Didnt grandma live with them?? Is that his mother or his grandmother? Where is she?
Maybe that money was part of her dowry 
CNN reported that that the $28,000 was a loan from a Utah based company WebBank.com that does “online lending.” Once he received the loan, $10,000 was withdrawn in cash. Then three $5000 transfers were made to his mother’s bank account in the weeks leading up to the massacre.
Always click the link!
Law professors weigh in on Trump’s proposal:
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/would-donald-trumps-proposed-ban-on-muslims-in-220425404.html
His most recent plan to prevent terrorism (I assume?) is to work with Bill Gates to “close up” the internet. 8-X
Oh my! (from CNN Money)
In a speech at the U.S.S. Yorktown in Mount Pleasant, South Carolina, on Monday, Trump referenced the use by ISIS of social media as a recruitment tool. He recommended a discussion with Bill Gates to shut off parts of the Internet.
“We’re losing a lot of people because of the Internet,” Trump said. “We have to go see Bill Gates and a lot of different people that really understand what’s happening. We have to talk to them about, maybe in certain areas, closing that Internet up in some way. Somebody will say, ‘Oh freedom of speech, freedom of speech.’ These are foolish people. We have a lot of foolish people.”
Acceptable responses from Bill Gates:
“No.”
“I don’t negotiate with terrorists (Trump).”
“Who?”
“Maniacal laughter.”
(Sorry, you have to find humor in the insanity. Back to your regularly scheduled thread.)
What does Bill Gates know about the internet? We should be talking to Al Gore.
Since pipe bombs were recently mentioned, it reminds me that quite a ways upthread there was the question about all the other people around their house, and why they didn’t notice all the pipe bombs. I would just like to say that I’m pretty sure that I wouldn’t recognize a pipe bomb if I saw one in plain daylight, let alone stuffed into a garage (where I’d totally expect to see a lot of random junk lying about).
So really, I’m happy to give those folks the benefit of the doubt for the moment.
From the article I linked:
Yahoo should have clarified that he was talking about a non-citizen (there was also a constitutional question of First Amendment rights of the inviting profs, but the SCOTUS shot that one down quickly, too, if I recall that correctly). US Immigration services can deny visas to anyone if there is a reason to do so (see 8 U.S.C.A. § 1182). Courts said that even legal non-immigrant spouses of US citizens can be denied entry… A blanket denial to a group of people on the basis of their religion would need some tweaking with that statue, you would think. Not gonna happen… IMO.
I am not a law prof or even a lawyer, but it sounds to me that denying entry to US citizens would be a whole different ball of wax! 
Denying entry to whole groups has certainly been done in the past. The Chinese Exclusion Act is but one example. You also used to have to sign something that said you weren’t (argh I can’t remember the exact categories…) something like a Communist, Anarchist, etc.
However, especially now with this SCOTUS, it’s not going to happen. There is no way that it would stand. Further, there’s no way to prove someone is Muslim… which is different from denying people like Mandel with known Marxist beliefs.
Extrapolating the Mandel case to a whole group of people is a huge stretch.
(Leaving out the US Citizen bit though since he appears to have backed off from that line…)
Trump is an egomaniacal buffoon, but also pretty smart: you don’t turn $20-$50 million (or however much he inherited) into ~$10 billion without intelligence.
Which is why I think he is doing this mainly for two reasons:
- The asinine statements he has already made have not hurt his poll numbers. He is still leading the Repub field and according to some polls would beat (or be competitive with...) Hillary if they were to meet in the general election. So he continues to double down, emboldened.
- He is setting up centrists and liberals so that if he does get into office, what he actually does try to do will seem ok because it will be pretty tame compared to what he is campaigning on now. You see, I don't think he really plans to attempt deporting 12 million illegal aliens, or build this huge wall, or deny all Muslims entry into the US. So if he does win and pushes center-right (sane...) policy regarding those hot-button issues, the Center and Left might just think, "Maybe he's not so bad after all!". So as elaborate and unlikely as it might seem, he might just be setting us up.
He is gruff and bold and blunt and would likely make some pretty undiplomatic blunders, and that is why I can’t vote for him. (notwithstanding his failure to specify how he’ll deal with huge issues like job creation, bringing jobs home from overseas, student loan debt, health insurance, etc.)
Maybe he could put together a dream team of negotiators and business minds. But I’m afraid he’d bring a little too much “Team America: World Police” to foreign policy, and the “You shouldn’t say that, Donald…” would often come a little too late.
Apparently if Trump had put all his inheritance into an S&P index fund when he got it, he would have more money today than he actually has .
“Denying entry to whole groups has certainly been done in the past. The Chinese Exclusion Act is but one example. You also used to have to sign something that said you weren’t (argh I can’t remember the exact categories…) something like a Communist, Anarchist, etc.”
Yup. That was done because there was a legal basis for doing this (8 U.S.C. § 1182 or whatever it was lists the current inadmissible categories, such as “members of PLO”). Anyone want to guess if the Congress is willing to amend it to include “a Muslim” as a basis for entry denial?
(I would not count on the courts… for the SCOTUS to act, someone has to sue someone, claim that the law used to deny privileges was unconstitutional, and be able to prove that they have standing to sue… Takes a while).
I bet a lot of people wish they’d done that. hehe
Wondering how many countries have something similar to France’s “state of emergency” law? They have already used that law to close 3 mosques and it is being reported that they are looking at closing over 100 more.
The French “state of emergency” also gives more powers to the security services and police, such as the right to conduct house searches without judicial oversight, enforce house arrest and confiscate certain classes of weapons, even if people hold them legally. They have actually conducted those raids and I think have about a dozen people under house arrest.
So when national security is at stake their power seems unlimited.
I read in an opinion piece that Jimmy Carter banned Iranians from entering the hostage crisis. True?
Restricting residents of one country with whom negotiations were in process is different than restricting an entire religious population.
Yes, you notice they were banned because they were Iranian citizens, not Muslims. Recall Iran at the time was holding 53 or our citizens hostage, so that was a legitimate action to take.