Random Thoughts on the Cult of Personality in Pyongyang and Washington

Obama Spoof in Tones of King James Bible



Funny North Korean Commercial


Kim Il Sung Tribute





The National Black Republican Association has thankfully put me on their e-mail list. They sent me a you tube video in which footage of Barack Hussein Obama was narrated with a stilted tone of adulation that evoked memories of the King James New Testament. The video was produced in Britain, giving lie to the impression created that the Europeans unanimously worship Obama.
I juxtaposed a compilation of official North Korean propaganda extolling Kim Il Sung. The video paints a portrait of the mind numbing personality cult created in North Korea, the only communist dynasty in the entire world.
There are different approaches to democracy. One approach is to vote for ideology and party. The other approach is to focus on individuals. I have heard more than once the statement that "I vote for the man, not the party". A system can make or break an individual. It is a matter of record how collective farms lagged behind private agricultural enterprises. Tanzania, for instance found that under Julius Nyerere that a socialist approach did not blend well with Tanzanian traditions. In Russia today the overthrow of communism has unleashed a lot of creative energy. Unfortunately, the blessings of prosperity have been unevenly distributed. Those who were well connected under communism have a competitive advantage not shared by common folk.
I strongly believe that Barack Obama would be an unmitigated disaster for the United States and the world. The indifference of the mainstream media to the reservations of millions about an Obama presidency is driving millions to talk radio and into the blogosphere.
Despite this, McCain will need critics when he becomes president. Although he is unapologetic about America's role as a world power, he is far more equivocal about defending our borders. His support of "campaign reform" in cosponsoring the McCain Feingold legislation regulating campaign spending came back to haunt him when he found his own campaign shackled by the same rules he had pushed into the federal law books. McCain will need not only our support but our constructive criticism. Unfortunately, the role of the opposition in American politics has degenerated into naked obstructionism, of trying to undercut the chief executive at every turn.
McCain has been accused of being abrasive and insensitive. New York had an" abrasive" and" insensitive" mayor who presided over a two thirds drop in the murder rate. Giuliani's successor has seen a rise in crime and a drop in second hand smoke as well as trans fat. America is not electing a drinking buddy. It is electing a president. All of the countries that complain about America being the world's policeman are only angry that the sheriff's badge is pinned on the wrong chest.
When you are buying a used car, you kick the tires, lift the hood and check the body for rot.Voting for Obama without proper investigation is like buying a used car from a catalogue without even taking it for a drive. The mainstream media has insulated Obama from criticism. Now that he has sheltered himself from unrehearsed questions, they are starting to tire of him.(Read background story on 'Yid With Lid' It is good that the big networks are tired of being treated the same way they treat us. It's about time.

Is There a Pro Obama Bias in The Media?

McCain Campaign Video about media bias Ukrainian famine video
John McCain is understandably upset about the New York Times rejecting his rebuttal to a column written by Barack H. Obama and published in the New York Times earlier. McCain claimed that the objections of the editor went well beyond style and were an attempt to substantially alter statements of opinion.
Those who want to read the rebuttal had to go to drudgereport.com.
McCain has every right to be angry at the New York Times for their coverage of his campaign. Mr. McCain should know, however that he is in good company. During World War Two, the New York Times buried its Holocaust Coverage inside the paper, well away from page one . Of 24,000 front page stories between 1939 and 1945, only twenty six stories dealt with the Holocaust. Of those, only six stories mentioned the focus of liquidation efforts on Jews.
Its infamous coverage of the Ukrainian famine in the early thirties went well beyond downplaying or even neglecting the story. Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer Prize for himself and undeserved prestige for the New York Times for filing glowing reports of the success of forced collectivisation in the Ukraine. As the readers of the New York Times read about joy in socialist paradise, a man made famine was sweeping across the Ukraine. Unreported were instances of people eating dogs, cats and squirrels. Actual cannibalism, documented by those with no political agenda went unreported in the New York Times.
The damage inflicted upon doomed Jews and Ukrainians by the editors of the New York Times is incalculable. Newspapers around the country and around the world look to the New York Times for guidance in prioritising their international news. A decision to shine a spotlight on a government's atrocities can save lives . Countries concerned about their image abroad sometimes respond to negative publicity. The worst thing that can happen to a group targeted with genocide is to have a major news outlet lead a coverup. This is exactly what happened to the Ukrainians. George Bernard Shaw and Walter Duranty are a few of may who because of bribery or ideological blindness denied the existence of a famine in the Ukraine. Malcolm Muggeridge and a few other brave journalists kept the world informed at great risk to themselves. In 1932-1933, millions died. Estimates range from 2.5 million souls to as many as ten million. In a country where for years it was hard to even get a telephone book, it is difficult to reconstruct details from official records. The democratic government of Ukraine has no interest in covering up this dark chapter in its history. The millions killed are finally getting their belated recognition.
The market economy in America is inflicting serious blows upon periodicals and broadcast outlets that slant and falsify the news. The New York Times as seen its circulation plummet.
Biased papers such as the New York Times are going the way of collective farms and five year plans. The internet and talk radio are viewed with fear and contempt by the ditzerati of the liberal media . McCain should not worry about being denied space in the New York Times. Its once lofty platform sinks deeper by the day into the swamp of public indifference. Their bias against him has generated far more interest in his rejected article than if they would have printed it. The public is well aware that reporters frequently bring a personal bias to news reporting. Today, the public is more skeptical than ever before. And in the age of the internet , we have choices.
Don't worry, Senator McCain. Help is on the way.
Ukrainian Genocide video

Wikipedia article on Ukrainian Genocide


New York Times Profits Drop 82%

McCain article that was rejected by the New York Times and Drudge Report commentary

The DRUDGE REPORT presents the McCain editorial in its submitted form:

In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80% to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. "I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse."

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Perhaps he is unaware that the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad has recently certified that, as one news article put it, “Iraq has met all but three of 18 original benchmarks set by Congress last year to measure security, political and economic progress.” Even more heartening has been progress that’s not measured by the benchmarks. More than 90,000 Iraqis, many of them Sunnis who once fought against the government, have signed up as Sons of Iraq to fight against the terrorists. Nor do they measure Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki’s new-found willingness to crack down on Shiite extremists in Basra and Sadr City—actions that have done much to dispel suspicions of sectarianism.

The success of the surge has not changed Senator Obama’s determination to pull out all of our combat troops. All that has changed is his rationale. In a New York Times op-ed and a speech this week, he offered his “plan for Iraq” in advance of his first “fact finding” trip to that country in more than three years. It consisted of the same old proposal to pull all of our troops out within 16 months. In 2007 he wanted to withdraw because he thought the war was lost. If we had taken his advice, it would have been. Now he wants to withdraw because he thinks Iraqis no longer need our assistance.

To make this point, he mangles the evidence. He makes it sound as if Prime Minister Maliki has endorsed the Obama timetable, when all he has said is that he would like a plan for the eventual withdrawal of U.S. troops at some unspecified point in the future.

Senator Obama is also misleading on the Iraqi military's readiness. The Iraqi Army will be equipped and trained by the middle of next year, but this does not, as Senator Obama suggests, mean that they will then be ready to secure their country without a good deal of help. The Iraqi Air Force, for one, still lags behind, and no modern army can operate without air cover. The Iraqis are also still learning how to conduct planning, logistics, command and control, communications, and other complicated functions needed to support frontline troops.

No one favors a permanent U.S. presence, as Senator Obama charges. A partial withdrawal has already occurred with the departure of five “surge” brigades, and more withdrawals can take place as the security situation improves. As we draw down in Iraq, we can beef up our presence on other battlefields, such as Afghanistan, without fear of leaving a failed state behind. I have said that I expect to welcome home most of our troops from Iraq by the end of my first term in office, in 2013.

But I have also said that any draw-downs must be based on a realistic assessment of conditions on the ground, not on an artificial timetable crafted for domestic political reasons. This is the crux of my disagreement with Senator Obama.

Senator Obama has said that he would consult our commanders on the ground and Iraqi leaders, but he did no such thing before releasing his “plan for Iraq.” Perhaps that’s because he doesn’t want to hear what they have to say. During the course of eight visits to Iraq, I have heard many times from our troops what Major General Jeffrey Hammond, commander of coalition forces in Baghdad, recently said: that leaving based on a timetable would be “very dangerous.”

The danger is that extremists supported by Al Qaeda and Iran could stage a comeback, as they have in the past when we’ve had too few troops in Iraq. Senator Obama seems to have learned nothing from recent history. I find it ironic that he is emulating the worst mistake of the Bush administration by waving the “Mission Accomplished” banner prematurely.

I am also dismayed that he never talks about winning the war—only of ending it. But if we don’t win the war, our enemies will. A triumph for the terrorists would be a disaster for us. That is something I will not allow to happen as president. Instead I will continue implementing a proven counterinsurgency strategy not only in Iraq but also in Afghanistan with the goal of creating stable, secure, self-sustaining democratic allies.

Young Voters Reportedly Anxious About McCain's Age

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean stated in a press conference that he would not bring up voter concerns about John McCain's age during the presidential campaign, making an exception for the Thursday press conference at which he commented at length on McCain's age and "old fashioned views".
McCain's views on birth control and abstinence education were cited as a cause for concern among focus groups.
I have always chuckled at the label of being "old fashioned". The wild parties in the waning days of the Roman empire rivaled any of the parties in private clubs and bath houses today. Should one assume that an opium den of the mid nineteenth century is "old fashioned because it existed a hundred fifty years ago?
Those who support a scripturally based family have differed with advocates of "alternative lifestyles for centuries. Both McCain and his opponents differ on these issues in same manner as have scores of preceding generations. An embargo on dismissive labels such as "liberal" and "old fashioned would elevate considerably the quality of political discourse.
I think that age is an asset. An older person has memories of history that were the headlines and current events of his youth. The way events and political figures are viewed in posterity often differs with how they are perceived in their time. In Judaism as well as in Chinese tradition, the white hair of old age is looked at as a badge of authority. It is in this light that I view John McCain.
Opposition to abstinence education, support for abortion and prohibitions against government support for private schools and prayer in public schools are all part of the secular canon that is fiercely defended by those who control the Democratic party. Looking at the tone of McCain's views, I feel that the parameters of public discussion would get a welcome revision under a McCain administration. I view the prospect of a McCain appointment to the Supreme Court with far less apprehension than a Clinton or Obama nominee.
It is true that the Democratic Party has produced a far more youthful crop of nominees than has the Republican Party. I believe that this is because the wisdom of old age is far more favourably disposed to the Republican philosophy than is the agenda of the Democrats. Howard Dean has done a good job of calling to public attention John McCain's assets in seeking public office. For this I thank him.
Copyright 2008 by Magdeburger Joe
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/TheNote/story?id=3105455&page=1