Why do Mexicans only have one-third the per capita income (on a purchasing power parity basis) of Canadians and only one-fourth that of Americans?

The answer is that Mexicans are relatively poor because have been plagued by semidespotic regimes that have ignored the rule of law and often engaged in destructive economic policies.    

Mexicans have been free of their Spanish colonial masters for almost 200 years (almost as long as their American neighbors and far longer than Canadians have enjoyed independence).

Mexico has a better growing climate than Canada, and it is rich in natural resources -- oil, gas, and metals.

After a mere 100 days, the "Obama Doctrine" for our foreign and security policies has emerged. And it's terrifying.

The combination of dizzying naïveté, dislike of our allies, disdain for our military, distrust of our intelligence services and distaste for our own country promises the worst foreign policy of our lifetimes.

That includes President Jimmy Carter's abysmal record of failure.

The core tenets of the Obama Doctrine to date would make a charter member of the terrorist Weather Underground cheer.  Here's a compilation:

Would you prefer to live in a country that has:

(1) The rule of law with an honest civil service, strong protection of private property and minority rights, free trade, free markets, very low taxes, and full freedom of the speech, press and religion, but not a democracy?

(2) Democracy and a corrupt court and civil service, many restrictions on economic freedom, including very high taxes, with limited rights for minority religions, peoples and speech?

Many mistakenly believe democracy means liberty, but a quick review of world democracies show that is not true. Almost all democracies restrict economic liberties more than necessary. Many have corrupt court and civil service systems, inhibit women's rights, constrain press freedom and do not protect minority rights and views.

My president went to Trinidad and Tobago, and all I got was this lousy Che Guevara T-shirt.

At a Caribbean resort, Obama grinned through a semi-erotic encounter with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez, then failed to answer a "strategic rape" charge lodged against America by ex-Sandinista Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua (who knows plenty about rape).

Ignoring America's allies in favor of photo ops with anti-American leftists, such as Ecuador's Rafael Correa and Chavez, Obama blamed the United States for Latin America's problems.

Obama needs to get up off his knees. Foreign leaders have already pegged him as the wimpiest metrosexual this side of the men's grooming-products counter at Barney's.

Suppose you were appointed global economic czar, and your task was to bring the world's per capita income up to the level of Ireland – which is almost that of the US. Would you:

(A) Insist the world's rich nations transfer substantial wealth though massive foreign aid to the poor nations?

(B) Insist all nations adopt policies that would make them as economically free as the top 10 freest economies today?

In the current era of ideological polarization, throughout the West, the Right and the Left diverge on almost every issue. One of the few convictions that still unifies national security strategists across the ideological spectrum is that it would be a global calamity of the first order if al-Qaeda gets its hands on nuclear weapons.

Unfortunately, due to the rapid demise of nuclear-armed Pakistan as a coherent political unit, this nightmare scenario is looking more possible than ever. Indeed, if events continue to move in their current direction, it is more likely than not that in the near future, the Taliban and al-Qaeda will take possession of all or parts of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal.

Given the failure of the US's political strategies of securing Pakistan's nuclear arsenal by supporting Pakistan's government, and fighting the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, it is becoming apparent that the only sure way to prevent the Taliban/al-Qaeda from taking control over Pakistan's nuclear weapons is to take those weapons out of commission.

The real climax of Mr. Obama's Spring Apologies Tour wasn't his photo op with our troops in Baghdad or even his "American Guilt" concerts in Western Europe.

While fans in the press cheered wildly at every venue, the real performance came in Turkey. And it was a turkey.

For those who believe Obama means well - or that Jimmy Carter, his policy godfather, meant well:  the road to embassy takeovers and strategic humiliation is paved with good intentions, coupled with distressing naïveté.

On every stage, Obama draped Lady Liberty in sackcloth and ashes, drawing plentiful applause but no serious economic or security cooperation in return. Then, in Turkey, he surrendered our national pride, undercut our interests and interfered in matters that aren't his business.

With the selling of Mr. Obama's economic agenda now reported in full gear, it is an opportune moment to take another look at what he has told us he would do and, more importantly, what he hasn't told us about the economic cost of his energy plans.

The answer to the former question is straight forward. In his address to Congress, he pledged to double the production of renewable energy in the next three years, lay down thousands of miles of new transmission lines and introduce a "market-based cap on carbon pollution" to promote clean energy, fight global warming and "put Americans to work making homes and buildings more efficient."

Perhaps the best place to start seeking  answers as to how costly and realistic this agenda is likely to turn out is to look at the record of the three countries Mr. Obama specifically mentioned as  leading the United States in the renewable energy revolution: China,  Japan and Germany.

That record shows that such a revolution is a fantasy and that the green energy bubble has burst.