BLOG.LIZMICHAEL.COM

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class (Reuters)

2010-02-02T22:37:00Z

Note: This article was originally published on Reuters but was ordered suppressed by the Obama Administration.
--------------------------------------------------

Backdoor taxes to hit middle class

Mon Feb 1, 2010 - 4:09 PM

By Terri Cullen

NEW YORK (Reuters.com) --The Obama administration's plan to cut more than $1 trillion from the deficit over the next decade relies heavily on so-called backdoor tax increases that will result in a bigger tax bill for middle-class families.

In the 2010 budget tabled by President Barack Obama on Monday, the White House wants to let billions of dollars in tax breaks expire by the end of the year -- effectively a tax hike by stealth.

While the administration is focusing its proposal on eliminating tax breaks for individuals who earn $250,000 a year or more, middle-class families will face a slew of these backdoor increases.

The targeted tax provisions were enacted under the Bush administration's Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001. Among other things, the law lowered individual tax rates, slashed taxes on capital gains and dividends, and steadily scaled back the estate tax to zero in 2010.

If the provisions are allowed to expire on December 31, the top-tier personal income tax rate will rise to 39.6 percent from 35 percent. But lower-income families will pay more as well: the 25 percent tax bracket will revert back to 28 percent; the 28 percent bracket will increase to 31 percent; and the 33 percent bracket will increase to 36 percent. The special 10 percent bracket is eliminated.

Investors will pay more on their earnings next year as well, with the tax on dividends jumping to 39.6 percent from 15 percent and the capital-gains tax increasing to 20 percent from 15 percent. The estate tax is eliminated this year, but it will return in 2011 -- though there has been talk about reinstating the death tax sooner.

Millions of middle-class households already may be facing higher taxes in 2010 because Congress has failed to extend tax breaks that expired on January 1, most notably a "patch" that limited the impact of the alternative minimum tax. The AMT, initially designed to prevent the very rich from avoiding income taxes, was never indexed for inflation. Now the tax is affecting millions of middle-income households, but lawmakers have been reluctant to repeal it because it has become a key source of revenue.

Without annual legislation to renew the patch this year, the AMT could affect an estimated 25 million taxpayers with incomes as low as $33,750 (or $45,000 for joint filers). Even if the patch is extended to last year's levels, the tax will hit American families that can hardly be considered wealthy -- the AMT exemption for 2009 was $46,700 for singles and $70,950 for married couples filing jointly.

Middle-class families also will find fewer tax breaks available to them in 2010 if other popular tax provisions are allowed to expire. Among them:

* Taxpayers who itemize will lose the option to deduct state sales-tax payments instead of state and local income taxes;

* The $250 teacher tax credit for classroom supplies;

* The tax deduction for up to $4,000 of college tuition and expenses;

* Individuals who don't itemize will no longer be able to increase their standard deduction by up to $1,000 for property taxes paid;

* The first $2,400 of unemployment benefits are taxable, in 2009 that amount was tax-free.

Is FACEBOOK run by D.A.R.P.A’s Information Awareness Office?

2010-01-01T02:14:00Z

Is FACEBOOK run by D.A.R.P.A’s Information Awareness Office?
March 31, 2009
By: D. H. Williams @ 10:15 PM – EST

Is FACEBOOK a Department of Defense datamining scheme run by the CIAand D.A.R.P.A.? Should you be trusting all your personal data to FACEBOOK’s management?

FACEBOOK was initially conceived by Mark Zuckerberg but the venture was first funded with $500,000.00 in capital from PayPal founder Peter Thiel. With millions more to come from sources with close ties to D.A.R.P.A, the Central Intelligence Agency and the Department of Defense.

The CIA connection: Another $12.7 million came from James Breyer: he is closely associated with a venture capital company called InQtel established by the CIA in 1999 and he served on the board of BBN. InQtel deals in information technology and intelligence most notably “nurturing data mining technologies”.

The D.A.R.P.A. connection: Dr. Anita Jones former Director of Defense Research and Engineering for the U.S. Department of Defense. While with D.A.R.P.A. her responsibilities included serving as an adviser to the Secretary of Defense. Dr. Jones was also served on the board of directors for InQtel and is now employed by BBN.

D.A.R.P.A. runs the Information Awareness Office whose task it is to collect data on as many people as possible. Their website is full of references to the war on terror, terrorism and terrorist. The IAO claims its programs are for identifying and responding to threats of terrorism.

I.A.O.’s Mission Statement: Information Awareness Office is to gather as much information as possible about everyone in a centralized location for easy perusal by the United States government. Including but not limited to: internet activity, credit card purchase history, airline ticket purchases, car rentals, medical records, educational transcripts, drivers license, utility bills, tax returns and any other available data.

(Original article censored and removed from net.)

I must resign my membership in the Democratic Party

2009-12-21T19:50:00Z

Because of the Health Care Cloture vote which happened in the middle of the night, when thieves break in and rapists work their violence, it has forced me to look reality square in the eye. I have been a member of the Democratic Party for most of this decade. I even organized a campaign committee to run against John McCain as a Democrat. I thought it possible that in the future, I might represent the Democratic Party at an election. I certainly seem like a better ethnic and lifestyle dynamic for the Democrats. However, the 60 vote cloture motion clarified that for me.

You see, I have certain core political values. I figured that at least "some" Democrats shared those values. But the cloture vote illustrated to me quite brazenly that the National Democratic Party shares none of these values. When 60 Senators, and that's a lot of Senators, vote clearly against your own value system, on this many levels, it is very apparent that you are in the wrong party. 60 Senators is unanimity.

Here are some of the core values I am talking about.

1. The insurance mandate. I believe it not only is immoral to try and force someone at gunpoint to buy something, but that it is unconstitutional. The Democratic Party, through this cloture vote, demonstrated that not only do they not care about the morality of the situation, but that they do not care about the Constitution of the United States. And I can recall at least three women Senators, women that I thought had something on the ball, acting like full utter bimbos when confronted by the subject of unconstitutionality.

2. The abortion compromise. I have a core belief that abortion is morally the murder of children, 99% of the time. And though I resist having government thugs employed to try and defend this child's life, I certainly do not want the People to be forced to pay for abortions. The 60 Democrats, though, have no reservation about forcing taxpayers to support abortions, thereby forcing taxpayers opposed to abortion to do one of two things: engage in a full tax strike, refusing to pay all federal and state taxes which might be routed to this purpose, OR, pay it and share in the bloodguilt for these acts when they appear before the throne of God. The 60 Democrats unanimously say that that's "okay".

3. Medical rationing. They can deny it all they want, and they all do, but the Medicare cuts that they have placed in the bill all amount to de facto medical rationing to senior citizens. Now, I'm all for cutting the budget, something Obama has failed to do in any other area, and all for cutting even Medicare, but you must do it in such a way which provides an alternative. An example of an alternative, for example, would be to use a direct subsidy, voucher, or both, for insurers to be able to insure elderly patients, and letting the free market determine some of these costs. But no, the 60 Senators do not provide an alternative, except to "kill granny". Those aren't MY values. But they are the values of 60 Senators.

4. Pork barrel bribery. A lot of bribery had to be engaged in in order to get the final Senators on board for the cloture vote. Now, even if I'm a Senator who otherwise supported the bill, I'm going to step away from it at that point, and demand that these "bribes to other Senators" and special perks for certain states, be taken out of the bill or I will not vote for it.

5. A health care bill written by Big Pharma and Big Medicine. Come on, people. You have people of the Left like Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean telling you this. But 60 Senators of a single party support this. My God, listening to all the propaganda of the Left, you would think these 60 Senators belonged to the Republican Party.

Now these are just five examples among a myriad of examples. They represent things I could never do, would never do, as a Senator. But ALL 60 Senators of a single party did them. Did ALL of them. Tolerated ALL of them. Certainly if a single party rejects every one of the core values with unanimity, core values I believe in, which strike at the totality of all my values, I could never be a member of that party. Yet I am. So I have concluded that requires a "course correction" as they say in aviation.

Now, people are going to tell me, "But Liz, if you were a Senator, you would have done the same thing." Well, no I wouldn't. How do I know? Because I had planned to be a Senator and run for the office. Now, admittedly, under the current scenario, I would NOT have been the 60th vote but the 61st, since I would have been replacing John McCain, a Republican. But let's tweak history a little bit. Say, Norm Coleman beat Al Franken in that Minnesota race. Or Bobby Byrd or Daniel Inouye passed away and were not available for the cloture vote. Whereby then I would have been the 60th vote.

First of all, I state clearly and matter of factly. The abortion language has to be equivalent or more restrictive than the Stupak amendment. All unconstitutional mandates on the People and all unfunded mandates on the states have to be stricken. All new taxes in the bill have to be stricken. Then and ONLY then do I even THINK about voting for this thing. Oh yeah. One other thing.

If ANYONE from the Administration makes a threat to close one of MY bases, say, the Goldwater Range: what happens is this. I go on national television. I state that I want a congressional investigation of the matter, I want Holder to investigate the matter, and I want it either determined that this did not happen, or if it did, I want whoever threatened me and the people of Arizona drummed out of the Administration, perhaps even charged for extortion or treason. And I would say, "Mr. President, untill this is done, I will not vote for any of your initiatives, including this one. And if you will not investigate it, then you can kiss my ass. Because I do not tolerate being threatened."

THAT is what a Democratic Senator, or any Senator, should do. If even ONE of the 58 Democratic Senators did this, I would not be doing this. I would not be resigning from the Democratic Party. Even if they got a dreaded "RINO" to take the place of the rebel Democrats, I would still remain in the Democratic Party, because at least one, or two Senators, share my values. But evidently, none of them share my values. Accordingly, I must hereby resign.

Likely, I will join the Republican Party again, only because of one single man, Ron Paul. I'm not at all clear the Republicans exactly share my core values either. But at the very least, none of the 40 of them demonstrated that by voting for this monstrosity.

Deo Vindice,
Liz Michael

GIVE ME YOUR GUNS!!!

2009-04-11T04:56:00Z

Relax. I'm not one of these stupid gun grabbing politicians that are on the verge of bringing about the next secession. I want the good guys, which most of you reading this are, to have their full rights under the second amendment.

Rather, I am talking about you bleeding hearts who want to get your guns off the street, who hate guns, who think there is no purpose for guns in your world or your city. Don't just throw them away or give them to police. I NEED those guns.

Why do I need those guns? Well, I am 30 miles from a civil war. The civil war between the Mexican People and the Mexican drug cartels. I am very concerned that this violence is going to spill over to THIS side of the border. Fact is, it already has. Now, the drug cartels outgun everybody. Even the military. So down here, we need guns, and we need as many guns as you can send to balance this out. To give you folks a clue, last year, on the border towns of Mexico, there were 8,000 drug war murders. That's EIGHT THOUSAND. That's considerably more than any nutjob in Binghamton or Oakland just pulled off.

I just saw the Diane Sawyer cry fest on ABC's 20/20 about how easy it was to get guns in Virginia. It struck me that a lot of you people just don't want the guns you have. And to quote Bill Clinton, "I feel your pain". Rest assured that by giving your guns to me, you will be giving them to a good cause: defense of the United States of America against foreign enemies. You won't have them on your streets. You won't have your kids handling them. They will be safe in the hands of an American patriot, and will be channeled to other patriots who need these guns.

Now to be fair, to be perfectly legal, you have to, if you are outside Arizona, give the guns to an FFL dealer, who will transfer it to me via another FFL dealer in Arizona. If you are inside Arizona, you can give your guns directly to me. Although if you are in Arizona, I cannot fathom WHY you would want to do that. The Mexican drug war is coming your way. You're going to need those guns. But, if you're insane enough not to want protection from the drug lords, I'll happily take your guns, and you can hand them directly to me.

Fact is, I'd actually like to get a movement started. Whereby you people who are such gun haters, can give all your guns to a good cause, the border communities in Arizona and Texas. To good people. Decent people. Honest people. Who live on these borders, and NEED those guns.

Oh, and let's not forget your ammo. I'll accept the donation of your ammo as well. You don't need any "stinkin' badges" to facilitate THAT. You can legally send it all to me.

Maybe we can form a charity to help facilitate the transfer of guns from bleeding heart gun haters to fine upstanding patriotic citizens in hot spots. Heck, we could register it and give you a tax deduction.

You don't want guns in your neighborhood. Well, fine. To paraphrase Mother Theresa, "Give them to ME." And we believe in diversity. You can send not only your American guns, but your Russian guns, your Chinese guns, your Israeli guns. We love them all equally. They will have a GOOD home, where they will be loved and cared for.

I don't understand why you would ever want to give up your guns. But if you do, well, I guess I have to play the understanding friend. Fine. I'll take them. It's the least I can do.

Liz Michael
www.lizmichael.com

CLINTON: US TO ENFORCE ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN - WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS?

2009-03-27T14:11:00Z

Greg Dempsey asked us the following question:

"Hillary Clinton and Mexican President Felipe Calderon met in Mexico City. 'I think these assault weapons, these military style weapons, don't belong on anyone's street.', Clinton said. 'During the time period from 1994 to 2004, when the ban was in effect, our
police in America were able to drive crime down because they didn't have to worry about these assault weapons getting into the hands of criminals and gang members. So we will make the case that we need to put more teeth in the law, try to prohibit the sale outside of our borders of these guns. We're going to talk to the Congress, I'm not going to sugarcoat it. It's a
very heavy lift.'

Greg: Clinton to enforce assault weapons ban - what are your comments?

Okay, first of all, the US CAN'T enforce an assault weapons ban because there is none. And if you remember, the AWB was only against IMPORTATION, not sale, possession or manufacture.

In terms of renewing the AWB, it's probably not going to happen. Pelosi is opposed to it and the Senate Blue Dogs are opposed to it, and it would take a political miracle for it to occur.

Now, all that being said, it's a horrid idea, possibly the worst idea in the history of bad ideas. Here's why.

1. It's unconstitutional. That's important as you'll see why.

2. It has the potential of not only destroying Obama's presidency but destroying the country. First Obama's presidency: if such a thing were enacted, you would likely see a Republican rout in the 2010 elections. Hillary "claims" the AWB drove down crime. She conveniently forgets that the AWB was one major factor in making Newt Gingrich Speaker, and really set the table for the whole Bush
presidency. (And what really drove crime down was increased police presence and increased use of the death penalty paired with a bustling economy. The AWB had nothing to do with it.)

3. Look at this from where I am at in Arizona. Hillary is saying that with a Civil War 30 miles from my border, that she wants to disarm ME, and make it more difficult for ME to match the firepower of the drug lords. This is assinine. Excuse the frack out of me, but it ALREADY IS ILLEGAL FOR GUN DEALERS TO SELL ARMS TO MEXICAN NATIONALS, you stupid bitch. So trying to take MY AW's actually AIDS the drug lords. And that brings me to 4.

4. Several states are seriously contemplating articles of secession over the issue of guns. The most direct of these articles is Montana's: it states that for the federal government to try and enact severe gun control legislation is an ABROGATION OF MONTANA'S COMPACT BETWEEN MONTANA AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and allows Montana to declare independence. I am considering running for the legislature in Arizona as a Democrat. If I win, the very first piece of legislation I will proffer will be conditional articles of secession, should the federal government try to restrict access of the citizens of my district to weapons of self defense against the drug cartels. Frankly, if the federal government will not allow THE PEOPLE this self defense option, they deserve to be fired. They have broken the contract between they and the citizens of Arizona, and the citizens of Arizona should LEAVE the Republic based on that breach.

I've tried to give Hillary Clinton as much leeway as I can considering how I have traditionally felt about her. But frankly, if this is her idea of defending America, she can kiss my ass.

If this shit continues to escalate, it is going to destroy the Obama agenda and it is going to get his ass beat in 2012, and you all know pretty well all the "fine people" (sic) who would be in line to replace him. This nonsense may also ultimately force some of Obama's staunchest allies over to the other side. It's crazy and it's insanity.

And it very well could destroy the Union if the issue is pushed.

You people probably want to know what I'm doing and thinking

2009-03-09T18:16:29Z

It seems I don't have a lot of time to blog, so here goes.

Professionally, I am marketing a cartoon series called "Wo Fat Clan". Wo Fat Clan is primarily about a set of geese, turkeys, and chickens who live on a farm with their owner (me) in the modern day Confederate States of America. You can read about it as I have updated it, www.wofatclan.com . It is not the purpose of the cartoon to sell the resurrection of the Confederacy, but that would be a nice after effect as far as I'm concerned.

Now, on the initial days of the Obama administration. The primary complaint I have is that way too much of it resembles the Bush administration that we just got through with. Same bloated budgets. Same corporate bailouts. Same failed policies. Don't get me wrong, I think "some" of the stimulus items needed to be done. However, in terms of rescuing the economy, I can tell you that unless MAJOR MAJOR cuts in the federal budget are engaged, none of this is going to do any good. The Treasury Secretary is a disaster. I have far less exception with the "socialist agenda" that seems to get the right wing in such a tizzy, than I do the apparent complete lack of fiscal discipline and accounting ability. I was pleased to see them do away with "dishonest accounting measures". But if they don't radically change the way government spends, it is ALL going into the toilet.

The trouble is, the Republicans can't make up their minds what they want to do. They stuck together on the Stimulus package, more or less, but in terms of the remnant Bush budget, they can't seem to make up their minds whether they want to be Goldwater conservatives or Tip O'Neill liberals. And Obama is not helping, and he has indicated he will sign whatever they send him, which is a compelte and full cop out. He is now the president, and he needs to act like he actually replaced Bush, like the People elected him to do.

Obama's also going the wrong way down the street on gun control measures. Although it is not likely that any of them will pass, both he and Holder, on the subject of the Mexican drug cartels, have revealed themselves to be complete idiots. Fortunately, their proposals will never pass. But the thing about it is, I would really like the Obama administration to SUCCESSFULLY steer the country into the right direction. If they are so clueless as to what needs to be done on the Southern border, it doesn't sound very promising that he will do that. Also, perhaps Obama doesn't keep up with these things. But about 20 states have passed or are going to pass resolution which effectively declare for all intents and purposes, secession, if the fedgov goes through with an oppresive gun control agenda. It's a good thing he's studied Lincoln. If he continues to pursue gun control, he may find himself in the exact same position as Lincoln.... having to determine whether to go into rebelled states with military force to subdue secessions. Except now, we have nukes. You know, the REST of us could manage real well without the Boston to DC corridor and Illinois and California. If we are the "United States of America", then Obama needs to abide by the CONSTITUTION of the "United States of America". In toto, without exceptions. Otherwise, he may find himself in a comparable situation to his lifelong hero, Mr. Lincoln.

Liz Michael
http://www.wofatclan.com
http://www.lizmichael.com

Joel McNally: gun grabbing moron

2008-12-07T06:05:00Z

Joel McNally writes a stupid column, here:

http://gazettextra.com/news/2008/dec/02/gun-owners-aiming-shoot-government/

proposing various violations of the Constitution. And my response...

The only restriction that is constitutional, Joel, and that is "common sense", is that it is okay to ban a firearm for civilian use, SO LONG AS said use is also banned of the military and banned of law enforcement.

I will cite as an example, the sawed off shotgun. That is illegal. No one is allowed to have them, at least, not in operational order anyway. But the military doesn't carry them and neither do the police. So I am perfectly comfortable with that.

I need to point out the second amendment was not about hunting, nor was it really about crime per se. It was about allowing civilians to arm themselves so that in case invasion, insurrection, or some other oppressive tyranny eventuated, the populace could form militias to dispel said offenses, and the governor of a state could call loosely formed militias and those with militia weapons into service. The state, and the country, wouldn't have to issue firearms or train in firearms: the populace would already be at the ready.

That "such a thing could never happen" is an absurdity. I live thirty miles from the Mexican border. Border towns all across Mexico are rife with the violence of the drug cartels. This is not something of history books. It is real, in real time, today. There is a far greater risk that I will fall victim to a Mexican Zeta than I ever will fall victim to an Osama bin Laden plot. If you somehow think that citizens in Southern Arizona should NOT have the right to match the firepower of the drug lords, you sir, are a blooming idiot, and I am saying that about as politely as I can, and you and people who think like you are as big a danger to this country as the Mexican drug lords.

I'm not going to get into a debate with you about "this weapon" or "that weapon" and whether it is proper for a civilian to own said weapon. I will simply flatly say that if a weapon should be banned for possession by the common populace, it should be banned for use by our military and by our police, and not just by OUR military, but it is something that should be banned internationally. We have some weapons that are so banned. Nerve gas, mustard gas, anthrax, Ricin, for example. It is not only illegal for the populace to use them, it is illegal in war for any military to use them. It is a war crime.

And given the inequity of power between militaries and the common people, I believe if there is to be any weapons confiscation, then the first to be disarmed must be the military and law enforcement. Only after all such agencies have turned in and destroyed all of THEIR weapons of a given type, will I even entertain the concept that the common man should give theirs up as well. Again, this must happen worldwide, and there should be no exception for the elites.

But this is the problem with you people. You believe these firearms are dangerous in OUR hands, yet you dismiss the fact that they are JUST AS DANGEROUS, probably even moreso, in the hands of law enforcement, and also as dangerous in the hands of our military.

You may call it a "harmless fantasy" about The People rising up to throw off their abusive government. Ya know who the author of that "harmless fantasy" was? Thomas Jefferson. I think I need to remind you about exactly how this country was founded. That "harmless fantasy" about shooting government officials had a name in 1776. It was called the American Revolution. The first five presidents of the United States were active participants in that "harmless fantasy".

In other words, the United States of America was founded by people who rose up against their standing oppressive government, and they "shot the bastards".

Yes, the radicals never did move to "overthrow" Bush and his cronies. I was disappointed for sure. But let me ask you a question. Why does the Left, always aim "gun control" at The People. Why haven't they moved to disarm the police and disarm the military? Especially when you all are saying that the military was improperly killing so many innocents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Why do you never move to take THEIR weapons away?

And before assuming what you think is the obvious, log onto my blog and check out whose picture sits on top. I assure you that probably millions of people of my party believe exactly as I do.

Liz Michael
blog.lizmichael.com

You all don't know what we had on McCain

2008-11-12T15:57:00Z

Hey, to all the people objecting to my supporting the election of Obama, you guys just do not understand what intelligence several of us had on McCain. We had evidence on McCain sufficient enough to COMPEL us to break the tie and vote for Obama.

I've heard this rationalized six ways from Sunday. Here is the bottom line. I voted for Obama to defeat McCain. Period. No other third party candidates had supporters who sufficiently believed in them to give them the money to make them relevant. That's not MY fault, that is the fault of the supporters of those candidates, and you know who you are. Hell, Chuck Baldwin didn't even appear on my freakin' BALLOT. No other vote would defeat McCain.

At issue was the electoral vote count in the state of Arizona. Why is THAT important? Well, I am a voter in Arizona. I felt it was necessary here to defeat McCain in the Arizona electoral college in order to destroy his career in Arizona. That didn't work, he won Arizona anyway, but polls showed him in trouble here.

With my vote for Obama, I was trying to influence the 2010 election. Namely, I wanted McCain to retire. I want him gone. So yeah, I voted strategically, as I have for 33 years, and voted for the principal opponent of the person I felt most dangerous. I backed that up by voting Republican in several places on the ballot. The last person I thought I was voting FOR as President prior to voting for Ron Paul in the primaries was Ross Perot. Perot merited it because his supporters were getting behind him, and he was investing his own wealth in the process. Paul merited it because his supporters were getting behind him. I do vote for someone I want if someone I want appears on the ballot AND makes themselves relevant to the race. Perot and Paul did that.

I'm sorry if my voting upset you all. That's just too goddamned bad. You want to matter, then get behind the people you want, put your wealth behind them, and make them relevant to the race. You want me NOT to vote for an alleged Socialist, then get involved in the GOP to make sure they nominate people who aren't Socialists. If all you people give me is a choice between a European Socialist and a National Socialist/Soviet Socialist, I'll take the European Socialist every time. So will most people. That's why Obama won. You want to offer Freedom? Put up Freedom candidates.

My personal opinion is about the GOP is, unless they put up 100% gun rights candidates and at least 90% freedom candidates, they should be defeated at the polls and that Democrats should be elected in their place. Also, as long as the GOP stand for the "Gayhaters Organizing Party", you have got to realize that many of us are just simply NOT going to go along. I'm willing to overlook that... IF their candidate is a freedom canidate... but not otherwise.

I thought Obama was a better choice tha McCain, significantly. I still do. I think Obama is a better choice than Kerry. Possibly even a better choice than Al Gore. Would there have been better choices among the Democrats who didn't run? Sure. Howard Dean for starters. But that's water under the bridge as Dean didn't run.

But if you don't understand why I voted for Obama, then you seriously misunderestimated how much I and many of my compadres despise John McCain. You have failed to study McCain, if you fail to understand how and why we felt the need to vote against him. Study up on that if your heads are still spinning, and stop trying to fly this canard about "Liz Michael's lack of ethics".

Oh, for anybody who wants to put their money wher their mouth is...

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/RonPaul2012

Mystery Babylon the Great

2008-10-12T07:40:00Z

Folks, about a couple of years ago, I made public a surmisal that the traditional interpretation of "Babylon The Great Mother Of Harlots" might not be a church or a government after all. What it might be is the ECONOMIC system which currently runs the world.

Usually I hear revolving revs of all sorts come up with all kinds of things when a big event happens. I have yet to hear one of them bring up THIS prophecy in connection to the current financial collapse. I want you to in particular pay close attention to one fact: how QUICKLY the collapse of Babylon occurs. Also think about the two major faiths that have been assuming world rulership and think about WHERE they originated. Where really. And that is it THEIR people pushing the buttons in this mess.

I'm saying this because I am rather surprised no one is saying the obvious. I would say, think about the financial collapse, and read this in that context. Several times. And remember, I'm not saying this. "Someone else" is. Spread this around.

Liz Michael
blog.lizmichael.com

Revelation 17 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain

Revelation 17

1And there came one of the seven angels which had the seven vials, and talked with me, saying unto me, Come hither; I will shew unto thee the judgment of the great whore that sitteth upon many waters:

2With whom the kings of the earth have committed fornication, and the inhabitants of the earth have been made drunk with the wine of her fornication.

3So he carried me away in the spirit into the wilderness: and I saw a woman sit upon a scarlet coloured beast, full of names of blasphemy, having seven heads and ten horns.

4And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

5And upon her forehead was a name written, MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH.

6And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration.

7And the angel said unto me, Wherefore didst thou marvel? I will tell thee the mystery of the woman, and of the beast that carrieth her, which hath the seven heads and ten horns.

8The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is.

9And here is the mind which hath wisdom. The seven heads are seven mountains, on which the woman sitteth.

10And there are seven kings: five are fallen, and one is, and the other is not yet come; and when he cometh, he must continue a short space.

11And the beast that was, and is not, even he is the eighth, and is of the seven, and goeth into perdition.

12And the ten horns which thou sawest are ten kings, which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.

13These have one mind, and shall give their power and strength unto the beast.

14These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.

15And he saith unto me, The waters which thou sawest, where the whore sitteth, are peoples, and multitudes, and nations, and tongues.

16And the ten horns which thou sawest upon the beast, these shall hate the whore, and shall make her desolate and naked, and shall eat her flesh, and burn her with fire.

17For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled.

18And the woman which thou sawest is that great city, which reigneth over the kings of the earth.

Revelation 18 (King James Version)

King James Version (KJV)

Public Domain

Revelation 18

1And after these things I saw another angel come down from heaven, having great power; and the earth was lightened with his glory.

2And he cried mightily with a strong voice, saying, Babylon the great is fallen, is fallen, and is become the habitation of devils, and the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird.

3For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies.

4And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, Come out of her, my people, that ye be not partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues.

5For her sins have reached unto heaven, and God hath remembered her iniquities.

6Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double.

7How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow.

8Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judgeth her.

9And the kings of the earth, who have committed fornication and lived deliciously with her, shall bewail her, and lament for her, when they shall see the smoke of her burning,

10Standing afar off for the fear of her torment, saying, Alas, alas that great city Babylon, that mighty city! for in one hour is thy judgment come.

11And the merchants of the earth shall weep and mourn over her; for no man buyeth their merchandise any more:

12The merchandise of gold, and silver, and precious stones, and of pearls, and fine linen, and purple, and silk, and scarlet, and all thyine wood, and all manner vessels of ivory, and all manner vessels of most precious wood, and of brass, and iron, and marble,

13And cinnamon, and odours, and ointments, and frankincense, and wine, and oil, and fine flour, and wheat, and beasts, and sheep, and horses, and chariots, and slaves, and souls of men.

14And the fruits that thy soul lusted after are departed from thee, and all things which were dainty and goodly are departed from thee, and thou shalt find them no more at all.

15The merchants of these things, which were made rich by her, shall stand afar off for the fear of her torment, weeping and wailing,

16And saying, Alas, alas that great city, that was clothed in fine linen, and purple, and scarlet, and decked with gold, and precious stones, and pearls!

17For in one hour so great riches is come to nought. And every shipmaster, and all the company in ships, and sailors, and as many as trade by sea, stood afar off,

18And cried when they saw the smoke of her burning, saying, What city is like unto this great city!

19And they cast dust on their heads, and cried, weeping and wailing, saying, Alas, alas that great city, wherein were made rich all that had ships in the sea by reason of her costliness! for in one hour is she made desolate.

20Rejoice over her, thou heaven, and ye holy apostles and prophets; for God hath avenged you on her.

21And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone, and cast it into the sea, saying, Thus with violence shall that great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all.

22And the voice of harpers, and musicians, and of pipers, and trumpeters, shall be heard no more at all in thee; and no craftsman, of whatsoever craft he be, shall be found any more in thee; and the sound of a millstone shall be heard no more at all in thee;

23And the light of a candle shall shine no more at all in thee; and the voice of the bridegroom and of the bride shall be heard no more at all in thee: for thy merchants were the great men of the earth; for by thy sorceries were all nations deceived.

24And in her was found the blood of prophets, and of saints, and of all that were slain upon the earth.

This will be posted to my blog as well so you may comment.

Liz Michael
blog.lizmichael.com

Obama for President

2008-09-24T16:33:24Z

First things first. Today I am officially endorsing Barack Obama for President. I have admittedly been strongly leaning toward Obama, and had planned to vote for him, but circumstances have encouraged me to officially give him my endorsement.

The prime reason for my open endorsement is his opposition. None of his opposition can seem to stop lying about him. You cannot imagine the amount of bile and vitriol that has come into my mailbox over this man. Most of it is either wholly irrelevant, or it is wholly made up. Perhaps the most absurd accusation is that Obama is an elitist: an accusation leveled by of all people, Lady Lynn Forester de Rothschild!!! Eventually, one comes to the conclusion that, if so many evil people are so against him, how bad can he really be, and maybe he's actually good.

Now, y'all cannot be thinking I was ever going to embrace McCain. The poor boy cannot stop lying. He lies about his 13 cars, and how they were all made in America. When a number of them weren't. McCain rejected the view that the United States was in decline as the country faces economic turmoil. He says American workers are "the backbone and the foundation of our economy," while simultaneously supporting every policy from trade to immigration that stomps all over said workers.

Just the fact that Obama realizes there is a problem with the economy is better than the alternative. I mean, come on. If your house is on fire, which team are you gonna call? The team that sees that there is a problem, even though you're not sure of their experience and training? Or the team that shows up and declares, "Well, your house is very beautiful and it has a sound foundation. Why are you whining about a little thing like a theoretical fire? We're not even sure there IS a fire." Well... who would YOU call?

The Palin question

By the way, most of you know (and some of you hate) that I am somewhat politically libertarian. I also walked around with the Ross Perot crowd, even though I never registered in their party. There is an underground rumor that Palin is a. a reformer, and b. a libertarian. Let me set the record straight. I've investigated this thoroughly. NOTHING could be further from the truth. No fiscal libertarian would chase all the pork she chased, and no fiscal libertarian would increase the size of the state budget the way she did. Her "reform" seems to have consisted of replacing the old Republican good old boys with her own "Good New Boys". Experience is NOT my objection with Palin. It is that she is a complete and utter fraud, running on a ticket with another complete and utter fraud. I'm not saying she's the worst person in the Republican Party, but there is nothing terribly distinguishingly "maverick" about her.

I try to put several figures in her place. I put ME in there for instance. If I were Governor of Arizona, I cannot imagine doing what she did and governing how she governed. I put in Ron Paul, who is perhaps the most renown small "l" libertarian... can't imagine Paul would govern as she did. I can't imagine Jesse Ventura, who ran as a reformer, governing as she has. I sure as hell can't imagine Ross the Boss running Alaska her way.

So if any idiot comes to you trying to palm off Palin and McCain as either libertarians or reformers, please, please, please, put them in touch with me. I just don't see any evidence of it. As they say in the south, "that dog just won't hunt". To the Obama critics, I tell them, sure, I could be being fooled, and might even be a little skeptical. BUT. With McCain-Palin, I'm not fooled at all, I know exactly what's coming, and I want "no fracking part of it" as a good friend of mine would say. Even Ron Paul would seemingly prefer you vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney than vote for McCain-Palin, that's how bad HE thinks they are.

Also, Palin's religion DOES concern me. I am concerned she is a Dominionist. If you don't what that is, look it up. I had the same reservations with Mike Huckabee. I don't want to live in a theocracy. If I did, I'd move to Iran. I'm somewhat convinced that if they are elected, Palin's handlers will have McCain shot. Should happen about March or April 2009, just like Poppy Bush and Reagan.

Third Parties

Yeah, I know some of you are thinking I should vote third party. And you know what... when a serious third party candidate comes up that agrees with me enough AND demonstrates he or she has a chance in hell of winning 20% of the vote, I probably will go for them, like I voted for Perot twice.

I belonged to a group called the Revolutionary Coalition. The aim of the Revco was to get the third parties united into a single "Super Third Party" so they would indeed have that chance. The intent was also to boycott all the third parties and not vote for them until they did that. Well, the third parties pissed on that concept. So I piss on them. Come back when you're serious, boys, because right now, you ain't.

Back to Obama

But back to Obama. One thing I like about Obama is his management style, desiring to bring all parties to the table in a consensus, as opposed to the McCain "temper tantrum" one gets when he or she defies the little admiral. Because of this, I don't feel I HAVE to agree with Obama on everything: I will still be able to get a seat at the table and my voice heard. It's very important for people with libertarian beliefs. As opposed to McCain, whose people all but shit on the libertarian wing of the GOP.

Could I regret helping to elect Obama? Sure. But two things. One, he is a damn sight better than Kerry, whom I voted for with a bag over my head, and he is a damn sight better than Hillary Clinton. And two, I do not anticipate that I will regret voting against a McCain presidency, regardless of what happens under Obama.

General Musings about the Democratic Convention and Sarah Palin

2008-09-01T01:40:00Z

Not a column, nothing as historical as my Open Letter article, but some things to say.

I saw most of the Democratic Convention. Pretty good theater. Neither terribly impressed nor terribly mortified. The speeches in terms of delivery rate an A, but this is not what's really important.

Advisory: I am a pro-gun, pro-gay rights registered Democrat with strong libertarian streak. So if you're accustomed to liberal or conservative, you will shake your heads over me. Yes, Ron Paul Democrats do exist.

Let's talk Vice Presidents. Joe Biden. Democrats seem fairly satisfied, Republicans in general are mortfied. My belief. It was a good pick for Obama. Biden shores up a foreign policy deficiency that Obama needing shoring up on. Plus Biden is a "regular guy". He is capable of picking up some of the Appalachian areas that Obama seemed to lose to Hillary Clinton. No, I don't like it that neither one are good on the Second Amendment. I particularly don't like it that Biden sponsored VAWA. However, most gunners have to realize that one, the Constitution is more than the Second Amendment... those other articles matter, too, and two, on most gun control LIKELY TO ACTUALLY COME TO THE TABLE, McCain is just as bad as Obama and Biden. So Obama and Biden should be viewed on other issues, IMO.

Now about Sarah Palin. Actually, the Democrats are totally mortified. The Republicans that I have talked to are not, and are actually fairly positive. There are a few Republicans of libertarian bent that swear that Sarah is one of them. To date, I've not seen evidence of that. Some chide the choice, but honestly, look at the field. What does McCain have to choose from. Here, in Palin, McCain gets to satiate the Huckabee crowd and the other evangelicals, to whom experience matters not one whit as long as you are pro-life, pro-gun, and believe in JEEEEEEEEEEEEZUS. He throws a bone to the gunners. And her claim to fame is supposed to be as a "Reformer": I think that might just be a wee bit premature.

Now, who do Democrats have to thank for the Palin pick? They can look to both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. Obama has similar limited experience to Palin. And then there's Hillary. The worst resume among elected Democratic women, who first got her Senate job because she was the King's Consort and really for no other reason. Although most of them won't admit it, a lot of people supported Clinton either out of feminine symapthy, or because they thought she was hot. No, I do not share that opinion of Hillary's hotness, but I have heard it expressed over and over and over again, and I suppose if you'e an 80 year old geezer, one of her main constituent bases, she's probably not that bad. But I've heard it from some younger people as well. I don't believe for a second it's because she's extraordinarily experienced. She ain't. Plus, the "PUMA" caucus, all those Hillaryites who can't stand Barack Obama... well, they opened this door. McCain just called their bluff, if that's all it is.

Which brings me back to another reason I think the Palin pick happened. The Hottie Factor. Coming from a 72 year old man with a 50ish second wife, one has to wonder if being an attractive 44 year old woman and ex beauty queen didn't factor into the equation. I mean, after all, he could have picked Liddy Dole. Not really bad looking for a woman her age, but then I don't think McCain wanted to keep company with a 60 something for the next four years.

All of this aside, the fact still remains. The big problem with the Republican ticket is not the bottom, it's the top. John McCain is a lying sack of shit. I can speak authoritatively about that as an Arizona resident, and the more I look into him, the less I like him. If I had had 10% of Cindy McCain's dough, I would have run against the son of a bitch in 2004, and maybe beaten him for all I know, and this would not be an issue. Voting for a McCain-Palin ticket would be doing a Pat Robertson: by that I mean, I would be voting for the ticket, praying in earnest to God for the death of John McCain in about February 2009, so beauty queen Sarah could step up. IF I decided she was a Ron Paul Republican. Something I've yet to see any evidence of, by the way, I must underscore.

BTW, I consider lack of experience in Washington a plus, not a minus, for both Obama and Palin.

So I'm still undecided on the pick. Not that my Arizona vote matters. I still lean to Obama-Biden, but Sarah has an opportunity to sell me, and I'll give her her shot. Here's a tip to Sarah... if you're REALLY a Ron Paul Republican, you'll go to the Paulite convention in Minnesota this week and I'm sure they'll give you the floor. You sell them, you may sell me.

Welcome to the Liz Michael Blog

2008-08-24T23:00:00Z

Welcome to the Liz Michael Blog. As some of you may have seen, I haven't made additions to my web page lately, because, well, I haven't had time to write articles. I do have time to make daily to occasional commentary, so I will do this. Thus, we are turning LizMichael.com's main page into a blog, so that you people can see and hear me more often.

Don't worry. Previous articles will all be where they are, and will be referenced and catalogued in due time. Please bear with us while we straighten all this mess out.

The old intro page will temporarily be housed at http://www.lizmichael.com/old.htm, until such time as the infomation can properly be catalogued. The pics will come back. Ads which are performing will return.