Tuesday, June 30, 2009
The part in the spotlight is the part where there is extensive rationing of health care for senior citizens.
In his own words: "...health-care reform will not be pain free. Seniors should be more accepting of the conditions that come with age instead of treating them."
As a senior, then, I should ignore my heart condition, ignore my hip pain, ignore my blown out knee, ignore my gout, ignore my edema and ignore my insomnia. Just live with it, or not, as the case may be.
I don't think I like Tom Daschle any more.
Come to think of it...I never did to begin with.
In England, anyone over 59 cannot receive heart repairs or stents or bypass surgery because those procedures are not covered by GB's wonderful socialized system of medicine.
If that had been so this past year in the U.S., you would not have to be reading this right-wing-extremist blog.
I have had 5 heart stents implanted over the last year, and would have died without them.
Maybe Canada's system of health care would be a better choice.
Consider the actress, Natasha Richardson.
She died after a skiing fall while in Canada.
In the U.S., Natasha would have been med-flighted to a hospital in 30 or 40 minutes.
In Canada, her ambulance ride to the nearest hospital took almost 8 hours.
Is it possible that if Ms Richardson had had her accident in this country (where the liberals claim we have the sorriest health care in the free world...as well as the not so free [read: Cuba] world), that she might have survived?
I can't say for certain, but I'd put a 30 minute helicopter ride above an 8 hour ambulance ride any day of the week and twice on Sundays.
Remember, our esteemed Senators and Congressmen have their own health care plan that is a Rolls Royce of a system and which they are guaranteed for the remainder of their lives.
Furthermore, they would not be subject to President BO's suggested national health care plan.
And they don't even work for a living.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Acid rain was going to ruin the woodlands and wetlands around the world.
The world was coming to an end because of acid rain.
Acid rain was caused mostly by us filthy Americans pouring pollutants into our fragile atmosphere (never mind that the atmosphere is not only not fragile, but that "acid rain" is actually part of its cleansing activity).
"Scientific" study after "scientific" study proved that we were totally doomed because of acid rain.
We learn from such experts as thinkquest dot org (I did it that way so as NOT to provide you with a link...but you can still type that in your URL address box and get there), that "The invisible gases that cause acid rain usually come from automobiles or coal-burning power plants."
AND we also find out that there are more natural causes of acid rain than there are human causes.
Later that self-same set of "experts" tell us that "In Third World nations..., acid rain tends to be very high."
Now, do Third World nations have more or fewer automobiles and coal-burning power plants than we do here in the U.S.A.?
So...what have you been hearing about acid rain lately?
Now I use this example to make a point about something that seems totally unrelated: Cap and Trade, which is really not unrelated at all.
With Congress' passing of Cap and Trade legislation comes "economic incentives for achieving reductions in the emissions of global pollutants."
The theory is that some central agency (federal or international - think UN) sets a CAP on the amount of a pollutant that can be emitted.
Companies or other groups are issued emission permits and are required to hold an equivalent number of allowances that represent the right to emit a specific amount.
The total amount of allowances and credits cannot exceed the CAP, Companies that need to increase their emission allowance must buy credits from those who pollute less.
The transfer of allowances is referred to as a TRADE.
The buyer pays a TAX for polluting, why the seller gets a TAX BREAK or even a REBATE.
All of this is the government's idea of the FIX for global warming (and maybe acid rain, too...although acid rain seems no longer to be a problem, since we never read about it in the MSM any more).
Meanwhile, the planet is not getting warmer. According to some very confused scientists, it is now cooling down.
So in the end, the government will be extracting a TAX on you (what...you think a business that has to pay a Cap and Trade TAX is just going to absorb it?), to fix a problem that has already fixed itself.
Tell me again...why are you surprised?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
THIS JUST IN FROM THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF CONGRESS AND THE UNITED STATES SENATE:
In a joint meeting before every reporter stationed in Washington D.C., the leaders of both houses held a press conference at which they announced:
The members of both the House and the Senate have agreed to dispose of their present taxpayer provided health insurance policies, with all of their special provisions for both routine and catastrophic health coverage, in favor of President BO's proposed Public Option plan.
They have done so in order to demonstrate to the American people their good faith in presenting such a plan and to assure the American people that it is a plan that will meet the needs of every American who wants to avail himself/herself of the plan, including all of the members of both the House and the Senate.
In an unprecedented move, the lawmakers showed unanimous solidarity in accepting the very plan they put forth for the American people.
"This is a great day for the health needs of ALL Americans, whether in public or private service," one unidentified Congresswoman was heard to proclaim.
"Here! Here!" responded a Senator.
Note: The preceding announcement is an absolute fabrication and bears no relationship to truth in any way, shape or form.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
President BO referred to the so-called "Public Option."
"...As one of those options, for us to be able to say, here's a public option that's not profit-driven, that can keep down administrative costs, and that provides you good, quality care for a reasonable price as one of the options for you to choose, I think that makes sense."
QUESTION: "Wouldn't that drive private insurance out of business?"
MR. OBAMA: "Why would it drive private insurance out of business? If -- if private -- if private insurers say that the marketplace provides the best quality health care; if they tell us that they're offering a good deal, then why is it that the government, which they say can't run anything, suddenly is going to drive them out of business? That's not logical."
Are you intelligent enough to understand what he tried to slip by you in that statement?
In his very carefully crafted snide way, President BO compared a non-profit plan with the for-profit plans offered by insurance companies.
Now even I can get that a for-profit company cannot effectively compete, product-for-product with a non-profit company, particularly one subsidized by tax dollars.
Yet many of you will fall for that idea.
President BO was forcing into the conversation the ideas that there is something intrinsically wrong with a profit making enterprise by suggesting that their contention that they should be able to compete if they are ideologically correct, and that they are idiots for believing that the government can't run anything.
The evidence demonstrates that indeed the government does NOT know how to run things.
From Amtrack to the Women's Bureau, when the government runs the entity, it is the essence of inefficiency, cost overrun and waste.
But, of course, that will not be the case with government Public Option health care, because...well, just because President BO says so.
To help you understand, suppose you run a business that costs you $1.00 to produce the product, $1.00 to land the product, $1.00 to pay taxes, utilities and rent and $3.00 to pay your employees.
It costs you $6.00 to get that product to the customer.
If you sell it for $7.50 your business makes $1.50 for its stockholders and others to divide up as a reward for the risk they took investing in your business.
Then suppose a "non-profit" business comes along with the same product and does not pay the taxes, pays no rent, and does not have to pay anything to investors, therefore can ready the product for market for only $3.50.
Clearly they can sell the product for $3.50 or anything under the $7.50 you have to sell it for, because they do not have to make a profit.
Furthermore, they have unlimited financial resources that you don't have, because they can simply confiscate what money they need from the "customers" at will.
How would you feel about the non-profit "company" horning in on your business?
Would you just chalk it up to market competition?
Would you just say, "Oh, well," close up shop and slink away?
Would you choose to stay in business, losing "market share" with every passing moment because the same product is so much cheaper for the customer to buy from the non-profit?
At how many dollars in losses would you decide that you couldn't make a go of it in that business?
Yet President has persuaded millions that that is a good thing for the government to do when it comes to insurance companies and health care.
How does he DO that?
..to listen to his son whine about being bored.
....to keep a straight face when people complain about potholes.
to be tolerant of people who complain about the hassle of getting ready for work.
...to be understanding when a co-worker complains about a bad night's sleep.
..to be silent when people pray to God for a new car.
...to control his panic when his wife tells him he needs to drive slower.
..to be compassionate when a businessman expresses a fear of flying.
....to keep from laughing when anxious parents say they're afraid to send their kids off to summer camp.
....to keep from ridiculing someone who complains about hot weather.
....to control his frustration when a colleague gripes about his coffee being cold.
....to remain calm when his daughter complains about having to walk the dog.
.....to be civil to people who complain about their jobs.
....to just walk away when someone says they only get two weeks of vacation a year.
....to be forgiving when someone says how hard it is to have a new baby in the house.
The only thing harder than being a Soldier..
Monday, June 22, 2009
DO YOU KNOW WHO AUTHORED THE FOLLOWING QUOTES?
If you do, name them.
With which of them do you agree?
With which do you disagree?
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Man is not free unless government is limited.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.
Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.
We can't help everyone, but everyone can help someone.
We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
We should measure welfare's success by how many people leave welfare, not by how many are added.
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
Without God, democracy will not and cannot long endure.
All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
So I hereby issue a challenge to all liberals and those who think the starboard (right - the opposite of the title joke...get it?) is petty.
Make me a list of the things you made fun of about President George W. Bush.
Just one rule (besides the general rules of this blog---see right): be honest. (That means don't pretend it didn't happen, and don't say you didn't when you did.)
Remember: the truth is not what you say happened; the truth is what actually happened.
You can start with his name (Dubya), his accent or wherever you want to start, but see if you can come up with six things.
If you are a conservative, you can list the things you remember the left making fun of about President Bush (2).
Try not to duplicate someone else's list.
(Why do I have this feeling that no liberal thinks he/she ever made fun of Bush without cause, while the same people think any fun made of President BO is without cause? Hmmmm?)
Thursday, June 18, 2009
There are two basic kinds of businesses in this world: For Profit and Non-Profit (There is also a subtly different Not-For-Profit).
In a Non-Profit business, the business entity is not expected to make a profit.
That seems obvious, but what does it mean?
A Non-Profit business is a group, often a corporation, organized for purposes other than generating profits; for example, a charitable, educational, religious, or scientific organization. Certification by the IRS or Franchise Tax Board is a common attribute.
(Not-For-Profit businesses are very similar to Non-Profits. A Not-For-Profit is an organization that may or may not be a "business" in the sense that we usually think of one. It is one that channels any funds remaining after paying operating expenses back into programs and services rather than sharing profits with owners, shareholders and executives.)
A For-Profit business is one in which the total income or cash flow minus expenditures represents the value of the company to its owners and/or investors. Profit is the money or other benefit a non-governmental organization or individual receives in exchange for products and services sold at a given price.
A For-Profit business is not spooky.
Subtract from your incoming cash all of your business expenses and the difference is your profit.
Here is how you accomplish running a For-Profit business.
Find a product or service that people want.
Sell each unit of product or service for more than it's landed cost (the cost per unit of obtaining, displaying, maintaining and selling the product), and voila! You have a profit.
I have never heard of anyone going into business for any reason other than to make a profit (and here I am not talking about altruistic endeavors like churches, food banks, educational entities, etc.).
For-Profit business, in and of itself, is not evil. Dan Cathy, current CEO of Chick-Fil-A, spends millions of company income on education and other community and national endeavors, tons of bucks on its employees, is closed on Sundays and still makes a very handsome profit...one that keeps its family and investors very happy.
But what happens when the government decides to run a business, as ours has General Motors?
First of all, by law the government cannot make a profit.
Since is is supposed to represent the citizenry, the government goes to great lengths to ensure that it is getting the best value for taxpayer money that it can.
That's the theory.
John Glenn was once asked whether he was nervous before blasting off into space. He replied, "Wouldn't you be nervous sitting atop a potential bomb each piece of which was put together by the low bidder in a government contract?"
In practice, the government often does not accept low bids if, among the bidders, there are those who have done favors for or who owe favors to members of Congress or the Executive branch.
But the government is still not supposed to make a profit on its endeavors.
Since it has no experience with, expertise in or history of running businesses, what makes them think they can run a financial institution or a production business?
Does the government intend to continue allowing General Motors to operate at a profit?
How does the government (read: President BO and Congress) think closing hundreds of dealerships helps save those 100,000 jobs it promised to save?
What about financial institutions?
Why will we trust the government to do for banks, insurance companies and investment houses what it cannot do for itself?
Have you seen the General Accounting Office reports lately?
The way government "leaders" think is, "If we are failing, all we have to do is more of what we're failing at and it is bound to turn around."
Pretty soon, the government will have to find more businesses to help fail. Otherwise, why would the government continue to exist?
Eventually, there will be no more businesses to kill.
We'll be singing:
"THERE'S NO BUSINESS LIKE NO BUSINESS"
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Obama to propose strict new regulation of financial industry
Michael Sohn / Associated Press
President Obama is expected to unveil a plan that would give the government new powers to seize key companies whose failure jeopardizes the financial system,...as well as creation of a watchdog agency to look out for consumers' interests.
Don't look now, but here it comes.
Forget Socialism...that's become a given.
Now we are hurdling down the hill at breakneck speed toward Despotism!
All the while, President BO and Associates are reassuring us, "Oh, no...we're not Socialists! We're just trying to help you poor slobs who can't take care of yourselves. Not to worry, we're doing all of this for your own good."
That's exactly what the Germans were told by Adolf Hitler; what the Italians were told by Mussolini, what the Russians were told by Stalin.
And now we're being told.
But we're not supposed to look beyond the rhetoric.
Hide your eyes!
Bury your heads in the sand or wherever else it is your custom to stick your head when you want to turn a blind eye to the truth.
Soon the government of the United States of America will own and/or control every aspect of your life, as they almost do already.
And you'll go merrily along saying, "What, me worry?"
Whatever you do...don't look as this happens.
No peeking now, while we become Peking (now known as Beijing).
Tuesday, June 16, 2009
Here is the text of his apology.
"All right, here - I've been thinking about this situation with Governor Palin and her family now for about a week - it was a week ago tonight, and maybe you know about it, maybe you don't know about it. But there was a joke that I told, and I thought I was telling it about the older daughter being at Yankee Stadium. And it was kind of a coarse joke. There's no getting around it, but I never thought it was anybody other than the older daughter, and before the show, I checked to make sure in fact that she is of legal age, 18. Yeah. But the joke really, in and of itself, can't be defended. The next day, people are outraged. They're angry at me because they said, 'How could you make a lousy joke like that about the 14-year-old girl who was at the ball game?' And I had, honestly, no idea that the 14-year-old girl, I had no idea that anybody was at the ball game except the Governor and I was told at the time she was there with Rudy Giuliani...And I really should have made the joke about Rudy..." (audience applauds) "But I didn't, and now people are getting angry and they're saying, 'Well, how can you say something like that about a 14-year-old girl, and does that make you feel good to make those horrible jokes about a kid who's completely innocent, minding her own business,' and, turns out, she was at the ball game. I had no idea she was there. So she's now at the ball game and people think that I made the joke about her. And, but still, I'm wondering, 'Well, what can I do to help people understand that I would never make a joke like this?' I've never made jokes like this as long as we've been on the air, 30 long years, and you can't really be doing jokes like that. And I understand, of course, why people are upset. I would be upset myself.
"And then I was watching the Jim Lehrer 'News Hour' - this commentator, the columnist Mark Shields, was talking about how I had made this indefensible joke about the 14-year-old girl, and I thought, 'Oh, boy, now I'm beginning to understand what the problem is here. It's the perception rather than the intent.' It doesn't make any difference what my intent was, it's the perception. And, as they say about jokes, if you have to explain the joke, it's not a very good joke. And I'm certainly - " (audience applause) "- thank you. Well, my responsibility - I take full blame for that. I told a bad joke. I told a joke that was beyond flawed, and my intent is completely meaningless compared to the perception. And since it was a joke I told, I feel that I need to do the right thing here and apologize for having told that joke. It's not your fault that it was misunderstood, it's my fault. That it was misunderstood." (audience applauds) "Thank you. So I would like to apologize, especially to the two daughters involved, Bristol and Willow, and also to the Governor and her family and everybody else who was outraged by the joke. I'm sorry about it and I'll try to do better in the future. Thank you very much." (audience applause).
When I originally wrote about this "joke," I said, "Jokes about raping a 14-year-old are despicable, not funny.If you are a liberal, and you can't understand that, you are the poster-child for the rank sociological ignorance of liberalism in today's society."
As if to prove my point, several liberals wrote in my "comments" section about how they did not understand the hoopla.
A couple of the comments were so offensively written that I deleted them. (There is no freedom of speech on my blog...the First Amendment is about the government, not about blogging.)
I left a couple on, though, to show that there are people who really and truly don't get it.
Now why do you suppose Letterman issued the "apology?"
After all, didn't the statement he made last week take care of it?
That's the way liberals think.
All one has to do is make some sort of reference to the perceived offense, and everything will be OK.
Look at his apology.
Truth is, although he used the word "apologize" in his statement, there is no way what he said is an apology for his "joke."
What he is sorry for, according to his own words, is that his "joke" was mis-perceived. What people should have paid attention to was his intent.
That's straight out of the liberal text book.
What matters is not whether the action (whether by the government or by some half-baked, self-described comedian) does good or harm...what matters is intent.
We MEAN for the government to take over GM and/or Chrysler to be a good thing, therefore we should not be responsible for unintended consequences, like: instead of "saving" tens-of-thousands of jobs, actually causing thousands more to be lost. Who could have seen THAT coming?
Letterman also tried to deflect anger at his comment by making us think he was referring to Palin's older daughter.
Well, if that's the case, he is stupider than I thought.
There was no context to indicate that the "joke" was about her, not the fourteen year old.
So, what if the "joke" had been directed at the older daughter?
In your mind, would that have made it OK?
So it's OK to joke about someone being "knocked up" clandestinely during the seventh inning if that person is an adult?
I guess we'll have to wait until Letterman's daughter is all grown up to find out whether he ever gets it.
If he lives that long.
He's pretty long of tooth to raise a child now, having been born in 1947.
I did not see his "real" apology on TV, I read it today, for I no longer check in on the Letterman show.
Do you suppose that the ratings slip to just a half point above The Tonight Show with Conan O'Brian had anything to do with Dave's "more earnest" apology?
Could it be that there was a fear at CBS that his "joke" might start to affect advertising revenue?
Friday, June 12, 2009
The more I think about it, the more I realize that he was NOT being a COMEDIAN, but was lashing out in typical liberal vile against someone he does not like.
That's OK to do if you lash out at the right people.
The second thing is, I really need some conservative guidance here.
My wife had two carpal tunnel surgeries about eight years ago, one of which we are still paying for.
Her carpal tunnel problems have returned in one wrist to the point that she cannot even hold an empty coffee cup.
Now, my pay has been cut to one-fourth of what it was, my employer provides no health insurance, we are living off of a dwindling savings and a small Social Security income and cannot afford medical coverage.
The question is, how do we go about getting her the relief she needs from this very painful condition.
We can't go to the emergency room, because carpal tunnel syndrome is not an emergency.
Not one local physician who deals with carpal tunnel will take her on because we cannot demonstrate need, based on what is left of our savings, and because we still are paying on the last surgery.
She cannot get Medicaid, again because of our "excessive" savings (which, by the way, will last us about eight more months), and neither she nor I can get work that pays enough to satisfy the doctors that we will be able to pay for the surgery, she because she cannot function with but one hand, I because of my heart and severe arthritis in my right knee and hip.
I have no relatives who could lend us money for the surgery, nor who would if they could.
As you know, I detest the present degree of government involvement in our lives, and surely don't want them to have more.
Yet I am stuck with this dilemma.
In your opinion, what are our options and how do we go about fulfilling them?
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
CBS's David Letterman can make a joke about Alaska Governor and former Vice Presidential nominee, Sarah Palin's daughter getting "knocked up" by Yankee, Alex Rodriguez, and that's funny.
Did I get that right?
Well, today I heard a nationally syndicated talk show host (you know...the one with 20 million listeners), tell about the similarity between President BO and God.
Neither of them has a birth certificate.
Is that funny? Why or why not?
Or how about the difference between President BO and God?
God doesn't think He's President BO.
Or maybe: God only requires 10 percent.
In my mind, Letterman was vicious, mean spirited, tasteless, insensitive and constituted unsportsmanlike conduct.
That's something no liberal would EVER let a conservative get away with being, but would see as perfectly alright for he/she, himself/herself to be.
Now, don't go getting all pontificatory on me.
Contrary to the popular "religious legalistic" point of view, making humor with or about God, in good taste and with obvious tongue-in-cheek, is not sacrilege.
But none of those "jokes" about the comparison of President BO with God are vicious toward either party, nor are they intended to be hurtful to either one, they are playing on the popular (among conservatives, anyway) idea that President BO has been thought of by some as messianic.
The Palin thing (where Letterman also referred to her as having a "...slutty flight attendant look...") is intrinsically hurtful, and all those other things I listed above.
Jokes about raping a 14-year-old are despicable, not funny.
If you are a liberal, and you can't understand that, you are the poster-child for the rank sociological ignorance of liberalism in today's society.
If you are a liberal and you think Letterman's top-ten list on Palin was funny, you stupidly miss the point of what real humor is about.
Don't give me that "satire" jazz. Satire is not ridicule, it is mis-direction.
Gulliver's Travels was satire.
David Letterman, like Saturday Night Live, is sophomoric ridicule...poorly done at that.
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
We've lived here since 1995, and had DSL since it became available. This is the first trouble we've had with it, so I guess we shouldn't complain too much.
It turns out that lightening struck our already corroded underground DSL lines and the whole junction box had to be replaced.
I'm sure hoping President BO recognizes our plight and provides a government take-over of Embarq.
Think about its efficiency after that!
Now let's see whether I can get back to posting on my blog.
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Commemorations are good...even important.
160,000 American and allied troops landed on the beaches that day, pushing back the Germain occupying forces.
It was one of the deadliest battles in world history. Revised figures now indicate that 4,414 men were left dead on the beaches of Normandy.
While in Europe, he also plans to visit the Buchenwald concentration camp, whose prisoners his GREAT UNCLE, Charles Payne helped liberate.
Watching the news, one of the anchors (I don't know which one, because they all said EXACTLY the same thing using the same phraseology) looked into the camera and said "...but this time it's personal. President Obama's Great Uncle helped liberate..."
Don't miss my point, here. I'm not complaining about President BO visiting either Normandy OR Buchenwald.
My exasperation is with the Mainstream Media's fawning over the event(s).
The glee and earnestness with which he reported the Great Uncleness of Charles Payne was WAY disproportionate to the significance of the event.
Lots of "D-Days" have come and gone. Lots of Presidents have visited Normandy (some even staging rock-laying events there. I won't mention any names, but the initials of the last one to do so are William Jefferson Clinton).
Slick Willie was classified 1-A on March 20, 1968, ordered to report for induction July 18, 1969, took the oath of enlistment August 7, 1969, but refused to report for duty.
There were other presidents and relatives of presidents who were in the military, landed at Normandy or helped liberate people from concentration camps. Some were fathers, others brothers, cousins, uncles...and probably a few other great uncles.
George H. W. Bush was a combat naval aviator.
James Earl Carter, Sr. served in WW I in the Quartermaster Corps.
Jimmie was in the Navy.
Captain Ronald Reagan served during WWII and later became a U.S. President.
Never has any of this EVER been magnified by the MSM as laudable, let alone of newsworthy significance.
There is a love affair between President BO and the MSM (now referred to as the Government Sponsored Media by certain very popular talk show hosts with around 20,000,000 listeners).
Whatever he does is tauted by willing accomplices in the press as perfect and fool-proof.
And as we all know, to President BO, family (like his African brother or half-brother, depending on who is telling the story) is everything.
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Currently there are more than 70 countries in the world that are ruled by dictators.
These despots hold authority over their citizens that is arbitrary and capricious.
They cannot be removed from power in their countries through legal means.
It is beyond the scope and purpose of this post to list all 70+ of them, but I would like to briefly highlight 20 of them.
I will list them alphabetically by country.
There is a point to this, so read on and learn.
Belarus: Aleksandr Lukashenko. Has eliminated democracy and free speech.
Burma: Than Shwe. Known for his use of forced labor.
Cameroon: Paul Biya. Credited with the most creative innovations in phony elections.
China: Hu Jintao. Known for abysmal human rights violations.
Cuba: Fidel Castro (via brother Raul): Has kept Cuba's economy in shreds.
Ethiopia and Eritrea: Isaias Afwerki and Meles Zenawi who teamed up to save their respective countries from Ethiopian dictator, Mengistu Haile Mariam, but who have presided over the killing of tens of thousands of their own people.
Equatorial Guinea: Teodoro Obiang Nguema. This West African millionaire 700 times over keeps his constituents to an average wage of less than $1.00 per day in an on-going family criminal conspiracy.
Iran: Seyed Ali Khamenei. Yeah...we hear about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but he has little power in the country. Above the elected government in Iran is an unelected 12-man Guardian Council of mullahs, headed by Ayatollah Khamenei.
Laos: Choummaly Sayasone. He heads a stultifyingly dull collective dictatorship.
Libya: Muammar al-Gaddafi. This pseudo peace-nic still runs a brutal dictatorship in which he maintains complete control over all aspects of Libyan life.
North Korea: Kim Jong-il. This clown, a very clever politician, domestically runs the most tightly controlled society in the world.
Pakistan: Pervez Musharraf. This supposed USA ally against Islamist terrorism, believes, "...the country is more important than democracy."
Saudi Arabia: King Abdullah. By law, all Saudi citizens must be Muslims. Abdullah's control over oil is all that keeps US and others from kicking him out...that and appeasement.
Sudan: Omar al-Bashir. Responsible for the killing of hundreds of thousands of people in Darfur and Sudan, which MSM calls a "humanitarian tragedy" instead of the genocide that it is.
Swaziland: King Mswati III. He allowed his country to slide into extreme poverty, with 69% of the Swazi people living on less than $1 a day. Swaziland has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the world: almost 40%.
Syria: Bashar al-Assad. Has made sure the people of Syria are not free to express their political opinions, much less choose their leaders.
Turkmenistan: Saparmurat Niyazov. What a case! This guy has created the world's most pervasive personality cult, and criticism of any of his policies is considered treason. Among the most bizarre recent examples of his government by whim are his banning of car radios, lip-synching, and the playing of recorded music on TV and at weddings. In 2005, Niyazov also closed all national parks and shut down rural libraries. He has also renamed the month of January after himself and April after his mother.
Uzbekistan: Islam Karimov. In 2005, he ordered the massacre of hundreds of his citizens.
Zimbabwe: Robert Mugabe. Mugabe has overseen the drop in life expectancy in Zimbabwe from sixty-two years to thirty-eight. With each year that has passed, he has turned increasingly dictatorial.
Most of these despots came to power with the promise of the government doing great and new things for the citizens.
With some, the take over was immediate and the results catastrophic.
With others, the situation evolved little-by-"government in control" little.
Their citizens looked forward to CHANGE and faced the future with HOPE.