William Thien

Archive for July 2013

I am not a member of a local militia but it is a movement that is simultaneously growing while at the same time suffering from suppression by the federal government. I support the militia movement for the most part as many of the militias train for natural disasters and well as man-made disasters like the federal government for example.

Many militias are family oriented and train their children to endure prolonged hardships, something the federal government has not handled very well historically while at great expense to the tax payer.

Following you will find several links to lists of militias located around the country. Of course you must use your own discretion when viewing the various web sites. Some as I’ve stated are more family oriented while others are more militant, somewhat understandably so. Our country’s history is full of militia activity from the very beginning, so when you hear the subject of militias discussed in the mainstream media, you must inject a little history into the media hysteria for a truly balanced perspective. Even though they are seeing a resurgence, militias are nothing new in our country.

With that said, here are some web sites listing militias. I would add that not all of them are present as many understandably wish to stay off of the federal government’s radar. As you will see, many state militia web sites have apparently been shut down by the web hosting service by order of the federal government. It would appear that way anyway. They could merely be disorganized or have decided to go off of the radar.

The first three or four of this list seem more organized and based on a constitutional system or justification.

In no particular order:

http://constitution.org/mil/mil_us.htm

http://texasmilitia.info/

http://modernmilitiamovement.com/

http://americanmilitiamovement.com/

http://www.arizonamilitia.com/

http://www.darkgovernment.com/news/list-of-u-s-militia-groups/

There are many other militia related web sites. You may wish to search for one in your state.

Sincerely,

William Thien

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.

In my opinion, when one examines the various costs of government, the one which stands out as the most expensive is that portion of the government involved in the re-distribution of wealth.

In other words when you see your tax dollars being spent to pay for the maintenance of roads or to cover the cost of policing, to improve the nation’s defense, to pay for public education, whatever, you see something tangible, something that you know is improving the condition of the country. Your tax dollars go directly to the purpose for which they were levied and the results are obvious and beneficial.

But when your tax dollars are merely given to someone else to pay for say the cost of having a child out-of-wedlock, for example, and raising that child or to pay for some other “social” expense which is the result of illicit behavior perhaps, you see very little return on your investment in tax dollars, if any. Frequently, when recipients of tax dollars from social programs see how much they can earn when applying for the dollars, they do it again, and again, and again, because the system is an enabler of such behavior.

Because you see little if any return on the investment of your tax dollars to cover social programs, therein lies the greater cost of government.

Furthermore, the actual process of levying taxes for what have been traditionally called “social” purposes and the cost of re-distributing the tax dollars is more substantial, more substantial because you see nothing from the dollars spent, and you have to pay a government employee who does nothing for those tax dollars except give the tax dollars to someone else, as opposed to a government employee who might be laying concrete in the streets, teaching your child, or policing the neighborhood. Just as importantly, the tax dollars that go to pay for the social programs draw from the funds needed for the real responsibilities of government.

Where am I going with this? Well, over the last decade much of the drive to decrease the size of government has been focused on the size of the government working classes when the greater cost of government, greater because it is much less productive and much more expensive, the greater cost of government has been the establishment of social programs which pay for such behaviors as I’ve described, pay for having children out of wedlock, paying for children that the parents could not afford in the first place, paying to raise, educate, and finally imprison many of the children because they frequently didn’t have both parents at home and didn’t have role models.

It is my opinion that we must not be so quick to decrease what I would then call “the functional” part of government, those that provide the tangible, obvious and necessary services we require in our day-to-day lives and instead shift our focus to curtail the costs of the social portion of our government because it is that portion of the government which provides little if any actual services required by the tax payer but taxes the taxpayer the most and is therefore the greater cost of government.

The sooner we as a country accomplish this change in political orientation, the better. Lest we be left with a non-functional government which does little else than take our tax dollars and give them to someone else. And it will be our fault for letting it happen when we could have addressed the matter all along.

Without elaborating, because I believe it is rather obvious, I believe this can only be accomplished if public sector employees and their unions, if they have them, stop aligning their politics with the socialist politician who wishes to give the tax dollar away in order to get elected, and instead look to the conservative side of the aisle, and I believe that the conservative side of the aisle should make overture and welcome them when and if that happens.

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.

I’ve blogged previously with my belief that the tax code is unfair for any number of reasons. But you can complain all you want. Conservative pundits make a great living doing it all day on the radio and television. But unless you offer solutions or alternative explanations for solutions, it doesn’t amount to very much.

In this observation I explain why I believe a flat tax would benefit The United States.

A flat tax would unify and strengthen the country because every tax payer, every company, every organization would be treated by the tax code equally and so therefore every tax payer would be equally invested in how the country is operated.

As it is now, the tax code is written in a way to satisfy the demands of special interests which of course divides the country in disparate social and economic segments, causing discord among the various groups because some social and economic segments of our society benefit substantially more than others from the tax code. In the way it is written, the tax code has a “divide and conquer” effect upon the country, chopping it up into different social and economic sectors that frequently cannot agree on issues that would seem to require only minimal efforts to obtain unanimity. The tax code makes administration of the country more complex than necessary and makes us not one people when we already have to overcome the frequently complex issues of our country’s social composition as it is. The tax code just makes it worse and leaves many social groups open to what could be rightly called “societal tax abuse.”

So, I conclude that not only would a flat tax be the fairest form of tax, it would strengthen and unify America by forcing us to focus on real issues and not how to address the tax code.

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.

Outlawing abortion is the fastest way to increase the size of government, the unproductive portion of government, that portion of government that does not provide any services such as water services, policing of the streets, military, road construction, what have you. Outlawing abortion will only increase that portion of the government that is in charge of providing handouts to the women forced to carry the pregnancy to term because abortion was made illegal and now the women have to fall back on government services because they can’t afford to raise the child on their own.

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.

  • In: Conservative Thought
  • Comments Off on Social Safety Net, The Modern Opiate of the Masses And “Substantial Sway.”.

I am involved in an online debate about the abuses of the social welfare system in my state. I concluded that things will not change in that regard without physical action as politicians and the elected won’t address the matter knowing that a majority of the population is now receiving entitlements and government handouts and as soon as they feel those benefits are threatened, if they get any inkling of such, they will vote for the other guy. It is human nature.

And I made an observation similar to this: I am skeptical that you will change that type of behavior, abuse of the social welfare system, through any political or democratic method. The system itself and those receiving such benefits already surpasses those paying into the system and not receiving or refusing to receive any social welfare benefits. When the Soviet Union was threatened with a breakup, the hardliner Soviets holed up in the Soviet Parliament and were stonewalling because they didn’t want to see the system change from a communist/socialist system to an open or freer market system. The President of Russia at the time, President Yeltsin actually had to use military tanks to fire on the Soviet hardliners who were stonewalling in the house of government. In other words, once government gets so large and there are so many people benefiting from its size, you can’t change things without a physical action of some sort. I believe that is why the US government has been involved in an ammunition buying spree. They believe something such as an uprising is coming and it is not a question of if but rather when.

I would have to say that the mainstream media in coordination with the government has been fairly adept at marginalizing that type of behavior. There is still a substantial herd mentality in this country and the mainstream media still has substantial sway.

William Thien

Karl Marx wrote that religion was the “opium of the people.” His belief was that religion took the place of a heartless, cruel world. It sounds good. It may be true. Yet, I am not equipped to quantify that statement. And for the purposes of this observation, it is not necessary to make such an investigation. History has in fact done that for us.

I have another perspective on an idea that arose from Marxist beliefs, a product of socialistic and communistic government structures. I believe the Social Safety Net that we have here in The United States, the way it is structured and the way it is abused, is a modern form of an “opiate of the masses.” Drug abuse is defined as use of a drug for a purpose it was not intended. We shall see that The Social Safety Net is abused also, something that is common…

View original post 463 more words

I overheard a local conservative talk radio host use the term “Conservative Collective” the other day.

The problem with that sentiment is that there is no such thing. It sounds slick. But in a political sense, it is a non sequitur and conservatives must be careful not to use the term “collective” confusingly.

Politically speaking, collectivism is a function of socialism and communism and it means to centralize wealth and governmental authority. In the sense of organized labor, collectivism is “collective bargaining” and it involves group worker action which is not related to politics or government in a strict, political sense of the word, though many have construed it so otherwise.

Diametrically opposed in a political sense, Conservatism is based primarily on smaller government and individual rights. For conservatives to seek the same objective is one thing, but it is improper in a political science sense to use the term “collective” when describing conservative unanimity.

Then of course there is the collective that is the “herd or mob mentality,” more socially motivated, the tyranny of the masses.

For many the term “collective” is much like a code word indicating a certain type of governmental behavior that is to be viewed with suspicion. As an example, I was suddenly alarmed and surprised myself when a particular Republican candidate’s wife used the term “collective” during her national speech a while back, which leads to my essay concerning the influence of a candidate’s spouse, Marital Influence on a Candidate.

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.

Conservatives will have to deal with corporate welfare if we expect to address the abuses of the social welfare system.

William Thien

I can’t tell you how many times when I’ve brought up the subject of social welfare in a discussion and the costs to society the socialist (Democrat) response has almost always been, “Yeah, well what about corporate welfare?”

Those of us who follow a more conservative path must realize that in order to address the matter of social welfare, something we all know is thoroughly abused, we must also address the subject of corporate welfare. Because as long as the socialists can respond to our calls for smaller government and fewer social welfare programs, as long as socialists can respond with, “Well, what about corporate welfare?”, we conservatives won’t make any ground. Why?

Because the socialists have a legitimate point.

Now, I am pro-business. I am a capitalist. But when nonsensical legislation and tax loopholes allow corporations to undermine the American working class by shipping jobs outside of US borders…

View original post 177 more words


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

Find by month

Find by date

July 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jun   Aug »
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: