Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Breitbart Is Anti-Semitic?

Breitbart is coming under fire for… well, being Breitbart. After harboring scum like Milo Yiannopoulos, and the like, Breitbart just published what many are calling an “anti-semitic” attack on Washington Post reporter Anne Applebaum. The article is littered with criticisms of Applebaum that are hard to ignore:

Breitbart’s not racist. They’re just really worried this “Jewish… elitist” is controlling the global media with all her friends. pic.twitter.com/XqkdkpVPnX

— Alex Griswold (@HashtagGriswold) September 28, 2016

And apparently most of them are just outlandish accusations:

also, it contains a list of the journalists I supposedly “control,” many of whom I don’t know, and other made-up facts https://t.co/6d4SBCWpbz

— Anne Applebaum (@anneapplebaum) September 28, 2016

Should it really matter though? It’s not like Breitbart has the greatest reputation for reliable news.

via GIPHY

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: September 29, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was welcomed to the United States today by President Barack Obama. Trudeau’s trip is the first time a Canadian Prime Minister has made an official visit to the U.S. in 19 years–it’s also the first time in about as many years that the U.S. and Canada have both been controlled by liberal heads of state.

The mood between Obama and Trudeau seemed friendly, as the two leaders began the visit with a joint statement on climate change. They also delved into some remarks about Canada’s efforts to aid the Syrian refugees, and spoke about how the two countries will work together to combat the new threat of the Zika virus.

Obama and Trudeau–both relatively young progressives–paint a striking picture side by side. Some news outlets have already released coverage of the two premiers’ “bromance”–see this homage to their chemistry courtesy of the Washington Post, for example. Here are a few more instances of the two being pals, both during this visit and in the past:

Here are some Internet-friendly photos of Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau being best bros https://t.co/0YMgB3V8sD pic.twitter.com/WFIOvRRoyA

— GQ Magazine (@GQMagazine) March 10, 2016

Twitter hails #Obama / Trudeau ‘bromance’ https://t.co/EQFIkyOoxP pic.twitter.com/Vad65d9PWf

— Live News Cloud ⭐️ (@livenewscloud) March 10, 2016

Trudeau and Obama start a heavy bromance at the APEC summit : https://t.co/SuV5UQIXllpic.twitter.com/v3XdTsswmt

— VICE Canada (@vicecanada) November 19, 2015

The friendly rapport extended to their conversations–Obama even mocked Trudeau about the fact that the Stanley Cup currently resides with an American team, the Chicago Blackhawks. It’s certainly a different relationship than the slightly frigid one between Obama and former Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. A particular sticking point between Obama and Harper was their disagreement over the Keystone XL Pipeline. 

Obama and Trudeau seem intent on putting any animosity (although even with Obama and Haper’s relationship, there was little) behind them. Obama stated today about Trudeau: “I am grateful that I have him as a partner … When it comes to the central challenges that we face, our two nations are more closely aligned than ever.”

Trudeau’s comments were along the same vein; during their join statement he said: 

We’ve faced many challenges over the course of our shared history, and while we have agreed on many things and disagreed on a few others, we remain united in a common purpose. [..] Whether we’re charting a course for environmental protection, making key investments to grow our middle class or defending the rights of oppressed peoples abroad, Canada and the United States will always collaborate in partnership and good faith.

However, despite the relationship between Trudeau and Obama now, it’s entirely possible that we could have a conservative in the White House in a little under a year. If that’s the case, this harmonious relationship may not last too long, given Trudeau’s stated progressive agenda. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Visits Washington appeared first on Law Street.

President Obama has officially asked Congress to authorize military force to defeat the Islamic State (ISIS). The request was sent in the form of a three-page legislation draft, as well as a letter to the members of Congress. It would create a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF).

The force that Obama requested would be “limited”–although that term is obviously very vague. Essentially, what the Obama Administration is looking for is a three-year long military campaign against ISIS. There wouldn’t be a mass invasion, but rather air force and limited ground support. Particularly, Obama mentioned that U.S. forces would be used for matters “such as rescue operations” or “Special Operations forces to take military action against ISIL leadership.” Obama also acknowledged that the emphasis should be on supporting local forces, not sending in American troops, saying, “local forces, rather than U.S. military forces, should be deployed to conduct such operations.”

It’s important to note that American forces have been present in the fight against ISIS for a long time now. Obama had previously justified those actions based on the authorizations of force granted to President George W. Bush after 9/11. This new authorization would provide an update, and serve as a political point for Obama. As he puts in the letter:

Although my proposed AUMF does not address the 2001 AUMF, I remain committed to working with the Congress and the American people to refine, and ultimately repeal, the 2001 AUMF. Enacting an AUMF that is specific to the threat posed by ISIL could serve as a model for how we can work together to tailor the authorities granted by the 2001 AUMF.

Essentially what that means is that Obama still wants to curtail that original 2001 AUMF, which has been decried by many as being too broad, but still be able to use force against ISIS.

The president explained in the letter that the motive behind asking for this authorization to act against ISIS is based on the threat that the group poses to the region, and by extension, the world. He also brought up the actions that ISIS has taken against Americans–particularly the executions of American citizens James Foley, Steven Sotloff, Abdul-Rahman Peter Kassig, and Kayla Mueller, all taken as ISIS hostages. Foley and Sotloff were both journalists; Kassig and Mueller were humanitarians and aid workers. News of Mueller’s death came just a few days ago, although unlike the male American hostages, a video was not released of her execution.

So far, political responses to Obama’s request seem tepid at best from Republicans and Democrats alike. Many are aware of the incredible unpopularity of the Afghanistan and Iraq wars at this point. Obama has, at various points, been criticized for being too hesitant and too active in the fight against ISIS. Speaker of the House John Boehner said about the request:

Any authorization for the use of military force must give our military commanders the flexibility and authorities they need to succeed and protect our people. While I believe an A.U.M.F. against ISIL is important, I have concerns that the president’s request does not meet this standard.

Many Democrats were also less than enthused by the request, many of whom appear to think that it’s still too broad. Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) stated: “Part of the feedback they’re getting from some members will be unless that is further defined, that might be seen as too big a statement to ultimately embrace.”

There’s a twofold need to balance here. First of all, it’s not surprising that within this hot-blooded, acrimonious political environment disagreements would be obvious. The politics here don’t surprise me. But what’s important to remember is that while Democrats and Republicans, and everyone in between, may fight about what to do against ISIS, no one really has an answer. We haven’t quite figured out how to fight terrorist groups yet; honestly the only thing that can be said with certainty is that they’re not like conventional conflicts. It’s hard to determine whether Obama’s action is right or wrong, and it’s just as difficult to determine which of his critics are right. That being said, what almost certainly won’t work against ISIS is doing nothing–a step toward action is probably a step in the right direction.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Asks Congress for Authorization to Fight ISIS appeared first on Law Street.