| Trump: 'Obama Got Tremendous Numbers of People Out of the Country' Meet Donald Trump's new immigration stance, which is to . . . praise how tough President Obama has been on deportations. Huh? What? "We're going to obey the existing laws. Now, the existing laws are very strong. The existing laws, the first thing we're gonna do, if and when I win, is we're gonna get rid of all of the bad ones. We've got gang members, we have killers, we have a lot of bad people that have to get out of this country," he said on Fox News. "As far as everybody else, we're going to go through the process. What people don't know is that Obama got tremendous numbers of people out of the country, Bush the same thing. Lots of people were brought out of the country with the existing laws. Well, I'm gonna do the same thing." [Host Bill] O'Reilly then mentioned detention centers, prompting Trump to quickly shoot down the idea of keeping undocumented immigrants in detention centers. "You don't have to put them in a detention center," Trump said. "I never even heard the term. I'm not gonna put them in a detention center," he added. "We want to do it in a very humane manner." Great news, immigration hawks! Obama will emulate those tough policies of . . . Obama and Bush! Aren't you thrilled? Haven't you been passionately advocated for the status quo all these years? And just think, we were doubting Trump's ability to pivot! Our Tim Alberta points out that Trump is now trying to appeal to two different groups of voters. It's apparent that Trump finally understands — perhaps after digesting weeks of polling that allows for no alternate conclusion — that he must expand his appeal to stand a chance of winning in November. But it's equally apparent that Trump has no appetite for abandoning the tactics that brought him this far. The result is a schizophrenic strategy for consolidating the Republican base, one that vacillates between different sound bites for different voters on different days. Instead of a standard campaign playbook that emphasizes consistency, Trump is now adopting a scattershot approach that has something for everyone. Just Another Random Stabbing with the Perp Yelling 'Allah Akbar,' That's All Oh, hey, probably a small-scale jihadist attack down in Roanoke, Virginia. The FBI is investigating a double stabbing here Saturday night as a possible terrorist attack, reports CBS News Investigative Unit Senior Producer Pat Milton, citing law enforcement sources. One told Milton the suspect yelled "Allah Akbar" -- Arabic for God is Great -- during the stabbing. Witnesses told police they heard the same thing, reports CBS Roanoke affiliate WDBJ-TV. Police said Wasil Farooqui, 20, stabbed a man and woman in a random attack that left the victims severely wounded and hospitalized. He's being held without bond. The victims told police they were attacked as they entered The Pines Apartments just before 8 p.m. Farooqui is charged with two counts of aggravated malicious wounding. A U.S. intelligence source tells CBS News Farooqui has been on the FBI's radar for months and is believed to be self-radicalized. Ah, he was on the radar screen for months. How reassuring! Look, we know the FBI has a really, really difficult job. But if Farooqui wasn't your garden-variety random-stabbing nut-job, then this is the fifth perpetrator of a terror attack to be on the "watch list" or under similar investigation who went out and committed an attack. The FBI interviewed Omar Mateen three times in 2013 and 2014, and he had been on a terrorism watch list during that time. He was subsequently removed. The FBI interviewed Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011. San Bernardino shooter Tashfeen Malik passed the Department of Homeland Security's counterterrorism screening during her visa-application process. Among the aspiring jihadists who opened fire at a Garland, Texas, "Draw Muhammad" contest was Elton Simpson, whom the FBI investigated for allegedly planning to join a terror group in 2010; he was sentenced to three years of probation for lying to investigators. The FBI never talked to the Chattanooga shooter, but his father had been on a terrorism watch list for suspicious overseas donations; he was subsequently cleared and removed from the list. Weld: 'The Problem with Handguns Probably Is Even Worse than the Problem of the AR-15' It's a shame the Libertarian party couldn't nominate a, you know, actual libertarian this year. It's not often you find the vice-presidential nominee of the party that's supposed to stand for individual liberty talking about how awful firearms are, and how the most popular rifle in America and handguns are on par with nuclear weapons. No, really. I wish I were making this up, but there's video. "The five-shot rifle, that's a standard military rifle; the problem is if you attach a clip to it so it can fire more shells and if you remove the pin so that it becomes an automatic weapon, and those are independent criminal offenses," Weld said. "That is when they become, essentially, a weapon of mass destruction. The problem with handguns probably is even worse than the problem of the AR15." This sort of language would be over-the-top coming from the Brady Campaign or Mike Bloomberg. It's just inexplicable coming from the Libertarian ticket, and suggests that Weld is a fair-weather friend of the Second Amendment at best. No surprise to those of us who studied his record in office: While failing to keep his fiscal promises, Weld also managed to make some moves on cultural issues that are seriously inconvenient for a Libertarian candidate in 2016. In 1993, as governor, he endorsed a slew of gun-control proposals: a statewide ban on assault weapons, a waiting period for buying handguns, a limit on the number of handguns an individual could buy, and a prohibition on handgun ownership by anyone under 21. "The purpose of this common-sense legislation is to remove deadly guns from our streets and to take weapons out of the hands of many teens who themselves are becoming deadly killers," he said at the time. As they say on ESPN, "Come on, man!" 
ADDENDA: Look, there are two possibilities: Either foreign governments donated to the Clinton Foundation because they thought it was a way to purchase access and goodwill to a current Secretary of State and future president, or a whole bunch of hardline-traditionalist Middle Eastern regimes suddenly decided to become financial backers of promoting women's rights. You make the call. No doubt the sprawling Clinton Foundation, enjoying hundreds of millions of dollars in assets and spending nearly $250 million in 2013 and 2014, does some good work around the world. Take, for example, the Full Participation project, "an initiative of the Clinton Foundation which aims to advance the full participation of girls and women around the world." The project has worked to expand women's access to contraception and education, increase their involvement in the workforce, and fight child marriage. But the Foundation's commitment to women's rights is odd, when you consider some of its biggest donors: From 2001 to 2014, Qatar gave between $1 million and $5 million, Kuwait gave between $5 million and $10 million, and Saudi Arabia gave between $10 million and $25 million. These governments are not exactly known for their equitable treatment of women. If they wanted to promote women's rights, changing their own laws would do far more than their millions in donations ever will. And yet, something made them decide that donating to the Clinton Foundation was most worthwhile. Why is it unreasonable to suspect that these countries thought they were ingratiating themselves with a secretary of state who stood a good chance of becoming president in the near future? | 
Comments
Post a Comment