William Thien

Archive for May 2013

With Washington’s constant effort to sabotage the American household via the often misguided implementation of a liberal feel-good agenda, special light bulbs, reformulated gasoline, sometimes it is good to know there are still ways to maintain your way of life unencumbered. Recently I read that reformulated gasoline (part ethanol, which is an energy-deficit fuel source–it takes more energy to make ethanol than it provides), recently I read that ethanol was hard on car engines, motorcycles, and power equipment. I discovered this website http://pure-gas.org which lists gas stations by state that still offer pure gasoline for sale. I thought you might be interested.

Copyright © William Thien 2013

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

When Lois Lerner made it public during a speech to a legal conference that The IRS was targeting conservative organizations with extra scrutiny she then in fact waived her right to plead The Fifth. She initiated this entire episode prior to the event even becoming a national matter, prior to The Congressional Hearing or any court commencement. In other words, Lois Lerner initiated the investigation herself when she disclosed the wrongdoing at said legal conference in a question apparently planted by The IRS itself. By taking the matter to court or to a Congressional Hearing, one can not suddenly plead the fifth. It is too late! It is no longer legally or in any other sense unreasonable to ask, “Hey, what did you mean by that?”

It is too late, Lois Lerner.

A change of venue does not change the chain of evidence or interrupt the line of testimony once an admission of guilt is made, nor do they change upon revelation of criminal behavior. By swearing in before Congress Lois Lerner only agrees to be truthful, that is all.

When Lois Lerner revealed the activities in The IRS Division of Tax Exempt Organizations during her speech at the legal conference, she admitted illegal behavior. This didn’t just slip out during ordinary conversation or off the record, she said it in an organized, pre-meditated way, most likely in an effort to head a larger scandal off at the pass that we may never discover. Lois Lerner meant to say what she said, we can be sure. It was no accident! Therefor, it is not beyond the legal scope of Congressional Investigation to make further inquiry. She can no longer plead The Fifth!

Then, during the Congressional Hearing itself she stated she was innocent of any wrong doing, once again negating her right to plead The Fifth. What wrong doing? So she admits there have been misdeeds! Again, it is too late now to plead The Fifth.

Could Lois Lerner’s revelation merely be an attempt by The IRS to prevent the discovery of the wider, more devastating scandal that has appeared in everyone’s mind, “Does The IRS investigate individual conservative donors?”

Our elected must work exhaustively on this and other such tax-related matters to ferret out all of the wrongdoing at The IRS so that Americans can feel free to contribute to whomever or whatever cause they feel necessary. This is one of the reasons why I have been calling for an end to Amendment Sixteen for some time, now. The IRS is simply too powerful, vindictive, and socially destructive.

Rep. Issa, call Lois Lerner back if you would please! Call her back!

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.

Here is an interesting observation. Just a couple of days and less than a week after one of the most significant political scandals in modern American history, the IRS scandal involving conservative organizations, the episode seems to have blown over already. Not one major media outlet had any mention of it on their front page this morning. Only Fox News had a story on the front page and it was down at the bottom.

Why do I bring this up?

Because nobody at the congressional hearings has asked or seems to be asking the question that is lurking at the back of everyone’s mind regarding the IRS Scandal, “Did the IRS obtain lists of donors to the conservative organizations which they scrutinized and did The IRS harass those individual citizen donors?” Or, “Did the IRS attempt to harass and intimidate individual donors to those conservative organizations?” I think we all know the IRS routinely targets conservatives, but to use a list from one of the conservative organizations would have a chilling effect on donations to those organizations. Perhaps that is the intent of this entire scandal, to do just that, frighten donors who give to conservative organizations.

Nobody is asking that most significant question, more significant than all the others, “Did The IRS harass known individual conservatives?”

That is THE QUESTION at the back of everyone’s mind. Unfortunately, I think we all know the answer to that question. Obviously we are not going to get the truth.

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.

How many times have you heard the statement that the reason the media slants things so far to the left is because the media is “liberal?” You have probably heard such a statement hundreds, perhaps thousands of times.
I have a different perspective on the matter. I do not believe the reason the media appears to slant things to the left is due to the fact that the media is liberal. I believe it is something else entirely.

First, let’s ask the question, ‘What do people do when they are at home if they are not taking care of some domestic requirement?’ Watch television. Nothing wrong with that.

I think the media is up to something else entirely than simply making life better for everyone by instilling so-called liberal values to everyone sitting in front of the tube. Knowing that slanting things to the left is not good for our industrial economy, or that portion of our economy which has traditionally required the greatest number of employees, knowing that slanting things to the left will put companies out of work and send people home, the media has implemented a business plan. The media know that if people are out of work, they watch television. And you know what? That is good for ratings. And ratings, in the television world, mean advertisers have to pay more for advertising time. The supposed liberal slant is good for media business. What is liberal about that?

And there are entire social groups that such behavior appeals to since they don’t want to work, anyway. They have brought up several generations on entitlements and increased their populations while simultaneously being catered to by such a media. Consumer products are tailored to such populations. The liberal slant is really a multi-level marketing plan with a so-called liberal media in complicity, implementation.

There is of course a humanistic slant to the media. But the old saying, “If it bleeds, it leads,” a common journalistic saw, indicates predation, not liberalism. What more must one say?

No, the media is not liberal. I believe instead it is exercising an elaborate business plan, all the while hiding behind the constitution, surreptitiously undermining our economy to improve its own. The men and women of the media are not wholly humanistic as we would like to believe. They are chosen based on thorough studies completed by massive media conglomerates. Since when are corporations liberal?

And who can blame them? It is business. Since when was business easy?

That is what is going on with the media. The media could care less about liberalism otherwise. The apparent left slant to the media is a business plan to increase ratings and thereby improve its bottom line.

And our constitution supports that type of behavior, the subtle yet elaborate deconstruction of our economy for better ratings.

Reprinted from October 2010. I am adding this observation once again because I think it benefits conservatives to know what they are dealing with when it comes to today’s media.

Copyright © William Thien 2010
Don’t forget to sign up to receive email updates and get the latest. Just go to the upper right hand corner of this page and enter your email address. It’s easy and safe!

The government wants to start taxing fuel-efficient cars because they believe rightly so that those who drive them pay less in gas tax. Last I heard there was a tax break for buying a fuel-efficient car such as a hybrid, too. Seems like our country’s energy policy is full of conflicting ideals, a tax break for fuel-efficient cars and an extra tax on the same car.

Now they’ve come to the understanding that gas tax revenues, the bread and butter of most multi-level government transportation funds, those transportation funds that are frequently raided to pay for social programs by the way, decrease when consumers buy fuel-efficient cars. Really? Who would have thought that?

Even though it is a free market, it makes you wonder why the government hasn’t been doing more to keep the price of gas down so more people drive generating more gas tax revenue?

It is as if the current national energy policy is poorly designed and in conflict with itself with tax breaks for cars that the government wants to tax extra and high gas prices to boot, and it is costing the consumer substantially while making it difficult to keep up the roadways and other transportation systems as less gas tax revenues are generated.

If all cars were electric, who would pay to upkeep the roads if no gas tax were collected?

Maybe it is time to raid the social programs this time to pay for the roads?

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.

I was not surprised when The Senate voted to tax internet sales. Brick and Mortar retailers were complaining that such sales were not taxed an therefor internet retailers had an unfair pricing advantage. The real problem is that retail, like any other business, changes. One hundred years ago when you first went to an old-time grocery store you gave the clerk a list of things and he went to select them off of a shelf. Then, grocery stores realized it was more profitable to let the customer go and select them from a shelf themselves and they put the products where customers could reach them. Grocer retail evolved just like retail has generally evolved. Most brick and mortar retailers have an internet presence, if they are with the times that is, if they want to operate successfully in the “internet age.” It’s not the consumer’s fault brick and mortar only retailers are not up to date in a retail sense. So, why is the Senate punishing the consumer on behalf again of what is really a special interest group (the legislation is being pushed by a consortium sponsored by brick and mortar retailers)? Is it because they want the tax revenue or is it simply because they don’t have a clue what is best for the public? Really?

But even worse, such a vote indicates something much more pervasive, that in the future if you want to read the local or national newspaper online, you will be taxed. If you want to stream a radio broadcast, you will be taxed. If you want to view a free online video site, there will be a tax, all because a bunch of brick and mortar retailers don’t want to update their sales floor and keep up with the demand and delivery method as it has changed.

Congress must not support any internet tax legislation. The internet signal as it passes through the wire or the air is already taxed when you pay your phone or internet bill. One tax on the internet is enough.

It is unfortunate for those brick and mortar retailers that haven’t kept up but the clarion call about how profitable it can be to sell on the internet has been loud and clear for well over a decade now. That’s what business is all about. Keep up with the times or go out of business. It really is a business matter, not one of taxes.

Congress must not pass the Senate’s internet tax legislation.

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 big debates going on at the state level in many states right now involves the decision to legalize “same-SEX marriage.” One side thinks legalization of “same-SEX marriage” is only fair for those who choose an alternative lifestyle and the other says it is immoral or against religious values. Then of course there are those who really had no opinion on the matter, which is where I resided until something occurred to me.

If you read my essays and observations regularly or have signed up to receive my updates, you will have concluded by now that I am a conservative, more conservative than that political party which often attempts to ally itself with conservative measure but is frequently no more conservative than the other side of the aisle in the comparison of many nowadays. Many conservatives believe that same-sex marriage should not be legal. That is not my sentiment, even though many believe my political or belief system falls within the realm of “true conservatism.”

Instead, I approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” from the same perspective as I approach that of abortion, which I believe as a “true conservative” should be legal. “What?” You inquire? “How can that be, “same-sex marriage” and abortion are not even closely related?” Well, it is not that they are closely related, which as you will see later that they are in a way very closely related, it is that I view “same-SEX marriage” and abortion using the same method I use to view whether or not I believe as a “true conservative” that abortion should be legal, something many in the conservative hall are opposed to with vigor.

I believe that abortion should be legal because a woman can’t raise a child on her own unless she is independently wealthy or has government support, with government support being money from taxpayers, which by default means larger government and more taxes, something to which a “true conservative” is opposed, particularly now when taxes are approaching all time high levels and more people receive government entitlements than ever before.

“OK, so you are for legal abortion because you believe it helps to keep the size of government in check, what’s that have to do with “same-SEX marriage?”” You are asking.

Well, instead of approaching the subject of same-sex marriage from the perspective of whether it is a moral issue, I believe we should apply a certain approach to the subject that merely asks the question, “Will “same-SEX marriage” raise taxes for the taxpayer?” If the legalization of same-sex marriage results in an increase in taxes to the taxpayer, then perhaps it should be reconsidered. But if the legalization of same-sex marriage will result in a decrease in taxes, then perhaps it should be considered. You see, like abortion, you have to examine the behavior. The two, “same-SEX marriage” and abortion are indeed very closely related because they involve the subject of “SEX” and the product of “SEX!” In the case of “same-SEX marriage,” the subject of discussion is the subject of “SEX,” sex by people of the same “SEX!” And if legalization of “same-SEX marriage” results in an increase in taxes to pay for the legalization of a type of sexual activity, or “SEX,” then by the definition of any conservative, not just a “true conservative,” it should probably not be considered for legalization. Just like abortion, which deals with the result of “SEX,” or a fetus, “same-SEX marriage” deals with the subject of “SEX!” And in America we are already dealing with the substantial cost of “SEX” from unwed pregnancies at an alarming rate. Just in 2011 forty-one percent of children born were born to out-of-wedlock mothers who almost all certainly obtained a substantial amount of support from the taxpayer to enable such sexual inequity.

It is by the same method then that I believe we should approach the subject of “same-SEX marriage” as that of outlawing abortion, asking the question, how will it affect the burden of taxation upon the taxpayer? If legalization of same-sex marriage increases taxes for the taxpayers, then perhaps it should not be legalized as it is believed that outlawing abortion would increase taxes, substantially.

I think this same method, asking the question, “What burden will it place upon the taxpayer?” should be applied to all such similar circumstances, particularly those involving sexual behaviors. They are consensual behaviors generally and don’t harm anyone until they become issues which affect taxation when then they directly impact the taxpayer. I think the method I discuss here is an excellent way to deal with the political morality play, the political theater and misrepresentation that goes on with such matters of consensual behavior. And though I recognize the biblical origin and position of religious leadership on the matter of “same-SEX marriage,” I don’t think it is as much of a religious matter as it is an economic issue.


Because it is time American taxpayers should be free from having to pay for others to have sex on a bed made of taxpayers’ dollars.

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

May 2013
« Apr   Jun »
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: