What a Fascinating Day!

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

Earlier today, former Vice President Dick Cheney delivered an absolutely brilliant speech on national security to the American Enterprise Institute. This speech, as you might expect, was scheduled weeks in advance. What a coincidence, then, that President Obama also chose to make a speech on national security today, just 45 minutes before Cheney’s remarks were due to begin! One can’t help but wonder if this has something to do with the fact that President Obama’s approval rating has fallen by 9 points since his inauguration (from 65% down to 56%, according to Rassmussen), while Cheney’s has actually risen by 8 points, according to a CNN poll! In campaign-speak, that’s referred to as a “17 point swing.”

One might almost think that President Obama’s speech was intended to be a pre-emptive rhetorical strike against Cheney, who has been increasingly vocal lately. One thing is certain – Obama’s remarks sounded downright defensive.

If you missed Cheney’s speech, and would like to read it in its entirety, you can find the text at http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/21/raw-data-text-dick-cheneys-national-security-speech-aei/. I would strongly recommend that you read it, since it’s not going to be fairly reported by most media outlets. Indeed, liberal commentators are already frothing at the mouth over the fact that anyone is paying serious attention to anything Cheney says. Of course, they don’t debate the substance of what he’s saying, they just attack him personally. Most debate coaches will tell you that when you move to personal attacks, it’s a sure sign that you’re not capable of winning the contest of ideas.

One thing is for sure: if you wanted a clear contrast between the conservative and liberal positions in the war on terror, you now have one.

Some people are wondering out loud why we didn’t hear this kind of straight talk while Bush and Cheney were still in office. My guess is that it was because Cheney was, at the time, working for George Bush, who was content to let history be the ultimate judge of his national security performance. Cheney doesn’t work for Bush anymore, so he is as free as any other private citizen to speak his mind. And he’s doing so. Brilliantly.

Thanks for listening.

A Poll You Didn't Hear Much About

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can't be bothered.

Last Wednesday, April 29, I happened to spot a poll on msn.com. It was being run by msnbc, and entitled, “The President has completed 100 days in office. Based on his performance so far, what grade would you give him?” At the time I cast my vote, 280,404 votes had been cast. They broke down as follows:

• 32.9% - A
• 8.8% - B
• 6.2% - C
• 13.9% - D
• 38.2% - F

Yesterday (the 30th), as the vote count continued to climb, the percentages stayed about the same. With 348,545 votes in:

• 32.1% - A
• 8.5% - B
• 6.1% - C
• 14% - D
• 39.3% - F

Yes, over half the people who voted gave him a D or an F. Of course, this poll wasn’t “scientific.” But here’s what’s funny: Go to msnbc and try to find the poll now. You can’t. If you do a Web search, you’ll find other posts about the poll. But if you try to follow the links back to MSNBC, you’ll find a page that says “The page you are seeking has expired and is no longer available at msnbc.com.” And if you search msnbc.com for polls on the first 100 days, all you’ll find is links to stories about polls that talk about what high marks Obama has received. You won’t find a peep about their own poll, where almost 40% of the respondents gave him an F. Why do you suppose that is?

Your American news media. In my lifetime, we’ve gone from “All the news that’s fit to print” to “All the news that fits our agenda.”

Thanks for listening.

More Constitutional Abuse

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can't be bothered.

There is a movement afoot to make an end-run around the Constitution, and fundamentally change the way our nation elects its President, and the lack of press coverage is astounding.

Buried in the “Northwest Briefly” feature of my morning newspaper earlier this week was a short, 5-sentence article entitled “Gregoire signs popular vote bill.” The bill would require Washington’s 11 electoral votes to be cast for the candidate who wins the national popular vote, regardless of whether that candidate actually won the State of Washington. It wouldn’t take effect until enough states sign onto this mutual suicide pact to account for 270 electoral votes – the number it currently takes to win the Presidency. So far, the compact has been ratified in Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, and New Jersey, as well as Washington.

Let me explain this in terms that even liberal Democrats can understand. Under this scheme, if Barack Obama had won the State of Washington, but John McCain had won the national popular vote, then Washington’s 11 electoral votes would have been taken away from Barack Obama and given to John McCain. It astounds me that, in a state that is so vocal about making sure that every vote counts, our leaders would think it was a good idea to potentially throw out the majority of the votes cast in a Presidential election.

But there are other reasons why this is a bad idea. The Electoral College was one of the many brilliant checks and balances that the founders built into our political system, and, regardless of what you may have heard, it was not designed simply because they didn’t trust the wisdom of the voters. It was created in recognition that the interests of large, populous, industrialized states were not always the same as the interests of smaller, less populated, agricultural states. It was designed to preserve the importance of those smaller states in the election process, so that the Presidency could not be won simply by focusing on a few very large and heavily populated states. That purpose is as valid today as it was in 1790.

In my opinion, this is more evidence of the failure of our educational system to teach our children the basics about our form of government and why the founders made the decisions they made, as well as more evidence of a disregard for the Constitution in general.

Put simply, if you don’t like what the Constitution says, then change it. The founders wisely included a process by which it can be amended. It isn’t easy – because it wasn’t meant to be. But we know the process works, because it has been done 27 times in the last 220 years. Trying to circumvent that process is a hallmark of those who do not have the courage and leadership to stand up and articulate why it should be changed, and convince a sufficient number of their fellow-citizens to agree with them.

Thanks for listening.

Some Thoughts on Good Friday...

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

II Chronicles 7:14, emphasis added.

Still Using That Towel

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

Continuing the Hitchhiker’s theme from our last post, the Obama administration continues to wrap its towel around its collective head in the apparent belief that if it can’t see the bad guys, they can’t see us either.

South Korea tests a long range missile, despite our stern warnings. (Gee, who would have thought that they would ignore our stern warnings?) In response, we…well we didn’t do anything other than bluster and go to the United Nations. Are you kidding me? The United Nations? The same bunch that passed umpteen Security Council resolutions against Iraq and refused to enforce any of them? That United Nations? I’m sure that Kim Jong Il is quaking in his boots.

Hard on the heels of that comes the attack by pirates on a U.S.-flagged vessel. Kudos to the crew, who managed to take their ship back…but it came at the cost of having their captain taken hostage. According to the administration, President Obama is staying “apprised of the situation.” According to the Secretary of State, “we are deeply concerned and we’re following it very closely.” But are we going to do anything? Apparently not, because “the world must come together to end the scourge of piracy,” which she goes on to describe as “criminal activity…on the high seas.”

“The world” isn’t going to do squat, and Mrs. Clinton knows it. "The world" is lazy and cowardly, and even more in denial than the Obama administration about the dangers of Islamic terrorists – of which the Somali pirates are just another manifestation. Some nations in the world might be willing to follow our leadership, but we haven’t got any. And “the world” did not end the scourge of piracy the first time around as Mrs. Clinton implied – the United States Marines did.

Ever wonder about that line in the Marine Hymn about “the shores of Tripoli?” That happened when President Thomas Jefferson unilaterally sent the Marines in to wipe out the pirates who had been preying on international shipping, literally selling their captives into slavery, and demanding ransoms that grew to represent a substantial percentage of U.S. revenues. These pirates were backed by the Ottoman Caliphate, whose ambassador told Jefferson and John Adams, who went to London to attempt to negotiate with him, that according to the Koran, “all nations which had not acknowledged the Prophet were sinners, whom it was the right and duty of the faithful to plunder and enslave.”

That war lasted 14 years – but we ultimately eliminated the Barbary pirates as a threat to our shipping. And we could do it again. According to the New York Daily News, “U.S. military commanders have already prepared battle plans for ending the scourge of piracy on the high seas off Somalia if President Obama pulls the trigger.” The article quotes retired U.S. Ambassador Robert Oakley as saying, “Our special operations people have been itching to clean them up. So far, no one has let them.” He went on to say that our Special Forces “could take care of the pirates in 72 hours.”

So…what do you think? Anybody want to lay odds on whether President Obama will give the green light to an operation to take out the pirates? Don’t hold your breath. The 3:00 am phone calls that Hillary warned us about during her campaign are starting to come in, and just as she predicted, Obama obviously isn’t up to the task.

North Korea will continue to do whatever they want to do. Obama will do nothing about it. Iran will continue to pursue nuclear weapons. Obama will do nothing about it. Pirates will continue to prey on shipping off the coast of Somalia. Obama will do nothing about it. He can’t see through that towel.

Thanks for listening.

The Hitchhiker's Guide to Obama's Foreign Policy

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can’t be bothered.

One of Douglas Adams’ most delightful inventions in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy is the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal – a creature described as so mind bogglingly stupid that it believes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you either. Therefore, if you are attacked by one, the best thing you can do is to wrap your towel around your head.

I’m not sure how many of the folks in Hillary’s State Department are fans of Douglas Adams, but our new posture in regard to Islamic terrorism appears to be to wrap our towels around our heads. It was reported in the Washington Post last week that the Defense Department’s office of security review emailed Pentagon staff members to say that “this administration prefers to avoid using the term ‘Long War’ or ‘Global War on Terror’ [GWOT.] Please use ‘Overseas Contingency Operation.’”

In a related matter, Janet Napolitano, the new head of Homeland Security – you know, the agency that was created specifically to keep us safe from terrorist attacks – is now referring to these incidents as “man-caused disasters.”

Representative Lamar Smith of San Antonio, the ranking Republican on the House Judiciary Committee, observed that it made about as much sense as referring to Mexican drug cartels as “recreational pharmacists,” to North Korea as a “gated community,” or to terrorist training camps as “desert day spas.” But then Representative Smith is another one of those goofy Texans – you know, like Ross Perot, who observed that at his company, EDS, “when you see a snake you kill it” (unlike GM, where, “when you see a snake, first you seek out the best consultants on snakes. Then you appoint a committee on snakes. And then you study snakes for a year or two.”).

Unfortunately, the Obama administration has gone even farther than GM – they appear to believe that if you call a snake a puppy, it will wag its tail and lick your hand. Talk about mind bogglingly stupid. And, no, this isn’t an April Fool’s joke. I only wish it was.

Thanks for listening.

I Have A Dream...

Greetings from the Left Coast, where we here at Left Coast Blues do the heavy thinking for those who just can't be bothered.

I have a dream, ladies and gentlemen. A dream in which a credible Republican leader (and, yes, I realize that "credible Republican leader" is unfortunately an oxymoron at the moment) says to Barack Obama what Daniel Hannan is saying to Prime Minister Gordon Brown. Give a listen, and mentally replace "Mr. Prime Minister" with "Mr. President," and the references to Great Britain with references to the United States. I think you'll find that the meaning transfers pretty well.



Thanks for listening.