Trump’s attacks on Carson’s 'crap': Why he’s not backing down

When a politician engages in inflammatory rhetoric, his aides often try to walk it back, tone it down, claim things were taken out of context, followed by a terse regret-if-anyone-was-offended statement.
Not with Donald Trump.
When Trump delivered a 95-minute rant in Iowa last week, kicking the “crap” (to use one of his favorite words) out of Ben Carson, his camp was thrilled.
A senior Trump adviser told me the candidate wouldn’t take back a single word. Carson’s life story is riddled with fallacies, as the Trump camp sees it, and the burden is on the doctor to prove that any questionable incidents happened.
Trump is the guy who’s not afraid to touch the third rail, the adviser says, even if it flies in the face of political correctness.
In my view, the burden is on Carson’s critics to disprove his account of events from his past. Politico, CNN and the Wall Street Journal all fell short with stories that were underreported or overhyped.
There was no urgent need for Trump to pile on, giving the media’s role in driving these stories. But he has an unerring instinct for an opponent’s weakness.
So using a word from Carson’s autobiography to describe his temper as a teenager, Trump told the crowd: “He said he's pathological and got a pathological disease. I don't want a person who's got pathological disease. If you're pathological, there's no cure for that, folks. I did one of the shows today, I said that if you're a child molester, a sick puppy, there's no cure for that.”
Child molester? That’s quite a pivot.
Then he mocked the stabbing story, grabbing his belt, his voice dripping with sarcasm: “He took a knife and went after a friend and lunged but low and behold it hit the belt and the knife broke. Give me a break.”
And he questioned whether the people of Iowa, and the country, were “stupid” to “believe this crap.”
The media’s tone in reporting on this has ranged from disapproval to disbelief—this time he’s gone too far, he was desperate, he was way over the top. And it was over the top. Take this New York Times headline: “Some See Attacks by Donald Trump As Start of His Downfall.” Some see—I wonder who.
How many times have we been through these media predictions of Trump’s imminent demise? What Trump’s fans love about him is that he does go too far, that he entertains by being outrageous, because they see that as thumbing his nose at a discredited political establishment.
Carson, who has had very tough words for the media and their "lies," always deflects questions about Trump’s assaults. When I interviewed him last week, he dialed things down by calmly explaining the meaning of the word pathological.
At a news conference on Friday, he talked about a “gratuitous attack” without using Trump’s name. He also invoked a signature Bill Clinton phrase from the 1992 campaign, “the politics of personal destruction.”
It would tarnish Carson’s brand to get into a street fight with Trump, who, in rhetorical terms, always carries a knife. And while Carson’s reticence often frustrates reporters, that calm, measured approach is at the heart of his appeal to voters.
Why would a candidate volunteer that he tried to knife someone and almost hit his mother in the head with a hammer? Because his is a story of redemption. He found religion a half century ago, turned his life around and became a leading neurosurgeon.
When I asked him about his account of his teenage years, Carson said: “Well, I believe in full disclosure, and if I hadn't revealed that, then that would have been a story. Because then you say”—here he lowered his voice to a conspiratorial whisper—“do you know what this guy did, oh my God.”
From Trump’s perspective, the swipes against Carson both raise doubt about his temperament and reinforce the billionaire’s reputation for toughness. His camp sees the same dynamic in his immigration message—which now comes with talk of a “deportation force”—in that Trump is the guy who knocks heads and speaks uncomfortable truths. And the appalling terror attacks in Paris will only reinforce that message.
Whether Trump goes too far—or whether voters see him as an insult comic taking on worthy targets—won’t truly be known until the Iowa caucuses.

France carries out fresh ISIS airstrikes as report claims allies targeted Paris attack mastermind

Belgian believed to be behind Paris attacks

French warplanes carried out airstrikes against ISIS targets in Syria for a second consecutive night early Tuesday, as a new report claimed the U.S. and its allies had in recent weeks targeted the Belgian jihadist suspected of masterminding Friday's terror attacks in Paris.
The AFP news agency, citing France's Defense Ministry, reported that a total of 16 bombs were dropped from ten fighter jets that targeted a command center and training center in Raqqa, the capital of the ISIS "caliphate." The ministry's statement said the airstrikes were "conducted in coordination with US forces" and "aimed at sites identified during reconnaissance missions previously carried out by France."
Late Sunday, the first round of French airstrikes since the attacks that killed 129 people hit a dozen ISIS targets, including a command and recruitment center, a munitions depot, and a terrorist training camp.
The airstrikes came as The Wall Street Journal, citing two Western security officials, reported that 27-year-old Abdelhamid Abaaoud had been sought as a target for an airstrike, but could not be located. A Western intelligence official told the paper that efforts to monitor communications between Abaaoud in Syria and jihadists in Europe were complicated by an inability to tell whether Abaaoud or his teenage brother was speaking.
Abaaoud was named by French officials Monday as the key figure suspected of planning and organizing the Paris attacks, which included a series of suicide bombings outside the country's national stadium and a massacre at a concert hall during a rock-and-roll show by an American band.

More on this...

• Did US intelligence miss Paris terror warning signs?

• Manhunt under way for escaped Paris attack suspect

• Confronting ISIS following the Paris terror attacks

French officials who identified Abaaoud as a prime suspect to the Associated Press cited chatter from ISIS figures that Abaaoud had recommended a concert as an ideal target for inflicting maximum casualties, as well as electronic communications between Abaaoud and one of the Paris attackers who blew himself up.
Western officials told the Journal they had no knowledge of the planned attacks on the French capital as they sought Abaaoud, and admitted they did not know whether his death would have been enough to stop the attacks, which were carried out by seven suicide attackers, including a set of three brothers.
A Belgian official told the Journal "it is certain" that Abaaoud knew Salah Abdeslam, who was being hunted by authorities across Europe early Tuesday on suspicion of his having been involved in the Paris terror. The two jihadists grew up not far from each other in the Brussels suburb of Molenbeek and spent time in the same prison for petty crimes.
Abaaoud came to public notice in Belgium last year for taking his then 13-year-old brother with him to Syria and appearing in an ISIS propaganda video in which he boasted about his pride in piling the dead bodies of "infidel" enemies into a trailer. At some point, Abaaoud returned to Belgium, only to escape the authorities in January of this year after police foiled a plot to attack officers he had masterminded on behalf of a cell based in the Belgian town of Verviers. In the ensuing gun battle, two of Abaaoud's alleged accomplices were killed, but Abaaoud somehow escaped.
A Western intelligence official also told the Journal, citing interrogations of former French members of ISIS, that  at some point after the Verviers shooting, a core group of French-speaking Belgian radicals began organizing to plan attacks on public places in Europe. The countries targeted including France, Spain, Holland, and the United Kingdom.

ISIS CARTOON

'Act of War': Will Congress finally vote to declare war on ISIS, after Paris attacks?

How would Ted Cruz respond to terror attacks in Paris?

“It is an act of war that was committed by a terrorist army,” declared French President Francois Hollande about the chute of terror that flooded the streets of Paris on Friday night.
There it is. That word. “War.” And those words. “Act of war.”
Sophisticated world leaders such as Hollande tread lightly around these terms. There is a special time and a place for them. But Hollande left no doubt Friday.
“It is an act of war that was prepared, organized and planned from abroad, with complicity from the inside,” Hollande said. He made no bones that “a jihadist army, Daesh” was responsible. “Daesh” is the Arabic abbreviation for ISIL or ISIS, whichever you prefer.
“France, because it was foully, disgracefully and violently attacked will be unforgiving with the Barbarians from Daesh,” Hollande added.
And there lies the question. How will France challenge these thugs? How will the United States and the rest of its allies combat them? Talk is cheap. Prayers and “Je Suis Charlie” and flowers and candlesticks outside the French Embassy in Washington are all nice. But what is the U.S. willing to do?
“There should be no doubt that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United States,” said Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John McCain, R-Ariz.  “If the administration does not get more serious about combating it, our nation and our people will pay a grave price.”
“They are at war with us,” said Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, on Fox. “This will be coming to America.”
There’s little doubt a “war” is on between radical Muslim terrorists and the West. And “this” has already come to America. 9/11. The Boston Marathon. Fort Hood. Foiled plots in Times Square and at LAX. An attempted shoe bomber. An attempted underwear bomber. Two separate sting operations netting suspects who aimed to blow up the U.S. Capitol.
“War” may have been declared by one side as Hollande and Cruz suggest. But not by the other. So that question rages on Capitol Hill: must Congress “declare war” or, at the very least, approve an authorization that grants the president and the Pentagon authority outlined in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution to take the fight to the enemy?
As Syria deteriorated in August, 2013, President Obama floated the idea of updating the calcified 2001 and 2002 resolutions that Congress approved after 9/11 and prior to the most recent war in Iraq.
The legislative effort never got off the ground. Obama could never come within a stone’s throw of mustering the necessary votes to authorize military action. ISIL’s influence then grew and Obama reverted to simply notifying Congress “consistent with” the 1973 War Powers Resolution of various U.S. military exploits against the emerging ISIL threat in Iraq and parts of Syria.
The president can sometimes circumvent Congress under his constitutional powers as “commander in chief.” Today the U.S. regularly bombs ISIL targets. It appears to have knocked out “Jihadi John” with a drone strike this week. Troops are on the ground and the president just dispatched additional forces to the region a few days ago.
This is a muddled, sub-constitutional netherworld. Is the U.S. at war? It looks like war. And if Congress hasn’t voted to declare war or certify some military operation, then is this risk to the U.S. really as great as many suggest? Though Congress hasn’t voted to “declare war” since 1942, it has elected to do so on five occasions since the beginning of the republic.
Recently retired House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, repeatedly called on Obama to send Congress an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) to fight ISIL. When the AUMF finally arrived months later, Boehner did not act upon it. Months after that, he asked the president to send another one.
The bottom line is the same as it was in the late summer of 2013: Congress can’t corral the votes to approve an AUMF. Some want tighter parameters. Others want looser parameters. Some fret about the money. Others believe the move would project the U.S. onto a treadmill of “endless war.”
After the Iraq and Afghanistan experiences, lawmakers don’t want to be on the hook voting for another war. By the same token, they don’t want make the wrong call and vote against war should a resolution hit the floors of the House and Senate.
So Congress remains in this glaciated state, afraid of war, wanting war. But not really doing much about it.
To be fair, part of the problem centers on whom the U.S. should fight? Certainly there is “territory” involved, occupied by ISIL in Syria and Iraq.
But this conflict is asymmetric. Obama got himself into hot water this week when he told ABC “our goal has been first to contain (ISIL) and we have contained them.” Obama added there is no “systematic march by ISIL across the terrain” and that “they have not gained ground in Iraq.”
That’s because this is not so much a battle over real estate -- but over hearts, minds and ideology.
In October, 2003, then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld penned a memo asking a seminal question: “Are we capturing, killing or dissuading more terrorists every day than the madrassas and radical clerics are recruiting, training and deploying against us?”
Rumsfeld’s inquest is somewhat rhetorical. But it slices to the heart of the fight. Rumsfeld testified at a hearing of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee in mid-May 2004. This was on the heels of the release of disturbing photographs from the notorious Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The detention facility was home to numerous human rights violations engineered by the U.S. Army and CIA against Iraqi prisoners. Officials feared that the inhumane treatment of Iraqis at the prison would blossom as a global recruiting tool for radicals and jihadist.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, lit into Rumsfeld, pirouetting his touchstone question back at the Defense secretary.
“Are our mistakes in Iraq sowing the seeds for a whole new crop of terrorists, in Iraq and also in other countries? How do you answer the question you posed last October, today?” Leahy asked.
Nobody truly has the answer to this. But one can certainly speculate.
Maybe a congressional “war” declaration or the approval of an AUMF isn’t the way to go after all. How does one combat an ideology? A belief? Perhaps this isn’t a conventional war that demands a conventional response. The U.S. has certainly approached this in a conventional way -- sending troops to the region and flying regular bombing sorties. Still, the U.S. has mounted a “measured” front against ISIL, not plunging in feet first. That’s partly because of Iran/Afghanistan fatigue and the reluctance of Congress to get directly involved.
Certainly congressional Republicans have chastised the president for “not having a strategy” to fight ISIL. But few are willing to offer a concrete blueprint themselves.
Remember, this is a Congress dominated by Republicans in both chambers who howl constantly about Obama abusing his constitutional authority and pine to reassert the rights of the legislative branch.
Maybe the U.S. in fact effectively “declared” war just by dispatching forces, even if that doesn’t match the requirement mandated by Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. Signing off on something in the House and Senate could actually inflame the situation further. That said, a vote for war or an AUMF would undoubtedly focus the public and the U.S. on the seriousness of the situation.
There is no question there is a war on. And just not because Hollande says it is. And just because Congress votes to “declare” war or approve an AUMF -- or fails to do so -- doesn’t mean they’re any closer to winning anything. Especially when it’s a battle not for turf -- but for hearts and minds.
California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, argued Saturday that ISIS in the past two weeks has claimed responsibility for the attacks in Paris and Beirut and the bombing of a Russian airliner.
"The fight is quickly spreading outside Iraq and Syria, and that’s why we must take the battle to them," she said. “I strongly believe we need to further increase our efforts in Syria and Iraq directly and expand our support to partner nations in other countries where ISIL is operating. It has become clear that limited air strikes and support for Iraqi forces and the Syrian opposition are not sufficient to protect our country and our allies."

Minnesota Democrat ends bid for state assembly seat after sympathetic Islamic State tweet

 Dan Kimmel

 

MINNEAPOLIS –  A Democratic candidate for the Minnesota House ended his campaign Sunday, hours after he tweeted that the Islamic State group "isn't necessarily evil" and its members were doing what they thought was best for their community.
Dan Kimmel, 63, announced the end of his bid for office on his campaign website and Twitter account. He said Saturday evening's tweet was in response to a statement made during a candidate debate, not in response to Friday's violent attacks in Paris that left more than 120 people dead and more than 350 wounded.
He said his tweet was poorly worded and didn't convey his intent.
"The tweet was stupid. I'm sorry," he said in his statement. Kimmel did not return a message left Sunday by The Associated Press. His wife referred a reporter to the online statement.
Kimmel, of Burnsville, sent a tweet Saturday that said: "ISIS isn't necessarily evil. It is made up of people doing what they think is best for their community. Violence is not the answer, though." He was criticized on social media, and sent out another tweet later that said:  "I deplore the evil acts of ISIS. I do not defend their acts."
The original tweet led House Minority Leader Paul Thissen to call for Kimmel to apologize and immediately end his campaign, saying Kimmel's comment doesn't reflect the views of the House DFL caucus.
"We all mourn the loss of innocent lives in the horrific attacks on Paris and in other atrocities committed by ISIS around the world," Thissen said Saturday in a statement. "They are the embodiment of evil, and to state otherwise is an affront to those who've lost loved ones at their hands."
DFL chairman Ken Martin also sent out a statement condemning Kimmel's comments and asking him to apologize.
Kimmel said Sunday that the attacks in Paris and elsewhere are "cowardly and despicable." He said he condemns the Paris attacks and all violence, and his heart is with the people of France and families of those affected.
He also apologized to those who have invested time and money in his campaign, and said he was sorry for "spreading ick" on other candidates and the DFL party.
"I will do everything I can to help resolve the issue: most likely the best thing for me to do is shut up," he said.
Kimmel, who works in the technology and operations section at U.S. Bank, was challenging incumbent Drew Christensen, a Republican from Burnsville. Kimmel had lost the seat to Christensen last year.

Pentagon transfers 5 Gitmo detainees to United Arab Emirates

White House and Congress at odds over Gitmo closure

 

 

The Department of Defense announced late Sunday that five Yemeni detainees who had been held at the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba have been released and sent to the United Arab Emirates.
The transfer of Ali Ahmad Muhammad al-Razihi, Khalid Abd-al-Jabbar Muhammad Uthman al-Qadasi, Adil Said al-Hajj Ubayd al-Busays, Sulayman Awad Bin Uqayl al-Nahdi, and Fahmi Salem Said al-Asani, came after a “comprehensive review” by the interagency Guantanamo Review Task Force, according to the Pentagon.
The Pentagon said the five were accepted for resettlement in the Persian Gulf nation after U.S. authorities determined they no longer posed a threat. All were arrested fleeing the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan following the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks and were described as low-level fighters in American military assessments. .
Four of the five detainees —al-Qadasi, al-Busays, al-Nahdi, and al-Asani — had been recommended for transfer by the task force as of January 2010. The task force recommended continuing detention for al-Razihi, saying that he had been a bodyguard for Usama bin Laden and that he probably fought against the rebel Northern Alliance prior to the U.S. invasion. The task force also described al-Razihi as a "medium [security] risk [who] may pose a threat to the US, its interests, and allies."
However, the task force's recommendation in Razihi's case was overruled by a parole-like review board that recommended him for transfer.
The Defense Department said in a statement Sunday that their release brings the Guantanamo prisoner population to 107.
None of the men had been charged with a crime but had been detained as enemy combatants. They could not be sent to their homeland because the U.S. considers Yemen too unstable to accept prisoners from Guantanamo amid an ongoing Saudi-led war against Shiite rebels there.
Officials in the United Arab Emirates did not immediately comment Monday on the men's resettlement, nor was there any word about their arrival in the country's state-run media. In July 2008, the seven-emirate nation accepted an unidentified Guantanamo detainee at the same time Afghanistan and Qatar each accepted one.
The United Arab Emirates is a major regional military ally for the U.S. The country also is part of its coalition targeting the ISIS terror group with airstrikes in Iraq and Syria.
President Barack Obama has reduced the number of prisoners at Guantanamo by more than half since he took office. He had sought to close the detention center but faced opposition to Congress. The administration is now seeking to move detainees to the United States amid intense opposition.

Two more Paris attackers identified as police carry out anti-teror raids, jets hit ISIS stronghold

The scope of the terror threat facing Western Europe became increasingly clear on Monday as French police uncovered an "arsenal" of weapons as part of 150 pre-dawn raids on suspected Islamists across the country, while France's prime minister warned that "terrorism could strike again in the days or weeks to come."
The raids in the French cities of Toulouse, Grenoble, and Jeumont and the Parisian suburbs of Saint-Denis and Bobigny came hours after French jets struck the heart of ISIS-controlled territory on Sunday in the first direct retaliation for Friday’s terror attacks that killed at least 129 people in Paris.
Twelve French aircraft, including ten fighter jets, dropped 20 bombs on a command and control center, a jihadi recruitment center, munitions depot and ISIS training camp in the Syrian city of Raqqa, France's Defense Ministry said in a statement. Raqqa is the de facto capital of ISIS' "caliphate."
The "massive" raid was launched from the United Arab Emirates and Jordan and was carried out in coordination with U.S. forces. A Pentagon source told Fox News, "these were French strikes but they were conducted within the coalition. We helped with [the] target list."
On Monday, the Paris prosecutor's office identified two more of the attackers who caused the deadliest day in Paris since the Second World War.

More on this...

• French officials: 2 jihadi sites destroyed in Raqqa, Syria

• Officials: France launches airstrikes in Raqqa, Syria

One of the suicide bombers who blew himself up in the Bataclan concert hall after helping to murder 89 concert-goers was identified as 28-year-old Samy Amimour, a French national who had been charged with terrorism offenses in 2012 and was the subject of an international arrest warrant. The Associated Press reported that Amimour had been placed under judicial supervision but dropped off authorities' radar and was the subject of an international arrest warrant. Family members told the AFP news agency that Amimour had gone to Syria in 2013. The Paris prosecutor said three members of Amimour's family had been detained in the Bobigny raids Monday.
Also, a suicide bomber who blew himself up outside the national soccer stadium was found with a Syrian passport with the name Ahmad Al Mohammad, a 25-year-old born in Idlib. The prosecutor's office says fingerprints from the attacker match those of someone who passed through Greece in October.
"We are making use of the legal framework of the state of emergency to question people who are part of the radical jihadist movement ... and all those who advocate hate of the Republic," French Prime Minister Manuel Valls told RTL radio of the raids.
"I don't want to scare people but to warn them," Valls added. "We will keep living for a long time with the terrorist threat."
Sky News reported that at least three people had been arrested in Toulouse. France's BFM TV reported that six people were arrested in the Alpine city of Grenoble and a number of weapons were seized. It was not immediately clear if any arrests were made in Jeumont, which is located near the border with Belgium. Valls also confirmed that five people had been arrested in Lyon, where, among other items, a rocket launcher was found.
British Prime Minister David Cameron told the BBC Monday that U.K. intelligence services had stopped seven small-scale attacks on Britain in the previous six months. Cameron also restated his belief that Britain should be involved in airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but admitted he would have to persuade Parliament to support such action.
The U.S. has conducted the vast majority of coalition attacks on ISIS territory up to this point, and has been almost solely responsible for all coalition bombings of ISIS inside Syria. However, the nature of Friday's attacks, which devastated France and shocked the world, changed the calculus.
The airstrikes came as investigators grappled with putting together the scale of a terror plot that may involve as many as 20 people. According to The Daily Telegraph, investigators were forced to expand their investigation after a parking ticket inside a discarded Volkswagen Polo believed to have carried one group of attackers to the Bataclan Friday night was from the Molenbeek suburb of Brussels, known as a hotbed of radical Islam in the Belgian capital.
Prior to Monday's raids, police had confirmed that seven people were in custody, but the Telegraph reported that intelligence agencies feared that as many as five other possible accomplices could be at large.
Meanwhile, authorities were still hunting for 26-year-old Salah Abdeslam, whom the Associated Press reported was stopped at the French border with Belgium early Saturday, hours after the attacks. Three French police officials and a top French security official told the news agency that border officers let Abdeslam go after checking his ID. By then, hours had passed since authorities identified Abdeslam as the renter of a Volkswagen Polo that carried hostage takers to the Bataclan, where 89 concert-goers were murdered by terrorists.
Three Kalashnikovs were found inside another car, a Belgian-registered Seat Leon known to have been used in the attacks, in Montreuil, an eastern Parisian suburb, another French police official said.
Five of the seven attackers had been identified as of Monday afternoon, Paris time. In addition to Amimour and Al Mohammad, there is 29-year-old Frenchman Ismael Mostefai; 20-year-old Bilal Hadfi, who detonated himself outside the Stade de France; and 31-year-old Brahim Abdeslam, the brother of Salah Abdeslam, who blew himself up on the Boulevard Voltaire, near the Bataclan.
The New York Times reported that investigators believe that Mostefai had visited Syria in 2012, while some of the other assailants had been communicating with known ISIS members before the attacks. The Washington Post, citing two European intelligence officials, reported that Hadfi had recently returned to Belgium from the Middle East, but had fallen off the Belgian security service's radar.
French officials also told The Times that U.S. security services had alerted the Paris government in September that French jihadists in Syria were planning some kind of attack. That warning prompted French airstrikes against Raqqa on Oct. 8.
Also Sunday, French officials also played down a claim by Iraqi intelligence officers that they had warned France and other countries of an imminent attack on Thursday, the day before the atrocity.
The Associated Press reported that it had obtained an Iraqi intelligence dispatch that warned that ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi had ordered his followers to immediately launch gun and bomb attacks and take hostages inside the countries of the coalition fighting them in Iraq and Syria.
However, the Iraqi dispatch provided no details on when or where the attack would take place, and a senior French security official told the AP that French intelligence gets these kinds of warnings "all the time" and "every day."
Meanwhile, AFP reported that Turkish authorities had foiled a plot to stage an attack in Instanbul on the same day as the assault on Paris. The official said five people had been detained, including an associate of "Jihadi John", the notorious ISIS terrorist believed to have been killed by a U.S. airstrike Thursday.
"The initial investigation shows we foiled a major attack," the official said. The arrest came ahead of the G20 summit at the resort at Antalya, in southern Turkey.

Donald Trump says tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to tragedy

Donald Trump said at a rally in Beaumont, Tex. that "it would've been a much, much different situation" if France had different gun laws and more civilians were armed during a series of deadly attacks in Paris. (Reuters) caption

BEAUMONT, Tex. -- Donald Trump says the tough gun control laws in Paris contributed to the high death toll during a series of terrorist attacks on Friday. The attacks, he added, also reveal the danger in allowing Syrian refugees into the country.
"You can say what you want, but if they had guns -- if our people had guns, if they were allowed to carry -- it would have been a much, much different situation," Trump said to cheers during a political rally at an arena in southeast Texas on Saturday afternoon. "I hear it all the time, you know. You look at certain cities that have the highest violence, the highest problem with guns and shootings and killings -- Chicago is an example, toughest gun laws in the United States, nothing but problems. So our country better get smart because we're not smart right now."
By making that comment, Trump doubled down on a message he tweeted in January, following a smaller-scale terrorist attack: "Isn't it interesting that the tragedy in Paris took place in one of the toughest gun control countries in the world?" As that dated tweet recirculated on Friday evening, the French ambassador to the United States, Gerard Araud, tweeted at Trump: "This message is repugnant in its lack of any human decency. Vulture."
Trump started the rally by leading the crowd of several thousand in a moment of silence in remembrance of the 129 people killed in the Paris attacks, which the Islamic State terrorist group has claimed to have organized. Then Trump launched right into the politics of the attacks.

"What is going on is terrible," Trump said. "And when you look at what happened in that case: It was just reported, one from Syria and our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria."

The crowd booed Syrian refugees for several seconds, then Trump began again: "No, I mean, think of it: 250,000 people. And we all have heart, and we all want people taken care of and all of that, but with the problems our country has, to take in 250,000 people -- some of whom are going to have problems, big problems -- is just insane. You have to be insane. Terrible."

In September, Obama announced that he had directed the U.S. government to accept at least 10,000 refugees, not 250,000, from Syria in the next fiscal year, a six-fold increase over the number admitted this year to the United States.

After Obama's announcement, Trump said later that month that if he is elected president, he will force all Syrian refugees to leave the United States. He has said that these refugees could be a terrorist army in disguise and cannot be trusted. Such comments have resonated with rally crowds across the country and did so again in Texas on Saturday.

"I think they're wolves in sheep's clothing," said John Courts, 36, a Beaumont police officer who attended the rally with his 11-year-old son. "Bringing those refugees here is very dangerous. Yeah, they need help but it's going to bring terrorism right into our front door."

"I don't want any of them here," said Kendall Johns, 43, a Trump supporter at the rally who lives in Beaumont and works at an oil refinery. "I mean, send them to Mexico. Send them to Central America. Send them to South America. I don't want them here."

"I do not want them," said Sheila Milbrandt, 49, a paralegal from Sour Lake, Tex. "We don't know who they are. We don't know their history. We don't know if they're terrorists just being funneled through these other countries. What do we know about them? We don't need them here. America needs to take care of its own."

During an hour-long speech, Trump also railed against illegal immigration, pledged to deport the millions of immigrants illegally in the country, promised to build a wall along the border but said he would continue to allow foreign workers with legal visas to work on farms.

Trump also invited relatives of four people killed by illegal immigrants onto the stage to share their stories, at one point comforting a woman who became emotional.

Jenna Johnson is a political reporter who is covering the 2016 presidential campaign.