Unemployment and it’s Benefits

•October 19, 2017 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning

So.  One of the problems that the country has been having over the past years is unemployment, thanks, chiefly, to the inept ministrations of one Barack Hussein Obama, a self-hating sellout of the Slave Party.


Millions out of work, and millions applying for unemployment, the result being the system (predictably) running out of money.


margaret-thatcher on socialism

The federalized system of unemployment benefits payments is neither constitutional, nor altruistic.

Not at all.

morpheus explaining extraconstitutional government

The results of this system, in terms of unemployment benefits, has been less than successful.  Millions of Americans trying to scrape by on pennies a week, doled out to them by Uncle Sugar (who is broke, by the way).  Fraud from illegal aliens is also not inconsiderable.



What if the unemployment “insurance” system was no longer handled by Big Government?  What if we actually had someone obeying the Constitution of the United States, and put it where it should be, in accordance to the 10th Amendment?

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Let’s look at some possible examples.

rod serling submitted for your approval

Emphasizing the unconstitutionality of the system, it’s called “unemployment insurance”.  The federal government has no enumerated power to sell insurance, of any kind, and I’m pretty sure that if I saw each and every state’s constitution, I’d get the same result.  So, what if the People took this over, and put it into the Free Market.

Let’s say Joe Entrepreneur started an insurance company.  An insurance company that only did unemployment, and under-employment benefits.  His start up LLC contracts out to businesses for their employees, in the event they lose their jobs, or face a layoff.  The EVER reliable Wikipedia describes underemployment, thus:

Underemployment (or disguised unemployment) is the under-use of a worker due to a job that does not use the workers skills, or is part time, or leaves the worker idle.  Examples include holding a part-time job despite desiring full-time work, and overqualification, where the employee has education, experience, or skills beyond the requirements of the job.


Say it works similarly to (or actually is some fort of) a Roth IRA:

You make contributions with money you’ve already paid taxes on (after-tax), and your money may potentially grow tax-free, with tax-free withdrawals in retirement, provided that certain conditions are met.


With a Roth IRA, you make contributions with money on which you’ve already paid taxes. Your money can then potentially grow tax-free, with tax-free withdrawals in retirement, provided that certain conditions are met.


Every employee that is hired in (or, for contractors, their “contract house” handles this) is given the option of signing up for this insurance policy, which is effective day 1.  You have other options.  You can put in a percentage of your paycheck, automatically, or you can vary what you put in, from check to check.  In some cases, your employer can match your contribution, to a point, just like with employer provided 401k programs.  You pay into this program – voluntarily – for as long as you like, as much (or as little) as you like.  With the current unconstitutional, Big Government socialist system, if you never draw unemployment, you’re paying for someone else.

Oh, like you didn’t know that.

In any event, what you get from the system really isn’t that much, and it comes from a pool of people that have the power to drain, or cut-off, altogether, your “benefits”, by their own wants and needs.  You’re already paying into the unemployment system.  What if you got to do it on your own terms, or not at all, if you didn’t feel like it?  Or changed your mind, after that?  That’s the power of the Free Market, and the People.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

“Beware the greedy hand of government thrusting itself into every corner and crevice of industry.” – Thomas Paine


And, if working like the 401k, you have your unemployment insurance monies going into investments.  There are investment firms that use money as a buffer, so when the markets decline, the buffer comes into play, and your investments don’t lose ground (i.e.:  money).  In any event, you have a policy that can pay you a lump sum or regular payments, and that amount of money can increase, depending on factors like how much you invest, employer contributions, and market values.  Or, you can get a policy that pays a flat amount, such as with life insurance.  Alternately, you can get a flat amount that can increase, due to the aforementioned factors.

seems legit

Just picture losing your job, and within a week, you get a check in the mail from your insurance company.  It could be equal to one of your former paychecks.  It could be more.  It could be a lump sum equal to more than what you made in a year, serving as a sort of severance payment.  Also, if you retire, or quit, or whatever, it’s still your money.  You can cancel the policy and cash out.  You can roll it over into your 401k, or a HSA (Health Savings Account).  You can borrow from it, like you can from a 401k, and pay yourself back.  You can bequeath it to someone else, on the event of your death.  Etc.  It’s your money, and your responsibility.

All these options are better than the Big Government option.

With this Free Market option, you’re better off, all around.

You’re not paying for someone else’s unemployment benefits, if you don’t use them.

You can take it with you to another job.

You can get a lot more than the pittance and pennies Big Government doles out to you (from your own money, by the way).

shut up an take my money

This is just one Free Market alternative to unconstitutional government solutions, which are no solutions, at all.  The solutions of the People are almost always better than the solutions of distant bureaucrats that have no idea what’s best for your particular walk of life, but Big Government will never admit this, nor will they be willing to entertain solutions like this, because it interferes in their plans of total control of the population.  Remember:  a government that’s big enough to give you everything you want – money, health care, housing, transportation, education, protection at all levels, etc. – is also more than big enough to one day decide to take it all away from you, with no recourse.   You can make silly arguments like “it will never happen”, but just remember that that attitude labels you as part of the problem, and part of the reason why it will “never happen”.  And make no mistake:  the (NS)GOP is no better than the Slave Party on this, because each side perpetuates it, and makes the problems worse, costing taxpayers billions, while they enjoy lifetime retirement benefits (also at taxpayer expense).

reagan social program

So, you liberal minded people that think the government is a benevolent organization (when it does what you want it to do, and targets who you want it to target), you’re more than free to live your lives like this:


Free thinking Conservatives will always be looking for something better, and a way to advance not only ourselves, but the communities around us.

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























Cutting the Fat

•October 11, 2017 • Leave a Comment

Me being a Constitutional Conservative, it’s not hard to see that I don’t agree with everybody to the left of me (which is basically everybody else)…

true political spectrum2

…about how big government should be.  I’ll break it down, Barney style.  Here are the major cabinet positions (minus Shadow Government positions, that I’m sure some of insist really run the show):


Not all of these positions are constitutional.  Again, I’ll break it down:

Department of the Interior:  Unconstitutional.  2013 Budget:  $20,700,000,000.00 USD.

Department of Agriculture:  Unconstitutional.  2017 Budget:  $151,000,000,000.00 USD.

Department of Labor:  Unconstitutional.  2012 Budget:  $12,100,000,000.00 USD.

Department of Health and Human Services:  Unconstitutional.  2015 Budget:  $1,020,000,000,000.00 USD.

Department of Housing and Urban Development:  Unconstitutional.  2014 Budget:  $32,600,000,000.00 USD.

Department of Energy:  Unconstitutional.  2014 Budget:  $27,900,000,000.00 USD.

And not all of these figures are up to date, meaning they’re probably pulling in more money.  Added up, that’s a whopping $1,264,300,000,000.00 USD.

And more than that, pretty much, every year.

Adds up, doesn’t it?

(By the way, these figures came from www.wikipedia.com)

* As of October 2, 2017, the official debt of the United States government is $20.3 trillion ($20,347,802,336,478).[1] This amounts to:

  • $62,418 for each person living in the U.S.
  • $161,723 for each household in the U.S.
  • 106% of the U.S. gross domestic product.
  • 567% of annual federal revenues.

At the close of the federal government’s 2016 fiscal year (September 30, 2016), the federal government had roughly:

  • $8.5 trillion ($8,542,000,000,000) in liabilities that are not accounted for in the publicly held national debt, such as federal employee retirement benefits, accounts payable, and environmental/disposal liabilities.
  • $29.0 trillion ($29,038,000,000,000) in obligations for current Social Security participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll and benefit taxes, certain transfers from the general fund of the U.S. Treasury, and assets of the Social Security trust fund.
  • $32.9 trillion ($32,900,000,000,000) in obligations for current Medicare participants above and beyond projected revenues from their payroll taxes, benefit taxes, premium payments, and assets of the Medicare trust fund.


That’s another $70,400,000,000,000.00 USD, and this is why I would end all unfunded liability programs, including government-run retirement benefits, accounts payable, disposable liabilities, Social Security, Medicare, etc.

Yes, while we do need a “safety net”, it’s not the responsibility of the federal government to provide that, outside of national defense.  That responsibility – for social safety nets – falls upon the People and the States.  From the Amendments to the United States Constitution:

Amendment IX.
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

For the States, they have the responsibility of creating programs for their citizens, such as medical care for the indigent.

For the People, they (you) have the responsibility of going with the Invisible Hand of the Free Market, and guiding it in the right direction.  This is done through creating or modifying businesses to do things like give people retirement programs through such things as investments, 401k programs, CDs (Certificates of Deposit), IRAs (Individual Retirement Accounts), etc.  No one can do better with your money, than you – the People – can.  Once you end these programs, the savings are obvious.  Once you stop all other unconstitutional spending, including bankrolling other countries’ national defense, when they should be making a greater effort to defend themselves, and ending foreign aide of all types that doesn’t fall under national defense, that’s even more savings.

That’s because it is, Frye.

The National Debt can be paid off, actually, but the political will has to be there, and the Constitution has to be followed.

The National Deficit can wither away to nothing, and the same things are needed:  political will, and an adherence to the US Constitution.

Unfortunately, without those two things, we get nowhere.  Which is precisely where we are, now.









VIRUS-X: 2020

•October 7, 2017 • 2 Comments

trigger warning

Face it:  no Conservative is satisfied with the Trump Regime, any more than they were Obama’s.  So, hey, VIRUS-X:  REPUBLIC COMMANDO 2020!

So Trump is now trying to talk about tax reform, even as he’s trying to pass a new and just as socialist health care bill into law, with his accomplices in Congress.  Here’s an example of what I, Virus-X, consider to be “tax reform”:

COMMITTEE: All Constitutional Conservatives of the United States of America



DELEGATION: The Conservatives

TITLE OF BILL: The American Tax Code Reorganization Act

Be it enacted by the xxx Congress,

WHEREAS the federal government of the United States of America has been bankrupting the nation through unconstitutional expenditures in clear and blatant violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7 of the United States Constitution, which states:

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.”

as well as a violation of the United States Constitution IV Amendment, which states quite clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

this bill is intended to put an end to this destructive trend. All expenditures from the United States Treasury will, henceforth, have to be justified through the United States Constitution, restricting unconstitutional expenditures in the future. This confiscatory taxation without adequate representation is completely un-American, as well as financially unsustainable. It is the job of Congress to represent the People and the States, and they have been criminally negligent in those duties. This bill is to insure a return to a state of responsibility and grant lasting and significant tax relief to the American People as individuals, and to the Private Sector, which is the true engine of American commerce and advancement.

SECTION 1: This act may be cited as, “American Tax Code Reorganization Bill.” It is designed to allow the People, States and the Private Sector to operate with maximized efficiency, and to have the United States Federal Government operate under Constitutional guidelines. The intended effect will be to allow the People to keep more of their money, which will help create a “natural” economic stimulus, independent of federal or state government actions that could be unconstitutional.

SECTION 2: GENERAL TAXATION The current codes of federal taxation shall be supplanted and replaced with the following:

Subsection 1: PURCHASING EXCISE TAX, or “NATIONAL SALES TAX” Any and all non food, pharmaceutical or medical device/supply purchases in the United States of America will be subject to a 1% excise, or “sales tax”. For instance, if an individual, group, business, etc., were to purchase something at a cost of $45,000.00 USD, a 1% excise tax would be assessed to the purchaser, or $450.00 USD. The purchase of insurance policies are also subject to to Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”, but subsequent premiums and fees are not. Sales to foreign entities, outside of the United States, shall also be subject to this taxation. The sales of pharmaceuticals and medical devices shall be exempt from Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. For instance, if a pharmaceutical or medical device/supply manufacturer purchased chemicals, or components, necessary for the research and/or development, or the manufacture of a pharmaceutical or medical device/supply, the purchase of said materials would not be subject to Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. Also, consumers purchasing pharmaceuticals or medical devices will not have their transaction fall under requiring Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax” added to the sale price. Hospitals, pharmacies, etc. will also not be subject to Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”, when purchasing pharmaceuticals or medical devices. The manufacture/growing of food by business entities (including farms) shall be exempt from Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. For instance, a wholesaler (or even a consumer) purchasing beef or eggs from a business registered as farm, or other food creating business, will not have said purchases subject to Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. Not only are consumables such as beef and poultry, for instance, considered food, but so are seeds that are utilized for growing food, and the feed that beef and poultry would consume. Restaurants, however, will not have their transactions exempted. If consumers purchase foods from a restaurant, they will be subject to Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. 

Subsection 2: MANUFACTURING EXCISE TAX Any and all non food, pharmaceutical or medical device/supply items manufactured in the United States of America, by an American company, will be subject to a .5%/½% excise tax. For instance, if a vehicle cost $45,000.00 USD to manufacture, a .5% excise tax would be assessed to the manufacturer, or $250.00 USD. Non-American companies that manufacture in the United States of America will be subject to a 2.5% excise tax. For instance, if a vehicle cost $45,000.00 USD to manufacture, a 2.5% excise tax would be assessed to the manufacturer, or $1,125.00 USD. The manufacture of pharmaceuticals shall be exempt from Purchasing Excise Taxation, or the “National Sales Tax”. For instance, if a pharmaceutical or “medical device or supply” manufacturer created a batch of appropriate merchandise that had a manufacturing cost of $1,000,000.00 USD, it would be exempted from the Manufacturing Excise Tax. Food manufacturers (such as corporations, farms, etc.) that produce food consumables will enjoy an identical tax-free status. If they were, for example, to create a batch of food valued at $10,000.00 USD, it would not be taxed. 

Subsection 3: CAPITAL GAINS Any investitures in such things as the purchase of stocks and bonds in businesses shall be incentivized by rendering dividends from all such investitures exempt from federal taxation.

Subsection 4: TARIFFS The importation or exportation of any goods, to and from the United States of America, shall be subject to a 4% tariff, based on the retail price of the item. For instance, a business or individual shipping a $50,000.00 USD vehicle into a foreign country (or importing an identically priced vehicle from another country) would incur a $2,000.00 USD tariff in taxation. Importation or exportation to and from nations that do not have good diplomatic relations with the United States of America, but are not outright labeled and considered military enemies, will be assessed an 10% tariff. This includes nations such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Mexican States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and similar nations.

Subsection 5: CAPITATION TAX, or “HEAD TAX” Any and all legal aliens residing in the any state of the United States of America will be assessed a capitation tax, based upon 2% of annual gross salary/wage. For households with multiple legal alien residents, the 2% applies to each resident. Alien residents from nations that do not have good diplomatic relations with the United States of America, but are not outright labeled and considered military enemies, will be assessed a 5% capitation tax. This includes nations such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Mexican States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and similar nations. Alien residents from nations that do not have good diplomatic relations with the United States of America, and are outright labeled and considered enemies, will be assessed a 15% capitation tax. This includes nations such as the Peoples’ Republic of China, the Russian Federation, the United Mexican States, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, and similar nations.

SECTION 4: FILING Taxes that need to be filed, such as capitation, manufacturing excises and purchasing excises, can be filed at any time, up to one year from the date of transaction. If desired, businesses can file their taxes annually, quarterly, bi-annually or even monthly. Any due returns will be handed in an identical manner (annually, quarterly, bi-annually or even monthly), in accordance to the wishes of the businesses officers.

SECTION 5: ENACTMENT The enactment of this bill will be 6 months from the day it is signed into law by the President of the United States of America. Some portions of the bill, as previously stated, may not take effect on that date, due to the individual participation of various concerned parties.

seems legit

Yep.  That means the current tax code goes away, to be replaced by more indirect taxation, as the Founding Fathers and the Framers had intended (and originally practiced).  Because of this, the IRS could actually be significantly downsized, or even completely replaced by contractors that have to compete for renewal, annually.  Individuals pay less taxes, and businesses pay less taxes.

sanders take half your shit

Call me “crazy”, Colonel Sanders, but I’m one of those Conservatives that believes socialist scumbags, like you, couldn’t make half as much good use of my money, as I can.  Taking less taxes while forcing the federal government to live within it’s means (something your wife couldn’t seem to figure out, when she was using other peoples’ money:  https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/10/us/jane-sanders-vermont-burlington-college-investigation.html).  That means no more foreign aide, unless it is constitutional in actually doing something like actively defending American interests.  That means no more subsidies of any kind, including to leftist universities that stifle Free Speech.  That mean no more unfunded liabilities.  Period.

unfunded liability spending

When individuals have more money, what you get is an economic stimulus.  A real one, not one created by leftist politicians, giving the People a pittance of their own money, and trying to pretend they’re doing us a favor.  When people have more money in their pockets, some people tend to buy things, including so-called “big ticket” items.  If people could afford houses, and wanted them, they’d probably buy them.  If people wanted cars, and had the money to buy them, guess what…they’re probably going to buy them.  That’s an economic stimulus.  Oh, and when they have more money, they can also do things like afford health insurance, which unconstitutional regulation by Congress continues to drive upwards and through the roof.

When businesses have more money, what you have is a declining jobless rate.  Businesses are in business to make money.  When they have money, the smart money goes back into the business.  That capital is used to expand and improve the business in whatever ways, and that often results in an expanded and improved need for employees.  Some businesses may use this as a chance to take out other businesses, by offering better pay & benefits, than the competition.  In the aftermath, the individual gets a better job, and the business gains a better position in the Free Market.  And, again, when employees get better jobs and better pay, they have more money.  Go back to the preceding paragraph to review that what that means.

Yes, there are also specific provisions for foreign businesses in the bill, too, which I’m sure you saw.  Why?  Because those rates are far lower than what they’d get in any other country, bar none.  This is to incentivize those businesses to start opening up shop in America, which means hiring more Americans, which means reducing the number of unemployed in this country.  It’s also a taste of what else they can get.  Any business willing to swap flags and become American is looking at getting even lower tax rates, which means the possibility of even better profits, and even better levels of success.  Just imagine if Toyota Motor Corporation became an American auto manufacturer.  Or the Samsung Group became an American conglomerate.  Or Magna International, probably the biggest Tier 1 supplier, became an American business.  Think of how many more American jobs that could generate.

shut up an take my money

Thank you for the donation, Frye.

We also have Thump talking about trying to “…repeal…” unconstitutional ObamaCare with equally unconstitutional TrumpCare (and, in fact, it might be worse).



I say, instead of trying to use Big Government to strong-arm it’s way into something else it has no constitutional authority to intrude in, how about government created conditions that are favorable to the Free Market and to the People, to make it easier to get and afford medical benefits?





Be it enacted by the xxx Congress,

WHEREAS the unconstitutional law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (more commonly known as “Obamacare”) became effective March 23, 2010, it has since become known that the purported deficit neutrality of this law is untrue, increasing projected costs from $940 Billion to approximately $1.76 trillion. This breach of conditions renders the law null & void. In conjunction with this, it is unconstitutional, in regards to the fact that, in spite of what the United States Supreme Court may say, Congress does not have the authority to tax based on this law. The only taxes the United States may collect are in the form of duties, imposts and excises (Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 1, United States Constitution), and with the passage of the XVI Amendment, incomes. The United States Supreme Court decision was made in clear and blatant violation of the United States Constitution, as the United States Supreme Court does not have the constitutionally enumerated power to delegate to Congress, or the Executive, the power to create new taxes. The passage of this law will immediately, and completely, overturn any and all aspect of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, and any, and all monies collected from businesses or individuals will be returned within 30 days of the passage of this law. Any monies taken from the United States Treasury for the perpetuation and maintenance of this law was collected in violation of Article 1, Section 9, Paragraph 7 of the United States Constitution, which states:

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.”

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is in violation of the United States Constitution in respect to such elements as utilizing agents of the Internal Revenue Service to improperly access private health records without proper warrants, and the United States Federal Government mandate. This is a clear, flagrant and bald faced, violation of the civil rights of the American People, in respect to the United States Constitution IV Amendment, which states quite clearly:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The federal government has no constitutional authority to become involved in the private affairs of patient and any medical care provider.

SECTION 1: This act may be cited as, “Medical Infrastructure Revitalization bill.” It is designed to allow the medical industry to operate with maximized efficiency, and to have the United States Federal Government operate under Constitutional guidelines, in respect to this.

SECTION 2: The Pharmaceutical Industry. Research and developments costs can range into the billions, with little or no return, depending on the result of said research. In the event of drugs that are successful, pharmaceutical corporations properties are protected for a limited amount of time, before they copyrights expire, and other corporations can legally produce “generic” versions of their drugs.

Subsection 1: Businesses producing pharmaceuticals that voluntarily allow other corporations to produce generic versions of their drugs during the period of time where copyright protection is still in force will be permitted to write off 75% of all profit losses as a result of the generic drug sales from federal taxation.

Subsection 3: Pharmaceutical businesses that donate their pharmaceutical products charitably to indigent individuals, individuals that can prove they are unable to afford the product and have a need for it, medical facilities, Veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America, will be permitted to write off any, and all, losses, in accordance to the amount of price to customer cut. If, for instance, the pharmaceutical product was made available at 50% cost to the customer, that 50% of the current market value can be written off in federal taxation. If the pharmaceutical was given without charge, 100% of the current market value can be written off from federal taxation. The maximum write-off is 100%.

SECTION 3: The Medical Device/Supply Industry. Businesses producing any and all products that are classified as medical devices or supplies shall be exempted from all other taxation, with the exception of the following:

Subsection 1: Medical device and/or supply businesses that donate their products charitably to indigent individuals, individuals that can prove they are unable to afford the product and have a need for it, medical facilities, Veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America, will be permitted to write off any, and all, losses, in accordance to the amount of price to customer cut. If, for instance, the product was made available at 50% cost to the customer, that 50% of the current market value can be written off in federal taxation. If the product was given without charge, 100% of the current market value can be written off from federal taxation. The maximum write-off is 100%.

SECTION 4: Hospitals

Subsection 1: Military and Military Veteran Care Medical facilities that provide care and treatment for military personnel and Veterans of the armed forces of the United States of America will be able to write off all costs associated with the care and treatment of these groups and individuals from federal taxation, on a 1:1 dollar-for-dollar basis. For instance, if medical care (e.g., a combination of evaluation and examination, surgery, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and follow-up visitation and care regimens, etc) was provided at a cost of $7,000.00 USD, that 7,000.00 USD loss can be written off from federal excise taxation. The maximum write off is 100%.

Subsection 2: Indigent Care Medical facilities that provide care and treatment for those classified as “indigent”/living below the poverty line/unable to afford medical treatment will be able to write off all costs associated with the care and treatment of these groups and individuals from federal taxation, on a 1:1 dollar-for-dollar basis. For instance, if medical care (e.g., a combination of evaluation and examination, surgery, medical supplies, pharmaceuticals and follow-up visitation and care regimens, etc) was provided at a cost of $7,000.00 USD, that 7,000.00 USD loss can be written off from federal excise taxation. The maximum write off is 100%.

Subsection 3: Hospitals cannot be prevented from being health care insurance providers, and if they choose to do so, are subject to the same benefits and taxation as dedicated insurance providers are.

Subsection 4: The laws outlined in Section 4 also apply to non-hospital outlets of medical care, such as private practices and clinics.

SECTION 5: Insurance

Subsection 1: Policies Insurance policy sales are subject to “federal sales taxation”. Periodic premium payments are not subject to this, or any other, federal taxation.

Subsection 2: Pre-Existing Medical Condition Coverage Insurance providers that provide coverage to those with pre-existing conditions will be permitted to write off all expenses associated with care and treatment of said clients. For instance, if the provider paid for a $70,000.00 USD experimental treatment for a disease or injury, the entirety of the $70,000.00 can be written off in federal taxation, on a 1:1, dollar-for-dollar basis.

Subsection 3: Benefits A business that provides insurance for it’s employees can write off any expenses on a 1:1, dollar-for-dollar basis, if any expenses are incurred. Also, if the business pays for any percentile of employee benefits, this, too, can be written off in federal taxation. For instance, if a business voluntarily paid for 75% of employee benefits, that 75%, on a 1:1, dollar-for-dollar basis can be written off, up to 100%.

ENACTMENT: This will go into effect 6 months after the ratification into law by the President of the United States.

Incentivize businesses to provide medical benefits for employees.  Good benefits.  Incentivize pharmaceutical companies to work with people with lower incomes, or no income, to insure they get the pharmaceutical products they need for quality of life (or life itself).  Incentivize medical device companies to do the same.  Incentivize insurance companies to do what they can to put good insurance coverage within the reach of as many people, as possible.  All without Big Government.

Are my solutions perfect?  No, they are not.  However, they are Conservative, Free Market, Small Government solutions, designed to optimize the constitutional functioning of federal government, and to increase the quality of life for Americans.  They are thoughts of someone that actually, seriously wants to correct the problems that Congress, the Supreme Court and the Executive has dragged the American People

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



The Well Regulated Militia Act of 2017 (UPDATED)

•October 7, 2017 • 1 Comment

trigger warning


This is the stuff of nightmares of liberals.


Everybody likes to point to the 2nd Amendment, and leave it at that.  There’s also significant mention of the Militia in the body of the Constitution, under the responsibility of the Legislature, and that needed to be addressed, as well.


COMMITTEE: All Constitutional Conservatives of the United States of America



DELEGATION: The Conservatives

TITLE OF BILL: The Well-Regulated Militia Act

Be it enacted by the xxx Congress,

WHEREAS the federal government of the United States of America has been in clear and blatant violation of Second Amendment of the United States Constitution, which states:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

The laws outlined in the United States Constitution have primacy over any state, county or city laws, and any laws in contravention to the United States Constitution are unconstitutional and a violation of the constitutional rights of all affected. This is substantiated in the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, Article 5:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Under such authority, federal law shall override any and all other laws on bearing arms.

SECTION 1: THE MILITIA The “Militia”, as referenced in the United States Constitution, is illuminated by the Founding Fathers and the Framers of the United States Constitution:

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” -George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Volume 3, June 16, 1788

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788.

“The right of the people to keep and bear … arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country…”
— James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

Clearly, the Militia is not the federal or state military, nor any city, county, state or federal police force. All American citizens are considered militia, and viewed, historically, as being “…necessary to the security of a free State,” Active, reserve or guard members of any branch of the United States’ armed forces are not considered members of the Militia, and, in accordance with “…except for a few public officials.”, members of government and law enforcement are also not considered part of the militia.

SECTION 2: ARMS CONTROL It is unconstitutional for the federal government, or any other government, to attempt in infringe upon the right of the Militia to bear arms, in accordance with:

Congress have no power to disarm the militia…[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe, the Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788.

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress…to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…” -Samuel Adams

Subsection 1: WEAPONS No weapon can be banned from public purchase by the Militia, including, for instance, rifles, pistols, fully automatic weapons, mortars, cannons, bladed weapons or explosives.  Special weaponry, such as CBRN (Chemical Biological Radiological Nuclear) weaponry (not including riot control chemicals, such as mace), however, is prohibited. No law will be made to restrict the Militia from purchasing allowed weaponry, nor will any lower jurisdictions be permitted to contradict federal law in restricting the purchase of allowed weaponry.

Subsection 2: AMMUNITION No law will be made to restrict the Militia from purchasing ammunition, nor will any lower jurisdictions be permitted to contradict federal law in restricting the purchase of ammunition for weaponry.

Subsection 3: EQUIPMENT No constitutional authority exists for Congress to ban members of the Militia from purchasing body armor, or other similar forms of protective equipment.

Subsection 4: OPEN AND CONCEALED CARRY No constitutional authority exists for Congress to ban members of the Militia from openly carrying, or carrying weapons under concealment, nor will any lower jurisdictions be permitted to contradict federal law in open or concealed carrying of weaponry. This applies to carry on-person, as well as carry in privately owned vehicles. Federally regulated transportation corporations, such as airlines and trains, are to make provisions they deem reasonable for members of the Militia to carry weapons on board aircraft and trains, as determined by the corporations, in consultation with the federal government.

Subsection 5: WELL-REGULATED Background checks are, and will remain necessary, to purchase any firearm. This will be expanded to include all weapons, included such things as bladed weapons. Anyone convicted of a felony will not be regarded as “well-regulated”, and banned from recognition as a member of the militia. If caught with a weapon, they can face criminal charges, at the discretion of the federal government, depending on the nature of the offense that was committed. Anyone convicted of a misdemeanor offense that is more serious than a traffic offense (not intoxicant related, naturally) will not be regarded as “well-regulated”, and banned from recognition as a member of the militia. If caught with a weapon, they can face criminal charges, at the discretion of the federal government, depending on the nature of the offense that was committed. Anyone diagnosed to have any mental illness that renders them considered a danger to themselves or society, including psychopathy, sociopathy, narcissistic personality disorders, suicidal history, etc., will not be regarded as “well-regulated”, and banned from recognition as a member of the militia. If caught with a weapon, they can face criminal charges, at the discretion of the federal government, depending on the nature of the offense that was committed. Anyone that is found to have had any background in terrorism, even if committed in, and against, another country, shall be in violation of Subsection 3. Anyone found to have been involved in an organization, currently involved in an organization, or individually involved in violations of 18 U.S. Code § 521 shall be in violation of Subsection 3.

Subsection 6: UNLAWFUL DISARMAMENT OR INFRINGEMENT OF RIGHTS. Any unconstitutional and/or unlawful attempt to deprive a member of the Militia of their rights, as outlined in this law, and the United States Constitution, shall be considered a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law, and punished accordingly, by federal law.

SECTION 3: ORGANIZING THE MILITIA. In accordance with the “Organizing the Militia Clause” of Section 8 of the Constitution of the United States of America, the United States Congress has the enumerated responsibility:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”

Subsection 1: ORGANIZING AND ARMING. Towards the ends of providing for organizing and arming the Militia, Militias, as organizations, will be given the responsibility of applying for federal identification credentials. In turn, they will be responsible for providing individual credentials to members, at their own expense. These organizational and individual credentials will be provided after a background investigation to insure all applicants are in compliance with Section 2, Subsection 3, and applicants are responsible for providing their own documentation necessary for this investigation (such as documentation from a psychiatric professional assuring that there are no dangerous mental illnesses seen in psychiatric evaluation), in the cases of individuals. The federal government will assume the responsibility for criminal background investigation. Organizational credentials will be issued by the federal government by an individual credential holder, and are necessary for organizations of 2, or more, in size, and shall recognize the organization as a private Militia “unit” registered in that State. Any holder of these credentials will be recognized as an “active” member of a Militia. If the holder moves to another State, they will still be recognized as an individual of the Militia, but must get credentialed by a “unit” in their new State of residence, to be recognized as a member. The unit that they leave will revoke any, and all, membership credentials. Those that do not have credentials are not automatically assumed to not be in the Militia, as the Militia is considered the whole of the nation’s citizenry, by the words of George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Volume 3, June 16, 1788. A holder of credentials will be considered in compliance with Section 2, Subsection 3 of this act. Presentation of these credentials during a weapons purchase exempts the holder from any taxation related to the purchase of any weapons, of any type, as well as the ability to sell weapons to fellow holders, without being subject to taxation of the transaction. Pricing for credentials will be based on .1% of individual annual gross income. Records of credentials will be maintained with the United States Department of Homeland Security and the United States Department of Defense. Honorably discharged Veterans of the United States armed forces do not need to purchase individual credentials to enjoy the benefits available to registered members of the Militia.  Honorably discharged Veterans of the United States armed forces can get individual credentials free of charge, upon submitting application.

Subsection 2: DISCIPLINE. In disciplining the Militia forces of the United States of America, no individual or organizational credentials will be issued to any one, or any organization, not in compliance with Section 2, Subsection 3 of this act. Any that hold credentials while not in compliance shall be committing a violation of 18 U.S. Code § 521, regardless of the numbers (whereas, under normal circumstances, at least 5 individuals are required), punishable by federal law. Any violations in conjunction to this – such as illegal purchase or sales of weapons, illegal transport of weapons, etc – shall also be subject to penalty under federal law. The federal government will have the responsibility of annually reviewing any and, all credentials, and revoking those of anyone convicted of a crime that leaves them in violation of Section 2, Subsection 3. The Militias have the responsibility to suspend the credentials they’ve granted to anyone under criminal investigation for a crime, or crimes, that would render them in violation of Section 2, Subsection 3. Failure to do so will result in the federal government permanently revoking the Militia credentials, recognizing that unit, and leaving them liable to criminal prosecution if they continue operations in defiance of their lack of credentials. The United States reserves the right to activate any, and all, registered Militia units or individuals, and once activated, such units will operate under the codes of conduct of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Any misconduct, or allegations of misconduct, that transpires while in Service of the United States shall be subject to review and possible criminal penalties, as appropriate to the offense. The United States does not have the enumerated, constitutional power to deploy a Militia into other countries, unless there is an Act of Congress issuing a Letter of Marque and Reprisal. An Act of Congress issuing a Letter of Marque and Reprisal can also cover domestic operations, as well.

Subsection 3: APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA. State governments shall assume the responsibility of appointing officers from the Militias who shall have the responsibility of interfacing with appropriate members of State Legislatures at requested times. The body of officers shall be composed of 2 members of each Militia from the State, chosen by the Legislature thereof for two years; and each Senator shall have one Vote. State legislatures do not have any authority over the Militia, outside of the law, and cannot deploy them, however, through the Officers, they can make requests for assistance from any and all in-State Militia forces. These forces shall be subject to State law, when in the Service of the State.

Subsection 4: THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA. Militias, as an additional contingent of attaining both unit and individual credentials must provide proof of proficiency in arms. These shall be standards prescribed by the State’s United States Army National Guard. Officials from the State’s United States Army National Guard shall be appointed to audit Militia units to insure training standards are maintained, as well as to establish that those standards have been met, in an effort to attain credentials. Any Militia that fails to meet these standards shall either be given failing reviews, which will prevent them from attaining credentials, or prevent them from renewing credentials. At their own expense, a Militia can request a MTT (Mobile Training Team) from the United States Army National Guard to assist in training, or to impart new skills. This can be made by an credentialed Militia to any State, even if it is not State of residence. The Militia is also empowered to create and deploy their own MTTs (Mobile Training Teams) of credentialed Militiamen to any other city or State to train other Militias.

SECTION 4: ENACTMENT The enactment of this bill will be 6 months from the day it is signed into law by the President of the United States of America.

Like I said:  nightmare material for liberals.

liberal screaming trump

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


Guns, and the Liberals that Hate People that Have Them

•October 5, 2017 • 31 Comments

You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” -Rahm Emanuel, failed mayor of a failed city, known as Chiraq.

That is what liberals (and you know who you are) are doing at this very moment, in response to the shootings in Las Vegas, perpetrated by a man that was very obviously mentally deranged.  In their typical knee-jerk response modes, they blame the gun and the gun industry and the so-called “Gun Lobby” for the shootings.
Why is that?
Another meme states:
The liberal always blames the gun, and anyone that has one, even if they lived on the other side of the country.  Take this no-talent imbecile:
So he’s doing what liberals do.
He, and other leftists in the LEC (Liberal Entertainment Complex) and Congress are standing on the bodies of the dead, in order to score political points.  Liberals are incapable of making rational, reasoned arguments to support points, and there are reasons for that:
1:  They’re not rational.  Anybody that thinks that they can simply declare when someone is to be considered a living, Human Being is definitely not rational.
2:  They have no powers of reason.  Any political party that allows a person like this to remain in a lawmaking capacity:
is definitely lacking in reason.
3:  They really don’t have any points.  Trying to craft legislation to punish millions for something they haven’t done is about as pointless and senseless as it gets (but we are talking about people that literally murdered members of the US Army in an insurrection so they could keep Black people as slaves, after all, and helped the Nazis after World War 2, so this can’t really be that shocking).
Let’s also not forget that Kimmel is also the no-talent son-of-a-bitch that stood on the still living body of his own son to hawk socialist health care (something that a rich person like himself would never get into, because he can just pay for everything with cash, leaving everyone else to suffer and die under a health care system like a nationwide VA on cocktail of bad steroids and bath salts).  Oh, and he’s not even smart enough to craft his own arguments; he had to consult with a genius like Chuck – the “Schmuck” – Schumer to stick his hand up his ass, and work his mouth like a puppet.
I’d be embarrassed having to admit that I’m too stupid to formulate my own thoughts on a matter that I claim to be so important to me, but, we are talking about liberals, who are, by definition, to mentally unaware to experience things like shame.
Me, personally, I’m a Constitutional Originalist, and consider The Federalist Papers a valid source of intel on the U.S. Constitution, as well (and the writers of the U.S. Constitution and it’s amendments also made their own notes).
Originalism is a method of constitutional interpretation that focuses on how a provision of a constitution would have been understood at the time of its ratification.
I accept the wisdom of the Framers and the Founders, on this matter, not the people that want to re-write their words to tickle their own personal fancies:
“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams (a relative of mine!), Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
And, even though he’s one of the Framers I like least, because he didn’t believe Blacks had the same rights as Whites:
“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
“On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed.”
Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, 12 June 1823
And my great^6 granddad:
john adams on guns
My great^6 grandpappy!
And let’s not forget BIG DADDY GEORGE:
george mason on guns
“I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
George Mason, Virginia Declaration of Rights, June 12 1776
And let’s not forget PAT:
patrick henry on guns
“Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
Patrick Henry, Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution
And now, let’s look at the “wisdom” of the modern liberal of the Slave Party, all of whom feign respect for the Founders and the Framers (and most couldn’t tell you the difference between the two groups):
Then there’s not-funny, arch-racist, so-called “comedienne” Sarah Silverman:
Liberals like to say the stupidest, most outrageously evil things, then run and hide behind “I’m a comedian!  It’s comedy!  It’s satire!” to avoid the consequences of what they say and do.  I won’t accept that, and neither did this guy, Colion Noir:
Let’s get down to brass tax.  The Slave Party – to which people like Jimmy Kimmel and his ex-girlfriend Sarah Silverman (http://pagesix.com/2017/06/02/how-sarah-silverman-realized-her-relationship-with-kimmel-was-over/) belong – is the source of racism and ethnic strife in this country.  They pioneered racist domestic terrorism and institutionalized racism, and have perpetuated this, to this very day, in a political party in which racism and racial superiority is considered a BEDROCK FOUNDING PRINCIPLE (a fact that Slave Party liberals hide, or pretend they don’t know about, to this very day).
Let’s look at the real reason the Slave Party didn’t want Blacks to have firearms, enjoy the right to self protection, and still don’t want people they consider “racially” inferior to have those rights:
The Ku Klux Klan – a Slave Party paramilitary terrorist organization – have not only targeted Blacks and other “people of color”, but Whites that were considered political and/or ideological “opponents”.  Yes, that means that if you didn’t speak and believe as they dictated you to, you were considered just as low as a Black person, or, as liberals call us, “niggers”, and were marked for death, just like they/we are.
Today, this discrimination still persists.  Not only do you see White liberals like Silverman exposing herself, while hiding behind the words “comedy” and “satire”, not only do you see the true sellouts (slaves that dropped the dime on other slaves for not doing their “master’s” bidding), but you have the Slave Party looking to disarm every single member of the population that ideologically disagrees with them.  This means if you’re an actual Christian (not a lip service one, like the Obamas and Clintons), if you believe in the Constitution, a Veteran, etc.  Take a look for yourself:
You’re only kidding yourself, if you think terrorism comes from Conservatism, the “Right Wing”, or the “Far Right”.
true political spectrum2
In fact, you’re outright lying to yourselves, if you believe that.
People, pardon the pun, but stick to your guns.  Don’t let liberals lead you to believe that the actions of a few should dictate how the majority should be treated.  Don’t let them convince you that the criminal minority should change how the law-abiding majority should be dealt with.  I’m sure liberals won’t like this post, but:
tough shit2
You should know, by now, that this blog doesn’t exist to please you.
You can keep spreading lies about America and gun violence, but statistics (things you claim – falsely – to like) show you to be liars:
You like to say stupid things like:  “If you don’t like gay marriage, don’t get one”, well, the same logic applies to you:  “If you don’t like guns, don’t buy one, asshole.”  Conservatives want a society where people are armed and responsible.  An example of that is Plaino, TX.
Whittle points out that Plano, Texas with a population of 273,000 people, has a murder rate of only 0.4 per 100,000 people. He also mentions that they are one of the most heavily armed cities in the nation. Go figure!
Then, you’ve got leftist enclaves like Detroit, which observe leftist ideals on “gun control”:
Where does the US place on the worldwide murder rate? America came in at 111th place with only 4.7 murders per 100,000 people as of 2012 figures and the only reason we rank that high is because of the murder rates in Democratically controlled gun restricted cities like Detroit with a murder and non-negligent manslaughter rate of 54.6 per 100,000 people. As Bill Whittle points out in the video below, if Detroit was its own country it just beat out Venezuela as the second highest murder rate in the world. Whittle goes on to show a list of 13 cities in the US that are run by Democrats and have strict anti-gun laws who have murder rates far greater than the national average.
Conservatives want a society where people can protect themselves.  From each other, and from overreaching, unconstitutional and tyrannical government.
Liberals want everyone they don’t like disarmed or murdered by overreaching, unconstitutional and tyrannical government.  Liberals want only (some) police and military units to have firearm access.  Where did we see something like that, before?  Oh, yeah!:
No wonder you Slave Party Democrats like violent, racist socialists so much.
In any event, I’m sure Conservatives know all this, and accept logic and reality.  The liberals reading this, however, are either completely ignorant of it, downright stupid, or simply refuse to accept reality, because it interferes with something more important to them:  their narrative.  Stricter gun laws are demonstrably not what this country needs to stop gun crime, or murder, in general.  Cain, the world’s first murderer (and probably first Human liberal) committed his crime – 2nd degree murder – with a stone.
The problem isn’t guns.  It’s the people holding them.  Don’t blame the weapon, blame the murderer.  Leftists, after taking over things like the public school system, have made a full-court press to drive out things like any positive acknowledgment of Christendom, or even patriotism.  Tell me, liberals, how many mass shootings like the one in Las Vegas or Columbine High School occurred during the days of school prayer?  You’ve cheapened life, and outright devalued it.  How many people have you murdered, through abortion, all under the guise excuse that unborn children aren’t Human?
Sure, there are mental illness problems, but we can’t trust liberals to institute systems for that, either, because the first thing you’ll do is declare everyone not like yourselves mentally ill, and incapable of making rational decisions, like how and when to use firearms.  No, the problem is deeper than that.  There is a sickness in the souls of you virtually soulless people.  A disease called evil.  You devalue life, you call evil good, and good evil.  You raise kids in your backwards, twisted ideology, and wonder why they are so violent, murderous and have such utter contempt for all life, including yours, and their own.  Then, instead of blaming yourselves, you blame God, the Bible, Christians, Conservatives, Rrepublicans and GUNS.  We look at you, and see you for the dangerous, twisted losers you really are.  You look at yourselves, and each other, and you see superior, enlightened beings that must take over all society, and re-make it in your own image, regardless of what other people want.  Until you can accept reality, the biggest threat to this country doesn’t come from without, but from within, and that threat is you.
“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.”

-President Abraham Lincoln, 1st Republican president (though liberals like to falsely claim he was part of the Slave Party), murdered by a liberal that was angry he fought to preserve the rights of others liberals didn’t believe deserved Human rights or dignity.

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

Why I’m Done with the So-Called “Conservative Party USA”

•October 4, 2017 • Leave a Comment

I’m done with you guys.


You’ve shown that you’re nothing but the Rrepublican Party Lite(weights), and that’s not what I’m into.  I left the (NS)GOP, because they weren’t Conservative, and they’ve made it clear they don’t want me associated with their party.


Now, your failure to change some of your policies have shown me that you people in the “Conservative” Party, USA are no more “conservative” than your Rrepublican brethren.  I am officially distancing myself from the Conservative Party USA, for it’s lack of Conservatism. These are non-negotiable issues:

“CUT DEPT OF EDUCATION: Reduce DOE’s budget and staff by 15% every year for the next five years. This highly inefficient and bloated bureaucracy has a staff exceeding 4,200 and a $137B annual budget. It has contributed little to educating America’s children as evidenced by declining test scores and high drop-out rates. Let the states manage education.”
If they were real Conservatives,
they’d realize that the federal government has no enumerated, constitutional authority to control education, and when another leftist steps in, they’ll just put everything they take out, right back in. The Department of Education, started by Jew-hating liberal James Earl Carter,
needed to be ENDED. NOW.  Not just have it’s budget reduced.  Stop the government indoctrination, because it only turns out stupid people that worship government.
CUT FOREIGN AID – NOW: Reduce Foreign Aid by 20% in 2012 and by 10% in each of the next four years. Cut our U.N. annual contributions by 20%. The President and the State Department can decide which countries get reduced aid. America can’t afford to support all these third-world countries, many of whom actually hate us.”
Nope. End it, don’t cut it. The Constitution does not give any branch the power to take taxpayer monies out of our Treasury, and put into another country’s treasury, unless it’s in repayment of debt, or if it can be shown that this is something that actually furthers national defense.  This is not a Conservative policy, and the CPUSA has it completely wrong, in their espousing of ‘reduced’ leftism.  Leftism is leftism.  If you spend one dollar, instead of two, on something you shouldn’t be spending any on, you’re still wrong.
DEFUND AND REPEAL OBAMACARE: Defund key enforcement provisions of “ObamaCare”. This includes withholding funds for the 120 new Departments required by this Bill and the hiring of thousands of IRS agents needed to enforce its Mandate. Withhold those funds until there are enough votes in Congress to enact a full repeal and to override a Presidential veto. Start fresh with a new Bill.”
Still wrongheaded. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to meddle in health care. There should be no “new bill” after a complete repeal. Health care is to remain in the hands of the People, and their privacy from Big Government intrusion is to be maintained.
Not only are the people running the CP-USA (which sounds very much like the Communist Party – USA), consistently wrong, they are quite uneducated.
MODIFY SOCIAL SECURITY: Impose means testing for people with net worth exceeding $5M or annual disposable income of $500K; increase the eligibility age from 65 to 67.”
No. A poorly conceived program from a socialist leftist, it needs to be ended, altogether, as it is a completely unconstitutional, unsuccessful boondoggle that is helping drive the country broke.  It is not the job of the federal government to plan retirement for the People, it is the job of the PEOPLE to plan their own retirement programs.  If you can put money into Big Government coffers (which you really don’t get back),
you can purchase your own Roth IRAs, Certificates of Deposit, Individual Retirement Accounts, etc., and make your own decisions on what you do with your own money.  If you can’t, you can hire people to help you with that.  Banks and credit unions do this, every day.
“FIX MEDICARE AND MEDICAID: While very popular, these programs are bankrupting America in their current configuration. Their top-line spending must be cut across the board by 2% every year for the next 10 years (with NO adjustment for inflation) to ensure they’ll be available for our children.”
So, let me get this straight:  it’s bankrupting us…
…so the answer to that is to spend less on this unfunded liability program set that’s completely unconstitutional?  As opposed to, oh, like, STOPPING all the spending, in the first place, at the federal level for this?  Again, unconstitutional and wrong.  This is something only a leftist would want.  False Conservatives, who are left leaning, think that an unconstitutional program like this can be made constitutional by “fixing” it. No, they’re only trying to insert their own agendas into it.  Like Rrepublicans, the people in this party of fake conservatives don’t want to fix anything, they just want to manage the decline.
Nope.  No more of this.  I am a Conservative.
And I will not compromise my Conservative principles.  I am officially and completely independent, unless there is an actual, CONSERVATIVE party that espouses actual Conservatism.
great seal of virus x


A No Longer United States

•September 24, 2017 • Leave a Comment

trigger warning

So, it appears that both Leftists and Conservatives are wondering what the US would be like if the Union failed, and we were divided into separate ideologically-driven nations. Well, let’s look at a map.

trump states

Specifically, this is the map depicting what states the beloved Donald Trump won,



several months ago, back in the election against the beloved Hillary Clinton.



Now, let’s look at an article written by a clearly biased liberal, on this very subject, and fisk it, in the process.

If the United States split into two countries – one liberal and one conservative – what would each country look like 100 years from now?

Patricia Collins, Student of progressive, conservative, libertarian, communist, … politics


If the U.S. split into two countries, one with the more liberal populace and culture and the other with the more conservative populace and culture…

  • Geography influences politics. Rural areas are more conservative. Agricultural areas are more conservative. Metropolitan areas are more liberal. Strips of megalopolis are more liberal. It seems inherent in the options for livelihood provided by the geography that they would strongly influence the values, socioeconomic structures, and centralization vs. decentralization of government.

First of all, the country probably couldn’t break up into 2.  More like 5, looking at that map.  As for geography having such a big influence on politics, no, not really.  I, myself, was born in a bastion of liberality:  Highland Park, MI, a “suburb” of Detroit, Michigan, which has steadily declined under it’s steady succession of leftist mayors and city councils.


As anyone that knows me, personally, or reads my stuff on social media:  I’m as Conservative, as the day is long.  (Unless you talk to a trumpanzee.  They say I’m a far left liberal, because I didn’t vote for, or blindly support their far left liberal from New York, Donald Trump.)  My whole family is a pack of liberals, and I am not, nor have I ever been.  Don’t ask me why, but geography had nothing to do with it, and I had no real role models of Conservatism, when I was growing up, until I went into the Army, and even then, politics wasn’t a gigantic subject with us.  Also, there are several major metropolitan areas/cities that are pretty Conservative, including Mesa, AZ, Oklahoma City, OK, Virginia Beach, VA (OK, that one I have doubts about, but I’ll just entertain this), Colorado Springs, CO, Jacksonville, FL, Arlington, TX and others.


And, there are some pretty rural areas that are tragically liberal, including Maui County, HI, Shannon County, SD, Jefferson County, MS (which also happens to be a home to the Loyal White Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, another liberal organization, so I guess it’s a great fit), Franklin County, MA, etc.


When the division come to make new countries, it’s not going to a city or county level event.

It seems inherent in the options for livelihood provided by the geography that they would strongly influence the values, socioeconomic structures, and centralization vs. decentralization of government.

More leftist bunk.  I am not, nor have I ever been, a farmer, nor lived on a farm.  I’ve spent a lot of my time living in cities, and have moved to townships, now, because they’re smaller, less developed, quieter, and not filled with the types of scum that you generally can easily find in the cities.  I have never craved Big Government, or Big Government handouts, or programs.  Moving to live in townships did not change my sociopolitical outlook, at all.  Your profession doesn’t make you who you are.  I’m living proof of that, just as I’m living proof that environment doesn’t make your sociopolitical outlook, either. I’ve worked alongside Conservatives, I’ve worked alongside liberals, all in the same professions.

  • Resources influence politics. Currently, poor areas are more likely to have limited diversity in their economies. Those areas vote more conservatively. While it might be possible to talk about an “equal split” of mineral resources, it is not possible to talk about an equal split of human talent (same number of scientists, high-tech engineers, farmers, coal miners, entertainers, etc.). Statistically, people in one profession tend to be more/less conservative/liberal. Neither would we have an equal split in terms of cultural diversity, with 50% of Blacks, for example, embracing conservative dogma.

Somebody I won’t mention (Patricia Collins) has been drinking, and drinking heavily. And guess what she was drinking.


This, according to CBS, is a list of some of the poorest cities.


Louisville, KY has a predilection for liberal mayors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Louisville,_Kentucky).

Boston, Massachusetts:  another unfortunate metropolis of poor liberal idiots that keep electing rich liberal idiots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Boston).

Hey, maybe Indianapolis, IN might be more Conservative?  Not quite.  They vascillate pretty badly, and their government doesn’t show much of a Conservative leaning, in their elections (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Indianapolis).

El Paso, Texas?  Not looking like it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_El_Paso,_Texas

Fresno, CA?  Possibly, there.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresno,_California#Mayor

Baltimore, MD?  Not a chance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Baltimore.

Tucson, AZ?  Looking pretty split (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Tucson,_Arizona).

Memphis, TN? Nope (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Memphis,_Tennessee).

Philadelphia, PN?  They had a long stretch of Republican mayors.  Back in the 1800s through the 1940s.  Not anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Philadelphia.

Milwaukee, Wisconsin? Dude, those bastards elected SOCIALISTS.

socialist party usa symbol

ENEMIES of America that should’ve been put against walls and SHOT:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_Milwaukee.

Then, there’s Detroit, MI.  If you think that’s a Conservative or Republican city, you’re too stupid to talk to, much less too stupid to read this article, and understand it.  Stop now, and go back to watching Sesame Street for your sociopolitical opinions.


This person, quite obviously, does little, or no, research, before writing things on the Internet, to authoritatively answer someone’s question.  Just a few minutes of research pretty much debunked everything, here.  Very few of the poorest cities had any inclination to vote Republican, and the documentation came from a noted liberal, slanted source of information, Wikipedia.

Furthermore, if you want to look at resources influencing politics, liberals are very much against fossil fuels, and the projects they do support are downright silly.  The states that would form the remainder of the United States (I’m not calling it the Conservative States of America) have lots of natural resources, in the form of things like oil shale, oil reserves, natural gas, etc.  Fracking is a newer way to access those resources, and liberals adamantly oppose that.  California had access to those resources, but oppose using them. Instead, liberals want to rely on pipe dreams of entire cities being powered by solar panels…


and wind turbines.



Hell, liberals even want to pave their roads with solar panels.


Which, let me tell you, would be COST PROHIBITIVE to anyone with a LICK of sense.

In comparison to a United States that taps all its resources, is energy independent, and can export enough energy to destabilize OPEC, overtaking it as the world’s leading energy producer, the liberal countries would be very, very poor, and probably trying to get foreign aid from the United States.

Statistically, people in one profession tend to be more/less conservative/liberal.

Funny how she doesn’t show that ‘statistic’ she claims to exist.  But, I guess making unverified statements is part of liberal dogma.

So, I’m going to put those constraints aside and simply ponder where we’d be in 100 years if Conservatives went off to form their own country and the Liberals did the same.

First of all, she’s making it sound like the Conservative is the separatist movement.  Sure, there are some Republicans making those noises, but I haven’t heard any Conservatives making noise like that.  In fact, let’s not forget that the Democrat Party Slave Party IS a separatist party.  They literally turned coat on their country, stole land, and went on a mass murder spree called the “American Civil War” to preserve the land they illegally and unconstitutionally stole, as well as preserve their illusion of inherent supremacy by virtue of being White, in kidnapping, torturing, raping and murdering Black people, simply because they weren’t White.  And I’m quite sure Patricia Collins is as white as they come.

slave ship meme 1

The Conservative States of America would not, as a whole, be wealthier than the Liberal States of America. But some individuals would be extraordinarily wealthy.

Patricia Collins is looking at the state of national wealth through a very uneducated, biased lens.  As I’ve demonstrated with examples, many of the poorest cities in the country are run by people like her:  liberals.  Not too many of the cities that were on the list of the poorest (as provided by a leftist television network) had much of a Republican lean.  Nations created by leftists, here, would probably fare no better.  The economic decisions made by liberal members of Congress and the Executive Branch have done nothing but impoverish the country, as a whole, and there’s no reason this would change once they got their own countries, because liberals like that kind of thing.  As for “extraordinarily wealthy” individuals, many more of those would be leftists, considering they are people with no real, marketable job skills, like Gloria Estefan, Tyler Perry, Mel Gibson (no, he’s not Conservative; racist Jew haters are liberals), Johnny Depp, Mariah Carey, Tom Cruise, Jay Z the drug dealing rcrapper, Dr. Dre, P Dummy Diddy, Jerry Seinfeld, “Tiger” Woods and Madonna.


And when people like that that have no choice but to sing for their supper, because they’re too stupid to know how to pump gas in their own cars, they should also realize they’re living in a nation that believes people like them should be taxes far more heavily.


Liberals, as demonstrated by Obama in this clip, believe that you increase the standards of living and success for others, by detracting from the standards and living of others that are already successful.  They can lie and say it isn’t, all they want, but, yes, it is punishing success, and it is a a big demotivator.

Economics is not the liberal forte.


Liberals love the most deeply taxed countries, such as Denmark and Sweden, as evidenced by the fact that they support politicians that love Denmark and Sweden.


Their tax rates are exorbitant.


People that actually know something about economics, though, see right through the facade.



In the video, you see that socialist countries that are American allies are having their national defense bankrolled by America.  Breakaway countries that were formerly America would not have that benefit (and I doubt the counties that already have them would keep them).  We all know leftists put very little value on national defense, and de-prioritize spending on it for unfunded liabilities, which outpaces defense spending, by far, but no liberal will ever admit it, even when looking at the numbers.

U.S. Federal spending and revenue components for fiscal year 2016

Liberals insist on cradle-to-grave entitlements, such as a right to a house                              (https://www.nesri.org/programs/what-is-the-human-right-to-housing), right to health care (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/health-care-is-a-right-no_b_212770.html), right to money                                                                                                   (https://www.ted.com/conversations/14456/why_basic_income_should_become.html)        (http://www.businessinsider.com/man-behind-hawaii-basic-income-bill-2017-7), right to food (http://www.worldhunger.org/right-food-basic-human-right/), etc., and even a right to Internet access (https://gizmodo.com/internet-access-is-now-a-basic-human-right-1783081865).

While pushing socialism, they neglect to mention that a lot of other socialist countries are going BROKE.


Sure, liberals all say everybody else isn’t doing socialism “right”, and they can do it better, but we all know they’re full of crap.  Looking at the economic policies favored by the liberal, they would have an impoverished, militarily weak police state of a nation, very quickly.

Conservatives include more of the extremely wealthy individuals, heads of corporations, heads of agribusiness and fossil fuel conglomerates.

See, this is what happens when you let Patricia Collins post, after drinking un-distilled juice of horse crap.  Bill Gates, with a net worth of over $80,000,000,000.00 USD is a staunch liberal that calls for the world population to be reduced.

Jeff Bezos:  net worth $67,000,000,000.00 USD appears to have not a Conservative bone in his body (https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/08/the-politics-of-new-i-washington-post-i-owner-jeff-bezos/278385/).  Warren Buffett:  net worth $65,500,000,000.00 USD.  Big backer of leftist causes and individuals (https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/summary.php?id=D000021757).  Mark Zuckerberg: net worth $55,500,000,000.00 USD.  Bigtime liberal (https://townhall.com/columnists/michaelbrown/2016/05/23/is-facebooks-mark-zuckerberg-a-wellintended-liberal-with-a-massive-blind-spot-n2167114).  Bigtime leftist sugar daddy (https://www.opensecrets.org/search?q=mark+zuckerberg&type=donors). Also a Rothchild.  Larry Page of Google has a net worth of $38,500,000,000.00 USD and is in bed with the Slave Party (https://www.cnet.com/news/google-learns-its-democratic-political-ties-have-bounds/). There’s Lloyd Blankfein, of Goldman Sachs.

Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs (GS). Ideology score: 4.9L. That’s right, the Wall Street banker who runs a firm vilified as the “great vampire squid” has liberal leanings. But he doesn’t lean as far left as he used to. Since 2008, Blankfein has donated to both Republicans (Sen. Rob Portman, Sen. Richard Shelby, former House Majority Leader Eric Cantor) and Democrats (Sen. Gary Peters, Rep. Greg Meeks). But Blankfein was more consistently Democratic before the financial crisis, giving to big names such as Hillary Clinton (then a New York senator), Sen. Charles Schumer of New York and former Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut. Blankfein’s biggest check, $28,500, went to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2007—a pre-crisis year that may have represented peak bonhomie between Democrats and Wall Street. His donations to both parties have shrunk considerably since then.

It’s worth noting that two other Wall Street CEOs — James Gorman of Morgan Stanley (MS) and Jamie Dimon of J.P. Morgan Chase (JPM) –ranked 6 and 7 among the most liberal CEOs, just behind Blankfein. While it’s obviously ironic that money men who gripe relentlessly about Washington overregulating Wall Street tend to be liberal, much of it probably has to do with the region they operate in. Both the city and state of New York are largely represented by Democrats, which means Wall Streeters must donate to the left if they want to support home-state politicians.


Hey, how about Google?

1. Larry Page, Google (GOOGL): 10L. Page doesn’t typically donate to candidates, but he has given money to campaigns in California supporting same-sex marriage and alternative energy. His biggest contribution on record was a $1 million donation in 2006 to help support Proposition 87, a ballot measure that would have taxed oil producers in the state in order to raise funds for research into alternative energy. Voters defeated the measure.

So it looks like more of Patricia Collins’  statements are continually adding up to nothing more than unsubstantiated, if not blatantly untrue, leftist dogma.  In fact, it’s looking more and more like a lot of billionaires are rich leftists, that prefer other rich leftists.

shocked face



And, coincidentally, they wouldn’t be living in the Conservative country.  This covers her lie of individuals and corporations being controlled by those dastardly, miserly Conservatives.


By continuing to concentrate the wealth in the hands of a few, the other current demographic of Conservatives (more White, less formal education, more members of the “Silent Generation”) would not be able to achieve their own socioeconomic improvement.

She’s projecting, again.  I named a lot of billionaires, and they were all liberals.  In fact, looking at this list:


…show me one that isn’t liberal?  Or White?  Most of them have “formal”, college educations, too.  Looking back at the poor liberal cities I’d previously listed, it certainly doesn’t look like they’re using their wealth to help them.  It’s also quite clear Patricia Collins is one of those pompous imbeciles that think she’s smarter than Conservatives, just because she holds a smug and arrogant belief that her sociopolitical ideology is the only right one, and anyone disputing her is stupid, somehow.


They could be forced to take very low-paying jobs like restaurant dishwashers, field hands, unskilled construction workers, and housecleaners. The wealthiest citizens would insist on having this kind of cheap labor.

This is ironic, considering liberals are staunchly opposed to allowing people to take their children out of bad public schools, and putting them into better charter or private schools.







No, liberals believe you have some duty to keep your kids in public schools, where they can be taught Common Core (http://www.corestandards.org/) and the virtues of being a homosexual (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/19/lgbt-history-california-first-to-teach/).  Another reason behind this mentality is that as long as you’re being forced to fund liberal-dominated public schools, they can continue to make contributions to the political campaigns of people just like them.  And the people just like them in power can continue to issue unfair (and unconstitutional laws and mandates, giving liberal owned and operated public school systems precedence, so they can keep funneling money into liberal political coffers.  A viscous cycle that hurts children, and, ultimately, hurts a country.  Theirs would suffer greatly.  Products of those substandard, liberal schools would become the “…restaurant dishwashers, field hands, unskilled construction workers, and housecleaners…” and “…cheap labor…” to those people I outlined earlier:  leftist billionaires, who, almost universally, put their kids through private schools.

In exchange, the citizens would pay lower taxes than in the LSA (but not lower compared with the wealthiest CSA citizens & corporations).

A falsehood I’ve already addressed.  With the infantalized mentality of the liberal, requiring Big Government to survive, they would need cradle-to-grave “entitlements”, and those aren’t cheap.  Leftists look to socialist nations that tax their citizens so heavily, they have very little take-home money.  Liberals can claim it’s to help the middle class” (we don’t have classes in this country, contrary to what class warfare minded liberals want and believe), but this isn’t true, and their (current) favorite politician even admitted this, during an election campaign.

So, no.  A nation run by liberals would not have lower taxes, because this statement runs contrary – and is alien to – the liberal mind:

“A government which lays taxes on the people not required by urgent public necessity and sound public policy is not a protector of liberty, but an instrument of tyranny.”  -President Calvin Coolidge

Liberals see taxation as the road to prosperity.

Winston Churchill said:

“I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.”

President Ronald Wilson Reagan once said:

“You can’t be for big government, big taxes, and big bureaucracy and still be for the little guy.”

President Calvin Coolidge went on to say about confiscatory taxation:

“It condemns the citizen to servitude. One of the first signs of the breaking down of a free government is a disregard by the taxing power of the right of the people to their own property. It makes little difference whether such a condition is brought about through will of a dictator, through the power of a military force, or through the pressure of an organized minority. The result is the same. Unless the people can enjoy that reasonable security in the possession of their property, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, against unreasonable taxation, freedom is at an end. The common man is restrained and hampered in his ability to secure food and clothing and shelter. His wages are decreased, his hours are lengthened. Against the recurring tendency in this direction there must be interposed the constant effort of an informed electorate and of patriotic public servants. The importance of a constant reiteration of these principles cannot be overestimated.”

Another example of leftist mythology Patricia Collins perpetuates in the mythological Liberal Utopia:

They would be able to get whatever health care they could afford.

Well, considering they would have the money taxed out of them to pay for government rationed health care, it’s not looking very affordable.

OBAMACARE LOOKS shaky, mostly because Republicans are sabotaging it. This, in turn, has rekindled calls on the left to create a European-style “single-payer” system, in which the government directly pays for every American’s health care. California lawmakers, for example, are considering such a plan for their state.

The single-payer model has some strong advantages. It is much simpler for most people — no more insurance forms or related hassles. Employers would no longer be mixed up in providing health-care benefits, and taxpayers would no longer subsidize that form of private compensation. Government experts could conduct research on treatments and use that information to directly cut costs across the system.

But the government’s price tag would be astonishing. When Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) proposed a “Medicare for all” health plan in his presidential campaign, the nonpartisan Urban Institute figured that it would raise government spending by $32 trillion over 10 years, requiring a tax increase so huge that even the democratic socialist Mr. Sanders did not propose anything close to it.


If you think that’s “affordable”, then you have no knowledge of even basic economics, and a nation run by people thinking like yourself would go straight into economic Armageddon.  The very fact that liberals believe health care is a some kind of “right” shows they’er already on that path, because it means they’d increase already bloated unfunded liability spending.  Even without single payer, socialist health care in the form of ObamaCare has been a factor in skyrocketing health insurance premiums


…and has cost millions what coverage they had.


Canada, the country people foolishly look to as an example for what health care should be like, is crumbling.

I was once a believer in socialized medicine. I don’t want to overstate my case: growing up in Canada, I didn’t spend much time contemplating the nuances of health economics. I wanted to get into medical school—my mind brimmed with statistics on MCAT scores and admissions rates, not health spending. But as a Canadian, I had soaked up three things from my environment: a love of ice hockey; an ability to convert Celsius into Fahrenheit in my head; and the belief that government-run health care was truly compassionate. What I knew about American health care was unappealing: high expenses and lots of uninsured people. When HillaryCare shook Washington, I remember thinking that the Clintonistas were right.

My health-care prejudices crumbled not in the classroom but on the way to one. On a subzero Winnipeg morning in 1997, I cut across the hospital emergency room to shave a few minutes off my frigid commute. Swinging open the door, I stepped into a nightmare: the ER overflowed with elderly people on stretchers, waiting for admission. Some, it turned out, had waited five days. The air stank with sweat and urine. Right then, I began to reconsider everything that I thought I knew about Canadian health care. I soon discovered that the problems went well beyond overcrowded ERs. Patients had to wait for practically any diagnostic test or procedure, such as the man with persistent pain from a hernia operation whom we referred to a pain clinic—with a three-year wait list; or the woman needing a sleep study to diagnose what seemed like sleep apnea, who faced a two-year delay; or the woman with breast cancer who needed to wait four months for radiation therapy, when the standard of care was four weeks.


From the liberal Huffington Post (which would also relocate to the Liberal Utopia):

Shorter waits for hip-fracture repair, and eight out of 10 Canadians receiving “priority procedures” within government-defined benchmarks.

Sounds pretty good, right?

However, these highlights from the Canadian Institute of Healthcare Information’s (CIHI) annual update of Wait Times for Priority Procedures in Canada are little more than feel-good distractions from the real story: Canada’s health-care system is failing to deliver timely care to patients.


This failure is partially recognized in the CIHI report itself. By simply viewing the data from another angle we note that, overall, two out of 10 Canadians do not receive “priority procedures” within the remarkably long benchmarks used in the report (six months for hip and knee replacements, for example). Moreover, governments still do not generally report comprehensive and comparable information on wait times for most medically necessary procedures.


More detailed statistics from other sources paint an even grimmer picture. For example, the Fraser Institute’s most recent wait times report finds that wait times (GP to treatment) have almost doubled since 1993. Worse, physicians report that patients generally wait almost three weeks longer than what they consider clinically reasonable (after consultation with a specialist).


Many health-care officials routinely respond to such reports with talk of how these access failures can be overcome by “finding efficiencies” within the system. There is some truth to this, given evidence of hospital beds being occupied by patients with nowhere to be discharged to, operating rooms being underutilized, and the lack of a central registry to pool referrals in most provinces.


What they’d really be getting is overpriced, virtually useless coverage that they’d have rationing and big lag times in, which could be fatal.

They would be able to own all the guns they could afford (see above) and the U.S.

I’m not even going to dignify that with any real address.  Liberals are overwhelmingly anti 2nd Amendment, and very much in favor of disarming everyone with senseless “gun control” laws.  Look at liberal cities and states, and their unconstitutional measures against legal gun ownership.

Constitution would not be as important as each state’s constitution, since the CSA would be a loose federation of states.


An out-and-out lie.  Conservatives are not anti-federalists, and Conservatism does not advocate anti-federalism, in any way, shape or form.  If you look back at the gun laws, liberal cities and states are the ones with crazy quilt laws, varying wildly from place to place, all in direct opposition to the United States Constitution (which many liberals put very little stock into, in the first place, other than something to pay lip service to, so they won’t look like outright communists).  Here’s some food for thought:

I frequently bait the law professoriate with the axiom that if you really want to understand constitutionalism, and the U.S. Constitution in particular, don’t take constitutional law at an elite law school.  There you will only receive systematic mis-instruction in the subject.*  Joe Knippenberg reminds me that my AEI colleague Walter Berns always said that the problem with law professors is that they taught constitutional law, not the Constitution.   Hence most constitutional law professors treat the Constitution as a plaything from which to extract whatever outcome they want.

In some cases the general wording of clauses of the Constitution (like the Fourth Amendment’s “unreasonable” search and seizure clause) does require exercising judgment about how to apply the text to changing circumstances and technology.  But then there are those pesky clauses written with sufficient specificity (such as the “embarrassing” Second Amendment—as some liberals call it) that not even the inventive Cass Sunstein can find a clever interpretive workaround to generate the desired liberal result.  At such times this impulse yields to the suspicion that many liberals don’t really like the Constitution at all, and would junk it if they could.

Woodrow Wilson professed this openly.  But the Founders built well, knowing that the Constitution—the documentary embodiment of the Rule of Law replacing the Rule of Man (or Rule of the King, as practical matters had it in the 1780s)—would work only if it became an object of reverence in place of a monarch among the people.  As such, directly attacking the Constitution has always been a non-starter in American politics. Instead, liberals typically repair to the doctrine of the “living Constitution.”

Thus it is helpful when a liberal’s impatience with constitutionalism yields to the impulse to rip the façade away and declare their contempt for the Constitution.  Georgetown Law School professor Louis Seidman thus does us the favor of candor with his New York Times op-ed today entitled “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution.”  The first paragraph is enough:

“AS the nation teeters at the edge of fiscal chaos, observers are reaching the conclusion that the American system of government is broken. But almost no one blames the culprit: our insistence on obedience to the Constitution, with all its archaic, idiosyncratic and downright evil provisions.”


Their country would continue to move closer to a plutocracy (as has already happened to quite an extent in the U.S.A.).

Again, not even worth dignifying.  Liberals lionize their politicians, like Clintons, Obamas, JFK, RFK, FDR, etc.  They point to politicized scientists that say the things that they choose to believe as some sort of oracles.  They say that because someone has a degree, they’re automatically authoratiative in whatever argument they’re making, even if the argument is outside of their field of study (like with Bill Nye, the failed engineer that had to become a comedian to pay the bills, but is, somehow, the world’s foremost climatologist).

bill nye poster

Let’s look at the definition of Plutocrat, shall we?:


  1. a person whose power derives from their wealth.

Liberals seem to love plutocracy.  Look above, at the list of millionaires and billionaires, and look at their political leanings.  Liberal countries would be infested with these people that want power, based on the fact that they’re rich, and people would give it to them.  Look how liberals treat leftist “celebrities”.  They hang on their every word, and treat it as their gospel.

CONCLUSION:  The liberal countries would spend themselves into insolvency, and fast. Militarily, they would be virtually useless, as we’ve seen what liberal presidents do to their military (budget cuts, manpower reduction, severe lowering of standards, etc.). Economically, they’d be useless.  They’d be very energy dependent on other countries (probably not the US, because liberals don’t like America, and would rather do business with states that would kill people that think and act like them in the streets, like Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc.) and would have a very low rate of employment, considering the governments would be supporting laughably stupid pursuits, like “basic income”, which would faster drive them off the fiscal cliff and into becoming dangerous, FAILED STATES.

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