Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Monday, September 24, 2018

Rio Stob: Lynn's Premier Video Now Online- Lynn in Chaps Over Jeans and Boots

Source: Rio Stob- Black leather chaps over blue denim jeans
Source:Action

Love beautiful sexy women in leather chaps over denim jeans. It's the ultimate leather n denim combo, along with leather jackets with denim jeans and boots. The two sexiest materials around when it comes to women right now because they really highlight a woman's body perfectly. When I think of leather n denim especially together, I automatically think of fall and winter fashion where you'll see beautiful sexy women dress up their jeans a lot and wear them blouses and stylish boots, a stylish leather jacket. And wear outfits like that when they're shopping, going out to lunch, going to movies, going out at night.

Source: Kandi Vixen Chaos- Brown leather chaps over blue denim jeans 
Which can go both ways, because the positive route would be a woman with beautiful legs, beautiful round butt, loves jeans and showcasing her legs, as well as butt, but also because they make her feel good and sexy, perhaps horny as well not to mention what they do for guys around her like this baby cutie in this video. But they can go the other way is a woman has serious weaknesses with her body. She's either seriously overweight and anything tight on her is very uncomfortable and over highlights her fat, or she's seriously underweight and frail and tight, sexy clothing over highlights her weaknesses and frailty.

Source: HD Bike Pics- Brown leather chaps over blue denim jeans 
What you see with Lynn ( a woman I don't personally know ) in this video is a beautiful, adorable woman with a cute body, dressing down her jeans which can also look great if the woman puts some effort into it and just doesn't wear her jeans with a t-shirt and flip flops like a teenage girl or wears the just with a college sweatshirt, but puts some real effort into it with a tight short sleeve or long sleeve t-shirt, with boots of course that are meant and probably designed to wear with jeans both denim and leather. Or like with Lynn can wear her denim with boots of course, but with a black tank top, with black leather chaps over her blue denims with her black leather boots. And she's absolutely beautiful and sexy in this video.
Rio Stob: Lynn's Premiere Video Now Available Online

Monday, September 17, 2018

The Economist: The Literature of Liberalism- Liberal Democracy: The Core of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Liberal thinkers 
Source: The New Democrat

There's been this ongoing debate about what liberalism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal. If you were ask me as a Liberal what it means to be a Liberal, I would tell you it means someone who believes in the defense of liberty, meaning the protection of individual rights. If you were to ask me what Liberals believe the role of government is I would tell you is to defend and conserve our individual rights. And where they can expand freedom for people who don't currently have it.

I believe this definition works for anyone who considers them self to be a Liberal and perhaps Libertarian or Conservative-Libertarian, but that doesn't work for everyone especially people who are further left and even Far-Left, but don't see themselves as Far-Left and it's just that everyone else is out of the mainstream, but somehow they're the sane, rational, mainstream people. And instead of calling themselves Socialists or Communists, or even Democratic Socialists or Social Democrats, they prefer to be called Liberals, in some cases Progressives, and the more candid members of the Far-Left especially in America might call themselves Modern Liberals.

Even though a lot of what the Far-Left advocates for is actually illiberal ( meaning anti-liberal ) and not liberal at all. Like censorship when it comes to offensive and critical speech, or hate speech. Protesting against Halloween and Thanksgiving, team nicknames, because they believe those holidays are somehow racist. Using big government to make the dietary decisions for everyone and tell everybody what they can eat and drink and what we can say to each other and in some cases even what we can do with our own bodies. Otherwise known as the nanny state which is just another example of the illiberal-left, not liberal-left.

Along with all of their big centralize government views when it comes to the economy where they believe wealth should essentially outlawed and taxes so high so government can decide how much money and freedom everyone should have, because they don't want anyone to be rich or poor. As well as the belief that big centralize national government is always the best government and decentralizing governmental power is somehow dangerous, along with personal freedom and free speech being dangerous according to the illiberal-left, which is just another way of saying Far-Left or New-Left.

Even though one of the core liberal values of liberalism is that big centralize power shouldn't be trusted and always held accountable and than absolute power whether it's public power or private power corrupts absolutely. But it's not liberal values that the Far-Left believes in, but instead collectivist values and in some cases social democratic values that they believe in.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but they generally support civil rights, democracy, secularism, gender and race equality, internationalism and the freedoms of speech, the press, religion and markets."

According to Merriam Webster

Illiberalism is, "opposition to or lack of liberalism."

So someone who is against free speech and instead is in favor of censorship when it comes to language they don't like whether it's in movies or music, t-shirts, critical speech, offensive speech, hate speech even, someone who believes that speech that's offensive should be censored and that political correctness should be the policy when it comes to speech, is proposing an illiberal view.

Someone who doesn't believe in personal autonomy, personal choice, otherwise known as personal freedom even if they're pro-choice when it comes to women's reproductive rights and sexuality and romance freedom and that romantic couples shouldn't be required to get married before they start living together and having kids, even if you're pro-choice on the issues meaning things that you already agree with, but propose personal freedom in general, because you believe it's dangerous and that individuals can't be trusted to make their own decisions, you're not very pro-choice.

Someone who is pro-choice lets say on abortion, but believes gambling, junk food, soft drinks, alcohol, tobacco, marijuana, should be outlawed, is not very pro-choice. The key when it comes to being pro-choice or not is whether you're pro-choice on abortion and sexuality, or things that you already agree with, but on issues that you might have problems with and wouldn't make those choice for yourself.

Do you believe that people should have the right to make their own personal decisions even if they may disagree with some of their decisions, or not. And if you tend to believe that people should be able to make their own personal decisions, then I suggest you're not only pro-choice, but you might be a Liberal as well. If you're not generally pro-choice, then you're not only not liberal, but probably illiberal which again is the opposite of what it means to be a Liberal.

A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal values. Things like free speech, personal autonomy, decentralization of power, checks and balances, separation of powers, limited government, individual rights, equal rights, equal justice for all, free speech, personal autonomy, and yes property rights and markets. Liberals don't want the government trying to do everything for everybody. Which is just one thing that separates us from Socialists and Communists on the Far-Left and Nationalists and Theocrats on the Far-Right. And if you believe in the liberal values that I just suggested and not the illiberal values where personal freedom practically doesn't exist, because big government has so much power, then I suggest that you might be a Liberal.
Source: Central European University: Roger Scruton- Speaks on Liberalism and Liberal Democracy - Advocating liberalism and liberal democracy 

Monday, September 10, 2018

The Economist: John Stuart Mill- Against Tyranny of The Majority: The Father of Liberalism

Source: The Economist- Tyranny of The Majority 
Source: The New Democrat

What is this is really about is democracy and there several different forms of democracy which I'm going to explain here. And if you're familiar with this blog and my writing, you know that we believe in the liberal form of democracy which is liberal democracy which is what we advocate and I'm going to talk about here as well.

Source: The Federalist Papers- One of the first Liberals 
There are several different forms of democracy. Democracy in itself is just about voting and that citizens deserve the right to vote in their communities and country It's just about being able to not only vote, but having choices in who you vote for. Different party's and different candidates with the voters getting to decide who represents them in the legislature whether it's local, state, or national. Or who get to serve as the chief executive of their community, state, or country. Don't mistake democracy with freedom, because they're two different things. In free societies of course they elect their leaders and representatives through democratic elections. But you could have a country that's technically a democracy, but where you don't have much freedom. Like Russia or Venezuela, or Iran.

Source: Fact Myth- Our Founding Liberals 
What this blog promotes and what I promote with my blog is what's called liberal democracy. America is a liberal democracy, where yes we have multi-party elections, but that's not the basis of our government and not where our people get their freedom. We're a liberal democratic constitutional federal republic. With all sorts of individual rights including the right to vote, but all the right to free speech, the right to worship or not worship, the right to privacy, property rights, the right to sell-defense, even the right to education. All coming not from God or some great Socialist who decided that we should all have these rights, but from our Constitution that was created by our Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals of America.

According to Wikipedia

"Liberal democracy is a liberal political ideology and a form of government in which representative democracy operates under the principles of classical liberalism. Also called western democracy, it is characterised by elections between multiple distinct political parties, a separation of powers into different branches of government, the rule of law in everyday life as part of an open society, and the equal protection of human rights, civil rights, civil liberties and political freedoms for all people. To define the system in practice, liberal democracies often draw upon a constitution, either formally written or uncodified, to delineate the powers of government and enshrine the social contract. After a period of sustained expansion throughout the 20th century, liberal democracy became the predominant political system in the world."

So when someone is talking about the tyranny of the majority, they're saying that lets say in a majoritarian democracy where majority vote always rules or in a social democracy with similar outcomes where a lot of policy decisions are made through referendum, what they mean by tyranny of the majority is that the majority getting to rule over the minority and be able to make decisions on their behalf simply because they have more votes than the minority.

Anyone with a basic social studies understanding of American government and our Constitution that you could get at any quality high school in this country, knows that the majority doesn't always get their way.

Look at the U.S. Senate where you almost always 60-100 votes to pass anything, or our constitutional amendment process, where you need 2/3 majority from both the House and Senate in Congress, as well as 34-50 states to approve any constitutional amendment. Or the U.S. Supreme Court that throws out laws that were passed with a majority because they're unconstitutional. Or our Electoral College where big states don't get to rule over smaller states in the presidential election simply because their states are bigger.

In a liberal democracy, of course we have the right to vote, but we have so many other individual rights as well both personal as well as economic. We own or rent our homes instead of government deciding where we live. Law enforcement needs a warrant in order to enter our homes and property.

Our right to free speech, the right to practice or not practice religion, equal rights and justice under law.

The right not to be discriminated against and denied access in society simply because of our race, ethnicity, gender, or religion.

The right to make our own personal decisions and choices which is protected by our 4th Amendment.

These are just some of the examples of what makes up a liberal democracy and why I'm a Liberal Democrat ideologically, because I believe in liberal democracy. The right to be left alone and live freely in society. Along with other great liberal values like free press, rule of law, checks and balances, separation of powers, federalism, and limited government.
Source: Academy of Ideas: John Stuart Mill- On Liberty- One of the first Liberals 

Monday, September 3, 2018

The Hollywood Reporter: Erik Liberman- Jayne Mansfield: The First Reality Star?

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
Source: The New Democrat

Jayne Mansfield as the first reality star? Well, their several answers that I could give to that.

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Baby Jayne Mansfield 
One, reality star or reality TV, those terms didn't come into American culture until the late 1990s. Jayne Mansfield, died in a horrible car crash in 1967. So just based on that, no obviously not. And reality stars or reality TV, aren't actually reality stars or reality TV. They're celebrities who are famous for acting out and being outrageous. For getting kicked out of parties and nightclubs ( just ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton ) who in many cases are simply famous because of their father's last name. ( Again, ask Khloe Kardashian and Paris Hilton )

Source: The Hollywood Reporter- Kitten Jayne Mansfield 
And reality TV has as much to do with reality as people claiming to see UFO's in New Mexico. I would have just as hard of a time believing someone like that who claims they're sober, let alone saw any UFO's. Reality TV, is nothing more than amateur acting hour where cast members ( which is what they are ) are encouraged perhaps even ordered to act out and be outrageous on the show by the director and producer. So no, I don't believe Jayne Mansfield was one of the first reality TV stars, but one of if not the first tabloid stars in the TV age. Where she was famous for being famous to a certain extent, but had so much more than than beyond her goddess looks and baby girl face and personality, including a keen intelligence and wit.

If you look at Jayne Mansfield's career, you could point at two movies that were essentially about what would be called reality TV, but about 40 years later. You could also look at her post-Hollywood career where she's literally making her own movies that would be like what are called reality TV shows. Where a camera crew would follow her around and it would be like a day in the life of Jayne Mansfield. She went on tour in Italy in 1965-66 and had a camera crew following her around and she would narrate the film herself.

The first film that Jayne does that was sort about reality TV was a movie called The Girl Can't Help it, where she plays the opposite of herself. And this might be the first so-called reality TV movie ever where a Hollywood filmmaker who hasn't had a big hit in several years, but happens to be dating a blonde baby-face Goddess played by Jayne Mansfield and decides that he can make a star out of her simply because of her physical appearance and personality. Sound like any so-called reality stars today?

The second film that she did that was sort of about reality TV, was Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter from 1957. Where she plays a young popular actress who is tired of the her dumb blonde image ( just like the real Jayne Mansfield ) and hired a publicity man to give her a new image as a woman who doesn't go from man to man and is ready settle down. Jayne, plays herself in Rock Hunter and gives an Oscar performance as herself.

The dumb blonde image about Jayne Mansfield, was exactly that just an image that people saw about her and believed that must be who she really is. This gorgeous, adorable, sexy woman, who needs help tying her shoes and spelling her first name. ( Sort of like Kelly Bundy on Married with Children ) But the facts are she was a very sharp, very funny woman, who always knew exactly what she was doing. The problem that she had is that she didn't know her place in Hollywood. ( To sound cold ) and saw herself as more than a comedic actress and comedian who was perfect for comedies including musical comedies like The Girl Can't Help It. And wanted to be a dramatic actress instead. Not that she couldn't do drama, but she was cut out for comedy.

I see Jayne Mansfield, as a Bette Midler but not as talented as someone who was put on this planet to sing and make people laugh. Bette, does comedy shows at her concerts and is hilarious in all of her Hollywood roles. I believe if Jayne just stuck with comedy and music, I think we're talking about one of the best comedic and musical stars certainly of her generation and as someone who might have had more ability than even Marilyn Monroe in this area. And without Jayne's horrible car accident in 1967 and had she lived a normal life in years and just stick to doing what she did best which was comedy and music, she never leaves Hollywood because there would've always been work for comedians and comedic actresses, especially for woman like Jayne who was so adorable which was one of the things that made her so funny as a person as well as her quickness, as well as so gorgeous and sexy.
Source: BBC: Jayne Mansfield- Full-Length Documentary- Baby Jayne Mansfield 

Monday, August 27, 2018

Keith Hughes: Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments- Explained: Article V Convention of States

Source: Keith Hughes- Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments explained 
Source: The New Democrat

I'm going to make a case for why Mark Levin's so-called Liberty Amendments are anti-conservative and you'll see what I mean by that.

When I think of a Conservative, I think of someone who believes in conserving  and conserving what they believe and a lot of other people believe is worth conserving. Things like free speech, right to privacy, separation of powers, equal protection, checks and balances, our three levels of government so governmental power is not overly centralized and that you even have checks and balances especially with the Federal Government so the executive doesn't become too powerful.

If you're a Conservative at least in the conservative-libertarian sense you shouldn't be a fan of this because it ends up limiting the power of the people at least as far as Americans being able to elect their own members of Congress at least in the Senate with the repeal of the 17th Amendment and instead of conserving the Constitution and amendments, it throws at least one of them out as far as the 17th Amendment.

The one amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I like relates to the U.S. Supreme Court. Arguably 9 of the most powerful people in the country and yet they're not accountable to anyone. I'm one that believes that politics and the Supreme Court is mixed together too much, that Justices take an anti- conservative approach to their rulings and rule on cases and laws based on their own personal politics, instead of whether they believe the law is constitution or not.

So I don't believe Supreme Court should have to run for election and be accountable to the people that way. But I do believe our Justices should be held accountable by the people through the President and U.S. Senate with term limits. That each Justice should serve terms and then have to be reappointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve another term. Actual terms limits for the Chief Justice and only allow for them to serve 8 years let's say.

The only other so-called Liberty Amendment that Mark Levin proposes that I believe is interesting is his 9th Amendment that would make it easier to amend the Constitution and allow for states to do that themselves. Another anti-democratic amendment both small d and big d, because one of the reasons why Republicans have 34-50 governorships in the country when you're talking about states is because they're now basically a rural, blue-collar, Anglo-Saxon party where a lot of their members of their party have been in the country for hundreds of years. With the Democratic Party being an ethnic and racially diverse big city party that lives in big states with big cities

The reason why Levin's 9th Amendment is anti-Democratic with a big D is because if you allow for states to amend the Constitution by themselves without approval from Congress, Republican rural states and there are a lot of them could amend the Constitution simply based on their own politics. One of the great things about the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights is that Americans regardless of where they live all have the same constitutional rights as everyone else in the country under the U.S. Constitution. With states being allowed to make their own state laws as long as they're within the Constitution. Levin's 9th Amendment would change that. The reason why this amendment is anti-conservative, because again Conservatives are supposed to believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. The 9th Amendment would make it easier to weaken the Constitution.

Again, if you're a Conservative you believe in conserving the Constitution and our constitutional rights. Not trying to blow it up because you're worried that the Democratic Party will have more power in the future simply because of current demographic trends and therefor need to step in now to limit the Democratic Party's potential for new political power in the future. You could make a case that Mark Levin's proposal for a balanced budget amendment and holding the Supreme Court accountable through term limits is very conservative. But most his other proposals are simply anti-democratic both as they relate to the Democratic Party and simply used to hurt one party in favor of the other through the Constitution and limiting American voters rights to decide who gets to serve them in Congress.
Keith Hughes: Mark Levin's Liberty Amendments Explained- Article V Convention of States

Monday, August 20, 2018

Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'- For Separation of Church and State

Source: Americans United- For the Separation of Church and State 
Source: The New Democrat

From Wikipedia

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prevents Congress from making any law respecting an establishment of religion, prohibiting the free exercise of religion, or abridging the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the right to peaceably assemble, or to petition for a governmental redress of grievances. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, as one of the ten amendments that constitute the Bill of Rights."

Source: Americans United- Defenders of the First Amendment 
I believe in my blogging over the years I've made it very clear what my politics are and I've tried to do so as well. I'm a Thomas Jefferson-Milton Friedman-John F. Kennedy Liberal, who believes in free will, free exercise of thought, free expression, and free choice. All things that Socialists and Nationalists tend to hate, because they believe they know what's best for everyone else instead. Separation of Church and State, is not a socialist or communist phrase, it's a Tom Jefferson ( one of our Founding Liberals ) who coined that term that all First Amendment defenders believe in as well. That government shouldn't and doesn't have the constitutional authority to prohibit religion and religious belief in America, but it doesn't have a right to promote religion and force Americans to live by some religious code and a certain set of moral and religious values.

Unlike communist states like the Communist Republic of Korea or theocracies like the Islamic Republic of Iran and even the Saudi Kingdom with is an Islamic theocratic monarchy, the United States of America has a the perfect balance for religion because of our liberal First Amendment and our liberal constitutional free speech rights. Which says Americans have a constitutional right to either believe in or not believe in religion, or practice or not practice religion. That's called freedom of choice which is protected by both our First Amendment and Fourth Amendment. And that government has no role in religion whatsoever other than to protect the constitutional right of all Americans ability to practice or not practice the religion of their choice, or no religion at all. Which is one thing that makes America not only great, but exceptional as well.
Americans United: 'We Are Americans United'

Monday, August 13, 2018

The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews- Interviewing Andrew Torrez: Christianity,Crimes, and The Constitution

Source: The Thinking Atheist- The Donald Trump, 45th POTUS 
Source: The New Democrat

I believe to believe in the First Amendment, as well as the Fourth Amendment, and I would add Fifth Amendment, you have to believe in the right to choose, the right to believe, the right to free expression and believe what you believe. Not saying you have to believe in religion and that America is a place and great place for Atheists and Agnostics such as myself, but that since this is not a communist state or any other kind of socialist state we believe that Americans have the constitutional right to practice or not practice religion.

Source: Player FM- The Thinking Atheist 
The freedom to and from religion and that we also have the Separation of Church and State. The Freedom of Religion, but that covers everyone and every type of religion in America and that Atheists and Agnostics have the same right as Christian of all sects, Jews, Muslims., again of all sects, as well as everyone else that practices one form of religion or another. And that government literally stays the hell out of religion other than to protect the rights of all free Americans to practice or not practice religion.

That we're not a communist or socialist state, but we're not a theocracy or some other fascist state and we don't tell Americans as a government how to practice or not practice religion and that government doesn't operate based on religious beliefs, but governs under the U.S. Constitution. The problem with America is not our Constitution or any of our constitutional amendments. The problem with America is that we have too many people who simply don't believe in it and ignore it. The Christian-Right especially which are really Christian-Theocrats who believe that their interpretation of the Bible should be what governs us, not the actual text of the Constitution. And that Separation of Church and State doesn't exist at all.

So now we not only have a Christian-Right that has been officially active at least since 1975 or so and played a big role in the 1976 presidential election and every election presidential or Congressional since, but we have a political party that's basically dominated by the Christian-Right. The Republican Party today, is not the Barry Goldwater Constitutional-Conservative-Libertarian party that they became when they nominated Barry Goldwater for President in 1964 and then not only nominated Ronald Reagan for President in 1980, but put Reagan in power and helped Republicans wins back the Senate in 1980 for the first time in a generation.

The GOP is now a party that's made up of Christian-Theocrats and Christian-Nationalists who believe they're the real Americans and the Constitution only protects them and their rights and beliefs. And the Un-Americans ( anyone who disagrees with them on anything ) are invaders essentially and not deserving of the same rights and beliefs as the Christian-Nationalists in America. With the never-trumpers the Goldwater Conservatives in the party, are now representing the minority in what once was a great conservative party in America and along with the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom, perhaps the only two great conservative parties in the developed world.

Again, as a Liberal I believe in the freedom of religion, free choice, personal choice, personal; responsibility, but I also believe in free speech and the First Amendment in it's entirety and that you have the right to your beliefs and I have the right in mine, but that you and big government or government in any form doesn't have the right to force your beliefs on me. I'll allow you to make your case for why you believe what you believe, but you're not going to be able to force your beliefs on me or any other free American in this country. That's called the First Amendment which protects our Freedom of Religion, but also Freedom of Speech. and Separation of Church and State.
The Thinking Atheist: Seth Andrews- Interviewing Andrew Torrez: Christianity, Crimes, and The Constitution