William Thien

Archive for the ‘Big Government’ Category

While watching Chuck Todd interview Senator John McCain (R-AZ) this morning on Meet the Press Todd asked McCain if he thought the current administration’s flip-flopping from campaign positions to his current positions had something to do with Trump “being sucked in by the Washington establishment?”

McCain’s answer was to chuckle and say, “well, I hope so.”

To me this is proof that not only IS there a Washington establishment, it is proof that our elected know there is a Washington establishment and that perhaps our elected even provide support materially and vocally (obviously McCain supports it vocally in his response to Todd) to the Washington establishment.

Other elected officials were asked about Trump’s positional re-orientations throughout the week and the most common response was, “maybe he is ‘growing’ into the position.” Growing into the position? What a load of b.s.

To be sure, Trump doesn’t have to change his campaign positions. Something is forcing him to do so and it’s not that he “growing into the position.” He is there to implement the will of the people, not to “grow.” He isn’t on a weekend retreat. He is now the President of The United States.

I wrote earlier that it would only be a matter of time before Trump switched his campaign positions due to the Washington establishment and we see now that is exactly what is happening. You can read that post here: What’s Next for Conservatives?

The most disgusting aspect of the “Washington establishment” is that what it means is that those entrenched there in Washington are there to ensure that whomever is elected cannot implement the will of the people without the express consent of “the Washington establishment.”

Ultimately what a “Washington establishment” means is that the will of the people has been effectively thwarted, seemingly in perpetuity, by a bureaucratic element entrenched in our nation’s capital and that there is nothing, either voting for a Republican or voting for a Democrat, that the people can do about it.

What is the solution?

The two major parties take great pains to make sure the public is nearly equally divided (we see this in the election results) right down the middle when it comes to major elections and national issues. The parties talk about the base of the Republican party and the base The Democratic party in their political calculus.

Maybe it’s time that the bases of both parties come together for a new political calculus, disregarding the respective party apparatus so the country can really “drain the swamp” as Trump promised during the election and take care of the needs of the people and not that of “the Washington establishment,” which is what he is now doing.

There are common goals among the bases of both parties. Maybe it’s time we come together and focus on those common goals primarily and forget about our differences, such as abortion and gun rights for example, just once, and see what happens.

Maybe we can set those and other differences aside in order to bring the changes the country requires. Or maybe “the Washington establishment” can deal with that, too. And you know what that means? Think about it.

Because we now have proof that there is indeed a “Washington establishment” and it is working against us, working against us all.

Copyright © William Thien 2017

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 often examine the differences between the candidates and magnify them or amplify them to make our choice at the ballot box easier, but my previous post briefly touched on political cloning, candidates that appear to be different but have in fact quite the same political composition or agenda, even if they come from different parties.

In the case of the two major candidates in the current presidential election, though at the outset they would appear diametrically opposed in many ways, there is one glaring fact that nobody is really talking about in any measurable way, both candidates are from New York.

Hillary Clinton was a New York Senator, even though she originated from Arkansas (go figure that!), and Donald Trump is of course a New York real estate developer. There is also the fact that one candidate has in the past donated significant amounts of money to the other candidate’s candidacy, but that’s neither here nor there, or is it? They tell us it is neither here nor there, that’s for sure. There are other similarities and or connections, some of them not so obvious. Our media is just being paid not to recognize them, I’m quite certain. The most glaring similarity though in my opinion is that both candidates are from New York.

Something about New York, I guess…or New Yorkers, or…

What’s that you say? We live in a democracy!?

Ah, yes, the illusion of choice and so much more efficiently accomplished this time around.

Democracy?! Really? Where?!

Had me going there for a second.

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.

I have written about and we hear more and more now about how extensive socialism is in The United States yet we supposedly live in a free-market economy.

But in reality we don’t completely realize how extensively socialized the country really is.

Well, how extensively socialist is The US, Bill?

Without socialism our supposedly “free-market” economy would collapse overnight.

What? What the heeall is you talking about, Bill?

Well, take rent assistance for example, a socialist program which at first seems designed to keep people off of the streets and with a roof over their heads. But in reality what rent assistance does is prop up apartment rental prices. Rent assistance favors the land owner more than it favors the renter by elevating the value of property and keeping it occupied.

How about food stamps then, Bill? That’s socialism!

Well, food stamps do the same for the price of food that you purchase in the marketplace or at restaurants. Funny thing is, many places that accept food stamps or nutrition assistance funds also employ large numbers of people on food stamps. Take Wal-Mart, for example. A recent Forbes article attributes $6.2 Billion in food stamps and other public assistance to Walmart employees. McDonald’s (something I just discovered when reading the article this morning) and other large restaurant chains account for nearly $7 Billion during the same period. That’s right. If you patronize those establishments, you support the same system which enlarges the socialist state.

But it doesn’t stop there. There are hundreds of food stamp programs in the US. There are just as many other social programs, a large number of them designed to support women having children out-of-wedlock which likely accounts for the largest outlay in dollars for socialist programs.

This is my own observation but without all of these programs the so-called “free market” economy in the U.S. would collapse as prices would fall dramatically and profit margins would vanish. What are considered social programs here in The U.S. have the exact same effect as “price controls,” just on the upside as in a stimulus this time, in a completely socialized country.

Is there a way around or out of this economic condition? Yes, as I was the first to suggest, instead of simply canceling all of the social welfare programs, gradually reduce the outlay over a five or ten-year period by a certain percentage every year, thereby the shock to the beneficiaries of the socialist system by canceling funds immediately.

If in a particular urban area, for example, you cancel rent assistance programs, property values would plummet overnight.

The same is true for food prices if you cancel food stamps.

I’m not saying either is a bad thing, but it explains a lot.

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 reasons the media try so desperately to label mass shooters as “psychologically unstable” following a mass shooting is that in doing so the system itself to which the media represent, the government and the corporations which advertise using the media, avoid being labeled as well, avoid being labeled as perhaps repressive, oppressive, inefficient, bloated, parasitic, socialist, communist, what have you.

No one would dispute that there has been a recent increase in mass shootings. At least on the face of things it would seem that the number of shootings has increased. Does this mean that there is a direct correlation with an increase in government oppression or repression or any other such indication? Because the weapons used to commit those mass shootings have been around for some time and available to the public all the while. The weapons have been around much longer than the recent increase in mass shootings to be sure.

With the implementation of such legislation as The Patriot Act and the steady increases in the numbers of law enforcement (nothing wrong with law enforcement, just making a point), the historical expansion of the surveillance state, the cameras everywhere you go, the monitoring of internet activity both by the government and corporations who shove tailored sales pitches at you while on the internet and then chase you up and down the road with advertisements, I think that it is quite possible there is a generalized public reaction to these changes, to the expansion of the surveillance and media state, to the “by definition” increase in government AND corporate oppression as defined by the increased, smothering government presence in many communities and in the increases in taxes to cover the costs of such expanded government behavior. Are we seeing the beginnings of a mass public attempt to shake it all off? To a certain extent, I think we are.

In other words, smothered by this new surveillance state it is hard to catch a breath of the fresh air of freedom in this so-called land of the free!

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 live in an age when “party” supersedes “values” and platform. No example of that is more obvious than in the recent surrender of The Sanders campaign to that of Hillary Clinton for the sake of the Democratic Party after being duped no less BY the Democratic Party to which Sanders swore political allegiance.

After seeing what was done by The Democratic Party to the man in the leaked emails, after seeing how stultified Bernie Sanders looked before capitulating to Hillary at the convention, I think it is safe to make a comparison between The Democratic Party’s methods and the strong-arm tactics of the Communist Party in the former Soviet Union or that of the contemporary Communist Party in China.

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.

Regarding the gun debate, particular media pundits like the one I heard the other day like to say that the 2nd Amendment was written at a time when firearms were muskets and flintlocks and the 2nd Amendment as a result is outdated and should be repealed. Here is my response. The constitution was written at a time when only the printing press existed. There were no cameras, no television, no helicopters, no drones, there was no internet, just pen and paper. How would today’s members of the media like to return to the days of the one-off printing press, a new sheet for each turn of the handle?

Answer that! What do you think?

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.

As a conservative I often look for opportunities to vote for conservative candidates when it comes time to enter the ballot box. The problem is that true conservatives are often few and far between at election time.

That party of the two larger which claims to base its platform on conservative principles I’ve found often to be either in complete ignorance of true conservative principles or worse, deliberately disingenuous in its message and political activity.

Recently I blogged that a new law where I reside requires people with no children to demonstrate that they are looking for work and to enroll in a work related training program or they would be removed from eligibility to obtain food stamps. Since the program’s inception, a benefits reduction effort to get people off of social programs, participation in the supplemental nutrition assistance program has dropped by 15,000 participants, 15,000 people with no children that is, and that’s great!

Hold that thought.

Going back to my original point, that true conservatives are often few and far between when it comes to election time, I want to draw your attention to two other wedge issues which that one party of the two larger continually seeks to restrict, abortion and birth control.

It is a fact that crime skyrockets when abortions are illegal or difficult to obtain. More crime necessitates more law enforcement to combat the crime. More law enforcement signifies larger government by definition. Not that I am anti-law enforcement but using pure circular logic, outlawing abortion increases the size of government by increasing the need for law enforcement, not to mention that few if any women can afford to raise a child alone from term to the age of 18 without the aid of some form of government program, which also signifies larger government.

Women that find themselves pregnant out-of-wedlock will likely require some form of government subsidy and over the last several years frequently as many as fifty percent of the babies born in America were born to single mothers. I hope you understand where I am going with this because what is happening there also signifies larger government.

Now, outlaw birth control AND abortion and you have a large social welfare problem burdening the middle classes (the very poor pay few taxes and the very wealthy know how to hide their money) which if I’m not mistaken seems to be by design, if you consider the points I’ve made previously, and that is exactly what is happening today. Sound kind of twisted? Are these sentences overly complex and lengthy? That’s because they closely parallel the structure of the social welfare programs and how they are administered.

Finally, if you require only those without children to look for work and to enroll in job training in order to maintain eligibility for such social programs, you know what that means don’t you? That will increase the numbers of those without children and who had no plans to have any children to now have children so they can be eligible for the benefits I describe. It is human nature. Human nature almost always acts to the contrary of what the government wants to see happen, almost always. Why else would close to fifty-percent of children in The U.S. be born to single mothers? Do you think all those single women suddenly said, “hey, you know what, I think I’ll just go out and get pregnant tonight for the heck of it. Why the hell not!?” Yeah, that’s what’s happening alright.

All of these actions, all of these government programs and behaviors, the drive to outlaw abortion and birth control, the requirement that only those without children look for work and take training, all of them are generally coming from that one party of the two larger which claims to be conservative and all of the programs and actions are increasing the size of government, by definition and in complete, diametric opposition to the principles of true conservatism as a result.

Kind of makes you want to look for a conservative in a different place than where they claim to be coming from, doesn’t it?

The one party to which I refer throughout this observation always seems to blame the other of the two larger parties for the dearth of social programs burdening the middle classes yet much of their legislative behavior and political rhetoric seems in complete concert.

I guess what I am trying to say here is that we shouldn’t be so quick to take what is said at face value when it comes to who is bolstering participation and the size of social programs because the one party who appears often to be blamed has in the chamber an accomplice and that accomplice sits right across the aisle.

Copyright © William Thien 2015

Don’t forget to read my books! Just click on the link I’ve provided to Amazon and it will take you right to my page. Sales of my books are how I pay for all of this. The Kindle version is only $1.00! You can buy my books at Amazon.com

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. Or if you don’t want to offer your email address, click on the “Follow” button midway down the page. 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

September 2017
« Aug    
Follow William Thien on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: