10 Things Donald Trump Can Do To Make America Great Again

As I wrote last week, I think Donald Trump is going to win. I think he’ll take office in January, but the two months between will be chock full of Democrat tricks trying to delegitimize his victory, coordinated riots seeking to push America into chaos before he’s inaugurated, and the swamp seeking to do everything it can to insulate itself from the potential consequences of a Trump presidency. 

January 20, 2025 will not be a checkered flag moment. On the contrary, it will be the starting line for a four year race to save the nation.  As such, we need to look at what exactly needs to be done going forward and below is a list of 10 things President Trump needs to do. There’s much more, but I’d suggest this is a place to start.

#1 – Seal the border and deport all 30 million illegal immigrants. Just like last time, Democrats, RINOs and activist judges are going to try and stop him.  He cannot let them succeed.  Begin by declaring the nation is under assault and deploying the Army to the border until the wall is complete. The first step in deporting the millions of illegals is stopping all of their benefits. Next, given that they will need food and shelter when the benefits are curtailed, establish exit processing centers where they can come and find shelter and food and be processed out of the country.  Next, stop all federal funds from going to “sanctuary” states and cities who do not cooperate.  Finally, enforce federal legislation against hiring illegals, and send employers to jail.  Of course none of this will be enough, but it’s a beginning.

#2 – Resurrect the 10^th Amendment.  For those who don’t remember, the Amendment reads: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Most of the things the federal government does are simply unconstitutional. Assign a crack team of constitutional scholars / lawyers to go over the federal government with a fine tooth comb. Starting with the federal government’s list of its own agencies, examine every single department and agency and highlight those for which there is clear Constitutional authority. For every other one, craft a plan for their dissolution. For easy things like NPR, PBS, NEA etc. which are inconsequential, make the dissolution immediate. For others, like HHR and other wealth redistribution programs, where sometimes generations of families have been raised to suckle at the government teat, create a three year plan that reduces their budget by 33% a year for three years, ending with the complete dissolution at the beginning of year four.  For those agencies / departments that remain, implement zero based budgeting so that they are forced every single year to make the case for the money they are seeking from the federal government. 

#3 – Restructure the Justice Department, the FBI the CIA and the Pentagon.  Fire the leadership of all four – up to and including the top 100 senior managers / officers of each with severance packages. Investigate every one of them and for those suspected of treason / incompetence over the last eight years and charge them. For the rest, give them the opportunity to demonstrate they deserve to be part of the organization if they’d like their jobs back. Their success on that score should be based on two things, competency and a demonstrated allegiance to the Constitution. 

#4 – Ban every DEI program and race or sex based program in the United States government.  Make it crystal clear to Americans that every single job, scholarship or contract associated with the federal government is based on one single thing, merit.  At the same time make it known that corporations making policy based on DEI and the climate change cult are violating their fiduciary responsibility and that officers and directors collectively and individually are liable for those violations. 

#5 – Abolish the IRS and the income tax and implement a flat tax or better yet, the FairTax.  This will, perhaps more than anything but the 10^th Amendment action above, drive a stake through the heart of the swamp beast.  There is a reason that the seven richest counties in America (out of a total of 3,143) are suburbs of Washington, DC: government and lobbying.  And few things drive more lobbying than tax breaks. 

#6 – Negotiate a peace between Russia and Ukraine.  Neither wanted this war and a month after Russia invaded there was a peace deal on the table both supported, until it was torpedoed by Joe Biden.  This useless and wasteful war is accomplishing nothing while costing hundreds of thousands of lives and causing trillions of dollars of damage to the participants and the rest of the world. 

#7 – Remove the United States from the Paris Climate Accord. This globalist, anti-capitalist fiction is nothing more than an attempt to give elites control over the lives of citizens around the world and drives the destruction of prosperity everywhere its tentacles reach.  At the same time, eliminate every “climate change” or “green energy” driven policy in the federal government and make a plan for unleashing America’s true energy potential from fracking and nuclear power.

#8 – Use Congressional power vested in it by Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 of the Constitution (the Elections Clause) to guarantee federal election integrity by requiring Voter ID and paper ballots in every state and outlaw mail in ballots for anyone other than the military. 

#9 – Craft a plan that sunsets every law and regulation in the federal register within a decade.  Put a framework in place for Congress to reevaluate every law on the books over the following ten years and each one should face a renewal vote. Those that pass with 60% of both houses can remain on the books indefinitely while all others sunset after a decade unless passed again. 

#10 – Pass a law that explicitly states that it is illegal for government agencies to coerce or motivate private enterprises to accomplish desired tasks that are illegal for the government to do on its own.  This applies to bank coercion of disapproved industries, data gathering on US citizens or censorship of free speech among others. 

Of course, as Trump learned in his first term, the swamp is a tenacious beast that will not go gently into that good night.  There will be gnashing of liberal teeth, there will be activist judges with God complexes trying to throw judicial roadblocks everywhere and there will be RINO calls to work across the isle.  He should ignore all of that and march swiftly towards returning the government to its originally intended, natural, limited state.  Doing so will unleash an economic and entrepreneurial juggernaut never before seen and will be sufficient to create a giant budget surplus.  That surplus will be sufficient to eliminate the national debt in less than a generation and with it will go most of the problems America faces today. 

There’s of course much more, but if he does half the things on this list Trump will easily have earned himself a place on Mt. Rushmore.

America Used To Be A Serious Country... America Today Is Not

In his brilliant book, The Rational Optimist: How Prosperity Evolves, Matt Ridley makes the case that coal saved Britain in the 19^th century just as the Industrial Revolution was picking up steam. A similar argument could be made for oil in the United States in the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries. At mid century, a time when oil from whales was a significant source of energy, the discovery of seemingly limitless amounts of oil in places like Pennsylvania and Texas provided an energy boom like the world had never seen. In the quarter century between 1864 and 1892 the price of oil dropped by more than 90% while production increased 25 times, providing a boost that turned the American economy into a juggernaut.

Of course from soot in the air to spills in the water to holes in the ground, neither resource is what today one might call “clean” energy. But you know what they were? Inexpensive, efficient and relatively easy to transport. Indeed, by the 1880’s the average family was illuminating their home for a penny an hour while the fuels to do so, oil and kerosene could be delivered right to their doors. From lighting individual homes to powering giant factories – which would have been largely impossible without it – petroleum and its various products gave Americans the energy necessary to grow from an economic also ran to the most robust economy on the planet in less than half a century.

America of the late 19^th century and early 20^th century was a land of giants where anything was possible. During the 60 years between 1865 and 1935 Bell invented the telephone, Ford brought the assembly line to auto manufacturing, and the Wright Brothers took to flight while at the same time the First transcontinental railroad was finished and the Brooklyn Bridge and the Empire State Building were built. The United States was growing, both geographically and economically and energy fueled that growth, and increasingly that was oil.

Energy drives modern civilization, whether its gasoline for cars, electricity for countless mobile devices or natural gas and coal fueling generators. Americans used to recognize the fact that without fuel, little functions in America. The lesson was painfully driven home in 1973 with OPEC’s oil embargo.

Today, 50 years later, while less dependent on OPEC for our energy needs, overall we’re far more dependent on energy itself as our much of our lives are driven by transportation, information and consumption. But the funny thing is, the more energy becomes central to our lives, the less serious Americans become about it. Nuclear power, by far the most efficient, cleanest and most abundant of potential sources has basically been sidelined, with not a single new plant being built in a quarter century and 13 plants closed. Coal plants are being regulated out of existence while blue states and the Biden administration are seeking to smother fracking in its bassinette. Not to mention one of Joe Biden’s first acts after taking office… shutting down the Keystone pipeline. At the same time, from the federal government to local governments, billions of dollars are being wasted on the fiction of “green energy”, both in terms of tax incentives, regulatory vices and “investment” boondoggles. These are just the latest examples of the left literally wasting energy and money – and doing much harm in the process – all in the name of the “environment”.

Why does any of this folly matter? Because geopolitics is a messy matter, and everything from money to trade to weapons to war play a central role in it, and energy is central to each of them. More specifically, the United States is in the midst of a pitched battle for prosperity and influence around the world with other players who have decided to not fight that battle with both hands tied behind their backs. On the contrary, not only do China and Russia do essentially whatever they want as it relates to – pretty much everything – but at the same time, both (China, Russia) fund the environmental left in the west, resulting in the ludicrous Paris Climate Agreement. That is the agreement, of course, in which the west – and particularly the United States – willingly put a straightjacket on their economies while the Chinese economy is allowed to operate essentially unfettered for decades while the Russians pay lip service to the agreement.

Both the Chinese and Russians understand that energy is the key to power and are willing to operate on that basis, unburdened by the need to appease the world’s environment scolds. China not only continues to develop and build nuclear capacity – as they literally seek to create an artificial sun – but they have been working to expand their control over the South China Sea for a decade as they look to lock up lucrative deep sea oil deposits – putting them in conflict with many of their neighbors. Russia continues unfettered development of oil and gas and recently restarted work on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline – with the help of Joe Biden – to provide Europe with natural gas. Bewilderingly, the Europeans are purposefully tying their economic fortunes to the very country who threw them into a deep freeze by cutting off their gas supplies in the middle of a winter blast in 2009.

Meanwhile, here in America energy is merely a political football to be played with, regardless of the consequences. California, with the world’s fifth largest economy, last summer experienced third world style rolling blackouts because the state’s “green energy” mandates had crippled the ability of producers to actually… produce energy. In New York, despite high prices and energy disputes wreaking havoc on development, the Governor signed into law a permanent ban fracking while the state regulatory agency killed a proposal to ease constraints by approving the building of another pipeline to bring gas into the state. Not to mention of course the federal subsidies and state mandates for “green cars” “green homes” and a push for battery and windmill development that leave environmental disasters in their wake.

America used to understand that energy powered prosperity, and with prosperity it was possible to a great deal of good for a great number of people. Just ask the Europeans or Asia… In Democrat run America we seem to have lost that understanding. Like history’s loss of the knowledge of how the Egyptians built the great pyramids, Americans seem to have lost the understanding that inexpensive, reliable and widely accessible energy are the keys to prosperity and everything it brings. To face a loss of such empowerment because of the natural vagaries of geology or geography or the result of war is depressing, if somewhat understandable. To face the loss because politicians decided that virtue signaling trumps cost, effectiveness, efficiency and reliability is despairing, infuriating and simply criminal. It’s often said that citizens get the government they vote for, which is often true. What’s also true is that citizens deserve the government they vote for and in the case of voting for Democrats, from New York to Colorado to California Americans are getting exactly what they deserve. Sadly that folly has been fraudulently foisted on the nation. Let’s hope the United States and the allies who depend on us can survive 18 more months of their monolithic, dysfunctional, and patently unserious control.  

Donald Trump as the Isolationist in Chief... Not a Recipe for Success

As I’ve said before, if Donald Trump is the nominee I will vote for him over anyone the donkey party runs. Why? One reason… the single greatest threat to our nation is open borders and the continued entry of people from failed states with no understanding or appreciation for limited government or individual rights. The Democrat Party, which has a similar disdain for both things, has almost destroyed the country on its own and with open borders it seeks to tip the scales of our Republic towards their tyranny by packing the voting rolls with such invaders…

The candidate who promises to build a wall and curtail illegal immigration gets my vote… and my hope that he will actually do so.

But I have to say, Trump continues to make it much more painful to be willing to support him. From his thin skin and childish Twitter tirades, it makes one wonder how temperamental a President Trump might be. Something more consequential that forces some soul searching when considering voting for him is his unserious perspective on international relations. When he says things about not sending money to countries that hate us, that makes pretty good sense and makes a great place to start with foreign aid. But he doesn’t stop there. There are two things that are particularly troubling about his foreign affairs perspective. His populist tirades against free trade, and his statement of two weeks ago that the United States should pull back from its leadership in NATO.

On the former, Trump cries that the United States is losing out on trade with China and Mexico and other nations around the world and that these countries are taking the jobs of millions of Americans. Both of those suggestions may indeed be accurate, but he is wrong in that they are a symptom, not the illness itself. The primary driver of those issues is not that Mexico or China are cheats. They may be manipulating their currencies or labor markets, but that’s not why American companies choose to build iPhones in China or cars in Mexico. It’s American taxes and regulations… Think about it, China is a Communist country separated from the US by 6,000 miles of water and Mexico is a dysfunctional quasi state where the politicians and population are perpetually intimidated by narco terrorists. And somehow it makes sense that a US company would want to manufacture widgets in those places rather than in Detroit or Pittsburgh? Yes. Sure, labor costs are a problem, but it’s regulations and taxes that are the real drivers of trade deficits. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, federal regulations cost American consumers almost $2 trillion in lost economic productivity and higher costs in 2014. And that’s just the federal government! That $2 Trillion was almost four times the entire US trade deficit with the whole world that year! Add to that the fact that US tax rates are the highest in the developed world and that giant sucking sound of jobs you hear is not because of China or Mexico’s cheating, but rather because the US government is simply making it too difficult to operate profitably in the United States. If Trump wanted to make our trade balance more balanced and bring back jobs he’d focus on eliminating regulations here rather than spending most of his time demagoguing the rest of the world.

The bigger problem with Trump’s world view is his fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the United States in said world. Two weeks ago he suggested that the United States should take a step back in its leadership of NATO. We could do that and it would certainly save us billions of dollars a year. But it not only would it lead to a world war, but it would be the catalyst for a collapse of the world economy and western culture. Why? Because it was American military power, presence and a willingness to use both that has kept the west largely at peace for the last 70 years and driven a greater increase in world prosperity than in any period in all of human history.

To understand the impact of a United States led NATO, one simply has to look at the history of Europe. For two millennium, from the rise and fall of the Roman Empire to the rise and collapse of the British Empire, Europe was at an almost constant state of war either within itself or without, and often brought much of the rest of the planet along with it.  That reality culminated in the two world wars of the first half of the 20th century that cost the lives of over 100 million men women and children. Post WWII however, after the United States military brought order to a world in chaos, Europe and much of that world have enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative peace, and as a result saw wealth and prosperity grow and expand at levels unprecedented in human history.

None of that happens without a NATO led by the United States. It was NATO that kept the Russian bear at bay for half a century and American leadership in the Pacific that kept the Red Chinese from swallowing much of Asia. And as a result Europe and Asia have become critical trading partners with the United States and have provided both markets for our goods and sources for things that make our lives better.

And now Donald Trump wants to abandon NATO leadership. In the name of populist rhetoric he wants to turn his back on a successful world that the United States largely designed and benefits from. That would be a mistake. For our partners in NATO, for much of the world that relies on the west for leadership and trade, and, most of all, Americans. The solution to a troubled planet isn’t to pull up the drawbridges and hide behind the moat… But that seems to be the Donald’s plan.

It would be a tragedy if American leadership having already devolved from Ronald Reagan defeating the Soviet Union and winning the Cold War to Barack Obama embracing anti American thugs across the planet and unleashing ISIS on the world is followed up by Donald Trump reviving the isolationist policies of the 1930s that led to WWII… because with bellicose and acquisitive states like Russia and China unrestrained by American strength it would not be long before WWIII was at our shores.

But, such is the nature of populist candidates. Say and do anything that will get cheers from the crowds and ignore the consequences down the road. Let’s hope in November we have a Ted Cruz lever to pull

The Invasions of the United States and Europe - Why Start A War When You Can Sign Up For Welfare?

Last Monday I wrote a piece about immigration here at home and a changing face of Europe abroad. It was inspired by a trip to Europe and Ann Coulter’s Adios America. With all of this on my mind I tuned into Rush’s show on Friday for my normal dose of Excellence in Broadcasting. And in a moment he crystallized exactly what was going on… both in Europe and here, although he was specifically talking about the refugee crisis / chaos in Europe. In a moment he completely changed my perception of the issue – or at least made sense out of what I am, and many others are, seeing. He was talking about the immigrants who were in Hungary and were trying to get to Austria and Germany. The papers are full of heart wrenching pieces of Syrians escaping persecution. Of dozens of Libyans drowning as their overcrowded boats seek out the Greek or Italian coasts. Of families not wanting to be sent to refugee camps. Of Iraqis seeking to escape the ruthless ISIS killers of men, women and children. All of those are true, and it is heartbreaking. The underlying current of all of this coverage is that if Europe doesn’t take in these people, they are heartless and probably racists.

Many of the people who are making up this refugee crisis are indeed escaping terror of one sort of another. But Rush points out something interesting. If it was just terror or repression these people are escaping… why don’t we see them stopping in Turkey, where, the leader may be an Islamist, they're not shooting people in the street. Or why aren’t they stopping in Greece where they would expected to be beyond the reach of most of the hated repressors they are escaping from? He points out that no, they are heading to Germany and Sweden where they can expect to receive generous benefits from the government. He puts it quite well: It’s not immigration, it’s an invasion.

If this was about helping refugees, Turkey and Greece could set up camps to provide food and shelter and the rest of Europe could fund them.  It would cost much less than new welfare recipients spread across the Continent.  But the refugees have no intention of staying in either of those countries or in camps in Hungary.  It's Germany or Bust!  I'm not familiar with many situations where refugees enter a place illegally and then demand where they want to stay and what kinds of accommodations they will accept.

Basically the Europeans are inviting Muslims to finish what Umayyads couldn’t accomplish in the 8th Century and the Ottomans couldn’t do in the 15th and 16th. Already Muslims make up between 5% and 10% of most major European countries – and upwards of 20% in many of the largest cities… and the numbers were expected to grow rapidly, even before this refugee problem.

This poses an interesting juxtaposition… and a bit of irony. For 50 years American leadership kept much of Western Europe free in the face of a Soviet menace that was constantly seeking to enlarge its empire. Because of the security provided by the United States those same European nations were able to spend billions of dollars a year on welfare programs. Now, today, after six years of American failure of leadership AKA “leading from behind” it is those welfare programs themselves that are acting as a magnet to those who more often than not have no use for the freedoms that the United States spent half a century defending… Why fight a hot war against the Crusaders when you can simply sign up for their welfare programs and help them collapse from within?

The same holds true for the United States and the influx of illegals from Latin America. Just as the welfare programs of Europe have been drawing and supporting Muslims for a quarter century, American welfare programs have been doing the same for immigrants – both legal and illegal – from south of the border for even longer. Just as Europe’s crisis is coming to a head, so too one is here in America, where La Raza seeks to create its own empire called Aztlan... but thankfully Donald Trump has put that crisis front and center.

If only the Soviets had been smarter, they could have conquered both the United States and Europe without firing a missile. Just as ISIS has promised to put sleepers in amongst the refugees flooding into Europe, Gorbachev could have recruited Manchurian candidates from the Middle East and Latin America to invade Europe and the US respectively. Unlike the character Frank Sinatra investigates in the movie however, these Manchurian candidates wouldn’t have had to actually assassinate anyone. They could have just gone forth and multiplied and continued to receive their welfare checks. Eventually the Russian Bear would have been able to walk right into both after their economies and the cultures were obliterated. Perhaps it’s only fitting that all of this is occurring just as a leader formed in the kiln of the Soviet Union’s KGB is reasserting Russian military might at the very time the West is so vulnerable. Russian vodka, Mexican tequila and the Koran… that might make for some interesting interactions.

Fool or a Villain? Obama and America's Standing in the World...

I find myself vacillating between thinking Barack Obama is utterly incompetent, or he’s an evil genius who has a nefarious anti American plan in mind. While my heart wants to tell me that the person who’s been twice elected President of the United States is a good man with good intentions who’s simply in over his head, my head tells me something else.

When it comes to the domestic economy, Barack Obama is nothing short of a complete disaster. In virtually every situation he has chosen the path that is bad for freedom, bad for entrepreneurs, and bad for businesses… basically bad for pretty much the entire country except for maybe union members and government redistribution recipients. The disaster he has wrought in the economy is obvious to anyone who’s not living off the government.

What’s a little less clear to anyone but the most engaged political observer is the fact that as bad as he’s been on the economy, it’s possible he’s been even worse on foreign policy. In 2008 candidate Obama promised to “Restore America's standing in the world.” Like with the economy, his steps here too seem more like calculated steps in a plan rather than simple missteps. If they were simply missteps one would expect him to get things right 50% of the time. He’s not even close. Indeed, his failed plan to “Restore America’s standing” can be seen in the willingness of enemies and adversaries to attack the US or take provocative actions, all with little concern for consequences from a United States led by Barack Obama.

Our “Reset” partner Russia feels no qualms in threatening NATO allies for policies it dislikes, invaded Ukraine then annexed Crimea and continues to be provocative on and across our borders, all while helping Iran pursue its nuclear ambitions.

Today China has not only hacked into our government computers and stolen personal information on every government employee of the last twenty years, but they are actively building bases on disputed territory in order to expand their area of sovereignty at the expense of its neighbors.

In 2012, thriving on the chaos enabled by Barack Obama’s feckless leadership, Islamists captured and killed four Americans in Benghazi, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens.

Early on in his administration Barack Obama gave a sop to Vladimir Putin and blindsided much of Western Europe when he abandoned plans for the installation of a missile defense system in Poland.

He has decimated the US military, shrinking the Army by almost a quarter, dropping the Navy to a size not seen since Carter, and leaving the United States militarily incapable of fighting two wars at once, a basic element of American defense policy for half a century.

In Egypt Obama embraced the Muslim Brotherhood as it came to power and then proceeded to give the cold shoulder to General Sisi, the leader who ousted the Islamists and who is now Egypt’s president.

In Iraq, after the United States spent hundreds of billions of dollars and shed the blood of thousands of American soldiers and marines, the country is on the verge of collapse. The virtual collapse of Iraqi state, which led to the rise of ISIS, is a consequence of Barack Obama’s unwillingness to bring about a Status of Forces Agreement that would maintain an American presence capable of reassuring the Iraqis that the hard fought gains would be sustainable. Today ISIS not only controls much of Iraq and Syria, but they have affiliates and adherents who are carrying out terrorist acts around the world, including here in the United States.

In what might be the most disturbing foreign policy error of Obama’s parade of errors, he has worked out a deal with Iran which does virtually nothing to stop the Iranians from getting both nuclear weapons and delivery systems. The Iranians think so little of Barack Obama and the nation he leads that they don’t even bother to make promises that they intend to break as the Soviets used to do. Not only that, Iranian leaders go on domestic television regularly and threaten the United States amid cries of “Death to America” all while knowing that Barack Obama will give them whatever it is they want.

And there’s much more of course, from his support of the leftist thugs in Honduras in 2009, to his embrace of the Communist Castro brothers, to his exchanging five Islamist terrorists for an American deserter, to his paper tiger threats in relation to red lines in Syria… and the list goes on.

One can only wonder, if an American president wanted to do everything possible to diminish the United States on the world stage without explicitly looking like that was what he was doing, what more might he do make things worse than Barack Obama has? Today not only are the two other superpowers in the world far more belligerent than they were when Barack Obama took office, a new terrorist organization is wreaking havoc in the heart of the middle east and a nation that constantly cries “Death to America”, threatens to annihilate Israel and funded many of the weapons that killed American soldiers in Iraq is now billions of dollars richer and on its way to obtaining a nuclear weapon. While it is theoretically possible to have taken more actions that would harm American interests and diminish the United States on the world stage, such as fighting harder to keep the Muslim Brotherhood running Egypt or quitting NATO, it’s hard to imagine any president doing more to intentionally undermine American interests than what Barack Obama has done.

Sadly, at the end of the day I don’t think Barack Obama is just a dolt who makes consistently bad choices. I think he has a plan and he’s executing it… and that plan is to leave in his wake a greatly diminished America that has far less influence in the world than it did when he took office. For those of us who feel like the United States is the greatest force for good in the history of the world – albeit an imperfect one – to know that its enervation came at the hands of the man elected to lead it makes the shrinking that much more tragic.

Obama, Mohammed & ICANN - The Biggest Bad Deal No One's Talking About

Thankfully humans are no longer slaves to their environment. We have been able to use our creativity and ingenuity to adapt (some of) the world around us to make our lives longer, less dangerous and in many cases, more enjoyable. Throughout history there have been many inventions or innovations that have changed the world: The printing press. The internal combustion engine. Flight. The wheel. Plastic. Penicillin. Computers. Nuclear power. And much more.

Of all of the inventions of man however, the Internet has changed the world more, and more quickly, than any invention or innovation in human history. In what comes down to basically a quarter century – although it’s roots were laid in the late ‘60’s – what most people think of as the Internet, has changed practically every aspect of civilization. It has created a worldwide library people have easy access to from Manhattan island to an island is the south Pacific and most places in between. It has given a voice to the oppressed across the planet. It has changed the way we shop. It has changed the way they play. It has brought everything from scientific study to pornography to investing to our fingertips with the click of a button. It’s even changing the way people date and get married!

It’s no surprise that the roots of the Internet and most – although not all – of its innovations and superheroes have been American. At its root the Internet is about the sharing of information and ideas, and the United States has a stronger foundation for free speech and the free exchange of ideas than any nation in history. That fundamental freedom of speech, protected by the 1st Amendment, has fully taken root in the Internet and the result has been (mostly) spectacular.

It’s because the Internet has been such a revolutionary force for (again, mostly) good that the latest example of Barack Obama‘s hostility towards American Exceptionalism is so despicable. Although the Internet is truly international, since its beginning at its very foundation has sat an American guiding hand, seeking to ensure its basic functionality, smooth operations and widespread access. Barack Obama doesn’t like that. He doesn’t’ believe there should be an American guiding hand. Last year, his Department of Commerce announced that it was planning on relinquishing the last bit of control the United States has by transferring the power to assign domain names to an international body.

That might not sound like much… but it’s a BIG deal. Right now, the United States is the only country on the planet who can decide who is allowed to have a domain and who can’t. While Barack Obama and most of Washington regularly demonstrate exactly how incompetent our government can be, on the domain front they have been rock solid in support of free speech. Today I can register a domain criticizing Barack Obama, Vladimir Putin, Mark Zuckerberg, Iran or anyone else and not worry about the ability to say what I want… even if no one else was listening. Under Barack Obama’s plan that would no longer be true.

Today domains are managed by an international organization called ICANN, via a contract from the Department of Commerce.  That plan is to have ICANN accountable to some international organization, very possibly the United Nations. Yes, the very same body that put Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Russia on the Human Rights Council. That should work out well from anyone who wants to create a website promoting Falun Gong or exposing the Global Warming hoax, supporting Israel, or criticizing a rich and influential neighbor. Of course it might end up being some other "international" or "multistakeholder" organization that's even less accountable than the UN...  An OPEC for the Internet if you will. At least on the UN the US has a permanent seat on the Security Council!

Although Congress stepped in in December and stripped the Department of Commerce of the power to spend resources on transferring control when the ICANN contract is up in September, Barack Obama seems undeterred.  Last month Department of State Ambassador Daniel Seplveda told a Brussels press conference that he hoped that if the transfer was not completed by September, “significant progress would have been made”.

Once again Barack Obama wants what he wants, regardless of what the Constitution says. As we all know from his immigration power grab and his Obamacare waivers, the law is little barrier to Barack Obama's action.  This time however his disdain for the idea of American Exceptionalism is going to harm not only Americans, but anyone around the world who has looked to the Internet as a forum for free speech and the free exchange of ideas.   When censorship and crony capitalism replace free speech and free markets as descriptors of the Internet, we'll know how that happened.  When Beijing and Moscow get to decide what you can and can't say on the Internet, we'll no doubt look back longingly to the relative Wild West Internet of the early 21st century. When your ISP shuts off your service as they enforce a "multistakeholder" ban on Mohammed cartoons, we'll know exactly who's responsible.  Thank you Mr. President.

Some unsolicited advice to Barack Obama on Syria

What happens when a majority of voters elect an unqualified hack as the head of state? Lots of bad choices and lots of bad outcomes. After watching Barack Obama make mistakes on the world stage for five years you might have thought he was beginning to figure out what he was doing. Unfortunately, you'd be wrong.  He’s as clueless as ever…

First he suggests (correctly) that as Commander in Chief he doesn’t need Congress’s permission in order to act militarily in Syria. Then he proceeds to ask Congress for authorization to do just that, with the absurd suggestion that somehow the rest of the world will look differently on the missiles raining down on Syria if there is political unity along Pennsylvania Avenue. Does Barack Obama even understand what the role of the Commander in Chief even is?

So he’s a little confused about what his actual role in running the military is… not particularly surprising given that before being elected to the most powerful position on the planet the only thing he ever ran was a community organization and some law school classes. At least he’s sure why he’s decided a military attack is necessary… because he drew a red line in the sand and wanted to be very clear to the Assad regime that if “we start seeing a bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized, that would change my calculations, significantly…” That is a pretty clear statement. Or maybe not.  Somehow that clear statement has morphed into “I didn’t draw a line in the sand…” Perhaps President Obama should ask his friend Al Gore about the thing called the Internet where he can look up what he actually said. 

Whatever the message Barack Obama was hoping to send to Assad and the rest of the world, I’m pretty sure it’s not the one of fecklessness and ineptitude they're getting. In addition to misunderstanding both his role in leading the military and forgetting who drew a line in the sand, he’s lost any element of surprise by telling Assad what to expect and not to worry because nothing is going to happen before Congress finishes their deliberations. And he also let Assad know that regime change is not the goal.

Then there is the Secretary of State’s constant pronouncements about the makeup of the rebels, who any bombing would ostensibly benefit: “I just don't agree that a majority are al-Qaeda and the bad guys…” he told a House Foreign Affairs Committee. Unfortunately, one of the key advisors to the administration on the issue of the rebels has been Elizabeth O’Bagy, who, it turns out, is a paid propagandist for the rebels themselves. So it appears that the main source – or at least a significant source – for the President’s contention that the rebels are good guys is someone who’s paid to tell the world… that the rebels are good guys. No problem there. Interestingly in a moment of morbidly vaudevillian juxtaposition, in the very week the Secretary of State is trying to convince Congress of the benign nature of the rebels, a video surfaced of those very rebels cold bloodedly executing captured Syrian soldiers as they lay kneeling on the ground.

All of this showcases a President who is simply not up to the task of successfully leading the nation during a crisis on the international stage. It might be one thing if this was fresh ink on a newly minted presidential canvas, but it’s not. From Iran to Iraq to Libya to Egypt we have seen this president in the starring role in a series of movies that went very badly very quickly. Taken together all of this suggests that whatever Barack Obama chooses to do in reference to Syria, things will turn out badly for the country.

Sending some cruise missiles seems to be the solution of the day. Of course bombing Syria could have a vast array of unintended consequences. It may provoke Syria and or Iran to attack Israel. Russia has already said it will support Syria if it’s attacked and it appears that China is sending ships to the region. An attack might destabilize Syria in such a way that the rebels take over and we see another failed state like Libya or the ascent of an al-Qaeda affiliated power like in Egypt. An attack might cause Assad to use even more chemical weapons just to demonstrate that he cannot be intimidated. Worst of all, the possibility exists that somehow the US is sucked into a situation where it does indeed require American boots on the ground, this time without any real understanding of what victory is, what it would look like or how to achieve it. We can't forget the outcome the President is hoping for, that Assad will realize that crossing Barack Obama is a dangerous game and he then decides to stop killing innocents in his own country - at least with chemical weapons. 

Then there is the option of doing nothing. If you listen to the President and his supporters, taking no action might result in Assad using chemical weapons again – assuming it was he who used them in the first place – and will embolden not only Assad, but Iran, North Korea and many other not-so-nice regimes around the world to do whatever they want with impunity.

Of course doing nothing is not the opposite of bombing. Doing nothing is one option, but so is crafting sanctions and seeking worldwide condemnation. Sanctions rarely work of course, but perhaps by convincingly laying out his proof Barack Obama can use his oft touted charm to win over the whole world on the side of effective sanctions. One wonders if Russia and Iran will be susceptible to such a charm offensive?  Another option would be to equip Assad's enemies to overthrow him, assuming any can be found who are actually pro-American, or at least not anti-American.

At the end of the day Barack Obama's poor performance over the last five years has left the country with few good options. Given the pickle he’s created, I’d like to give President Obama some unsolicited advice.

Finding an alternative to bombing is likely your best option, and if the case for sanctions is made forcefully and effectively, it might actually work.  If nothing else it might get some allies on our side and create something similar to the "coalition of the willing" George Bush assembled.  If, however, you are sufficiently confident that Assad is a threat to the country and her allies that military action is necessary, your message on Tuesday night  – rather than being a argument for why Syria should be bombed – should instead provide background on a strike that is taking place at that very moment.

If he is seeking to send a message, seeking to show actual leadership and has decided to bomb Syria regardless of what Congress does, he should strike quickly and with overwhelming force rather than wait until Congress says it's OK and then inflict some limited pinprick of an operation. If the goal is to show the world the negative consequences of using banned weapons then the resulting pain had better be pretty harsh, otherwise the world will recognize the US as the paper tiger it has become under the ill-equipped president the American voters have inflicted on the world.

There are some important if’s in that paragraph, but uncertainty and bad choices are what you get when a nation chooses to elect such an unqualified man as its head of state. Let's hope he doesn't fumble us into WW III.