Top 10 Worst Celebrity Dictator Endorsements (Part 1)

It seems to be happening more often these days, but history is replete with celebrities endorsing dictators  murderers and thugs, providing evidence that celebrity does not equate to intelligence or moral compass.  Here are the ten most egregious celebrity endorsements of dictators in the 20th and 21st centuries.  The definition of endorsement here is broad it includes deeds as well as words.  The ranking is based on a mix of three factors - the star power of the celebrities in question, the evilness of the endorsed dictator and the potential impact of the endorsement.

There are a few dishonorable mentions before we start with the list.  Hillary Swank and Jean Claude Van Damme attended a birthday bash held for Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-backed leader of Chechnya, responsible for torture, killings abductions and more by human rights groups.  Swank did later apologize but fell squarely in the camp of useful idiots at the time of the event.  Her apology was quickly accepted by the left, or at least at Huffington Post.  Useful idiots aren't as common as you think, and the left needs them. This doesn't make the list since attending the event was less an endorsement than just plain dumb.

Another dishonorable mention goes collectively to Beyonce, Usher, Mariah Carey, Nelly Furtado and 50 Cent for putting on a concert for the barbaric sons of the barbaric Libyan strongman Colonel Muammar Gaddafi and taking money for it.  They reportedly all agreed to donate the money to charity. Again, this is more a matter of not thinking through a situation rather than endorsing a dictator.  But to do business with someone so brutal and repressive, even through stupidity, is myopic and ill-informed.  In addition to donating the money, a clear no-brainer, condemning the leader would have been a courageous and meaningful distancing of themselves from the terrorist.

Dictator Watch - March 2013

It's been a long time since three's been a Dictator Watch post on Nonsensible Shoes and a lot has happened on that front since the last one.  Too much in fact, since time restrictions require that I combine the Dictator Watch with the Two word opinion format.

Hugo Chavez - Dead. Definite zombie.

Kim Jong Un - Insane and preparing for an offensive war against America. Not happening.

Mahmud Ahmedinejad - insane and proving it.  See above.

Vladimir Putin - investing in Syria just because he can. Prevent defense.

Predictably, Hugo Chavez 'wins'

Via The Daily Caller;

According to the Associated Press, Venezuela’s electoral council has declared that Hugo Chavez beat Henriques Capriles in Sunday’s presidential election with about 54 percent of the vote, despite exit polls showing otherwise.

Venezuela Twitter users have claimed Chavez’s victory was wrought with election fraud, and that the socialist incumbent president sent tanks into the streets of his country as those exit poll reports showed him losing. A picture of the tanks surfaced on Twitter Sunday evening.

The British Guardian newspaper reported that Chavez also sent troops armed with AK-47s into Venezuela’s streets to fight against any protests in case unrest came as a result of the news.

Dictator Watch - Aug 30, 2011

It's been a while since I've focused on foreign dictators in a Dictator Watch post.  Perhaps none have been so light-hearted as this one.  But that's just a result of the subject matter.  Hugo Chavez looks like John Candy.Vlad Putin looks like a latter day Nero, Assad looks lonely, and Qaddafi looks like...well Qaddafi, but on the run.

Dictator Watch - Chavez cancer edition

Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez is recovering in a Cuban hospital after cancer surgery.  In perhaps the most   ironic comments in Venezuelan history, the military told the people of Venezuela not to worry:

Venezuela's army chief said on Friday there is no threat to the nation's constitutional order as President Hugo Chavez's revelation of cancer surgery shakes the political system he has dominated since 1999.

No threat to the constitutional order is truly ironic in regards to the dictator who tried repeatedly to shred it before finally succeeding so that he could remain in power for life.  Venezuela's constitution has been in crisis since Chavez took power with the intention of keeping it forever.

Dictator Watch - March 22, 2011



Me, me ME!!!



Poor Hugo Chavez, he can't catch a break. But being the worker bee he is, he's willing to create his own.

Chavez, Obama's War and Code Pink

In case you missed it the U.S. has launched over 100 tomahawk missiles into Libya today.  It begs the question why this is different from what happen in Iran in 2009?  Why wasn't the Green Revolution supported like this?  Nevertheless, this is an overdue response.  Yet some responses are dependably ridiculous.

7.2 magnitude earthquake hits Ecuador

No word yet on injuries, deaths or damages.

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez has yet to make a public statement blaming America.

Ah, but there IS a consistency Ed!

Ed Morrissey at Hot Air has a column today in which he struggles to make sense of the lack of consistency coming out of the White House on the coup in Honduras versus the protests in Iran.

On the surface, he appears to be correct. The President is practically treating Iranian protesters as anathema, waiting seemingly forever before making a weak protestation against the violent suppression being employed by the government. On the other hand he wasted no time condemning the overthrow of the Mini-Chavez wannabe-be-President-for-life Zelaya.

But there's an underlying consistency to be sure. Zelayawanted totalitarian power and lost it. Obama criticized the coup. Ahmedinejad and Khameni want total power and are struggling to keep it. Obama is trying to stay hands off as much as he can get away with.

The consistency? Supporting fascism. In each case the President is on the side of the ruling class. In the case of Iran he's playing wait-and-see on the open invite to Ahmedinejad. He has no choice. The suppression is to brutal and too public for him to do otherwise. But make no mistake, Obama does not see the followers of Mousavi, the youth of the nation, those having hope and wanting change, the way he sees his own supporters. If he did, he would have been all over the election results and subsequent farce of an investigation and then violence.

The motive for him to side with the ruling class? Firstly, he's now one of them. And Obama wants more centralized power for himself too. He says he doesn't but his actions betray his rhetoric. GM, Chrysler, the banks, firing IG's without consulting Congress are but a few obvious examples of his actions being autocratic.

He seemingly believes in government by an elite few. Clearly he also has an anti-capitalism bent which caused him to rush to judgment on Zelaya and end up on the same side as Chavez. Ironically in each case Honduras, Iran and America, the situation is combining the precepts of fascism (centralized power) with socialism (government ownership or dictate of the economy) - a concept tried to dramatic and horrific results in 1930's and 40's Germany.

The point though is that there IS a consistency out of the White House, you just have to look behind the obvious inconsistencies to find it. The consistency is not in the actions but rather the motivations.

Addendum: was it a coup? Yes, for the reason Ed gives about whisking the President out of the country. Was it for the right reasons? Yes. Should the US be against it or support it? Tricky.

As conservatives we always try to argue logic over emotion, thinking over feeling, so this is a tricky one for us. We also support the rule of law. Based on that alone, the coup therefore was illegal. The remediation would be for the army to look to the Congress or supreme court for direction. But what happens next in Honduras is unclear.

The other side of the argument is that Zelaya's actions were illegal too. For Obama it came down to like versus dislike. For conservatives it comes down to this - Honduras will not fall into a socialist/fascist style government like Venezuela. That's good. I think we have to quietly cheer for an outcome of a return to democracy in Honduras. The coup while unfortunate was necessary - if ever the Domino Theory had legs it is in the case of South America. Yes, we'd be siding with an illegal act, yes we'd be inconsistent with some of our principles. But this is a case of the other side being dirty (Zelaya copying Chavez) and consistent (Obama tacitly or overtly backing anti-democratic players). If we can't get a little dirty in foreign affairs then where does that leave us? It leaves America as a nation more vulnerable, and it leaves conservatives unable to compete with a Democratic machine.

But loosening our moral certitude to be able to fight injustice, foreign or domestic, is a slippery slope. There are no easy answers.

Consistency on Honduras

In Honduras the military has overthrown the President of the country Manuel Zelaya, who was trying to get a non-binding referendum to change the Constitution of that country to allow him to run for President again beyond his four year term. The Congress, the judiciary and the army in that country.

Castro and Chavez have sided with Zelaya, Chavez going so far as to say he would not let it stand, saying "We cannot allow a return to the past. We will not permit it."

In an effort to remain consistent, one would expect that President Obama would, while not recognizing the coup, at least recognize that trying to thwart the will of the people as expressed by apparently everyone else in government, Zelaya should not be supported. Just like he is expressing a desire for democracy in Iran.

Furthermore, President Obama, obviously against interventionism (as is the case in Iran, and Iraq), should denounce the pronouncement by Hugo Chavez that caries an ominous air of interventionism.

So far though,the President only has only decided to not recognize the coup as democratic...the problem it appears, is that pretzel logic gets more difficult the more you use it.

How To Fake An Electoral Victory

Ahmadinejad clearly has got a lot to learn about how to stage an electoral victory. If you are going to fake an election, you can't just go old school like the Soviet Union used to do and declare margins of victory over 90%. Why? It doesn't work any more. You know how you can tell? They are fighting in the streets of Tehran.

How obviously did the election results in Iran have to be bogus in order to cause demonstrations and international denunciation? Ahmadinejad claimed 67% of the popular vote. Clearly, that number is so high as to be universally regarded as bogus. Would the results have been the same if Ahmedinejad had beaten Mousavi by say 51% to 44% with the remainder going to other candidates? Would the results have been any different if the results were not announced for 4 to 8 hours after the election closed, rather than even before they could have possibly been counted and verified?

One of the oldest despot tactics is to claim a resounding victory in a rigged election. It's intended to lend an air of international and domestic legitimacy to an otherwise illegitimate regime. But fooling the public and fooling the world has become increasingly difficult in the age of the Internet, and wireless technology.

It's become far trickier for tinpot dictators in these times to write a credible storyline for their own victories. Many have had to drive down their victory margins to a level that potentially undermines their mandate for total and supreme command. Although it's not universally true.

Kim Jong Il 'won' re-election in March 2009 with 100% of the popular vote with 100% voter turnout. A stunning victory to say the least. With support like that, maybe he should rule the planet. He could pose a real challenge to Obama.

The Castro brothers won another election in 2008, this time Raul Castro, not Fidel won the job with a 99.4% support level and 95% turnout. Clearly a legitimate victory when compared to the 100% Jong Il clearly faked.

Further down the despot chain, you start to see more 'credible' deceit start to creep in.

Hugo Chavez, having tried unsuccessfully to win a constitutional reform to allow him to remain in power indefinitely, had to lower the bar for his victory. Having won an election in 2006 with 63% of the vote, he tried immediately in 2007 to get the Venezuelan constitution changed to ensure himself an unending Presidency. He lost gaining only 49% support. He went about tightening his grip on the media in order to be able to perpetrate the big lie when he tried the referendum again. In February 2009, on his re-try, that margin had fallen to 54% in support of his reform.

Perhaps the real master at this is Vladimir Putin. He didn't change his countries Constitution (yet). After winning re-election in 2004 with his strong-arm tactics and a 71% support level, he backed off in 2008 and inserted a puppet replacement so that his power could continue from behind the scenes. There's no obvious impropriety there. It's as ingenious as it is evil.

Bringing it all back to Iran, as time passes and as people become more interconnected via technology, deceptions become harder and harder to perpetrate. There are only two possible outcomes of the opening up of societies like Iran to the truth. The first is more freedom and openness. Perhaps real elections might follow. With a very young populace, it could mean more alignment with the West eventually. And that would be a good thing. Secondly, there's a more sinister possibility. A brutal repression of the people of Iran that might make the Chinese disgrace at Tiannamen Square look like a family picnic. When a despot's power is threatened, especially despots', they can lash out violently. It would mean further isolation of the nation and a descent into some very dark days for the people of Iran.

What the country needs now is a strong international condemnation and demands for a new, internationally monitored election. There's supposedly a risk of causing Iran to re-ignite the insurgency in Iraq, but if a new election were demanded, it would give the Mullahs that run the theocracy enough to keep their hands full trying to maintain their grip own on power. It's a roll of the dice that the US government should be more than willing to take. Shaking up the Middle East now, is much more an opportunity than a threat. Unfortunately, I trust the Obama administration to get this one wrong too.

GM RIP

As much as I hate to see an American icon go bankrupt, it needed to be done. The bloating and hemorrhaging could not continue unabated.

That said, I'm not so sure this 'solution' that involves government ownership is the smartest thing to do. In fact, I'm sure it's NOT. GM could not protect itself from it's myopic decisions of the past, and now, it's going to have another layer of not only myopia, but political considerations layered onto it's decision-making process. How does that help? The answer is of course, it doesn't. When the government is involved, particularly one beholden to the UAW, decision making on what, where, when, and how to produce automobiles becomes a political question and not a business decision. How to sell them, how to price them, how to package them, what color to make them all are impacted by the new dynamic of government not only oversight, but direct involvement in the decision-making process.

And if the business decisions were poorly made before, they will be absolutely unfathomable going forward. It makes more sense to let GM die completely than to nurse it back to supposed health for the sake of the UAW. The talent from GM would be better suited to a new domestic automotive venture - one not beholden to dealers, auto workers, pensions, previous bad decisions, and legacy issues or government micro-management.

This bankruptcy so far looks like it will really only solve the dealership problem, and if Chrysler's Dealergate turns out to be an indicator, then the dealership problem looks like it's positioned as too many Republican dealerships 'solution'.

The government also puts itself in a conflict-of-interest position here. By owning a car company and dictating the rules to ALL domestic manufacturers, it risks the viability of the other companies (i.e. Ford, and possibly Chrysler) by being able to stack the deck in favor of GM.

No matter which way you look at the bankruptcy there's nothing good coming out of it. The government will have major control of a failed company. Who does that premise instill with any sort of confidence? If you are one of those who thinks this is a glorious opportunity (like Michael Moore), then you need to consider some of the great government involvements of the past.

Look at what it has managed to do for Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. Look at what it has done for Iran under the regime of Ahmadinejad. Those who think they know best, are often the least prepared for the unintended consequences of their decisions. Why is that? It's because people, especially those most motivated by dogma, are blinded to the realities that surround them - far more so at least, than the free market which manages to supply a demand or fill a void so efficiently. Free markets are a truly wonderful thing and a spectacle to behold. In that light, a GM bankruptcy is not to be viewed as a death of an American icon, but as an opportunity to birth something even better. And in that light, a government managed salvaging of GM, should be viewed as an attempt to keep alive a patient that is already, well...dead.

As much as I argued for bankruptcy, I now find myself arguing for a non-managed bankruptcy, free of politically motivated oversight. This does not bode well for the automobile industry in America. It does not bode well for debt holders of GM, it does not bode well for freedom from government tyranny and it does not bode well for the future of America.

Once again, a crisis is being co-opted for political purposes, and a philosophical bent. How much longer can that trend continue before something gives out for good? And by something, I mean something really big - like capitalism, or the Constitution, or the entire country.

Dictator Watch - May 25th, 2009

It's been a while but we're due for an update on the world's slate of top tier dictators.

Kim Jong Il - North Korea

I'm as strong as an ox!

The sickly looking crackpot tested an underground nuclear bomb today. There are no obvious answers to this, only questions. Why? Is he starved for attention? Is he really still in charge? Is his ailing health making him itch for war or to put his stamp on history?

Japan has condemned the action already. There have been protests in South Korea. The UN has held an emergency meeting. President Obama has called it a threat to international peace.

If I may; the condemnations really don't seem to be working.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad - Iran

Tell me you didn't just say that!

There's more saber rattling today.

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran has sent six warships to international waters, including the Gulf of Aden, to show its ability to confront any foreign threats, its naval commander
said on Monday.

I bet Ahmadinejad is livid that this happened on the day that North Korea one-upped him by detonating a Hiroshima-bomb-sized nuclear device.

Trying to stay on the same page (the front page), Ahmadinejad rejected the West's nuclear proposal to stop his nuclear program in exchange for no new sanctions being imposed on his country. He also offered to debate President Obama at the UN. Why?

This time there's answers. He's facing an election next month. Debating President Obama sure would look world-stage-like. Even President Obama isn't naive enough to fall for this one (I hope). Remember Iran has recently banned Facebook - it's because of the election. State control, state control, state control. You want a compliant press and no alternative news sources for your opposition.

At least that dictatorial approach is not being paralleled in the United States. There's the Fairness Doctrine, the compliant MSM... wait, what?


Vladimir Putin - Russian

I've got the coolest bottle rocket ever!

Old Vladimir has recently warned the West not to interfere with the Ukraine. Apparently that's his personal conquest playground and others are not welcome. Still steamed over the potential placement of missile defence systems in Poland, Putin is not content to lick his wounds. He's placed Russia into the wounded grizzly bear role. We're likely to lash out so back off.

Powers have become so concentrated in Russia that the inevitable power struggle that will result may have already started;

A senior adviser to Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian president, has made a thinly-veiled attack on Vladimir Putin saying Russia will remain a second-class power until it stops concentrating power in the hands of a hard-line elite.

Delivering a rare critique of the political and economic system created by Mr Putin, Igor Yurgens accused the prime minister of abandoning reforms that he had embarked upon in 2000 at the outset of his presidency.

In an interview with the Daily Telegraph, Mr Yurgens said Mr Putin had put power in the hands of a small ruling elite, creating an energy-dependent model that was beginning to creak as the financial crisis began to weaken Russia.

An increasingly influential figure in Russia, Mr Yurgens' comments will be taken as further evidence of a rift between Mr Putin and Mr Medvedev.

Although he holds no official position, Mr Yurgens runs a think tank headed by Mr Medvedev and is one of a handful of economic and political liberals close to the heart of power.

Sweet. Shoots of reform. I'm not being overly optimistic here, just like President Obama sees shoots of recovery, clearly that represents it being all but a done deal...wait, what?

Hugo Chavez - Venezuela

We've got to find the common ground, and I have just the idea to do that.

(This section brought to you by Sean Penn...)

Not much to report here, other than Boss Hugo has continued to tighten his grip on the Venezuelan news channel Globovision. Coming soon to a country near you;

The channel, which is vehemently opposed to Mr Chávez’s socialist project, has been in the President’s sights for weeks. He says that the private media are “fascist bourgeoisie” that are “inciting hate — even war” and has ordered Globovisión to be investigated under legislation that allows the Government to shut broadcasters down.

The moves are the latest in a series of strikes against opponents as Mr Chávez seeks to deepen socialism in Venezuela. Since a February referendum victory allowing his indefinite re-election, he has sharpened his assaults on the private sector, curbed the powers of opponents in public positions and ordered corruption inquiries against critics.

The showdown with Globovisión took an aggressive turn last week when a property belonging to Guillermo Zuloaga, the president of the company, was raided. On Thursday morning government helicopters circled overhead, a team of agents and military entered the building, alleging criminal activity relating to Mr Zuloaga’s car business.

It'll never happen here. Fox is viewed by the left as not being a hate machine, but an alternative viewpoint. Wait, what?

Spiccoli flashback

Sean Penn,




was more intelligent as Spicoli;



Hey, it's not a character assassination, just a comparison of him in 2007 versus 1982.

Chavez book for Obama: course material

Fox News is reporting that the book Hugo Chavez gave President Obama as a gift is course material at 20 colleges (at least) and has been course material at some colleges for decades.

[Link - http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517784,00.html]

The book, entitled "Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent" give an account of European and American oppression and exploitation of the South and Central American regions and people.

Wonderful. How about an opposing view point being presented to the impressionable minds at these schools? Maybe a mention of what contributions Europeans and Americans have made to the region and to the world. Would that be too much to ask? Likely.

Then again, the typical student response to the gift from Hugo Chavez to the President - who's Hugo Chavez?

At least those exposed to the book might be too busy enjoying college life to absorb any of it's garbage.

Dictator Watch - April 19, 2009

A quick analysis on the state of world dictatorships: At the Summit of the America's, there was an instructive event that indicates the future state of dictatorships over the next four years. It's good news - if you happen to be a dictator.




Nicaraguan Socialist and Sandinista Daniel Ortega lashed out at the United States of America for over 50 minutes. President Obama - took notes.

As reported by Fox News;

Obama sat mostly unmoved during the speech but at times jotted notes. The speech was part of the opening ceremonies at the fifth Summit of the Americas here.

Later, at a photo opportunity with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Obama held his tongue when asked what he thought about Ortega's speech.

"It was 50 minutes long. That's what I thought." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ignored two questions about Ortega's speech, instead offering lengthy praise of a cultural performance of dance and song opening the summit.

"I thought the cultural performance was fascinating," Clinton said. Asked again about the Ortega speech, Clinton said: "To have those first class Caribbean entertainers on all on one stage and to see how much was done in such a small amount of space, I was overwhelmed."

A senior administration official declined to criticize Ortega, saying the president wanted to focus on the future.

"His expectation is that these debates of the past can remain that, debates of the past and that the leaders can take advantage of this opportunity to focus on what they can do in the future to advance the interests of all the people of the hemisphere."

Ortega, meanwhile, droned on about the offenses of the past, dredging up U.S. support of the Somoza regime and the "illegal" war against the Sandinista regime he once led by U.S.-backed Contra rebels in the 1980s. Ortega was a member of the revolutionary junta that drove Anastasio Somoza from power in 1979 and was elected president in 1985. He was defeated in 1990 by Violeta Chamorro and ran unsuccessfully twice for the presidency before winning in 2006.

Daniel Ortega overthrew a government and then whined when the US helped the Contras try to overthrow him by helping finance the effort. Man up Ortega.

Call it focusing on the future but what it really resembles is avoidance. See No Evil, Hear No Evil. Or sticking your head in the sand until the problem goes away. It looks like that's going to be the best part of American foreign policy during this administration - avoidance. Any problem they avoid is a problem the won't exacerbate. Chavez cheated in his referendum in Venezuela, but at least he gave a present to Obama. Now Obama can say everything has been patched up.


Meanwhile North Korea and Iran are making unfettered progress on their nuclear launch programs and that head in the sand policy seems to be working wonders. The administration is still exploring talks with Iran and managed to get North Korea a parking ticket or something. Wait no, not even that. The UN got a non-binding, hands-on-the-hips and a sour faced look at North Korea. Maybe Obama can send him some stimulus money.

EXIT Question: If Clinton is "overwhelmed" by how so many dancers can fit into one space, do you think it's best to have her at the head of the State Department? Maybe it explains how she thought she was under fire flying into Bosnia.

Dictator Watch - Feb 28, 2009

Keeping up with the Tyrants

Russia: Vladimir Putin

[Where's the Red October?]

Vladimir Putin has warned people that protesting the economic crisis, being felt quite steeply in Russia, that protesting is okay, but that it has to be orderly and within the law.

NOVO-OGARYOVA, Russia, Feb 27 (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned opposition critics on Friday not to use the economic crisis as an excuse to challenge his government and told them to abide by the law.

Unrest across Russia over economic upheaval has been muted, with the biggest protests so far taking place in the Far East port of Vladivostok where hundreds were arrested in January demonstrations over car tax.

Speaking at a meeting with leaders of Russia's dominant political party, United Russia, ahead of regional elections this weekend, Putin said that criticism of the Russian government during a crisis was allowed, but only within the laws.

Later in a veiled reference to countries like the Ukraine, he indicated he wouldn't allow protests like the ones that led to Democratic reforms in those countries to take place in Russia. In other words, don't get out of line or we'll stomp you. It's a kinder, gentler brutal regime.

Venezuela: Hugo Chavez

[It was love at first sight.]

This guy is just loopy. In a response to a State Department report that points out problems in Venezuela, ChinaView reports:

CARACAS, Feb. 26 (Xinhua) -- The Venezuelan government on Thursday rejected a U.S. report that denounced its human rights record.

The government in defense of the sovereignty of the Venezuelan people, strongly and firmly rejects the publishing by the U.S. Department of State of a report that pretends to evaluate the general condition of Venezuela's human rights," a statement said.

The U.S. report on human rights in Latin American countries was published on
Wednesday.

Regarding Venezuela, the report pointed out "the widespread corruption, the harassment of the press and opposition, the polarization of the judicial system, and the violence against women and traffickers."

The Venezuelan statement said the country does not accept such practices of the U.S., adding that the U.S. has "the darkest record in disregarding and violating human dignity in contemporary history, yet still takes power without mandate and legitimacy to become judges of other countries."

The report was "fake and interfering," it said.

Hopefully that last line was just the result of bad interpreter - it's barely one step above 'liar, liar, pants on fire'.

North Korea: Kim Jong Il

[Still doesn't understand why Simon Cowell doesn't like him.]

The isolationist country has announced it's launching a rocket for a communications satellite. Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? Why does an isolated country that likes to keep it's populace uniformed need a communications satellite? It's about test-firing ballistic missiles, and it's about ego.

North Korea's move comes with talks on an aid-for-disarmament deal - involving the US, China, Russia, Japan and South Korea - currently stalled.

Relations between the two Koreas are also tense following South President Lee Myung-bak's decision to link the provision of bilateral aid to progress on denuclearisation. Pyongyang has recently scrapped several peace agreements with
Seoul.

The mooted launch also follows speculation about the health of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il, who is believed to have suffered a stroke in mid-2008. On a trip to Asia last week, the new US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea against any rash moves, saying a test-launch would be "unhelpful".

Thanks Hillary. Way to be intimidating to a despot. It's a good thing you didn't go all out and say that it was "approaching the level of near-concerning".

Brace for hostilities in the region or a possible squeeze of more economic concessions. Probably the latter. If Gaza can get $900 million, just think what Jong Il can extract from a spendaholic administration in Washington.

Iran: Ahmadinejad

[Nice parade of an Iranian missile destroying a U.S. flag. Nothing says national pride like despising America]

Of course the focus is on the missile development and nuclear development issues with Iran, but right now this appears more troubling;

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Friday that his country sees no limit for its expansion of cooperation with Iraq, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Ahmadinejad made the remarks in his meeting with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, who arrived in Tehran late Thursday for a three-day visit to the neighboring Islamic republic.

"Expansion of cooperation among regional states in different sectors, economic domain in particular, is of prime importance regarding ongoing global conditions," Ahmadinejad was quoted as saying.

"Quadrilateral cooperation among Iran, Iraq, Turkey and Syria is of extreme significance and is a basic pillar of sustainable security and promotion of fraternity," he added.

No mention of the United States. Presumably because they're pulling out and leaving a massive residual force that will dwindle to zero by 2011. President Obama is drawing down to please his base and get out of a 'war' (is it really still a war?) he never wanted the United States to be involved in. But the void left by the departure of American Forces, will undoubtedly be filled with regional interests attempting to take advantage of a still-weakened Iraq. Look at the countries mentioned - Syria, an Iranian puppet state, Iran, Iraq and Turkey - presumably asked to be at the table because of the Kurd issue. This does not bode well for the region, for Israel, for America, and for the renewal of terrorism fermentation.

Maybe Obama should re-think the exit strategy. I'm just saying...

Out of touch - example 34C

According to the Canadian Press;

In rare praise, U.S. calls Venezuelan presidential referendum democratic

WASHINGTON — The United States says the referendum that cleared the way for Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez to run for re-election was democratic.

It was rare praise for a U.S. antagonist after years of criticism.

State Department spokesman Gordon Duguid today noted "troubling reports of
intimidation."

But he added that for the most part, the referendum was "fully consistent with democratic process."

Was it? Was it really? Oh it must be, because Russia news and information agency RIA NOVOSTI had this to say in it's commentary about the next steps:

MOSCOW, February 19 (RIA Novosti) - President Hugo Chavez is expected to sign into law on Thursday an amendment to Venezuela's constitution removing term limits for the head of state and other elected officials.

The central elections committee released the official results of Sunday's referendum
on Wednesday and passed them to Venezuela's National Assembly. The parliament
will review the results and pass them to the president to be signed into law. The amendment changes the wording of the country's constitution from "the president may be reelected only once" to simply "the president may be reelected."

Some 11.7 million people cast ballots out of the 17 million eligible to vote. The referendum was passed with 6.3 million for (54.86%) and 5.2 million against 45.13%). International observers and the U.S. State Department have confirmed that the voting process met international democratic standards.

(emphasis added)



It seems that the Obama administration is either turning a blind eye towards the truth in the spirit of "can't we all just get along?" (the Rodney King school of diplomacy), or it's happy with a socialist victory (let's hope that isn't the case), or else as I suspect is the case, they are simply out of touch with the reality of what is confronting them.


Obama is interested in improving the American image around the world, and the approach he is taking is similar to his laissez-faire attitude with Chicago-style corruption within the Democratic party. DON'T ROCK THE BOAT, BABY!


The people of Venezuela are being taken for a ride and it's the type of ride where the body gets dumped out of the trunk into the river or a shallow grave. But for the present administration, it seems that making nice with the Chavez junta is more important. There's no back bone there and more importantly, there's no payoff. What's the point in being friendly with this guy?


1. Obama, you are the new face of Satan as far as he's concerned. He's not likely to be friendly back anyway.

2. Even if you befriend him, what does it do for America? You want to reduce dependence on OPEC oil anyway, so why does he matter? [That's rhetorical, I'm pretty sure he doesn't matter to you much].

3. Befriending him is a short term gain at BEST, since after a while (perhaps after a decade or two more in power) he will be seen as the corrupt politician in America's pocket and the people of Venezuela will harbor no more good will towards America than they now have.

4. Being friends with socialists betrays the spirit of America - the spirit of rugged individualism that made America great.


Out of touch. Short sighted. Moving in the wrong direction. Example 34C of a growing list of shortcomings that prove the real Messiah was never up for election in 2008.

Venezuelan Election Fraud

On Sunday I posted an entry on Hugo Chavez' victory on the referendum to change the country's Constitution to allow him to run for President as often as he wants. In other words, to abolish term limits.

A very brave commenter from Venezuela posted a comment that gave me chills. He spoke about how the voting machines seemed to be set up to spoil the ballots those who voted against the amendment. It's very brave of someone living in Venezuela to do such a thing as it can have a negative effect on one's personal life. I don't know the extent of the negative impact, but I'm sure it's unpleasant.

I've tried to inform some more connected, high profile bloggers about this to see if there's any way to investigate the voting machines or anything else that can be done to verify this or at least cause scrutiny.

Later in the evening another anonymous comment came from inside Venezuela with more details. Given the bravery of the comments from with the country of Venezuela, I wouldn't dare risk exposing the commenter at all. They deserve and need their anonymity.

The second comment though, was even more chilling than the first. I'm asking anyone who reads this to please share the comments with anyone you can get to listen, particularly if you can share it with anyone at Fox News, or Hot Air or similar high enough profile organization to make a statement that might resonate. I realize this is only anecdotal evidence, but where there's smoke, there's bound to be fire.

Dictator Watch - Feb 16, 2009: Chavez Edition

He's finally done it. After failed attempts to ratify the Venezuelan Constitution so he can install himself as El Presidente for life, Hugo Chavez has finally got his wish. Vladimir Putin must be eating his own liver.

CARACAS, Venezuela – President Hugo Chavez says a referendum victory that removed limits on his re-election is a mandate to intensify his socialist agenda for
decades to come. Opponents warn of an impending dictatorship. Both sides had
called the outcome of Sunday's vote key to the future of this South American
country, split down the middle between those who worship the president for
redistributing Venezuela's oil riches and those who see him as a power-hungry
autocrat.

"Those who voted "yes" today voted for socialism, for revolution," Chavez thundered to thousands of ecstatic supporters jamming the streets around the presidential palace. Fireworks lit up the Caracas skyline, and one man walked though the crowd carrying a painting of Chavez that read: "Forever."

After previous frustrations, how did this finally come to pass? Some are claiming that Chavez cheated. While there is no concrete proof (yet), it would not come as a surprise if the truth bears out this claim.

CNN reports that Chavez has kicked out of the country an European observer
because had referred to Chavez as a dictator! Obviously the truth hurts! What is
amazing is that Venezuelans are forced again to go and vote tomorrow February 15
for the same issue that they had voted against on December 2, 2007, and where
Chavez was defeated. Nevertheless, the infamous Chavez had to run the same
question again! It seems that the deranged leader does not understand that NO
means NO!

The story from CNN can be found here.

Apparently there have been no widespread reports of voting irregularities. This can be confirmed because the same phrase shows up on many major news sites.

ABC News (Australia): "Electoral authorities and independent observers say there was a very high voter turnout and that the ballot was carried out without significant irregularities."

NY Times: "Voting across the country unfolded calmly, without reports of widespread irregularities, electoral officials said. "

International Herald Tribune (England): "Voting across the country unfolded calmly, without reports of widespread irregularities, electoral officials said."

Well obviously it must be true...

Don't expect the Obama administration to come down hard on Chavez. But there are things as an American citizen you can do on your own to put a dent in this tinpot dictator. Boycott Citgo. It's just a suggestion, but Citgo is owned by Petroleos de Venezula, and has been since 1990. However, it won't do much beyond the symbolic because oil companies buy oil from each other and shopping at say Chevron, you could still be supporting crude sourced in Venezuela. Nothing short of an official embargo would suffice. That won't happen without public outrage, and that's not likely to happen when there are more important economic issues to deal with right now.

But that doesn't mean that driving an extra block to the Texaco station isn't doing your part. It's certainly better than the alternative of not caring. It's the same principle as not standing up against the Fairness Doctrine - you get the result you deserve.