I see in today’s paper that the woman who killed herself drank alcohol a lot and seldom visited the mosque.
But she was forgiven at the first drip of blood.
That’s what martyrs get.
they get away with a lot.
Powerline blog posted this tongue-in-cheek, politically-correct update:
“Terrorists having nothing to do with Islam, armed with AK-47s and hand grenades, screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ as they attacked the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali. The non-Muslim terrorists have killed at least three people and are holding approximately 170 hostages …”
______________________________________________________
Stonestreet said Chuck Colson’s earlier approach to crime and incarceration could instruct Christians in how they approach the refugee crisis. When Colson first started working on justice reform, two schools of thought prevailed: Tough on crime and soft on crime.
“Tough on crime was what you did if you loved your country, and soft on crime is what you did if you loved people. He jumped in and said, listen, we can be tough on crime but smarter about sentencing laws,” Stonestreet said. “I’m wondering if that’s the level of conversation we need to have. Clearly, a one-size-fits-all government policy is not the best way to preserve human dignity. … We’ve got to come up with third and fourth solutions. I don’t know what those are,” but they should involve nongovernmental agencies, too, he added.
“Christians have always jumped into the mess, and I think in this case we need to do it as well,” Stonestreet said.
____________________________________________________________
Meanwhile, what’s up with Trump and his talk about special Muslim “IDs” and a Muslim data base? Seems something like that was tried once before in modern history — and to a very bad end. 😦
This just adds to my concerns about him already — and puts another point on my list of why I simply could not vote for him.
Guess ?
According to Rush, Trump didn’t say that. It was a media person who suggested that this was what Trump was advocating.
I didn’t hear anything about that.
This is rather long, but interesting, as it explains the process of vetting refugees, written by Scott Hicks, a pastor & lawyer.
Something else I have learned in recent days is the difference between asylum seekers (which the Tsarnaev brothers had) & refugees (although asylum seekers are often referred to refugees): Refugees are not allowed into the country until after they have been vetted. Asylum seekers come into the country first, & then file for asylum.
“Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.
I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.
The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.
First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.
Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.
We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.
First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).
Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.
Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.
Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.
The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.
At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.
Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.
Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.
Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.
This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.
The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)
Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)
Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.”
Chas is right. Trump never said it. Just another hit piece from the MSM. There’s enough to dislike about the man already, no need to make stuff up. But that’s just the media, doing what they do best. Lie.
“By now you have probably seen a plethora of stories in the Mainstream Media that Donald Trump wants special ID badges for Muslims. One little problem here. Trump never actually said this. One “tell” that this story is false is that there is no video of Trump saying this. The best the MSM can come up with is one with Trump answering questions about border security. The word “badges” never crossed his lips. The other tell is the very selective use of quotes in which only a portion of a sentence in which Trump supposedly called for badges for Muslims is in quotation marks. Snopes Fact Check does an excellent job of destroying this fake story which we shall review but first let us take a look at an example very selective and highly misleading quotes by ABC News:
Donald Trump Would ‘Certainly Implement’ a Registry of Muslims
Notice what is NOT in the quotes? The word “Muslims.” Why because Trump never said it. All ABC News and the rest of the MSM did was wildly infer that was what he said even though he NEVER said it. Yeah, take “certainly implement” which Trump said and add your own “Registry of Muslims” and suddenly you can FALSELY charge Trump with having Nazi ideas. Here is more absurd inferrence stretching by ABC News:
Donald Trump wants to track Muslims in the United States in a database — an idea that has drawn comparisons to Nazi Germany.
“I would certainly implement that, absolutely,” Trump told NBC News at a campaign stop in Iowa on Thursday.
What is “that?” ABC would have you believe it is tracking of Muslims in a database even though Trump didn’t say THAT.”
“Donald Trump was inaccurately reported as asserting that Muslims should wear ID badges, a claim that drew inevitable comparisons to Adolf Hitler. But he did speak in favor of a Muslim registry.
WHAT’S TRUE: Donald Trump was asked in an interview about whether Muslims should be subject to special scrutiny, a question he answered ambiguously. He then later affirmed that Muslims should be required to register in a database.
WHAT’S FALSE: Donald Trump asserted that Muslims should wear identifying badges.
The comments attributed to Trump caused immediate controversy on Twitter, where a number of users compared the described mandating of badges to similar treatment of Jews in Europe before the Holocaust. However, The Hill was a secondary source for the comments, originally published in a 19 November 2015 Yahoo! Politics article titled “Donald Trump has big plans for ‘radical Islamic’ terrorists, 2016 and ‘that communist’ Bernie Sanders.”
In the context of that interview, it’s important to note that Trump’s responses were non-committal. Furthermore, they were clearly in response to leading questions for which the actual phrasing wasn’t even provided:”
“Precisely how such a question was presented to Trump was not elaborated upon in the printed text of the interview, nor was what his exact response (not “rul[ing] it out”) entailed. Moreover, the portions involving quotes were so exceptionally vague (“do things that we never did before,” “certain things will be done”) and full of obfuscation, it was impossible to discern even vaguely what Trump referenced. (The mandate of badges for Muslims was quite a leap by any measure.)
While it appeared Trump fielded a question about enhanced surveillance for Muslims and mosques, in no reasonable interpretation of the material provided did he himself suggest that followers of Islam should wear Holocaust-like badges as in Nazi Germany. That assertion appeared to be one fronted by the interviewer, and not fairly attributable to Donald Trump. It’s true that Trump espoused a position many would deem objectionable or offensive in the little he did say, but the controversy hinged largely on words he didn’t appear to have said.”
The headlines started after Yahoo News published an article Thursday based on an interview with the Republican presidential candidate. The reporter apparently asked Trump whether new security measures might involve a database to register Muslims in the U.S.
When he replied, “We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely” including mosques, Yahoo News reported that Trump did not “rule [the database] out.”
He was then asked by CNN whether he would rule out such a database, to which Trump said he “never responded to that question” during the Yahoo News interview.
But a separate exchange with NBC News muddied the picture of his position further.
The reporter initially asked Trump whether there should be a database to track Muslims.
“We should have a lot of systems,” Trump responded, but then went on to tout the importance of a strong border and a border wall. Asked whether he would like to implement that, Trump responded:
“I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.”
That single line was swiftly interpreted in several news stories as Trump’s endorsement of a database for Muslims, in turn prompting a widespread backlash. Some stories even stated that Trump had proposed a “plan” to register Muslims in a database. ,,,
Yet the reporter went on to ask Trump directly, once again, about a database for Muslims, and Trump did not dismiss the idea.
Instead, when asked how to do it, Trump said: “It would be just good management.”
Asked if those running it would have to go to mosques, he said: “Different places. You sign them up … but it’s all about management.”
____________________________________________________
He could have been a lot clearer after it came up so often. He could have just said no, that would be against our Constitution. It’s pretty clear.-cut. Oy!
If the MSM doesn’t stop slandering and attacking Trump he will be the nominee for sure. It makes people who are sick of gotcha politics rally to him. Maybe that’s what they want.
There are some who say Trump didn’t hear what they said, which only means he’s not careful enough to president. Trump is at the bottom of my Republican list. but he would be better than Clinton.
Wandering Views 
I see in today’s paper that the woman who killed herself drank alcohol a lot and seldom visited the mosque.
But she was forgiven at the first drip of blood.
That’s what martyrs get.
they get away with a lot.
LikeLike
The religion of peace strikes again….
http://news.sky.com/story/1591106/heavy-gunfire-heard-at-mali-hostage-hotel
“The Islamist extremists who stormed a luxury hotel in Mali are said to be dug in on the seventh floor from where heavy gunfire has been heard.
State television says 80 of the 153 people taken hostage by the attackers have either escaped or been freed by Malian special forces.
They were said to be moving “floor by floor” rescuing people, assisted by elite US and French troops.
One of the freed hostages, a singer from Guinea, said he heard attackers in the next room speaking English.”
————————————
Reports say the terrorists have freed hostages who could recite the Koran.
LikeLike
Powerline blog posted this tongue-in-cheek, politically-correct update:
“Terrorists having nothing to do with Islam, armed with AK-47s and hand grenades, screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ as they attacked the Radisson Blu hotel in Bamako, Mali. The non-Muslim terrorists have killed at least three people and are holding approximately 170 hostages …”
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/11/non-muslim-terrorists-seize-hotel-in-mali-take-hostages.php
LikeLiked by 1 person
What color is the Mali flag?
LikeLike
Here it is: http://www.flags.net/images/largeflags/MALI0001.GIF
LikeLike
First we had Obama claiming ISIS was “contained.”
And then within days Paris proves they weren’t.
Now we have Kerry claiming Al-Qaeda “has been neutralized as an effective force.”
And again, within days, Mali proves they haven’t been.
LikeLike
Bad timing.
LikeLiked by 1 person
http://www.worldmag.com/2015/11/an_adult_conversation_about_syrian_refugees
______________________________________________________
Stonestreet said Chuck Colson’s earlier approach to crime and incarceration could instruct Christians in how they approach the refugee crisis. When Colson first started working on justice reform, two schools of thought prevailed: Tough on crime and soft on crime.
“Tough on crime was what you did if you loved your country, and soft on crime is what you did if you loved people. He jumped in and said, listen, we can be tough on crime but smarter about sentencing laws,” Stonestreet said. “I’m wondering if that’s the level of conversation we need to have. Clearly, a one-size-fits-all government policy is not the best way to preserve human dignity. … We’ve got to come up with third and fourth solutions. I don’t know what those are,” but they should involve nongovernmental agencies, too, he added.
“Christians have always jumped into the mess, and I think in this case we need to do it as well,” Stonestreet said.
____________________________________________________________
LikeLike
Meanwhile, what’s up with Trump and his talk about special Muslim “IDs” and a Muslim data base? Seems something like that was tried once before in modern history — and to a very bad end. 😦
This just adds to my concerns about him already — and puts another point on my list of why I simply could not vote for him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Guess ?
According to Rush, Trump didn’t say that. It was a media person who suggested that this was what Trump was advocating.
I didn’t hear anything about that.
LikeLike
This is rather long, but interesting, as it explains the process of vetting refugees, written by Scott Hicks, a pastor & lawyer.
Something else I have learned in recent days is the difference between asylum seekers (which the Tsarnaev brothers had) & refugees (although asylum seekers are often referred to refugees): Refugees are not allowed into the country until after they have been vetted. Asylum seekers come into the country first, & then file for asylum.
“Most of my friends know I practice Immigration law. As such, I have worked with the refugee community for over two decades. This post is long, but if you want actual information about the process, keep reading.
I can not tell you how frustrating it is to see the misinformation and outright lies that are being perpetuated about the refugee process and the Syrian refugees. So, here is a bit of information from the real world of someone who actually works and deals with this issue.
The refugee screening process is multi-layered and is very difficult to get through. Most people languish in temporary camps for months to years while their story is evaluated and checked.
First, you do not get to choose what country you might be resettled into. If you already have family (legal) in a country, that makes it more likely that you will go there to be with family, but other than that it is random. So, you can not simply walk into a refugee camp, show a document, and say, I want to go to America. Instead, the UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees) works with the local authorities to try to take care of basic needs. Once the person/family is registered to receive basic necessities, they can be processed for resettlement. Many people are not interested in resettlement as they hope to return to their country and are hoping that the turmoil they fled will be resolved soon. In fact, most refugees in refugee events never resettle to a third country. Those that do want to resettle have to go through an extensive process.
Resettlement in the U.S. is a long process and takes many steps. The Refugee Admissions Program is jointly administered by the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration (PRM) in the Department of State, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and offices within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) within DHS conducts refugee interviews and determines individual eligibility for refugee status in the United States.
We evaluate refugees on a tiered system with three levels of priority.
First Priority are people who have suffered compelling persecution or for whom no other durable solution exists. These individuals are referred to the United States by UNHCR, or they are identified by the U.S. embassy or a non-governmental organization (NGO).
Second priority are groups of “special concern” to the United States. The Department of State determines these groups, with input from USCIS, UNHCR, and designated NGOs. At present, we prioritize certain persons from the former Soviet Union, Cuba, Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Iran, Burma, and Bhutan.
Third priority are relatives of refugees (parents, spouses, and unmarried children under 21) who are already settled in the United States may be admitted as refugees. The U.S.-based relative must file an Affidavit of Relationship (AOR) and must be processed by DHS.
Before being allowed to come to the United States, each refugee must undergo an extensive interviewing, screening, and security clearance process conducted by Regional Refugee Coordinators and overseas Resettlement Support Centers (RSCs). Individuals generally must not already be firmly resettled (a legal term of art that would be a separate article). Just because one falls into the three priorities above does not guarantee admission to the United States.
The Immigration laws require that the individuals prove that they have a “well-founded fear,” (another legal term which would be a book.) This fear must be proved regardless of the person’s country, circumstance, or classification in a priority category. There are multiple interviews and people are challenged on discrepancies. I had a client who was not telling the truth on her age and the agency challenged her on it. Refugees are not simply admitted because they have a well founded fear. They still must show that they are not subject to exclusion under Section 212(a) of the INA. These grounds include serious health matters, moral or criminal matters, as well as security issues. In addition, they can be excluded for such things as polygamy, misrepresentation of facts on visa applications, smuggling, or previous deportations. Under some circumstances, the person may be eligible to have the ground waived.
At this point, a refugee can be conditionally accepted for resettlement. Then, the RSC sends a request for assurance of placement to the United States, and the Refugee Processing Center (RPC) works with private voluntary agencies (VOLAG) to determine where the refugee will live. If the refugee does have family in the U.S., efforts will be made to resettle close to that family.
Every person accepted as a refugee for planned admission to the United States is conditional upon passing a medical examination and passing all security checks. Frankly, there is more screening of refugees than ever happens to get on an airplane. Of course, yes, no system can be 100% foolproof. But if that is your standard, then you better shut down the entire airline industry, close the borders, and stop all international commerce and shipping. Every one of those has been the source of entry of people and are much easier ways to gain access to the U.S. Only upon passing all of these checks (which involve basically every agency of the government involved in terrorist identification) can the person actually be approved to travel.
Before departing, refugees sign a promissory note to repay the United States for their travel costs. This travel loan is an interest-free loan that refugees begin to pay back six months after arriving in the country.
Once the VOLAG is notified of the travel plans, it must arrange for the reception of refugees at the airport and transportation to their housing at their final destination.
This process from start to finish averages 18 to 24 months, but I have seen it take years.
The reality is that about half of the refugees are children, another quarter are elderly. Almost all of the adults are either moms or couples coming with children. Each year the President, in consultation with Congress, determines the numerical ceiling for refugee admissions. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2016, the proposed ceiling is 85,000. We have been averaging about 70,000 a year for the last number of years. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)
Over one-third of all refugee arrivals (35.1 percent, or 24,579) in FY 2015 came from the Near East/South Asia—a region that includes Iraq, Iran, Bhutan, and Afghanistan.
Another third of all refugee arrivals (32.1 percent, or 22,472) in FY 2015 came from Africa.
Over a quarter of all refugee arrivals (26.4 percent, or 18,469) in FY 2015 came from East Asia — a region that includes China, Vietnam, and Indonesia. (Source: Refugee Processing Center)
Finally, the process in Europe is different. I would be much more concerned that terrorists are infiltrating the European system because they are not nearly so extensive and thorough in their process.”
LikeLike
That was posted as a Facebook post, which is why I couldn’t just provide a quote & a link.
LikeLike
Donna and Karen,
Chas is right. Trump never said it. Just another hit piece from the MSM. There’s enough to dislike about the man already, no need to make stuff up. But that’s just the media, doing what they do best. Lie.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/pj-gladnick/2015/11/20/msm-spreads-false-claim-trump-wants-special-badges-muslims
“By now you have probably seen a plethora of stories in the Mainstream Media that Donald Trump wants special ID badges for Muslims. One little problem here. Trump never actually said this. One “tell” that this story is false is that there is no video of Trump saying this. The best the MSM can come up with is one with Trump answering questions about border security. The word “badges” never crossed his lips. The other tell is the very selective use of quotes in which only a portion of a sentence in which Trump supposedly called for badges for Muslims is in quotation marks. Snopes Fact Check does an excellent job of destroying this fake story which we shall review but first let us take a look at an example very selective and highly misleading quotes by ABC News:
Donald Trump Would ‘Certainly Implement’ a Registry of Muslims
Notice what is NOT in the quotes? The word “Muslims.” Why because Trump never said it. All ABC News and the rest of the MSM did was wildly infer that was what he said even though he NEVER said it. Yeah, take “certainly implement” which Trump said and add your own “Registry of Muslims” and suddenly you can FALSELY charge Trump with having Nazi ideas. Here is more absurd inferrence stretching by ABC News:
Donald Trump wants to track Muslims in the United States in a database — an idea that has drawn comparisons to Nazi Germany.
“I would certainly implement that, absolutely,” Trump told NBC News at a campaign stop in Iowa on Thursday.
What is “that?” ABC would have you believe it is tracking of Muslims in a database even though Trump didn’t say THAT.”
LikeLike
Here’s the Snopes piece too.
http://www.snopes.com/donald-trump-muslims-id/
“Donald Trump was inaccurately reported as asserting that Muslims should wear ID badges, a claim that drew inevitable comparisons to Adolf Hitler. But he did speak in favor of a Muslim registry.
WHAT’S TRUE: Donald Trump was asked in an interview about whether Muslims should be subject to special scrutiny, a question he answered ambiguously. He then later affirmed that Muslims should be required to register in a database.
WHAT’S FALSE: Donald Trump asserted that Muslims should wear identifying badges.
The comments attributed to Trump caused immediate controversy on Twitter, where a number of users compared the described mandating of badges to similar treatment of Jews in Europe before the Holocaust. However, The Hill was a secondary source for the comments, originally published in a 19 November 2015 Yahoo! Politics article titled “Donald Trump has big plans for ‘radical Islamic’ terrorists, 2016 and ‘that communist’ Bernie Sanders.”
In the context of that interview, it’s important to note that Trump’s responses were non-committal. Furthermore, they were clearly in response to leading questions for which the actual phrasing wasn’t even provided:”
“Precisely how such a question was presented to Trump was not elaborated upon in the printed text of the interview, nor was what his exact response (not “rul[ing] it out”) entailed. Moreover, the portions involving quotes were so exceptionally vague (“do things that we never did before,” “certain things will be done”) and full of obfuscation, it was impossible to discern even vaguely what Trump referenced. (The mandate of badges for Muslims was quite a leap by any measure.)
While it appeared Trump fielded a question about enhanced surveillance for Muslims and mosques, in no reasonable interpretation of the material provided did he himself suggest that followers of Islam should wear Holocaust-like badges as in Nazi Germany. That assertion appeared to be one fronted by the interviewer, and not fairly attributable to Donald Trump. It’s true that Trump espoused a position many would deem objectionable or offensive in the little he did say, but the controversy hinged largely on words he didn’t appear to have said.”
LikeLike
Thanks, AJ. I took Chas’ word for it. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
OK. I stand (partially) corrected. He did call for a registry.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What he said was a muddle; I’m not sure what he thinks about it.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/11/20/trump-causes-firestorm-with-muslim-registry-remarks-but-what-did-really-say.html
________________________________________
The headlines started after Yahoo News published an article Thursday based on an interview with the Republican presidential candidate. The reporter apparently asked Trump whether new security measures might involve a database to register Muslims in the U.S.
When he replied, “We’re going to have to — we’re going to have to look at a lot of things very closely” including mosques, Yahoo News reported that Trump did not “rule [the database] out.”
He was then asked by CNN whether he would rule out such a database, to which Trump said he “never responded to that question” during the Yahoo News interview.
But a separate exchange with NBC News muddied the picture of his position further.
The reporter initially asked Trump whether there should be a database to track Muslims.
“We should have a lot of systems,” Trump responded, but then went on to tout the importance of a strong border and a border wall. Asked whether he would like to implement that, Trump responded:
“I would certainly implement that. Absolutely.”
That single line was swiftly interpreted in several news stories as Trump’s endorsement of a database for Muslims, in turn prompting a widespread backlash. Some stories even stated that Trump had proposed a “plan” to register Muslims in a database. ,,,
Yet the reporter went on to ask Trump directly, once again, about a database for Muslims, and Trump did not dismiss the idea.
Instead, when asked how to do it, Trump said: “It would be just good management.”
Asked if those running it would have to go to mosques, he said: “Different places. You sign them up … but it’s all about management.”
____________________________________________________
LikeLike
He could have been a lot clearer after it came up so often. He could have just said no, that would be against our Constitution. It’s pretty clear.-cut. Oy!
LikeLike
If the MSM doesn’t stop slandering and attacking Trump he will be the nominee for sure. It makes people who are sick of gotcha politics rally to him. Maybe that’s what they want.
LikeLike
But Trump could have answered more clearly — He did not say “no,” he hedged — which led to the reports that he didn’t outright rule it out.
LikeLike
I won’t vote for Trump.
LikeLike
There are some who say Trump didn’t hear what they said, which only means he’s not careful enough to president. Trump is at the bottom of my Republican list. but he would be better than Clinton.
LikeLike