Why Can't Russia and China Help Police the World?

President Obama today announced his administration's reluctant agreement to work with Russia and Iran to defeat ISIS and Al Qaeda in the Middle East. This will no doubt be met with howls of "Weakness!" and "leading from behind" by Mr. Obama's Republican detractors.

We may even hear the tired "appeasement" argument trotted out regarding both Russia's and Iran's supposed ambitions to expand their territories.

Republicans have consistently criticized Obama for not being aggressive enough on the world stage and for pulling back too early from Iraq and Afghanistan. With the emergence of ISIS, the GOP has seized the opportunity to quash more reasonable foreign policy positions from candidates like Rand Paul and push for sharper increases in military spending and even more aggressive foreign intervention.

The argument we hear repeatedly from Republican presidential candidates is that Obama has "eviscerated the military" and "led from behind." If the United States is not "engaged" (i.e., bombing or invading) in all crises at all times in every part of the world, emerging powers like Russia or China are going to fill the resulting vacuum. That raises an obvious question:

So, what?

Read the rest at The Huffington Post...

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

The Real Reason Rand Paul is Losing to Trump and Carson: Republican Voters Want Bigger Government

Rand Paul's campaign actually showed faint signs of life in the last ABC/Washington Post poll, where his 5 percent showing has him within striking distance of Jeb Bush and every other candidate besides Donald Trump and Ben Carson. That's little consolation considering the poll shows Carson at 20 percent and rising sharply and Trump doing the same at 33 percent.

There has been a lot of digital ink and hot air expended on why Paul fell from the GOP lead as "the most interesting man in politics" to a long shot candidate fighting for scraps with the Walkers, Bushes and other members of the rejected "establishment." There have been reports of infighting among the campaign staff, Paul's failure to energize his father's activist base and even his reluctance to woo big money donors.

One would think that last "shortcoming" would be appealing to voters fed up with Washington insiders, but apparently not so for Paul.

The most prevalent theory is that in trying to avoid alienating mainstream Republican voters while championing his father's libertarian platform, Paul has alienated both groups: libertarians and traditional Republicans. That sounds good, but it doesn't add up.

Read the rest at The Huffington Post...

Tom Mullen is the author of A Return to Common Sense: Reawakening Liberty in the Inhabitants of America.

What If Opposition to the Iran Nuclear Deal Is All About Oil?

Republicans jumped the shark last week in apoplectic frenzy after President Obama secured enough support in the Senate to ensure Congress will not block U.S. participation in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), popularly referred to as the Iran nuclear deal.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) said it would lead to a "holocaust" and that the United States is "at existential risk."

Rep. Steven King (R-IA) said the Iran nuclear deal represented "a seminal moment in the history of the world," saying it "means to [sic] tens of millions of lives down the road."

Marco Rubio said lifting the sanctions would allow Iran to bolster its defensive capabilities and "raise the price of us operating in the region," apparently unaware of the millions of Americans who don't want the U.S. military operating in the Middle East at all.

At the same time, CNN reported Iran plans to increase oil production as soon as possible after the sanctions are lifted, adding approximately 1.5 million more barrels per day to the world oil supply by the end of 2016.

Isn't anyone even curious if there is a connection?

Read the rest at The Huffington Post...

Iran is giving up far more than the United States in nuclear deal

Republicans in Congress are ramping up their rhetoric against the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiated by President Obama. The president wants this deal badly enough to once again play fast and loose with the constitutional limits on executive power. The Republicans want to snuff the deal badly enough to say anything, no matter how ridiculous, to incite opposition.

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) told Stuart Varney Thursday: "This is a treaty. The Constitution requires that a treaty have two thirds of those present concur, in the Senate, on ratification."

He is right about that. The Constitution doesn't say anything about "executive agreements." Any international agreement negotiated by the president is either a treaty or unconstitutional. But then, Gohmert went on to make this ridiculous statement:

"There is a holocaust looming and we have an obligation to stop it and not play politics like this does. We can stop this if we call it what it is, call it a treaty and quit playing political games because Israel is at stake. They're the Little Satan, but we are the Great Satan and this nation is at existential risk."

Read the rest at The Huffington Post...

It's not labor unions that destroy the economy; it's the New Deal and its awful progeny

Two small minorities on either end of the political spectrum have strong feelings about Labor Day. One side sees the holiday as a celebration of all the victories hard working folks have won in securing their rights against greedy capitalists who would otherwise have them working twenty-three hours a day in sweat shops. The other side sees it as overt Marxism, so dangerous to all that’s good and holy that the holiday should be renamed.

The other 95% are just damned glad to have the day off.

That the right wingers are paranoid doesn’t mean no one is out to get them. There is a very real connection between the holiday, the unions that proposed it and Marxism. American Marxists are firm supporters unions, as were Marx and Engels themselves.

Neither is there any denying the damage unions appear to have done. Wherever labor unions are firmly entrenched, economic hardship proliferates. Outside the politically correct zone, everyone knows unions destroyed Detroit. If you have any doubt, just look at General Motors’ 2006 balance sheet. Either capitalists mysteriously ceased being greedy for the preceding fifty years or something forced them to be overly generous with pay and benefits, resulting in the bizarre preponderance of legacy benefit costs reflected there.

This would seem to be something of a paradox. How can this free association, an expression of the free market itself, be so harmful to our economic well-being?

Read the rest at tommullen.net...