Even war dove Rand Paul, who was recently attacked by the Democratic National Committee (yes you read that right) for being insufficiently hawkish, has a strategy for defeating ISIS. President Obama, on the other hand, does not.
According to an Associated Press report on Paul’s speech at an Americans For Prosperity gathering in Dallas last week:
[S]ome of the loudest applause for Paul came when he quipped: “If the president has no strategy, maybe it’s time for a new president.”
In an emailed comment, however, Paul elaborated by saying: “If I were President, I would call a joint session of Congress. I would lay out the reasoning of why ISIS is a threat to our national security and seek congressional authorization to destroy ISIS militarily.”
As the world burns, President Obama is taking criticism from all sides. Even Salon editor (and Free Beacon aficionado) Joan Walsh has conceded: “I’d probably have suggested not golfing after [Obama’s] moving statement on journalist James Foley’s execution.”
Of course, most of this criticism is due to the prevalence of social media, but even so, Obama defenders have returned to one of their favorite arguments: Criticism of our current president is unprecedented; literally no one criticized the sitting president until 2009.
The Los Angeles Times is reporting that President Obama may postpone his sweeping executive actions on immigration until after the midterm elections. Why? Because Democrats are begging him to:
The two-step plan would bow to the concerns of Democratic lawmakers running in Republican-leaning states who have expressed opposition to Obama’s plans to act unilaterally on the hot-button issue. Some Democratic senators have said he should wait for Congress to pass legislation.
Wait. Why would they want to do that? Aren’t the policies Obama is proposing on immigration wildly popular? That’s what they keep telling us, anyway. “I promise you, the American people don’t want me just standing around twiddling my thumbs,” he said earlier this month. If Democrats would simply stand with the president, then surely voters will reward them. Right?
A mere 19 days after the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Hillary Clinton has decided to weigh in, something liberal pundits have been urging her to do for some time. In other words, Clinton’s political team has finally concluded its focus group on the issue.
Clinton took a brave stance against tragedy, offering bold declarations, such as: “Nobody wants to see our streets look like a war zone, not in America.” The timing of the remarks—just as the media was beginning to acknowledge the Russian invasion of Ukraine—was interesting, as was the venue.
The Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine is proceeding apace. The Obama administration acknowledged Thursday that up to 1,000 Russian troops have crossed the border in recent days, along with assorted military hardware. NATO concurs.
Lithuanian ambassador to the United Nations Raimonda Murmokaite put it rather succinctly:
So why is the Obama administration refusing to call it an invasion?
On Wednesday, Senator Rand Paul (R., Ky.) published an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal blaming the United States for the rise of the terrorist group known as the Islamic State, while taking shots at “interventionists” like former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as well “hawkish members” of the Republican Party.
Beyond that, it is unclear what Paul is trying to argue, as the op-ed is only semi-coherent. As best I can tell, he is suggesting that U.S. policymakers talking about military intervention in Syria, and then ultimately deciding against it, is a major reason why ISIS came to power. Or something. He also comes out in favor of having both foresight and hindsight.
Paul’s column invited a lot of predictable criticism, but it was also trashed by an unlikely source:
Liberals really hate the Koch brothers. Their Koch hatred is so intense than when David Koch donated $100 million to a New York City hospital early this year, liberals protested the hospital.
It doesn’t seem to matter that the Kochs’ views on issues such as gay marriage and immigration often align with their own, liberals are convinced that an ancient evil surges through their Koch veins.
So it must be confusing when, after the overwhelming police response to protests in Ferguson, Missouri prompted many liberal to decry the increasing militarization of the American police force, they were told that Koch brothers agree with them, and have supported efforts to highlight the problem since long before the events in Ferguson. The Daily Beast reports:
Liberal are very agitated about Burger King’s decision to acquire Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons in a move that will allow the company to “invert” its headquarters to Canada, and pay a significantly lower tax rate.
Their first instinct was to accuse the “unpatriotic” burger chain of treason. However, conflicting emotions ensued once they learned that “good” billionaire Warren Buffett helped financed the deal.
It doesn’t really matter though, does it? Because Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic nominee in 2016, and anyone who thinks she is going to coddle Corporate American any less than the Obama administration has over the years is kidding themselves.
It’s time to end the War on Corporations. A good place to start would be to stop lashing out at treasonous non-state actors like some kind of economic police force, and start addressing the root causes of this phenomenon. Ideally, we would also try to stamp out Corporate-phobia in America, an ugly sentiment that ignores the legitimate grievances of corporations, and in some cases drives them to engage in economic treason.
Anti-corporate hostility reached new heights this week following the announcement that Burger King was acquiring Canadian coffee chain Tim Hortons in order to relocate its headquarters to Canada for tax purposes, a process known as an “inversion.” The move comes a month after U.S. pharmaceutical company moved its headquarters to Ireland via inversion in order to enjoy a lower tax rate.