Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump delivered his most comprehensive foreign policy speech to date in Washington, outlining a general vision for international relations that would reconfigure American responsibilities abroad to put “America first.”
Trump said during a speech organized by the National Interest magazine:
“My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. ‘America First’ will be the major and overriding theme of my administration.”
The speech included no dramatic new policy proposals that might generate headlines, such as his past calls to bar Muslims from entering the United States or to build a wall on the frontier with Mexico.
The real estate mogul said that a Trump administration would install a foreign policy vision that “replaces randomness with purpose, ideology with strategy, and chaos with peace.” He said that as president he would call for summits with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, or NATO, and with Asian allies in the Pacific. Chief among his goals would be to update existing organizations to “confront shared problems, like terrorism and migration.”
Where he was specific, like rejecting the terms of last year’s nuclear deal with Iran, calling for more investment in missile defense in Europe and accusing the Obama administration of tepid support for Israel, he was firmly within the Republican mainstream.
Although Trump called for the United States to “shake the rust off of America’s foreign policy,” he delivered few specific proposals, instead focusing on outlining a broad framework the rests on demanding respect for the United States abroad.
It is extremely unfortunate that in his speech outlining his foreign policy goals, Donald Trump chose to brand his foreign policy with the noxious slogan “America First,” the name of the isolationist, defeatist, anti-Semitic national organization that urged the United States to appease Adolf Hitler.
At best the Trump campaign simply did not perform adequate research, which highlights how they are not prepared for presidential politics. At worst they are again appealing to white supremacists with another dog-whistle message.
Mr. Trump seemed to relish injecting gender politics into the race as he looks ahead to a potential general election matchup with Mrs. Clinton. In an interview with ABC’s “Good Morning America,” he claimed that women do not like Mrs. Clinton and that he has every right to attack her if she plays up the fact that she would be the first female United States president.
It’s not sexist. It’s true. It’s just a very, very true statement. If she were a man, she’d get 5 percent. She’s a bad candidate. She’s a flawed candidate. She’s not going to do very well in the election, and I look forward to showing that.
And again on Morning Joe on MSNBC he repeated the claim. Remarking that he was still “recovering” from Clinton’s “shouting,” an increasingly high-energy Trump remarked:
I know a lot of people would say you can’t say that about a woman, because of course a woman doesn’t shout. The way she shouted that message was not — that’s the way she said it, and I guess I’ll have to get used to a lot of that over the next four or five months.
Mrs. Clinton addressed Mr. Trump’s new line of attack during her victory speech on Tuesday night, telling voters to “deal me in” when it comes to Mr. Trump’s suggestions that he is trying to capitalize on her gender and argued that she would be the best candidate to defend women’s rights on health and in the workplace.
Reality
The statement that Hillary Clinton plays the woman card is one that Trump has repeatedmanytimesover the course of his campaign.
A USA Today-Suffolk University poll released this week found that 66 percent of likely female voters nationwide have an unfavorable view of Trump, compared with 48 percent who have a negative opinion of Clinton. And women are far more likely to have intensely negative views of Trump. A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this month found that 64 percent of women feel “strongly unfavorable” toward Trump, compared with 41 percent of men.
While celebrating sweeping victories in five primaries Tuesday night, Donald Trump mocked the qualifications of Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton and suggested she was playing “the women’s card” to her advantage in the presidential race.
“Frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don’t think she’d get 5 percent of the vote. The only thing she’s got going is the women’s card,” Trump said during a news conference at Trump Tower. “And the beautiful thing is, women don’t like her.”
The statement that Hillary Clinton plays the woman card is one that Trump has repeatedmanytimesover the course of his campaign.
A USA Today-Suffolk University poll released this week found that 66 percent of likely female voters nationwide have an unfavorable view of Trump, compared with 48 percent who have a negative opinion of Clinton. And women are far more likely to have intensely negative views of Trump. A Washington Post-ABC News poll earlier this month found that 64 percent of women feel “strongly unfavorable” toward Trump, compared with 41 percent of men.
The sexist and false claim was perfectly summed up by Chris Christie’s wife, Mary Pat, who stole the show with this little reaction:
Huffington Post – Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump has been vocal about the need to take care of U.S. veterans. He’s said that if elected, he’ll “put our service men and women on a path to success as they leave active duty.”
But that’s not what the Trump Institute, a get-rich-quick real estate seminar, did for Richard Wright, a senior master sergeant in the Air Force reserves who worked for the company in 2006 and 2007. Wright was deployed to Afghanistan in the spring of 2007. When he came home to his job, the Trump Institute fired him. “All of your absences,” Wright’s boss at the Trump Institute told him, had forced the company to “reevaluate your position with the Trump Institute.” It is a violation of federal law to penalize an employee for absences caused by military service.
When Wright accepted a job at the Trump Institute in December 2006, he thought he’d be working directly with Trump.
“Having a chance to work with him was a dream come true,” Wright, now 48, said of Trump in an email to The Huffington Post.
Dozens of former customers of the Trump Institute and Trump University, a real estate instruction program, have also described being told that Donald Trump was personally overseeing the programs that bore his name, and that instructors were “hand-picked by Mr. Trump.” Judging from the information on the Trump Institute’s (now defunct) website, it’s easy to see why:
It was only after Wright started the job that he realized Trump had little to do with the day-to-day operations of the Trump Institute.
Trump provided his name, along with his image, his reputation, his video endorsements and his promises to help the Trump Institute lure potential customers and employees. But like many of the hundreds of businesses and real estate projects that have borne Trump’s name, the Trump Institute was actually a joint venture between Trump and an outside company — in this case, a Florida-based business called National Grants Conferences. Trump was paid franchise fees, but the details of his profits from the schools are a well-guarded secret.
Michael and Irene Milin, NGC’s founders, spent decades in the get-rich-quick business before linking up with Trump. NGC promised to teach its clients how to access millions of dollars in “free money” from the government. In reality, NGC seminars were little more than elaborate sales pitchesfor yet more NGC events, and the company, which has since been dissolved, had a long history of legal troubles and fraud investigations that spanned multiple states.
NGC’s free-money seminars provided the framework for the Trump Institute’s signature offering, the Donald Trump Way to Wealth Seminar. Trump Institute clients paid as much as $35,000 to learn the “Donald Trump Way To Wealth,” and to receive coaching from mentors like Wright.
In the clip below, from an infomercial that appears to date to 2006, Trump tells potential customers how important it is that they enroll in the Trump Institute. He also hits on the woman interviewing him.
That same year, the Trump Institute hired Wright as a tele-consultant (or “mentor,” in Trump parlance). His job was to speak on the phone with clients who had purchased “memberships” in the Trump Institute, and give them advice about investing in real estate.
On paper, Wright and his fellow mentors were technically employed by Xylophone, LLC, a foreign limited liability company controlled by Irene Milin. But to the outside world, they were working for the Trump Institute.
Two months into the job, Wright was called up for active duty, and in early February 2007, he wrote to his boss, Jay Shavin, to say he would be deployed to Afghanistan starting around March 1.
In Afghanistan, Wright was assigned to the 451st Air Expeditionary Group at Kandahar Airfield, near the country’s southern border with Pakistan. Wright was awarded three different medals for outstanding service in the six weeks he was overseas.
Wright arrived home to Florida on Monday, April 16, 2007. He asked his boss to approve two personal days for him to get his bearings, do laundry and so on.
Before Wright left for Afghanistan, he had approximately 40 different clients whom he was advising on how to buy real estate “the Trump Way.” Like the other Trump Institute mentors, Wright was promised commissions on his clients’ deals — $250 each time a client bought property and rented it out “using Trump methods,” and $750 each time a client bought and then sold a property, a process known as “flipping.”
In his first week back home, Wright emailed some of his clients to let them know he was “back safe and sound,” according to court documents.
On Monday, April 23, Wright got this note from Shavin:
I specifically told you NOT to contact your old clients. Jeff was in the office when we had the discussion. I also emphatically stated that you were not to contact your old clients. You are so concerned about your closings that do not exist, that your employment is in jeopardy. I told you that I put your former client into a deal that has not closed and would give it to you.
It is apparent that you do not listen to instructions. You are to report to my office tomorrow before you do anything. You have been here less than three months (deducting your time off for the Air Force Reserve). I find it insulting that you would make a request to be paid for time you did not work and/or personal time you did not earn.
You are still on probation. With all of your absences and inability to adhere to specific instructions, you force me to reevaluate your position with the Trump Institute.
Wright replied, in part: “I don’t think your previous comments were called for or appropriate. I am a good mentor & have always been a team player & do not appreciate being spoken to that way.”
“You needn’t be offended by my remarks,” Shavin wrote back. “Your employment is hereby terminated.”
In subsequent emails, Shavin denied that Wright was fired because of his time in Afghanistan. He also said that any further emails from Wright would be considered “harassment.”
A year later, Wright sued the Trump Institute and its parent company, Xylophone, for wrongful termination under the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act. That law, passed in 1972, requires that military service members called up to active duty from civilian jobs “be restored to the job and benefits you would have attained if you had not been absent due to military service.” Under the law, the burden falls on the employer to prove that it did not fire a service member for absences related to his or her military service.
The Trump Institute ultimately reached a settlement with Wright that forbids him from talking about the case. Shavin died in 2014. Lyn Miller, another former Trump Institute employee, said Shavin was “a knowledgeable and awesome guy.”
Alan Garten, executive vice president and general counsel of the Trump Organization, provided a statement to HuffPost when asked about Wright’s experience.
“The Trump Institute was a licensee of Trump University and was not owned or controlled by Mr. Trump or any of his companies,” Garten said. “As such, Mr. Trump had nothing whatsoever to do with the employment of any of the Trump Institute’s employees or mentors, had no involvement in the development or enforcement of any of the Trump Institute’s employment policies and has no knowledge of this matter. Mr. Trump has always been a great supporter of the men and women who have served in this country’s armed forces and has devoted much of his campaign to improving the lives of veterans.”
Trump’s attempts to distance himself from the companies that paid him money and bore his name haven’t shielded him from lawsuits over their conduct.
In 2013, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman sued Trump and Trump University for civil fraud. Included in his case filings were scores of complaints from Trump Institute clients. In California and New York, Trump University is facing allegations of fraud, and in the California case, the company faces a class action lawsuit with more than 5,000 plaintiffs.
HuffPost attempted to contact the Milins multiple times at the number listed for their charitable organization, the Milin Family Foundation, but there was never any answer.
Wright doesn’t blame Trump for his firing, even though the Trump Institute bore Trump’s name, benefited from Trump’s endorsement and paid money to Trump in franchise and licensing fees.
“He was really just the name on the box & had nothing to do with the inner workings of the company,” Wright said in an email to HuffPost. “At the time I really needed a job & I loved what I was doing.”
This fall, Wright, who still invests in real estate, hopes to vote for Donald Trump for president.
“I am a HUGE Trump fan and supporter and think he would make an excellent leader,” he said. Trump “is saying all the things that politicians have been afraid to say over the years. That is why they are nervous and siding against him. He threatens what they have worked so hard to build. As a veteran, I LOVE that he is wanting to make America great again.”
It is a violation of federal law to penalize an employee for absences caused by military service.
Some may argue that since Senior Master Sargent Wright himself does not put any direct blame on Donald Trump then therefor the buck should stop with the owners and operators of the Trump Institute. This, however, is not how the business world works. For example, in 1996 it was discovered that a clothing line by talk show host Kathy Lee Gifford was being manufactured by children as young as 12 in Honduran sweatshops. Even though Wal-Mart was responsible for producing the Kathie Lee Gifford clothing line the court of public opinion turned harshly against her. It was a business decision by Kathie Lee to place her name, her image, and her reputation on the line unchecked. (No pun intended.)
Donald Trump is running for the Republican candidacy for the President of the United States of America on qualifications that he is a “great businessman” so it is entirely fair to challenge him on his record. Donald Trump put his name and support behind companies, such as Trump University and the Trump Institute, which engaged in fraudulent and illegal activities. A great businessman would have either been more careful with where they invested or had more control in a company that they stamped their name on.
The Treasury Department’s decision to replace Andrew Jackson on the $20 bill with abolitionist Harriet Tubman was met with mixed results. Donald Trump has weighed in, saying the move was “pure political correctness.”
“Well, Andrew Jackson had a great history and I think it’s very rough when you take somebody off the bill. Andrew Jackson had a history of tremendous success for the country,” Trump said during a town hall on NBC’s “Today Show.”
While he called Tubman “fantastic,” he suggested she appear on a different bill.
“I would love to leave Andrew Jackson and see if we can maybe come up with another denomination. Maybe we do the $2 bill or we do another bill. I don’t like seeing it. Yes, I think it’s pure political correctness,” he said.
Trump joined with his former GOP presidential rival Ben Carson, who called for Tubman on the $2 bill. The neurosurgeon told Fox Business, “I love what she did, but we can find another way to honor her.”
The $2 bill currently features the image of Thomas Jefferson.
Andrew Jackson, the nation’s seventh president, was revered for being the first “common man” elected as president. But the darker side of his legacy includes slave-owning and expelling thousands of Native Americans from their homes, forcing them on the walk now referred to as “The Trail of Tears.”
And while Jackson owned slaves, Tubman’s life mission was to free them. An abolitionist and Union spy, Tubman was responsible for leading hundreds of slaves to freedom through the Underground Railroad, an elaborate network of safe houses.
Tubman will become the first person of color and the first woman to grace a U.S. paper currency.
Who is this offending? Andrew Jackson’s descendants? But with the statement that Tubman should appear on the $2 he is equally offending Thomas Jefferson’s descendants.
And finally, isn’t it interesting that conservatives would be “okay” with a black woman on a bill, as long as it is the most rare bill that the United States prints?
Fox News host Bill O’Reilly told Donald Trump on Monday that “many” African-Americans aren’t qualified for the jobs that Trump is campaigning to bring back to the US.
During an interview with the Republican presidential frontrunner, O’Reilly pressed Trump about how he would win over voting groups who strongly oppose his candidacy. The Fox host then zeroed in on African-Americans.
Trump said he would win them over because “they’re going to have the jobs.”
“I’m telling you, it’s an economic message,” Trump said.
O’Reilly questioned how Trump would actually accomplish that aim.
“Many of them are ill-educated and have tattoos on their foreheads, and I hate to be generalized about it, but it’s true,” O’Reilly said. “If you look at all the educational statistics, how are you going to get jobs for people who aren’t qualified for jobs?”
Trump stayed on message, insisting that African-Americans would benefit from manufacturing jobs returning to the country under a President Trump.
“We’re going to bring jobs back,” Trump responded. “We’re going to have Apple computers made in this country.”
O’Reilly pushed back.
“But you have to have skills to make Apple computers,” he said.
“We will get the skills and develop the skills,” Trump said.
O’Reilly continued to push his point that some African-Americans were unqualified for the jobs Trump wanted to bring back.
“It’s more challenging for a poor child in Harlem without parental guidance in a school that’s falling apart than it is for some white kid out in Garden City,” he said. “You say you can bring jobs back, but if the kid isn’t qualified to do the job and can’t do the work — I mean — you’ve got to get into the infrastructure of the African-American community.”
Trump replied: “Well it is true. It’s about education, but it’s also about spirit.”
The problem here is not so much what Trump said but what he didn’t say. It should come to no surprise that Bill O’Reilly would use racist slurs and stereotypes to frame loaded questions. What is surprising is a candidate for the President of the United States of America not reacting at all or even distancing themselves from such statements.
As a leading politician there are better ways to handle racist questions.
Donald Trump announced he would use a federal anti-terrorism surveillance law as a tool to force Mexico to pay for the border wall he has pledged to build on the U.S.’s southern border.
Trump outlined the steps his administration would undertake to compel Mexico to pay the U.S. “$5-10 billion” to fund a border wall in a memo his campaign released Tuesday morning — a plan that relies largely on threatening to bar undocumented Mexican immigrants in the United States from wiring money to relatives in Mexico.
Using a broad interpretation of the post-9/11 USA Patriot Act, Trump writes in the memo that he would threaten to issue new regulations that would compel money transfer companies like Western Union to verify a client’s identity and legal status before authorizing a wire transfer.
Trump’s plan reads just like how he talks.
Day 1, broaden a provision in the Patriot Act, a (shitty) law used in the fight against terrorism, to include wire transfers. Also include a requirement that no alien may wire money outside of the United States unless the alien first provides a document establishing his lawful presence in the United States. So if you are brown skin then Trump’s plan requires you to first provide proof of citizenship to wire money to Mexico.
Mexico waits 24 hours to complain. No really here is the exact quote, “On day 2 Mexico will immediately protest.” It goes on to claim without citation that “they” receive approximately $24 billion a year in remittances from Mexican nationals working in the United States, mostly from illegal aliens.
Day 3, Trump publicly threatens the Mexican government to pay for the wall now, otherwise he will enact tariffs so harsh it will hurt both economies.
Enact trade tariffs that will hurt both economies should the Mexican government not comply. And to quote, “Mexico needs access to our markets much more than the reverse, so we have all the leverage and will win the negotiation.”
Threatens to cancel visas.
Threatens to increase visa fees which Trump claims would pay for the wall all by itself.
The memo then concludes by blaming Mexico directly for crime, drugs, and the costs to the legal system from prosecution and incarceration.
Mexico has taken advantage of us in another way as well: gangs, drug traffickers and cartels have freely exploited our open borders and committed vast numbers of crimes inside the United States. The United States has borne the extraordinary daily cost of this criminal activity, including the cost of trials and incarcerations. Not to mention the even greater human cost. We have the moral high ground here, and all the leverage. It is time we use it in order to Make America Great Again.
Reality
Here’s the really stupid thing about Trump’s plan. If I’m a person who entered this country illegally, and live in this country illegally, what makes him think that I would only resort to purely legal ways of sending money back home. If a black market exists to get me here, why wouldn’t a black market exist to send my money back? And like most illegal immigrants I stay away from criminal elements, why not instead legally send a check or pre-paid Visa card in the mail? If you stop and think about each one of Trump’s proposals, it gets defeated with simple logic.
The sad fact is Donald Trump is single-handedly destroying the United State’s relationship with our 3rd largest trading partner. Our economy with Mexico is so intertwined that a goal to force economic hardships will amount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Look around your room,in your garage, or in your fridge, without a doubt you are looking at something that you purchased inexpensively and was made entirely or in part in Mexico. Now image you paid more for all of those things you see all because Donald Trump raised tariffs.
Furthermore, to bastardize an already questionable anti-terror law to require anyone who wishes to send money outside of the United States to first prove their citizenship could place an undue burden on that individual and would be difficult to prove that it is not illegal or unconstitutional.
Now about the actual cost. As we’ve discussed before, The Great Wall of Trump will not cost $10 billion but $25 billion plus $750 million every year for maintenance. Let’s forget for a moment the illogical conclusion that blocking person-to-person money transfers will somehow effect the the Mexican government so drastically it will cause Enrique Nieto cave in and pay for a wall. Mexico does not receive $24 billion per yer in remittances as Trump claimed, but instead $19.9 billion.
There is a problem with that $19.9 billion number as it includes all remittance outflow to Mexico from both citizens and illegal immigrants. The real number, according to The World Bank for money transfers to Mexico from migrants is only $7 billion per year. It would take 4 years of unconstitutionally and magically collecting wire transfers until we would break even, and at that point the damage to both of our economies would be felt by the average American.
Donald J. Trump said that women who seek abortions should be subject to “some form of punishment” if the procedure is banned in the United States, further elevating Republican concerns that his explosive remarks about women could doom the party in the fall.
The comment, which Mr. Trump later recanted, attracted instant, bipartisan criticism — the latest in a series of high-profile episodes that have shined a light on Mr. Trump’s feeble approval ratings among women nationally.
In this case, Mr. Trump also ran afoul of conservative doctrine, with opponents of abortion rights immediately castigating him for suggesting that those who receive abortions — and not merely those who perform them — should be punished if the practice is outlawed.
The statement came as Mr. Trump appeared at a town-hall-style forum with Chris Matthews of MSNBC, recorded for broadcast on Wednesday night. Mr. Matthews pressed Mr. Trump, who once supported abortion rights, on his calls to ban the procedure, asking how he might enforce such a restriction.
“You go back to a position like they had where they would perhaps go to illegal places,” Mr. Trump said, after initially deflecting questions. “But you have to ban it.”
He added, after a bit more prodding, “There has to be some form of punishment.”
Hours later, Mr. Trump recanted his remarks, essentially in full, a rare and remarkable shift for a candidate who proudly extols his unwillingness to apologize or bow to “political correctness.”
If abortion were disallowed, he said in a statement, “the doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman.”
“The woman is a victim in this case, as is the life in her womb,” he continued.
Reality
Donald Trump manged to anger literally every single person in the abortion debate. He upset the pro-choicers by being pro-life and his misogynistic stance to blame the woman, he upset some pro-lifers for going too far, and finally he upset the other pro-lifers for not going far enough.
Bravo, sir. Bravo.
This isn’t the first time Donald Trump flip-flopped on the abortion issue. For example in 1999 he told Meet the Press he was “very pro-choice“.
Donald Trump said that his proposed ban on Muslims entering the country may have the effect of motivating them to fight ISIS in order to attempt to return to the U.S. at some point.
Trump made the statement during an MSNBC town hall, when the GOP presidential front-runner was asked by Chris Matthews about the temporary ban he suggested in December.
Asked if Muslims would be more ill-disposed to fighting ISIS if a ban was imposed.
“I don’t know, maybe they’ll be more disposed to fight ISIS,” Trump said. “Maybe they’ll say, ‘We want to come back into America, we’ve got to solve this problem.'”
Here is the entire exchange:
MATTHEWS: But there’s 1.6 billion Muslims in the world. And they’re all getting the message from Donald Trump, who’s leading the fight for the Republican nomination for president, saying, “Stay out of my country.”
How does that encourage them to fight ISIS?
TRUMP: Chris (inaudible).
MATTHEWS: How does that encourage them to fight the bad guys?
TRUMP: OK, let me explain (inaudible). They have a problem too. They have a big problem.
MATTHEWS: But if we say “Go away…”
TRUMP: I have been told by more (inaudible) who are saying, “What are you doing is a great thing, not a bad thing.” The two people in San Bernardino…
MATTHEWS: Are any Muslims telling you that?
TRUMP: I have actually — believe it or not, I have a lot of friends that are Muslim and they call me.
MATTHEWS: Right.
TRUMP: In most cases, they’re very rich Muslims, OK?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: But do they get in the country?
TRUMP: But they do call me. They’ll come in.
MATTHEWS: How do you let them in?
TRUMP: They’ll come in. And you’ll have exceptions.
MATTHEWS: But you…
TRUMP: Wait, wait, wait. Look, Chris, Chris, with the San Bernardino situation…
MATTHEWS: Right.
TRUMP: … many people saw that apartment with bombs all over the apartment…
MATTHEWS: Yeah, I agree with that.
TRUMP: … bombs on table.
MATTHEWS: You see something, say something.
TRUMP: Not one person…
MATTHEWS: I know.
TRUMP: … with all the people that said — they said it’s racial profiling. That’s why they didn’t call. You know why they said that? Because some lawyer said, “You know, you saw this, you better come up with a good excuse.” They said it’s racial profiling. A lot of people saw what was going on in that apartment. Not one Muslim, OK?
MATTHEWS: I’m with you on this. Of course I’m with you. But that’s not the question.
TRUMP: OK. Why didn’t they report ’em?
MATTHEWS: Look, look, you’re saying ban…
TRUMP: In other words, why — but Chris, why don’t they report ’em?
MATTHEWS: OK. You say ban them from entering the country. They get the message. Everyone in the world — over 1.6 — in Indonesia, Pakistan, everywhere. In Albania. Anywhere there’s Muslims, you know, they know you don’t want them. So they get the message. They’re a little more ill-disposed to fight ISIS, a little bit more after that once they say, “The Americans don’t even like us,” don’t you think?
TRUMP: I don’t know, maybe they’ll be more disposed to fight ISIS. Maybe they’ll say, “We want to come back into America, we’ve got to solve this problem.”
MATTHEWS: OK.
TRUMP: I’m serious about that. Maybe they’ll be…
Reality
Trump’s flip-flop on banning all Muslims is a proposal to create a 2-class system, those who are rich enough to afford to get past his ban and the rest who would be forced into military service to fight ISIS. This is interesting to note to the Trump supporters who believe that he would help out the common man when it is very clear from remarks like these that his views favor the wealthy.
I think Republican House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, whose district includes parts of San Bernardino County, which suffered a deadly terrorist attack in December, said it best later in the day:
I think the thought we could have a religious test [for entrants] would be unconstitutional.
[But] we need to address the problem in terms of foreign fighters who might come back in the United States,” the congressman said in a “Squawk Box” interview. “We need to vet people who come in.”
Donald Trump on Monday defended his past controversial remarks on women, saying they date from his time as a celebrity entertainer.
Radio host Charlie Sykes challenged the Republican presidential front-runner during an interview on WTMJ in Milwaukee, asking whether the rules are different for celebrities when it comes to insulting women.
“The rules aren’t different, but certainly I never thought I would run for office,” Trump responded before the host finished asking the question.
“Many people, you know, Howard Stern would interview me, and everybody would be having fun and the women would be laughing,” Trump said.
In the interview, Trump said he has always treated women well as a businessman, putting many in executive positions.
“I thought this was actually a dead issue until I just spoke to you,” Trump said when pressed about his remarks on women, including his feud with Fox News anchor Megyn Kelly, whom he has taken to calling “crazy Megyn” on Twitter.
“Really?” Sykes responded.
“I’d rather be talking about trade; I’d rather be talking about, you know, the things I’m best at: border security,” Trump said, pivoting to other campaign topics.
Reality
As we’ve documented, Trump made a whole ton of sexist comments after declaring his candidacy for the Republican nomination for the President of the United States of America, and not just towards Megyn Kelly. For example:
Just earlier this week he tweeted which wife between him and Ted Cruz is more doable.
