Terrorism is taking center stage in the 2016 presidential election after the weekend attacks in New York, New Jersey and Minnesota.

As both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton attempted to make the case that they are the ideal candidate to keep Americans safe at home and abroad, it was Clinton’s statement standing in front of her campaign plane that caused a bit of an arched eyebrow to those who’ve been following this campaign over the past year:

“So I am absolutely in favor of and have long been an advocate for tough vetting for making sure that we don’t let people into this country, and not just people who come here to settle, but we need a better visa system. Let’s remember what happened on 9/11. These were not refugees who got into airplanes and attacked our city and country.”

As Andrew Clark at IJR points out, Clinton has called for a more thorough vetting process before, however, it should be noted that those public pronouncements came on the heels of the San Bernardino terror attacks last December. It’s amazing how a bloody terror attack brings out the “tough on migrants” programming of the Hillary Bot, isn’t it?

But, the media have hardly jumped all over Clinton in the way they attacked Trump when he called for “extreme vetting” of migrants coming from countries that breed radical Islamic terrorists.

Here’s a test. Quick, who said this?

Except for limited exceptions like diplomats and aid workers, anyone who has traveled in the past five years to a country facing serious problems with terrorism and foreign fighters should have to go through a full visa investigation, no matter where they’re from.

We also have to be vigilant in screening and vetting refugees from Syria, guided by the best judgment of our security and diplomatic professionals. Rigorous vetting already takes place while these refugees are still overseas, and it’s a process that historically takes 18 to 24 months.

You already know it’s a trick question, right?  Of course it was Hillary Clinton in December, 2015 (again, a week after the terror attacks in California.)

So Clinton is advocating for more stringent vetting of migrants and a better visa program. OK. And yet, when she was Secretary of State what did she actually do to change our nation’s policies regarding vetting of migrants or securing our visa policies?

In other words, when she was actually in a position to do something, not just “advocate for something” ut actually get something done to make our nation safer and to better enforce our existing immigration laws, what did she do?

I can’t find the information on her website regarding her great accomplishments in this realm. You would think that for a woman running on her vast experience, resume and record she’d be throwing out all of her accomplishments on this issue for the American people to marvel at.

Instead, we just have her assertion that she has “long been an advocate for tough vetting for making sure that we don’t let people into this country.” Not a list of her record and accomplishments, just the fact that she has advocated for this. Over 30 years in public life, including four years as Secretary of State, and she can’t point to an actual accomplishment in tightening our visa program and in toughening our migrant vetting process.

You’d think a reporter would ask her about this, right?

hillary-laugh