Reflections From a Murky Pond

I’m unsure, not if, but how quickly President Obama’s worldwide appeal will fade, eroded away by a combination of the truth of his agenda and the realities of leading a superpower in chaos-ridden world. One thing Obama has though is the continuing, globe spanning appeal of his 2008 campaign propaganda and slogans.

A plethora of individuals, groups, and corporations have jumped upon Obama’s campaign motto and his artwork for their latest advertising campaigns. It’s really quite the “new thing.” There are, and will continue to be some problems though.

Jihad, Yes We Can

Forget Pepsi Cola, Ikea, South West Airlines, and Ben & Jerry’s – and certainly forget about the Sweet Sasha and Marvelous Malia dolls briefly produced by Ty, inc. of Beanie Baby fame; the small but vicious army of attorneys hired by the White House can deal with the commercial uses of President Obama’s brand. President Obama has – or should have – much bigger concerns regarding brand management than a handful of corporations using his slogans.

Obama, a brand too far? When marketing any product, brand reach is critical… But so is brand management.

I’m guessing that having his slogans used by various insurrectionists, terrorists, insurgents, rioters, and other groups with anti-social intent might not do well for President Obama’s image during his already begun campaign for reelection in 2012. 😉

Finally, after years of NATO forces waging a running war against the Taliban and other terrorists in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere across the globe, the military commanders involved are finally ready to prosecute the war in an efficient and proven manner. NATO’s senior military commander, General Bantz John Craddock, has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers as enemy combatants.

NATO is finally fighting to win this war.

General Craddock understands that, in order to win the war against the Islamists and their jihadi terrorist cells, NATO has to do a lot more than just fight a long war of attrition against their forces.

BERLIN — NATO’s senior military commander has proposed that the alliance’s soldiers in Afghanistan shoot drug traffickers without waiting for proof of their involvement with the Taliban insurgency, according to a report in the online edition of Der Spiegel magazine.

The commander, Gen. John Craddock of the United States, floated the idea in a confidential letter on Jan. 5 to Gen. Egon Ramms, a German officer who heads the NATO command center responsible for Afghanistan, Spiegel Online reported Thursday.

General Craddock wrote that “it was no longer necessary to produce intelligence or other evidence that each particular drug trafficker or narcotics facility in Afghanistan meets the criteria of being a military objective,” the news magazine reported. A NATO official, speaking on condition of anonymity, confirmed the wording of the letter, and several NATO officials said publicly on Friday that no such orders had ever been given to NATO troops.

— Judy Dempsey
NY Times article, January 30, 2009

Yes! Finally! At least General Craddock knows that NATO has to destroy the infrastructure that the Taliban, Al-Qaeda, and the other terrorists use to fund and arm their organizations. A protracted engagement that attacks only the terrorists’ and insurgents’ – all too disposable – fighter will not win this war.

We didn’t win WW2 by just fighting troops in the field. We leveled the Nazis’ and Japan’s manufacturing capabilities. Allied bombing raids destroyed the factory districts – at a minimum – of dozens and dozens of Axis cities. That is to a large extent what gave the Allies their victory; we denied Hitler, Mussolini and Tojo the ability to effectively supply and arm their militaries.

The only functional difference between WW2 and the War on Terror, in this respect, is the nature of the enemies infrastructure. In WW2 the enemy were nations with heavy industry capabilities. In the War on Terror the enemy are bands of jihadis with little or no manufacturing capability but with access to large amounts of money from the international drug trade. In both cases, however, the enemy is dependent upon static resources and extended supply lines.

If NATO starts launching operations against the drug traffickers, we’ll break the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s supply lines. If NATO starts – finally – destroying the opium poppy fields in Afghanistan and Pakistan, we’ll destroy what passes for the Taliban and Al-Qaeda’s manufacturing capabilities. It will be a lot harder for these terrorists and insurgents to wage war or launch terror attacks against the civilians of the Civilized World if they can’t afford ammunition for their Kalashnikovs, grenades for the RPG-7s, and sundry other munitions and explosives.

Read the rest of this entry »

According to many pundits “bipartisanship” is one of the watch-words of America’s new administration. The Liberal media lauds President Obama for his attempts to be bipartisan and to involve the Republicans in current legislation efforts. This same Liberal media denounces those GOP members for refusing what has been reported as President Obama’s overtures of cooperation.

Of course the Liberal media isn’t well known for telling the unvarnished truth…

True bipartisanship would be an attempt to actually involve both the Democrats and the Republicans in the legislation creation process. This would necessarily involve compromises in the details of said legislation. So far there’s little objective evidence that such things have occurred.

President Obama’s definition of bipartisanship seems to be different from the norm. He spends a great deal of time speaking to Republicans, but not in an attempt to work out a means by which they can support his efforts. He seems to speak with them solely for the purpose of cajoling or coercing them into supporting current legislation as it has been written by his Liberals without input from any Conservatives.

Perhaps Harvard teaches a different language from American Standard English. It certainly seems that they teach Saul Alinski’s version of politics…

This behavior is more of an example of punitive adversarial politics than of bipartisanship. I can only conclude that President Obama, the Democrats, and his MSM outlets are labeling it as “bipartisanship” in an attempt to paint the GOP as being stubbornly obstinate and obstructionist.

It quite easy to see the correlation between this behavior and the behavior of any new regime that has taken power through a coup. The specific methods are different – there’s no blood in the streets – but the goals are the same, the purging of the previous administration and its supporters.

Some days are better than others. Any day when a Republican Senator remembers what he stands for and defies the will of a Liberal President such as Barack Obama irrespective of the cost to himself is one of the better days. Today was one of those days.

Senator Judd Gregg (R-NH) has withdrawn his Cabinet nomination as Secretary of Commerce because he couldn’t bring himself to serve America as the Secretary of Commerce in the wake of Obama’s, Pelosi’s, and Reid’s stimulus bill.

I want to thank the President for nominating me to serve in his Cabinet as Secretary of Commerce. This was a great honor, and I had felt that I could bring some views and ideas that would assist him in governing during this difficult time. I especially admire his willingness to reach across the aisle.

However, it has become apparent during this process that this will not work for me as I have found that on issues such as the stimulus package and the Census there are irresolvable conflicts for me. Prior to accepting this post, we had discussed these and other potential differences, but unfortunately we did not adequately focus on these concerns. We are functioning from a different set of views on many critical items of policy.

Obviously the President requires a team that is fully supportive of all his initiatives.

I greatly admire President Obama and know our country will benefit from his leadership, but at this time I must withdraw my name from consideration for this position.

As we move forward, I expect there will be many issues and initiatives where I can and will work to assure the success of the President’s proposals. This will certainly be a goal of mine.

Kathy and I also want to specifically thank Governor Lynch and Bonnie Newman for their friendship and assistance during this period. In addition we wish to thank all the people, especially in New Hampshire, who have been so kind and generous in their supportive comments.

As a further matter of clarification, nothing about the vetting process played any role in this decision. I will continue to represent the people of New Hampshire in the United States Senate.

— Sen. Judd Gregg
Via Real Clear Politics

Sen Gregg might have well as pimp smacked President Obama; that would have been an equally clear sign that Republicans aren’t going to sit idly by while Obama and his liberal, socialist cronies sell America down the river with their pork-laden spending bill that will leave our grandchildren indentured to the Chinese and other foreigners.

Various Liberal pundits, talking heads and the inevitable horde of raving liberal bloggers – in honesty, that last must be said as opposed to the raving conservative bloggers – will put forth all sorts of vile and selfish reasons for Senator Gregg’s recusing himself from the nomination for Secretary of Commerce. IMHO that is because they have little or no understanding of principles and principled behavior that is done at cost to ones’ self.

Somethings in law and politics are odd, but relatively meaningless or even absurd – vainglorious but useless gestures at best. Other things – small things harboring dark import – are very, very disturbing.  The current bit of news that has raised my hackles is word from Mississippi’s Lt. Governor, Phil Bryant that the Mississippi state senate quietly passed Senate Bill 2036 (SB2036)  that restricts the power of a peace officer to confiscate firearms and ammunitions in an emergency or during a time of martial law.

There’s nothing within the text of SB2036 that bothers me at all. It’s a fine piece of legislation that is designed to place limits on the discretionary powers of law enforcement that might conflict with Mississippians’ rights under the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. What sets off visceral warnings in the back of my mind is the fact that the State government of Mississippi felt the need to draft legislation to explicitly grant these protections during a time of martial law.

Coming, as this did, so soon after seven (7) States – Arizona, Hawaii, Montana, Missouri, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington) have introduce Sovereignty Bills into their respective state legislatures, SB2036 takes on a more dire tone.

Add to it that Alaska, Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Nevada, Maine and Pennsylvania are working on similar sovereignty bills, and Mississippi’s perceiving the need to protect the right of the people to keep and bear arms under martial law  starts to paint a disturbing picture of what the various state governments might be expecting over the next few years.

When state governments start enacting legislation to protect themselves and their citizenry from the actions of the federal government, it’s a sure sign that hard and bitter times are nearing. I’m not talking about civil war – though that’s not a completely fantastical possibility – but I am talking about possibly viscious conflicts over just how far the US federal governent is allowed to go against the will of the states and the people.