Radical Muslim and Rattlesnake Logic

Radical Muslim and Rattlesnake Logic

 

As long as we insist on maintaining the moral high ground, we will NEVER win the war on terrorism!  We're in a conflict in which we absolutely INSIST on playing by the rules - against a maniac group who have NO rules whatsoever.

 

We need to be using Rattlesnake Logic in dealing with terrorists...

 

After the Boston bombing the news media spent days and weeks trying to determine why these men did what they did.  They want to know what America did to make these brothers so angry with us.  They want to know why these men were not arrested before they did something so terrible.  The media is in a tizzy about this new era of homegrown radicals and about why and how they can live among us and still hate us. (The media has a LOT to explain to us)

 

A Texan explained it though:

 

Here in west Texas, I have rattlesnakes on my place, living among us.  I have killed a rattlesnake on the front porch.  I have killed a rattlesnake on the back porch.  I have killed rattlesnakes in the barn, in the shop and on the driveway.  In fact, I kill every rattlesnake I encounter.

 

I kill rattlesnakes because I know a rattlesnake will bite me and inject me with poison.  I don't stop to wonder WHY a rattlesnake will bite me; I know it WILL bite me because it's a rattlesnake and that's what rattlesnakes do.  I don't try to reason with a rattlesnake or have a "meaningful dialogue" with it.  I just kill it.  I don't try to get to know the rattlesnake better so I can find a way to live with the rattlesnakes and convince them not to bite me.  I just kill them.  I don't quiz a rattlesnake to see if I can find out where the other snakes are, because (a) it won't tell me and (b) I already know they live on my place.  So, I just kill the rattlesnake and move on to the next one.

  

I don't look for ways I might be able to change the rattlesnake to a non-poisonous rat snake... I just kill it.  Oh, and on occasion, I accidentally kill a rat snake because I thought it was a rattlesnake at the time.  Also, I know for every rattlesnake I kill, two more are lurking out there in the brush.  In my lifetime I will never be able to rid my place of rattlesnakes.

  

Do I fear them?  Not really.  Do I respect what they can do to me and my family?  Yes!  And because of that respect, I give them the fair justice they deserve... I kill them.  As a country, we should start giving more thought to the fact that these jihadists' are telling the world their goal is to kill Americans and destroy our way of life.  They have posted graphic videos on the Internet showing them beheading Americans.  They are serious.  They are exactly like rattlesnakes.  It is high time for us to start acting accordingly!

  

I love this country.  It's the damn government I'm afraid of!  Why?  Look at what the White House co ti ues to tell the country!!

With the recent visit by the Pope, some people have asked what is so different about the Catholic Religion.

With the recent visit by the Pope, some people have asked what is so different about the Catholic Religion. 

To better understand Catholics, it is necessary to understand the Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma

From the work of Dr. Ludwig Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, published by the Mercier Press Ltd., Cork, Ireland, 1955. With Imprimatur of Cornelius, Bishop. Reprinted in U.S.A. by Tan Books and Publishers, Rockford, Illinois, 1974.  

1. The Unity and Trinity of God
2. God the Creator
3. God the Redeemer
4. The Mother of the Redeemer
5. God the Sanctifier
6. The Catholic Church
7. The Communion of Saints
8. The Sacraments
9. Baptism
10. Confirmation
11. Holy Eucharist
12. Penance
13. Holy Orders
14. Matrimony
15. Extreme Unction
16. The Last Things

Let’s expand on the Church: VI. The Catholic Church

1. The Catholic Church was founded by the God-Man Jesus Christ.
2. Christ founded the Catholic Church in order to continue His work of redemption for all time.
3. Christ gave His Church a hierarchical constitution.
4. The powers bestowed on the Apostles have descended to the Bishops.
5. Christ appointed the Apostle Peter to be the first of all the Apostles and to be the visible Head of the whole Catholic Church, by appointing him immediately and personally to the primacy of jurisdiction.
6. According to Christ's ordinance, Peter is to have successors in his Primacy over the whole Catholic Church and for all time.
7. The successors of Peter in the Primacy are the Bishops of Rome.
8. The Pope possesses full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the whole Catholic Church, not merely in matters of faith and morals, but also in Church discipline and in the government of the Church.
9. The Pope is infallible when he speaks ex cathedra.
10. By virtue of Divine right, the bishops possess an ordinary power of government over their dioceses.
11. Christ founded the Catholic Church.
12. Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church.
13. In the final decision on doctrines concerning faith and morals, the Catholic Church is infallible.
14. The primary object of the Infallibility is the formally revealed truths of Christian Doctrine concerning faith and morals.
15. The totality of the Bishops is infallible, when they, either assembled in general council or scattered over the earth propose a teaching of faith or morals as one to he held by all the faithful.
16. The Church founded by Christ is unique and one.
17. The Church founded by Christ is holy.
18. The Church founded by Christ is catholic.
19. The Church founded by Christ is apostolic.
20. Membership of the Catholic Church is necessary for all men for salvation.

Setting The Record Straight: The House is Just Fine

Setting The Record Straight: The House is Just Fine

The media and the pundits would have you believe the Republican House members are running around like the keystone cops.  We have heard things like “total disarray”, “held hostage by the Tea Party” and more.  However, if you believe this, you would be wrong.

The House of Representatives operate by a set of rules that govern how business is conducted in the House. Many new Representatives that came to Washington in the past two elections are angry because they cannot get anything done. Why? The House rules stop them in their tracks. Who benefits from these archaic rules, the establishment politicians?

To be clear, there are as many Establishment Democrats that do not want the rules changed as well. So who wins and who losses? The Voters!

Actually, what we are all observing is a process where open debate and negotiations is not pretty, but necessary in a Democracy.  When an elected body is NOT operating and getting the peoples work done, the body politic MUST change.

So don’t listen to the pundits and the crazed media.  Stop, think and then decide for yourself. Contact your representatives and let them know CLEARLY what you want. Then, be patient for the process to work it out.

Obama is trying to impose his will through his bureaucracy.

Obama is trying to impose his will through his bureaucracy. 

President uses buying ability to set economic, social policy through executive orders. Critics argue aggressive use unconstitutional

By Gregory Korte

As he tries to increase the minimum wage, ensure paycheck fairness and provide paid time off for American workers; President Obama is turning to an arcane but powerful tool: the power of the purchaser.

If there’s one industry that’s been disproportionately impacted by President Obama’s executive orders, they are federal government contractors. Since becoming president, Obama has signed at least 15 executive orders and presidential memoranda aimed at contractors, dictating their hiring and firing practices, compensation policies and working conditions. The orders also require contractors to meet energy efficiency goals, prohibit human trafficking and other exploitative hiring practices, and ban texting while driving.

Buyers have always used their ability to buy in bulk to leverage a better deal, and the federal government has more purchasing power than any other buyer in the world, awarding more than $445 billion in contracts in fiscal year 2014.

With his executive orders, Obama is using the government’s buying power not just to get a better deal for the taxpayer, but also to set economic and social policy on minimum wage, paid leave and paycheck fairness — issues the Republican-controlled Congress has not acted on. The White House is hoping that the orders send a message to the economy at large, and have an effect far beyond the public sector.

“When the president issues an executive order, it reinforces that we care,” said Anne Rung, administrator of the White House’s Office of Federal Procurement Policy. “That kind of statement can not only drive greater economies and efficiency in the federal government, it can have a trickle-down or multiplier effect on the economy at large.”

But critics of Obama’s aggressive use of the executive order say the actions will kill off small businesses and may be unconstitutional.

“It’s completely in line with his sort of pen-and-phone philosophy. Obama is trying to impose his will through his bureauc­racy,” said Rep. Steve Chabot, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Small Business Committee. “The shame of it is that the people who are going to suffer are small businesses and families all across this country. The large corporations will find a way to deal with these new rules and regulations. ... Hiring a few more lawyers or accountants to deal with these things is not a huge deal for them.” 

The use of executive orders on contracting to shape social policy goes back to President Franklin Roosevelt, who banned racial discrimination in war production in 1941. President Kennedy strengthened that order by requiring affirmative action, and Presidents Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Clinton and George W. Bush signed orders strengthening enforcement and expanding the classes of people protected from discrimination. Last year, Obama added sexual orientation and gender identity to that line of executive orders. But Obama’s action go far beyond this.

“Federal procurement is a powerful weapon by which American presidents attempt to expand their power and shape public policy in areas in which Congress has not acted or will not act,” argues Daniel Gitterman, a professor of public policy at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, in an article in Presidential Studies Quarterly. Obama is no different, he said. 

“My sense is that he has clearly taken an interest in this particular tool,” Gitterman said. And with Congress in GOP hands, “you’ll probably see a spike now in terms of using that strategy.” 

Obama has also taken his executive power as purchaser further than his predecessors. Two recent executive orders expand the definition of contractors to include anyone who rents space from the federal government — including, for example, day care centers, military base concession stands and vendors in national parks. 

“In the context of these two executive orders, they’ve essentially rewritten what it means to be a contractor, to get maximum participation in these goals they’re pursuing,” said Marc Freedman, who directs labor law policy for the Chamber of Commerce. Far reaching action that should be Congress, not the president.

And then there’s the most controversial of the Obama contracting orders, called the Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces executive order, which Freedman calls the “mother of executive orders.” That requires contractors to disclose any labor violations of city, state or federal labor laws — or executive orders — against themselves or their subcontractors. 

Because the government can consider allegations of violations, businesses argue that the executive order deprives them of due process. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce also argues that some of the orders violate the separation of powers because Congress passed the 1949 Procurement Act to ensure greater efficiency, while the orders impose additional rules “in pursuit of non-procurement objectives.” 

Rung says the Obama administration has had extensive consultations with businesses to make sure the rules implementing the orders can work. 

Setting the Record Straight: Another left winger lying about what needs to be done about mass shootings

Setting the Record Straight:

Another left winger lying about what needs to be done about mass shootings

E.J. Dionne: Let’s change course and focus on the gun makers

It’s not just Congress that fails to respond after another massacre briefly focuses attention on the irrationality and permissiveness of our country’s firearms statutes. Those of us seeking change also regularly fall down on the job. We express outrage and move on, leaving the debate exactly where we found it. Opponents of the big gun interests are often insufficiently innovative in what we propose. Let’s face it: We have been losing this fight.

He wants you to think you are part of the “we”. Yes, he does when most people are not.

“According to a poll by CNN and ORC International, opposition to gun control has risen 23 percent since January. As a result, a majority of Americans no longer support gun control.”

The time has come to recast this battle as a fight to hold those who make billions of dollars from the sale of firearms accountable for what their products do to individuals and communities. We must call for corporate responsibility, and enforce it by law if it’s not forthcoming. And President Obama must be willing to go well beyond what he has done so far. As is their way, the community organizers and activists at the Industrial Areas Foundation (IAF) are pushing the president to use the federal government’s purchasing power to promote safer guns. To do business with the government, companies would have to be willing to “remove the barriers to getting smart guns and gun safety technologies to market” and cooperate with law enforcement to “identify and isolate dealers that provide large numbers of guns used in crimes.” Governments at all levels account for roughly 40 percent of gun industry revenues. Taxpayers have a right to demand responsibility from an industry that gets so much of our money.

Here Dionne deflects away from the root cause analysis of Mass Shootings and directs attention to “attacking” gun manufacturers. The question he does not address and I say is afraid to address is “Why do individual young males decide to kill people en mass?”

Obama also faces prodding from his fellow Democrats. Both Hillary Clinton and Martin O’Malley have put forward comprehensive gun proposals that are more adventurous than the ideas Obama has embraced. O’Malley deserves particular credit for going far beyond the highly constricted gun-policy conversation. His comprehensive plan includes a proposal that echoes the IAF in mandating that the federal government buy weapons only from manufacturers who adopt basic safety measures and the microstamping of weapons.

If we are to believe that solving huge complex problems is to attack manufacturers for what results of using/owning what they make, he is lying about his motive.  Why not Cigarettes? 480,000 people die a year. As for the top 10 causes of death in the U.S., He does not say a word about:

·        Heart disease: 611,105

·        Cancer: 584,881

·        Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 149,205

·        Accidents (unintentional injuries): 130,557

·        Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 128,978

·        Alzheimer's disease: 84,767

·        Diabetes: 75,578

·        Influenza and Pneumonia: 56,979

·        Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 47,112

·        Intentional self-harm (suicide): 41,149

Gun homicides have leveled out over the past 7 years averaging 12,000 per year.

So let’s talk less about the NRA and more about those whose interests the NRA serves, the big weapons sellers such as Sturm, Ruger & Co., Smith & Wesson, SIG Sauer, Beretta, Glock and Freedom Group. Let’s insist that Obama put his anger to work.

Responsible business people care about the well-being of their communities and live with all sorts of health and safety regulations. They above all should see how profoundly misguided it is that one of the least accountable industries in the United States involves enterprises selling products that kill people.

He closes with a colossal lie about the companies that manufacture Guns. Regulating, fining and even imprisonment will not Stop the young male that individually decides to kill people in order to go out in a blaze of glory!

Beware of the lies coming from people with a clear agenda, that write eloquently to convince people the lie is the truth.

Retiring soon? Think Again: MEDICARE PART B PREMIUMS TO RISE 52%

MEDICARE PART B PREMIUMS TO RISE 52% 

7 MILLION ENROLLEES MUST PICK UP THE TAB

2016 might not be anything like 2015 for about 30% of Medicare beneficiaries — roughly 7 million Americans. That’s because premiums for individuals could increase a jaw-dropping 52% to $159.30 per month. And for individuals whose incomes exceed $85,000, premiums could end up ranging from $223.00 to $509.80 per month.

Do the math; the average Social Security benefit was $1,180.80 per month. That would make the $159.30  a whopping %13.5 of the SSI! 

What gives? Blame the “hold harmless” provision in the law that addresses cost-of-living adjustments (COLA) for Social Security benefits. That law limits the dollar increase in the premium to the dollar increase in an individual’s Social Security benefit, according to a report by Alicia Munnell of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

The consumer price index (CPI) is not likely to increase in the period used to determine the COLA for 2016. That means it’s very likely that Social Security recipients — for just the third time since automatic adjustments started in 1975 — will not see an increase in their benefit, according to Munnell’s report.

WHO MUST PAY THE HIGHER MEDICARE PART B PREMIUM? 

This group includes individuals who enroll in Part B for the first time in 2016; enrollees who do not receive a Social Security benefit; beneficiaries who are directly billed for their Part B premium; current enrollees who pay an income-related higher premium; and dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries, whose premiums are paid by state Medicaid programs.

What might you do or consider if you’re among those who have to pay the higher premium? 

Individuals who enroll in Part B for the first time in 2016. 

“Enroll earlier if you’re already 65 and otherwise eligible,” says Michael Kitces, publisher and author of the Nerd’s Eye View blog. “If you’re not eligible now, I’m afraid you’re stuck.” 

Enrollees who do not receive a Social Security benefit. 

Those who are already on Medicare or could apply immediately and who were going to start Social Security benefits in the next year or so might consider applying right now instead, Kitces says. “Those who file in the coming weeks should be able to get both Social Security benefits and Medicare in November and December, which are the two months used for measuring, and therefore make themselves eligible,” he says. If you are among those considering different Social Security claiming strategies — such as file-and-suspend, restricted application and delay to age 70 — there’s no getting around it. You’ll have to do cost-benefit analysis to see if the benefit of the strategy is greater than the cost of the increased Medicare Part B premium.

In the long run, Kitces says, those who anticipate living a long time and who will benefit from delaying Social Security by several years should still delay. “The value of delaying Social Security is far more beneficial than the squeeze from hold harmless,” he says. 

Beneficiaries who are directly billed for their Part B premium. 

If you’re already getting Social Security benefits, request to have your Part B premium deducted from your Social Security check ASAP; you should still have time to be eligible for hold harmless, Kitces says. 

Enrollees who pay an income- related higher premium. 

“It is critically important for folks to review the Social Security notice of 2016 Medicare B premiums that will be in mailboxes later this fall,” says Katy Votava, president of Goodcare.com in Rochester, N.Y. “It’s not uncommon for people to qualify for a decrease because their income drops to a lower bracket as a result of specific lifechanging events.” The problem, Votava says, is that Social Security doesn’t know about those events unless the person notifies the agency.

For those whose incomes are still above the thresholds: “Unfortunately, you’re stuck here,” Kitces says. “If possible, get your 2015 income below the line, so that at least if hold harmless kicks in again ... you can benefit slightly from the second time it flows through.” 

Dual Medicare-Medicaid beneficiaries, whose full premiums are paid by state Medicaid programs. 
“Since your Medicare premiums are being paid by the state at this point, it doesn’t effectively matter whether hold harmless applies for you or not, as to the extent higher premiums occur, they will be paid by the state anyway,” Kitces says. “Not surprisingly, I believe there are some states who are not so happy about this.”

The Most Evil and Vile Rulers In History

The Most Evil and Vile Rulers In History

By Chris Gamble

There is a lot of chatter today about ruthless leaders and useless wars. Many of today's people and especially the young do not know the true extent of past evil rulers.

It is hard to quantify evil. However, these heads of state surely qualify as just that. Ranging from sick to maniacal to just outright twisted, these evil rulers set a standard nobody wants to follow. Each one can be verified with little effort or simply through Wikipedia. These are most evil and vile rulers in history.

20. Ho Chi Minh

As far as communist dictators go he was pretty tame, at least compared to the others on this list. However, Ho Chi Minh was still responsible for policies that resulted in hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians dying. He also executed 100,000 people who opposed his land reforms. Basically they were killed for not wanting to starve to death or leave their lands.

19. Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan

The third president of Pakistan, Agha Mohammad Yahya Khan was a pretty brutal guy. He declared martial law and waged a ruthless war against Eastern Pakistan. The result was the death of millions between his war against Eastern Pakistan and various other disastrous policies.

18. Kim Jong-Il

Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans were arrested for petty crimes such as letting a photo of him hit the ground. Millions died of starvation, a number that might never be fully known. He lived a lavish lifestyle including spending millions on imported liquor during his reign that he didn't even have the decency to share with his people who were starving. Kim Jong-Il is one of the vilest human beings to ever live. Even after he passed away people were imprisoned for not mourning hard enough.

17. Mengistu Haile Mariam

Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is responsible for well over one million deaths. When he took power he took three bottles of blood and tossed them on the stage after announcing his rivals would be put to death. Then he had his enemies garroted in the streets and then had the gall to tax the families of the dead for wanting the return of their loved one.

16. Vladimir Lenin

Lenin was responsible for the death of millions in the wake of the Bolshevik Revolution. He purged his own party of potential rivals to cement his hold on the government. He let millions starve to death, executed hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people, and the sad part was he wasn't even the most brutal dictator in his country's history.

15. Vlad Tepes

You know him as Vlad the Impaler. That nickname comes from his propensity of impaling his enemies either through the face or through the rectum. The Prince of Wallachia defeated an army of Turks and impaled between 20,000 and 30,000 of them outside of his castle. When the Sultan showed up to put him in his place, he and his men fled after seeing a forest of impaled skeletons. He was no friend of Muslims and would enslave and murder them whenever and wherever he could. His total death toll is not known, but it was well into the tens of thousands if not many more. He is also the inspiration for Dracula, and it is believed he impaled innocent people just because he enjoyed the impalement process so much.

14. Caligula

The third Roman emperor once said he wished Rome had one neck so he could chop all the heads at once. He chewed on political opponents’ testicles, sometimes while they were being tortured to death. He had no problem killing children and would sometimes do it himself. His victims would endure days of torture and pain before dying. He also had a large appetite for women and even had relationships with his three sisters. He believed himself a god and would demand a man’s wife, sometimes killing the husband in front of the wife if he refused. He also had no problem killing his own family. Many more were killed through forced famine. You could say he was a little off his rocker.

13. Idi Amin

In the eight years he was in command of Uganda he killed an estimated 300,000 Ugandans. Most of his victims were Christians who he thought were loyal to deposed dictator Milton Obote. There were rumors he would keep his political enemies’ bodies in his fridge and that he engaged in cannibalism.

12. Saddam Hussein

He ran Iraq from 1979 to 2003 and was responsible for killing two million civilians during that time. He also started a war with Iran and invaded Kuwait. He used chemical weapons against the Kurds and is responsible for killing 100,000 of them in 1987-88. About 40 of his own family were also murdered. Many of the executions of Iraqi citizens were filmed so he could watch them later.

11. Sultan Mehmed V

The Sultan of the Ottoman Empire from 1909 to 1918, he was responsible for what is known today as the Armenian Genocide. The Armenian people were non-Muslims living in the Ottoman Empire. Well, the Turks started rounding up the Armenians in 1915 and executing them. Those not killed were tossed out of the country. Over 1.5 million Armenians, of a population of about 2.5 million, were killed by Sultan Mehmed V and his men. It was the first modern instance of genocide being committed. Even today Turkey refuses to acknowledge that it was genocide.

10. Pol Pot

The communist leader led the Khmer Rouge from 1963 to 1997 and was dictator of Cambodia for four years. During his reign one to three million people were killed. To put that in perspective, Cambodia only had a population of about eight million at the time.

9. Kim Il Sung

The North Korean dictator invaded South Korea and wasn’t very nice to his own people either. Hundreds of thousands of North Koreans went to labor camps for crimes as silly as dropping a picture of Kim Il Sung on the ground. While living an opulent lifestyle, he watched as about 3.5 million North Koreans died of disease and famine.

8. Ivan IV

You know him as Ivan the Terrible. Some believe he was actually mentally ill, but the first tzar of Russia had some serious issues with the people he ruled. He was known for frying people in giant pans, impaling people and built walls around his city. The walls weren’t to keep invaders out but rather to keep people in. Then he went and started a war with Sweden, Lithuania and Poland that lasted 24 years. After that he got really crazy. He and his son would have his men round up peasants and then watch as they were tortured and killed. Oh, he also killed that son as well. It isn’t known how many people died as a result of his reign, but it was a lot.

7. Leopold II

The Belgian king decided he really wanted the ivory and rubber that were found in central Africa, so he created the Congo Free State to make sure he got it. Millions of Congolese people were enslaved, tortured and murdered. An estimated three to six million Congolese died as a result of Leopold II’s quest to establish an African colony. Some estimates are as high as 15 million.

6. Attila the Hun

When he conquered an area he would often put the entire city to the sword. He ruled through fear and conquered that way as well. He sacked Rome and murdered Romans by the thousands. He also had no problem killing his own family and he killed, and ate, two of his sons. He also killed his brother because he deemed him a threat to his throne. He also found Saint Ursula, the perpetual virgin, and wanted to marry her. She refused his proposal so he killed her and 11,000 of her followers.

5. Genghis Khan

The Mongol leader is known as one of the most aggressive rulers in history. He conquered land from Asia to Europe. He was also a bit unstable. He killed his brother when he was 10 for stealing a fish. He also might hold the record for the most people killed in a single day with a death toll of about one million in what was known as the sacking of Urgench. Also included in his death toll is about three quarters of the entire population of the Iranian Plateau, an estimated 10-15 million people. The exact death tolls will never be known, but it is in excess of 20 million.

4. Adolf Hitler

You thought he would be No. 1, didn’t you? Well, you can easily make the case he should be. Six million Jews and a total of 17 million civilians believe he should be. He has become synonymous with evil and for good reason.

3. Emperor Hirohito

The Japanese emperor often gets overlooked because he lived in the same era as Josef Stalin, Adolf Hitler and Mao Zedong. However, Hirohito was responsible for killing millions of Chinese during World War II. Prisoners of war, including Americans, were used as bayonet practice for Japanese troops. Japan was also the only country in World War II to use poison gas in a military capacity against both troops and civilians. Millions more Vietnamese, Filipino and Indonesian people were killed through famine and forced labor. Estimates put the death toll from Japanese war crimes as high as 30 million. Some have defended the emperor because he was not always aware of what his military was doing, but that is a lame excuse. He was never held responsible for his crimes as the United States thought it would not be beneficial to upset the Japanese populace by killing their emperor. He died in 1989.

2. Josef Stalin

The Five Year Plan was an idea of Stalin’s that was supposed to change the industrial and agricultural aspects of the Soviet economy. Hundreds of thousands of poor died as a result of starvation that ensued. Then, to solidify his grip on the country, he started killing political enemies. Stalin’s policies also led to about 10 million in Ukraine dying of starvation. Approximately 30 million people were killed by Stalin making him one of the biggest mass murderers in history.

1. Mao Zedong

He is one of the biggest mass murderers in history. His Great Leap Forward, which was an attempt to change China’s economy through industrialization, was a disaster. It led to the deadliest famine in history and killed about 30 million Chinese. What is it about communist dictators and starving their own people in the name of so-called progress? Not wanting to be outdone, he decided to purge the country of perceived enemies of the state. Millions more died as a result. In total, he killed between 40 and 70 million Chinese through starvation, execution and forced labor.