The Federal Communications Commission has begun a high profile rulemaking process to undo the net neutrality rules that President Obama’s FCC passed in 2015. So it is imperative to get the basic facts right about the “networks” involved in “network neutrality.”

Absurd, impractical sustainability precepts are actually a prescription for government control.

Must the president enforce all laws, even those he disapproves of?

We are in the midst of what is referred to as the “transition” – the hand off of power from one president to another. God bless America – these conversions are peaceful. Even when the exchange takes place between presidents of opposing political parties, as is currently underway.

President Barack Obama has doubled the national debt – from $10 trillion to $20 trillion. He’s added more debt than all of his forty-three presidential predecessors combined.

During the 2016 election, both candidates promised to bring manufacturing back – Donald Trump made the recovery of jobs lost to China and Mexico a cornerstone of his campaign. Hillary Clinton’s website states: “While too many politicians and experts in Washington gave up on American manufacturing, Hillary never did.”

On October 5, 2009, President Obama issued an executive order, FEDERAL LEADERSHIP IN ENVIRONMENTAL, ENERGY, AND ECONOMIC PERFORMANCE, that showed his policies toward reducing greenhouse gas emissions for the rest of his term in office. The executive order is 15 pages, divided into 20 sections that provide strict guidance for all agencies in the executive branch and their interactions with outside organizations. Portions of the executive order follows (numerous words run together in the document are left in place):

Today, in finally denying the Keystone pipeline, President Obama showed his true colors. We now know, as we’ve long believed, that those colors are the green of the anti-fossil fuel crowd, rather than the color of jobs resulting in economic growth in the hard-hit heartland of the United States.

Dr. Jagadish Shukla, along with several other scientists, sent a letter to President Obama and Defense Sec. Loretta Lynch requesting that they bring RICO charges against “climate skeptics.” The letter, however, exposed some questionable financial dealings and a strange relationship between Shukla, taxpayers, and the research institute, Institute of Global Environment and Society.

In its war against fossil fuels, the EPA has a variety of tools of which one powerful help is the ability to give grants to a variety of organizations such as governments, businesses, Indian tribes, education institutions, and non-profit organizations called non-government organizations (NGOs).

Commenting on the rioting in Baltimore, the Wall Street Journal’s Daniel Henniger was almost to the end of his April 30 text when he said “On Wednesday morning, the year’s first-quarter GDP growth rate came in—0.02%. Next to nothing. For the length of the Obama presidency, with growth significantly below norm, unemployment for blacks aged 24 and younger has hovered between 30% and 40%. That’s the real powder keg, not the police.”

Hot on the heels of the assault by Massachusetts Senator Ed Markey and Arizona Representative Raul Grijalva against climate change skeptic scientists by demanding their academic institutions reveal who is funding their work, President Barack Obama has mounted a companion attack campaign against climate skeptics in Congress.

For the past six years, the oil and gas industry has served as a savior to the Obama presidency by providing the near-lone bright spot in economic growth.