William Thien

Archive for June 2016


American Gun Facts Infographic

Advertisements

The thing about socialism is that eventually there are so many socialists as generations upon generations come to know no other system of sustenance that the hope that any democratic effort, a majority of votes to lead a country away from that socialist state is futile. Only massive economic upheaval or physical action can bring change.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

We are living at a time in the country’s political history when during national campaigns there is no clear choice to be made during the general election. Maybe there was one during the primary, but by the time the media has instituted its selection process, what usually remains is quite similar and we are stuck with having to make once again a “lesser of two evils” choice which is of course no choice at all. It is rather the illusion of choice.

During the last three presidential campaigns there has been not one single “Dang, that guy’s just the best I’ve ever seen. He’s awesome” candidate running for office.

Given the current candidates from the two major parties, we have passed those circumstances I believe and the choices are rather clear.

We see in Hillary Clinton an extension of the Washington socialist aristocracy that has become entrenched, residing in and about The White House for decades. Admittedly, Hillary herself has said she will continue with the current administration’s legislative programming.

Trump, on the other hand, often seems diametrically opposed to the status quo.

So, if you don’t like the way things are going in this country, the choice should be rather clear. If you want things to stay the same, well then that choice is clear as well.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

 

Before you read this, let me state that I do not have faith in most political polling and political polls in general. Polling can be used to sway an election or cover up facts. As an example, all polling of the pre-Brexit vote indicated a massive landslide in favor of remaining in The EU. Look at what has happened instead. I do not say completely disregard political polling, rather examine the results carefully. 

Now that the dust has settled and the media have completed their feast of the massacre in Orlando, I had an observation or two regarding what occurred directly afterward.

Within a day the Clinton campaign instituted massive damage control efforts.

“Damage control efforts by the Clinton campaign, what are you talking about, Bill?”

Within a day the media began spinning a myth that Hillary Clinton was suddenly way out in front in the polls after the massacre when just a day before things were neck and neck between her and Trump. The polls quoted were obscure, unscientific, and the intended outcome was not so obvious. Permit me to explain.

It was reported that the shooter had pledged allegiance to IS, ISIL or whatever they are being called today by the establishment.

Donald Trump had been calling on a complete ban on entry into The United States by all Muslims “until we can get this thing figured out,” he said. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, had been saying such an idea was nonsense. Personally I believe it may be a bit extreme.

But the first thought that crossed the minds of many Americans after it was revealed that the shooter had pledged allegiance to ISIS during a 911 call was, ‘Huh, maybe Trump is right about a temporary ban on Muslim entry into The United States.’ Because of the massacre and the shooters 911 call pledging allegiance to ISIS many of the naysayers and the undecideds regarding Trump’s ban on Muslim entry into The United States had suddenly had their minds made up for them.

‘Huh, maybe Trump is right about a temporary ban on Muslim entry into The United States.’

You know that’s what many Americans were thinking. I know it and so do the media and the Clinton campaign.

This explains the massive spin efforts following the massacre to include the results of polls showing Hillary Clinton suddenly in the lead and the redaction by federal officials of the 911 call the shooter made, which was later cancelled and the full transcripts made public because of pressure from Republicans and various advocacy groups. At first we were told that the 911 call was edited because we didn’t want to lend credence to Islamic terrorist organizations, in so many words. But as you will see, the real reason was political.

Essentially, knowing that Trump’s comments about banning Muslim entry into The USA, which had been vilified by the opposition, would now be almost completely vindicated following the massacre, knowing this, something had to be done. A deception had to occur immediately. The wool had to be pulled over the public’s eyes. And who better to pull the wool over the public’s eyes than the media, a rather willing accomplice wouldn’t you say?

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

Lately we have heard from the current administration as well as Hillary Clinton, The Democratic Party presidential nominee, that to ban all Muslims from entry into The United States, a Trump proposal, would signify that the terrorists have won. Personally, I think that Trump’s proposal is a bit extreme.

But Trump’s proposal is nowhere nearly as extreme as curtailing the constitutional rights of American citizens by banning firearms. And he did say “until we can figure out what is happening.” There is in fact no comparison whatsoever between Trump’s proposal and what Democratic leadership is proposing. None!

Here is why. Banning Muslim entry into The United States is an act upon non-citizens.

Banning a constitutional right is an act upon the citizenry. The laws were written for US Citizens, not foreigners!

Banning the ownership and use of firearms, involves the reconfiguration of the framework and the foundation of this country’s constitution while the other what is most likely a temporary hold on immigration.

I do not say here that I support a ban on Muslim entry into The United States. But the mere juxtaposition by Democrats of such an action next to the massively extreme and fundamentally significant act of altering the very foundation of The US Constitution indicates that either The Democratic Party is a facade for some other political entity or that members of that party don’t have any idea what they are working with when it comes to The US Constitution.

On one hand you have what is likely a temporary hold in Muslim immigration and on the other you have a permanent and massively significant change to the constitution that will not only remove a constitutional right from the citizens of this country but will also permanently alter the entire construction and complexion of The United States itself.

The terrorists may have won, as has been suggested, if there is a temporary ban on Muslim entry into The United States, but they will have merely won a small skirmish in what some see as a larger holy war. If we change the constitution as Democrats propose and begin banning generally used firearms or the use of firearms altogether, the terrorists will not have just won a small skirmish but will be much closer to winning the entire war itself.

The thing of it is, most of this rhetoric is coming from politicians that were attorneys first, one of them a specialist in Constitutional Law no less. You would think they were be able to make the distinction between the significance of banning the entry of certain immigrants into the country and taking away a constitutional right from citizens of this country. The two actions are massively and significantly different on every level.

Unless you are totally ignorant of the country’s history, it makes you ask if there is something else happening, if you know what I mean.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

 

In environmental science there is a term called “Carrying Capacity” which is essentially a number that indicates how many members of a particular species an ecosystem can sustain and maintain indefinitely. In other words, certain areas in the wild may only be able to maintain certain numbers of deer or elk before the animals begin to become overpopulated, emaciated and sickly as a result of insufficient food and resources, water, what have you.

The term “Carrying Capacity” is not without its parallels regarding human activity as well.

Lately we have been hearing quite a bit about the refusal by Congress to restrict illegal immigration as well as a refusal to cap the numbers of H-1B visas and other administrative actions that enable foreign workers to be employed within the borders of The United States, often displacing American workers.

Furthermore we are witnessing the administration’s drive to enact trade deals such as TPA and TPP, known as Trade Promotion Authority and Trans-Pacific Partnership which many in our own government suggest will not favor American workers. These programs are reminiscent of the Ross Perot candidacy against Bill Clinton in the 90’s when Perot suggested that the ratification of NAFTA (North American Free Trade Agreement) would end with a “giant sucking sound” of jobs leaving The United States. And after Clinton ratified NAFTA, that’s exactly what happened.

To all of this legislative activity marginalizing the American worker there has been a growing backlash from the populace. Organizations such as NumbersUSA.com and others have begun to publicize the government’s seeming attempt to undermine the population through legislation that enables and often stimulates the relocation of jobs overseas, that gives American jobs to foreign workers arriving here with special visa status, and that provides benefits to illegal immigrants when our own veterans or homeless are not eligible for those very same benefits.

As Congress refuses to curtail immigration, both legal and illegal, and as Congress authorizes worker visas that displace American workers, America’s “Carrying Capacity” is diminished.

With the migration of industrial production to Asia during the last three decades or more and the rapid, legislated increases in our own country’s population through enforced immigration, I believe America is reaching its “carrying capacity” and that is why we are seeing the popular candidacies of Trump and others like him who address these matters.

Driving jobs overseas through express trade deals and increasing worker visas is the same as marginalizing the resources of an ecosystem in the wild. Just as in the wild, resources are not unlimited. At any given time for there are only so many jobs, for example.

America is reaching its “carrying capacity” and Americans are beginning to say enough is enough.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

One of the greatest myths about a flat tax is that a flat tax unfairly burdens the poor. The argument you will hear is that a flat tax of fifteen percent, for example, on a person making twenty-thousand dollars per year would be $3,000 dollars while the same tax on someone who makes $100,000 per year would be $15,000, and the argument against the flat tax then goes on to suggest that three thousand dollars to the person making twenty-thousand dollars per year means a lot more than $15,000 dollars does to the person making $100,000 per year.

But you never hear the person who makes $20,000 a year complain that such an arrangement would be unfair. I have never heard anyone from that income bracket say they think it is unfair that people pay the same level of taxes at all income levels. Never. Ever!

But you will hear the very wealthy suggest a flat tax is unfair to those earning poverty wages. You would think the very wealthy were looking out for the poor when they make their argument against a flat tax.

The problem with that perspective is that people making middle-income and lower-income wages often pay quite a bit more in taxes as an effective tax rate than the very wealthy. Why? Because those who make such middle and lower-income wages do not have all of the tax loopholes to apply to their income that the very wealthy have when tax time arrives.

While reading the local newspaper today where I reside I came across an article concerning one of the wealthiest women in America, a model self-made woman as described by Forbes Magazine to which the article referenced. The article also revealed that for the last five years the model self-made woman has only paid income taxes during one of those five years.

The self-made woman, a billionaire, must have used umpteen loopholes to avoid paying income taxes for four of those five years, eighty percent of the time she was earning income during the subject period, and while avoiding income taxes it was of course easy to be one of the wealthiest self-made women in America because everyone else was paying the “self-made” woman’s taxes for her while she skated off. How self-made is that?

No wonder there is such a strong sentiment against a flat tax. A flat tax would ensure that people actually pay their fair share. There is, by the way, a component of fairness when it comes to taxation. If you disagree with me, read on.

Now, I do not state here that I favor a flat tax but the scenario I’ve described demonstrates one of the strongest arguments favoring a flat tax.

I am a conservative. I believe in keeping control of taxation. But everyone has to pay taxes if they are earning income. It’s only fair, and the tax code must be fair otherwise it should be subject to the application and exercise of public grievance.

The scenario I have described to you about the woman is by the way really just “socialism.” Such tax loopholes enable people to become what I call “Supersocialists.” The woman has been able through most likely a series of tax loopholes to foist her tax burden on to the public and avoid paying income taxes altogether. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a redistribution of wealth, socialism, communism, what have you. That’s not capitalism, that’s socialism. We see here then in this example that the tax code has significant socialist structure to it, something I’ve been saying for many years now.

Do not be fooled by the argument that a flat tax unfairly burdens the poor. The poor are the most likely beneficiaries of a flat tax as a flat tax would generate added revenue, that which a substantial portion of the population has quite obviously been able to avoid paying, revenue the country desperately needs.

How someone who is on the Forbes list of wealthiest people in America can go four out of five years without paying any income taxes whatsoever to me indicates the US Tax Code is a criminal act upon the American public.

Copyright © William Thien 2016

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. We will never sell your contact information to anyone.

 

 


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

Find by month

Find by date

June 2016
M T W T F S S
« May   Jul »
 12345
6789101112
13141516171819
20212223242526
27282930  
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: