Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Raquel Welch: Ready to Groove

Source:The Pin Up Channel- Raquel Welch grooving.
Source:The Daily Press

"Raquel Welch I'm Ready to Groove."

From The Pin Up Channel 

“A great issue of Twen, published in January 1968. It features Raquel Welch on the cover, an interview with Heinz Edelmann about his artwork for The Beatles’ Yellow Submarine movie, plus some fantastic fashion editorials and lots of other gorgeous 1960s art and illustrations throughout, including a double page illustration of ‘Ringo in Wonderland’ which measures 21″ x 13¼”. This issue seems to be quite scarce at the moment, but occasionally a copy turns up for sale on Ebay, however, incase you haven’t managed to find one yet, this is a brief glimpse of the aforementioned contents.” 
Source:Twen- Raquel Welch Bikini Edition.

Raquel Welch the sexy performer with a great voice. The cutest, hottest, sexiest thing on stage. She was built and created for the 1960s when you had all of these sexy funny musical comedies come out, including the hippie movies as well. Raquel came out at the perfect time for her as far as what was going on in Hollywood and what she brought as far as talent. Hot baby-faced adorable woman, with a great body, great voice, who moves very well, who can also act and is a hell of a satirist.

Physically Raquel is one of the top Hollywood Goddess's of all-time, but she's one of the top Hollywood goddess's of all-time as an entertainer as well. She's in the same class as Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren, as far as women who look incredible, but who are also great performers as well.

I don't know much about the movie A Swingin Summer. But the fact that Raquel is in and did this number is the only reason I need to see it. The movie might be trash and one of the worst things ever made. But she's in it and she's great. Or the movie could be very good and very funny Myra Breckinridge, with Raquel in, but with Raquel in it the movie is that much better. She brings guys to movies just to see her.

That is the sign of a Hollywood star. People thinking they might be taking a risk seeing this movie, but since Raquel is in that is a risk worth taking. Because again she's in it I'm going to keep an eye out for this movie so I can see it and get a copy of it if I like it. I did the same thing with Myra Breckinridge which is now one of my favorite satires of all-time.

AP: Video: Bill Gates: On Poverty and The United States: How to Reduce Poverty in America

Does the United States spend enough on poverty prevention and poverty assistance in America. Well considering we have roughly fifty million Americans living in this country and we spend to take. Bill Gates figure .02% of our Gross National Product on poverty assistance and prevention in this country. Roughly 35B$ a year or 700$ a year per person in this country, roughly the per capita income per person in Ethiopia. One of the poorest countries in the World, I would say of course not but we shouldn't judge our success levels in dealing with poverty. By the amount of money we spend on it but by the results we are getting, how these people are living. Are they able to pay their basic bills, have enough quality food for the whole family, kids getting a. Good education and so fourth because even if we were spending at the World average for developed nations. Of 1% of GDP or so, thats still around three thousand dollars per person, when we really need to be at. 15-20K$ per person in poverty that would go so these people can meet their basic needs. But there would also be resources there so they can move themselves out of poverty in areas like. Education, job training and job placement.

Which is why we need to either replace the minimum wage with a living wage or have two different floors of income in this country. A living wage and a minimum wage, a living wage for workers and a minimum wage for people collecting Welfare Insurance. People with low skills who simply don't work because they don't have the skills that they need to make enough money to be. Independent in life, we should be rewarding work over dependence to encourage low skilled Americans. To get an education but also encourage low skilled Americans to work to get a job and be able to pay their own bills. Thats how you move people out of poverty in America, not just by spending more money but doing it in a way. Where low skilled people are able to pay their bills in the short term but also have a shot at a real future where they can take care. Of themselves and not be forced to live on public assistance for their whole lives.

The next step in dealing with poverty in America and it really should've been part of the first step eighty years ago. Is to invest in things that actually move people out of poverty and not just financially support them while they continue to live on poverty.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

AP: Video: News: US Senator Menendez: "Lightning Speed Approval For John Kerry": The Future of the Obama Doctrine

To put myself on the record, I thought Senator Kerry or Senator Dick Lugar even though he's a Republican. Was the best choice to be President Obama's first Secretary of State back in 2009. Not that Hillary Clinton wasn't qualified for the job, she clearly was and still is. And has served President Obama and the United States well in that position but she wasn't the best choice for. Secretary of State based on qualifications, experience and judgement and so fourth. She was the best choice for political reasons because the Obama White House needed Senator Clinton out of. Congress because she represented the biggest threat to President Obama being reelected because of the state of the Republican Party then and now. Even four years ago it was hard to find a way for Mitt Romney could defeat Barack Obama because of how the far-right feels about Governor Romney. As well as Mitt's disapproval rating nationally and of course the auto bailouts and how that. Prevented so may jobs from being lost in Ohio and Michigan that Mitt was against and basically gave. The President two states that should've been competitive for Republicans especially with Republicans governors.

So nominating Senator Clinton for Secretary of State a job she was clearly qualified for. Eliminated Barack Obama's toughest hurdle to being reelected and prevented any chance of him. Getting a real primary challenge in a weak economy from the only Democrat that could raise the money to do it. And represented enough Democrats that could give the President a real primary challenge and force the President. To spend real money early on money that he ended up spending against Mitt Romney early on and defining the Romney campaign. When they didn't have the resources to fight back because they were facing Rick Santorum who has a strong appeal. With blue collar Republicans in the Southeast and Midwest.

As far as John Kerry now he's the best choice to be Secretary of State both politically and when it comes to policy. No one in Congress right now or in the US Foreign Service or out of it has a better resume or is more qualified. Has more connections and friends and with foreign leaders and diplomats then Senator Kerry. And understands that you have to a complete foreign and national security policy, someone whose qualified. To be Secretary of State, Defense, Director of National Security, Secretary of Treasury. Knows you have to be strong at home first to be as strong oversees as possible, that the military always has to be an option. But when you use what Secretary of Clinton calls soft power effectively, diplomatic power. Working with your allies, strengthening developed nations, while promoting Democracy there. That you can avoid future military conflicts.

With John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. President Obama's national security council will be complete with people who agree that America. Has to be strong when it comes to national security but that there's a limit to what our military. Can do by itself and there's a limit to what America can do by itself and that we also have to be. Strong at home as well as abroad and that foreign policy is also economic policy. Which are just some of the reasons why John Kerry is the perfect choice to be President Obama's. Secretary of State.

Leathered Life: Woman- Taking a Bath in Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- wetlook leather jeans.
Source:The Daily Press

“Taking a bath in leather pants.” Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Sexy woman, in tight leather jeans and boots, getting wet in the bathtub fully clothed. Is this porn? I'll let you be the judge, but she's fully clothed, not engaged in sex with anyone, (including herself) not even making out with anyone. A very attractive woman, in a tight outfit, in a bathtub getting wet.

Jim Morrison, who of course was the frontman for The Doors in the late 1960s, wore black skin-tight leather jeans everywhere, for about three years. Including to church, to parties, even in the hellish California desert in the summer. For a movie he made about him traveling on a highway he even stopped and got out and took a swim in his black leathers and cowboy boots. Now, was that porn, or just an attractive man having a good time in the desert, in a wearing a very sexy outfit. Where his leathers were so tight that he couldn't even have a boner in private.

The woman in this video, is obviously a very attractive and sexy woman and she could get a lot of guys attention here. But I don't see anything crude or pornographic in this video. It's someone getting wet wearing a tight outfit.

Monday, January 28, 2013

FNC: Video: America's Newsroom: Bipartisan Group of Senators Reach Deal on Sweeping Immigration Reform: The Only Way to Reform Immigration

There's always been a block of Republicans in Congress led by Senator John McCain and Lindsay Graham and perhaps a few House Republicans. That believe we need a comprehensive approach to immigration reform both politically as Republicans. But also because its the right thing to do on policy grounds, it was Senator McCain and Senator Graham. Who got together with Democrat Ted Kennedy in 2005-06 that came pretty close to passing comprehensive immigration reform. And then when Democrats took control of Congress in 2007, these same three Senators and others. Tried to pass the same thing but other Republicans Senators walked away from it in 2007 and Democrats. Couldn't overcome a Senate filibuster led by Republicans who walked away from the deal. The Senate was something like three votes shy of passing a CIR bill in the spring or early summer of 2007. But here we are six years later and the times have changed and Republicans after just getting hammered in the 2012 elections. Losing the Latino vote 71-28, losing 26-34 Senate elections and dropping two seats, losing the popular vote in the House as well as eight seats. There are Republicans now who know they can no longer ignore this issue in order to do well politically. In the future and that they are going to have to make progress with Latinos in the future.

So what does comprehensive immigration reform look like, something I've been in favor of at least officially as a blogger since 2010. And going back to 2006 overall, its a new immigration system thats based on reality and what's the best thing to do for immigration in this country. As well as our economy and rule of law that doesn't put illegal immigrants over legal immigrants. That acknowledges that we do have 10-15M illegal immigrants most if not all of these people who work. In America and produce in America but since they are in the country illegally, live in the shadows. And as a result get away with not paying the same taxes that legal immigrants pay because they don't. Want government knowing about their status which gives them an unfair advantage over legal immigrants. As well as American citizens which has to stop but it also acknowledges that we have 10-15M illegal immigrants in America. And that its simply not possible or practical to deport all of them and probably not a good thing to do for the. Country and it would effect our economy with the amount of workers that we would lose doing jobs that have to be done. That American citizens won't do themselves.

For criminals, felons primarily who are in this country illegally they simply need to be deported. But for the illegal immigrants in this country who are simply just here to work so they can support themselves and their families. They should be allowed to stay as long as they are working or have a legal sponsor that can and will support them in this country. But for that to happen they must register with the Federal Government and be given what I call. Probational residency which would allow them to work in this country legally as long as they meet certain conditions. They pay a fine based on how long they've lived in the United States illegally, they pay whatever back taxes plus interest. They may owe the Feds, state and local governments, they work or have a legal sponsor, they haven't committed any felonies. And don't commit any in the future and if they meet all of these requirements for ten years. They would be promoted from probational residents to legal residents and be able to work their way. Towards American citizenship but would go to the back of the line.

So what would I do to prevent people from entering the United States illegally in the future. Make our border security as tight as possible, that they have all of the resources and personal that they need. And if that means new revenue, I would give them that even if that means charging people for entering or leaving the United States. Crackdown on all employers that hire illegal immigrants, make it a felony that would not only come with jail or. Prison time but steep fines for hiring each illegal immigrant.

We can't reform our immigration system by trying to deport anyone whose ever entered the United States illegally or just the people who are in the country illegally today. And we can't just have an approach that simply grants American citizenship to all illegal immigrants. We do have rule of law in this country which is why we need a comprehensive approach thats realistic. And we also need to encourage people who are high skilled and educated from other countries. To live and work in the United States as well.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Senate Democrats: Video: Leader Reid: Democratic Principles For The 113th Congress: House Senate Democrats Should Move Forward

Senate Democrats in the 113th Congress will have an increased majority from what they had in the 112th Congress. Going from 53-55 seats and because of this will have an opportunity to not only control the agenda as far as what issues get debated in the Senate. But I believe will have an opportunity to actually pass some legislation. They of course won't have a filibuster proof majority and the filibuster wasn't eliminated yesterday. But because of President Obama being reelected and with all of the states he won in his reelection. The ball is in the court of the Democratic Party to pass some legislation and move the ball forward. With Republicans especially in the House I believe will be on the defensive on a lot of these issues. So what Democrats should be focused on when it comes to issues and lets take the debt and deficit. Just to use one with their new majority they should be passing their own debt and. Deficit reduction plan because you only need fifty one votes to pass a budget in the Senate, so they could pass. Their own budget layout what they believe should be cut and where reforms can be made in the budget. And not just put tax reform in the table but actually try to pass it as part of deficit reduction in the Senate.

On issues like immigration reform, its in House Republicans best interest to pass comprehensive immigration reform. Because of how badly Republicans did especially Mitt Romney when it came to Latino voters in 2012. And a comprehensive plan to deal with immigration that yes secures the border but also deals with in a responsible way. For with the 10-15M illegal immigrants so they can become legal residents and pay a fine and back taxes. For entering the country illegally and for whatever back taxes they may owe and be able to continue to live in the country. As long as they aren't convicted of felonies and are working and not living off of. Public assistance, Senate Democrats especially in the Judiciary Committee will move to mark up. A bill but House Republicans are already in the process of doing the same thing and are looking for. Ways to reach out with House Democrats to write a Bi Partisan bill. So Democrats politically because of how well they did in the 2012 elections are in position to push an agenda. Not a far left agenda but an agenda on issues like deficit reduction and immigration, gun control even. That has majority support of the American people.

One of the things I didn't like about Senate Democrats in the 112th Congress when it came to their strategy. Was when House Republicans would pass something and send it to the Senate, Leader Reid would kill it automatically. Move to table the bill, which he should've done but then Democrats would counter by bringing their own bill. To the floor without a committee markup and not much thought put into the legislation that was probably written. In the Leader's office and then Senate Republicans led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell would object to. It the legislation would die there because Democrats didn't have the sixty votes to move the. Legislation forward because they didn't talk to any Republicans about it or even talk to all of the Democrats about it either. In this Congress House Republicans will probably send legislation over to them that they don't like. But what they should do instead is markup their own legislation and see if they can bring a few Republicans on board. And see if they can counter the House by actually passing legislation.

With the changes in the Senate filibuster rule on Thursday, Senate Democrats will now not only be able. To bring legislation to the floor but then be able to debate it and even amend it. Because Senate Republicans will no longer be able to block the motion to proceed. So what Democrats should be doing is returning to regular order and drafting and marking up. Legislation in committee and then bringing it to the floor that way and they even bring some Republicans with them as well. And try legislating that way and what could get out of a process like this is the House and Senate competing with each other in battle place of ideas.

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Opinion- Fareed Zakaria- Can America Be Fixed?

Source: Foreign Affairs-
Source: Foreign Affairs: Opinion- Fareed Zakaria- Can America Be Fixed?:

"The crisis of democracy identified in the 1970s never really went away; it was just papered over with temporary solutions and obscured by a series of lucky breaks. Today, the problems have mounted, and yet American democracy is more dysfunctional than ever -- and it has fewer levers to pull in a globalized economy. This time, the pessimists might be right./p"

At risk of sounding partisan as a Democrat but factual, America under the leadership of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, was already on course to not only finish the 1990s as not only the only superpower in the world but becoming a more powerful superpower. Not just militarily but economically as well, with a booming economy, low unemployment, budget surplus and a national debt that was actually declining. A military that could not only defend the United States but play a useful source in building and sustaining peace in the world and help those who need and deserve it to be able to fight for their own freedom. And prevent ethnic genocide especially in Europe.

We moved away from that in the last decade under President Bush and decided that if America should do or want something we should just do it and worry about the costs of it later if at all. Well we are worrying about the costs of two unfunded trillion-dollar wars, a 700B$ Medicare Advantage plan and two unpaid for tax cuts of a trillion dollars each. And stop investing in things like infrastructure and didn't do a thing to reform and strengthen our entitlements and broader social insurance system.

Because of what America did as a government in the last decade by not not progressing, (I don't mean that in ideological terms) countries like China, Russia, Brazil and India were moving forward, America was moving backwards. And instead of being the leader, we ended borrowing from the countries that are emerging as superpowers and if anything would like to surpass us as the number one superpower in the world. And as we were running up debt, our living standards started declining, moving forward in these directions.

So as a result we now have more people unemployed, more people in poverty and infrastructure system thats crumbling as we've seen with broken bridges and hurricane Katreena and other disasters. So this is where we are as a country, but it doesn't have to be where we end up if we simply start moving forward as a country and not just try to hang on.

As I see it America needs to concentrate and work on five key areas and do them correctly to move forward again as a country.

Infrastructure investment- According to the Core of Engineers we have a 1T$ or more deficit in this area. We need to make that investment and pay for that by not borrowing over a 5-10 year period.

We need a national energy policy that moves this country towards energy independence with a menu of natural resources that are all produced in this country. Including oil and gas but also nuclear, wind, solar and so-forth we need to fully utilize all of these resources which would create new American jobs and American companies.

We need comprehensive immigration reform that encourages high-skilled workers to immigrate to this country legally. And address the 10-15 illegal immigrants by moving them into the mainstream and have them pay a fine for the amount of time they've lived in this country illegally plus whatever back taxes they may owe. And secure the border by clamping down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

We need to get the national debt and deficit under control to the point that its no longer growing faster than our economy and back to 40% of GDP rather than 100% and do this over ten years. And to do that we need to get back to 18-20% of GDP that the Federal Government spends instead of 24-25%. That means getting the military budget back to FY 2001 levels and using the drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for deficit reduction or most of those savings, not back to the defense budget. And spending more on defense as it relates to counter terrorism and intelligence so we can prevent future attacks rather than trying to police the world and having developed nations defend themselves. Rather than America being responsible for the national security of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea at our expense.

And reforming both our entitlement and broader social insurance system. Making our entitlements more effective and more affordable and having our public assistance system be an empowerment system thats designed to empower people to get themselves out of poverty. And not just take care of them while they live in poverty.

We need comprehensive reform with our public education system where students go to the school thats best for them. Not based on where they live, where schools are funded based on what they need to do a good job. Not based on where they are located. Where teachers are paid based on how much their students learn, not based on how long they've been teaching. Where we essentially has universal higher education.

One of the few things I've agreed with Occupy Wall Street on as far as goals they've pushed, where all qualified high school students in this country would have access to an affordable higher education and not just the students who come from wealthy families or have scholarships. These are areas that the Federal Government can help in with the financing, but they shouldn't be running the public education in this country, but instead setting basic standards for the whole country to meet with the resources to accomplish them and is something the Feds can do.

America doesn't so much need austerity as much as it needs to be be reformed, especially the Federal Government. And cut back in areas where we are over committed both in the military and in social insurance. But we need to be investing more in some areas like in infrastructure and education and reforming in other areas like in public assistance and public education so we have more people working and making a good living on their own. Because we all as a country have access to a quality education weather we are still in school or have been out of school but lack the skills to move forward.
Forum 2000: Fareed Zakaria- The Future of Freedom and Democracy

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The New Republic: Opinion- Noam Scheiber- President Obam's Inauguration 2013 Speech: He Was Always a Liberal, But Now He's Defending Liberalism

Source: The New Republic-
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Noam Scheiber- President Obama's Liberalism: He Was Always a Liberal, But Now He's Defending Liberalism  

As I've already blogged before I was hoping to here President Obama on Monday sound like a Jack Kennedy/Bill Clinton Liberal Democrat. Speaking in terms of what works about America, what's great with America, freedom, capitalism and so-forth.

But these things are only great when they work for all Americans and that government can play a role in seeing that there is an American system (key word being American) and that we do what works for us instead of trying to copy cat what other countries do in creating a system that works for the whole country, as President Clinton called an opportunity society.

Which is how New Democrats the Liberal Democrats in the party countered the Goldwater-Reagan Conservative Revolution. And was the next agenda and vision for America from the Democratic Party that moved past the New Deal and Great Society. Not to roll back those programs but that we needed a new vision that was less about government and more about what people could do for themselves if they were just empowered to do so with the tools and freedom to live their own lives. And thats the liberal vision I started hearing from President Obama yesterday.

I've always believed at least since Barack Obama has been President, that he's an economic Liberal. And that his shortcomings as a Liberal have been on social issues and civil liberties. My main disagreements with the President in the last four years, on things like the Patriot Act, indefinite detention and the War on Drugs. Especially as it relates to marijuana prohibition.

But Barack Obama's economic liberalism is pretty clear and it's built around government as it relates to the economy only doing what we needed it to do. That his view of government as it relates to the economy are limited but that it should do those things well. And we should finance it to the point that it can do those things well and do it in a fiscally responsible way. And these areas have to do with things like infrastructure investment, energy policy, education, job training. A safety net for people who fall on bad times so they can get by but also helps them get back up and so they can take care of themselves.

Barack Obama has never been an FDR or LBJ New Deal or Great Society Progressive Democrat. And thats what today's so-called Progressive Democrats don't like about the President. Because when they threw their support around Barack Obama in 2007-08, they thought they were getting one of their own and the President they see now is someone who is not as far to the left as they are.

But President Obama has always been an economic liberal because he's always believed in things like infrastructure investment, energy policy, an education system that works for the whole country where all Americans would have access to a quality education, job training for unemployed workers and low-skilled workers so they can go back to work and get a good job and move up the economic ladder. This is what economic liberalism is about and it's not really about the welfare state or safety net and having this system that takes care of people. But empowering those who need it to be able to take care of themselves. Which separates him from the Bernie Sanders/Dennis Kucinich Social Democrats in the Democratic Party.

This is the vision of economic liberalism that President Obama should get behind in his second term. Especially if we ever get past this debt and deficit reduction debate and the President and Congress can ever reach a long-term deal on that and then push his vision of economic liberalism and creating an opportunity society thats not government-centric. But that we have a limited government there to just do the things that we need it to do as it relates to economic policy. With the rest of the freedom and responsibility going to Americans themselves.
The New York Times: President Obama's 2013 Inauguration

Monday, January 21, 2013

Boots In Leather: Outfit of The Day-Black Leather Jeans & Patent Boots

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press: Boots In Leather: Outfit of The Day-Black Leather Jeans & Patent Boots

I love jeans and boots on sexy women. That is women with bodies who aren’t skinny or fat, but well-built and put together. Healthy looking women who don’t vomit even at the sight of food, or don’t stiff their faces in every plate of food that they see. Except when that plate of food is a salad, of course. Jeans and boots whether they’re denim jeans and boots, which is by far the most common jeans and boots look, even in Europe, or leather jeans and boots which is more common in Europe and America, like french fries or fried potatoes with cheeseburgers. Kareem and Magic, Jordan and Pippen, to use sports analogies, he perfect combination. Cherry pie with vanilla ice cream, would be another good one. Because you take a sexy stylish pant like skinny denim or leather jeans and then combine them with style footwear. That is not too formal and yet adult so you don’t look a high school kid who only wears jeans and sneakers even when they go out at night. Or have dinner with the family. It’s a sexy adult stylish way for women to dress, especially with a stylish top. Which is why jeans and boots and to a certain extent leather jeans and boots when they’re dressed up, are common at the office now.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

CBS News: ‘President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address’

Source:CBS News- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) giving his 1961 inaugural address in front of a joint session of Congress,

“On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history.”

From CBS News

Inaugural address’ are interesting at least for this reason and depending on who the President at the time says can be interesting for that reason as well, but they are at least interesting because it gives the President the opportunity to layout for the country the situation that the country is in and where he wants to take the country in the next four years.

And if the President is reelected an opportunity to layout where the country was four years earlier. The progress that has been made and the challenges that still lay ahead.

But inaugural address’ aren’t partisan in the sense that the President will hammer the opposition party, but to layout their own political and governmental philosophy which will be different from the opposition party.

These addresses are also for the President to layout what he  believes the role of government is. And based on that where he wants to take his administration and what direction he wants to lead the country. And that’s the opportunity that President Obama will have tomorrow: “This is where we were, this is the progress we’ve made and this is where I want to lead the country based on my thinking and the facts on the ground.”

As a Liberal Democrat I would like to hear Barack Obama tomorrow speak in the spirit of Jack Kennedy. Not to quote him exactly, but speak in his spirit of terms like: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

I would like to hear President Obama speak in terms of Bill Clinton’s opportunity society: “There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured with what’s right with America. That we’ll expand freedom and opportunity for all as well as demand responsibility for all.” Speak in terms of individual freedom for all. Especially for Americans that don’t have it and are still struggling.

President Obama should speak in terms of how government can empower those who don’t have the individual freedom to take care of themselves to have the same freedom and opportunity that the rest of the country has and how we as Americans ourselves can build the best America. Rather than what government can do for us. Which is different from a speech by Franklin Roosevelt. (To use as an example) The difference between a liberal democratic speech and a social democratic speech.

To be honest, I’ll be surprised if President Obama speaks in these terms tomorrow and probably will give a somewhat safe speech. And go out of his way not to offend anyone and not leave much to be remembered. Or give a speech that’s full of great words and phrases that few other people can do as well. But not have a lot of meaning to them. A speech that sounds good, but with not a lot of meat to it.

But tomorrow is an opportunity for President Obama to not only layout for the country where he wants to take America, but where he wants to lead the Democratic Party and I hope he takes advantage of it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Leathered Life: Sandra B- In Tight Leather Jeans and Boots

Source:Leathered Life- Sandra B from Leathered Life, in tight leather jeans in boots.
Source:The Daily Press

"Blond girl in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Who says blonde women don't have curves? Sure! I've seen blonde women who look like rail-thin valley girls and many times are rail-thin valley girls. Moderate height to tall, but with no body and perhaps consider eating meat as animal cruelty and freak out about picking up an ounce of fat and even layoff potato chips.

But there very sexy Nordic and Northern Slavic blonde women, American and otherwise who are tall, but are filled out. Because they eat right and workout and take care of themselves. Especially in the upper Midwest where curvy women of all ethnic backgrounds, are very common. Just because of the climate, culture lifestyle and to a certain extent ethnicity. Where you have a lot of German and Slavic women in those communities who tend to be curvy. Again because of the food and culture they grew up on. Take Illinois and Wisconsin, to use as examples. Western Pennsylvania, would be another hot spot for curvy women and even curvy blonde women.

And that is what you see in this video. A blonde woman with a tight well-built body, looking great in skin-tight leather jeans. Who fills out those pants perfectly.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

ODN: Video: Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton Scandal: A Look Back at a Presidential Sex Scandal

I did not have sex, with that women!
ODN: Video: Monica Lewinsky-Bill Clinton Scandal: A Look Back at a Presidential Sex Scandal

The person I blame most for the Monica Lewinsky White House intern scandal and perhaps the only person I blame, is President Bill Clinton. For acting as irresponsible as he did, for getting involved romantically at all with an intern. Doesn’t mean I believe he should’ve been impeached for it and definitely not convicted which the Senate didn’t do. Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr and the House Republicans if anything acted more irresponsible than President Clinton. But the fact is this scandal doesn’t happen without Bill Clinton.

And Clinton, gave the meat to the Confederate Republicans that I now call them, not all Republicans, but the far-right in the party, who’ve been looking to kick Bill Clinton out of office since he became President back in 1993. And if anything were looking to kick Clinton out of the Governorship in Arkansas when he was Governor there in the 1980s. Because he was a Baby Boom Liberal Democrat from the 1960s, who believed in things like civil rights, equal opportunity, reducing poverty. But who also believed in things like fiscal responsibility. And not someone they could label as a tax and spend Progressive and beat in an election. So the path for them to defeat Bill Clinton was much harder.

Bill Clinton, I believed scared the hell out of the Far-Right in America, because he reminded most of the country of John F. Kennedy. And someone who was part of the New Democratic Liberal coalition in the party. That had moved past the Roosevelt-LBJ Progressive Era. And someone who could communicate to a wide ray of Americans and had moved past the 1950s culturally. And understood that it was no longer the 1950s and that the country was becoming more diverse. Ethnically, racially, culturally, regionally. And Confederate Republicans hadn’t moved past the 1950s yet. And were still in that little box and weren’t ready to see Americans that most of the country wasn’t familiar with in the 1950s.

The Far-Right, or Neo-Right, isn’t ready for a country that was becoming more liberal and libertarian culturally and socially. As well as economically and they saw Bill Clinton as a threat to their way of life and what they saw as Traditional America. And someone who had to be stopped. Without President Clinton’s irresponsible behavior, this scandal and grand jury testimony never happens. President Clinton’s behavior was the red meat that Confederate Republicans thought they needed to kick him out of office. Since the rest of the country wouldn’t do it for them and they betted that the country with fall inline with them. To oust President Clinton from office, which of course didn’t happen.

VOA News: Video: Healthcare: Virginians Push For Mental Health Awareness to Prevent Tragedies

This has to be done mental healthcare is going to have to be a priority in this country to prevent future gun violence.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge WithPeter Robinson- Interviewing Christopher Hitchens & Anne Applebaum: 'Is The New Left History?'

Source:Hoover Institution- Author Christoper Hitchens, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, back in 1998.
"In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon, arguing that under Republicans, the United States had become too weak in the cold war. A dozen years later, the Democratic presidential candidate was George McGovern. How did the Democratics go from hawks to doves in just twelve years? And what does the history of the Left imply for John Kerry, the Democratic Party, and the war on terror today? Peter Robinson speaks with Anne Applebaum and Christopher Hitchens."

From Hoover Institution

I don't like to as a Liberal Democrat talk about liberalism and the Democratic Party as if they are part of the same organization. Just as if Conservative Republicans don't like to talk about conservatism and the Republican Party as if they are part of the same thing. Liberalism is a political philosophy and the Democratic Party is a political organization that Liberals have used over the years and use today to get elected and advance their political movement and accomplish political goals.

And even though the Democratic Party is the closest thing that we have to a liberal party in America, it's not a party that's just made up of Liberals, but a party thats very diverse and made up different political coalitions. Including Liberals such as myself, but Progressives, as well as leftists  people who call themselves Progressives. ( Socialists, really ) But so-called Progressives who are more statist than liberal and believe that the role of government is to protect and defend people even at times from themselves.

And there are Socialists who sound like Liberals on social issues. People who are called Socialist-Liberals or in Noam Chomsky's case Socialist-Libertarians. So the Democratic Party is a coalition of democrats ranging from center-left to far-left with Moderate-Liberals in between.

I believe the future of American liberalism is very good and I don't just say that as a Liberal. But if you look at where the country is now and where we are going politically and that as younger we get as a country the more liberal-libertarian we are becoming with the belief that government's role is to try to create and environment where all Americans have a good shot at making a good life for themselves that we believe in opportunity.

And what Bill Clinton called an opportunity society where all Americans would have a good opportunity to make a good life for themselves and of course what they do with that opportunity is up to them. But that they would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves while they are currently still growing up.

Or low-educated and low-skilled adults would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. And that all of this would be based on good education, education opportunity and the ability for all Americans to have good access to a good education. That's where the Democratic Party is economically and least the leadership. And that's how Liberal Democrats have countered the Goldwater-Reagan Revolution with the notion of the opportunity society.

The Democratic Party has transformed over the last eighty years. Going from more of a progressive party with a Dixiecrat-Confederate right-wing coalition in it. But today the FDR/LBJ progressive coalition is still there, the Dixiecrats are gone, but they now have a social-democratic socialist win in it. That at times are seen as part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

Back pre Reagan-Revolution were the leaders of the party and represented what Franklin Roosevelt built. Back then and to a certain extent Lyndon Johnson and George McGovern built as the modern Democratic Party back then.

Today thats basically the old Democratic Party and today we are more of a liberal party. Very liberal on social issues, tough liberal internationalists on foreign policy and an economically. A liberal party that believes in what I just called an opportunity society and we've moved from a party that believed in the safety net or welfare state. That government's job was to take care of people, to a party that believes that a role of government is to make sure that all Americans have an opportunity to be successful in life and be able to take care of themselves.

I feel good about American liberalism and the Democratic Party today because of where we've moved as a party. And where we've moved as a country. Liberal Democrats are now in position to show Americans what liberalism actually is and not how it's been stereotyped. And that we aren't wild-eyed Socialists or Anarchists who are soft. But people who are responsible and do believe in freedom but we believe in freedom for all and not just the few or establishment.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Brookings Institution: Video: Fiscal Policy: Robert McDonald: U.S. Tax Structure Hampers Competitiveness: How to Reform The Tax Code

I agree with Robert McDonald that are corporate taxes are too high but what I would add to that so are. Our corporate subsidies or corporate welfare even that what I would like to see instead is a flatter tax system. Where taxes would be low to make us competitive or more competitive with our foreign competitors and whatever. Subsidies that remain in place would go to promote economic and job growth in the United States and to encourage low income people. To move up economically and into the middle class rather then staying on some form of financial public. Assistance indefinitely but encourages these people to be self sufficient creating more people paying more in taxes. And collecting less less if anything in public assistance down the road but paying less in taxes then middle class workers pay today. We only get there with leadership from the President who says this is one if not his top priority when it comes to deficit. Reduction and the economy and pushes for it if not proposes his own plan but also from Congress from Republicans and Democrats. In both the House and Senate, otherwise we'll never get anything done.

Tax reform won't be part of the next round of deficit reduction which hopefully will have an agreement in February or early March. Which is fine and it doesn't have to be part of the next round either. Republicans just agreed or gave up 600B$ in new revenue when it comes to deficit reduction as part. Of the fiscal cliff deal and won't be in the mood for more new revenue and will be all about spending cuts and reforms in the next deal. Which will put both sides in position to negotiate their own version of what savings and reforms should look like when it. Comes to deficit reduction, Republicans will argue for entitlement reform but so will Democrats but they'll do it. In different ways, with Republicans it will be with retirement age and perhaps requiring wealthy people to pay more. With Democrats it will be about having the wealthy pay more into Medicare and Social Security. But perhaps pay more for the benefits they get out. I think they can agree on the second part and perhaps reform how Medicare and Medicaid compensates hospitals and doctors as well.

What I am hoping for that comes out of whatever deficit reduction deal that emerges in February is some type of agreement. That Congress takes up tax reform in 2013 that the House Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee. Hold hearings on tax reform and markup their own bills or a new Bi Partisan commission emerges thats all about tax reform. And whatever they propose Congress both House and Senate would be required to take up and vote on. In their taxing committees and that those proposals get a vote on the House and Senate floors. And perhaps this is done by the fall or summer of 2013 to go along with whatever deficit. Reduction deal emerges in February, so hopefully in February or March we get a Bi Partisan agreement. Of 1-2T$ in deficit reduction and then a tax reform deal later in the summer or fall of another. 1T$ in new revenue when it comes to new revenue from tax reform that would allow us to lower corporate taxes later on. That encourages economic and job growth in the United States.

Hopefully after we are finally done with deficit reduction as far as finally reaching an agreement. That gets our debt and deficit under control where we are no longer in crisis mode and keep coming up against new deadlines. Economic and job growth will finally be ready to takeoff again in America which will really put us in position. To pay our debt and deficit down and then we can move to things like infrastructure investment thats paid for. Not by borrowing and creating a national energy independence policy that invests in a wide range of. American natural resources but to move to these areas, first we have to solve the debt and deficit.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Boy Culture: Raquel Welch On Meeting Mae West For Myra Breckinridge

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

A very funny sexy baby, Raquel Welch. She’s like 72 at this point and still sounds and looks this adorable and gorgeous and the body. I mean her with those curves at this point of her life gets me to thinking that maybe there is an afterlife. And that we don’t die, but come back as something better. I think Raquel is a sexier women now than when she was in the 1970s. Especially if you look at her bootie. But we’re not just talking about a red-hot adorable sexy goddess in Raquel Welch. But a women whose a hell of an actress especially when it comes to satire. As you see with her impression of Mae West, (speaking of funny people. She has Mae down and it would have been priceless to see Mae’s reaction to Raquel playing her. I believe she would have taken it well and even made a joke about it.

Not sure if the Raquel Welch-Mae West combination was ever designed to work. If you look at Myra Breckinridge, I believe they only had one scene together anyway. Mae, came from an era that was learning how to drive basically. Where airplanes were only read about in sci-fi fiction stories. Where even radio was new where watching movies was like going to library except for a big screen in the room, because all the movies in the 1920s were silent. Raquel, is about as modern of a women as any women has ever been. Actually, Myra Breckinridge might be as modern of a movie that has ever been and perhaps 10-20 years ahead of his time. When you’re covering both open homosexuality, where queens have a big role in public in the movie. But you’re also covering transsexuality. And men who were thought to be gay, not comfortable as gay men and they become women.

Mae West, who I believe is one of the best entertainers, as well as actress’s of all-time who was hysterically funny in Myra Breckinridge, had to be impressed with Raquel Welch when she met her. I mean I think you almost have to be blind, death and gay not to be impressed by Raquel Welch. I actually think gay men when meeting Raquel for the first time might say to themselves, “OMG! what have I been missing all of these years? Instead of acting like a women, I could just have them instead.” A little tongue in cheek there, but that wouldn’t surprise me. Raquel and Mae, weren’t a generation apart, but at least two generation’s apart. Mae, grew up when horse carriages were still a dominant form of transportation. And Raquel grew up with televisions and movies where people actually talked to each other. So they were very different, but they made a hell of a funny movie together.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Boots N Leather: Mandie- in Leather Jeans in Boots

Source: Boots N Leather- Mandie, in leather jeans in boots
Source:The Daily Press 

A very sexy woman in skin-tight leather jeans in boots. You can tell she’s sexy just by listening to the sound those jeans makes when she moves and stretches. You can tell how well they fit on her and her legs and butt are able to fill out those leather jeans. And of course how her butt looks in them with her tight curves. That is what skinny and skin-tight jeans are about, whether they are denim or leather skinny jeans. They are for sexy women and for sexy women with curves, which to me at least all sexy women have which are tight curves. Muscle on their legs and waist are, butt and tush. Which is why you see sexy women in skinny jeans tucking their shirts into them. To show off the legs of course, but also their butts and tush. Which is what this women did in this video.
Boots N Leather: Mandie- In Leather Jeans in Boots

Friday, January 11, 2013

Leathered Life: Leather Fashion Show With Sarah

Source: Leathered Life- Leathered Life model Sarah, in leather jeans and jacket 
Source:The Daily Press

Sarah from Leathered Life, in skin-tight Miss Sixty leather jeans. With a leather jacket and black leather boots. My favorite look from these models at Leathered Life. Skinny leather jeans, the exact same look as skinny denim jeans. A thinly cut pant, that's made from leather instead of denim. That look great on women with legs. Who aren't obese or rail-thin, but have real legs and real muscle on them. And not just skin, bone and fat. Who also have a real butt that is not flat or flabby.

Leather jeans, aren't for everybody and skinny leathers even more so. Because of what I just said, because they're skin-tight and hug a woman's, or man's legs and will keep you real warm in the winter, especially if you're wearing boots with them. But a woman with a good body, will look even better in them. A woman who is obese or rail-thin, will look even fatter or thinner in them. Because there's no forgiveness in them.

Sarah, more of a petite models compared with the other models at Leathered Life, in height and build, has the legs and butt, to look good in skinny leather jeans.
Leathered Life: Leather Fashion Show With Sarah

Foreign Affairs: National Security: From 2004 US Senator Chuck Hagel: A Republican Foreign Policy

A Republican Foreign Policy: President Barack Obama just nominated Chuck Hagel as secretary of defense. In this 2004 essay, Hagel lays out his views on U.S. foreign policy. He explains that "a wise foreign policy recognizes that U.S. leadership is determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power."

One of the things I like about Chuck Hagel who'll be the next Secretary of Defense for President Obama, is. His consistency and knowledge, not that he doesn't change his thinking when facts change but that he knows what he knows. And bases his thinking and opinions based on what he knows and doesn't throw out ideas from everywhere. To see what sounds good and intelligent but he knows what he knows about foreign policy, knows a lot about foreign policy and makes his judgements accordingly. If you read his piece in Foreign Affairs magazine from back in the summer of 2004 when America had just. Been in Iraq for over a year by that point and read what he had to say about foreign policy and how America. Should be involved in the War on Terror and involved in the World, it sounds very similar to what he believes now. That of course the United States has to have a strong defense that is not only capable to defend this great huge country. But that we have to be strong enough to address issues that are in our interest around the World but that our military. Can't be the only component of our foreign policy and it can't do everything.

Chuck Hagel would've of not of been a very good Secretary of Defense, State, Director of National Security, Intelligence. Or a member of President Bush's national security team perhaps it any capacity, not because he's not qualified for those positions. Because he certainly is but his foreign policy wouldn't of been President Bush's Neoconservative foreign policy. Of nation building, eliminating authoritarian regimes by force and forcing Liberal Democratic values on these countries. Who have no idea what Liberal Democracy is for the most part, Chuck Hagel would've been at constant odds. With President Bush, Vice President Cheney and the rest of the Bush national security team, similar to how. Collin Powell was as Secretary of State, because Chuck Hagel is not a Neoconservative but a real. Conservative who believes that American foreign policy and national security has to be about protecting America. First and that it has to be limited, that there's a limit to what we can do with our military and that fiscal Conservatism also applies to national defense as well.

I don't believe that Chuck Hagel is inline with the entire Barack Obama foreign policy, Senator Hagel a Conservative Republican. Probably more hawkish then President Obama whose also more hawkish then dovish but a Liberal Democrat. But they are both internationalists and both believe that America is overcommitted around the World with our military. And overcommitted at home with our current entitlement system and broader Federal Government. And that these things need to be scaled back which is why Senator Hagel will serve President Obama very well as Secretary of Defense.

Thursday, January 10, 2013

The New Republic: White House: Noam Scheiber: Jack Lew For Treasury Secretary: Confirms President Obama's View of Government

Jack Lew For Treasury Secretary: Obama In Coke-Bottle Glasses | The New Republic

The more that President Obama brings in Clinton Administration New-Democrats the New-Left in America. The more evidence that he's definitely not a Socialist or Social Democrat or a Democratic Socialist because thats what Jack Lew. Represents someone who has a new thinking when it comes to the role of government who understands that. Its no longer the 1960s or 1930s and 40s that Americans by majority want a limit to what government. Should do for them and what they are willing to pay for it and that even though programs like Social Security and Medicare. Are very popular in America still, they are not looking for an increase role of the Federal Government in their lives. Which is what Progressive Democrats have been trying to accomplish since the end of the Great Society days. And looking to build off of those programs and build off of the New Deal and Great Society and truly transform. America into Europe with a European size welfare state in this country something that Americans by in large. Aren't willing to pay for which is why the tax and spend label on Progressives has been so effective.

As I've blogged before the Democratic Party is made up of two powerful factions, the Liberal faction that I'm part of. That tends to run the party and able to make appointments like this and Barack Obama comes from this faction as well. Even though he's too Moderate for me on some key social issues and things like civil liberties but his belief. In what the role of government should be in this country fits into this Liberal New-Democratic coalition that Bill Clinton. And others put together in the 1980s and 90s that Progressive Democrats like to call Moderate Republicans or center-right. But they are the real Liberal Democrats instead and Jack Lew comes from the New-Democratic wing as well. And his nomination as Secretary of Treasury also singles that deficit reduction will be a key goal and policy of. The second Obama Administration something else that scares the hell out of Progressive Democrats. Who would like to see the 21st Century of the New Deal out of President Obama.

Also as I've blogged before right wingers don't like Barack Obama because they think he's a Socialist and for other reasons. Mainly relating to culture and I'l leave it there for now and Progressives don't like Barack Obama because. He's not a Socialist and the Jack Lew nomination for Secretary of Treasury just confirms that President Obama is not a Socialist. That he's more of a New-Democrat or Moderate-Liberal at best who believes there's a limit of what government. Can do for people with the peoples money.

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The New Republic: Politics: Nate Cohn: A GOP Civil War? Not Yet, But Wait Until 2016: The Center-Right/Far-Right Divide in The GOP

A GOP Civil War? Not Yet, But Wait Until 2016 | The New Republic

As I blogged shortly after the elections in November, its not Conservatism thats the problem in the GOP but. People who call themselves Conservatives who really aren't that give Conservatives and other Republicans a bad name. For the Republican Party to remain a major player in American politics in the future, people who are called. Northeast Republicans as well as Libertarians are the future of the party, the Republicans who actually believe. In limited government and individual freedom, economic freedom to go along with government staying out of the affairs. Of how Americans live their own lives, the people that the Tea Party like to call rhinos or Liberals, thats the future. Of the Republican Party a mixture of the Ron Paul coalition and Olympia Snowe/Judd Gregg Republicans. People who don't just call themselves fiscal Conservatives but who are actual fiscal Conservatives who believe. In fiscal Conservatism across the board and don't leave defense and corporate welfare off the table. And these are the Republicans that can get elected in Democratic states at the national level at least in Congress both. House and Senate not far right Tea Party candidates.

Chuck Hagel who was a Republican Senator from Nebraska from 1997-2009 whose now President Obama's. Nominee to be the next Secretary of Defense is part of this Un named coalition and who is someone who also. Believes that America has to have a strong defense but that we can't balance our budget and get the debt and deficit. Under control without defense being on the table because he also believes that America is overcommitted around the World. And we are simply trying to do much with our military and one of the reasons why he'll be the next Secretary of Defense. Is because he believes that we need cut back there and demand that countries can afford to defend themselves do that. He's also someone while in Congress voted against No Child Left Behind and Medicare Advantage. Again because he's a real fiscal Conservative and someone who questioned President Bush on. Indefinite detention and enhanced interrogation techniques again because he's a real Conservative and not. Someone who belie
ves that Conservatism is about following the party line whatever it is.

Chuck Hagel and people like Senators Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, Mike Lee, Representative Justin Amash. And others are the real Conservative Republicans and represent the future of the party if they are going to remain a major political party. And not become some far right third party and right now the GOP has a civil war growing between Republicans like this. The real Conservatives and Neoconservatives who have more of a Big Government philosophy when it. Comes to social issues who are still inline with the religious right and we'll see in the next few years which Republican coalition wins out.

Monday, January 7, 2013

The New Republic: Congress: Alec MacGillis: Barney Frank's Fiscal Plan: Join The Senate, Soak The Near-Rich

Barney Frank's Fiscal Plan: Join The Senate, Soak The Near-Rich | The New Republic

I don't see Barney Frank returning to Congress as a Senator to fill John Kerry's seat as Senator Kerry will become. The next Secretary of State, Representative Frank has his own baggage and perhaps is not quite up to running statewide. Even in a state as far to the left and as Democratic as Massachusetts, perhaps the Democratic version of Mississippi. As far as how far in one direction that a state leans politically but not even Democrats has sent to the US Senate. Democrats as far to the left as Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy being the closest who might be every Progressive/Social Democrats. Hero but one of the reasons why Senator Kennedy was called the lion of the Senate was his ability to legislate. And work with other Democrats who weren't as far to the left as he was and also work with Republicans. In both the Senate and House and even White House to finally pass legislation out of Congress that the President would sign. Which is what made Senator Kennedy such an effective committee Leader as both Chairman and Ranking Member. Of the Senate Labor Committee.

Barney Frank I believe has a great future if he wants it which I'm sure he does but since he's left the US House. I don't see it in elective office but perhaps in the cabinet where I believe he would make a good choice for Secretary of Housing. Or Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Labor he would be well qualified for any of those positions but he could. Even have a career in politics just not as an elected official especially after he gets his book written. About his thirty two years in Congress and what he's most proud of accomplishing, perhaps disappointments and so fourth. Perhaps how he would like to see the US House change if at all, he's got over thirty years of service and and I'm. Sure a lot of insights he could offer there but after that if he's looking at getting back into politics, I believe. He should be looking at the Progressive movement and how American Progressivism should be moving in the future. How it should be relevant in the Democratic Party or is the Democratic Party the best way to advance. American Progressivism in the future.

Barney Frank is about to turn 73 years old in March which is still young enough to be active in American politics. And public service and could finish out his active life well contributing to the country and contributing to Progressivism. Where he's been one of the most effective Leaders that movement has ever produced but the US Senate is a different. Story and not something that I believe he would be the strongest candidate for Massachusetts Democrats. Where Representative Frank would get a strong contest from both Democrats and Republicans and Massachusetts Democrats. Should be looking at the future anyway as far as who should represent them in the Senate.

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Leathered Life: Sarah- Dressed in Shiny Black Leather Jeans

SourceLeathered Life- Leathered Life model Sarah, in a black leather suit.
Source:The Daily Press

"Sarah dressed in shiny black leather"

From Fred Fiorino

Sarah, is one of the leather models at Leathered Life. Who you can generally see in a black leather jacket, leather jeans and boots. Which is generally how people saw Jim Morrison when he was The Lizard King.

Sarah is not my favorite model there. They have a taller curvier blonde there and two beautiful baby-faced brunettes, both with great bodies that I like more. Lena and Laura, who are both on this blog and in this section of the blog. But Sarah is probably their cutest model.

I sort of see Sarah as the baby of Leathered Life. For guys who like beautiful baby-faced women who aren't tall or very curvy. The petite baby at Leathered Life. Myself I prefer tall athletic looking women, which is why both Laura and Lena, look so great in their Miss Sixty leather jeans, because they both have great legs and butts and fill out those skinny or skin-tight pants so well.

But Sarah again to me at least is the baby of Leathered Life and because she's so cute, as well as beautiful and has a cute body, she'll get many guys, including myself, attention as well.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy