90 Miles From Tyranny

infinite scrolling

Wednesday, December 20, 2017

The Reason the Left Gives Communism a Pass

Before the question, how about a few statistics? The 20th century was mankind’s most brutal century. Roughly 16 million people lost their lives during World War I; about 60 million died during World War II. Wars during the 20th century cost an estimated 71 million to 116 million lives.

The number of war dead pales in comparison with the number of people who lost their lives at the hands of their own governments. The late professor Rudolph J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii documented this tragedy in his book “Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900.” Some of the statistics found in the book have been updated.

The People’s Republic of China tops the list, with 76 million lives lost at the hands of the government from 1949 to 1987. The Soviet Union follows, with 62 million lives lost from 1917 to 1987. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi German government killed 21 million people between 1933 and 1945. Then there are lesser murdering regimes, such as Nationalist China, Japan, Turkey, Vietnam, and Mexico.

According to Rummel’s research, the 20th century saw 262 million people’s lives lost at the hands of their own governments.

Hitler’s atrocities are widely recognized, publicized, and condemned. World War II’s conquering nations’ condemnation included denazification and bringing Holocaust perpetrators to trial and punishing them through lengthy sentences and execution. Similar measures were taken to punish Japan’s murderers.

But what about the greatest murderers in mankind’s history—the Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin and China’s Mao Zedong? Some leftists saw these communists as heroes.

W.E.B. Du Bois, writing in the National Guardian in 1953, said, “Stalin was a great man; few other men of the 20th century approach his stature. … The highest proof of his greatness [was that] he knew the common man, felt his problems, followed his fate.” Walter Duranty called Stalin “the greatest living statesman” and “a quiet, unobtrusive man.”

There was even leftist admiration for Hitler and fellow fascist Benito Mussolini.

When Hitler came to power in January 1933, George Bernard Shaw described him as “a very remarkable man, a very able man.” President Franklin Roosevelt called the fascist Mussolini “admirable,” and said he was “deeply impressed by what he [had] accomplished.”

In 1972, John Kenneth Galbraith visited Communist China and praised Mao and the Chinese economic system. Michel Oksenberg, President Jimmy Carter’s China expert, complained, “America [is] doomed to decay until radical, even revolutionary, change fundamentally alters the institutions and values.” He urged us to “borrow ideas and solutions” from China.

Harvard University professor John K. Fairbank believed that America could learn much from the Cultural Revolution, saying, “Americans may find in China’s collective life today an ingredient of personal moral concern for one’s neighbor that has a lesson for us all.” By the way, an estimated 2 million people died during China’s Cultural Revolution.

More recent praise for murdering tyrants came from Anita Dunn, President Barack Obama’s acting communications director in ...

Morning Mistress

The 90 Miles Mystery Box: Episode #111


You have come across a mystery box. But what is inside? 
It could be literally anything from the serene to the horrific, 
from the beautiful to the repugnant, 
from the mysterious to the familiar.

If you decide to open it, you could be disappointed, 
you could be inspired, you could be appalled. 

This is not for the faint of heart or the easily offended. 
You have been warned.

Hot Pick Of The Late Night

Tuesday, December 19, 2017

Famous Politician


Girls With Guns

Wait For It...


Communist North Korea Vs. Capitalist South Korea

4 Big Signs of a Trump Economic Recovery

The economic numbers clearly have improved on President Donald Trump’s watch, with unemployment down and consumer confidence stronger.

“Economic growth has topped 3 percent,” Trump said Thursday at a White House event while addressing his administration’s reduction in regulations. “Two quarters in a row, except for the hurricanes, we would have almost hit 4 percent, and you remember how we were doing when I first took office.”

Trump also noted a difference between President Barack Obama’s eight years in office and the current outlook.

“This country was going economically down,” he said. “Small business optimism is at its highest point in 34 years, and we are just getting started.”

Trump touted the coming benefits of tax reform, as Republican lawmakers iron out final details of their bill, and noted that his administration so far has killed 22 regulations for every one added. The president’s original executive order called for elimination of two regulations for every new one.

The debate with any president comes with how much credit or blame his policies deserve for the economy’s performance, and how big a factor his immediate predecessor’s policies are.

Some experts are more cautious than others in giving Trump credit.

The National Association of Manufacturers’ survey of members found that 94.6 percent of respondents had a positive outlook for their companies for 2018. That is the best result in the survey’s 20-year history, and up significantly from the survey done in late 2016, when positive outlook hit 63 percent.

This rosy attitude can be in part attributed to Trump’s policies, said Jay Timmons, president of the manufacturers association.

“Most of our respondents were talking about pro-growth tax policies and getting around the regulatory morass, and those are the two big priorities for manufacturers,” Timmons told The Daily Signal in an in-person interview. “The third priority [for manufacturers] is infrastructure. Those are three big priorities for the administration. This will encourage hiring and investment.”

Consumers are spending more money, but expanding companies’ physical investments—buying a major tool, a truck, a facility—will be the real measurement, said Salim Furth, a research fellow in macroeconomics at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis.

“The good direction of the economy in 2017 is largely a continuation of the strong economy that started in 2014, when we’ve had a huge decrease in energy prices because of fracking and low inflation,” Furth told The Daily Signal in a phone interview.

Attributing economic growth to one president is difficult, but the benefits of fracking—the extraction of fossil fuels from rocks—are clear and provable, Furth said.

“Anticipation of tax policies and regulatory policies can drive the economic outlook, but an administration that lives by the economic numbers dies by the economic numbers,” he said. “Politicians will always put their spin on numbers.”

But Trump should be credited as the “fountainhead of the current economic boom,” said Alfredo Ortiz, president of Job Creators Network, a pro-business advocacy group.

“His long and deeply held commitment to tax cuts and deregulation, among other policies, has given small businesses—and for that matter, all businesses—the confidence and ability to invest, hire, and expand, generating the current economic boom,” Ortiz told The Daily Signal in a written statement. “Now President Trump must continue to leverage his leadership skills to get his policies across the goal line and consolidate these gains.”

Here are four key categories of economic indicators and improvements since Trump took office.

1. Growth Gets Closer to 4 Percent

The gross domestic product grew by 3.3 percent for the third quarter of 2017, as the Trump administration touted the goal of achieving 4 percent growth.

The White House Council of Economic Advisers estimates that ...

Appreciate Simple Things..


Who Has Time For Roundabouts Anyways...



More Unbelievably Good Animated Gifs:

The Kid Lived But Who Died?


How Venezuela Became A Communist Totalitarian State

His reply was identical to the one given by Fidel Castro to Princeton University students during his visit to the United States in 1959: “I am a humanist.”

Years later, on consolidating total power in his own hands, Chávez again emulated Fidel and confessed to being “a convinced follower of Marxist-Leninist ideology.”

During his 14-year rule in Venezuela, Chávez followed a strategy of introducing socialism in stages. The first stage entailed obtaining total control of all institutions of the Venezuelan state. Thus, during the first four years, he concentrated his efforts in changing the Constitution, packing the Supreme Court, installing soviet-style political commissars in army units, and changing the national identity card and the electoral system to ensure his reelection through manipulation of voter-rolls. During this stage, Chávez was not interested in antagonizing the private sector or the business community. He had enough on his plate, and knew he could not tackle all enemies at once.

Just as Hitler’s final destruction of the Jewish middle class during Kristallnacht did not occur until five years after his ascension to power in Germany, in Venezuela, Chávez reassured the business community that he was not really interested in their demise. Throughout this period, “Chavismo” seemed very similar to Argentina’s “Peronismo.”

In September 2001, Chávez began his offensive for the “Second Stage of the Process for the Revolution,” as he called his march towards a totalitarian state. That month, he openly broke with the United States by calling the US bombing of Afghan targets “an act of terrorism equal to 9/11.” He then proceeded to pass 49 laws directed against the private sector. These laws eliminated private participation in the oil business, allowed for confiscation without payment of private lands, suspended constitutional guarantees for business owners, and established “military security zones” in major metropolitan areas — a de facto confiscation of prime real estate in Venezuela’s major cities. At the same time, he launched an all out attack against the country’s independent labor unions, persecuting and even imprisoning several prominent leaders.

These actions galvanized the opposition, as Chávez expected, and resulted in mass protests and two national general strikes. He expected these reactions and was prepared for the challenge.

However, he miscalculated while he panicked during the mass protest and march of April 11, 2002. His order to members of his civilian armed militias to fire on unarmed demonstrators disgusted the officer corps that he had handpicked to run the Army. His own generals deposed him.

These same generals, though, quickly brought him back only three days later when the opposition’s chosen leader bungled in every imaginable way. As a result, the Second Stage of the Process succeeded. By the end of 2004, Chavez had embarked on an unstoppable march to acquire the “commanding heights” of the Venezuelan economy, destroyed the independent labor movement — its leaders were mostly imprisoned or...

Libtards Don't Quite Think Like We Do...