by Fausta Rodriguez Wertz

[The Northern Triangle refers to El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras in Central America.]

I live in Princeton, NJ, where you can find the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs. I am not connected to the School, or to Princeton University, but over the years I have attended many speeches, events and symposia at both.

So I can venture a guess that the School may have a more polished term for the no-do foreign policy of Yes, Prime Minister:

The Obama administration, at best, follows the Yes, Prime Minister school of International Affairs by neglecting our allies and doing nothing. There’s doing nothing, however, and then there’s folly.

Michael Gonzalez has a must-read article on Obama’s Central American Follies: “A country-by-country survey of the Obama administration’s actions in the Northern Triangle [Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador] shows how the administration has sown instability in Central America by siding with former guerrillas who have ties to drug trafficking.

Only lately has the White House bowed to reality and finally conceded what Democrats in Congress, The Washington Post and even Univision were already admitting that dreams of sanctuary under the DREAM Act had convinced Central American families to hand their children over to coyote networks that would take them across Mexico and the Rio Grande. In other words, the administration had to admit that it had contributed to the problem by appearing to promise that children who crossed the border illegally would not be deported.

But the administration shouldn’t get a pass on the violent hell that has been unleashed in Honduras, Guatemala and El Salvador.

From siding with the wrong guys in Honduras, to interfering in the judicial process in Guatemala, to ignoring the ties between the drug gangs and newly-elected president Salvador Sánchez Cerén, Gonzalez’s article tracks the Obama administration’s long record of incompetence (at best), and suggests some things the U.S. can do now to improve our country’s security.

faustaBorder security is national security. Go read Gonzalez’s article and find out three examples of why it is.

Fausta Rodriguez Wertz writes on U.S. and Latin American politics and culture at Fausta’s Blog.

Fool me once and you’ve fooled me, fool me twice and you’ve fooled me two times, the third time would make it three times.

Captain Obvious (for Hotels.com)

The Washington Post makes an amazing discovery today:

Proud to be an American? You’re probably not a true liberal.

That’s not really an amazing statement per se, what’s amazing is the Washington Post actually ran with it.

Michelle Obama took some heat in 2008 for saying that, “for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country…

As it turns out, that sentiment isn’t all that unusual on the far left of American politics. According to a new Pew Research Center study, only 40 percent of consistently liberal Americans say they often feel proud to be Americans.

The other 60 percent say that doesn’t describe them.

This amazing flash of realization does prove on thing,  Given half a century or so even the liberal media can notice something that’s staring them in the face.

I daresay that by my 100th birthday the NYT might even figure out that people under investigation don’t destroy hard drives when the evidence on them is exculpatory.

The McCullen v Coakley case that removed the three-point lines in Massachusetts is the potential to have some interesting effects on both the national level and the local level.

Locally of course Coakley is Martha Coakley the current AG of Massachusetts now running for governor. Earlier this month Steve Grossman managed to get the endorsement of the Democrat party for the nomination while Coakley is still leading in the polls.

Coakley will likely be able to parley her name on that case to gain further sympathy from hard core pro-abortion activists, while Grossman can argue that Coakley team did a poor job arguing for the law before the court, so poor that she lost unanimously.

There is also the possibility that outgoing governor Deval Patrick might try to rush a new law through with his large majorities, as both Coakley & Grossman are in state government it’s unclear who that would help.

On the Republican side the issue is a godsend for Mark Fisher. Fisher has already gotten the endorsement of Mass right to life and can engage the base by his celebration of the result.

Not so Charlie Baker

“Charlie hopes the current law is upheld,” a Baker spokesperson told BostInno. Though vague in nature, the statement could be taken in a manner that Baker is, in fact, pro choice, or that he’s simply a proponent of laws enacted at the state level. Either way, his show of support for the cause, however broad in his choice of words, a positive direction for bipartisan collaboration in customarily blue Massachusetts.

Now Fisher is going to need a lot of breaks to beat Baker and this certainly isn’t enough to make the difference but it’s important to note that last thing Baker needs is a reminder to activists that he is squishy on life, particularly if we end up with a 3rd party candidate that’s pro-life on the ballot.

Any believing catholic wanting to avoid mortal sin (you know the type that sends you to hell) would be duty bound given the choice between pro-abortion candidates & a pro life one can only vote one way. As for myself as a Catholic no election is worth my soul.

While this case is likely to make things a little more interesting in Massachusetts it’s going to make things a LOT more interesting in New Hampshire.

Scott Brown ran as a pro-choice candidate last time around, I still remember the ads, they made me sick but as there was not a pro-life choice it was possible to morally vote for him.

In the GOP primary in NH that’s a different story, Senator Brown already has a guns issue that could cost him the 2nd Amendment voters, this case can’t help but highlight that he is a pro-abortion republican which will certainly energize pro-life republicans to turn out in a primary against him.

Nationally the ruling might be a wash simply because the case was 9-0 (take a look at the twitter to see leftist heads explode over the unanimous decision, but Ed Morrissey when reading the decision proper noticed what I did:

There was a considerable amount of disagreement on the idea that the law was content-neutral, and this is the crux of the problem for free-speech advocates. Justice Antonin Scalia issued a scalding concurrence in part, with Justices Anthony Kennedy and Clarence Thomas joining, warning that this decision makes proving a violation of content neutrality in speech restrictions all but impossible:

The four conservatives justices sans the chief wrote concurrent opinions bluntly saying this was unconstitutional on its face while the actual decision practically listed the ways Massachusetts could pass a law that the court could support.

That suggests that the decision was written the way it was in order to get the 9-0 result rather than the 5-4 at best result that would have given conservatives the whole 10 yards. It’s not unusual for a Chief to try to get a unanimous court but those who pay attention might read the tea leaves and decide that it’s more important to get the majority in the Senate to keep the president from replacing any of those 4 liberal votes that was against him today.

Either way November certainly won’t be boring.