Standing in front of an array of photovoltaic solar panels at Nellis Air Force Base last week (5/29), Mr. Obama claimed that his vision for an America powered by clean, renewable energy and awash in green jobs is becoming a reality faster than anyone could have imagined.

Nellis, near Las Vegas, is the home of the largest solar-energy plant in the Western Hemisphere and, in the president's words, a "shining example" of what renewable energy can do to put our economy on a "firmer foundation for economic growth."

Beyond these words, uncritically reported by the mainstream media, is the reality of a make-believe industry touted by environmental zealots, corporate freeloaders parading as entrepreneurs, and a president capable of staggering disingenuousness (that's a fancy word for dishonesty).

You probably have seen the ads about the "net neutrality" bills before Congress, concerning who gets to manage and set fees for access to the Internet. The House of Representatives has just done the right thing by defeating the so-called net neutrality proposals, and the issue is now before the Senate.

The "net neutrality" advocates are a strange coalition of leftist political groups hostile to property rights, self-appointed consumer groups totally ignorant of good economics, and a few large business users of the Internet (such as Google) who want the telecom companies to provide them a free ride for their demands for a more robust network.

To understand the fight, you need to be aware of the economic interests of the various players.

You can not win a war if you don't know who the enemy is," teaches master strategist Sun Tzu - a commonsense maxim that needs repeating as the Obama administration seeks a way out of the newly designated AfPak (Afghanistan/Pakistan) imbroglio.

As the Pakistani army battles Taliban insurgents in Swat and elsewhere, the answer to the question of who exactly the Taliban is, and what is the nature of its relationship with al-Qaeda, is of key importance in judging the chances of success for the emerging Obama strategy.

For even as Washington pushes Islamabad to keep the Taliban from expanding its territorial sway in the North-West Frontier Province, the administration seems to think the real solution to the Taliban problem, on both sides of the border, lies in striking an "acceptable compromise" deal with the militants.

Such thinking is a dangerous combination of ignorance and naïveté.

Do you think your taxes are too high or too low? Though I expect that well over 90 percent of you are thinking "too high," the liberal media and political class keep telling us taxes are too low.

The left-leaning intelligentsia, in their arrogant smugness, claim we just don't know what is good for us. Yet, they are the ones who ignore the empirical evidence and are unable to distinguish between variables and constants.

As a prime example, a May 7 editorial in The Washington Post, advocating higher tax rates on the rich, states: "Economics cannot predict how high taxes can be raised before they reach counterproductive levels."

The editorial then says an increase of "taxes on the top 1 percent by 5 percentage points would raise $85 billion annually or perhaps a bit less if it spurred some extra tax evasion."

Like nature, Israel's strategic relations abhor a vacuum. In the wake of the Obama administration's decision to drastically curtail the US's strategic alliance with Israel in the interest of American rapprochement with Iran and Syria, the Netanyahu government has been moving swiftly to fill the void.

On Monday (5/11), with Pope Benedict XVI's arrival and with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's visit with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak at Sharm e-Sheikh, two potential strategic alliances came into view.

Rather than viewing with alarm Mr. Obama's clear antipathy towards Israel, Mr. Netanyahu views it as an opportunity to pursue alliances in Israel's interest without regard to the wishes of the American president.

Which country receives the most in total foreign aid from all donors? The official numbers show Iraq at the top with $3 to $18 billion in aid (depending on how you define "aid") and all the other recipient nations of the world at less than $3 billion per year.

However, if you look at which nation benefits most from foreign subsidies, the U.S. would come out on top by a very wide margin.

Mr. Obama sat down yesterday (5/06) with the presidents of Pakistan and Afghanistan to seek a way out of the existential crisis now facing those two nations.

As reported by the press, Obama secured commitments from them for greater cooperation in the struggle against the "common threat," as well as assurances that Pakistan's nuclear weapons would be secure - in other words, the same promises and commitments that every White House meeting with Pakistan's leaders since 9/11 has invariably delivered.

Put simply, the Taliban, murderous as it is, is not the problem. The problem is the Pakistani military and the stubborn refusal of Washington to comprehend this basic reality.

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.