HERE IT IS=> Complete List of President Trump’s Major Accomplishments in First 100 Days

Jim Hoft 

Guest post by Joe Hoft

Presidential candidate Donald Trump held his final campaign rally at 1am on election day November 8th, 2016 in Ann Arbor, Michigan.

At the end of his final speech candidate Trump said this –

Just imagine what our country could accomplish if we started working together as one people, under one God, saluting one American flag.  I’m asking you to dream big because with your vote we are just hours away from the change you’ve been waiting for your entire life.  So to every parent who dreams for their child and to every child who dreams for their future I say these words to you tonight.  I am with you.  I will fight for you and I will win for you.  I promise.

To all Americans tonight in all of our cities and in all of our towns, I pledge to you one more time. Together we will make American wealthy again.  We will make America strong again. We will make America safe again and we will make America great again!

President Trump started off as aggressive as any President ever in working for the American people as he promised.  Now as President Trump’s first 100 days in office come to an end, here is a complete list of his accomplishments and his resulting impact on the economy and world affairs in this very short period of time:

The US Stock Markets are at record highs and millions of Americans are benefitting in their retirement savings accounts. 

* The DOW daily closing stock market average rose more than 15% since the election on November 8th.  (On November 9th the DOW closed at 18,332 – on March 1st the DOW closed at 21,115).
* Since the Inauguration on January 20th the DOW rose 6.5%.  (It was at 19,827 at January 20th and reached 21,115 on March 1st.)
* The DOW took just 66 days to climb from 19,000 to above 21,000, the fastest 2,000 point run ever.  The DOW closed above 19,000 for the first time on November 22nd and closed above 21,000 on March 1st.
* The DOW closed above 20,000 on January 25th and the March 1st rally matched the fastest-ever 1,000 point increase in the DOW at 24 days.
* The US Stock Market gained $2 trillion in wealth since Trump was elected!
* The S&P 500 broke $20 Trillion for the first time in its history.
* In the history of the DOW, going back to January 1901, the DOW record for most continuous closing high trading days was set in January of 1987 when Ronald Reagan was President. The DOW set closing highs an amazing 12 times in a row that month.  On February 28th President Trump matched President Reagan when the DOW reached a new high for its 12th day in a row!

President Trump decreased the US Debt in his first 100 days by $100 Billion.  (President Obama increased the US debt in his first 100 days by more than $560 Billion.)

The US Manufacturing Index soared to a 33 year high in this period which were the best numbers since 1983 under President Reagan.

President Trump added 298,000 jobs in his first month alone (after President Obama said jobs were not coming back!).

Housing sales are red-hot.  In 2011, houses for sale were on the market an average 84 days. This year, it’s just 45 days.

Illegal immigration is down 67% since President Trump’s Inauguration.

NATO announced Allied spending is up $10 Billion because of President Trump.

After being nominated by President Trump, Constitutionalist Judge Neil Gorsuch was confirmed and sworn in as  Supreme Court Justice in early April.

The President has signed 66 executive orders, memoranda and proclamations as of April 19th, including:

* Notifying Congress of a strike on Syria after it was reported that the country used gas on its citizens.
* Dismantling Obama’s climate change initiatives.
* Travel bans for individuals from a select number of countries embroiled in terrorist atrocities.
* Enforcing regulatory reform.
* Protecting Law enforcement.
* Mandating for every new regulation to eliminate two.
* Defeating ISIS.
* Rebuilding the military.
* Building a border wall.
* Cutting funding for sanctuary cities.
* Approving pipelines.
* Reducing regulations on manufacturers.
* Placing a hiring freeze on federal employees.
* Exiting the US from the TPP.

In addition to all this, the President has met with many foreign leaders from across the globe including Xi from China, Abe from Japan, etc.

The President also pointed out numerous times that the MSM (Main Stream Media) reports only on a made up Russia conspiracy story and ignores these accomplishments.  These actions are making the majority of Americans aware of the tremendous bias in the media in the US and abroad.  This too is another major Trump accomplishment.

Winning, Winning, Winning!

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/04/draft-complete-list-of-president-trumps-accomplishments-in-his-first-100-days/

TRUMP IS MORE TRUSTED THAN POLITICAL MEDIA

Well, to be fair, almost anyone is more trusted than the national political media. Morning Consult reports on a poll of more than 2,000 Americans:

Thirty-seven percent of Americans said they trusted Trump’s White House to tell the truth, while 29 percent opted for the media.

Responses to this question are of course highly partisan, but independents, like Republicans, trust the Trump administration more than the political media:

But the media also scored low marks among independents, with more than half saying they didn’t trust national news outlets to cover the White House fairly and that they trusted Trump more. Roughly half (49 percent) also said the media was out of touch and 43 percent said outlets had been harder on Trump than other presidents.

Liberals coined the term “fake news” to try to discredit conservatives, but Trump and others have successfully turned the phrase around:

Trump’s critiques of the media, which he commonly derides as “fake news” also seems to have struck a chord with Americans. A plurality (42 percent) said they see fake news in national newspapers or network news broadcasts more than once or about once a day. About 3 in 10 (31 percent) said they saw fake news from those sources once every few days, once a week or slightly less often than that.

Political reporters launch daily broadsides against President Trump, and are frustrated that they don’t seem to have much impact. I suspect that they still don’t understand how deeply (and justly) unpopular they are with the American people.

Remember when reporters called Ronald Reagan the “Teflon president”? Then, too, they were frustrated that the mud they constantly flung at the president didn’t seem to stick. What was going on, in reality, was that voters weren’t particularly impressed by the press’s daily savaging of President Reagan. Reporters attributed this to some mysterious “Teflon” quality on the part of the president. In fact, the dynamic was much the same as what we see today with the press and President Trump.

Which doesn’t mean that it is helpful to be viciously attacked every day. It obviously isn’t. But when the press is so little trusted, diminishing returns set in pretty quickly.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/trump-is-more-trusted-than-political-media.php

THE GOP’S CURRENT OBAMACARE BILL, COHERENTLY EXPLAINED

BY JOHN HINDERAKER IN HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, OBAMACARE

Pretty much all conservatives have been frustrated by the House’s inability to pass Obamacare repeal and replacement. Something that seemed simple on the campaign trail has turned out not to be simple in practice. House Republicans now have produced a second version of the bill, which has been improved so as to draw support from the Freedom Caucus.

But what exactly is going on? What would the new House bill do? Can the Senate improve it, and if so, how? And, should conservatives support the current House proposal?

By far the most coherent discussion of these questions that I have seen comes from Peter Nelson, one of America’s top health care experts. Peter is one of my vice presidents at Center of the American Experiment. He has drafted a simple, clear, three-page explication of what the current bill contains, why conservatives should support it, and how it should be improved by the Senate. For clarity and information value, I haven’t seen anything like it.

Peter’s memo is being distributed by national organizations to every member of Congress and their staffs. It is expected to have a great deal of influence as the debate over Obamacare repeal proceeds. Here it is, hot off the press:

20170428 CAE Health Care MemoPDF by John Hinderaker on Scribd

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/the-gops-current-obamacare-bill-coherently-explained.php

THE SANCTUARY CITIES RULING TURNS OUT TO BE NOTHING MUCH

 BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN IMMIGRATION, LAW

There is considerably less to Judge Orrick’s ruling on “defunding” sanctuary cities than initially seemed to be the case. Andy McCarthy explains that the ruling is basically an “advisory opinion” (which courts aren’t supposed to issue). The ruling is advisory because neither San Francisco nor Santa Clara, the municipal plaintiffs before Judge Orrick, faced any sort of enforcement action pursuant to the executive order they challenged. Indeed, no entity anywhere in the country appears to have been threatened with one.

Moreover, Justice Department lawyers told Judge Orrick that the executive order at issue does nothing more than call for the enforcement of already existing law — a construction completely consistent with the order as written. Unfortunately, Orrick refused to believe the Justice Department.

Andy has much more to say about the matter, including the judge’s motivation for taking his 49 page excursion. The column is worth reading in full.

So is this piece by Hans von Spakovsky. Hans argues that an exception to the injunction described by Judge Orrick seems to allow the Trump administration to go ahead with what it has actually been planning to do all along: cut off eligibility to certain grant programs that already require compliance with 8 U.S.C. 1373. Section 1373 prohibits local jurisdictions from restricting government officials or entities from communicating immigration status information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

It looks, then, like Judge Orrick has not inflicted a defeat on President Trump after all. He’s merely performed some world-class grandstanding and, presumably, enhanced his self-image.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/the-sanctuary-cities-ruling-turns-about-to-be-nothing-much.php

U.N. WARNS THAT REPEALING OBAMACARE MAY BE ILLEGAL

BY PAUL MIRENGOFF IN INTERNATIONAL LAW, OBAMACARE, UNITED NATIONS

Dana Milbank reports, with glee, that the United Nations “has contacted the Trump administration as part of an investigation into whether repealing [Obamacare] without an adequate substitute for the millions who would lose health coverage would be a violation of several international conventions that bind the United States.” The warning comes from the Office of the U.N. High Commissioner on Human Rights in Geneva.

The U.N. Human Rights Commission (now known as the Human Rights Council) purports to “uphold the highest standards in the promotion and protection of human rights,“ Its members include China, Cuba, Iraq, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela.

The “High Commissioner’s” office warning that Obamacare repeal/replacement might be illegal comes in a letter to the Trump administration. The Commissioner asked that the letter be shared with majority and minority leadership in both chambers of Congress. It also proposed that “the wider public should be alerted to the potential implications of the above-mentioned allegations.” According to Milbank, the White House has not shared the letter with Congress, much less “alerted the wider public.”

The public should be alerted, and alarmed, that the U.N. is attempting to dictate our domestic policy. The “High Commissioner’s” letter shows that signing broadly worded international agreements allows foreign countries, including some of the world’s worst dictatorship, to accuse us of violating the law. We should sign no more of them.

By way of illustration, one of the provisions the U.N. relies on in this case is Article 5(e) of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, ratified by the U.S. in 1994. It calls on states to “guarantee the right of everyone” to, among other things, “public health, medical care, social security and social services” without regard to race or color.

It is not far-fetched to imagine lawsuits in U.S. courts based on claims that the government is violating this kind of “obligation” to which America agreed. How far-fetched is it to imagine left-liberal judges seriously entertaining such lawsuits? Not very, in my view.

In reality, pre-Obamacare America offered health care to everyone without regard to race or color. It provided poor Americans with free health care via Medicaid. Millions of other Americans received health insurance from their employer. The rest (except those with pre-existing conditions, a matter of real concern) were free to purchase health insurance, if they so desired. The market offered plans that were not expensive — my wife had one — at least not compared to the ones Americans are required to purchase under the Obamacare regime.

No one was denied health insurance due to race or color. Nor, to my knowledge, was anyone denied service — e.g. at an emergency room — on that basis.

If the pre-Obamacare system violated international law, it doesn’t take a creative lawyer to argue that, even with Obamacare, we remain in violation. Millions of Americans are still without health insurance.

In essence, Obamacare provided new incentives to purchase health insurance. One incentive is the penalty (called a “tax”) by the Supreme Court on those who don’t purchase it. Another is the subsidy offered to people of modest means.

But for millions of Americans, these incentives have proven inadequate to induce the purchase of insurance. Thus, the U.N. (were it politically impartial) could easily find that the U.S. remains out of compliance with international law. It could insist that the U.S. sweeten the pot with larger subsidies. It could insist that the U.S. adopt the single-payer system that the American left yearns for.

If Obamacare is ever repealed, it will be replaced. There may well be government-created incentives to buy health insurance (as was the case with Ryan’s proposal), but they will probably less enticing (e.g., tax credits or deductions).

The U.N., through its “investigation,” is claiming the authority to evaluate Obamacare replacement packages. In effect, it asserts the right to decide whether the replacement incentives measure up to the Obamacare incentives (inadequate though these may be).

The U.N.’s infringement on our democracy is obvious.

It’s not surprising that elites in the rest of the world want to dictate to America. It’s not surprising that many of the left want such leftist elites to dictate to us. What’s surprising is that America has gone as far as it has to provide the tools with which claims like those being made by these elite, via bureaucrats in Geneva, can be asserted with a straight face.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/04/u-n-warns-that-repealing-obamacare-might-be-illegal.php

Liberals Want To Kill Free Speech, So We Patriots Must Fight Back

Kurt Schlichter

Understand that if America is stupid enough to let liberals take power again, they will persecute and prosecute normal Americans like us who dare to dissent. That’s not a guess or a prediction – that’s a commitment they have made to their fascist followers. They’ve seen what the truth can do to their schemes. After 2016, there’s no way they are going to take a chance on another electoral rejection by us normals, so they don’t even pretend to support free speech anymore. It will be one gender neutral being-one vote, one more time, and then never again.

Hold on. That’s clearly nuts, right? This is obviously crazy talk that’s talking crazy, isn’t it? Don’t liberals love free speech?

No.

We know they don’t love free speech because they tell us they don’t, in both words and deeds. The whole free speech thing lost a lot of its luster for the libs when people like us decided to try it out. The liberals didn’t count on that – free speech was supposed to be their jam, a way to offend, annoy, and outrage us squares, to blow our bourgeois minds with their transgressive, no-holds-barred free thoughtery and critical thinkery. But they never intended for it to allow those banjo-strumming rubes living between I-5 and I-95 to express wrong thoughts and thereby win elections.

So now the progressives are trying to do something about it. Recently, every single Democrat voted to effectively repeal the First Amendment. You see, the words “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” were too expansive for liberals’ tastes because they prevented Congress from making laws abridging the freedom of speech.

This creepy idiocy was in response to Citizens United, a Supreme Court case that, to people who actually believe in free speech and not liberal fascism, conforms to the First Amendment by telling the federal government that no, you can’t put people in jail for making a movie critical of Hillary Clinton.

Yes, you read it correctly. Democrats think that Congress should be able to make laws to put people in jail for making movies critical of Democrat politicians. Roll that around in your head for a while.

Now, they call it “campaign finance reform,” and their argument is that they aren’t really limiting speech - just limiting how people spend their own money. Apparently, under the First Amendment, we are allowed to say anything we want, but Congress can pass a law telling us that we just can’t spend any money to actually be heard.

It would mean the government can tell us we can’t buy paper, we can’t buy ads, we can’t buy video tape, we can’t pay a film crew or writers, and we can’t pay for airtime. Congress could even tell us we can’t buy internet access to post our thoughts on Twitter or Facebook. And Congress, in the Dems’ utopia, could even pass a law not letting you spend a few measly pennies to buy my awesome book about how liberals will split our country in two.


Yes, they want to be able to ban books.

Other than that, under the liberals’ paradigm, we can speak to our hearts content, though only to people within shouting range. But don’t worry. The official, approved mainstream media would be exempt – and unofficial, unapproved media, well, not so much. “Fake news” and all that – “fake” being defined as “critical of liberals.” Fortunately, we’d have such unbiased, nonpartisan, objective outlets like the New York Times and CNN (starring noted free speech scholar Fredo Cuomo) to provide us open forums to air our conservative views. Also, we could get unicorns to skywrite our opinions for free using rainbows spewing from beneath their fluffy tails.

What’s still unclear is what prison sentence Democrats would impose upon someone who breaks the law by exhibiting a film or writing a book critical of Hillary Clinton. One year? Five years? Life in SuperMax? Come on Democrats, how long would you imprison someone for illegal speech?


And what should the penalty be for climate change denial? Since rejecting their weird climate religion is Earth-murder, or something, you would think they’d want to burn you at the stake – or is that too carbony?

Then there’s that clinical moron Howard Dean, who is ironically famous for his own bizarre exercise of the First Amendment. Leveraging all his intellectual fire power, he recently unloaded his mental squirt gun upon those of us who think the First Amendment means what it actually says. “Hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment,” he announced on Twitter, apparently having discovered a constitutional exception that would allow Democrats to stifle any speech they choose to stick the “hate speech” label on. Which would, of course, be anything and everything we normals want to say.


This “I don’t like what you are saying so it’s hate speech now shut-up” footnote to the First Amendment is well-known at our colleges and universities. These bastions of free thinking freely admit thinking that we normals have no right to think freely at all. The fact that California law enforcement is regularly ordered to stand back and allow conservative speakers and their audiences to be intimidated and beaten in order to silence them is just a preview of the new America that liberals dream of. If you imagine the unholy love child of the economic basket case/police state of Venezuela and the grim intolerance of your local campus, you have a pretty good idea of the new, fascist America the Democrats seek to breed.

Think that analysis is wrong? Well, here’s a complete list of all prominent Democrats standing up against these free speech abominations:

_________________________________________________.

Liberals should be ashamed of themselves, but then they wouldn’t be liberal if they were born with shame genes. So, since we patriots are the only ones who actually support free speech, what do we patriots do to protect it?

Whatever it takes.

We fight peacefully in the political arena, in the courts, and in the shrinking marketplace of ideas while we can, but we must also be ready to fight in the streets when those punky puffboys try to shut us up. No quarter, no compromise, no surrender – we fight and win, or they shut us up forever.

Look, the left has told us what it wants – the power to force us to be silent and submit. That’s not wacky supposition; that’s not fevered imagination. They are open about their agenda, and it’s happening before our eyes. To pretend that our republic is not facing an existential threat from progressives who would use violence to silence their political opponents is to willfully ignore the evidence, just like a climate cultist ignores cold weather. And the violence has already begun: in fact, it is key to their plan for a free speech-free future. Today it’s gangs of masked thugs attacking us. Tomorrow, it’s uniformed men with guns – or at least those few spineless cowards among our security forces will ignore their oaths to defend the Constitution in exchange for a paycheck and a pension – dragging us off to jail for illegal speech. Or worse.

We patriots face a stark choice. We could choose the easy path of submission and hope that the left will leave us be if we just give in to their demands and give up on our right to participate in our own governance. But that won’t ever work – the true joy of leftism comes from imposing the leftists’ collective will upon its designated villains, and one guess as to the identity of those designated villains.

Hi.

No, they don’t want to leave us alone – that misses the whole point of being a leftist. A leftist yearns to be the one doing the bullying and dominating. If we give in, we will spend the rest of our lives with their soft, girly hands around our necks.

And if we are so gutless as to give up our God-given rights in exchange for “peace,” we deserve that pathetic, dishonorable fate.

But we won’t give up. We won’t surrender. No matter how hard they punch, as Instapundit urges, we’ll punch back twice as hard.

It was funny seeing those antifa dorks get wedgies in Berkeley, but our enemies are serious about stripping us of the rights that our Creator endowed upon all men and women. Many of us are veterans or law enforcement, and our oaths to defend the Constitution even at the cost of our lives did not come with an expiration date. Millions more who did not take one of those oaths subscribe to them nonetheless. We promised not to let a fascist regime take hold, and we intend to keep our promise.

The First Amendment is followed by the Second Amendment for just this reason – history will record that our people’s unique refusal to be disarmed by those who seek to steal our liberties was a key factor why we will never be Venezuela II: The Revenge.

Our only chance of avoiding a catastrophe is if our would-be progressive overlords understand that for us normal Americans, there are only two possible outcomes. And living at their mercy as their serfs is not one of them.

The outcome we want is that we normals live free in a democratic republic exercising the rights enshrined in the Constitution, whether because leftists choose to respect our civil rights, or because we force them to respect our civil rights.

The other alternative is that we die on piles of spent brass surrounded by the bodies of our enemies. Either one’s cool – but submission to slavery is not an option.

That un-American, wannabe fascist Howard Dean need only look at a license plate from neighboring New Hampshire to understand how this is going to end. We’ll either live free or die.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kurtschlichter/2017/04/24/liberals-want-to-kill-free-speech-so-we-patriots-must-fight-back-n2317165

For The Left, Socialism Denial Is Holocaust Denial

For The Left, Socialism Denial Is Holocaust Denial

We're supposed to remember the horrors of the Holocaust so we'll never let it happen again. But we haven't done the same for the horrors of socialism.

By Robert Tracinski

British athlete James Cracknell was recently caught citing North Korea and Cuba as examples of how to “get a handle on obesity”—which both regimes have done by starving their people.

 Follow

Sky News 

✔@SkyNews

.@jamescracknell says North Korea is one of only two countries in the world that has "a handle on obesity"

12:57 AM - 18 Apr 2017

 
•  299299 Retweets
 
•  376

Cracknell posted a half-hearted apology, and I don’t want to be too hard on him, because in all likelihood he is simply not very bright and just needs to refrain from speaking in public ever again. This is unfortunate for him, since he has ambitions of running for Parliament.

The problem is that Cracknell has clearly been educated and lives in an environment where the reasons for starvation in Communist regimes are considered to be vague and complex and maybe can just be chalked down to “behavior modification.” Cracking jokes about the Holocaust is a line not to be crossed, but insensitive offhand references to brutal communist dictatorships? No big deal.

This sort of thing is not new. As Elizabeth Nolan Brown points out, by way of The Federalist’s Bre Payton, there was once a craze about the “Cuban diet,” telling us how healthy it is to be starved by your government. (I’d like to link you to the original article, rather than just a screen-shot of it, but it has not-so-mysteriously disappeared from the Web.)

If you want to find another country that is really doing something about obesity, you can look to Venezuela, which is providing a wonderful model for involuntary weight loss.

But a lot of people don’t seem to want to look at Venezuela, because that would be uncomfortable. A few years back, a lot of them were praising Venezuela as a model of socialism, the same way they praise Cuba. Here’s just a small sample: David Sirota in Salon proclaimed Venezuela’s “economic miracle” thanks to Hugo Chavez’s “full-throated advocacy of socialism” and “fundamental critique of neoliberal [i.e., free market] economics.” Left-leaning celebrities traipsed to Caracas to pay their respects. Bernie Sanders declared just a few years ago that “the American dream is more apt to be realized in…Venezuela” than here. He concluded by asking, “Who’s the banana republic now?”

We’re seeing the answer to that. Today, Venezuelans are starving and the remainders of the Chavez regime are sending gangs of armed thugs into the streets to attack anyone who protests. And all of the people who praised the Venezuelan regime as a paragon of socialism? They suddenly don’t want to talk about it.

This is just the tip of an iceberg of insensitivity, ignorance, and denial about socialism’s ongoing and historical track record. The bodies keep piling up, but the ideology that produced those bodies always gets a free pass. You know what this is? It’s the equivalent of Holocaust denial for the Left.

There has long been a ritual, which I sincerely hope will continue, in which young people are required to immerse themselves in the horrors of the Holocaust. There is no shortage of books and movies and documentaries and first-hand accounts—really harrowing stuff that keeps you up at night and gets seared into your brain so you can’t forget it. And that’s the point. You’re supposed to remember it and have it haunt your nightmares so that you will never allow it to happen again.

But our culture never did that for the horrors of socialism, which is how you get a majority of young people having a positive view of socialism.

What have they missed that they can believe that? Here’s what they’ve missed: the artificial famine in Ukraine, the Soviet Gulags, the forced deportation of Lithuanians, the persecution of Christians, China’s Great Leap Forward and Cultural Revolution, the killing fields of Cambodia, North Korea’s horrific prison camps and famines, the systematic impoverishment of Cuba, and now Venezuela’s collapse into starvation and mass-murder. All of this should be absolutely required background knowledge for any educated person.

I didn’t provide links for the second half of those examples. If you don’t know them, your assignment is to go look them up, because you’re precisely the sort of person who needs to learn about them.

Now when I cite all of this history, there’s always someone who insists that it isn’t fair to pin all of these crimes on “socialism” because those examples weren’t really socialism. The only “real” socialism is the warm, fuzzy welfare-statism of a handful of innucuous Western European countries. This is a pretty obvious version of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and a good way of disavowing responsibility for the disastrous results of a system you praised just a few years earlier.

But these crimes follow inevitably from the basic idea behind socialism: the idea that the good of “society” as a collective is more important the rights or even the life of the individual. That’s the “social” in “socialism,” and by throwing out the rights and liberty of the individual, it serves as a rationalization for an endless amount of carnage. Who cares if this particular person—or a few million people—suffer, so long as you can claim that mankind collectively benefits?

Consider the name of the roving thugs who are beating and killing dissidents in Venezuela right now: they call themselves collectivos. That says it all.

Socialism has been tested out more times and in more variations than probably any other social system, It has been implemented in every continent, every culture, every stage of economic development. It has always led to disaster, to the extent it has been implemented. If you’re lucky, your country gets off with a mere economic crisis, as in Greece. At the worst, your country is in for decades of living hell.

This, too, should be seared into our brains so that we never forget and never repeat it again. Because it hasn’t been, somebody is always trying to make us repeat it.

http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/24/left-socialism-denial-holocaust-denial/