My Fellow Americans, Part 2



Some 42 million immigrants live in the U.S., and the roughly one-fourth of them who are here illegally have created one of the greatest quandaries facing lawmakers. How the next president tackles immigration could reshape the country’s demographic, social and economic landscape.



“We must build a great wall between Mexico and the United States!” April 1 on Twitter »

Mr. Trump’s plans to change U.S. immigration policy have become his signature campaign proposal. Last year he promised to build a wall along the Mexican border and have Mexico pay for it, and pledged to deport the 11 million or so immigrants in the U.S. illegally. He also called for completely banning Muslims from entering the U.S. after the San Bernardino, Calif., terrorist attack. Mr. Trump wants to stop granting citizenship to those born on U.S. soil to foreign parents, and favors subjecting those who overstay visas to criminal penalties.

He later softened those stances. His campaign in June instead called for temporarily banning immigrants from regions that are a major source of terrorists. In mid-August, he suggested a Trump administration would work with some immigrants who paid back taxes so they could stay in the country, and added that it would be difficult to deport millions of immigrants.

After being accused of waffling on immigration, he delivered a late August speech that emphasized new systems that would prioritize deporting criminals and those presenting a terrorist threat, including a new ideological test to ensure would-be immigrants share American values. That included proposing a tripling of the number of U.S. Immigration and Customers Enforcement officers and adding 5,000 border patrol agents but no explicit plans to deport all immigrants in the U.S. illegally. It also called for a new biometric system to track those who’ve overstayed their visas.


“The most beautiful tall wall, better than the Great Wall of China, that would run the entire border. That he would somehow magically get the Mexican government to pay for. And, you know, it’s just fantasy.”— Democratic presidential debate, March 10

Mrs. Clinton portrays herself as a strong supporter of immigrant rights, having pledged to create the first national office of immigrant affairs if she clinches the White House. She wants to enact an immigration overhaul that would create a pathway to citizenship.”

Mrs. Clinton supported President Obama’s executive order that blocked deportations for some four million illegal immigrants, a plan that was recently blocked by the U.S. Supreme Court. In particular her campaign has emphasized allowing parents of so-called dreamers who came to the U.S. as children and other immigrants with a history of service in this country to make an individual case for staying in the U.S. if an immigration overhaul fails in Congress.



“Well, as the old saying goes, “you can’t polish a turd”.  Trump, being the one trick pony that he is, builds his campaign around a wall that he doesn’t even know how he’d finance. Then, he puts icing on top of this crap cake…


…through the dumbest, most inflammatory statements his marginally literate mind can cough up, forcing his handlers to earn their money by cleaning up his stupidity and retraining him in English.  Banning all people of a religion, blanket and insulting statements about ethnic groups, etc.  Typical Thump, nothing surprising.  And let’s not forget his flip flops on things like amnesty.

Then, you have Hillary, who seems to have very little care about border anarchy, and making a serious effort to screen people coming into the country, knowing she’s safe behind the walls of buildings most people can’t get into without an appointment from a powerful politician, guarded with things she says commoners shouldn’t really be allowed to possess.  It’s the People that would have to take a bite out that crap sandwich, not her, or her VP.”


Virus-X, the Dude and Republic Commando believes that the rights of American citizens should not be subsumed to the rights of foreigners.  It is the enumerated, constitutional responsibility of the President of the United States to protect the Republic, not to take away the rights of the citizens of the Republic to ‘protect’ people trying to get into it.  National defense is one of the few, legitimate functions of the Executive Branch, and shoddy, poorly thought-out immigration policies will not accomplish that mission.

First of all, we need to return to the older immigration policies.  If you want to come to this country, you need a sponsor.  That person has to be an American citizen with no criminal record, as well as gainfully employed and a person of good repute. The applicant, himself (or herself) must also have a job lined up, unless they are going to be a dependent of the sponsor.  The applicant, themselves, must also have no criminal record, and be of good repute.  This must be checked thoroughly by the DHS. Anyone that fails to secure employment within a given time frame will be deported by DHS agents and state police.  The DHS was made to protect this country, and it’s high time they get into this fight.  Will this make the immigration process slower?  Yes, it will.  Much slower, but it will also make it much more thorough, and probably have a much higher success rate in preventing bad actors from gaining entry into the country.  As for building a wall, with Virus-X’s economic policies, cutting trillions from spending, it wouldn’t be hard to determine where funding for such a massive project would come from.  It’s not even out of the question to use violent criminal illegal aliens serving time as some of the labor.

Applicants for citizenship from nations that do not have good relations with the US will be more heavily scrutinized.  If there is even a hint of willful association with terrorists, such as jihadis, you are banned from entry into the country, even as a visitor, employee of a company or a student.  If you are caught as an illegal alien under these circumstances, this will be considered a D-class felony.  If you cross the border into the United States illegally, you are automatically to be considered guilty of an E-class felony, just as if you are caught hiring an illegal alien to work for you, in any capacity.  If you overstay a visa, same thing.  Anyone deported from the country will be permanently banned from re-entry.  Children of illegal aliens are illegal aliens, and face the same deportation as any other illegal alien.  If the child leaves voluntarily, they can apply to return.  The parents cannot.  Applicants must be demonstrative of a minimum grasp of oral and written English language skills, history, the US Constitution and must pass a written and oral psychological examination, crafted to determine their willingness and ability to assimilate into American culture.  Immigrants that have no interest in assimilation, and clinging to and pushing their own cultures, are of no use to the American People, just as those that are interested in criminal pursuits are not. America is under no obligation to take anyone in; we do so, because we believe in the concept of the Melting Pot, and it would be in our best interests to only take in the best and brightest of those that want to join our nation, and stand with our people.  Immigrants that come to this country and claim to hate Americans and American values are of no use to this nation, either, not like those that really want to be here, and want to join in and make the country better and greater through their contributions, no matter how great or small.

Also, let’s get it straight:  the US Constitution gives the President of the United States no authority to force “refugees” on to the People and the States.  This practice has to end, immediately.  If “refugees” are to be taken in, there has to be total cooperation between the People, the States, and the Federal Government, or it can’t happen.  The safety and security of the American People must always be put first and foremost, before anything else.

As an additional lay of protection, American troops – preferably the Army and Marine Corps Military Police, will be deployed to work alongside civilian DHS Border Patrol agents.  Judge Advocate General and civilian prosecutors, and military and civilian judges must be on site, along side the MPs, to facilitate immediate processing illegal aliens into the system, so we can keep track of them.

Politicians like the Clintons like to perpetuate the lie “this is a nation of immigrants”. No, it is not.  This is a nation of Americans, many of whom used to be immigrants. Now, whether Thump actually knows this, or not, the US has banned people by ethnicity.  During World War 2, we weren’t rushing to have people like Japanese, Germans and Italians immigrating into the country.  They were choked off.  We’re not at that point, yet, but with complete screening – and the policy of absolutely no entry, under any circumstances, until completed satisfactorily – the People will see the federal government is taking their safety more seriously.  Let us also not forget that local law enforcement – at all levels – will also shoulder some of the responsibility for finding, detaining and even prosecuting illegal aliens, with the assistance of the federal government.

So, to recap, Thump’s policy is pretty incoherent, rambling and all over the place.  Let’s get Mexico pay to build a wall.  No we can’t get Mexico to pay to build a wall, and we don’t know how we’re going to pay for it.  Let’s block all people of a certain religion from immigrating, here.  No, let’s not block all  people of a certain religion from immigrating, here.  Let’s give amnesty.  Let’s not give amnesty.  Let’s have a pathway to citizenship (amnesty).  No, let’s not give a pathway to citizenship (amnesty).  And Clintons?  Let’s not worry so much about Americans, and bring anybody in.


The state of the nation’s roads and bridges is one of the few issues on which the two candidates agree. Despite a five-year, $305 billion highway bill enacted last year, experts say the country is spending considerably less on roads, bridges, ports, airports, power lines and other infrastructure than it should. Industry groups say the U.S. needs to invest more than a trillion dollars over the next decade. Both candidates have highlighted the need to invest in infrastructure as a way to kickstart economic growth. Today’s historically low interest rates would make such investments cheaper, economists say.



DONALD TRUMP:  “Instead of being at the office or in the factory getting work done, Americans waste countless hours every day sitting in traffic jams or waiting for stalled trains. Our airports? Are you kidding me? A disgrace.” November 2015, in his book “Crippled America” »

Mr. Trump has made a vast infrastructure investment program a major talking point in his speeches. He has promised a “trillion-dollar rebuilding program” to patch up roads, airports, bridges, water systems and the power grid.

In a recent appearance in North Dakota, Mr. Trump said he would lift restrictions on energy production and use part of the resulting tax revenue to finance his infrastructure plan. He has also talked about setting up a fund where private investors could help finance projects.

The Republican has also vowed to complete projects faster and for less money. His positions on infrastructure spending are largely in line with the rest of the Republican Party, which frequently calls for new investments without raising the gas tax, which pays for much of the federal infrastructure spending.


HILLARY CLINTON:  “I will put forward a plan that is as big—in fact bigger in some ways—than what President Eisenhower did when he created the interstate highway system.” May rally in Salinas, Calif. »

Mrs. Clinton has said she would send a $275 billion infrastructure plan to Congress during her first 100 days in office. Her plan would use new revenue from a business tax overhaul to pay for new projects and create a $25 billion infrastructure bank. She also wants to reauthorize the Build America bonds program, which the Obama administration rolled out as part of the 2009 stimulus program to make it easier for state and local governments to finance projects.

Notably, Mrs. Clinton’s plan does not call for raising the gas tax, which many transportation advocates say is necessary to provide a reliable source of funding for transportation. In 2015, a similar Obama administration proposal using revenue from a tax overhaul to pay for infrastructure failed in Congress.


Virus-X, Republic Commando:  “The nation is lagging behind other nations, now, due to paying for other things, than what we should’ve been paying for, and this has left us open and vulnerable to things ranging from natural disasters, to military and terrorist threats. That money that’s not going to foreign aid, propping up the militaries of other nations, unconstitutional departments and what-not could -and should- be utilized to start repairing our own infrastructure, and improving it.  This means tax hikes – the leftist’s best friend and fallback – would remain unnecessary.”  

Virus-X believes that while roads that fall under federal purview should, of course, be improved, money should also be put into projects that, for instance, look into hardening America’s electrical grid against hard sun spot incidents, intentional sabotage and even the use of EMP weaponry.  Working alongside the DHS, stricter screening methods are going to have to be put in place to screen power plant applicants, current employees and any contractors.

And even though America doesn’t need to follow behind Europe, there are some lessons that can be learned.  America, for instance, could use a much more difficult, revamped drivers education system, similar to Europe’s, but not as costly.  This involves putting drivers candidates through much more training, including freeway driving, much more difficult written tests, and even first aid training.  Also, Europe uses much higher quality materials in their road construction, along with more intensive road maintenance. America could benefit from that, as well.  Another thing we could consider is the raising of speed limits, or the eliminating of them, altogether, on some highways.

America’s disgraceful Internet infrastructure needs to be addressed, as well.  America is lagging behind other countries, in this, and America invented the Internet.  This must be addressed by a combination of things, including fostering other ISPs to appear and flourish, such as Google’s new Google Fiber, which utilizes the latest in technologies, instead of relying on old-fashioned, out-dated technologies, like bandwidth-constricting copper wire.  Competition is a key element.  Slashing taxation for the existing providers is another, but if they don’t take advantage of the more constitutional, simplified system of taxation, and keep what they have, they will be overtaken and destroyed by the emerging competition.  Also, with the reduced taxation, telecommunications technologies should become far more affordable to the average citizen.  Let’s also not forget that these telecommunications systems will also need robust protections from both natural disasters and attacks, ranging from physical attacks like EMP weapons, to foreign and domestic hackers.

Yet another source of income to aid in infrastructure improvement and development is the federal government giving up all federal lands outside of military installations, and turning them back over to the states.  This means lands that energy corporations want to exploit for their oil, shale or natural gas resources will be in the hands of the states, leaving them open to negotiation, and the federal government will be out of the business of intentionally twisting the Commerce Clause to choke off commerce.  States that are business friendly will have strict rules in place, but not business killing rules.  This means that oil will not only become more plentiful, but fuel prices can drop.  And with the buying and selling of energy, there are taxes collected.  Also, with the international sales of energy to certain nations (not our enemies, like the Chinese and the Russians), that opens more tax revenue, and undercuts the funding of terrorism sponsoring states like Iran and Saudi Arabia.


The U.S. central bank is responsible for supporting the American economy by pursuing stable prices and maximum employment through monetary policy, and monitoring risks in the financial system. In recent years the Fed has drawn the ire of politicians on both sides of the aisle over its perceived coziness with Wall Street, its outsize role rescuing big banks during the 2008 financial crisis and its unconventional efforts to stimulate the economy through a massive bond-buying program. The Fed has emerged as a bigger issue this election cycle, as Democrats call for an overhaul of Fed governance and Republicans decry years of easy-money policies they say have hurt savers and resulted in mediocre growth.


DONALD TRUMP:  “I’m not a person that thinks Janet Yellen is doing a bad job… I happen to be a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head, which can happen at some point.”  May 18 interview with Reuters »

Republican lawmakers for years have complained the Fed’s easy-money policies will soon lead to a spike in inflation and create dangerous risks in the financial system, and they’ve pressed Chairwoman Janet Yellen to justify why rates should remain so low. Mr. Trump has taken a softer stance. He told CNBC he was “not an enemy” of the Fed and doesn’t think Ms. Yellen is doing a bad job, although he said he eventually would want to replace her with a Republican nominee.

On monetary policy, Mr. Trump said in November Ms. Yellen “should have raised” interest rates and suggested she hadn’t for political reasons. (Interest-rate decisions are made by the Fed’s policy committee, which Ms. Yellen chairs.) He later switched his stance and called himself “a low-interest rate person unless inflation rears its ugly head.


HILLARY CLINTON:  Common sense reforms – like getting bankers off the boards of regional Federal Reserve banks – are long overdue.” — May 12 campaign statement

While she hasn’t weighed in on Fed interest-rate policy, Mrs. Clinton has joined the fray over Fed governance, lending support to efforts by activist groups and progressive lawmakers to remove bankers from the boards of the Fed’s 12 regional reserve banks.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said, if elected, she would appoint officials who will carry out “unwavering oversight” of the financial sector and “defend” both sides of the central bank’s inflation and employment mandates. Mrs. Clinton said at a debate in March that she would work to “end the revolving door” between Washington and Wall Street.


Virus-X, Republic Commando:  “First off, the Federal Reserve is out of control.  While Congress does have the constitutional authority and responsibility to regulate the currency, this has to be an open and transparent process, and the Federal Reserve must be completely audited, from top to bottom.”

Trump says that he thinks that the current Chairman is doing a great job, but he thinks she should be replaced for purely political purposes, for somebody with an (R) behind their name.

Secondly, regional reserve banking boards should be under the control of Congress, regardless of who is on their boards.  Congress, along with the Executive, is tasked with protecting the People.

Third, we need to stop printing money.  Obama has had the printing presses rolling, and Thump thinks we can stave off defaults by printing more money, and inflating our way out of debt.  Clinton has said very little of substance on the matter, aside from wanting to control who is on reserve banking boards (which will probably be leftist cronies).  All efforts should be made to restore the value of the American Dollar, not to devalue it.

Fourth, we need to end some regulations.  For instance, the strain Carter, Clinton and Obama put on banks resulted in the sub-prime loan nightmare that America is still going through.  Regulations already exist against discrimination, and the States should be leading the charge in bank regulation, not the federal government.  

Fifth:  No more central bank for the US.  We don’t need it, and it’s not a constitutional agency, which means it loses all funding, anyway.

OK, some people are going to get mad, but…



Student debt tripled over the past decade to $1.3 trillion, and now some 40 million Americans carry it. It’s no wonder higher education has become a key concern of middle-class households during the 2016 presidential election cycle. Both Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Trump have criticized the profits the government generates from lending to students and have said they want to help borrowers, though they disagree on the role private banks should play in financing higher ed. Both also want to punish schools financially when their students fail to repay loans.

DONALD TRUMP: “The big problem is the federal government. There is no reason the federal government should profit from student loans.” November 2015, in his book “Crippled America” »

Mr. Trump hasn’t said much about higher education or how to fund it. In “Crippled America” he writes, “there is nothing more important to this future of this country than colleges and universities.” He blames the federal loan program for help to driving up tuitions. He writes that “we can’t forgive these loans” but that the government can take steps to help borrowers. In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, a co-chair of his campaign said Mr. Trump favored “market-driven” student lending, in which the federal government would retreat and private banks would take over.

He also called for colleges to have “skin in the game,” a phrase that congressional lawmakers have used to describe a system in which schools would be on the hook for some loans if too many of their former students defaulted.

He also suggested colleges set more stringent standards for who gets in, denying access to some pupils who are unlikely to succeed. Mr. Trump has also been criticized for Trump University, his defunct real-estate school that is now being sued by former students.


HILLARY CLINTON:  “I disagree with free college for everybody. I don’t think taxpayers should be paying to send Donald Trump’s kids to college.” — Democratic debate in November

Mrs. Clinton has called for allowing most students to attend public colleges without having to pay tuition, though not the wealthiest students. Her “debt-free college” plan, the latest version of which was announced in early July, would drop tuition at public schools for students in families earning $85,000 a year or less, at first, with that threshold increasing to $125,000 by 2021. (Those above that threshold would be required to cover some costs out of pocket, but prices would be set low enough that they woudn’t have to borrow, Mrs. Clinton says.) She has also proposed allowing borrowers with older loans to refinance at current interest rates, and forgiving some student debt for young entrepreneurs. And she has called for financial penalties for colleges when their students default on loans.


Virus-X, Republic Commando:  “Thump actually said something intelligent.  The federal government shouldn’t be profiting off student loans.  Hillary?  She kind’ve said so, too, but just had to throw in a dig at her BFF, Thump, just to make it look good.”

The federal government should not be in the bank loan business, period.  All federal student loans have to stop, immediately.  The perpetuation of this unconstitutional practice is one of the justifications universities have for jacking up prices.  They know that they can continually jack up credit hour rates, because the federal government will pay anything they demand.  Banks are there for loans, not governments.  Once schools see that banks aren’t going to pay their rates of the moon and stars for student loans, they’ll have no choice, but to start cutting prices.  Also, if you want to go to school for free, you can join the Army.

The federal government should not be in the tuition business, nor the school business, altogether.  It’s not the federal government’s job to provide free school, high cost school, or cut-rate school.  However, with taxation restored to constitutional parameters, this might serve to help make things like universities more affordable, with more money in the pocket.

And, once again:



Tussles over what should be the proper federal minimum wage have taken center stage this election season, particularly on the Democratic side, as advocates of higher pay floors push legislation in cities and states across the country. The federal minimum wage has remained at $7.25 an hour since 2009, and bills in Congress to increase it have gained no traction. The Democrats, meanwhile, have agreed to a party platform calling for a nationwide wage floor of $15 an hour.


DONALD TRUMP:  “I don’t know how people make it on $7.25 an hour. Now, with that being said, I would like to see an increase of some magnitude. But I’d rather leave it to the states.”  NBC’s “Meet the Press” on May 8 »

Mr. Trump’s position on minimum wage has evolved since he has come under fire from labor unions and others for saying, in a November debate, that wages were “too high.” A month later he tweeted that the middle class has had “no effective raise in years. BAD.” The candidate shifted more clearly as other rivals in the GOP nomination fight dropped out of the race.

Days after he said he didn’t “know how people make it on $7.25 an hour,” he issued a tweet that he would like to see an increase in the minimum wage, but at other times said the rate should be left up to the states. He latersignaled he might be willing to trade a minimum-wage increase to obtain another policy goal.

Mr. Trump in late July called for a $10 an hour federal minimum wage, breaking from the GOP’s stance and moving more in line with Democrats.


HILLARY CLINTON:  “We need to raise the federal minimum wage back to the highest it’s ever been in this country and make sure it keeps rising over time.” In a press release on May 18 »

Mrs. Clinton engaged in an intense, months-long debate with Bernie Sanders over what the Democratic Party’s national stance should be on raising the federal minimum wage. She argued that the level should be raised, but resisted his call for a national $15-an-hour floor. In May she said the U.S. needs to raise the federal minimum wage “to the highest it’s ever been in this country.

She said she supported a $12 federal minimum but thinks states or cities should be allowed to set higher floors if they have local support, as many localities have done. But in the end, the Sanders camp clocked a victory by getting the party to officially back a $15 an hour federal minimum wage, imposed “over time.” Mrs. Clinton has not endorsed that plank, however.


Virus-X, Republic Commando:  “Once again, this is not something the federal government has any say in.  Federal employees should be paid fairly, in accordance to the services they’re providing, and at market rates, but the federal government shouldn’t be telling people how to run their businesses, much less how much they should be paying employees.”

Virus-X believes that even States should tread carefully in dictating minimum wages.  This is something he believes should be dictated by the market.  Employers are under no obligation to raise their wages, when they will get no return for their investments.  Nearly doubling the pay of everyone on their payroll, while seeing no corresponding increase in productivity is stupid, quite frankly.  The market should dictate wages, not the government.  ANY government.  Minimum wage jobs are not jobs to make a career out of.  If you’re looking for a “living wage”, work a job that pays one.  If you don’t have the skill set for it, chances are, that’s not the employer’s fault.  Once colleges are taken off the government dole, and that funding disappears, that should result in falling tuition costs, meaning the minimum wage worker can go to school and get the skills needed for better paying jobs.

So, as you see, there’s a big difference between the philosophies of Conservatism (which I espouse) and liberalism (which comes bubbling out of the mouths of Thump and Clinton). We need to start moving towards Conservatism more seriously, and the GOP isn’t the vehicle for that.  They’ve made it abundantly clear that they don’t like Conservatives, don’t want Conservatism in their party and they are not Conservative, themselves.  Time to look for not just greener pastures, but better ones.

I am Virus-X, Republic Commando, and I approve this message.































~ by Virus-X REPUBLIC COMMANDO on October 9, 2016.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: