William Thien

Archive for January 2013

It occurs to me that Hillary Clinton isn’t leaving her post because she has logged a lot of miles and worked long hours, it is probably because she hasn’t been very good at her job. What? Who are you to say that?!

Not that such developments don’t bode well for the US, but just look at the middle east. Egypt in flames. Most of north Africa, complete change of leadership. Syria, embroiled in a civil war. Generally unstable conditions persist throughout what may be considered the most volatile and dangerous region of the world and more importantly the breeding ground for much of the terrorism directed at The United States.

It would seem to me that such developments would be in the most significant purvey of The Secretary of State of The United States and that the rampant instability should have been addressed directly by our Secretary of State. Obviously that is not the case. But it may not be entirely Hillary Clinton’s fault altogether. The reality of it all may be that much of the region I mention is populated by Muslim leadership who has little respect for women in such affairs anyway and wouldn’t have complied with Hillary Clinton’s diplomatic leverage and in fact Hillary Clinton’s presence may have incited the aforementioned changes to begin with as Muslim leadership railed against what they perceived as a global policy encroaching on a lifestyle with an ancient heritage.

And I did say in my book The Dream Chip way back in 1998 that the internet would be used most significantly for revolutionary actions. And that’s exactly what it was used for in Egypt and North Africa and the Arab Spring. I said that way back in 1998. I guess it’s just not politically correct to predict that kind of thing.

Nothing further.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.


Driving home from work today I tuned in to one conservative talk show host who is a familiar name in any household today. Listening to the guy browbeat a caller left me wondering how dangerous he was to any conservative movement.

I have in the past disagreed with a number of his positions such as that of abortion for example. As a Conservative I favor legal abortion because it means less government by definition, something I’ve blogged about previously (one of my first essays). He thinks abortion should be outlawed.

Though he claims to be at the vanguard of talk show conservatism he frequently takes positions that are the very definition of big government. But he so effectively demoralizes his audience that you almost wonder if no other definition of conservatism exists other than his own? Instead, I wonder if he really is a conservative at all?

He has in the past and recent past as well also pushed for and endorsed candidates which have left conservatives without a winning candidate come election time. His word is considered paramount amongst his audience and he has one of the largest if not the largest following in the conservative talk radio industry.

His brash style and almost rude delivery keeps his audience back on their feet and at the closing of his show you are sometimes left wondering if he is truly approaching conservatism from a philosophical viewpoint or if he is merely a showman?

And today I concluded he is the latter, a showman. He may have been a conservative once but he is no longer. And I concluded he is merely maintaining his audience. Conservatism is the least of his worries. Were his audience, populated significantly by the elderly and recently retired baby boomers, were his audience to suddenly slump over and stop listening to his show to catch an afternoon nap, I concluded he would change his tune.

But he is not just a showman, he is worse when it comes to politics. He is a fixer. Knowing full well what real conservatism is, by employing single voter issues, in particular what I call “wedge issues” such as abortion, he will maneuver the audience away from a candidate that is truly conservative and towards a so-called conservative candidate who in the end we find out favors big government or even a redistribution of wealth or even a concentration of the nation’s wealth to a very few. He is, ladies and gentlemen, a dangerous man to any true conservative.

I really don’t have the time to dissect the “delivery” of each and every conservative pundit out there. I work and have many responsibilities just like you. Because I am a regular working person with no write-offs, I am practically taxed to death, the government is tapping me pretty good to pay for just about everything, and even though it was minus seven degrees last night I still haven’t turned the heat on in my quarters. But that’s OK, I can handle it. I was in The US Army. I’ve woken up many times with snow on my sleeping bag.

And just like you I don’t have the time to discern what each and every so-called conservative talk show host is saying. I can tell you though that we need to consider carefully what the media are feeding us, particularly those in the media hiding behind a completely different brand of conservatism, a “big government” type of conservatism that is really in my opinion “liberalism/socialism/communism” in disguise because it will force us to have to pick up the tab for their illicit behavior (the cost of outlawing abortion for example will be astronomical if they continue to push it and are successful. Government will swell. Crime will skyrocket.) in the long run. Because the media have everything at stake in the effort to define conservatism. That’s why there are so many conservative talk show hosts. Why is the media so concerned about conservatism?

People who are not receiving some form of government program check and are at work are not at home watching television (people who are at work are therefore bad for television ratings). People who are at work are likely not listening to the radio (people who are at work are bad for radio ratings). And the media, the television stations, the radio stations, they know that. So we have to be ever more careful who we listen to when it comes to so-called “conservative talk.”

For a more thorough explanation of the so-called “liberal media,” read my essay “Is The Media Really as Liberal As They Say?”

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. Tell your friends and family. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

Here is an interesting if not discomforting statistic. Forty-one percent of all children born in 2011 were born to unwed mothers in The United States. That’s nearly half of all children born in 2011! That number signifies big government by definition as single mothers en masse simply cannot all pay for all of the medical expenses associated with bearing a child nor can they afford to pay for the daycare (daycare is expensive) associated with raising a child after they return to work, if in fact they are working. Somebody has to pick up the tab for the result of all of that illicit sex. The cost of so many pregnancies to unwed mothers is a tremendous burden to the taxpayer.

For more information see BIRTHS TO UNMARRIED WOMEN.

I have said it before, Down with The F&#k and Suck Economy!

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

One of the most effective propaganda maneuvers of the communist movement over the last forty years is to get the general public to buy the exchange of the term “Liberal” for that of the term “Communist” while the term “Communist” merely dissolved into the lexicon. The term “Liberal” as it is used in the media and by politicians today is just a euphemism for the term “Communist,” though they may not realize it. One only needs to look at the mountain of social programs and entitlements burdening the American public and economy created over the last forty years to see that is in fact the very truth.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. Tell your friends and family. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

In a way, the debate across the country right now on the subject of gun rights is the perfect distraction for Washington to use with America. Nobody is focusing on the continued fiscal cliff crisis nor is anyone concentrating on addressing the tax code. Instead, Washington is rehashing what was already determined by The Supreme Court to be a legal right.

Makes you wonder if the tragedies were not somehow planned or orchestrated. The timing is so convenient. Who really knows if the events happened the way they did? The media have never really been entirely honest on firearms matters and it took close to a week for the truth about one of the tragedies to come out. And then there is the letter from a dead man. In fact everyone who could stand trial and reveal any motivation is dead. Sounds kind of like someone is hiding something, some type of involvement perhaps on the part of the government. Conspiracy theory? Yes. But completely, and I mean COMPLETELY! plausible when given the circumstances and the records and methods used of those involved with seeing your gun rights taken away.

Nevertheless, the most significant thing about the gun rights debate is that it is dramatic and distracting and clearly being used to redirect the focus of the country from the fact that Washington is extremely expensive and inefficient, has not solved the fiscal cliff crisis (merely postponed it), and your taxes just went up.

Kind of makes you wonder, doesn’t it?

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address.

What is interesting about the enclosed quote from George Washington on the subject of arms or firearms is that he had the foresight to add the phrase “sufficient arms and ammunition,” which in my opinion goes to the subject of the types of magazines many would like to see outlawed. He also had the sense to include the phrase “which would include their own government.”

Here is the quote:

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. — George Washington

I’m suffering a severe bout of the “Ineligibility-For-The-Government-Program-But-Can’t-Afford-It-On-The-Open-Market-Anyway-Syndrome.” For example, I’ve decided not to turn the heat on in my apartment this winter. I may, but I haven’t, yet. It’s too expensive to run the furnace. You might want to know that it gets down to ten degrees at night where I reside. But that’s beside the point, in a way at least.

Also, last year my employer had to implement European Union style austerity measures on my employment section at work so I lost all of my benefits. I lost my health care, vision and dental, all of my sick days and was not paid for them, no life insurance, and I am now just paid an hourly wage. My employer didn’t have much of a choice.

I really don’t have a problem with my circumstances. But it would be nice to be able to turn the heat on a time or two on a cold night. The problem with that though is that I can’t really afford it. If I turn my heat on regularly my savings will diminish dramatically and leave me in a precarious economic position. Many around me are able to obtain heat assistance, but I make too much money to be eligible (the government classifies me as upper lower-income or lower middle-income depending on the year, by the way).

Many I have spoken with are also eligible for medical programs offered by the state I reside in due to their income and family structure. I am not married but am not willing to start a family like many merely to become wards of the state to make eligibility (The State? That’s you and I, by the way, as we are the ones paying for the programs). Even though I lost all of my health benefits, I am ineligible because again I make too much money, not enough to afford heating my apartment regularly though while still saving up some reserves, but too much money to be eligible for medical care offered by the state. I would add that of all receiving the benefits that I have spoken with, none have served in the military, yet I have. On average I take home about 65 to 70 percent of my wages after all is said and done.

Are you with me, yet? You should be. If you are not, don’t bother reading on. By now you are probably slapping the mortar on the bricks.

I am not telling you this because I want the eligibility requirements for the aforementioned programs to change really. I am telling you this to explain what I think is happening to this country, this country which is rapidly becoming communist, selectively communist, and I am telling you this because I think things should change. Because I pay for all of these programs but am eligible for none of them. Communism is bad enough. Didn’t we learn from the fall of the Soviet Union? Selective communism, what we have here in The United States, is worse. It’s not only an inefficient system. It’s a daily insult of humongous proportions. It’s a spit in the face to those who pay for it but are ineligible. It really is.

I do not fit into any clearly defined federal definition of any minority so I am not eligible for any such assistance if it exists. I am a single male with no write-offs, just a regular working person. I kind of like it that way and don’t want the government to make me jump through all sorts of tax code hoops in order to keep what I earn. I am what probably was once called a regular “working stiff.” But apparently that isn’t allowed anymore. I merely earn what until last year was a living wage. I have no children so I can’t claim withholding allowances and take home more on my pay check nor can I claim dependent child tax deductions and receive a hefty tax return. I am not working any angle that I can use to declare some bogus expenses on my taxes, either. I pay a disproportionately larger share in taxes than any other social class in my earnings bracket yet I use the fewest services of any other social class. You know what that means? The tax code is entirely backwards as it pays those who use all the services and charges those who use the least; the tax code is unfair to someone like myself and it is not structurally functional. Just do the math.

I am not complaining. I am merely explaining the realities of the tax code and the mountain of social programs for which taxes are levied on the population of people like me to pay for all of the entitlements and special tax deductions of which none of them am I am eligible. Yet, I make them possible.

So what do I think should be done?

It’s time to start over with the entitlements. We can’t pay for them all, anyway. It’s time to erase all of the handouts and cancel all of the programs. Why? Why would you do that to people who need them? I wouldn’t do that to people who need them. Yet, I myself may need them, I pay for them, and I am not eligible.

The problem anyway with having a program for each and every economic dilemma that can come up for people in a communist country like America (oh yes it is, America is selectively communist) is that you have to factor in human nature. People abuse the system. They hide their income to become eligible. They falsify program applications. They even give birth to become eligible. In fact, that is one of the primary ways some obtain eligibility, they get pregnant. Then they stay on assistance long after they need it because they can. The programs are breeding grounds for the most socially parasitic behavior today and all of it is sanctioned by the government, a government that likes it, a government that wants to grow, a government that knows it can grow by fostering such behavior.

But what is worse, programs that offer free heat assistance, free medical, free cell phones, you name it, those programs drive the cost of those services up for everyone else because they create pre-determined costs for specific services and erase market competition. The assistance programs also add money into the market where it doesn’t exist in the market. Hence, the programs drive the cost of goods and services up, pricing people like me out of the market, people who pay their taxes, people who have served in the military yet still are ineligible, making the programs in a way, unethical.

I should be eligible for any program I have to pay for in taxes. That’s all there is to it. But that’s not the case. I’m suffering from a severe bout of the “Ineligibility-For-The-Government-Program-But-Can’t-Afford-It-On-The-Open-Market-Anyway-Syndrome.” There has to be a real name for it.

The system which is supposed to improve our health and standard of living is making me sick of it and sick of paying for it. And it is making me poor at the same time. That’s not right. That’s not what it is supposed to do. It’s wrong, wrong in an almost biblical sense.

It’s time to cut the entitlements. It’s time. And with another fiscal cliff approaching in less than sixty days, let’s get to it, like right now! Because you know what, I’m not alone.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

Sign up to receive updates. It’s easy and safe. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and add your email address

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Find by month

Find by date

January 2013
« Dec   Feb »
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com