Homosexuality and Homosexuality

(Difference between revisions)

homosexuality is a major problem among homosexuals

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

How the IRS Scandal Threatens Obamacare

Photo credit: OECD / Foter.com / CC BY-NC-NDObamacare is not merely a massive overhaul of the health care system. It is also a substantial expansion of the Internal Revenue Service. That’s because the law relies on the tax collection agency to both enforce its individual mandate and administer the tax credits the law offers to subsidize the purchase of health insurance. Following recent revelations that agents in multiple IRS offices, including tax officials in Washington, targeted conservative groups for extra scrutiny, a number of former and current Republican legislators are already counseling caution about the agency's role in administering the law.

Concerns about the agency’s oversight of the health law are well-founded—and not only because of general concerns about the agency’s judgment.

For one thing, the IRS appears to have specifically targeted groups that opposed the health care law. According to The Washington Post, “although some of the groups were explicitly labeled ‘tea party’ or ‘patriot,’ others that came under intense scrutiny were focused on challenging the Affordable Care Act — known by many as Obamacare — or the integrity of federal elections.”

In other words, the agency has singled out Obamacare opponents for unusual treatment. That does not speak well of the agency’s ability to fairly carry out its duties under the law.

Perhaps more importantly, however, the agency has already launched an attempt to subvert the health law’s clear statutory language. As I noted earlier today, the text of the legislation specifies that the law’s tax credits for private insurance are available in exchanges created by states. It does not provide for those subsidies to be available in exchanges run by the federal government. Yet the IRS rule regarding the tax credits essentially ignored this, and allowed for the subsidies to be available in both state and federally run exchanges.

What this means is that the IRS is already taking creative liberties with the administrative duties it is assigned under the health law. It’s already attempting to use its power to expand Obamacare beyond the specifics of its statute. It’s already ignoring the text of the law when doing so suits its purposes. 

And it has done so with the explicit support of the same top official who claimed that there was “absolutely no targeting” of conservative groups going on at the IRS.

As the Cato Institute’s Michael Cannon noted last week, former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman insisted in a 2012 congressional subcommittee hearing that the IRS was in no way singling out groups based on political outlook. We now know that to be false.

A year prior, Shulman insisted that the IRS rule regarding premium subsidies in federally run exchanges was “consistent with the language, purpose, and structure” of Obamacare. Tellingly, he did not point to a statute authorizing the IRS interpretation. Admittedly, that would have been difficult, because there isn’t one. As the Congressional Research Service noted in its analysis of the law, a “strictly textual analysis of the plain meaning of the provision would likely lead to the conclusion that the IRS’ authority to issue the premium tax credits is limited only to situations in which the taxpayer is enrolled in a state-established exchange.” [Emphasis added.]

The IRS has already demonstrated dubious political and legal judgment regarding its role in the administration of Obamacare. More officials should question its judgment in matters related to the law. 

View the original article here

President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals

President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

2012 Federal Taxpayer Receipt

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Statements & Releases   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release May 16, 2013 President Obama Nominates Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to Serve on the United States Court of Appeals

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, President Barack Obama nominated Judge Carolyn B. McHugh to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

“Judge Carolyn B. McHugh has displayed exceptional dedication to the legal profession through her work and I am honored to nominate her to serve the American people as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals,” President Obama said. "She will be a diligent, judicious and esteemed addition to the Tenth Circuit bench."

Judge Carolyn B. McHugh: Nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Judge Carolyn B. McHugh is the Presiding Judge of the Utah Court of Appeals, a bench on which she has served since her appointment in 2005.  Judge McHugh previously worked at the Salt Lake City law firm of Parr Brown Gee & Loveless for 22 years, joining the firm as an associate in 1983 and becoming a partner in 1987.  Her practice primarily focused on complex civil litigation with an emphasis on environmental matters.  Prior to joining the firm, Judge McHugh served as a law clerk to the Honorable Bruce S. Jenkins of the United States District Court for the District of Utah from 1982 to 1983.  She has also taught as an adjunct professor at the University of Utah College of Law and the University of Utah College of Social and Behavioral Science. Judge McHugh received her B.A. magna cum laude in 1978 from the University of Utah and her J.D. in 1982 from the University of Utah College of Law, where she graduated Order of the Coif and served on the editorial board of the Utah Law Review. 

Since becoming a judge on the Utah Court of Appeals, Judge McHugh has handled more than 1,100 criminal and civil cases and issued 285 opinions.  Throughout her career, Judge McHugh has been actively involved in community service organizations, and participated in local and national bar activities.  For her work, Judge McHugh has received awards including the Christine M. Durham Woman Lawyer of the Year Award from Women Lawyers of Utah, and the Utah State Bar’s Dorathy Merrill Brothers Award for the Advancement of Women in the Legal Profession.

Blog posts on this issue May 17, 2013 6:08 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “What Our Families Deserve”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

May 17, 2013 5:50 PM EDTA Stronger and Sustainable Military for the 21st Century

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

May 17, 2013 5:28 PM EDTComing Together to Stop Slavery

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

User:Canjordon6

View the original article here

MSNBC’s Al Sharpton Ludicrously Claims Small Biz Backs ObamaCare

The “journalists” at MSNBC continued to fawn over ObamaCare on Friday’s Morning Joe, even in the midst of startling criticism for the bill from David Gregory, liberal host of Meet the Press. The discussion over the president’s massive health care overhaul came after reports that the IRS official in charge of the agency’s unfair treatment of conservative groups during its targeting is now leading the IRS’s efforts to implement ObamaCare.

Gregory pointed out that the Medicare surtax that is funding “Obamacare across the board” is “a lot of money.” “You may not know how it helps you,” he noted, “but you know what it's taking away from you.” Of course, dutiful defenders of Obama like MSNBC Politics Nation host the Rev. Al Sharpton and Huffington Post’s Sam Stein were on hand to defend ObamaCare [see video below the page break].

For his part, Stein seemed to be just fine with the burdensome tax, because it redistributes money into the pockets of “other people.”

David's point – hold on, there is a surtax issue that everyone is going to feel. But that surtax, that money goes to subsidize people's health care. While people will feel a tax issue a lot of other people are going to feel the money in their pocket to buy health care.

Stein’s redistribution of wealth argument wasn’t even the most offensive, though. Sharpton dismissed Gregory’s claim that “costs just keep going up,” touting the “certainty” that Obamacare brings to small segments of the population. Mika Brzezinski even offered a helping hand to Sharpton’s passionate defense of the bill.

GREGORY: Costs just keep going up.

SHARPTON: But there is certainty for people that had preexisting conditions and couldn't get insurance that are now insured.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly. Young people.

SHARPTON: There is certainty for young people that are now covered that would not have been covered.

BRZEZINSKI: There's preventative care now.

SHARPTON: Preventative care. There's certainty in a lot of areas that people were left out.

What Gregory was trying to point out, and Sharpton dismissed, was the “uncertainty” that millions of Americans and small business owners now face with rapidly-increasing taxes and health care costs under Obamacare.

Then Sharpton declared, with his typical lack of evidence, that small business owners “have come forward and supported Obamacare.” Well, this argument is simply false. As NewsBusters pointed out on Monday, even the ObamaCare-favoring Washington Post admitted that “Small-Business Owners Dread” the new taxes under Obamacare (even though they stuffed the story in the back, on page A15).

We expect Al Sharpton to spout his liberal views day in and day out on MSNBC, but we should expect better than outright lies, especially from a man of the cloth.

View the transcript after the jump:

MSNBC
Morning Joe
05/17/13
7:33 a.m. Eastern

DAVID GREGORY: But here's what else people know about Obamacare. They may not know exactly how it helps them. They do know this: if they're employed, if they’re a salaried employee, and they get their pay stubs...when they get their paycheck on Fridays, what do they see is a new line item. And it's called the Medicare surtax. And it's a lot of money. It's new taxes that we are paying to fund Obamacare across the board. You may not know how it helps you but you know what it's taking away from you.

(...)

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Let me say Vern, quickly. I want to follow up on that point, because we have a lot of people in Washington talking about Obamacare, a lot of people in Manhattan talking about Obamacare. I don't know what they're saying on the subways about this, Donny, we were talking about what they were saying on the subways. I can tell you what they're saying, though, small business owners across Pensacola, northwest Florida, middle America, Iowa: they're saying this is going to cost my small business a lot of money.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: Not small businesses...

SCARBOROUGH: And the regulations are going to be high. And we're going to have to also cut some of my best employees to below 30 hours or else I can't afford to stay in business. This – and this is all going to hit, Vern, in 2014.

CONGRESSMAN VERN BUCHANAN: Yeah. I think a lot of people when they hire an employee, this is the thing that gets missed. Twenty years ago you hired an employee, paid him $50,000, there was a 22 percent cost – additional costs in hiring that employee in terms of benefits. Today it's 42 to 44 percent someone was telling me the other day. At the heart of that is the whole thing on health care. I get questions all the time where someone has 72 employees, they say “I'm going to have to cut back to under 50.” So there's a lot of uncertainty, a lot of angst out there, and just the cost of health care in general is completely and totally out of control for anybody in small business. It's not unusual for someone to say they're paying $2,000 a month for their family of four for health care today.

GREGORY: Costs just keep going up.

AL SHARPTON: But there is certainty for people that had preexisting conditions and couldn't get insurance that are now insured.

BRZEZINSKI: Exactly. Young people.

SHARPTON: There is certainty for young people that are now covered that would not have been covered.

BRZEZINSKI: There's preventative care now.

SHARPTON: Preventative care. There's certainty in a lot of areas that people were left out. And a lot of small businesses have come forward and supported Obamacare. I think that – I understand the Republicans’objection. They lost it. And I think that –

SCARBOROUGH: I'm not just talking about Republicans. I'm talking about – you know, I don't know if you know...I know that Democrats own small businesses too.

SHARPTON: They do.

SCARBOROUGH: Democrats are concerned about this as well.

SHARPTON: And many of those small businesses supported Obamacare for some of the reasons I named and other reasons. And I think that it is very important that we understand that a lot of Americans want to see all Americans in a position to be insured that were not insured before we had this legislation.

BRZEZINSKI: Anybody at this table not think, or on the panel not think, that Americans should have access to health care? All of them?

DONNY DEUTSCH: David's point – the argument becomes very simple for the Republicans, it costs more money.

SAM STEIN: David's point – hold on, there is a surtax issue that everyone is going to feel. But that surtax, that money goes to subsidize people's health care. While people will feel a tax issue a lot of other people are going to feel the money in their pocket to buy health care.

GREGORY: The question is though, do you trust the government to administer the program?

SCARBOROUGH: Yes, do you trust the government to administer the program? And that's come out this past week. And also, those people may have more money in their pockets but if their small businesses shut down or they have to get rid of them because they have to cut below 50 employees, then suddenly it ends up hurting them more than helping them. It's a terrible balancing act and I think it's going to be following the White House throughout 2014. And they're going to have to make some adjustments on the fly.

View the original article here

User:JoeyJ

Sorry, I could not read the content fromt this page.

View the original article here

24 million reasons to protect immigrant whistle-blowers

In a U.S. economy where tens of millions are struggling, guest workers on H-2B visas are trapped at the bottom. These so-called “low skilled” temporary workers occupy fields from hospitality to construction to landscaping to food processing — alongside 24 million U.S. workers in the same sectors. And the job quality of those 24 million depends on whether guest workers can blow the whistle on abuse. To understand why, take Ana Diaz. Ana came to the United States from Mexico last year as an H-2B guest worker. Ana peeled crawfish for a Wal-Mart supplier in Louisiana who subjected her and her fellow guest workers to shifts of up to 24 hours with no overtime pay. Supervisors locked them into the plant to prevent breaks, and threatened to beat them with a shovel to make them work faster. When workers complained, the boss responded with threats of violence against them and their families.

Ana’s story is far from unique. The National Guestworker Alliance has worked with thousands of guest workers facing severe employer abuse, from wage theft to forced labor. When workers try to blow the whistle, employers retaliate to scare them into silence.

Big business is seeking access to as many cheap, exploitable guest workers as possible through immigration reform. The current Senate immigration bill is set to give them just that. The bill would hugely expand the H-2B program over the next four years, from 66,000 workers to 264,000, without providing key protections for H-2B whistle-blowers.

Why does this matter for U.S. workers? Because the conditions of workers at the bottom of the U.S. economy — guest workers like Ana — help determine the job quality of the more than 24 million U.S. workers who work alongside them in the same sectors. When employers can get away with exploiting guest workers, it forces U.S. workers into a race to the bottom, driving down wages and conditions for all.

Americans already know this. In a national poll this March, 75 percent agreed that “if employers are allowed to get away with mistreating immigrant workers, it ends up lowering wages and hurting conditions for American workers as well.” In the same poll, 89 percent agreed that “immigration reform should protect the rights of both U.S. born and immigrant workers, because all workers deserve dignity and freedom from exploitation.” Eighty percent agreed that “immigrant workers who blow the whistle on abusive employers are helping defend workplace standards and should have the opportunity to stay in the U.S. to work towards citizenship.”

Tens of millions of U.S. workers already feel the floor falling. Their wages, conditions, and job security are eroding every day. If the workers at the bottom don’t have basic whistle-blower protections, the bottom will continue to fall. At the end of this process, all work in America would look like guest work: low-wage, unstable and deeply exploitative.

But when guest workers can stand up against employer abuse, they help lift the floor for all workers. Wages and conditions are more secure. Ana and her fellow guest workers showed real bravery last June, defying threats of violence, deportation and blacklisting to go public about the abuse they endured. By becoming whistle-blowers, they helped both to protect other guest workers from abuse, and to secure the job quality of millions of U.S. workers.

Whistle-blowers like Ana are standing up to help protect American workers. Shouldn’t American workers stand up to protect them?

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) has introduced an amendment to the Senate immigration bill that would do just that. It would provide key protections to let H-2B whistle-blowers stand up against employer abuse without fear of retaliation. Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) responded with a clear show of bipartisan support for the amendment, but it has yet to be added to the bill.

It is critical that the Senate immigration bill include these protections — for the future of all America’s workers.

Soni is executive director of the National Guestworker Alliance.

View Comments

View the original article here

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 5/15/2013

Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 5/15/2013 | The White House Skip to main content | Skip to footer site map The White House. President Barack Obama Get Email UpdatesContact Us Go to homepage. The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts 2012: A Year in Photos

A unique view of 2012

Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Executive Orders Presidential Memoranda Proclamations Legislation Pending Legislation Signed Legislation Vetoed Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Visitor Access Records Financial Disclosures 2012 Annual Report to Congress 2011 Annual Report to Congress 2010 Annual Report to Congress on White House Staff A Commitment to Transparency

Browse White House visitor logs

Issues Civil Rights It Gets Better Defense End of Iraq War Disabilities Economy Jobs Reform and Fiscal Responsibility Strengthening the Middle Class Support for Business Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Creating Jobs Health Care Small Business PreK-12 Education Taxes Tax Receipt The Buffett Rule Technology Urban Policy Veterans Joining Forces Violence Prevention Women Immigration Reform

Creating an Immigration System for the 21st Century

2012 Federal Taxpayer Receipt

Understand how and where your tax dollars are being spent

The Administration We the People

Create and Sign Petitions Now

President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden Being Biden Audio Series First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Deputy Chief of Staff Rob Nabors Deputy Chief of Staff Alyssa Mastromonaco Counselor to the President Peter Rouse Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House White House On the Go

Download our mobile apps

Take A Virtual Tour

View the Residence, East Wing and West Wing

Inside the White House Interactive Tour West Wing Tour Video Series Décor and Art Holidays Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows President’s Commission About the Fellowship Current Class Staff Bios News and Newsletters White House Internships About Program Presidential Department Descriptions Selection Process Internship Timeline & FAQs Tours & Events 2013 Easter Egg Roll Kitchen Garden Tours Take a Virtual Tour of the White House Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources /* Maximize height of menu features. */if(typeof(jQuery)!='undefined')jQuery.each($('#topnav'),function(i,v){var o=$(v),oh=o.height(),sh=o.siblings().height();if(oh Home • Briefing Room • Press Briefings   The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release May 15, 2013 Press Briefing by Press Secretary Jay Carney, 5/15/2013

 

James S. Brady Press Briefing Room  1:26 P.M. EDT  MR. CARNEY:  Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen.  I want to thank you for being here today.   I’ve often been asked and seen some comments about what it’s like to be up here, having been over there on the firing line, if you will.  And I can remember sitting in the chair that Mark Knoller is occupying now when my friend and great predecessor, Mike McCurry, was press secretary, and the day that he came out with a brown paper bag on his head.  I can’t do that, because if I did, you wouldn’t be able to see the many faces of Jay in reaction to today’s news -- or yesterday’s, rather -- provided, of course, by our good friends at The Washington Post.  But it is, as they say, part of the job. And with that, I have a couple of announcements.  First, today, later this afternoon, the President and Senator McCain are meeting to discuss ongoing progress and the importance of common-sense immigration reform, as well as other issues, including ongoing budget negotiations.  That’s here, at the White House. Also, I wanted to let you know that as part of his -- Q    What time is that? MR. CARNEY:  I don’t have a specific time for you, but we’ll get back to you -- but it’s later this afternoon. Q    Dinner or lunch? Q    Dinner? MR. CARNEY:  No, just a meeting here at the White House this afternoon.  No early bird dinner. Mental health conference announcement that I have for you today is that as part of his plan to reduce gun violence, President Obama directed Secretary Sebelius and Duncan to launch a national conversation to increase understanding and awareness about mental health.  And as part of that effort, on June 3rd, the President and Vice President will host a national conference on mental health.   As the administration has repeatedly emphasized, the vast majority of Americans with a mental health problem are not violent and, in fact, they are more likely to be the victims than perpetrators of the crimes.  While millions of Americans struggle with mental health problems, those who need help are too often afraid to ask -- to seek it, rather, because of the shame and secrecy associated with mental illness.   And the conference will bring together people from across the country, including representatives from state, local, and tribal governments, mental health advocates, educators, health care providers, faith leaders, and individuals who have struggled with mental health problems, to discuss how we can all work together to reduce stigma and help the millions of Americans struggling with mental health problem recognize the importance of reaching out for assistance. And we’ll have more information about the conference as the date approaches. Finally -- and I’m going to smile for this -- I think you all noticed in the CBO, or I hope you did, the CBO report yesterday, the so-called baseline reestimate.  And the improvements in the CBO’s report show that the President’s policies of cutting the deficit by more than $2.5 trillion in a balanced way are contributing to the most rapid deficit reduction since World War II.  The most rapid deficit reduction since World War II. While there is still more work to be done to cut the deficit, this is important progress because we strengthen America by growing the economy from the middle out.  Working with leaders from both parties, President Obama has cut the deficit by more than half when measured as a share of GDP.  This is a balanced deficit reduction that cuts waste, asks millionaires and billionaires to pay their fair share in taxes, and preserves investments we need in energy, education, and manufacturing to grow the economy and create jobs.  The administration is committed to continuing to work with Congress to create jobs, reduce the deficit, and replace the sequester in a balanced way. Later this week, we understand that CBO will be putting out a reestimate of the President’s budget, which includes, as you know, his plan to replace the economically damaging sequester with a balanced approach to deficit reduction that would help drive stronger economic growth in the short term and the long term. And now I go to Julie Pace. Q    Thank you.  The President said in his statement last night about the IRS report that he wanted to see those who are responsible held accountable.  What does he mean by that? MR. CARNEY:  As I said yesterday, the President wanted to see the report by the independent Inspector General into the activity of IRS personnel before he made judgments about that activity. He has seen the report, and you saw his statement.  It was categorical and reflected his absolute conviction that the conduct portrayed in the report is inappropriate and, regardless of the motivation, it is wrong.  And he expects people to be held accountable if they engaged in inappropriate activity, inappropriate conduct.   He expects the Treasury Department and the IRS to take all the necessary actions to ensure that this kind of thing cannot happen again.  And he insists that this happen because it is of the utmost importance, in the President’s mind, that the American people understand and believe that the IRS applies our tax laws in a neutral and fair way to everyone.   And he is -- feels very strongly about this, as I think you saw when he took a question about it and answered it in the hypothetical, if you will, if the reports on what had happened turned out to be true.  And now that we know what the IG report has said, you saw what his views are about it in the statement he released.   And he’ll be meeting with Treasury Department officials later today to talk about the next steps that he hopes will be taken to achieve the things that I just said:  making sure that people are held accountable for their conduct, for their activities, and that the steps necessary are -- the necessary steps are taken to ensure that this does not happen again. Q    But that still doesn’t answer the question about what he thinks being held accountable means.  Does he think that people should lose their jobs if they were involved in this? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m not going to get into specifics about what outcomes should happen here, but I will tell you that the President feels very strongly about this and that he will -- he wants to see that the actions taken, as revealed by the Treasury report, that are inappropriate, are met with consequences.  And he will have that discussion with Treasury officials, and he will make clear to Treasury Department leaders that he expects action. Q    Is he going to leave the decisions, though, about how these people should be held accountable to the Treasury Department?  Or is he going to -- MR. CARNEY:  I think there are -- there are obviously procedures in place here about lines of authority, and I will direct you to the Treasury Department for how that works in terms of Treasury’s oversight of the IRS.  But the President’s views have been made I think abundantly clear in the statement he provided last night and will be made abundantly clear in the meetings that he’s having. Q    But could you just give us a sense of the President’s thinking in deciding to push again for the reporter shield bill? MR. CARNEY:  As you know, Julie, the President has long supported media shield legislation in the Senate, during the 2008 campaign, and as President.  In fact, under his leadership, the administration successfully negotiated a balanced bill in the Senate in 2009 that passed the Judiciary Committee by a significant vote, bipartisan vote, and was widely supported by the news media and journalism organizations represented in this room. And he has been in contact with -- or the White House has been in contact with Senator Schumer, and we are glad to see that that legislation will be reintroduced, because he believes strongly that we need to provide the protections to the media that this legislation would do. Q    The Justice Department has introduced a criminal investigation into the IRS matter, and Speaker Boehner suggested that people responsible should be sent to jail if it’s appropriate.  Does the President feel that that kind of outcome would be a necessary outcome for this? MR. CARNEY:  Well, obviously a criminal investigation conducted by the Justice Department is something that the Justice Department would have to address.  Generally speaking, if there is criminality involved and proved then, in a general matter, in any criminal investigation, it is the President’s view that it should be met with punishment.  But I cannot, obviously, comment on the investigation that the Attorney General announced the other day. What I can say is that the President believes that the conduct reported in the IG’s review is inappropriate, it is wrong, and there needs to be consequences for that conduct and there need to be steps taken to ensure that it doesn’t happen again. Q    And on the media shield law, can you comment on the timing of this?  Is this an effort to counterbalance the controversy over the AP records? MR. CARNEY:  Look, again, we can't -- there’s a criminal investigation on.  I think the Attorney General addressed the nature of that investigation.  As is entirely appropriate, we are not aware of tactics involved in the investigation or any of the particulars about such an investigation.   What I can tell you is that the President’s support for this kind of media shield law is well documented, it is longstanding, and he does believe that it is appropriate to resubmit that legislation and to try to convert it into law at this time.   And I said yesterday, he is Commander-in-Chief, and as any Commander-in-Chief should do -- should be, rather -- he is very mindful of the national security implications of the leaking of classified information.  I, again, can only point you to the public reports, but the Attorney General did say that this investigation involves what he called a particularly egregious national security leak.  And these are serious matters, because the leaking of classified information can harm our national security interests and it can endanger the lives of American men and women overseas. Separate from that, the President believes that the balance that we need to achieve needs to allow the maximum amount of freedom for the media to pursue investigative journalism that's possible. And the media shield law that he supports -- or bill that he supports would go a long way towards achieving that, and I would note that the bill that was negotiated by this administration in 2009 that passed out of committee successfully in a bipartisan manner had the support of numerous media organizations. Q    But why with all the other things he has on his plate now would he choose this time to reintroduce -- MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think again without commenting on the specifics of an ongoing criminal investigation, he thinks it’s an appropriate time to work with the Senate, in this case Senator Schumer, to reintroduce this legislation. Q    Has the President spoken with Secretary Lew about what his expectations are for accountability? MR. CARNEY:  I think he will be speaking with Treasury leaders today. Q    But there’s been no communication to date? MR. CARNEY:  I think that it was entirely appropriate that, as I said and the President said earlier, that we could not pass judgment on the Inspector General’s report based on partial information provided in media stories about that report.  We needed to wait for the report to be delivered.  It was delivered late yesterday.  The President commented on it immediately. Q    I assume you won’t say whether or not the President believes interim Director Miller should or shouldn’t resign.  But is there any plan to name a permanent director?  Is it time to do that? MR. CARNEY:  I don't have any personnel announcements.  I don't have any personnel announcements to make.  I can tell you that the President believes that we need to look at the findings of the Inspector General and his review and to make determinations about the need to hold people accountable for their conduct. I’m not addressing that to any -- about any specific person.  This is something that will obviously be the subject of discussions and actions at Treasury and the IRS, and as is appropriate oversight by Congress.  But the President’s view on this is very clear and very, I think, strong, as you saw in the statement last night. Q    Okay, more broadly, the President has a lot of goals for the year:  gun control, immigration reform, entitlement and tax reform, to name a few.  How concerned he is that this is going to distract from his agenda? MR. CARNEY:  It’s a good question, Jessica.  And I would just say that -- and I think a little perspective here is required.  These are the kinds of issues that we deal with here in this room and that the appropriate people deal with in an administration, but the vast majority of the people working for the President every day are working on the agenda that he laid out in his State of the Union address and in his inaugural address -- an agenda that is focused on what we can do to keep the economy growing; what we can to invest in infrastructure and in education; what we can do to expand our civil liberties; what we can do to enhance our national security.   This is the foundation of what he believes he’s here to do, and it’s what he focuses on every day.  And it includes -- you mentioned action to reduce gun violence.  It includes, as I just mentioned, with the mental health conference that he and the Vice President will be hosting, it includes continuing to work on issues that he believes are necessary for America’s leaders to take to reduce gun violence and that enjoy, in that case and in almost the cases of the agenda that he supports, the support of the American people.   And that's what -- if you look at what reporting that's probably been done by CNN and others, these are the things that the American people expect their leaders to be focused on.  And I’m not suggesting that some of these other matters are not important.  I mean, you can tell by the way that the President has responded to these revelations about conduct by IRS personnel that he feels passionately about it and he expects action.   But he is focused on an agenda that is focused on the middle class and building the economy. Q    But, Jay, recently the President has gone out to the American people to ask for their support lobbying Congress for his agenda.  And given this trio of controversies together, some people feel calls into question their faith in government overall.  Do you worry or does the President worry that the people will lose faith in him and in government? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I think the President is concerned when you see the kind of activity documented in the Inspector General’s report by IRS personnel, that that kind of conduct, no matter what the motivation or lack of motivation there is behind it, that that can undermine people’s faith in the IRS in particular and the essential notion that the IRS enforces our tax laws in a neutral and fair way.  That is fundamental and essential, and that’s why the President has the attitude that he has towards this and why he’s going to insist and demand that action be taken. Jon. Q    Jay, does the President still have confidence in the acting IRS commissioner? MR. CARNEY:  Again, Jon, I’m not going to get into personnel.  The fact of the matter is the President will be discussing these issues with Treasury leaders later today, and I think his views on the overall IG report have been conveyed to the public and to you.  So I’m not going to get into personnel matters. Q    The IRS leadership response to the report, which is included at the end of the report, says -- acknowledges some minor problems in methodology, basically, but says, “We believe that frontline career employees that made the decisions acted out of a desire for efficiency and not out of any political or partisan viewpoint.”  And the IRS says that these issues at this point have been resolved.  Does the President buy that? MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes that the Treasury Department, as he has directed, needs to hold those responsible for these failures accountable and that they need to make sure that each of the Inspector General’s recommendations -- each of them -- is implemented quickly so that such conduct never happens again. And you pointed out the observations of the IG audit or report, and I think that’s significant because intention is a part of the story here.  But regardless of the intent, the President believes the conduct was wrong; it is inappropriate to use the kind of criteria that were used -- whatever the goal was, efficiency or otherwise -- to make the decisions that were made about implementing the laws regarding these kinds of 501-(c)(4) organizations; and that he expects those changes to be made, all of the Inspector General’s recommendations to be implemented, and for those responsible for the failures that we’ve seen be held accountable. Q    But let me just ask that last part again.  Does the President believe the IRS when they say that none of this was politically motivated in any way, that the only goal here was efficiency? MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that the President has read the IG report.  The IG report says that, in its interviews, that everyone they talked to said that they were not motivated by anybody on the outside; that this was not for political or partisan reasons. Q    And he believes it? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don’t know that he has any reason to doubt it.  This is an independent Inspector General.  What I can say is that what questions need still to be answered should be answered, and that’s his view; and that oversight is an important part of this -- legitimate oversight is an important part of this, and we would support legitimate oversight into this matter. In the meantime, we need and expect action to be taken in response to this report. Q    And just one more thing.  The report also says that on August 4th of 2011, that the chief counsel at the IRS -- I believe that’s William Wilkins, appointed by President Obama in 2009; this is one of only two political appointees at the IRS -- that the chief counsel was briefed on this back in 2011.  Did he share that information with the White House? MR. CARNEY:  I’ll have to look at that.  I don’t know that that’s the case.  I would point you to the Treasury Department for more information about I think the meeting that we’re talking about or that is represented in that. Q    But shouldn’t he have?  This is one of the President’s political appointees, chief counsel. MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is what I said yesterday:  The President found out about this through media reports on Friday.  That’s how I found out about it.  The White House Counsel’s Office was notified a few weeks ago, through the Treasury Department, about the Inspector General’s review and that it was coming to a conclusion.  And that is a fairly routine matter, when an Inspector General review is being concluded and will be made public, that there is a notification.  It was a topline notification, and it was also made clear that the matter was still under review and not completed.  And that is what we know about this matter until -- what we knew about this matter until we saw the report yesterday. Q    The purpose of briefing the chief counsel, according to the IG, was so that everybody would have the latest information on the issue.  As the President’s political appointee over there, shouldn’t there have been an effort for him to brief you? MR. CARNEY:  Well, you can say what should have been or shouldn’t have been.  What I can tell you is what to my knowledge I’m aware of. Major. Q    Couple things.  You mentioned just a second ago, whatever questions need to be answered.  What are the questions that the President has about what is known and unknown with the IRS? MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President, as you know, and as most of us have done, digested the lengthy Inspector General’s report.  He will be having conversations with Treasury officials this afternoon.  I think that the information that we've learned through the Inspector General’s report is certainly sufficient, in his mind, to call for action, and that's why he’s calling for action and that actions be taken.  I'm simply saying -- Q    What questions does he have? MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a conversation readout for you -- Q    -- by whether this was politically motivated or not? MR. CARNEY:  Jon asked that question and I would point you to the IG report, and we have no reason to doubt the IG report.  But we certainly understand that oversight is a -- legitimate oversight is a necessary part of this and that actions need to be taken to hold people accountable for their failures and to make sure that this doesn’t happen again. Q    Is he also curious about the testimony given to Congress, which appears to be a direct contradiction to what the IG report lays out in terms of what was disclosed to Congress when asked specifically about whether or not conservative groups were being scrutinized? MR. CARNEY:  Well, if you're talking about IRS leadership, I think that the President believes that -- and this applies to all personnel involved -- that whatever the intention here, that failures that are identified in the IG’s report need to result in consequences and that actions need to be taken to hold people responsible.  I don't have a specific and I won't get into a specific about which individual or individuals should be held responsible.  That's the subject for conversations between the President and the Treasury, and especially for the Treasury Department and the IRS to address. Q    Does the President believe, broadly, that either intentionally or inadvertently misleading Congress is, by itself, something that would be subject to dismissal? MR. CARNEY:  Again, I'm not going to get into actions with regards to personnel.  Q    Why not? MR. CARNEY:  Because it’s inappropriate to project what actions might be taken.  There are methods that have to be followed, and that's appropriate.  But what I can tell you is that accountability is essential as far as this President is concerned, and that the actions taken by IRS personnel, as documented in this Inspector General report, are inappropriate and wrong, and they should not have happened and they need to be corrected, and those who are responsible for the failures need to be held accountable. Q    Can you tell us who he will be meeting with from Treasury? MR. CARNEY:  Treasury leadership.  I'm not sure of all members of it, but it will include the Treasury Secretary and Deputy Treasury Secretary and others.  But I don't have a full list. Q    Will there be any coverage? MR. CARNEY:  No, it’s a private meeting. Q    Now, yesterday there was a dustup here on the podium where you suggested that Republicans fabricated, intentionally, emails related to the Benghazi talking points.  There have been requests today from the Hill that the White House release them all -- all the relevant emails so the public can have a full vetting of this and evaluate it in clear light of day.  Is the White House willing to do that? MR. CARNEY:  Well, let me answer that -- the two parts of that.  First of all, what I said is I was asked about a report where a news organization had the actual email that had been reported on previously and the actual email was substantively different from what had been reported on, including things that were put in quotations.  And that's just a fact.   And I think that it goes to the motivations of the GOP obsession with this matter -- and “obsession” is a word that I am adopting from print reports, it is not just mine -- and it reflects the fundamental fact here that when it comes to the much discussed talking points, the issue that caused the concern to begin with was the fact that Ambassador Rice, on the Sunday shows, using the talking points provided to her, said that it is our understanding, our best understanding at the time, that there had been spontaneous demonstrations that then led to the violent attack and assault on the facility in Benghazi.   It is absolutely true that that assessment turned out to be wrong.  What is also true is what we have maintained from the beginning, that that assessment was made by and drafted by the CIA, the intelligence community.  And when it proved not to be the case, we acknowledged that.  And we made clear from the beginning that the information that we had in real time in the days after the attack in Benghazi would, of course, evolve as more information became available, and our assessments would evolve as more information became available. But when you have an assessment about the -- if you go back to what originally caused the accusations by the Republicans about the so-called talking points, it was this assertion that there had been demonstrations and the -- what turned out to be the case that there hadn’t been.  What is essential to know is that that assertion was made from the beginning by the intelligence community, as the President said the other day, and that was the best understanding that the IC had at that time.  And, of course, the intelligence in the early days after an incident like that, especially in a place like Libya, is incomplete and imperfect.  And as more information became available, we made it available.  And I think that’s the essential fact here that has I think been obscured often in the reporting on this. Q    But can you answer my question -- are you willing to release the emails?  If it’s all benign as you described --  MR. CARNEY:  I didn’t mean to.  I just forgot the comma to go into the second part. Q    I mean, if it’s all just benign and a part of the agency process, as you describe, let the country take a look at it.  Is that something the White House is willing to do? MR. CARNEY:  I can say a couple things about this.  In our cooperation with the investigations and oversight by Congress in this, we have provided an extraordinary amount of information -- thousands and thousands of documents.  We have provided testimony by senior officials repeatedly in hearings and in person, and other forms of testimony.  We have provided to the relevant committees as well as leadership and staff the very emails that we’re talking about.  And was a concession, a unique concession to a longstanding position held by administrations of both parties going back years that internal deliberations are not something that we divulge or make public. I can also tell you that we are always looking at ways to how we can provide more information about this specific issue.  And I don’t have any announcements for you now, but we’re looking at ways that we can make more information available. Q    But you said that this process has been contaminated maliciously.  So why don’t you let the public look at what you’re describing? MR. CARNEY:  Major, I commented on a news report that reflected that an email that had been reported on was actually not accurately reported on.  I have said more broadly that this is political.  Republicans are fundraising off of it.  Outside conservative groups are doing ads on it.  You have reports that the -- by your colleagues -- that the Speaker of the House is obsessed with it and yet, when he had the opportunity to look at the emails, he didn’t even go.  We know that the emails in question were provided to the relevant members of Congress of both parties, including the leadership.  And at that time, even though they supposedly knew everything that was in them, they did not raise objections about them.  And their concern about the emails with regards to the confirmation process for John Brennan were met and the confirmation moved forward. So it is absolutely political.  And we have in the course of this been focused on what isn’t political and what is essential, which is the fact that four Americans were killed and we need to find those who are responsible and bring them to justice. Secondly, we need to take action to ensure that the inadequate security that clearly existed at the time, because we could not protect those four Americans, be looked at and addressed so that it doesn't happen again. And that is reflected in the ARB led by Admiral Mullen and Ambassador Pickering and their unsparing report, and in the fact that the State Department adopted every one of their recommendations. Q    Might you release the emails? MR. CARNEY:  Again, we’re looking at, as we have throughout this process, ways to provide as much information as possible.  There is the tradition, if you will, or the concern that dates back through administrations of both parties involving internal communications and deliberations, but we are again, as we have throughout, working to provide more information.  Wendell. Q    Is the President as concerned, as troubled by the subpoena of AP phone records as he is the IRS’s actions? MR. CARNEY:  What I can tell you is that when there are criminal investigations undertaken by the Department of Justice, we do not have insight into or knowledge about them -- and that is the way it should be -- methods or other information that should not be and is not shared.  What I also can tell you is that the Attorney General has said that he has confidence that the procedures the Justice Department is supposed to follow in this case, in these kinds of circumstances, were followed.  But I am simply reflecting what the Attorney General said because I don't have independent information, and we do not have independent information about an ongoing criminal investigation, an investigation which, as the Attorney General said again, involves an egregious leak of classified information.   And obviously an investigation like that is fairly broad in terms of its scope, and that's why it’s so essential that White Houses do not engage with Departments of Justice on matters like these.  There is some history to that in previous administrations, and it is not a pretty history.  So we maintain that firewall. Broadly speaking, I can tell you that the President is a strong defender of the First Amendment and a firm believer in the need for the press to be free in its ability to conduct investigative reporting and to facilitate a free flow information.   He also has to, as Commander-in-Chief and as a citizen, be mindful of the necessity of protecting our national security information, classified information.  And that is a balance that he believes we can find and must find.  Part of finding that balance -- again, not specific to this case -- but part of finding that balance he has long believed is enacting the kind of media shield law that he has supported since he was a senator and which he looks forward to being reintroduced in the Senate in the coming days and weeks. Q    So he believes there might have been justification for the government to subpoena these phone records? MR. CARNEY:  Well, you’re putting words into my mouth.  What I did was cite the Attorney General.  We do not have independent insight into -- or eyes onto the methods or information involved in a criminal investigation. Q    The President sat next to the Attorney General at the Police Officers Memorial.  Can we assume they did not discuss this? MR. CARNEY:  I can assume that, but I have not had a conversation with the President about it.  You can be sure that the firewall that we maintain is always maintained. Q    Walk me through why it’s necessary to maintain that firewall. MR. CARNEY:  Seriously?  So it is entirely appropriate that criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice be independent of the White House, of any White House.  And in a case like this when, according again to the Attorney General, that this is an investigation that has to do with an egregious leak of classified information, it would be doubly inappropriate for other components of the administration to cross that line and to communicate with the Justice Department about that ongoing investigation.  So we do not. Q    It’s being cited as a failure of leadership that on the AP subpoenas, the IRS actions, the Fast and Furious gun-walking investigation, you or the President said that you learned of it from media reports. MR. CARNEY:  Well, again, I would be interested to see what the reporting would be if it were otherwise, if it were to found out that there were -- that there was engagement by the White House in criminal investigations conducted by the Department of Justice. Again, I think it’s important and instructive to know the history here of previous administrations and to know why it is so important that that firewall be maintained.  It’s not always convenient, but it is important.  It is important to the successful carrying out of investigations and to the implementation of our justice system.  Peter.     Q    Given the fact that you said that the IG report the President has acknowledged concern that it sort of undermines Americans’ view of the IRS, Senator Weicker today said that the IRS controversy is going to make it significantly more difficult for this administration working with Congress to pass any big budget deal if it includes new taxes.  Is that a concern? MR. CARNEY:  The President believes, as a majority of Americans believe, as every bipartisan panel that has looked at this believes, and as most economists believe, that the proper way to further reduce our deficit so that it does not infringe on economic growth, so that it does not cause job loss, but rather it causes growth and job creation is to do it in a way that is balanced, that includes revenue from tax reform as the President has proposed.  That is the right way to do this.  That's the way the American people believe is right.   And I would simply point you to what I said at the top.  We have seen -- and it’s important to note this because we have spent a great deal of time, appropriately, talking about deficit reduction here at the White House and on Capitol Hill and around Washington and different ways of achieving it, and the President committed that he would reduce the deficit by half when he took office.  And there was a lot of skepticism about that.  The CBO has now put out a report making clear that we have reduced the deficit by half, and more work needs to be done. And the reason why we’ve been able to reduce the deficit by half, the reduction that we saw from the baseline estimates from February to May, is because of increased revenues.  Why do you have increased revenues?  One, because of the President’s approach to deficit reduction, as you know through the fiscal cliff deal that was finally negotiated at the end of the year and on the 1st of this year; and because we have a growing economy, and a growing economy is essential -- is an essential component of deficit reduction. And if you take the approach that has been supported by others of answering the call for deficit reduction by asking seniors and the middle class to foot the bill while giving tax cuts to the wealthy, the success rate of that proposal is abysmal.  I mean, we can just look.  I wish I had the chart here.  When President Bush took office in 1993 -- or rather in 2001, he inherited a budget surplus.  By the time he left office, he bequeathed upon his successor record deficits.  In those eight years, policies were implemented that mirror the policies supported by Republicans when it comes to budgets and deficits today.  They did not work.  The middle class stagnated even during periods of growth.  Wages were flat.  And in the end, we saw the worst financial crisis that we’ve seen in our lifetimes and a near depression.   Since President Obama has come into office, he took immediate, urgent measure, emergency measures to stop the bleeding and to prevent a depression.  And since that time, we have seen steady, substantial deficit reduction.  We have seen steady economic growth.  And we have seen steady job creation.  That’s the recipe that the American people expect and want from Washington. Q    But it doesn’t seem unreasonable for Americans right now, given what we’ve learned about the IRS, may have a lack of confidence in the tax-collecting agency. MR. CARNEY:  Well, the President believes, as I just made clear, that it is imperative that action be taken so that Americans understand and believe that the IRS enforces our tax laws in a neutral and fair way to all Americans.  And that’s why he expects action in response to the report, and it’s why he feels so passionately, as you’ve seen reflected in his comments on it. Q    The White House, in an effort to try to reestablish confidence, some have said has been ineffective in terms of its crisis management.  The gentleman who used to stand at that podium before you, Robert Gibbs, said just yesterday in reference to the President’s remarks at the news conference with David Cameron on Monday, that if the President had spoken less about losing patience for this, “which is what I do with my 9-year-old, and used [far] more vivid language,” this circumstance wouldn’t play out the way that it had.  Does the White House feel confident that its handling of this crisis has been sufficient in terms of placating Americans’ concerns about their trust in government? MR. CARNEY:  I think the President made clear, based on news reports, his feelings about those reports and what he would expect if they turned out to be true.  It is entirely appropriate for a President or other leaders in an administration not to take action based on media reports, but to wait for the actual Inspector General review to see what happened before moving forward, and that’s what the President did. I think it would be --  Q    Is that bad advice that Robert Gibbs was suggesting to this President? MR. CARNEY:  Look, I think the President is impatient with people who do not hold themselves to the standards that he believes employees of the federal government ought to hold themselves to -- because the American public deserve that and he expects it.  He also believes that it is important for him to wait for the facts before he acts, and that is what he done here. Peter. Q    Thank you, Jay.  We’ve seen on gun control -- we saw the President act and push a gun control bill after the events at Sandy Hook.  We’re seeing with respect to the shield law the President pushing the shield law after reports after the seizure of AP phone records.  Why doesn’t the President proactively come out with his agenda and push it regardless of these -- what’s happening outside?  Why doesn’t he just come forward with his own agenda and -- MR. CARNEY:  I mean, Peter, I’d say that's a question that I wish I could answer in full because I could give you the full list of the President’s agenda, both when he took office in 2009 and when he was inaugurated for a second time earlier this year.  And the items are filled -- the list is filled with items that he proactively initiated, not least the Recovery Act; not least the Affordable Care Act -- Obamacare; not least the actions that resulted in the deal at the end of the year just now that contributed to the reestimate of our deficits by the CBO that made, for the first time in 20 years, our tax code more fair. And there are just numerous instances of this.  I think that it is fair to say, and as others have said, that the accomplishments of the first term are substantial legislatively and are substantial in ways that do not involve legislation, including the fulfillment of the President’s commitment to end the war in Iraq, the fulfillment of the President’s commitment to refocus our attention in the war against terrorists and al Qaeda on Afghanistan and the al Qaeda central in the Af-Pak region that led to the successful removal of Osama bin Laden from the battlefield.   And if it is also true that the President pushes legislation that he believes is essential, that -- at least in the case of Newtown -- is a response to something horrific, like Newtown, that is wholly appropriate.  And what we have seen, even though a minority in the Senate rejected the will of 90 percent of the American people, we have seen a substantial change in the views of the American people on common-sense measures to reduce gun violence.  We have seen and heard the voices of the American people who were disappointed in the Senate expressed in the aftermath of that.   And the President believes, as he has said to you, that this fight is not over, that this will be done.  When it comes to enacting legislation, responsible legislation, to expand our background law system so that it works and it’s not filled with loopholes, that's going to happen.  The President believes it’s going to happen not because he wants it or says it’s so, but because the American people have been so clear that they want it and they will hold their elected leaders responsible if they block it. Roger Runningen, then Mark Landler. Q    Thank you.  Mr. Erdogan of Turkey is here tomorrow for talks with the President about Syria and a host of other items.  Today, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman and its top Republican are introducing legislation to authorize arms to the Syrian rebels.  How does the White House respond to that? MR. CARNEY:  I don't have a comment specifically on legislation that, if you are correct, is being submitted.  What I can tell you is that the President and his team are constantly evaluating the options available in terms of assisting the Syrian people and assisting the Syrian opposition.  We have significantly increased our assistance in both cases:  humanitarian assistance to the Syrian people -- we are by far the largest donor of that assistance; and direct assistance to the Syrian opposition, including assistance to the Supreme Military Council. It is our position as of now that our assistance to the Syrian opposition is nonlethal in nature, although it has changed in kind within the rubric of nonlethal.  But we are constantly evaluating what our options are. You heard the President talk about this and the need to make sure that the actions we take help bring about the goal that we seek, which is a Syria that is rid of Bashar al-Assad; a Syria that has the opportunity to flourish, to be more democratic and more prosperous; to have a government that reflects the will of the people and respects the rights of all the Syrian people.  And those are substantial goals, and we need to make sure that the actions we take contribute to the achievement of those goals on behalf of U.S. national interests, as well as, importantly, the Syrian people. Q    Mr. Erdogan told NBC on May 9th that, “We want the United States to take more responsibility, further steps inside, in Syria, to end the fighting.”  It sort of sounds like he may not get anything like that. MR. CARNEY:  Well, I don't know what you mean by the last part of your question.  I can tell you that the President will have discussions with the Prime Minister about a range of issues.  And I'm sure that Syria will be very high on the agenda, including ways that we can, working together and with our partners, bring about the transition that is so essential in Syria, including the efforts that are underway to revitalize the Geneva Framework for a political transition -- we've been working with the Russians on that matter as well as others -- and including the ways that we are working to provide assistance to the opposition and to the Syrian people. Mark, and then Ari.  Two Marks -- I did say Landler first.  So I'll do Mark, Ari, Mark. Q    Thanks, Jay.  The New York Times is reporting this morning, citing a senior Israeli official as warning President Assad of two things:  Number one, that Israel will continue interdicting the flow of weapons from Iran to Hezbollah, something it did two weeks ago with a series of military strikes.  And secondly, that if the Assad regime retaliates against this, it can expect a much broader Israeli response, one that the official described as putting Assad at risk of forfeiting his regime. Is the White House concerned that this conflict in Syria has the potential, the danger, of spilling across its borders and becoming a wider conflict? MR. CARNEY:  In answer to your question at the end -- yes, we have always been concerned that the conflict in Syria could expand beyond its borders.  But as a general principle, that is why we have been so insistent that we need to bring about a political transition there and that we need the support of a range of partners in that effort. In terms of reported Israeli actions or contemplated Israeli actions, I would have to refer you to the Israelis.  What I have said in response to the story that you mentioned -- the previous story -- is that, broadly speaking, we have long acknowledged and recognized that it is part of Israel’s sovereign right to defend itself and that its concern about the transfer of sophisticated weaponry to Hezbollah is legitimate.  And we understand that concern and why Israel holds it, and why they take action to address it.  Again, that’s not in response to any specific reported action but simply our position on the overall matter. Q    Can I ask one follow-up on Benghazi?  Further on this discussion of the talking points and the interagency process, I’m just wondering, is the White House confident or does the White House have confidence in the performance of the State Department Spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, who is the author of some of the emails in question?  And would the President be comfortable promoting her or forwarding her for a Senate-confirmed position in the future? MR. CARNEY:  Well, the answer is yes, and the other is a hypothetical.  But the answer is yes, we have confidence in her.  And, again, when it comes to the so-called talking points, the fundamental issue here was why did Ambassador Rice go out on the Sunday shows and assert that it was the view of the administration and, in this case, the intelligence community, that there had been a protest and that that is what led to -- in response to the anti-Muslim video --- and that is what led to, ultimately, to the violence and the assault against the facility there.   That assessment turned out to be wrong.  But that assessment was made, as is reflected in all the reporting here, by the intelligence community after a lot of internal deliberations about what different information there was and what could and should be said publicly.  And there was a process in which the CIA issued talking points that represented their view on what happened and took into concern -- took into account the concerns of others about what information was appropriate to provide and what wasn’t.  And that document moved forward. What is ironic about the churn that has been caused by this is that, again, the accusation was always that we had somehow, the White House or others, had altered the intelligence community’s assessment.  That is false, has always been false.  Secondly, the idea that we tried to perpetuate a view of what had happened that was inconsistent with the new information that was provided.  But that is belied by the facts -- by the fact that the President called it an act of terror the day after; by the fact that the NCTC Director in congressional testimony just a few days after Ambassador Rice was on the Sunday shows, said our information now is that this was a terrorist attack.   And as more information became available, we made it available.  And meanwhile, actions were taken on the important matters, which was launching an investigation into who did this so that they can be brought to justice, and launching a process by which an assessment could be made of what went wrong, what failures there were that allowed for four Americans to be killed, and implementing recommendations to prevent them from happening in the future.  And that moved forward at the President’s direction, at the Secretary of State’s direction. Ari.  Q    Thanks, Jay.  The President has spent so much time and effort in the last four years trying to persuade Americans that they should trust their government.  He says government is not some hostile outside force; government is us.  He says it again and again.  Do the actions of the IRS and the Justice Department make it more difficult for him to persuade Americans that the government deserves their trust? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can address the IRS.  The fact of the matter is that the conduct described in the Inspector General’s report is wholly inappropriate, as far as the President is concerned.  It is wrong and it should not have happened, and action needs to be taken so that it doesn’t happen again, and those who are responsible for the failures need to be held accountable.   And it is precisely because -- both broadly, but with specific regard to this agency -- that the American people believe and can feel assured that the IRS operates in a neutral and fair way in the application of our tax laws to everybody.  And that is why he has responded the way that he has.  Q    But given the range of government, at least questionable if not bad behavior that we’re looking at -- and I know you don’t want to talk about the DOJ but it’s on the front page every day -- how does the President say with a straight face, you, Americans, should trust your government, we’re acting in your best interests? MR. CARNEY:  Well, here’s what the President can say and what any responsible chief executive can say in a situation like this -- a chief executive who oversees a substantial organization, and I think it’s fair to say that the federal government is substantial.  If inappropriate action, illegal action, wrong action is discovered, it needs to be corrected and people need to be held accountable.  And that is what this President has said, and that is what he will instruct others to make sure happens. And that reflects his view that everyone who works for the United States government needs to hold himself or herself to the highest standards, the standards expected by the American people. And the American people justifiably hold everyone -- from the President on down -- to those standards.  And when those standards are not met, and when there is inappropriate conduct, regardless of the motivation, when there are failures the likes of which we see documented in the Inspector General’s report, action has to be taken.  There has to be impatience for that, and the President has that impatience for that kind of action. So he wants and instructs everyone who works in the government -- whether they work for him or are civil servants -- to hold themselves to that standard.  And when he finds out that there have been failures, he acts on it. Mark and then Christi.  Mr. Knoller. Q    Jay, you said earlier that most officials are not distracted from their jobs in pursuing the President’s agenda.  But what about you?  Much has been said and written about the burden that you’ve faced in the last few days with the Benghazi, IRS, and AP stories.  Have you felt an undue burden?  Have you dreaded this week’s briefings more than any other?   MR. CARNEY:  You know it’s a personal question, but a great question.   Q    Do you appreciate it?  (Laughter.)  MR. CARNEY:  You beat me to my punch line.  (Laughter.)  In this case, I actually do.  It is a privilege every day to stand here, and I wear the so-called burden lightly because I believe in what we’re doing and I believe in what we’re doing in this room. I think, because I did it myself, that it is entirely appropriate for the reporters who cover this building to ask hard questions, even when they're questions that are hard to answer, or when I have to say, because it’s true, that I don't have the answer, or that it would be inappropriate for me to have an answer.  And I know that that is unsatisfying, but it has to be the case.  And I think that it may sound odd, but I enjoy coming out here when it is challenging because I think that this is a portion of our democracy at work.  And to be a part of that is a rare and unique privilege.  And I think -- I hope everyone here feels that.  I know I felt it when I was sitting in the chair that you're occupying, and I know I’ll feel it for the rest of my life. Christi. Q    I just want to make sure I understand your response to Wendell about the resurrection of the reporter shield bill.  It’s not -- it would be wrong to read that, you’re saying, as a sign that the President is not happy that the DOJ went after the AP? MR. CARNEY:  It would be because we simply -- we don't have information about, nor should we, beyond the press reports, about the specific investigation or the methods that are being employed.  I can point you to what the Attorney General said about his confidence that procedures in place were appropriately followed.  But beyond that, I simply don't have and the President doesn't have further knowledge about or insight into that specific investigation.   It is certainly the case that, broadly speaking -- and these are issues that are being raised now -- that he believes we need to have the kinds of protections for the media that a media shield law would provide.  And he has long felt that -- because the balance that I speak of that he believes is necessary and that he seeks is a careful balance that begins with the proposition that we need to allow reporters the freedom to pursue investigative journalism, which is an essential part of our democracy, an essential part of what should have and needs to happen in Washington.  And then, starting from that essential proposition, we need to then understand and take account of the really vital concerns that are raised by the leaking of classified information.  And without going into -- because I don't know the details, but I can tell you what the Attorney General said -- without going into the specifics of that case, he said it was a particularly egregious leak of information.   And broadly speaking, that's a serious matter.  And I know that it’s -- when you’re a reporter, as I was, that you view this through a particular lens, and that's appropriate.  But it is also important to remember, and I think all reporters or most reporters do, that there are real consequences to the leakage of classified information or can be, and there can be, in fact, lives endangered by it.  And we just -- the President believes we have to find that balance.  But there is the predisposition towards the First Amendment and towards the ability of the press to operate freely. Q    So let me ask you this:  Did the White House go to Senator Schumer and ask him to do it? MR. CARNEY:  We have been in contact with Senator Schumer. Q    Was it at the White House initiative?  MR. CARNEY:  Well, this is Senator Schumer’s bill, let’s be clear.  We are encouraged by his desire to resubmit it, and it reflects the principles the President has and holds.  But we certainly have been in conversation with him. Q    Is there ever any setting in which the President and the Attorney General sit down as two lawyers who understand policy and have a vested interest in the way this administration carries out its -- crafts and carries out policy and discuss things like this? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I would, of course, not participate in  -- I don't participate in all his conversations.  He obviously has known the Attorney General for some time.  But the President believes very strongly in the need for that independence and in the need for the firewall to exist.  And I think for the reasons that I’ve said, it would be the expectation of reporters who cover this, as well as others who hold any administration’s feet to the fire on matters like this, that that firewall be maintained, because it would be inappropriate for a White House to engage with the Justice Department in a criminal investigation of this kind in particular. Q    Right, but I’m not talking about a criminal investigation.  I’m talking about a policy matter. MR. CARNEY:  But you’re asking me about potential conversations that -- well, about policy matters, sure.   Q    But do you? MR. CARNEY:  Sure, in fact, I can point you to -- I mean, I don't have a specific conversation.  But, sure, the President engages in policy discussions with all of his Cabinet members.  And, in fact, going back to the media shield law, there was a letter I believe in late 2009 that was signed by the Attorney General and the Director -- the DNI in support of the media shield law.  And that reflected the President’s position, so I’m sure there was a discussion about that policy.  But what there is not a discussion of is ongoing criminal investigations.   I’ll take one more.  April. Q    Jay, on immigration.  The President and this White House have pushed for the diversity lottery to be placed in the Senate and the House bills.  Apparently, by a voice vote last night -- it looks like you’re prepared for it. MR. CARNEY:  Well, I’m just turning to see if there’s anything in here on it -- I know the question, though.  Go ahead.  I think I do. Q    Okay.  By voice vote, the Senate adopted the diversity lottery.  What is the President saying about that?  And will that be part of the discussion tonight or this afternoon with John McCain?  MR. CARNEY:  Well, we expect that immigration reform will be one of the topics of discussion this afternoon between Senator McCain and the President.  I'm not sure whether this specific amendment will be discussed.  I think the progress being made in general in the Senate will be discussed and the road forward will be discussed.  As you know, the President feels encouraged by that progress.  And he is admiring of the bipartisan effort that has made it this far, of which Senator McCain is such a key component.  But there will be other matters discussed.  On that particular provision, the President supports it.  And he looks forward to a bill emerging from this process that reflects his principles.  He acknowledged from the beginning -- and has periodically since the beginning -- that he will not get everything he wants in it, that it will not be word for word the way he might have written the bill.  But it will, he expects, reflect the principles that he laid out that have been online now for so long.   And it will, he hopes, earn the kind of robust bipartisan support that will I think represent to America the broad consensus that has developed around this issue and that contains within it the real possibility that this significant piece of business can be achieved with all of its benefits for the middle class and for the economy, for the 11 million people living in the shadows, and for our businesses.   But there is a lot of work to be done.  We're mid-stream in the process -- to go back to the general question of what we're doing around here, the issues we're focused on, this is an issue that we're focused on and a lot of people are working on.  And we're still in markup in the Senate, and there's a lot of road to travel.  But there has been substantial progress and we are heartened by that.  Q    Are you going to finish with the House?  Are you going to push this effort in the House since it's not even included? MR. CARNEY:  Well, we're working with both houses of Congress, both parties in both houses on this issue.  We have long noted that the Gang of Eight -- so-called Gang of Eight in the Senate has taken the lead on this and has moved forward in a bipartisan way.  And we have been very supportive of that.  But we are working with both houses.   You guys clearly have breaking news that I don't have.  Q    The acting head of the IRS has told congressional officials, we've learned, that the IRS problem stems from two "rogue employees" in their office in Cincinnati.  Is the White House aware of this?  Was the President aware of this? MR. CARNEY:  I'm not.  I’m hearing about that for the first time.  I'm aware of what's in the Inspector General's report.  Q    And mine is actually different.  Franklin Graham has sent a letter to the President saying that he believes two of his organizations have been audited for political reasons.  And in this letter to the President he said, “Will you take immediate action to reassure Americans we are not in a new chapter of America's history -- repressive government rule?”  What's the response to Franklin Graham? MR. CARNEY:  Well, I can tell you that the President will reassure Americans that he will insist that every step be taken necessary to hold people accountable for the failures that are documented in the Inspector General's report, A.  And, B, that actions be taken so that the inappropriate conduct not occur again, that the kind of criteria that were used never be used again, because it's entirely inappropriate, in the President's view, because it is so essential for the American people to believe that the IRS is enacting our tax laws in a way that is fair and impartial and neutral.   Thanks very much, everybody.  END2:30 P.M. EDT   Watch the Video May 15, 2013 6:00 PMPress Briefing

Blog posts on this issue May 17, 2013 6:08 PM EDTWeekly Wrap Up: “What Our Families Deserve”

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

May 17, 2013 5:50 PM EDTA Stronger and Sustainable Military for the 21st Century

The President and the Department of Defense are taking unprecedented steps to protect our environment, achieve significant cost savings, and give our military better energy options.

May 17, 2013 5:28 PM EDTComing Together to Stop Slavery

Today at the White House, we convened the 10th annual meeting of the President’s Interagency Task Force to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons.

view all related blog posts ul.related-content li.views-row img {float: left; padding: 5px 10px 0 0;}ul.related-content li.view-all {padding-bottom: 3em;} Stay ConnectedFacebookTwitterFlickrGoogle+YouTubeVimeoiTunesLinkedIn   Home The White House Blog Photos & Videos Photo Galleries Video Performances Live Streams Podcasts Briefing Room Your Weekly Address Speeches & Remarks Press Briefings Statements & Releases White House Schedule Presidential Actions Legislation Nominations & Appointments Disclosures Issues Civil Rights Defense Disabilities Economy Education Energy & Environment Ethics Foreign Policy Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Refinancing Rural Service Seniors & Social Security Snapshots Taxes Technology Urban Policy Veterans Violence Prevention Women The Administration President Barack Obama Vice President Joe Biden First Lady Michelle Obama Dr. Jill Biden The Cabinet White House Staff Executive Office of the President Other Advisory Boards About the White House Inside the White House Presidents First Ladies The Oval Office The Vice President's Residence & Office Eisenhower Executive Office Building Camp David Air Force One White House Fellows White House Internships Tours & Events Mobile Apps Our Government The Executive Branch The Legislative Branch The Judicial Branch The Constitution Federal Agencies & Commissions Elections & Voting State & Local Government Resources En español Accessibility Copyright Information Privacy Policy Contact USA.gov Developers Apply for a Job

View the original article here

List of dictators

(Difference between revisions)|align=center|[[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 2005-2007 || Chairman of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. Gained power via a military coup. Though he has said to relinquish power to an elected government in 2007.|align=center|[[Ely Ould Mohamed Vall]] ||align=center| [[Mauritania]] ||align=center| 2005-2007 || Chairman of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. Gained power via a military coup. Though he has said to relinquish power to an elected government in 2007.|align=center|[[Michael Sata]] ||align=center| [[Zambia]] ||align=center| '''2011–present''' || Elected President of Zambia. Sata shut down the opposition and maintains relationships with [[Robert Mugabe]].|align=center|[[Rupiah Bwezani Banda]] ||align=center| [[Zambia]] ||align=center| '''2008–2011''' || Elected President of Zambia. Muzzled press freedom, excessively corrupt and was democratically removed from office after he quietly attempted to cling to power using the army. Fearless politician Michael Chilufya Sata defeated this shameful and thieving dictator.|align=center|[[Mohamed Morsi]] ||align=center| [[Egypt]] ||align=center| '''2012–present''' || Supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Described Jews as "apes and pigs". Massively expanded his presidential authority upon being elected, giving himself unlimited powers.|align=center|[[Mohamed Morsi]] ||align=center| [[Egypt]] ||align=center| '''2012–present''' || Supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Described Jews as "apes and pigs". Massively expanded his presidential authority upon being elected, giving himself unlimited powers.For a list of Roman dictators, see Roman dictator. See also the related lists at the end of this article.

The following is a list of national leaders (heads of state and/or heads of government) commonly regarded as modern dictators. This usage usually carries a pejorative sense and refers to a ruler who:

Rules by decree, via an Enabling Act or similar laws passed by a legislature allowing him to do so; is an absolute ruler of a sovereign state, usually appointed, but without hereditary ascension; governs outside the otherwise accepted rule of law; commonly (but not necessarily) gaining power through fraud, a coup d'état, resorting to either again to continue in power; may develop a cult of personality; may be autocratic, oppressive, despotic or tyrannical.

Some so-called "benevolent dictators" may be viewed as beneficial and their leadership seen as a "necessary evil". The modern usage of the term 'dictator' developed largely in response to instances of autocratic rule in republics, so traditional monarchs are not usually described as dictators in historical commentary. Also excluded from this list are those who held absolute power during national emergencies, but restored the rule of law soon thereafter. Otherwise those included have been widely cited by historians or described by the media as dictators. Any controversy surrounding such characterisation is mentioned in the notes.

The list is sorted according to when each dictator began their years in power. This refers to any years in office as a head of state, government or the like before their dictatorship was established. Any years of elected and judicial rule may be indicated parenthetically.

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); } Name Country Years
in power Notes Prime Minister of Egypt 1954-1962; President of Egypt 1956-1970. Part of a group of officers in control of Egypt after the coup against British supported King Farouk in 1952; In February 1954, Nasser forced[Citation Needed] President Muhammad Naguib to appoint him prime minister and give up most practical power to him; later in that year Naguib resigned and Nasser became president by self-appointment; elected by popular vote (as only candidate) in 1956, and subsequently. Many personalistic elements to Nasser's rule, but nominal parliamentary system under Nasser's 1956-1970 presidency[Citation Needed], until his death in 1970. President of Guinea. Widely described as a dictator (see [1], [2]) with estimates of up to 50,000 extra-judicial killings during his rule (see [3]) and 250,000 Guineans fleeing his rule ([4]). President of the Central African Republic. Banned opposition (see [5]); Gained power by coup in 1979, though subsequently stood for election (see [6]). Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup. Head of State 1960-1962; President of Chad 1962-1975. Never fought a contested election; imprisoned opposition leaders. Launched a "Cultural Revolution" in the early 1970s encouraging authenticité. President of Côte d'Ivoire. Ruled until 1990 with all opposition banned, but not considered particularly repressive. Relocated the official capital to his home village of Yamoussoukro and constructed the Basilica of Our Lady of Peace of Yamoussoukro, the largest religious structure in Africa. Prime Minister of Uganda 1962-1966; President of Uganda 1966-1971 and 1980-1985. Suspended the constitution and declared himself President and Prime Minister in 1966. Prime Minister of Malawi 1963-1966; President of Malawi 1966-1994. Banned all opposition in 1966; declared himself President for Life in 1971; exiled and killed opposition leaders. Ordered that a letter bomb be sent to exiled opposition leader Attati Mpakati; suspected of being involved in the car crash deaths of senior Congress Party leaders; violently crushed an attempted rebellion. Aged 98, he allowed and lost a free election in 1994. President of the Republic of Zambia 1964-1991.Elected 1964, banned all political parties in Zambia, viewed himself as "WAMUYAYA" (eternal President).Accused of torturing political opponents.Defeated by Frederick Chiluba in 1991.

President of Algeria from June 19, 1965 to his death, (December 27, 1978); Chairman of the Revolutionary Council until December 12, 1976).
In June 1965, Boumédienne seized power in a bloodless coup. Initially lacking a personal power base, he was seen as a weak ruler. But after a botched coup attempt against him by military officers in 1967 he tightened his rule, and then remained Algeria's undisputed ruler until his death in 1978.

Schoolteacher and first president of Mali. Forced socialization and extensive protectionism severely harmed the economy and continued the country's dependence on aid donors. Discontent with these policies led Keita to implement his own "Cultural Revolution" and establish a network of people's militias to inform on and punish dissent. In the last few years of his presidency, full powers were vested in an extralegal "National Committee for Defense of the Revolution". He was deposed in a military coup. President of the Central African Republic 1966-1976; Emperor Bokassa I of the Central African Empire 1976-1979. Bokassa overthrew the autocratic Dacko in a swift coup d'état and assumed power as president of the Republic and head of the sole political party, the Mouvement pour l'évolution sociale de l'Afrique Noire (MESAN). Bokassa abolished the constitution of 1959 on January 4 and began to rule by decree. He proclaimed himself emperor in 1976 (see [7]). President of Togo. Gained power in a coup; never fought a contested election until 1998; banned, tortured and killed opposition. Fostered a cult of personality that was reinforced after he was the sole survivor of an airplane crash in 1974. In late 1991, troops loyal to Eyadéma closed a constitutional conference that had shifted most executive power to a new transitional government and banned Eyadéma's RPT party. January 1993 saw a mass exodus of residents to neighboring states after security forces fired on pro-democracy demonstrators. Further repression followed a purported 1994 coup attempt (see[8]). As vice president, he acceded to the presidency following the death of President Léon M'ba. In 1968, Bongo decreed a one-party state under his Gabonese Democratic Party and was thrice elected unopposed in the 1970s and 1980s. He became very wealthy during the country's oil boom. Open elections were held in 1990 and Bongo was re-elected in 1993, 1998 and 2005. Observers have criticized the elections as unfair and corruption watchdogs have accused the president of nepotism. Riots resulting from the mysterious death in 1990 of prominent dissident Joseph Rendjambe in a government hotel room were put down by French troops. Chairman of the Military National Liberation Committee 1968-1969; Head of State 1969-1979; President of Mali 1979-1991. Seized power in a coup; banned all opposition; installed a police state; established one-party state in 1979. President of Equatorial Guinea 1968-1979. Elected in 1968 but declared himself President for Life in 1972; "extreme personality cult"; over a third of population fled his regime. Banned fishing and sanctioned the deaths of most of his pre-independence political rivals, including ex-prime minister Bonifacio Ondó Edu and foreign minister Atanasio Ndongo Miyone. Declared an atheist state by Spanish dictator Francisco Franco. As many as 50,000 civilians were killed, in particular those of the Bubi ethnic minority on Bioko associated with relative wealth and intellectualism. Chairman of the Revolutionary Command Council 1969-1971; President of Sudan 1971-1985. Gained power in a military coup, banned opposition, dissolved southern Sudanese government, imposed sharia law. Executed several leading communists (the most prominent being Abdel Khaliq Mahjub and Joseph Garang) after a botched 1971 coup attempt. Chairman of the Supreme Revolutionary Council 1969-1976; President of Somalia 1976-1991. In 1969, during the power vacuum following the assassination of President Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, the military staged a coup and took over. Barre was to rule for the next twenty-two years. He attempted to develop a personality cult; large posters of him were common in the capital Mogadishu during his reign, many of which can still be seen today. He dreamed of a "Greater Somalia" and tried unsuccessfully to annex the Ogaden—legally Ethiopian territory—in 1977 to realize this end (see Ogaden War). President of Egypt 1970-1981. Unelected, suppressed opposition in what was termed "The Corrective Revolution". Assassinated. Chairman of the Provisional Military Administrative Council (Derg) in 1974 and 1977-1987; President of Ethiopia 1987-1991. One-party state; repression of opposition; tens of thousands of extra-judicial killings. Head of the Federal Military Government of Nigeria between 1976 and 1979. Elected President of Nigeria in 1999. Chairman of the African Union 2004-2006. President of Burundi. Widely described as a military dictator (see [9], [10]). President of Seychelles. Deposed the elected president Sir James Mancham and promulgated a one-party constitution after a period of rule by decree. Created the National Youth Service (NYS), a compulsory educational institution that included traditional curricula interlaced with political indoctrination and paramilitary training. President of Kenya. Changed constitution to establish a de jure one-party state; resorted to repressive rule, including torture and imprisonment without trial. Chairman of the Supreme Military Council 1979-1982; President of Equatorial Guinea 1982-present. Deposed his uncle in a violent coup; opposition is banned in all but name. President of Angola. One-party state; did not stand for election until 1992 (see [11]). Chairman of the People's Redemption Council 1980-1984; President of Liberia 1984-1990. Gained power in a military coup that killed President William R. Tolbert, Jr., a reformer. Promoted Krahn chauvinism and "died a multi-millionaire and proud owner of mansions and estates" (see[12]).

Gained power through election, and repeatedly re-elected, but criticized for steps used to maintain power. From 1999 on, used police and militant groups like the War Veterans Association and Border Gezi Youth to enforce ZANU-PF policies and to prevent opponents from voting; called "king" by his aides.[13] Arrested and tortured opponents and human rights activists; gave amnesty to murderers of his political opponents in 2000; ignores court rulings.[14]

Gained power in a military coup during 1979 but handed it over. Re-took power in another coup of 1981. Elected President in 1992 and again in 1996 before standing aside as per the constitution. Chairman of the Military Committee of National Recovery 1981-1985; President of the Central African Republic 1985-1993. Gained power in a coup; persecuted opposition; allowed (and lost) free elections in 1993. Attempted second coup in 2001. Former President of Egypt. Did not stand in a contested election until 2005, when a highly-restricted democratic process was allowed. Was forced from power after a series of mass protests. He served under President Ahmadou Ahidjo and became Prime Minister in 1975. Ahidjo resigned on November 6, 1982 and Biya became president. After years of totalitarian rule, he allowed the creation of opposition parties in 1990 but his re-elections have been marked by widespread fraud and intimidation. Chairman of the Council of State 1982; President of Chad 1982-1990. Gained power in a coup; abolished post of Prime Minister; executed opposition leaders. President of Upper Volta 1983-1984; President of Burkina Faso 1984-1987. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime. Overthrown and killed in coup. Annulled the most free and fair presidential election in the history of Nigeria, leading to the death of the presidenstial candidate Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola. President of Tunisia. Although he announced political pluralism in 1992, his Democratic Constitutional Rally (formerly Neo-Destour party) continues to dominate the national politics and there is no genuine open political debate. In 1999, although two unknown alternative candidates were permitted for the first time to stand in the presidential elections, Ben Ali was re-elected with 99.66% of the vote. A controversial constitutional referendum in 2002 allowed him to seek re-election and contemplate the possibility of remaining in office until 2014. On October 24, 2004, he was again re-elected, officially taking 94.48% of the vote. Certain books, periodicals and internet sites are banned or blocked. The National Television frequently show his actions during a week, but often the President only appears in passing on television. In 2011 he was forced from power after mass protests. President of the Revolutionary Command Council for National Salvation 1989-1993; President of Sudan 1993-present. Took power in a military coup and increasingly centralized power into himself. Widely believed to be implicated in the Darfur Janjaweed pogroms. Head of State 1990-1991; President of Chad 1991 to date. Gained power in a coup; continues to suppress opposition and press (see [15]). Chairman of the Provisional Ruling Council 1993-1998. Seized power in a coup; persecuted opposition; never stood for election. Jailed Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, the presumed winner of the annulled 1993 presidential election; presided over execution of activist Ken Saro-Wiwa. Vice-President of Rwanda 1994-2000; President 2000-Present. Brouhgt to power by a guerilla movement which plunged the country into bloodshed and led to the Rwandan Genocide in 1994. Responsible of the the killings of innocent civilians, women and children in Kibeho refugee camp. Responsible of the killings of 4 millions congolese. Responsible of the killings of Priests and Archbishops in Kabgayi. President of The Gambia. Gained power in coup d'état. Right to the press and free speech supressed. Stood for three elections (1996, 2001, and 2006); last election deemed unfair by opposition. President of Liberia 1997-2003. Elected, but widely described as a dictator (see[16], [17], [18]). Linked to "blood diamonds" and illegal arms trading. Believed to have interfered frequently in the internal affairs of neighboring states while a warlord, before his election to the presidency. President of the Central African Republic 2003 to date. Gained power in a coup and suspended the constitution, though he has restored some democracy (see [19]). Chairman of the Military Council for Justice and Democracy. Gained power via a military coup. Though he has said to relinquish power to an elected government in 2007. Elected President of Zambia. Muzzled press freedom, excessively corrupt and was democratically removed from office after he quietly attempted to cling to power using the army. Fearless politician Michael Chilufya Sata defeated this shameful and thieving dictator. Supported by the Muslim Brotherhood. Described Jews as "apes and pigs". Massively expanded his presidential authority upon being elected, giving himself unlimited powers. Name Country Years
in power Notes Shortly after the Mexican War of Independence, he was declared Emperor of Mexico in 1822. Repressive, cracked down on free speech and any opposition. Desposed when popular opposition forced him to abdicate. President or Provisional President of Mexico 1833-1837, then 1841 to February 1844, June to December 1844, March to September 1847 and finally 1853-1855. When Anastasio Bustamante led a coup overthrowing and killing President Vicente Guerrero, Santa Anna seized power and then was elected President in 1833. At first he gave a free hand to his vice-president Valentín Gómez Farías, a liberal reformer. Later he dismissed Gómez Farías, declared the Constitution suspended, disbanded the Congress and worked to concentrate power in the central government. He was overthrown and restored to power several times before his final overthrow in 1855. Interim president 1876-1877; President of Mexico 1877-1880, 1884-1911. De facto ruler 1880-1884. Gained power in a coup, after his Revolution of Tuxtepac overthrew his predecessor, Lerdo. He did not run for reelection after his first term in order to keep his one-term promises that he made during his revolution. However, he retook the presidency a few years later and did not leave from power until the Revolution of 1910 kicked him from the Presidency. His rule saw the rapid modernization of Mexico, progress mainly caused by Diaz's encouragement of foreign investment in the country's infrastructure. However, the poor became quite miserable during this time. Political opposition was squelched and rebellions were put down by the rurals, Diaz's personal guard. He was eventually overthrown by the Revolution which lasted 10 years. Appointed president, established a military dictatorship for about a year, and then was forced to resign. Name Country Years
in power Notes An american fillibuster takes over and proclaims himself President of Nicaragua. Tried to conquer several central american countries. Eventually executed. President of Guatemala. Gained power in a bloody coup, but introduced reforms. President of Guatemala. Never elected; subverted constitution; widely described as a dictator (see[20], [21]). Constructed numerous large Hellenic-style temples as monuments to his rule. Acting President 1931-1934; President of El Salvador 1935-1944. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; oversaw massacre of between ten and forty thousand suspected opponents. Presided over La Matanza in 1932, a massacre (genocide) of communists, suspected communists, campesinos and Pipil Indians (see [22]). President of Guatemala. Elected, but suppressed opposition and "assumed dictatorial powers". President of Honduras. Banned opposition and set up a rubber-stamp congress; suppressed unions (see[23]). Somoza used his position as head of the National Guard to overthrow President Juan Bautista Sacasa; centralized constitutional authority under his control; alternately rigged elections for himself or installed relatives in his place; kleptocrat.[24][25]. Junta Chairman, 1954; President of Guatemala 1954-1957. Gained power in a coup; banned the popular Communist party; purged trade unions of leftist influence; declared himself president in 1956. Assassinated. Head of Military Government 1963-1965; President of Honduras 1965-1971; Head of State 1972-1975. Military officer who allowed elections in 1971 before re-seizing power the next year. According to Clara Nieto in Masters of War: Latin America and United States Aggression from the Cuban Revolution through the Clinton years, p. 114 (ISBN 1-58322-545-5): "During this second term (1972-1975) López governed without a congress and by decree." Succeeded his somewhat more liberal brother Luis; stepped down briefly in 1972, then resumed the presidency after an earthquake; outlawed several opposition parties; declared martial law in response to guerilla opposition; oversaw brutal repression by the National Guard. Commander of the National Guard. Gained power in a coup; banned opposition, unions and free press. Commander of the National Guard and de facto military leader, widely described as a dictator (see [26], [27], [28]). Name Country Years
in power Notes gained power in election. Outlawed all opposition. Installed a police state. Cult of personality; citizens forced to raise their hats or a brim when he passed by; styled himself with the position name "El Supremo". Though an admirer of classical liberal democracy, the founder and president of Gran Colombia proclaimed himself dictator in 1828 after an unsuccessful constitutional convention. Resigned eighteen months later. Governor of Buenos Aires 1829-1832, 1835-1852; Supreme Chief of the Argentine Confederation 1851-1852. Assumed dictatorial powers; exiled opponents. First Consul 1841-1844; President of Paraguay 1844-1862. Provisional President of Bolivia 1848-1850; President of Bolivia 1850-1855. Unelected military ruler; caudillo. A populist and nationalist who voluntarily relinquished power after 1855 elections, described in (ISBN 0-13-524356-4), p.131, as the "cleanest ever held" in (early) Bolivian history. President of Paraguay. Inherited power from his father; had himself awarded immense powers by a congress he had packed with supporters. Killed in the War of the Triple Alliance (which Lopez had caused by invading Brazil), along with 90 per cent of the Paraguayan adult (age 14+) male population. Provisional President 1864-1870; President of Bolivia 1870-1871. Gained power in a coup and ruthlessly suppressed opposition. In 1869 he sent the army to suppress an uprising by Huaichu Indians attempting to regain land privileges they enjoyed under President Belzu (see ISBN 1-55753-324-5). Acting President of Venezuela 1863, 1865; General-in-chief April-July 1870; Provisional President of Venezuela 1870-1873; President of Venezuela 1873 - 1877; Supreme Director 1879; Provisional President of Venezuela 1879 - 1880; President of Venezuela 1880 -1884, 1886 -1888. Described, perhaps inaccurately, as a "benevolent despot"; other sources mention his "long dictatorship" (see[29]). Supreme Chief 1899-1901; Provisional President 1901 - 1902, 1904 - 1905; President of Venezuela 1902 - 1904, 1905 - 1909. Took over in a military coup (see [30]). President 1904 - 1909, as a military ruler representing the Conservatives. "In the course of his regime, Reyes improved the country’s finances, expanded roads and railroads, and encouraged increased coffee production. Large U.S. investments and purchases of coffee and minerals contributed to Colombia’s economic growth. However, Reyes ruled as a dictator. He dissolved the congress and replaced it with a handpicked legislature, jailed and exiled political opponents, and declared martial law." (Colombia, Microsoft Encarta 2003) 1909–1914
1922–1929
1931–1935 Provisional President 1909-1910; President of Venezuela 1910-1914, 1922-1929, 1931-1935. Gained power in a coup; never elected; kleptocrat; widely described as a dictator (see [31], [32], [33]). Junta Chairman 1914; President of Peru 1914-1915, 1933-1939. Twice gained power by coup. President of Peru. Gained power in a coup; ignored constitution; suppressed and exiled opposition. Acting President 1927, President 1927 - 1931. Democratically elected to a six-year term in 1952. Head of provisional government 1930-1934 after revolution; indirectly elected as Constitutional President 1934-1937; launched a coup in 1937 and became dictator 1937-1945; democratically-elected President of Brazil 1950-1954. President of Uruguay. Suspended congress and dissolved constitution in 1933. Provisional president 1940-1943; President of Paraguay 1943-1948. Seized absolute power; ruled by diktat until 1946. Chairman of military junta 1948 - 1950; President of Peru 1950 - 1956. Gained power in a coup; restricted civil rights; allowed election in 1956. Member of military junta 1948 - 1952; Provisional president 1952 -1953; President of Venezuela 1953 - 1958. Never elected; pursued opposition violently; credited with improvements to the country's infrastructure. President of Colombia. Gained power in a coup. President of Paraguay. He took over in a military coup (see[34], [35],[36]). President of Brazil. Gained power in a coup; abolished most opposition; subsequently appointed by congress. Prime Minister 1966 - 1980; President 1980 - 1985. Elected, but became increasingly dictatorial; held dubious elections and encouraged leftist religious cults (such as the Peoples Temple) to settle in the Guyanese interior (see [37], [38]). President of Brazil 1967-1969. Elected in 1966, but centralised power; closed the Congress; banned opposition; suspended free press. Decreed Institutional Act No. 5, described as "the most unconstitutional, anti-democratic, arbitrary, and repressive decree in Brazil's history." (ISBN 1-58322-545-5), p.167. President of Brazil. Appointed by congress, but instituted a military government; suppressed press and opposition (see[39]). President of Bolivia. Gained power in a coup; suppressed opposition; closed universities; 3,000 opponents arrested, 200 killed. President of Uruguay 1972 - 1976. Elected, but installed a military government, dissolved Congress, suspended civil liberties and banned unions. Chairman of military junta 1973-1974; Supreme Head of the Nation 1974; President of Chile 1974 - 1990. Gained power in a coup; suppressed and exiled opposition; over 3000 "disappearances" and 28,000 tortured. Congress-appointed President of Brazil. The fourth of the military dictators; party and union freedom were still inexistent during his term; had oppositionists like journalist Wladimir Herzog and factory worker Manoel Fiel Filho tortured and murdered. President of Argentina. Gained power in a coup; never elected; between ten and thirty thousand opponents killed. Congress-appointed President of Brazil. Society won some democratic measures these years, but there was still a major fraud during 1982 State government elections. His government was responsible for the 1983 bomb in the Riocentro. Chairman of the National Military Council 1980-1988. Gained power in a coup; never elected; widespread misrule. Most infamous atrocity is the Decembermoorden. President of Bolivia. Gained power in the "Cocaine Coup" aided by Klaus Barbie; highly repressive; over 1,000 killed. President of Uruguay. Ignored constitution; extensive human rights abuses (see [40]). President of Peru 1990-2000, widely critizised for his political authoritarism. [43][44] [45]. After enjoying a certain degree of popular support, Fujimori was forced from office following controvertial third term re-election[46]. In 2000 political opponent Mario Vargas Llosa called Fujimori a "dictator" [47]. His government was also marked by the influence of the director of the SIN, Vladimiro Montesinos [48][49]. Currently in Peru, Fujimori is in trial for presumed charges ranging from corruption to participation in crimes against humanity. [50]. Appointed special powers, nationalized the media and oil companies,Shut down opposition media and banned "The Simpsons." Continues the corrupt ideology of Hugo Chavez, which destroys the economy of Venezuela. Name Country Years
in power Notes Governor-General of Haiti 1804; Emperor of Haiti (as Jacques I) 1804 - 1806. Ruled autocratically. Provisional Chief of the Haitian Government 1806-1807; President of Haiti 1807-1811; King of Haiti (as Henry I) 1811-1820. Ruled autocratically. 1844-1848, 1853 -1856, 1858 - 1861 Never elected; suppressed opposition; widely considered a dictator. President of the Dominican Republic five times. Gained power following coups; never elected. President of the Dominican Republic three times. Never elected; widely described as a dictator (see[51], [52], [53]). President of the Dominican Republic 1930 - 1938, 1942 - 1952; de facto ruler 1930-1961. Gained power in a coup; cult of personality (renamed the capital Ciudad Trujillo); promoted racism against Haitians and ordered the massacre of 20,000 blacks. President of Haiti. Gained power in a coup; never elected. President of Haiti. Elected in 1957, but banned opposition; declared himself President for Life in 1964; highly repressive. Prime Minister of Cuba 1959-1976; President of the Council of State and the Council of Ministers from 1976. Gained power after revolution. Castro was elected President after 1976, but within a one-party Communist state. President of Haiti. Inherited presidency aged 19 from his father; never elected. Prime Minister of Grenada 1967-1979. Widely described as a dictator (see[56], [57], [58]). De facto ruler for a relatively short period of time. Gained power in a coup (see [59]). Appointed successor by his brother of the Communist Party of Cuba. Name Country Years
in power Notes Gained power in a coup. Subsequent elections considered dubious (see[81], [82]). Military ruler, gaining power from coup (see [83],[84], [85]). Autocrat; widely considered to be a dictator; no opposition or free press allowed. Took over following coup. Claimed government to be legitimate because it was Islamic (see [86]). Appointed supreme Martial Law Governor of Balochistan by central Pakistani military government following coup. (see [87]). Gained power in a coup; declared martial law; never elected. Deposed Nawaz Sharif in a military coup, calling it a necessity during a state of emergency. Governed directly as commander in chief until Parliament reconvened in November 2002. Assumed the title of President upon Rafiq Tarar's resignation and stood in a referendum in 2002. Opposition parties state that the rule of law in his custody has deteriorated further. Name Country Years
in   power Notes Shogun of Japan and founder of the long reigning Tokugawa shogunate. Gained power by unifying the warring clans during Japan's long period of civil unrest. He also created an "alternate attendance" system to pacify the daimyo warlords, as well as closing and isolating trade and the economy, in order to retain his power. His rule was also marked by persecution of european missionaries and japanese christians.

Born, Baron Roman Nicolaus von Ungern-Sternberg (????? ????????? ?????? ??? ?????????), in Graf, Austria of Prussian nobility, von Ungern-Sternberg fought, against his own Prussians, in the Imperial Russian Army during World War I and fought the Bolsheviks, in Siberia, after 1917. A rabid monarchist, von Ungern-Sternberg soon thereafter became an independent warlord with the intention of establishing an independent Russo-Sino-Mongolian monarchy in Urga under the nominal rule of Bogd Khaan (the Living Buddha). Although considered the paragon of bravery, von Ungern-Sternberg was reckless, brutal and mentally unstable. After a savage battle against occupying Chinese republican forces, on March 13, 1921, Mongolia was proclaimed an independent monarchy, and Ungern von Sternberg became Mongolian dictator. His brief rule of Mongolia was characterised by looting, raping and a reign of terror by his army. Eventually, the Bolsheviks invaded Mongolia and after a series of battles, von Ungern-Sternberg was defeated in a August 1921, captured by his own soldiers, and handed over to the Red Army on August 21, 1921.

Unelected; opponents purged; cult of personality. Appointed prime minister in 1948; purged rivals in the Workers' Party of Korea to consolidate power in 1956 (see [88]); introduced "Juche" ideology demanding absolute loyalty to him and the party; created most pervavise cult of personality in recent history. Declared "Eternal President" on his death. Unelected; killed thousands of political rivals in the 1940s; killed tens of thousands more during the land reforms of the 1950s; presided over a one-party state. First President of Indonesia. Consolidated his powers, and got proclaimed President for LIfe. Was overthrown by the then Dictator of Indonesia, Suharto. Chairman of the PRC (1949 – 1959), Chairman of the Communist Party of China (1945 – 1976), Chairman of the Central Military Commission (1936 – 1976). Immense cult of personality; purged members of government; silenced opposition. Circumvented Communist Party hierarchy after the 1966 Cultural Revolution; imprisoned head of state Liu Shaoqi. Millions of Chinese citizens killed or murdered as a result of his policies and repression. Took power in 1961 coup. Although initially welcomed by much of the population, he suspended the constitution in 1971 and introduced a new constitution that greatly increased his power. Seized power in a coup; instituted extreme repression (see [89], [90]). Military dictator, known as one of Thailand's so-called "Three Tyrants". Oppressed student-led uprisings in October 1973 and 1976. His New Order imprisoned Communists and alleged Communists; repressed Chinese inhabitants; made existing parties subordinate. Also a cleptocrat (with personal and family's assets at least worth US$ 15 billion, based on Time Magazine investigation in 1998). Described as a dictator in many sources (see[91], [92], [93]). Gained power by coup; not elected. Unelected; led a Khmer Rouge dictatorship; responsible for deaths of at least 1 million Cambodian citizens during his rule. Authoritarian; suppresed opposition, media. Unelected; one-party state (see[94]). Unelected; persecution of minorities (especially Karenni and Rohingya groups [95]) leading 250,000 to flee, either becoming IDPs or moving across the border to Thailand; consolidated power into himself from the SPDC - he moved to a new capital in Kyat Pyay in 2006 , &renamed it as Nay Pyi Daw ,i.e the Royal Palace City"; gained power via a military coup and announced that he would not hand over the power to Aung San Suu Kyi's Elected Party (the NLD); no free press (see [96]). Became General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission (the highest state offices) on his father's death. Continues his father's "Juche" ideology. Army chief seized power while Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra was out of the country. A state of martial law was declared, parliament was dissolved and the constitution abrogated. Instituted press censorship and restrictions on protests. The first Muslim in charge of the mostly Buddhist army. Became General Secretary of the Workers' Party of Korea and Chairman of the National Defense Commission (the highest state offices) on his father's death. Continues his grandpa's "Juche" ideology. Name Country Years
in power Notes A Puritan general in the English Civil War who quickly rose through the ranks to become de facto head of the Parliamentary forces. After the Royalist defeat and the execution of Charles I the newly constituted Rump Parliament was overthrown by Cromwell who refused the Crown, choosing instead the title of Lord Protector of the Commonwealth of England, Scotland, and Ireland. After his death the monarchy was reinstated. [97]. Head of the Committee of Public Safety during the French Revolution. To purge french society of "Counter Revolutionaries", he instituted the heavily repressive Reign of Terror, a period which killed thousands of french citizens, many of those killed were simply killed under mere suspicion, with little or no proof. Desposed when the National Convention declared him an outlaw. First Consul, 1799-1804. Emperor of the French 1804-1814. Declared himself "First Consul for Life" in 1802 and then Emperor in 1804. Held official title of dictator for one year only. President of France from 1848 to 1852. In 1851 he launched a coup against the legislature, making himself absolute ruler. From 1852 to 1870 he styled himself Emperor of the French under the name Napoléon III from 1852 to 1870. Later during his reign constitutional liberties were gradually restored. In 1870 he was captured during the abortive Franco-Prussian War and deposed in his absence by the Third Republic of France. Held official title of dictator for one year. Succeeded Marian Langiewicz who had declared himself dictator previously, but only lasted less than a year in 1863. Ruthless, overthrown by the "October Revolution" and the newly established communist government. The last Tsar of Russia. Head of Bolshevik Revolution took power in 1917. Secured victory in the Russian civil war. Headed effort to transform the Russian economy to a socialist model.[98] Led the Turkish national movement. Transformed Turkey into a secular republic through broad authoritarian reforms. 1922–1943, and in part of the country 1943-1945 Prime Minister of Italy 1922-1943; head of the so-called Italian Social Republic until 1945. "He introduced strict censorship and altered the methods of election so that in 1925–1926 he was able to assume dictatorial powers and dissolve all other political parties" (see [99],[100]). Prime Minister of Spain. Gained power in a coup; suspended the constitution; established martial law; imposed strict censorship; banned all political parties. Widely described as a dictator (see[101], [102], [103]). General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, 1922 - 1953; Premier of the Soviet Union 1941 - 1953. Never elected; cult of personality; heavily repressive; responsible for deaths of millions of Soviet citizens (see [105], [106],[107]). Originally elected Prime Minister of Albania 1922-1924 and 1925; President of Albania 1925-1928; crowned himself King of the Albanians (as Zog I) 1928-1939. Described as a dictator (see[108], [109], [110]). Forced to flee with his wife, Queen Geraldine, the imminent takeover of the country by Italy under Benito Mussolini. Polish Head of State 1918-1922, but regained power in 1926 via coup. Prime Minister of Poland 1926-1928 and 1930; Commander in Chief of the Army 1926-1935. Initiated authoritarian Sanacja government; often described as a "benevolent dictator". President of Lithuania. Seized power in a 1925 military coup (see [111]); authoritarian rule. His description as a dictator is common (see[112]), but not universal. Prime Minister of Portugal. Established an anti-democratic, anti-parliamentarian, ultra-clericalist, corporativist, extremely conservative, repressive and authoritarian dictatorship, connoted with the Italian fascism, highly supported by the Roman Catholic Church. Longest right-wing dictatorship ever (four complete decades). King of Yugoslavia from 1921. On January 6, 1929 he abolished the constitution, prorogued parliament and established the so-called "January 6 Dictatorship." A new constitution in 1931 left all significant political power in the hands of the King. Chancellor of Austria 1932-1934. Suspended parliament indefinitely in March 1933, governing thereafter by decree. Rule sometimes compared to Mussolini or Franco (see [113]). State Elder 1933 - 1937; State Protector 1937 - 1938; President of Estonia 1938-1940. Established authoritarian rule following a coup. Allowed (and won) election in 1938. Chancellor of Germany 1933-1945; Führer (Leader) 1934-1945. The 1933 Enabling Act suspended most of the constitution and allowed Hitler to rule by decree. Heavily repressive; ordered imprisonment of millions of political opponents and members of ethnic minorities in concentration camps, where they were abused and killed. Took power in coup. Overthrown by Tsar Boris III. Overthrew Kimon Geogiev. Took power him self ruled through puppet Prime Ministers Georgi Kyoseivanov. His Regime banned all opposition parties. Took Bulgaria into alliance with Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy. Chancellor of Austria. Maintained his predecessor Dollfuss' oppressive rule. Prime Minister of Latvia 1934-1940; President of Latvia 1936 - 1940. Gained power in a coup and dissolved parliament; generally viewed as a "benevolent dictator" (see [114], [115], [116]). Prime Minister of Greece. Never elected; banned political parties; arrested opponents; criminalized unions; censored media. Widely described as a dictator (see[117], [118], [119]). Prime Minister of Spain 1938-1975 and Head of State 1939 - 1975 (in the Nationalist Zone, both only to 1939). Purged opposition; often referred to as a dictator or caudillo (see[120], [121],[122], [123]). Strongly supported by the Roman Catholic Church worldwide. Prime Minister of Romania. Two days after his appointment, forced King Carol II (see above) to abdicate in favor of his son, Mihai. Named himself Conducator (Leader), assumed dictatorial powers and relegated monarchy to decorative role. Prime Minister of France 1940 - 1942; Head of State 1940 - 1944. The Assemblée Nationale of Vichy France suspended the Third Republic and granted Pétain dictatorial power, although ultimately he was answerable to the German Nazi hierarchy. Poglavnik ("Leader") of Croatia. Not elected; ordered massacres of Serbs, Jews, Gypsies and dissidents; hundreds of thousands slaughtered; led the genocial, devoutly Roman Catholic Ustase (see [127], [128], [129]). Supported by most, if not all, of the Roman Catholic church in Croatia. Minister President of Norway between 1942-1945, and founder of the fascist "National Unity" party . Traitor to his country. Executed by firing squad. Described as being the Hitler of Norway. Secretary-General of the Yugoslav Communist Party 1937 - 1963; Prime Minister of Yugoslavia 1945–1953; Premier of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1963; President of Yugoslavia 1953 - 1980; President of the Presidium of the League of Communists from 1963 until 1980. Declared himself President for Life in 1963. Viewed favorably in Yugoslavia despite authoritarian rule. General Secretary of the Albanian Party of Labour. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult; Declared his nation to be the world's only officially atheist state and banned all practice of religion in 1967. First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1953-1964. Allowed limited liberalisation in the arts and media later on. Head of pro soviet communist regimen in Bulgaria. Became party secretary in 1956 and prime minister in 1962. Forced out of power in 1989 by communist party to comply with demands of protesters. Antonín Novotný, the First Secretary of the Communist Party and President of the Republic, was leader of Czechoslovakia during the Stalinisation of the country, resulting in the replacement of the Czechoslovakian democracy by a one-party communist state. His dictatorship centralized power and used force to protect his regime which lasted fifteen years. General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1950-1971 and Head of State 1960-1973. First/General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1964-1982. Formed a cult of Personality later on. General Secretary of the Romanian Communist Party, 1965-1989; President of Romania, 1974-1989. Leader of single-party Communist state; extensive personality cult developed during the 1970s. Lived lavish lifestyle while country was still using donkey carts. Prime Minister of Greece 1967 - 1973; Regent 1972 - 1973; President of Greece 1973. Gained power in a coup; lead military regime. Widely described as a dictator (see [130], [131], [132]). Came into power through soviets, Crushed the Prague spring. Headed brutal secret police stepped down from power in 1987 two years before communism fell. General Secretary of the Socialist Unity Party of Germany 1971-1989 and Head of State 1976-1989. President of Greece 1973-1974. Gained power in coup. Lead millitary regime installed by previous head of state. Imposed martial law in Poland in 1981 in response to Solidarity party led strikes. Made himself head of the "Commission for National Salvation." Stated his actions were taken in order to prevent a Soviet invasion of Poland. Was President of Poland until his resignation in 1990. General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1982-1984. Early signs of Perestroika and Glasnost. General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union between 1984-1985. Ailing stop-gap leader. General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991 when the Soviet Union collapsed and the CPSU was banned. Oversaw democratisation in the Soviet Union, but was never directly elected as leader. In 1984 he became the head of the local Communist party in Belgrade and adopted a populist style, the party's leader. He successfully took over as head of the Serbian Communist party in 1987. He challenged the federal government, championed Serbian control of the autonomous provinces of Kosovo and Vojvodina, and advocated stridently socialist economic policy. By 1988, he had replaced party leaders in Kosovo and Vojvodina, and in 1989 he became president of Serbia. However, in September 1990, a new democratic constitution was passed allowing direct, multi-party presidential and parliamentary elections. Milosevic was elected president of Serbia for the first time in December 1990, although allegations persist of electoral fraud during the Milosevic years. President of Belarus. Said to have an "authoritarian ruling style". Lack of democratic standards. Human rights violations. Referred to as "Europe's last dictatorship." Name Country Years
in power Notes Twice gained power through coup, allowed elections in 1992, which he won. Launched a coup d'etat in December 2006 after weeks of threats against the elected government.

View the original article here