Rand Pauluses and Minuses - Where Does Rand Stand After Paris?

Rand Paul, as the sole voice of reason in the GOP field when it comes to a more rational foreign policy, is now in the crosshairs of every candidate, including the new darling of the day, Marco Rubio. Reason has raised the question of whether this recent development could be the nail in the coffin for the Paul campaign. Admittedly, I think this may be the case due to the war fervor that is hard to surprise during times like these, though Paul's campaign has stated it will remain in contention at least until the first actual votes are cast.Prior to the ISIS attacks, Rand had been a vocal critic of increased U.S. military involvement in the Middle East, and memorably sparred with Marco Rubio at the last debate. Despite that exchange, Rubio's numbers have continued to increase.Clearly, a large portion of America is convinced that ISIS must be fought by using the same tactics that put us in this position - namely a hyper aggressive foreign policy, support for oppressive regimes, and continued bombings. This is in the face of the facts, which argue that all of our tactics have initiated the growth of terrorism (including ISIS), and increased violence that is in response to these actions rather than undertaken as a proactive attack. France's majorly increased military strikes in the region would seem to further indicate this cause-and-effect relationship is to blame, but that correlation is falling on deaf ears.Anyway, on to the Pauluses and Minuses!What would President Paul do about ISIS after Paris? When questioned Monday on what he would do in the wake of the attacks and on whether he would alter his labeled "isolationism," Rand didn't falter in his positions. He reiterated that spending more on the military wasn't accomplishing anything and wouldn't create a stronger America. He also made the appropriate point that we need to realize how ISIS came to be - via U.S. intervention.Bravo, Rand. Thank you for not caving and altering your positions under the increased pressure caused by these latest attacks.- PAULUSRand attacks Rubio in wake of ISIS attacks over "Gang of Eight"As noted in my little foreword, the ISIS attacks have given Rubio's jingoist ways a strong handhold in the presidential race, and in the wake of the attacks, Rand attempted to turn the tables.

Speaking at a Republican presidential forum in Orlando, Paul said Rubio’s opposition to one of his amendments to the 2013 Gang of Eight immigration bill, which would have enhanced screening requirements for those entering the country, damaged national security.“Two, three years ago, I introduced a bill, or an amendment, to the immigration bill that would have provided for more scrutiny of people coming into our country: refugees, immigrants, students,” Paul said, when asked about his response to Friday’s attacks. “They would have had background checks and they would have had a much higher degree of scrutiny. And the point I made in my speech was, I introduced this to Rubio and (Democratic Sen. Chuck) Schumer’s immigration bill and then Rubio and Schumer and all of the authors voted against any conservative amendments. And I think that was a mistake, not only for the bill, but also for our national security.”Asked specifically about what he would do on the ground in Syria and Iraq against the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria in light of the attack, Paul demurred and responded by again criticizing Rubio and focusing on immigration policy.

I'll say that I'm in favor of increased screenings for immigrants and those receiving visas to enter the United States in the current climate, however another Paul bill (see the next item) doesn't sit so well with me.For the specific point, however, and for his attempts to take Rubio down a notch in the context of these recent tragic events, I'll provide him with a...-PAULUSPaul introduces bill that would "pause" entry of any refugees from significantly "jihadist" nationsI'd be fine with some extra screenings for those entering the country, but to completely prohibit entry to any and all people from a given state for an unspecified period of time because a minority element in that country is considered jihadist? Not so much. Rand on the other hand, seems to think this is an excellent idea and introduced legislation to cease any admittance to refugees from about 30 nations.

Paul, running for president as a Republican, made the announcement during an afternoon call with reporters. The legislation is set for release later Monday, an aide said.“Today I’m introducing a bill that will call for an immediate moratorium on visas for refugees,” the Kentucky Republican told reporters. “My bill will also stop all refugees as well as others from obtaining visas to immigrate, visit, or study in the U.S. from about 30 countries that have significant jihadist movements. This bill will be paid for with a special tax on arms sales to any of these countries.”It’s been revealed that at least one of the terrorists involved in the Paris attacks entered France with migrants from Syria.

I have regularly expressed my disgust with legislation that's been passed in the U.S. that harms the majority in order to cater to a vast minority (hello, Obamacare! Hi, Hate Crime legislation! etc.), and Paul's bill is more of the same but aimed externally.The number of terrorists in a given country is minuscule in comparison to the general population, many of whom likely live in fear and would like nothing more than to be left alone or to escape the war-torn environs they currently inhabit.While I can theoretically understand Rand's thoughts here - "pausing" the immigration process until more stringent DHS screening standards can be put into place - the reality of the situation is that there are already screening standards in place that should be able to find and red flag terrorists. If these current practices can't detect terrorist elements entering the country, odds are that some imagined super screening process still wouldn't be able to detect someone using a stolen passport (and thus no jihadist record) or someone who is new to the ISIS movement and hasn't been identified as a terror suspect. All in all, it's a pointless bill that will only hurt immigration for perfectly harmless people.The issue of whether the federal government should unilaterally be able to accept thousands of refugees and then force cities and states to accept them on the other hand...that's far more questionable and objectionable. But that's a topic for another day.- MINUSSocialism vs. Capitalism: Paul v. Sanders - the debate!Rand recently called out ol' man Sanders to engage him in an hour-long debate on the topic of socialism vs. capitalism - something we would all pay good money to see.