ballots of the 2016 presidential campaign.
The CNN Poll of Polls finds that across the five latest national, live-interviewer telephone polls, Trump tops Cruz 33% to 17% in the race for the Republican nomination. Behind Cruz, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio (12%) and retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson (11%) are the only other candidates with average support above 10%. Former Florida governor and one-time front-runner Jeb Bush averages 4%, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie holds 3%, with businesswoman Carly Fiorina, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Ohio Gov. John Kasich and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul all at 2%.
Trump's lead in these national polls varies from 27 points in the most recent poll from Monmouth University to just five points in the NBC News/Wall Street Journal survey conducted early last week. Some of that difference stems from sampling -- the CNN/ORC Poll and the Monmouth poll measure opinions among registered voters who say they are Republicans or lean toward the Republican Party, and both found Trump with larger leads than some polls using a different sampling method.
The NBC/Wall Street Journal, CBS News/New York Times and Suffolk University/USA Today polls all interview those who say they plan to vote in their state's Republican primary or caucus.
There is also timing, with the Monmouth poll the only one conducted entirely after Trump released his proposal calling for a ban on allowing Muslims to enter the United States.
Still, each of the five polls included in the national CNN Poll of Polls shows Trump holding a lead larger than its margin of sampling error.
While the national polling shows significant volatility, the Iowa poll results show even greater variation from poll to poll.
According to the CNN Poll of Polls averaging the six most recent live-interviewer telephone polls, the race in Iowa is a tight one between Cruz (27%) and Trump (25%). Rubio and Carson follow here as well, with 13% and 12% respectively, while Bush (5%) and Paul (4%) lag behind, trailed by four candidates at 2% each: Christie, Fiorina, Huckabee and Kasich.
Three of the six Iowa polls included here found Cruz with a significant lead over Trump, two found the two within margin of error of each other, and one found Trump ahead by a wide margin. The CNN/ORC poll which found Trump ahead is the oldest in the bunch, with interviews conducted between November 28 and December 6.
Surveying likely Iowa caucusgoers is one of the toughest challenges in election polling, as it is routinely one of the lowest turnout events in the entire presidential election process. In 2012 and 2008, only about 6% of the state's registered voters participated in the Republican caucuses, and whether turnout this time around will be similar is a question that can't be answered until the caucuses themselves are complete.
Some argue that Trump's appeal among those who are not regular participants in the caucus process will drive turnout higher, much as the hotly contested presidential race on the Democratic side in 2008 did for that party. Others say Trump's supporters' allegiances aren't strong enough to overcome the challenges inherent in participating in a caucus: Having to trudge out on a wintry night for several hours of political speeches and declare your support for your chosen candidate publicly.
In New Hampshire, a larger turnout means the task is somewhat easier, and the most recent polls are more closely aligned with each other. Five polls were included in the CNN Poll of Polls in New Hampshire, with the earliest including interviews conducted November 14 and the latest running through December 8.
The CNN Poll of Polls in New Hampshire finds Trump (26%) with a more than 2-to-1 advantage over his nearest competitor, Rubio, who at 12% is the only other candidate to average double-digits. Behind Rubio, a passel of candidates range in support from 7% to 9% -- Carson and Cruz each average 9%, Bush 8% and Kasich and Christie 7%.
That bunch-up around third place masks some clear trends that have developed in recent New Hampshire polling, Christie's numbers are on the rise, with the governor averaging 11% in the two polls conducted after Thanksgiving compared with 5% in the three conducted earlier in November.
Carson, meanwhile, has been losing steam, dropping from 11% in the pre-Thanksgiving polls to 6% in the polling conducted more recently. Bush, Rubio and Cruz have been roughly steady in the Granite State lately.
Republican Presidential Debate in Las Vegas: What to Watch For. The last Republican presidential debate was barely a month ago, but it feels like a lifetime.
Since the field last gathered in Milwaukee in November, the world has endured terror attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, California, and secured a sweeping climate agreement. In the GOP primary, Dr. Ben Carson has all but collapsed in Iowa, and that has helped push Texas Sen. Ted Cruz into the spotlight. Donald Trump's escalating rhetoric against Muslim-Americans, meanwhile, has roiled the race while bolstering his own standing with GOP voters nationally.
It's a lot to digest, and CNN's debate Tuesday in Las Vegas — the last of the year — looks to be a memorable one. Here are a few of the angles we'll be watching.
What to do about Trump?
Since the last debate, Trump's campaign has erupted into open bigotry, including phony tales of American Muslims celebrating 9/11, fake statistics slandering black Americans as violent and finally a call for a total ban on Muslim travel into the United States.
With emotions high after the deadly attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Republican candidates and conservative commentators are concerned that Trump's rabble rousing could drag the GOP into a dangerous place. And, as Trump learned when he planned — then abruptly cancelled — a trip to Israel after criticism from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his Muslim-bashing could have real consequences in the international arena.
Will candidates confront him if he offers more of the same on Tuesday? Will anyone be able to get a word in edgewise over Trump's outrageous claims? How will Republican voters, who polls show are closely divided on Trump's proposed Muslim ban, respond to high-profile debate over it on Tuesday?
The national security debate
Setting aside Trump, the recent terrorist attacks have refocused the Republican primary conversation around national security and it's an area where the candidates have significant differences.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie have tried to stake out ground as the field's hawks and have each attacked Cruz and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul as weak on national security. Rubio, in particular, has targeted Cruz's vote to reform the NSA surveillance program revealed by Edward Snowden, which collected data about phone calls (but not the content of the calls themselves). Cruz and other supporters of the legislation argue that it put the program on sounder legal footing without harming intelligence gathering.
The bigger argument, though, concerns the candidates' overall policy vision. Borrowing from Paul's libertarian circles, Cruz has accused Rubio and Bush of sowing conflict in the Middle East by supporting interventions in Libya and Syria to overthrow military strongmen rather than restricting their focus to radical terrorist groups like the Islamic State, which Cruz has pledged to "carpet bomb."
Rubio, however, has accused Cruz of being an "isolationist" and he and Bush have argued that eliminating the Islamic State requires removing Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad from power in order to wind down that country's civil war. Bush, who has called for greater use of ground forces in Iraq and Syria, has said Cruz's emphasis on air power is simplistic and "not a strategy." Expect these divides to come up in a major way on Tuesday.
Trump vs. Cruz
Cruz has been moving into a decisive lead in Iowa polls. Trump really, really, really does not like it when other candidates do that. Not surprisingly, there's been some tension between the two lately.
The twist here is that Cruz, unlike the rest of the field, has spent the last six months showering Trump with compliments to avoid exactly this confrontation. That strategy held up until this week, when The New York Times reported Cruz had questioned Trump's "judgment" as commander-in-chief at a private fundraiser.
That was enough of a green light for Trump, who seemed relieved to finally have an excuse to go after his new top rival. Trump said on "Fox News Sunday that Cruz was a "a bit of a maniac" in the Senate and tweeted he was disappointed Cruz would "speak behind my back."
Cruz has tried to keep the truce up anyway and his pandering is growing more cringe-worthy by the day. The debate is a whole other story, though. Will Cruz stand up for himself if Trump targets him onstage? Will Trump, the most famous birther in America, renew his old doubts about the Canadian-born Cruz's eligibility for the presidency?
The not-so-green party
The world is celebrating a landmark climate change deal this week that represents years of work by America, European allies, rising powers like China and India, rivals like Russia and dozens of smaller nations to prevent environmental ruin.
No one in the Republican field seems to care much, though, and a number of candidates — including Cruz and Trump — are openly hostile to the idea man-made climate change even exists. To the extent candidates have discussed the issue, it's mostly been to jeer at regulations on carbon emissions, downplay hopes of international cooperation and mock the issue as a distraction from terrorism.
Even putting aside the overwhelming scientific consensus on climate change and the policy debates about how to stop it, the Paris agreement is going to be a critical component of American foreign policy for the next president. Will candidates offer any positive ideas as to how they'll meets the deal's ambitious goals - or how they'll manage the diplomatic fallout if they abandon it?
Tonight's GOP Debate: Cruz On The Rise As Terrorism Becomes Central Focus.
The political atmosphere has shifted considerably since the last Republican presidential debate a month ago, creating a different dynamic ahead of Tuesday evening's GOP face-off in Las Vegas.
Last month's terrorist attacks in Paris have reignited a debate over national security, foreign policy and the appropriate U.S. response. Shootings in San Bernardino, Calif., this month have renewed worries about terrorist sympathizers inside the country. The most controversial reaction to the attacks and the role ISIS may have played has been Donald Trump's proposal to halt all Muslims trying to come into the U.S. for any reason.
Many of his rivals have forcefully condemned such an idea, saying it violated the fabric of religious freedom protected by the Constitution. But Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, who has picked up Ben Carson supporters and hopes to pick off Trump supporters, too, has been careful when it comes to Trump.
While Cruz said he disagreed with the proposal, he did not do so as sharply as others. But their detente may be gone for this debate. Cruz has been rising in polls and even overtook Trump in this weekend's Iowa Poll conducted by respected pollster J. Ann Selzer. And Trump has started to criticize the freshman senator after audio leaked from a Cruz fundraiser where the candidate questioned Trump's judgment.
Nine candidates will be on the main stage of the CNN debate at 8:30 p.m. ET. The undercard debate with four lower-polling hopefuls will start at 6 p.m. ET. Here's what each needs to do and to avoid:
Donald Trump
Need: Look like the front-runner; show energy and defend his controversial proposals, like his Muslim ban
Avoid: Fading from the debate, as he has in a couple of debates; getting upstaged, particularly by Cruz; appearing out of his depth on foreign policy
The helium looked like it might be coming out of the Trump balloon. And then Paris happened. Expect Trump's controversial plan to stop Muslims from entering the U.S. to play a major role in this debate. The proposal drew rebukes from the Republican National Committee, GOP chairmen in New Hampshire and South Carolina and many of his rivals who will be on stage. Each will see an opportunity to, again, try to paint Trump as unserious.
But for Trump, those same tactics are what appeal to his base, and Republicans have yet to find his kryptonite. This is the final debate of the year — and it's now just 47 days until the Iowa caucuses. His GOP rivals won't be pulling any punches at this debate, and Trump has to be ready to take them and respond without getting flustered.
Ted Cruz
Need: Show he's the choice for conservatives over Trump and hold his own with him
Avoid: Letting Trump's insults stick
Cruz is the hottest candidate on the debate stage right now, rising in national polls and in crucial Iowa, where he has picked up a string of influential evangelical endorsements. The former champion college debater has consistently delivered in each previous face-off, but the stakes are much higher.
While he has avoided trying to tangle with Trump, a back and forth Tuesday night seems inevitable given the campaign trajectory. Cruz needs to continue finding a way to appeal to evangelical voters — many of whom disagree with Trump's drastic proposal concerning Muslims — while also trying to convince the GOP establishment that he could be an acceptable alternative to Trump.
Among the trio of first-term senators running, Cruz has only been there four years — the same amount of time as President Obama. With his new surge, he could find himself defending his qualifications to be president, too.
Ben Carson
Need: Be relevant on stage and engage his competitors
Avoid: Foreign-policy missteps and fading into the background
It wasn't that long ago when Carson was on the rise in the GOP primary, but the neurosurgeon's support has plummeted over the past month. Just as the focus of the race turned to foreign policy, Carson began stumbling badly on the issue, and one of his advisers even openly questioned whether he was grasping anything he was being briefed on.
Carson has tried to change that narrative with trips overseas to visit Syrian refugees and has more foreign travel planned. But it still may not be enough, given how uncomfortable he's appeared talking foreign policy ("HA-mas," anyone?). Carson hasn't proved an adept or comfortable debater yet; he needs to make a memorable mark and show he can competently discuss pressing matters of national security to stop his slide in the polls.
Marco Rubio
Need: Be the acceptable alternative to Cruz and Trump
Avoid: Being upstaged in one-on-ones; going on the defensive over immigration
Last debate, it was the Florida senator who was the belle of the ball. Cruz has taken some of the spotlight away in recent days, but look for Rubio to do what he does — be the competent debater he's proven to be. The two freshmen senators are very different, and Rubio has been the one candidate Cruz has been OK with criticizing on immigration, pointing to his past support for comprehensive reform.
Expect Rubio to counter with arguments that Cruz is too soft on national security. His team has readily pointed out he supported limits on government surveillance this year. Rubio has done well when talking about foreign policy, too, and sits on both the Senate Foreign Relations and Intelligence committees. He's the establishment choice who's gotten a lot of traction so far out of past debates, and Tuesday's could help him further solidify that position.
Jeb Bush
Need: A breakout moment to spur some renewed momentum
Avoid: Becoming overshadowed again by other top-tier candidates
It's a familiar refrain by this point — Jeb Bush needs a good debate performance. Last month, he didn't do any damage and performed adequately, but it has still made little difference in polling. Bush remains in the game at least through New Hampshire, thanks to his money and superPAC support, but he needs something to put him back in the conversation.
Time's running out for that boost, and he needs a game-changing moment in this debate. He can't risk being eclipsed by New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie either, in trying to appeal to the political center. Expect Bush to again talk up his record as Florida governor and try and emerge as the sensible one on foreign policy — but he hasn't broken through in months.
Carly Fiorina
Need: To stay a part of the conversation; translate her international business experience into foreign-policy experience in a believable way
Avoid: Becoming irrelevant on the crowded stage; appearing too pessimistic
Despite a brief blip after the first debate that helped propel her onto the main stage, Fiorina has stagnated in both early state polls and in national surveys. Even though the former Hewlett Packard CEO has consistently turned in solid debate performances, including some biting and salient attacks against Trump, she has mostly faded from the conversation as soon as they're over. Once again, her team has got to try and find a way to channel a strong national performance into tangible momentum on the ground.
Chris Christie
Need: Seize the establishment mantle in the race; build on his strong last debate
Avoid: Being overshadowed by Trump or others competing for New Hampshire
A strong undercard debate last month helped the New Jersey governor get some momentum. He's back on the main stage, has been picking up endorsements in New Hampshire — including the Union Leader's backing — and could be rising at just the right time. The top Granite State paper cited Christie's experience as a U.S. Attorney prosecuting terrorists as the right experience needed in the current climate, and expect Trump to convey that to a larger audience.
Also, if voters like Trump's bombast, Christie may try to show some of his own on stage Tuesday night — and he's someone party leaders would be a lot more comfortable with as their standard-bearer.
John Kasich
Need: Be more than a Trump attack dog; to show he can be serious and statesman-like
Avoid: Becoming too defensive and asking for more speaking time from debate moderators
The Ohio governor and his affiliated superPAC have been relentless in attacking Trump over his controversial comments and ideas in media and ads over the past month. The results? Trump has withstood the assault while Kasich has remained toward the back of the pack. He showed some early momentum in New Hampshire, but has been overtaken by Christie and others. Kasich needs to find some way to articulate why he is different and expand beyond simply attacking the front-runners.
Rand Paul
Need: Prove he belongs on the main stage; to show that his message still matters in this GOP
Avoid: Being swept into a debate on surveillance amid concerns over national security
The Kentucky senator barely made it onto the prime-time debate stage. Now, he has to prove he belongs there. He's not been afraid to punch up, but his fledgling campaign has little to show for it. And, as national security concerns have become front and center in the GOP race, his push to curb surveillance and fight for other restrictions have seemed out of place at past debates — and that was even before last month's terrorist attacks elevated the issue even more with Republican voters.
The Undercard Debate: Mike Huckabee, Rick Santorum, George Pataki and Lindsey Graham
For all..
Need: A breakout moment that catapults them onto the next main stage debate
Avoid: Becoming the "warm up act"
The lower-tier debate is becoming far too familiar for some of these hopefuls — almost all mired in the low-single digits. And with Iowa inching closer, it's harder to find a rationale for some of their candidacies.
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal exited after last month's debate, and some of these contenders could be next. Both Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor and Santorum, the former Pennsylvania senator, got blows last week when top Iowa evangelical leader Bob Vander Plaats — who backed them in 2008 and 2012, respectively — threw his support behind Cruz instead. The two past Iowa caucus winners are flat-lining in the state, and they each need to do something to turn around their campaigns. Huckabee lost his top spokeswoman and longtime aide Alice Stewart on Monday, too — never a good omen for a struggling campaign.
The same can be said for Pataki and Graham, too, who have never been able to find success nationally or in an early state. Polls last week even showed the South Carolina senator getting just 2 percent in his home state primary. He's back on the stage after missing the cut last debate. In a cycle in which being an outsider is an asset and an insider is a liability, it's been tough for Graham to break through. But the issue of terrorism certainly is in his wheelhouse.
Visa Process Under Scrutiny After San Bernardino Shooter Passed Immigration Background Checks. Lawmakers and academics are scrutinizing the visa process that allowed one of the San Bernardino shooters to enter the United States despite making extremist social media posts.
Law enforcement sources confirmed to CBS News that San Bernardino mass shooter Tashfeen Malik made radical postings on social media as far back as 2012. Just last year, she emigrated from Pakistan on a K-1, or fiancé, visa.
Sen. Richard Burr, a North Carolina Republican who heads the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on CBS’ “Face the Nation” Sunday that Farook was radicalized as early as 2010 and Malik as far back as 2012, which would have been years before her visa was processed.
Malik’s background check included at least one in-person interview at the U.S. Embassy in Pakistan and another after marrying Syed Farook, who was born in Illinois. She also had to provide fingerprints and a variety of background information. Authorities also vetted her using intelligence and law enforcement databases.
But in light of the revelations that Malik made her views on jihad publicly available on social media, many are calling for the government to step up its efforts in monitoring immigrants’ social media accounts. The day after the attack, Facebook found a post on a page maintained by Malik pledging her and Farook’s allegiance to the leader of the Islamic State. The page was created with an alias.
Authorities have said Malik and Farook exchanged messages about jihad and martyrdom online before they were married and while she lived in Pakistan.
“To the extent that people are making statements on social media, that’s something we need to look at,” said Brian Levin, director of the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at Cal State San Bernardino.
The Department of Homeland Security has said that three pilot programs designed specifically to incorporate “appropriate” social media reviews into its vetting process were launched in the last year and the department is looking at other ways to use social media posts.
Certain Department of Homeland Security officials are allowed to look at social media posts as part of law enforcement investigations. The possible policy changes are being considered at USCIS, the DHS agency in charge of managing immigration benefits cases and interviewing green card applicants.
Although monitoring social media could lead to privacy concerns, Levin said public postings on Facebook or other social media sites are not considered private.
“To the extent that somebody made public postings, they don’t have an expectation of privacy in those postings,” Levin said.
The FBI has said the couple was not on its radar until after the attacks and the shootout with police hours later that ended in their deaths.
K-1 visa: blow to love and terrorism as popular visa program under scrutiny. Terrorist Tashfeen Malik entered the US on a K-1 visa.
It’s now a well-known fact that the San Bernardino terrorists, Pakistani Americans Rizwan Farook and his wife Tashfeen Malik, were planning to attack the United States for many years. The US government has also taken cognizance of the way Malik, who was born in Pakistan but grew up also in Saudi Arabia, entered the US – through the K-1 visa, also known as the fiancée visa.
Farook met Malik online when he was in Saudi Arabia, and then later applied for her to come to the US with him, on a K-1 visa.
She was one among the 35,000 individuals who entered the US on the K-1 fiance/fiancee visa, in 2014.
“Somebody entered the US through the K-1 visa program and proceeded to carry out an act of terrorism on American soil. That program is at a minimum worth a very close look,”‘ White House spokesman Josh Earnest said, last week, signaling the administration’s efforts to vet the visa with more layers of scrutiny.
The Los Angeles Times reported that to get a K-1 visa, a U.S. citizen seeking to marry a foreign national has to file a petition with U.S. immigration officials and prove that the relationship is real and that the couple have physically met.
The petitioner also has to provide evidence of the relationship, which could include travel, phone and hotel records, according to Los Angeles immigration attorney Paul Herzog.
It takes three to five months for United States Citizenship and Immigration Services to review and approve a petition, at which point the petition goes to the State Department. A U.S. Embassy or consulate conducts a medical exam, checks police records and interviews the foreign applicant, Herzog said.
“It’s a very detailed petition,” said Los Angeles immigration attorney Roman P. Mosqueda. “If you’re getting married in a church, you have to show proof of getting a church date for the wedding, a date for the restaurant for the reception…. It’s very strict.”
If the application is approved, the visa bearer has 90 days after entering the U.S. to marry his or her partner. After the marriage, the bearer can apply for a green card.
“It’s not an easy procedure,” Herzog said. “Beginning to end, you’re looking at at least six to nine months” from the date of application to the date of receiving a visa.
Questions for the partner seeking to come to the U.S. include: “Do you seek to engage in terrorist activities while in the United States or have you ever engaged in terrorist activities?” and “Have you ever or do you intend to provide financial assistance or other support to terrorists or terrorist organizations?”
Malik was born in Pakistan and moved with her family to Saudi Arabia when she was a child. State Department officials would have asked how Malik and Syed Rizwan Farook met; how they decided to marry; and some details about Farook, as the U.S. citizen.
Malik would have needed to detail for immigration and State Department officials every country to which she had traveled over the last five years and any family members she had in the United States, said the Los Angeles Times.
“Since 9/11, [any visa application will] involve multiple layers of vetting, with multiple agencies putting folks through various systems, where we watch individuals, what their affiliations are, whether they’re on any kind of watch lists,” State Department spokesman Mark Toner said in a news briefing, last week.
U.S. immigration data from 2013 showed that 26,046 people entered the U.S. on K-1 visas. By far the largest number were from the Philippines, with 5,131 Filipinos entering.
China (1,397) and Mexico (1,268) were next. Pakistan accounted for 272 K-1 visa bearers in 2013, the year before Malik arrived in the United States.
The Dallas Morning News in an editorial reflected the new feeling within the US:
“Obama was right to urge America’s Muslim community to exercise greater vigilance, implying that they should be on the watch for radical tendencies developing among them. He was short on specifics, however, as he was on the K1 visa review.
NBC/WSJ Poll: Terror Fears Reshape 2016 Landscape. The recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, Calif., have vaulted terrorism and national security to become the American public's top concern, and they've helped drive President Barack Obama's job rating to 43 percent — its lowest level in more than a year, according to a new NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
What's more, seven-in-10 Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction — the highest percentage here since Aug. 2014.
And 71 percent say the shootings and random acts of violence that have taken place this year -- from Charleston, S.C., Oregon and Colorado, to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. -- are now are now a permanent part of American life.
"For most of 2015, the country's mood, and thus the presidential election, was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery," says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. "Now that has abruptly changed to fear."
That kind focus on security and terrorism "is a very different campaign than the one we thought we'd be running," McInturff adds, referring to the 2016 presidential race.
But Democratic pollster Peter Hart cautions that this focus could be temporary, especially if there isn't another terrorist attack. "Let's wait and see the half-life of this after the next three months."
In the poll, 40 percent of Americans say that national security and terrorism is the top priority for the federal government -- up 19 points from when this question was last asked in April.
That's compared with the 23 percent who think job creation and economic growth are the top issue -- down six points from when they had been the No. 1 concern last spring.
This finding is consistent with a recent Gallup poll, which showed terrorism as the public's most important U.S. problem.
Yet there's a significant partisan divide in the NBC/WSJ survey: 58 percent of Republican primary voters say national security/terrorism is their top concern, versus just 26 percent of Democratic primary voters who say that.
And 33 percent of Democrats say their top issue was the economy/jobs, versus just 12 percent of Republicans.
When asked which one or two news events defined 2015, the top answer was the terrorist attacks in Paris (at 29 percent). That was followed by the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino (at 23 percent), the mass shooting in Charleston (22 percent), the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage across the country (19 percent) and the debates over the use of force by police (16 percent).
This focus on national security and terrorism comes as the NBC/WSJ poll finds President Obama's job-approval rating at 43 percent, which is down two points from late October.
Indeed, it is Obama's lowest overall standing since right before the 2014 midterm elections.
Just 37 percent approve of the president's handling of foreign policy, and only 34 percent approve of his handling of the terrorist militants known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
(By contrast, the overall approval rating for George W. Bush at this same point in time was 34 percent in the NBC/WSJ poll, and just 32 percent of his foreign-policy handling.)
In addition, only 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it's on the wrong track.
And 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama's. "This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election," says Yang, the Democratic pollster.
The NBC/WSJ poll also finds 60 percent of the country thinking that military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in the nation's interest -- essentially unchanging from past polling on the subject.
Forty-two percent say this military action should include both airstrikes and combat troops; 36 percent say it should be limited only to airstrikes; and 12 percent say military action shouldn't be taken.
And when it comes to the security-vs.-privacy debate, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that the political pendulum has swung back to the side of security.
Fifty-five percent say they're more worried that the United States won't go far enough in monitoring the activities and communications of potential terrorists, versus 40 percent who are more worried the government will go too far
That's a reversal from July 2013 - after Edward Snowden's revelations - when 56 percent said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in its surveillance. The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including nearly 400 reached by cell phone), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
US-Led Coalition Hitting ISIS 'Harder Than Ever,' Obama Says. As the war against the Islamic State spreads across the globe, President Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS "harder than ever" and moving forward with its strategy with "a great sense of urgency."
"As we squeeze its heart we’ll make it harder for ISIL to sell its propaganda to the world," Obama said following a meeting at the Pentagon with his national security council, using an alternative name for ISIS.
Obama added that his administration continually reassesses its strategy to fight ISIS, not only against trained extremists on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, but also in the U.S. homeland against radicalized followers.
On Monday, President Obama also cited targeted airstrikes that have killed senior ISIS leaders and commanders “one by one”. He added, “The point is, ISIL leaders cannot hide and our next message to them is simple: You are next.”
Teacher Made Up Claim ISIS Supporter Attacked Him
ISIS Threatens Another World Heritage Site
He added: "Our partners on the ground are rooting ISIL out town by town, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block. That is what this campaign is doing. We are hitting ISIL harder than ever."
President Obama took a rare trip to the Pentagon to chair a National Security Council meeting on the counter-ISIS campaign at the Pentagon, where he says he received an update from his national security team and discussed ways to enhance the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Obama most recently visited the Pentagon July 6 for a similarly rare huddle after he was widely criticized at the time for admitting the United States did not yet have a plan to defeat ISIS. He later outlined a strategy, step-by-step, that he predicted would be a winning approach over time.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress in October that at the Pentagon meeting in July President Obama had pressed his national security team to come up with more options to intensify the war on ISIS.
Since then there has been an intensification of the air campaign and a focus on airstrikes targeting ISIS’s illicit oil operations that it uses to fund its operations. In November, American military aircraft dropped 3,271 munition on ISIS targets, making it the month with the most munition drops since the start of the air war 15 months ago.
“So far, ISIL has lost 40 percent of the populated areas it once controlled in Iraq, and it will lose more,” said Obama who cited progress by Iraqi forces attempting to retake Ramadi which was seized by ISIS in May. He also highlighted success on the ground in Syria where Kurdish and Arab forces in northern and northeastern Syria have pushed ISIS out of the border area with Turkey.
“ISIL has lost thousands of square miles of territory it once controlled in Syria, and it will lose more,” said Obama.
But a string of terrorist attacks from the Sinai Peninsula to Paris to San Bernardino, California, have similarly challenged the administration’s approach to countering the growing threat posed by ISIS, which demonstrated its capabilities to wreak havoc outside of Syria and Iraq just days after Obama said ISIS was contained.
But Russian military operations have complicated the coalition’s efforts to support moderate rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now, after his primetime Oval Office address fell flat, the president's Pentagon visit is part of a series of events coordinated to show the administration’s comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism in the days leading into the holiday season.
Later this week, Obama will visit the National Counterterrorism Center to learn more about its efforts to track terrorism. With a backdrop of Muslim immigration dominating the presidential campaign trail, the president will also attend a naturalization ceremony Tuesday at the National Archives.
Obama warns Islamic State leaders: 'You are next'. Meanwhile, he said, Iraqi forces were moving to take Ramadi "encircle Fallujah and cut off ISIL's supply routes into Mosul."
View galleryUS Special Operations Commander General Joseph Votel …
US Special Operations Commander General Joseph Votel (R) listens as US President Barack Obama delive …
From the air, Obama said the United States and its allies had begun targeting "oil infrastructure, destroying hundreds of their tanker trucks, wells and refineries."
"Since the summer, ISIL has not had a single successful major offensive operation on the ground in either Syria or Iraq," Obama said.
Even before the December 2 attack by a Muslim husband and wife in California killed 14 people, polls showed that more than 60 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Obama is handling the Islamic State and the broader terror threat.
According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published Monday, Americans now view national security as a top priority.
The same poll found that Obama's own job approval ratings were at the lowest level this year, at 43 percent.
That is a major shift since Obama's first term in the White House, when he was hailed for authorizing a high-risk special forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
- Republican criticism -
Like his primetime Oval Office address a week ago, Obama on Monday offered no shift in policy on defeating the Islamic State group, admitting: "We recognize that progress needs to keep coming faster."
Obama has advocated a multipronged strategy of airstrikes, special forces operations, financial sanctions and diplomacy.
Obama -- with the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan seared into his political psyche -- has steadfastly ruled out deploying large numbers of infantry troops in Iraq and Syria.
Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said Obama's remarks were further evidence of a half-hearted strategy.
"We're only hitting ISIS 'harder than ever' because we haven't been hitting them very hard."
The issue is sure to feature prominently when Republicans take to the debate stage on Tuesday.
Hours before that, Hillary Clinton will set out her counterterrorism strategy, during a visit to Minnesota.
According to aides the speech will outline her "strategy to confront the threat of domestic radicalization and foreign-inspired terrorist attacks inside the United States."
What's more, seven-in-10 Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction — the highest percentage here since Aug. 2014.
And 71 percent say the shootings and random acts of violence that have taken place this year -- from Charleston, S.C., Oregon and Colorado, to the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino, Calif. -- are now are now a permanent part of American life.
"For most of 2015, the country's mood, and thus the presidential election, was defined by anger and the unevenness of the economic recovery," says Democratic pollster Fred Yang of Hart Research Associates, which conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff of Public Opinion Strategies. "Now that has abruptly changed to fear."
That kind focus on security and terrorism "is a very different campaign than the one we thought we'd be running," McInturff adds, referring to the 2016 presidential race.
But Democratic pollster Peter Hart cautions that this focus could be temporary, especially if there isn't another terrorist attack. "Let's wait and see the half-life of this after the next three months."
In the poll, 40 percent of Americans say that national security and terrorism is the top priority for the federal government -- up 19 points from when this question was last asked in April.
That's compared with the 23 percent who think job creation and economic growth are the top issue -- down six points from when they had been the No. 1 concern last spring.
This finding is consistent with a recent Gallup poll, which showed terrorism as the public's most important U.S. problem.
Yet there's a significant partisan divide in the NBC/WSJ survey: 58 percent of Republican primary voters say national security/terrorism is their top concern, versus just 26 percent of Democratic primary voters who say that.
And 33 percent of Democrats say their top issue was the economy/jobs, versus just 12 percent of Republicans.
When asked which one or two news events defined 2015, the top answer was the terrorist attacks in Paris (at 29 percent). That was followed by the terrorist shootings in San Bernardino (at 23 percent), the mass shooting in Charleston (22 percent), the Supreme Court legalizing gay marriage across the country (19 percent) and the debates over the use of force by police (16 percent).
This focus on national security and terrorism comes as the NBC/WSJ poll finds President Obama's job-approval rating at 43 percent, which is down two points from late October.
Indeed, it is Obama's lowest overall standing since right before the 2014 midterm elections.
Just 37 percent approve of the president's handling of foreign policy, and only 34 percent approve of his handling of the terrorist militants known as ISIS in Iraq and Syria.
(By contrast, the overall approval rating for George W. Bush at this same point in time was 34 percent in the NBC/WSJ poll, and just 32 percent of his foreign-policy handling.)
In addition, only 20 percent of the public believes the country is headed in the right direction, versus a whopping 70 percent who think it's on the wrong track.
And 73 percent say they want the next president to take a different approach from President Obama's. "This will become a high hurdle for the Democrats at some stage of the 2016 election," says Yang, the Democratic pollster.
The NBC/WSJ poll also finds 60 percent of the country thinking that military action against ISIS in Iraq and Syria is in the nation's interest -- essentially unchanging from past polling on the subject.
Forty-two percent say this military action should include both airstrikes and combat troops; 36 percent say it should be limited only to airstrikes; and 12 percent say military action shouldn't be taken.
And when it comes to the security-vs.-privacy debate, the NBC/WSJ poll shows that the political pendulum has swung back to the side of security.
Fifty-five percent say they're more worried that the United States won't go far enough in monitoring the activities and communications of potential terrorists, versus 40 percent who are more worried the government will go too far
That's a reversal from July 2013 - after Edward Snowden's revelations - when 56 percent said they were more concerned that the government would go too far in its surveillance. The NBC/WSJ poll was conducted Dec. 6-9 of 1,000 adults (including nearly 400 reached by cell phone), and it has an overall margin of error of plus-minus 3.1 percentage points.
US-Led Coalition Hitting ISIS 'Harder Than Ever,' Obama Says. As the war against the Islamic State spreads across the globe, President Obama says the U.S.-led coalition is hitting ISIS "harder than ever" and moving forward with its strategy with "a great sense of urgency."
"As we squeeze its heart we’ll make it harder for ISIL to sell its propaganda to the world," Obama said following a meeting at the Pentagon with his national security council, using an alternative name for ISIS.
Obama added that his administration continually reassesses its strategy to fight ISIS, not only against trained extremists on the battlefields of Syria and Iraq, but also in the U.S. homeland against radicalized followers.
On Monday, President Obama also cited targeted airstrikes that have killed senior ISIS leaders and commanders “one by one”. He added, “The point is, ISIL leaders cannot hide and our next message to them is simple: You are next.”
Teacher Made Up Claim ISIS Supporter Attacked Him
ISIS Threatens Another World Heritage Site
He added: "Our partners on the ground are rooting ISIL out town by town, neighborhood by neighborhood, block by block. That is what this campaign is doing. We are hitting ISIL harder than ever."
President Obama took a rare trip to the Pentagon to chair a National Security Council meeting on the counter-ISIS campaign at the Pentagon, where he says he received an update from his national security team and discussed ways to enhance the U.S.-led coalition’s campaign to degrade and destroy ISIS.
Obama most recently visited the Pentagon July 6 for a similarly rare huddle after he was widely criticized at the time for admitting the United States did not yet have a plan to defeat ISIS. He later outlined a strategy, step-by-step, that he predicted would be a winning approach over time.
Defense Secretary Ash Carter told Congress in October that at the Pentagon meeting in July President Obama had pressed his national security team to come up with more options to intensify the war on ISIS.
Since then there has been an intensification of the air campaign and a focus on airstrikes targeting ISIS’s illicit oil operations that it uses to fund its operations. In November, American military aircraft dropped 3,271 munition on ISIS targets, making it the month with the most munition drops since the start of the air war 15 months ago.
“So far, ISIL has lost 40 percent of the populated areas it once controlled in Iraq, and it will lose more,” said Obama who cited progress by Iraqi forces attempting to retake Ramadi which was seized by ISIS in May. He also highlighted success on the ground in Syria where Kurdish and Arab forces in northern and northeastern Syria have pushed ISIS out of the border area with Turkey.
“ISIL has lost thousands of square miles of territory it once controlled in Syria, and it will lose more,” said Obama.
But a string of terrorist attacks from the Sinai Peninsula to Paris to San Bernardino, California, have similarly challenged the administration’s approach to countering the growing threat posed by ISIS, which demonstrated its capabilities to wreak havoc outside of Syria and Iraq just days after Obama said ISIS was contained.
But Russian military operations have complicated the coalition’s efforts to support moderate rebels fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Now, after his primetime Oval Office address fell flat, the president's Pentagon visit is part of a series of events coordinated to show the administration’s comprehensive approach to fighting terrorism in the days leading into the holiday season.
Later this week, Obama will visit the National Counterterrorism Center to learn more about its efforts to track terrorism. With a backdrop of Muslim immigration dominating the presidential campaign trail, the president will also attend a naturalization ceremony Tuesday at the National Archives.
Obama warns Islamic State leaders: 'You are next'. Meanwhile, he said, Iraqi forces were moving to take Ramadi "encircle Fallujah and cut off ISIL's supply routes into Mosul."
View galleryUS Special Operations Commander General Joseph Votel …
US Special Operations Commander General Joseph Votel (R) listens as US President Barack Obama delive …
From the air, Obama said the United States and its allies had begun targeting "oil infrastructure, destroying hundreds of their tanker trucks, wells and refineries."
"Since the summer, ISIL has not had a single successful major offensive operation on the ground in either Syria or Iraq," Obama said.
Even before the December 2 attack by a Muslim husband and wife in California killed 14 people, polls showed that more than 60 percent of Americans disapproved of the way Obama is handling the Islamic State and the broader terror threat.
According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC poll published Monday, Americans now view national security as a top priority.
The same poll found that Obama's own job approval ratings were at the lowest level this year, at 43 percent.
That is a major shift since Obama's first term in the White House, when he was hailed for authorizing a high-risk special forces raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
- Republican criticism -
Like his primetime Oval Office address a week ago, Obama on Monday offered no shift in policy on defeating the Islamic State group, admitting: "We recognize that progress needs to keep coming faster."
Obama has advocated a multipronged strategy of airstrikes, special forces operations, financial sanctions and diplomacy.
Obama -- with the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan seared into his political psyche -- has steadfastly ruled out deploying large numbers of infantry troops in Iraq and Syria.
Republican presidential hopeful Jeb Bush said Obama's remarks were further evidence of a half-hearted strategy.
"We're only hitting ISIS 'harder than ever' because we haven't been hitting them very hard."
The issue is sure to feature prominently when Republicans take to the debate stage on Tuesday.
Hours before that, Hillary Clinton will set out her counterterrorism strategy, during a visit to Minnesota.
According to aides the speech will outline her "strategy to confront the threat of domestic radicalization and foreign-inspired terrorist attacks inside the United States."
Regardless of it all on this new debate day (which I will miss live because I have the Grammy Organization Holiday party), please stay in touch.
