But He Isn’t Even in Office, Yet! Give Him a Chance!

•November 24, 2016 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning


“A lot of people believe the Department of Education should just be eliminated. Get rid of it. If we don’t eliminate it completely, we certainly need to cut its power and reach. Education has to be run locally. Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top are all programs that take decisions away from parents and local school boards. These programs allow the progressives in the Department of Education to indoctrinate, not educate, our kids. What they are doing does not fit the American model of governance.”

“I am totally against these programs and the Department of Education. It’s a disaster. We cannot continue to fail our children–the very future of this nation.”
Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 50-1 Nov 3, 2015


Congratulations, trumpanzees!  You supported a guy that claims he never lies.

“So while sometimes I can be too honest, Hillary Clinton is the exact opposite: She never tells the truth,” Trump said. “In this journey, I will never lie to you. I will never tell you something I do not believe.”


And before he even gets into the White House, what has he been doing?


He lied about prosecuting Hillary Clinton.




shocked face

It is the natural reaction of the trumpanzee to try to justify everything that Thump does, including when he lies to them, and we know that Thump lies a lot.


Just like his BFF, Hillary, whom he’s protecting from prosecution and justice.


Now, he’s come out with another lie.  After all his criticism of the Department of Education, what does he do?  He appoints a new bureaucrat to run it…


…and he picks a leftist Common Core lover, as well.

Well, there you have it folks. Trump has just picked his education secretary after narrowing down his choices to two pro-Common Core, pro-micromanaging women: Michelle Rhee and Betsy DeVos. I’ve already discussed what a terrible pick Rhee would have been, but DeVos is no better. DeVos fails on two key promises Trump repeatedly made to voters: “Get rid of Common Core” and “keep education local.” – Take a closer look at this stuff at: https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/11/betsy-devos-as-education-secretary-what-you-need-to-know-about-trumps-pick#sthash.zNColNFF.dpuf

Like Rhee, DeVos has adamantly supported Common Core. She’s even a board member of Jeb Bush’s Common Core-supporting education foundation (and one of its biggest donors), not to mention “closely aligned to Republican education officials like Sen. Lamar Alexander” — which should give any education freedom lover convulsions. Alexander, R-Tenn. (F, 15%), of course, is the same guy who promised he was “ending the national school board” by rushing a huge federal education bill into law this spring that gives the U.S. education secretary direct, “mother, may I” control over what kids learn and when. In short, these are a bunch of nanny statists who may promise “local control” and a love for kids, but whose every effort is directed in the opposite direction.

Hensley-Clancy writes that DeVos now claims to be against Common Core, of all things! That’s sure news to all the grassroots folks she pit her big money against during their legislative battles to reject Common Core. Grassroots folks report to me that DeVos’ husband personally called state senators in Michigan to get them to vote against a Common Core repeal bill. DeVos’ American Federation for Children also contributed huge sums of money for state school board races in Alabama on the side of Common Core supporters trying to oust Common Core opponents



Thump has lied at every turn, and many of his lies are already coming to the fore, and he hasn’t even gotten his fat, orange ass in the seat, yet.

“A lot of people believe the Department of Education should just be eliminated. Get rid of it. If we don’t eliminate it completely, we certainly need to cut its power and reach. Education has to be run locally. Common Core, No Child Left Behind, and Race to the Top are all programs that take decisions away from parents and local school boards. These programs allow the progressives in the Department of Education to indoctrinate, not educate, our kids. What they are doing does not fit the American model of governance.”

“I am totally against these programs and the Department of Education. It’s a disaster.D We cannot continue to fail our children–the very future of this nation.”
Source: Crippled America, by Donald Trump, p. 50-1 Nov 3, 2015

Out of his own (probably ghost written) book (that he probably didn’t write, because he couldn’t string a coherent sentence together to save his own worthless life), he claims to be against federal education initiatives, the Department of Education as a whole, and Common Core, by name, and yet what does he do? Appoint a new bureaucrat to an unconstitutional agency that he claims to dislike, and appoint a leftist, indoctrinista, on top of everything else. *%^% Thump.



Trumpanzees, everywhere, are still screeching “give Thump a chance, he hasn’t even gotten in office, yet!”  No, I won’t.  He hasn’t even gotten into office, yet, and he’s already laughing in your faces, telling you that he’s lied about everything the Conservatives said he did.


I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.




My Opinion on a State Politics Issue

•November 6, 2016 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning

So this far leftist of the Slave Party, Colleen Pobur, is running for state representative. This is her little issues page:
Growing the Economy from the Middle Class Out
“The Great Recession might be over, but too many families are living paycheck to paycheck, struggling to get by. Meanwhile, big corporations get massive tax breaks, even when they ship jobs overseas, and Lansing politicians favor special interests over the hardworking men and women of Michigan. Based on my experience in economic development, we need to support the small businesses in our community so they can create good-paying jobs right here. Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
Ah, the old, familiar cry of the social justice warrior: “pay your fair share!”, and “tax breaks favor the rich!” Colleen Pobur is, quite obviously, a tax and spend liberal.  You’d very quickly find that there isn’t a tax she doesn’t like.
For one, this is America.  Maybe she isn’t aware of this, and somebody needs to remind her.  In America, we don’t have “classes”.  If that’s what she wants, she should move someplace like Russia, or India.
“If democracy, in essence, means the abolition of class domination, then why should not a socialist minister charm the whole bourgeois world by orations on class collaboration?”

Lenin, What Is To Be Done?, “Dogmatism And ‘Freedom of Criticism’” (1901)

We have varying levels of income, but not social classes.  Those are artificial and destructive constructs by leftists, like yourself, Pobur.
Taxes?  If you want to improve the tax situation in Michigan, then you need to start by the simplification of the state codes, something people have been talking about for decades, and doing nothing about.  In fact, the best way would be to do it by making it mirror the original intent taxation model of the Founding Fathers and the Framers:  no direct taxation.
Yep.  They did not like direct taxation, and fought against it.  What did we do?  We threw that fight, for politicians.  The only exception was capitation.

Direct Taxes

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or enumeration herein before directed to be taken.


Teacher’s Companion Lesson (PDF)

The Constitution was intended to give the national government greater power to raise revenue—the Articles of Confederation had been a fiscal disaster—but many Framers remained fearful of taxation. Indirect taxes (generally understood as falling on articles of consumption) did not lend themselves to congressional abuse (for reasons that will be described presently), but the Framers believed that “direct taxes” needed to be cabined. The cumbersome apportionment rule, requiring that a direct tax be apportioned among the states on the basis of population (so that, for example, a state with twice the population of another state would have to pay twice the tax, even if the more populous state’s share of the national tax base were smaller), made the more dangerous taxes politically difficult for Congress to impose.

The effectiveness of apportionment as a limitation on congressional power obviously depends on the levies to which it applies, and students of the Founding disagree on this point. At one extreme, some scholars, citing Rufus King’s unanswered question at the Constitutional Convention (“Mr King asked what was the precise meaning of direct taxation? No one answd.”), have argued that “direct taxes” had no agreed-upon meaning, or, much the same thing, that the Framers did not think through what they were doing. They created an apportionment scheme so unworkable that a cramped definition of “direct taxes” became necessary to prevent the collapse of the system.

Those views overstate the extent of the confusion in 1787. No interpretation of “direct taxes” can be consistent with all statements made at the time, but the Founding debates are full of references to two forms of taxation for which apportionment was clearly intended: capitation taxes (specifically denominated as direct in the Constitution) and taxes on land (generally including slaves as well). Although intended to be difficult, apportionment was not impossible. Between 1798 and 1861, Congress enacted several real-estate taxes, all with complex schemes for apportionment.

Either she’s not very bright (which wouldn’t surprise me), or she just doesn’t care about other people (which would make her a sociopath, which, again, wouldn’t surprise me, considering we’re talking about somebody from the Slave Party).
Let’s break down her drivel.
“Based on my experience in economic development,” 
She worked closely with the Granholm Administration of the State of Michigan.   Yeah, those were the boom years of Michigan.
Granholm was a lying, Canadian socialist, and Pobur loved her for it.  That, right there, should disqualify her from handling ANYbody else’s money.
“…we need to support the small businesses in our community so they can create good-paying jobs right here. Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
I think a lot of business owners, both large and small, would agree on the same thing:  if you really want to support them, GTF out of their way.
Apparently, Pobur would disagree with that.  Increasing taxation on the larger corporations and business owners would do nothing but return us to the economic but years of that left wing psycho that looked like she was riding a coke high at the Democrat Klan Rally, some years ago.
It’s basic economics.
Tax the people that make jobs, the result is they have fewer resources to do what they’re supposed to do, which is make profit.  To mitigate those government imposed losses, they’re going to cut expenses.  That usually means cutting JOBS.  That can take the form of reducing their work force, or leaving the state, altogether, both of which were common occurrences under that idiot, Granholm.

The State of Joblessness

The tragedy of Jennifer Granholm’s Michigan.

Updated Oct. 20, 2009 12:01 a.m. ET

State lawmakers will soon face large budget deficits again, perhaps as much as $100 billion across the U.S. Here’s some free budget-balancing advice: Steer clear of the Michigan model. The Wolverine state is once again set to run out of money, and it is once again poised to raise taxes even as jobs and businesses disappear.

In 2007 Governor Jennifer Granholm signed the biggest tax increase in Michigan history, with most of the $1.4 billion coming from business. The personal income tax—which hits nonincorporated small businesses—was raised to 4.2% from 3.95%, and the Michigan business tax levied a surcharge of 22%. The tax money was dedicated to the likes of education, public works, job retraining and corporate subsidies. Ms. Granholm and her union allies called these “investments,” and the exercise was widely applauded as a prototype of “progressive” budgeting.

Some prototype. Every state has seen a big jump in joblessness since 2007, but with a 15.2% unemployment rate Michigan’s jobs picture is by far the worst. Some 750,000 private-sector payroll jobs have vanished since the start of the decade. For every family that has moved into Michigan since 2007, two have sold their homes and left.

Meanwhile, the new business taxes didn’t balance the budget. Instead, thanks to business closures and relocations, tax receipts are running nearly $1 billion below projections and the deficit has climbed back to $2.8 billion. As the Detroit News put it, Michigan businesses are continually asked “to pay more in taxes to erase a budget deficit that, despite their contributions, never goes away.” And this is despite the flood of federal stimulus and auto bailout cash over the last year.

Following her 2007 misadventure, Ms. Granholm promised: “I’m not ever going to raise taxes again.” That pledge lasted about 18 months. Now she wants $600 million more. Among the ideas under consideration: an income tax increase with a higher top rate, a sales tax on services, a freeze on the personal income tax exemption (which would be a stealth inflation tax on all Michigan families), a 3% surtax on doctors, and fees on bottled water and cigarettes. To their credit, Republicans who control the Michigan Senate are holding out for a repeal of the 22% business tax surcharge.

As for Ms. Granholm, she and House speaker Andy Dillon continue to bow to public-sector unions. There are now 637,000 public employees in Michigan compared to fewer than 500,000 workers left in manufacturing. Government is the largest employer in the state, but the number of taxpayers to support these government workers is shrinking. The budget deadline is November 1, and Ms. Granholm is holding out for tax increases rather than paring back state government.


“Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”

This is how governments like hers “stimulate” the economy:  wealth redistribution. Unconstitutional, un-American wealth redistribution.

Here’s a novel idea that will never go through her mind:  get rid of direct taxation.  Or, if you don’t have the guts to do that, go to a capitation taxation system.  Counties with lesser populations would pay less than those with higher populations (which I still don’t like, because it puts uneven burdens on people, just on the basis of where they live).

Getting rid of direct taxation would mean that Michigan would have to tax things like buying and selling, and imports and exports.


True, it would raise the prices of a lot of things (minus things like food and pharmaceuticals, if they have a lick of sense), but you’d also have a lot more money in your pockets to pay those things.

Another way to offset those taxes would be to stop listening to liberals like Pobur, and start exploiting Michigan’s natural resources of natural gas and oil.


National and international sales of oil and natural gas could be taxes, and bring in a lot of revenue.  Reducing the tax burden on companies large and small by the elimination of things like…



…would be the way to actually go in going a long way to creating jobs (which the government does not do), and stimulating the economy (government stimulus only stimulates the economy to work for cronies, and hurt everyone else that isn’t one).

seems legit
That’s because it is, Fry.
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.  In turn, those employees go out and spend their money.  Not just on food and bills, but on other things.  For instance, with the stagnation of wages in comparison to the increases in the cost of living…
…the car companies, while still making a mint, could be making a lot more money.  Why aren’t they?  One reason is because we’re holding onto cars for a lot longer.
…and because too many Millennials are stupid hippie losers that want to live off their parents and the state.
Remember those lists of taxes?  Just imagine of auto makers weren’t getting massive tax credits, and weren’t getting hit with massive tax bills, either.  Just imagine how that could affect the prices of cars?  If auto maker “A” lowers it’s prices, dramatically, and auto maker “B”, does not, guess who’s going to get more profit?
(Since we all know that leftists are economic illiterates, I’ll just tell you:  it’s auto maker “A”.)
If all they were paying for (in taxes) was buying materials, auto sales, importing and exporting, that’s a lot less money, leaving them to expand, do better vehicle R&D and pay their employees more.  Why would they pay more?  You leftists have a short memory, when it comes to things you don’t want to remember.
Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
Somebody said that, earlier.
Buying more cars is an economic stimulus.  It helps businesses, which means they can spend more on employees, making better products, etc.
People may also want to do things like buy houses.  With taxes being reduced on materials and production, that means housing prices could fall, too.
“Balancing the tax rolls so corporations pay their fair share will ease the burden on families and seniors so they can support themselves and entrepreneurs, stimulating the economy.”
What would really ease the tax  burdens on Michigan families (and individuals, who are just as important) is getting rid of politicians like yourself, and, as I said before, ditching the onerous tax codes of Michigan.
People should be able to keep more of their own money.  Period.  Politicians like Pobur should be kept out of politics, because they have too much of a vested interest in spending money on things that they shouldn’t be spending taxpayer monies out of the State Treasury on (like infanticide, for instance).  Social Security, for instance, is an unconstitutional tax.  If the People and the States worked out their retirement on their own, they’d be a lot better off.  The People are always better with their own money, than the government will ever be.  Getting a 401k, or IRA, or whatever, is going to pay off a lot better than a social security check.  Social Security is looking at insolvency.  It’s own actuary says so.

Over the last 15 years, the Social Security Administration’s Office of the Chief Actuary has consistently underestimated retirees’ life expectancy and made other errors that make the finances of the retirement system look significantly better than they are ,  a new study by two Harvard and one Dartmouth academics concludes. The report, being published today by the Journal of Economic Perspectives, is the first, the authors say, to compare the government agency’s past demographic and financial forecasts with actual results.

In a second paper appearing today in Political Analysis, the three researchers offer their theory of  why the Actuary Office’s predictions have apparently grown less reliable since 2000:  the civil servants who run it have responded to increased political polarization surrounding Social Security “by hunkering down” and resisting outside pressures—not only from the politicians, but also from outside technical experts. “While they’re insulating themselves from the politics, they also insulate themselves from the data and this big change in the world –people started living longer lives,’’ coauthor Gary King, a leading political scientist and director of Harvard’s Institute for Quantitative Social Science, said in an interview Thursday. “They need to take that into account and change the forecast as a result of that.”

And while anybody that reads this blog knows I’m not a Trump booster…
rednecks for trump
…nor a fan of too many of his fans, he’s right:  social security has been making payments to illegal aliens.
If they aren’t able to collect any benefits, then why does the social security site give such advice as this?:
It’s already happening, and we’re paying for this.
Government needs to stop dipping into corporations pockets to pay for other peoples’ retirement funds.  In their unlawful ‘lifestyle taxation’, they’re reducing corporate resources, which, in turn, reduce what corporations big and small can do with those resources.  What could they do with that money that’s unconstitutionally taken from them?
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
And what would people do with that money?
In turn, those employees go out and spend their money.  Not just on food and bills, but on other things.
Seems like common sense, and it is.
Unless you’re a liberal.
In terms of payout, individual retirement plans – either through a bank or such job programs as the 401k – will have a higher yield, than a social security check.  Furthermore, let’s not forget that if you ‘make too much money’, you can’t collect what you put in, and they give it to someone else.  Also, you can’t will that money to your surviving family, if you die.  Again, it goes to someone else the government deems more worthy of your money, than your own spouse, children or parents.
Pobur likes this.
The way to create the highly skilled workforce Michigan needs to attract and retain businesses is by ensuring every child gets a great education. Access to quality public education shouldn’t be determined by ZIP code. We need to fully fund Michigan schools so that all kids get the education they need to take the next step in life. And if that next step is a college, university or trade school, we need to support higher education so that students don’t graduate with mountains of debt or are simply priced out of a bright future.
Truly the words of an economic illiterate, just like I said.
Michigan could have the greatest workforce in the country, but if the economic environment is inhospitable to business, then it’s not going to matter.  They’re not going to come to the state, and they’re not going to stay here, that are here.  Right now, Michigan barely made the top 10.
During the Granholm Years which you want us to return to, we couldn’t break the top 40.
If we want quality education, one of the things we need to do is keep Washington DC out of our classrooms.
An example of Washington’s influence was/is Common Core, and it’s easy to see it’s a common failure, like all leftist, social engineering programs, disguised as education.
We also need to get Big Labor out of the schools:  i.e.:  the unions.
Education of children should be guided by the parents, with the advice and consent of the government.  I believe that goes back to a concept called:  “government by the consent of the governed” (something I’m sure Pobur is not familiar with).
Pobur, in a debate I’d attended with her, weeks ago, advocates throwing money at problems, in order to solve them, instead of actually solving them.  Detroit spends more money per student than a lot of other, better off cities, and their schools suck,
and a lot of their students suck worse.
That means she’s all in on throwing good money after bad, as far as the Detroit Public School System goes.  That’s money out of everybody’s pockets.  If it was only Detroit paying, I’d be fine with it, but it isn’t.  Detroit’s unionized teachers have graphically demonstrated that not only are they not part of the solution, but they don’t want to be, either.
There are a lot of things that have to be done, including eliminating the unions, altogether.  Parents have to have a choice with their schooling.  If we want to improve education and economics, we have to work with those big, mean corporations that Pobur hates so much.
How about the People and the States working together on education and creating a better, more fertile business environment for businesses, entrepreneurs and individuals to grow, minus petty bureaucrats like Pobur?
Just imagine this for a charter school:
The governor, state AG and treasurer get together with several companies/corporations and let them know that in Michigan, their tax load would be very limited, in comparison to all other states, and the vast majority of the world.
Taxes?  If you want to improve the tax situation in Michigan, then you need to start by the simplification of the state codes, something people have been talking about for decades, and doing nothing about.  In fact, the best way would be to do it by making it mirror the original intent taxation model of the Founding Fathers and the Framers:  no direct taxation.
That, right there, would be incentive for a lot of corporations to relocate their HQs to Michigan, or, minimally, invest in creating an infrastructure there, if they didn’t officially “move”.  This will create more jobs in the State, and make it easier for a lot of parents to actually take care of their kids.
Let’s address something Pobur didn’t:  school lunch quality.
They suck.  Fast food chains have far superior standards.  So, let’s just imagine another economic stimulus:  allowing open, regularly renewed bidding by restaurant chains that serve healthy meals to serve food in school cafeterias in this prototype charter school. Simplified menus from places like Arby’s, steakhouses, vegan restaurants, etc.  All at prices comparable (or lower) than average school lunches.  Same for the possibility of breakfasts.  Superior foods that students will like, and will be beneficial to students that are involved in athletics, as well.  I can cover this more in depth, later.
Back to the education aspects.
Just imagine that the governor, working in conjunction with parents and the corporations find out what kind of workforce those corporations they’re trying to entice into the state want.  Just imagine retirees from organizations like NASA, Lockheed-Martin, Pfizer, Boeing, BASF, Exxon-Mobil, DuPont, etc., being hired as teachers to teach subjects like mathematics, biology, chemistry, physics, etc.  People that not only know what they’re doing, but have done it.  This would be a case of those that could, doing, and those that could also teaching.
People – experts – not beholden to unions, people only there to teach.
That’s just one solution.
Another solution to address student loan debt?
If we want quality education, one of the things we need to do is keep Washington DC out of our classrooms.
We also need to get Big Labor out of the schools:  i.e.:  the unions.
Oh, wait.  Didn’t I say that, already?
One of the biggest problems with colleges is the expense.  Want to make it more accessible to the People?
Schools, believe it, or not, actually do raise money, on their own, without Uncle Sugar.
  1. Oregon – $196 million in revenue, $110.4 million in expenses ($56 million revenue/$29 million profit).
  2. Texas – $161 million in revenue, $154.1 million in expenses ($113 million revenue/$74 million profit).
  3. Michigan – $157.9 million in revenue, $142.6 million in expenses ($91 million revenue/$65 million profit).
  4. Alabama – $153.2 million in revenue, $120.2 million in expenses ($95 million revenue/$53 million profit).
  5. Ohio State – $145.2 million in revenue, $113.9 million in expenses ($66 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  6. LSU – $133.7 million in revenue, $123 million in expenses ($88 million revenue/$50 million profit).
  7. Oklahoma – $129.2 million in revenue, $113.4 million in expenses ($71 million revenue/$43 million profit).
  8. Wisconsin – $127.9 million in revenue, $125.1 million in expenses ($47.3 million revenue, profit not listed).
  9. Florida – $124.6 million in revenue, $109.7 million in expenses ($69 million revenue/$46 million profit).
  10. Texas A&M – $119.5 million in revenue, $95.7 million in expenses ($58 million revenue/$34 million profit).
  11. Oklahoma State – $117.8 million in revenue, $109.6 million in expenses ($49 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  12. Penn State – $117.6 million in revenue, $117.4 million in expenses ($68 million revenue/$37 million profit).
  13. Auburn – $113.7 million in revenue, $126.5 million in expenses ($50 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  14. Tennessee – $107.5 million in revenue, $106.2 million in expenses ($70 million revenue/$49 million profit).
  15. Minnesota – $106.2 million in revenue, $106.2 million in expenses ($39.8 million revenue, profit not listed).
  16. Iowa – $106 million in revenue, $102.3 million in expenses ($53.6 million revenue, profit not listed).
  17. Florida State – $104.8 million in revenue, $98.9 million in expenses ($57.4 million revenue, profit not listed).
  18. Michigan State – $104.7 million in revenue, $107.4 million in expenses ($53 million revenue/$26 million profit).
  19. Georgia – $103.5 million in revenue, $92.6 million in expenses ($77 million revenue/$39 million profit).
  20. Washington – $100.3 million in revenue, $86.1 million in expenses ($68 million revenue/$39 million profit).
Barack Obama was such a great help in student debt.
When he announced his candidacy in 2007, Barack Obama looked like he could be the one to finally stand up to the student lending system.  He was one of only two members on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) committee not to have taken money from the Sallie Mae PAC.  In this position he was privy to HELP Committee  and other reports detailing a broad swath of illegal and deceptive activities by the lenders, the universities, and even the Department of Education.  

His rhetoric about making college “affordable” sounded great.  The deletion of most every standard consumer protection (like bankruptcy and statutes of limitations) from student loans had caused a hyper-inflationary market, and a systemically predatory lending system that was lives and livelihoods of millions of people. The nation’s student loan debt had skyrocketed to $450 billion, and the Department of Education had actually begun turning a profit on defaults.

So when Obama was elected, largely due to overwhelming support from young people, it was assumed that he would make things right. But he did nothing to bring back any standard consumer protections.  His administration did nothing to curb the predatory collection powers of the student lending system.  College prices increased faster than previously, and today the average undergraduate is now leaving school with $35,000 in debt, up from about $17,000 when Obama announced.

By the time Obama leaves office next year, the nation will have added $1 Trillion to its student debt tab. 

What the Obama administration did do was great for the federal government, not the students.  Obama federalized the system to where the government now profitsimmensely from both interest on loans it makes directly to students, and defaults. To say that the federal government now sits atop the most predatory lending system in our nation’s history is not an understatement.

That’s right, liberals.  Obama is a predatory lender.
When universities raise their credit hour rates to astronomical levels, they do so knowing full well that the federal government will pay anything they want.  The government loans will just keep a’comming, for whatever amount universities demand.  The last I saw, the Constitution didn’t allow for that.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.


That’s the Appropriations Clause.
“I place economy among the first and most important virtues, and public debt as the greatest of dangers to be feared. To preserve our independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. If we run into such debts, we must be taxed in our meat and drink, in our necessities and in our comforts, in our labor and in our amusements.” – Thomas Jefferson
“If we can but prevent the government from wasting the labours of the people, under the pretence of taking care of them, they must become happy.” – Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, November 29, 1802
Too bad Jefferson didn’t care as much about Human rights for Blacks, but I digress.
“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.” — Benjamin Franklin
Independent banks and credit unions are not going to make loan payments equivalent to giving universities the moon and the stars, and the universities would know this.  When they face the very real specter of closing their doors, thanks to reduced enrollment and skyrocketing debt…
…maybe they’ll wake up, and change the way they do things.
Or, maybe not.
Like someone said, earlier:
When businesses have more money, they spend more money.  That spending comes in several forms, such as expanding the business, and hiring new employees.  It also comes in the form of raising salaries and wages.  Remember:  other businesses are profiting, too, from better policies, and those that are in the same line of work are competing even harder.  If they’re offering better incentives and wages than your company, you’re going to lose.  You can only compete with them by offering better incentives and wages than they are offering, in an attempt to take away your own employees, and ruin your business.
The university that offers a quality education at lower prices is the one that’s going to get people beating down it’s doors to get in.  Those that don’t?  The only beating they’ll hear is their own fists on the padlocked university doors, begging to get back on the gravy train.
No more money from the federal government, or from states that don’t have constitutional provisions that allow for it.  Students need to get loans from banks.  The government shouldn’t be in the business of drafting loans.  Unions are going to have to be brought under control, as with the lower schools, and tenure is going to have to go the way of the dinosaur, if the schools want to survive the Brave, New World they’ve created for themselves.
Liberals always seem to want to tell people how much money they can make.  Maybe they should start with themselves.

The average annual income in North Carolina is just over $40,000. But senior-level bureaucrats in the University of North Carolina system’s General Administration (GA)—who take home six-figure salaries—say they need a raise. This Friday, the system’s Board of Governors will vote on a proposed salary range increase that will “assure that [UNC] has the ability to match and, when necessary, lead market in compensating hard to recruit or retain executive talent.” 

The increases are “designed to [promote] good stewardship of State and University budgetary resources,” which certainly sounds as if system officials intend to perform the remarkable act of keeping costs low by…raising costs. 

While it is not clear how the state higher education establishment’s upper crust can, in the name of fiscal prudence, ask for such raises with a straight face, it is clear that top-level employees in the GA and across the state’s 16 public universities are among the highest-paid public employees in the state. 

For instance, UNC system president Thomas Ross, who heads the GA, earns $550,000 per year, $30,000 more than the chancellors at UNC-Chapel Hill and NC State University (other chancellors in the system earn between $240,000 and $325,000). The GA employs 68 people who earn more than $100,000 per year, and 8 who earn more than $200,000. 

But that’s just for starters. The system’s 16 universities employ 47,894 people. Of those employees, 1,039, or 2.17 percent, earn more than $200,000 and 6,243, or 13 percent, earn more than $100,000. Compared to the rest of state government, these are astounding figures. Of the 87,364 state employees (from the departments of commerce, transportation, health and human services, and so forth), only 56, or 0.06 percent, earn more than $200,000, and just 1,900, or 2.17 percent, earn more than $100,000. 

Many argue that chancellor, system administrator, and professor salaries are based on higher education’s market rates, and that if they were to be reduced, top talent would flee to other states and university systems. Let’s, for the sake of argument, ignore the steady stream of scandals and politically correct inanities emanating from some UNC campuses—which would suggest the “talent” may not be as “top” as advertised—and assume that our “public servants” in the UNC aristocracy don’t come cheap. Some other university positions, however, don’t come close to passing the smell test.

I could say more, on this subject, but I’m sure you get the point.
Next subject.
Holding Government Accountable
When I worked for Detroit Metro Airport, I took over for politicians who awarded 40-year, no-strings-attached contracts and turned the concessions program in the McNamara terminal into an efficient operation that garnered multiple awards. I know citizens are fed up with backroom deals and special interests run amok. People shouldn’t have to wonder what their government is up to. When I get to Lansing, I’ll make sure the Legislature operates in the light of day, and I’ll take my experience from the Plymouth City Commission of creating smart budgets to make sure your tax dollars are spent wisely.
no bullshit
This sounds great, but face it.  We know she’s lying.  She’s all in on keeping the unions running they way they are, which are basically money laundering machines for leftist politicians, like herself.  The Slave Party sees to it that some funds are funneled into their pockets, and, in turn, they funnel some of those funds back into the coffers (and private pockets) of their pet patron politician.  If you want accountability, be Conservative, politically (that doesn’t mean “republican”).  Obey laws.  Elect those that also obey laws.
I’m sure you get the point.
I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.

Low Information Voter, or Just Stupid Voter?

•October 28, 2016 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning

People say a lot of things about Trump voters, especially when it comes to their level of intelligence.


Rush Limbaugh (another trumpanzee) termed the politically correct term “low information voter”.  This is in reference to voters that don’t know what they’re talking about, plain and simple.  They have little, or no, information on the person or proposal they’re voting on, and really couldn’t tell you anything of substance regarding the person or thing.

Me, not being into the PC-thing, like Limbaugh apparently is, I just call those voters stupid voters.


Because that’s precisely what they are.  We live in the Information Age, people.  With some discernment, you can surf the Internet and find intel on virtually anything, and in many cases, multiple sources with multiple – or correlating – viewpoints.  When you don’t know something, in today’s day and age, it’s because you’re just willfully ignorant.  Willful ignorance is stupidity.  Plain and simple.

So why am I talking about this?  Because of a trumpanzee I work with.

This man literally doesn’t know the difference between a republic and a democracy.  In all honesty, he probably believes that a democracy with democratic voting systems would be superior to a republican system.  He thinks popular vote should be the only vote, and that the Electoral College should never have been.  He didn’t even know what the Electoral College was for, or where it came from.

By the way:  that coworker of mine would never listen to this audio, because he’s just not able to comprehend anything that was said.  His eyes would glaze over, spittle would come out of the corner of his mouth, and he’s say:  “…footbaaalll…”

Anyhow, moving on:

He won’t read the The United States Constitution, nor any other book. He believes that the only reason you should read books is if you’re actively involved in politics by being either a sitting politician or bureaucrat.  When I bring up the Constitution, or books, he just says that I’m working with him, which means I’m no smarter than he is.  In fact, he flat out says reading books is stupid (so you can guess what kind of student he was).


  1. a stupid person.
    MEDICINE archaic
    a mentally handicapped person.

He couldn’t tell me how many people are in the senate. He doesn’t know the actual job of the members of the United States Congress.  He believes that it’s the job of the Representatives and Senators to support political party, over country.  He’s one of those geniuses that says:  “the worst republican is better than the best democrat”.

(Note:  I didn’t capitalize the “r”, because I have absolutely no respect for that political party, any more than I do the Slave Party.)

He believes that if you’re in Congress, with a 100% rating from an organization like Conservative Review



…you should be loyal to your political party, no matter what, and if you’re doing well for the country, but not for “your” candidate, you should be removed from office.  That’s the same stupidity that Thump says.


And never mind how Thump and his history of virtually never keeping his promises.



The trumpanzee coworker said it was a good thing that Cruz said he’d vote for Thump, but couldn’t care less that Thump violated his word to support anyone else.  To trumpanzees, it’s all about what they want and feel.  Kind’ve like little babies.


He has zero historical knowledge, and can’t comprehend how many past events are being repeated in the present time that could very negatively affect the country’s future.

Take, for instance, Thump saying:

And advocating:


Brief history lesson:

And now, hyperinflation:

Quite frankly, if you can’t understand this little video, you’re stupid, and yet, my trumpanzee would have trouble with it.  He also couldn’t understand why Thump saying he’d continue to print money like Obama…



…because ‘Trump do no wrong’.

It’s too difficult for a 40 mW brain…


to wrap it’s head around a little 60 W problem.


He doesn’t know the constitutional limits of power between the 3 branches of government, and couldn’t tell me what the Separation of Powers was. He even believes a president should have the power to punish members of the United States Congress for making statements critical of the Executive.  This is a guy that believes it’s right to silence protest through violence (though when you call him out on it, right after he approves of Thump protesters being brutally battered by his racist throngs, he’ll deny it), and that you should not be speaking against Thump, who advocates attacking several amendments in the Constitution.







But don’t worry; he will defend Article XXII.


He doesn’t understand the different responsibilities between United States Senate and US House of United States House of Representatives. Hell, he doesn’t even know his own State representative, or what political party he, she or it is in.

This is a trumpanzee that’s voting, and considers himself someone that knows what they’re talking about, even though every discussion devolves into what he feels and believes, and has absolutely no way to prove. He’s raising his son to be the same way.  Reading those books is for squares!  It interferes with what’s important:  FOOTBALL!


Reading is stupid!  It doesn’t do anything for you!  After all, look at him, right?

Clueless, uneducated guys like him are the backbone of Thump’s candidacy.

Know why?  Specifically because of how stupid they really are.

Yes, they really are that stupid.  This same guy told me he’d vote for the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan or Charles Manson, before he’d vote for Hillary.  So when you’re listening to these people extol the (non-existent, spurious and totally made up) virtues of Donald J. Thump, just remember what you’re dealing with.



Don’t be part of Thump’s favorite voting block:  the stupid.  Educate yourselves.  READ. Surf the Internet with some discernment as to sources.  Don’t be afraid of a source, just because it comes from someone ideologically opposed to yourself.  Even a broken clock can be right, once/day.  Our schools are turning out processed sausages that vote, just like the guy I’m talking about, and he’s raising his son to be one with multiple concussions. Don’t listen to this idiot:


Voting for suitable candidates isn’t about how you feel, or what you think.  Pay more attention to this guy:


Think before you act.  Think about what you’re doing, before you drag the rest of us into misery and suffering, because of what you “like”.

I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.




Voting Hillary? In for a Penny, in for a Pound.

•October 23, 2016 • Leave a Comment

A lot of the people voting for Hillary like to say things like:


And, hey, I can roll with that, because I believe it.  If you’re supporting a greasy, dirty person, like him, you’re taking everything that comes with him.  If you’re one of those stupid republicans, you’re helping him kill your political party.


You can cover your eyes and ears and yell “LA!LA!LA!LA!  I CAN’T HEAR YOU!  IT’S NOT TRUE!” all you want, and it changes nothing.  You own every bad thing this man says and does, because you’re endorsing him.  You can’t just endorse the things you like, because nobody in their right mind is going to listen to such a stupid argument.

HOWEVER, this is a two way street, liberals.


Yep.  You can look as stupidly surprised, all you want, but that doesn’t make you any smarter than the average Trumpanzee.  You embrace the Sea Hag,


you embrace EVERYTHING she’s said and done.

You embrace her genocidal racism.  Yep.  Hillary Clinton is a genocidal racist.  She proudly accepted an award from one of the premier genocidal White Supremacists in American history, Margaret Sanger.

Yeah, she idolizes this organization, and the founder.


OK, like the average idiot, you can cry “but Planned Parenthood has changed!”, and think everybody is stupid enough to believe what you say, but, now, we’re not, and they haven’t.


That wasn’t from very long ago.  Has Hillary Clinton repudiated this?


Oh, and if you want to divert this to the ‘health of the mother’ thing:


I’m pretty sure former Surgeon General of the United States Doctor C. Everett Koop knows more about this, than you do (and since you liberals mindlessly follow titles, his word should be law to you, right?).  I know, personally, mothers that had serious medical conditions that would be aggravated by childbirth, but guess what?  They never once thought to murder their unborn kids, for their own lives.  They committed to dying in childbirth, or not long thereafter, if necessary, to see their children born.

I guess, though, that real motherly instinct is something most liberal women lack, hence the high death rate of their children.

So that’s right:  you support race-based abortions, and the ultimate genocide of those that aren’t like you, if you’re White.

in for a penny, in for a pound
phrase of penny
  1. 1.
    used to express someone’s intention to complete an enterprise once it has been undertaken, however much time, effort, or money this entails.


And look at this leftist asshat trying to defend Clinton’s own racism:

Now, of course, being a leftist asshat, he’s trying to justify what she says, to some extent, and to try say republicans (small “r”, because they don’t deserve a capitalization) started this, but we (including this idiot) know better.  We also know that the GOP didn’t have people running around making speeches about how Black kids were “super predator” psychopaths.

  1. a person suffering from chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.

black thugs

I guess that if you’re not Black, and you’re a Clintonista, this is how Black families look, to you.

Now, in all fairness, Clinton “apologized” for saying that.

She’s lying.  Even leftists from TYT admitted that this was completely a racist attack on Black children that she dismisses as psychopaths that had to be “brought to heel”.  And, quite frankly, with all the time she’s been in the national slimelight, isn’t it funny how she didn’t apologize for this heartfelt 1996 address to the nation, until 2016, when she was running for president, and it got brought up?


Why wouldn’t this obviously conscientious woman not apologize, until now?  Maybe because the apology was false, and it was her truest feeling on Black People, in general. After all, isn’t this the same Hillary Clinton that was lying at the feet, adoring and admiring ARDENT racist and White Supremacist J. William Fulbright?  Fulbright wasn’t just a White Supremacist, racist nut, he was a BIG White, racist nut.

Has anyone asked Hillary Clinton if the segregationist and anti-Semite J. William Fulbright was “deplorable?” Seems like a reasonable question, since we’re playing this game. After all, her name is on the prestigious J. William Fulbright-Hillary Rodham Clinton Public Policy Fellowship.

Fulbright wasn’t just a nut with despicable ideas about minorities. He was gifted, influential politician who for decades worked to keep the races segregated through state force. He signed the Southern Manifesto (he helped edit it, actually), opposed Brown v. Board, filibustered the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and voted against the 1965 Voting Rights Act. He even voted against Hawaiian statehood to keep its large non-white population out of the union.



You want to know more?  OK.

Before leaving the spotlight, Fulbright took up another fight, going on national television in 1973 to warn Americans about the nefarious “Jewish influence” in Congress.

The Clintons have honored this man’s political legacy for a long time. The State Department only added Hillary’s name to the fellowship in 2013. Apply, and you too can help “strengthen the public sector” in other countries.

The rapidity and effectiveness in which Democrats have turned attention from Hillary’s assorted lies and corruption to Trump’s birtherism has been impressive. Of course, it’s wholly Trump’s fault that such a pivot is even possible. When you spend years peddling idiotic conspiracy theories about the president’s birth, you’ve not only proven that you’re unfit for office but that you’re probably a racist, as well.

So don’t let Trump off the hook, even if he’s changed his position — because changing your position when it’s politically convenient doesn’t erase the harm you’ve done. Even if you mean it.

Many white supremacists altered their worldview on race when it became politically expedient to do so. Maybe Hillary thinks people like Fulbright, Strom Thurmond, and one-time Klansman Robert Byrd are flawed men who deserve to be honored like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson. She had the benefit knowing them, after all. Someone should ask her.

It’s worth noting that the Clintons never shied away from appealing to the worst propensities of racist voters in Arkansas, going back to Bill Clinton giving Orval Faubus honored status at his first inauguration in Arkansas. Actually, in 2008, the Obama campaign basically accused the Clintons of peddling racism in their last-ditch attempt to dog-whistle their way to a win in South Carolina. They’ve never had to answer for any of it. They never do.

I doubt Bill or Hillary are furtive bigots; it’s just that Clintonism means taking advantage of whatever position, rhetoric, ideology, event, or person is necessary to gain power. Fulbright was the first key to that power. It was well known, if not spoken about often, that Fulbright made Bill Clinton’s career — and thus Hillary’s, as well.

And if you think the media is in the bag for the Clintons today, read this 1995 Los Angeles Times piece covering Bill’s eulogy for Fulbright. It fails to even mention the latter’s segregationist past. Actually, what am I talking about? The administration’s official bio of Fulbright’s Senate career states it “was marked by notable instances of principled dissent” yet never comes close to revealing his 30-year effort to save Jim Crow.


I do not shy away from voicing my opinion on racists (of any color, towards any color) or bigots.  They’re all bottom feeders, and the world will be a cleaner place, when they’re dead, buried and their graves desecrated.

They guy literally hated the inhabitants of Hawaii, because they weren’t White!

shocked face

The guy fought to bring back Jim Crow laws!

And this is the guy Hillary Clinton admired and clung to, until he finally did one decent thing in his life (which is die, and go to Hell).


That’s right, if you’re a Hillary loving Clintonista, you’re nothing more than a garden variety racist.  Go back to your Klan rally.  Tell ’em Robert sent ya.




And don’t get me started on economics.  While she’s talking about expanding government and adding billions to the national debt, guess where she’s going to get the money to blow on unconstitutional spending?

From the Middle Income (only leftists, like you, believe in “class” systems).

Even left-leaning factcheck.org says she’s lying, when she says she’s not going to blow up the budget, like any other tax-and-spend liberal.

In the final presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed that her proposals would “not add a penny to the debt.” But a nonpartisan budget watchdog group estimates that what she has detailed thus far would add $200 billion to the debt over 10 years.

The same budget experts estimate Trump’s proposals would add significantly more — $5.3 trillion — to the debt over 10 years. Clinton, however, made the misleading claim that Trump’s tax cuts would “add $20 trillion to the debt.” That’s a two-decade figure — a point Clinton leaves out — and it doesn’t account for any spending cuts Trump has proposed.

And these budget estimates are on top of the $9 trillion growth in the federal debt projected under current law over the next decade.

The Democratic nominee made the disputed boast about her plans a few times during the debate, telling moderator Chris Wallace at one point: “But if you look at the debt, which is the issue you asked about, Chris, I pay for everything I’m proposing. I do not add a penny to the national debt.” And in one instance, she drew the misleading comparison to Trump’s tax plan.

Clinton, Oct. 19: I also will not add a penny to the debt. I have costed out what I’m going to do. He will, through his massive tax cuts, add $20 trillion to the debt.

This isn’t the first time Clinton has claimed she would pay for all of her initiatives, and as we’ve said before, we can’t predict the future, of course. But the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget has analyzed both of the candidates’ spending and revenue proposals, finding that neither pays for everything they’ve put forth.

It’s true that Clinton comes a lot closer to paying for her spending proposals than Trump does in covering his tax cuts, according to the CRFB analysis, but she would add well more than a penny to the debt under what she has detailed thus far. CRFB estimates, updated as of Sept. 21, found that Clinton’s plans “would increase the debt by $200 billion over a decade above current law levels.” Trump’s proposals “would increase the debt by $5.3 trillion.”


Many Conservatives and Rrepublicans have said that leftists have a vested interest in keeping the poor and stupid, poor and stupid.

We’ve all heard it before. The Republicans are for the rich, the Democrats are for the poor. This, of course, ignores billionaires like George Soros, Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Tim Cook, and Jeff Bezos who are all card-carrying leftist Democrat supporters. Ignore all that. Democrats are for the poor! Make it your mantra, because here’s the dealio: in order for the Democrats to keep being the “party for the poor,” they need people to stay poor.1

Think about it, if they’re are no poor people left to champion, then how can they keep their government programs afloat like the door Rose lays on while Jack freezes to death? If no one needs the government programs, the government programs are no longer needed. And when big government shrinks, so will the people who support the big government. It’s a vicious cycle of dependence, and it’s screwing with people’s lives and happiness. Also, Rose could’ve shared the door.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. It is the core of our political and cultural positions. I’m responsible for my life, my choices, both the rewards and repercussions of my choices, and I’m also responsible for my own thoughts, feelings and well-being. There’s but one captain of the Good Ship Me, and that’s me. Pirate hats look great on me, by the way.

Liberalism has a different core belief, one which subverts the individual for the role of the state and collective. Liberalism believes people as a group need to take care of each other, because individuals are selfish, greedy and hateful. The arbiter of the collective is none other than government, who “equalizes” everything with wealth redistribution to people who couldn’t (or wouldn’t) fend for themselves.

Therefore liberalism’s core belief is people are weaklings who need help. From government. The collective are a bunch of sheep, and the liberals see themselves as the watchful sheepdogs who move the collective wherever they want. Sheeple.

Democrats cannot exist without a perpetual victim class. So it’s in their best interest to keep people poor and dependent.


Yep.  That means you like to think you’re some kind of leftist elite, or, worse yet, you’re one of the poor and stupid, and you’re too stupid to realize how poor and stupid you really are, so you support someone that has basically vowed to keep you poor and stupid, for generations to come.


Yep!  That’s right!  If you’re stupid enough to vote Clinton, you’re either a victim, or a victimizer!



Hey, maybe you’re like the trumpanzees, and insist on saying that she’s changed (with just as little evidence to back it up, as the trumpanzees have).


I could say a lot more, but hopefully you’re not so stupid that you don’t get the message.

I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.


































Who is More the Fool? The Fool, or the Fool that Follows Him?

•October 16, 2016 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning

And now, a look at the pathetic Jerry Foolwell, Junior.


Am I just being too critical, or does Foolwell Junior look and sound like the OPPOSITE of what a major university president should look and sound like? He looks like the type of pathetic jackass that would hang around Thump’s creepy son, hitting women on the dance floor with his pelvis and dropping things in their drinks to “loosen them up”.


So, the long and short of this is that you need to check your Christian Values at the door, head to the polls and vote for a known and self-professed reprobate, Donald Trump.


Yep.  Seriously.

So, the justification of the trumpanzee in voting for Thump over Clinton is the fact that while he’s a self-professed, serial lying reprobate, he’s got an (R) behind his name, which means he’s automatically better.  They also say that while Hillary has some responsibility for getting the guys killed at Benghazi, Thump hasn’t gotten anyone killed.

Seriously?  Those are you standards?  And never-mind the fact that he said he’d have people’s families murdered due to guilt by association?!

“The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don’t kid yourself. When they say they don’t care about their lives, you have to take out their families,”


Which he promptly tried reversing/pretending he didn’t say, once he realized that his loyal army of fellow sociopaths wasn’t as powerful and widespread as he wanted to believe.


(Yes, this is the Huffington Post, but even a broken clock is right once/day.)

Then, Thump flopped, again.

Taking part in the Fox News GOP debate last night, the billionaire was asked about General Michael Hayden saying that the military would refuse to follow illegal orders such as the intentional killing of terrorists’ families.

Mr Trump said: “They won’t refuse, they’re not going to refuse me — believe me.”



So, yeah, Thump’s way better.

republican useful idiot

Funny how Foolwell, didn’t defend Herman Cain from such accusations of adultery.



With all of Foolwell Junior’s pseudo-Christian blah-blah, where was he, then?  Or does he only defend people like Thump?

Funnier still how Super Christian was content to stand by and laugh when Thump was making accusations against Ted Cruz, and still had nothing to say when Thump ADMITTED that it was all a big lie.


Foolwell has no credibility.


As a university president, as a “Christian”, nor as a MAN.

No, we know who Foolwell’s god really is.

saint trump2

Foolwell Junior’s brother – Jon – seems to agree that his brother is running on zero.

“As a pastor of a local church attended by people of different political parties and persuasions, I have made it my practice not to endorse political candidates,” Jonathan Falwell wrote. “I do not believe it is my responsibility to point people to a candidate but rather to point people to Jesus Christ as the ultimate and only hope for mankind and the problems we face as a nation.”

“I do, however, believe every follower of Christ should exercise their citizen right to vote,” Falwell continued. “In every election cycle, I strongly urge our church members and attenders to make sure they are registered, and then to make sure they vote for a person of character, moral leadership and who most closely aligns with their beliefs and values.”

“I recognize every pastor and Christian leader must do what they believe God has called them to do, and I understand that many choose to endorse candidates,” Falwell said. “I respect their right to do so, even if I don’t believe it is the best thing for me to do as a pastor of a local church.”

“Whether or not we agree on making endorsements or even agree on who would make the best next president, I think we can agree America is in need of Divine intervention, spiritual renewal and a return to righteousness if we are to solve the great challenges of our day,” Falwell argued.


Then, there is the response of the students and alumni of the university:

As Trump in the past has stated that he is pro-choice and has maintained a desire to ban Syrian refugees from entering the country, Inserra said Evangelicals need to look for presidential candidates that have a better track record “in terms of being compassionate for those who are in need and that see all people in the image of God.”

“I don’t think a populous nationalism should be the way of a Christian. I don’t think that Christians should love America less but people should love Jesus more,” Inserra contended. “I think Jerry Falwell Jr. is being blinded by might and a lust that all that Trump has to offer in terms of the power to make America great again. I think those things are clouding his Christian convictions.”

Inserra asserted the Falwell’s endorsement doesn’t speak for Liberty University graduates around the country.


“I believe that his father would be disappointed in that kind of soul selling for the sake of might,” Inserra argued. “His father dabbled in that from time to time but didn’t come to this level and it’s really unfortunate.”

Mandi Ancalle, a 2009 graduate of the Liberty University School of Law who is now the Family Research Council general counsel for government affairs, told CP that she is disappointed in the endorsement but understands that Falwell has the right to express a personal endorsement. (Ancalle was speaking for herself and not on behalf of FRC.)

Ancalle said there are a number of candidates that are stronger advocates for issues that conservative Evangelicals care about and said that Evangelicals should be concerned with Trump’s stance on abortion, marriage and end-of-life legislation.

Ancalle, who is currently listed as a Liberty adjunct professor but doesn’t currently teach any classes there, questioned Falwell’s judgement, considering Donald Trump admitted last July that he wasn’t sure he has ever asked God for forgiveness.

“The fact he said Donald Trump reflects the fruit of the spirit, I find that very concerning as a Christian. I wonder if that means Jerry Falwell Jr. lacks concern that Donald Trump has indicated that he is very prideful and has indicated that he doesn’t seek forgiveness in the Lord,” Ancalle said. “He’s indicated a number of things that should make any Christian, any believer question whether Donald Trump actually understands the Gospel. To have the fruits of the spirit, you have to be a believer. Just the statement makes me question whether Jerry Falwell Jr. is using his discernment.”

Jacob Clarke, a junior at Liberty University who is a copy editor at the Liberty Champion, told CP in a statement Tuesday afternoon that he is not at all shocked by Falwell’s choice.

“The endorsement is certainly not surprising after hearing President Falwell’s introduction of Trump when Trump spoke at Convocation,” Clark said. “It’s interesting that so many Evangelicals seem to be firmly against the idea of Trump being in the White House, and here we have someone with such a big platform in the Evangelical community endorsing him.”


Then, there is the open letter to Foolwell, and his minions, from the students:


Kimberly Ross has an article at RedState that says a lot, and almost everything:

Dear GOP: A Vote For Trump IS A FULL Endorsement Of Him

There’s an idea among the voting public that you can “hold your nose” while you vote for a candidate. This makes the action of choosing a certain candidate, however horrible they may be, seemingly tolerable. After all, you didn’t like that you chose them…as you went ahead and did it anyway.

Never has such an argument seemed so absurd as this year during an election cycle which narrowed our many choices down to two deplorables. God help us.

Whether you like it or not, voting for someone is a full endorsement of them. There is no other way around it. Choosing a candidate by way of voting means you are selecting them, their expertise (or not), their vision, their policies, their character (or lack thereof), and yes, even their temperament. Voting isn’t a half-hearted measure. It is a full approval of the person whose name you’ve selected. You can’t only kind of vote for someone. You’re either in, or you’re out.

This is why heartfelt, seemingly “brave” explanations from some members of the GOP amount to nothingness. Speaker Paul Ryan, under fire recently for “abandoning” Trump in order to focus on Congressional races, is still part of the problem.

Politico reports:

Speaker Paul Ryan told House Republicans on a conference call Monday morning that he’s done defending Donald Trump and will focus on maintaining his party’s increasingly imperiled House majority, according to sources on the call.

Ryan stopped short of formally rescinding his endorsement of Trump — but just short. His move carries immense risk, and Ryan faced blowback from all sides: Trump and his surrogates warned Republican leaders they would pay a price for breaking from the nominee; some rank-and-file Republicans warned the strategy was a mistake; and immediately after the call, Clinton tweeted to her nearly 10 million followers that “Ryan is still endorsing Trump.”


I can appreciate Speaker Ryan’s very public stance against the man who hijacked the Republican party, but only slightly. However, Ryan’s resolve amounts to nothing unless he rescinds his endorsement of Trump and also doesn’t vote for him. But I guess you’re supposed to vote for your party’s nominee when you’re the Speaker of the House. Party unity, and all that.

Others like Senator Ted Cruz can be thrown into this group, too. Cruz doesn’t really like to use the magic word “endorse”. He talks a lot about supporting the nominee, but isn’t fond of saying “I endorse Trump”. It might just be the bad taste of selling out that he gets in his mouth when uttering those words. At the RNC convention, he told the crowd “vote your conscience”, giving the impression that he wasn’t fully behind Republican nominee Trump. Oh, but he is. You see, he’s still voting, aka endorsing him, whether he uses that word or not.

It’s quite difficult to maintain that you’re distancing yourself from a candidate you clearly dislike when, come election day, you jump in to the voting booth to raise your hand and select them. But as we’ve seen this cycle, the pull of that (R) does powerful things to the sheep in the electorate. Unsurprisingly, endorsement-by-voting applies to Republicans who are so fed up with Trump that they choose Hillary. Well, congratulations. You’ve just fully endorsed her and the package that comes along with that.

So please, GOP. Those of you who don’t like Trump can halt the attempt to water down your upcoming vote for him on November 8. It is a full endorsement of him. You can hold your nose all you want and feign inner turmoil, but you’ve no way out of it. We can smell the stench from here.


And there you have it.  I’m sure you trumpanzees have long since tuned out (with all those multi-syllabic words, and all), but the fact remains that you’re voting for a self-professed, loud-and-proud reprobate, to run against another reprobate.  You can try saying that you have nothing to do with the tacit approval of things like the racism, bigotry, violence and other acts of evil your fellow trumpanzees commit, and you can try saying you don’t endorse Thump’s own acts of evil, including attacking peoples’ families, advocating for violence, constant lying, etc., but we know you all just want to try to lie, yourselves, and say your hands are clean.  Then, to show what hypocrites you are, you try saying that if you don’t vote for Thump (or Hillary), you’re guilty of everything from tax increases to the crucifixion of Christ.  No, even though you support a homosexuality and bisexuality loving NY liberal, you can’t have it both ways.  Everything that Thump does that you don’t take a stand against, you wear on your backs (or that stupid baseball cap, which, I believe, was made in China).

Foolwell Junior can repeat boilerplate and bumper sticker BS all he wants, but the only thing he’ll accomplish is further ruining his already worthless reputation. If he destroys his father’s school, I’m sure Thump will be proud. Same for that fake, Graham. Sometimes, watching science fiction requires something called “suspension of belief”, where you don’t quibble about the science, and just roll with it. Thump, apparently, requires suspension of salvation : a state of mind where you throw away all believe in the Salvation of Yeshua and trust the ramblings of an ungodly, self professed liar as your gospel.


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





My Fellow Americans, Part 2

•October 9, 2016 • Leave a Comment



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.






























My Fellow Americans, 2016

•October 2, 2016 • 2 Comments

trigger warning

So, anyhow, we’ve seen the first “debate” between Lying’ Donny Thump:


And Lyin’ Hillary:


Both such pleasant people.

Sorry, should’ve posted that, earlier.  I know a lot of you are delicate little snowflakes.

In any event, Thump got his ass kicked, and his skipping debate prep really went a long way towards that.  Of course, we all know he’s not in it to win it…

…but that’s for another day.

Some of you, I’m sure, as you were yelling at your computers and TVs, wished you could be on stage with these destructive idiots.

I wanted to, as well, but I can’t, so I’ll just have to simulate it, here.


Thump vs Hillary vs Me, Virus-X, the Republic Commando (running for the Conservative Party).

Where They Stand on Economic Policy Issues

In the end, elections usually come back to the economy—to jobs, wages, taxes, imports and exports, the price of goods and the cost of an education. Differences over all these issues—from tax rates and immigration to globalization and the minimum wage—are particularly sharp this year between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Here’s a look at where the two candidates stand on the top economic issues.


Many Americans have grown anxious that the economy hasn’t lived up to its promise over the past 15 years of creating job growth that provides upward mobility and broadly shared prosperity. Instead, the nation has gone through two recessions marked by bubbles—one in the stock market and the other in housing—that were followed by recoveries in which economic growth returned but job growth lagged. Laying out a vision for how to restore widespread job and income gains is shaping up to be the top priority of the incoming president.



“If we do what we have to do correctly, we can create the biggest economic boom in this country since the New Deal when our vast infrastructure was first put into place. It’s a no-brainer. It’s so obvious that even the Democrats can figure it out. November 2015, in his book “Crippled America” »

Mr. Trump has eschewed the sunny optimism of past Republican presidents by warning that the nation faces an almost irreversible economic decline. He has published plans for large tax cuts, reducing regulation and renegotiating trade agreements. He has provided fewer specifics about how his plans to curb immigration and to slash imports would create new jobs.

Mr. Trump has promised a big boost in spending on defense and infrastructure while cutting the budgets for nondefense programs, though these include several areas such as veterans’ health care and border security, where Mr. Trump has promised more spending. He has also promised not to touch popular benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare, which account for a rising share of public spending and, as such, have been a ripe target of conservatives for decades.


(Caveat:  Thump flip-flops more than a fish out of water, so this position could actually have been contradicted many times, by the time you’re seeing this.)


“Previous generations of Americans built the greatest economy and strongest middle class the world has ever known on the promise of a basic bargain: if you work hard and do your part, you should be able to get ahead. And when you get ahead, America gets ahead. But over the past several decades, that bargain has eroded. Our job is to make it strong again. July 13, 2015, speech in New York City »

Mrs. Clinton has unveiled a raft of policy proposals detailing increased spending on everything from job training and community college education to broadband networks, infrastructure, and clean energy. She has backed efforts to raise the federal minimum wage, to overhaul immigration laws, and to boost women’s workforce participation by backing efforts to improve paid leave and access to child care.

She has also promoted using the tax code to provide breaks for companies that improve employee profit-sharing while raising taxes on upper-income Americans and taxing so-called carried interest earned by investors as regular income.


(Caveat:  Clinton is a congenital liar, so it’s quite possible that since her lips were moving when she said this, she could be lying about everything.)



“The country is an economic basket case.  I’m not going to bull crap, I’m not going to beat around the bush.  Both Clinton and her donor are big government liberals.  Thump is saying the destructive policies of far left president FDR – the so-called “New Deal” was beneficial to the economy.  Clinton wants to continue imposing this leftist caste system on the country, putting Americans into ‘classes’, and saying Big Government will come to the rescue and get the economy rolling.  Well, they’re both wrong.  Government doesn’t create jobs, it takes jobs away from the Private Sector:  the actual place where jobs originate from.  Burdensome, confiscatory, unconstitutional taxation and regulation are making America a hostile environment for starting a business, and that’s thanks to the poor fiscal policies of both the Republicans and the Slave Party – AKA:  the Democrats.  Whereas, once, America was the Land of Opportunity, it’s rapidly losing that, and the policies of both Clinton and Trump will hasten the complete loss of it, and the destruction of our once great economy.  It’s time to actually obey the Constitution, and stop invoking it when you think it’ll score you some points on TV.  Eliminate the income tax.  Stop unconstitutionally raiding the Treasury for unconstitutional bureaucracies, agencies, programs and feathering the nests of foreign countries.  Stop misusing the Commerce Clause as a weapon to impede commerce and destroy business.  Stop issuing by fiat, and wipe out all regulations and let the States handle their own business.  Stop letting Big Government drive the economy, and put business back in the hands of the People.”

Virus-X, the Republic Commando believes that returning the original constitutional model of taxation and letting the states run themselves is the best medicine for an ailing economy.  He’s unveiled plans to eliminate every single unconstitutional expenditure, including government agencies, to save the country trillions, as well as assist in paying off the national debt as quickly and efficiently as possible.  He wants to stop this rampant printing of money, and to actually reduce the amount of printed money by a small degree, to increase the value of American currency, and restore it to the world’s standard.

He wants to stop all federal government loans to colleges, in order to force them to take care of their own finances, and force some sanity back into their pricing, which is one of the chief roadblocks to people actually being able to go to college.

Virus-X believes that the best way to simplify the federal tax code is to basically eliminate the vast majority of it, force the government to live within it’s means and to only collect imposts, excises, and duties for sustenance.  No more direct taxation to the American citizen and businesses on the federal level, which means more money in the citizens’ pockets, and more money for business to expand, improve and hire more people.  To him, the best economic ‘stimulus’ is one created by the People, not the government.

OK, let’s move on.


The 2016 election has kicked off the rawest debate in decades over trade agreements, globalization and the impact of lower tariffs and more open borders on U.S. workers and their wages. Both Mr. Trump and Mrs. Clinton oppose the 12-nation Pacific trade deal, negotiated and promoted by the Obama administration, but they have also questioned the two-decade-old North American Free Trade Agreement, or Nafta.



trump change government

“Our politicians have aggressively pursued a policy of globalization—moving our jobs, our wealth and our factories to Mexico and overseas.”

Mr. Trump has upended the Republican policy of recent decades by rejecting free trade and backing tariffs to protect American industry from what he calls unfair competition. Mr. Trump has sought to link Mrs. Clinton to the 1994 Nafta deal with Mexico and Canada that her husband signed and has challenged her to categorically rule out support for the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in any form.

His strong opposition to trade deals has led to clashes with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce—the biggest business lobby—and brought him closer to liberal economists and Democratic lawmakers on the issue. Still, some economists warn his threats of tariffs could hurt American industries that depend on international supply chains, and potentially kick off a trade war that dents economic growth.



“Donald doesn’t see the complexity. He wants to start a trade war with China. And I understand a lot of Americans have concerns about our trade agreements—I do too. But a trade war is something very different.” June 2 speech in San Diego »

In a campaign season replete with trade skepticism, Mrs. Clinton announced in October, before the text of the TPP was even released, that she wouldn’t support the Pacific trade agreement. As secretary of state she had previously touted the TPP as the “gold standard,” and Mr. Trump has speculated Mrs. Clinton could eventually sign the TPP in modified form if elected president.

In drafting the party’s policy platform in July, Democrats decided to eschew explicit opposition to TPP. Mrs. Clinton’s more nuanced approach to trade could win her some support from the business community and the more centrist voters who see the benefits of opening up to other economies. But she also risks alienating supporters of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her Democratic rival who ran a campaign nearly as antithetical to trade agreements as Mr. Trump’s.

In a speech on Aug. 11, Mrs. Clinton offered one of her most pointed critiques of American trade policy and flatly stated that she would oppose the TPP. “I oppose it now. I’ll oppose it after the election, and I’ll oppose it as president,” she said.



“It’s ironic that Thump wants to talk about politicians driving business, then, in the next breath, talk about doing that very same thing with tariffs.  Let’s also not forget that it’s quite probable that the suit he’s got on his back was made in China – a nation that’s our enemy, both militarily and economically.  And Hillary Clinton?  More destructive, Big Government solutions that will do more harm, than good.  Like I said, it’s time to go back to the original parameters of constitutional taxation.  If businesses were saving billions in taxation to the federal government, they could afford to bring more business back to the US.  And, no, Trump, the federal government does not have the power or responsibility to force private business to work where it dictates for them to.  Minus a lot of unnecessary and unconstitutional regulations and taxes, it would become a lot more affordable to manufacture in the US.  And, like I said, business would have more money in it’s pockets, and private citizens would have a lot more money in their pockets to do things like, oh, maybe buy things from these corporations.  Then, when you extend a tax and regulations break that’s similar to foreign corporations, who knows?  Maybe you just might convince them that it could be cheaper in the long run, to leave the countries their at, and start doing more of their business, here, in the United States.”

Virus-X believes that if corporations weren’t paying so much in taxes and regulations, they might want to come back to the US, on their own.  He also believes that if similar benefits were offered to foreign companies, they might be convinced to leave and come to the US, where they would create more jobs, and contribute to national prosperity, as well as their own.  This doesn’t require destructive treaties like the TPP, but making simplified tax codes that benefit the country, corporations and the individual.  No Big Government intervention required, or desired.

seems legit



Tax policy divides the two parties like few other issues, in large part because it reveals candidates’ views on the appropriate size and scope of government. Under President Barack Obama, Congress permanently extended George W. Bush-era tax cuts for all but the highest earners, imposed new taxes on investment income and expanded tax credits for low-income families and college tuition. Yet the bipartisan goal of “tax reform” remains elusive because Republicans and Democrats disagree on how much money the government should collect and who should pay.



“My core beliefs are I want a major tax cut.” May 9 interview with The Wall Street Journal »

In September 2015, Mr. Trump proposed a plan to slash tax rates and push millions of households off the income tax rolls with a proposed tax cut that would be nearly triple the size of the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. That plan would have reduced U.S. tax collections by more than $9 trillion over a decade.

Mr. Trump’s new plan, released in September 2016, keeps many of the same features as his original plan, including a 15% business tax rate and repeal of the estate tax. He added a deduction for child care costs, proposed a smaller increase in the standard deduction and said he would cap itemized deductions at $100,000 per individual. Mr. Trump would set the top individual tax rate at 33%, down from today’s 39.6% but above the 25% in his original plan.

The new plan would reduce revenue by between $4.4 trillion and $5.9 trillion over a decade, before assuming increased revenue from economic growth, according to the conservative-leaning Tax Foundation. Mr. Trump’s aides have offered a few clarifications after the plan’s release that may affect the cost. Some non-corporate businesses would face a second layer of taxation on dividends. And the campaign said that poor and working-class households who might face higher taxes under Mr. Trump’s plan could opt to stay in the current tax system.



“We need to get the wealthy and the corporations to pay more of their fair share.”— Jan. 11 campaign event in Des Moines, Iowa

Mrs. Clinton offers a host of targeted tax policies, composed mostly of tax increases on high-income households and narrow incentives for businesses that share profits with their workers or have apprenticeship programs. She would also create new tax breaks for caregivers and out-of-pocket health-care costs.

She would increase capital gains rates on assets held between one and six years to encourage longer-term investing and she would impose tougher restrictions on companies seeking to move their addresses out of the country and cut their tax bills.

She would cap deductions for high-income people, impose a 30% minimum effective tax rate on households making at least $2 million a year and create a 4% surtax on income over $5 million. She would also increase estate taxes and apply the capital gains tax on appreciated assets given or left to heirs. Mrs. Clinton has also left a few gaps in her tax plan. She has pledged to use “business tax reform” to pay for $275 billion in infrastructure spending, but she hasn’t said how she would do that or whether she backs Mr. Obama’s plan to cut the corporate tax rate. She also has promised a middle-class tax cut but hasn’t yet offered specifics beyond saying she would expand the child tax credit.




“Both Thump and Hillary are rich.  I don’t begrudge that, certainly, but let’s be clear eyed.  Thump wouldn’t reveal his taxes, and now it’s looking like he hasn’t paid federal income tax for decades, and the Clintons, after lying about being poor, are telling other people to “pay their fair share”.  Like I’ve been saying, all along:  constitutional taxation.  And let’s stop with this “tax credit” crap.  You act like you’re giving people something.  No, what you’re doing is giving them their own money, and pretending you’re doing them a big favor.  Stop taking their money, like that, in the first place, for your re-distribution scemes, and let the People handle their own money.” 

Virus-X believes that since people are forced to live within their means, the federal government should, too.  That means no more income tax, corporate tax, capital gains tax, etc.  Just imposts, excises and duties.  What you buy, sell, import and export.  Not your income, and certainly not punishing your success by charging you more, the more money you make.  Taxation should be about maintenance fees for the country, not about making it hurt for people you’re jealous of, because they’re financially better off, than you are.  And it should not be about being a left-wing, populist demagogue, talking about robbing from the rich to give to the poor, just to get votes.



The U.S. by 2020 will begin to spend more on Medicare and Social Security than the programs collect in interest income and taxes. The two programs already account for a rising share of government spending—around 41% of federal outlays last year, up from 36% in 2011. These figures are set to rise over the next two decades due to the aging of the baby-boom generation and the resulting decline in the ratio of workers to retirees.


“We’re going to save your Social Security without killing it like so many people want to do, and your Medicare.” June 18 rally in Phoenix »

Mr. Trump has criticized proposals floated by Republican leaders to address looming across-the-board benefit cuts that will be triggered if Social Security exhausts Treasury account reserves by, for example, raising retirement ages or capping benefits for wealthier retirees. Instead, Mr. Trump has said that the program can eliminate waste and abuse to close the demographic-induced solvency gap, a proposal that independent experts say isn’t credible.



“I want to enhance the benefits for the poorest recipients of Social Security. We have a lot of women on Social Security, particularly widowed and single women who didn’t make a lot of money during their careers.” October 13, 2015, candidate debate in Las Vegas »

During the Democratic nomination battle, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders urged front-runner Hillary Clinton to support more generous benefits for retirees and to swear off any cuts, positions that have grown popular on the left. Mrs. Clinton has said she supports enhancing benefits for certain, lower-income retirees and has said she backs some sort of increase in taxes on top earners to pay for that and to extend solvency of the program.




“Sorry, but you’ve been duped.  This is a ponzi scheme, and it’s time someone had the guts to put an end to it.  Providing for peoples’ retirement is not the job of the federal government, unless you’re an FDR Fabian socialist, like the Clintons and their big money donor, Thump.  It’s time to cash everybody out, under a certain age, and let them find their own financial future.  People above a certain age can stay in – if they want – or cash out like everybody else, and put their money into things like Roth IRAs, Certificates of Deposit, invest in those corporations I’ve already mentioned, etc.  The government never does it as well as the Private Sector.  Like the great Lieutenant Colonel Allen West once said:

Allen West against welfare

Virus-X the Republic Commando knows that so-called “entitlement” programs are bankrupting the country to the tune of trillions, and that’s it’s high time to cut the cord. If States want to enact such socialist policies, that’s on them, but it’s not the constitutionally enumerated job of the federal government to do so.  Having the economically irresponsible federal government control retirement, in his opinion, is the opposite of freedom.



Budget deficits soared after the 2008 financial crisis because tax revenues plunged and the government ramped up stimulus spending. While the budget deficit last year fell to its lowest level since 2007, the federal debt held by the public has doubled over that period, to around 75% of gross domestic product. Under current law, this debt-to-GDP ratio will steadily climb higher as spending rises on programs that aren’t subject to annual appropriations, such as Social Security and Medicare. This matters because if the next president wants to approve new government spending programs or tax cuts, they’ll have a harder time doing it if they’re also committed to keeping the debt from rising even higher.



“We’ve got to get rid of the $19 trillion in debt… I think we could do it fairly quickly… over a period of eight years.” March 31 interview with Washington Post »

Mr. Trump has made a number of sometimes contradictory statements on the public debt. In March, he said that unleashing stronger economic growth would allow the U.S. to begin paying off the national debt, something that no budget analysts deem possible right now. In subsequent interviews this spring, Mr. Trump said he might try to renegotiate the national debt. He reversed course days later in a May interview with The Wall Street Journal, where he said he wouldn’t do anything to alter the terms of that debt, which he called “absolutely sacred.”



“When my husband left the White House, we had a balanced budget and a surplus, and if we had stayed on a responsible fiscal path, we could’ve—had we chosen—paid off our entire national debt. December town hall in Dover, N.H. »

Mrs. Clinton repeatedly chided her rivals—first, Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary and then Mr. Trump—for putting forward policy proposals that would exacerbate budget deficits. While she hasn’t outlined specific steps to balance budgets, she has for the most part ensured that new spending programs are paid for from a budgeting standpoint, usually through higher taxes on higher income households. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, an organization that advocates for debt reduction, estimates that Mrs. Clinton’s spending and tax policies would essentially hold the national debt on the trajectory it faces under current law.




“Like I’ve been saying, if we’re not paying for things we shouldn’t be, federally, then we’ll have the money to make more serious inroads in paying off the national debt and killing the deficit.  Eliminating spending on unconstitutional programs – including “entitlement” programs – will save in the trillions, and allow us to really start paying off the debt.  Also, the achievement of energy independence and selling that surplus energy to friendly/allied countries will also allow the US to make serious and significant steps towards getting that monkey off our backs.”

Virus-X believes that it’s going to take more than tax and spend liberality to get the US out of debt, and that no program will succeed until federal money is spent responsibility.  The Constitution clearly states what can, and can’t, be purchased at the expense of taxpayer funds, and things like social programs, foreign aid, infanticide, etc. are not examples of things that taxpayer money from the Treasury can be used to fund.  It’s like plugging a hole in a sinking boat.  Until you do that, there’s very little chance of you being able to bail out the incoming water fast enough to avoid being sent to the bottom.  Neither Trump nor Clinton – both well-known and historic tax and spend liberals – have credible plans to ending the menace of the national debt.


So, as you see, it’s not hard to beat up on these two mental lightweights, if you have a functioning medulla.  Trump is not in it to win, really.  He’s a Clinton Manchurian candidate, and just there to keep Hillary credible.  If he somehow wins, he’ll be another Clinton puppet.  If he loses, he heads off into the sunset with the money he’s been pocketing.



The key to getting the US out of the economic mud it’s been mired in for almost 10 years is not more republicans, is not more of the Slave Party’s putrid politicians.  It’s Constitutional Conservatism.


I am VIRUS-X, REPUBLIC COMMANDO, and I approve this message.  If you don’t like it, tough noogies.