Boots N Leather: Mandie- in Leather Jeans in Boots

Source:Boots N Leather- Mandie, in leather jeans in boots.

Source:The Daily Press 

"Boots N Leather: Mandie- In Leather. Mandie in Leather Boots, Pants, Gloves & Jacket Outfit.”

From Boots N Leather 

"The New Democrat Boots N Leather: Mandie" 

Source:Boots N Leather- Mandie showing off her leather jean asset.

From Boots N Leather 

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. 

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 woman did in this video. 

Leathered Life: Leather Fashion Show With Sarah

Source:Leathered Life- model Sarah, all leathered up in her black jacket, jeans, and boots.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leather fashion show with Sarah.” 

From Scione Andre

"Leather fashion show with Sarah" 

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

From Leathered Life

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, 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 model compared with the other models at Leathered Life, in height and build, has the legs and butt, to look good in skinny leather jeans.

Foreign Affairs: Chuck Hagel: 'A Republican Foreign Policy'

Source:Foreign Affairs- then U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska)

"THE GENERATIONAL CHALLENGE

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that killed nearly three thousand Americans were signposts of a new era, a turning point in our history. Terrorism is a historic and existential challenge that redefines traditional notions of security, and combating it must be at the top of the nation's agenda and therefore at the core of a Republican foreign policy. But the war on terrorism cannot be considered in isolation, without taking into account the wider crisis of governance throughout the developing world, especially in the greater Middle East.

In taking military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban... 

From Foreign Affairs 

"The war on terrorism must top the U.S. foreign policy agenda--but it cannot be waged without also attending to the broader crisis in the developing world. Recognizing this, a Republican foreign policy should be guided by seven principles that seek to encourage stability, expand democracy, and strengthen key alliances. Above all, Washington must recognize that U.S. leadership depends as much on principle as it does on the exercise of power." 

From JSTR

"The Generational Challenge

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that killed nearly three thousand Americans were signposts of a new era, a turning point in our history. Terrorism is a historic and existential challenge that redefines traditional notions of security, and combating it must be at the top of the nation’s agenda and therefore at the core of a Republican foreign policy. But the war on terrorism cannot be considered in isolation, without taking into account the wider crisis of governance throughout the developing world, especially in the greater Middle East.

In taking military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, President George W. Bush understood that the war on terrorism must be more than the rightful use of military force. There must be a U.S. purpose commensurate with our use of power. As President Bush told a joint session of Congress on January 29, 2002, “we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.”

A wise foreign policy recognizes that U.S. leadership is determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power. Foreign policy is the bridge between the United States and the world, and between the past, the present, and the future. The United States must grasp the forces of change, including the power of a restless and unpredictable new generation that is coming of age throughout the world. Trust and confidence in U.S. leadership and intentions are critical to shaping a vital global connection with this next generation.

The challenges to U.S. leadership and security will come not from rival global powers, but from weak states. Terrorism finds sanctuary in failed or failing states, in unresolved regional conflicts, and in the misery of endemic poverty and despair. Rogue regimes that support terrorism seek legitimacy and power through the possession of weapons of mass destruction, rather than from the will of their people. Terrorism and proliferation go hand in glove with the challenges of failed and failing states.

Five billion of the world’s six billion people live in less developed regions. Most of the world’s population growth in this century will come from these regions, where nearly one in three people is under the age of 15. As this younger generation grows into adulthood, it will be the greatest force for change in world politics in the first half of the twenty–first century. Many governments in the developing world, especially in Africa, the greater Middle East, and Asia, will not be able to meet the basic demands of their growing populations for jobs, health care, and security. Although poverty and despair do not “cause” terrorism, they provide a fertile environment for it to prosper. The strains of demography, frustrated economic development, and authoritarian governments contribute to radicalized populations and politics. The developing world’s crisis of governance thus cannot be separated from the United . . . 

From Columbia University

The New Republic: Nate Cohn: 'A GOP Civil War? Not Yet, But Wait Until 2016'

Source:POLITICO- New Republic columnist Nate Cohn.

"Charles Krauthammer is going a bit too far in describing an "internal civil war" among House Republicans, but as others noted last week, the vote on the Senate's "fiscal cliff" compromise revealed a deep divide between northern and southern Republican congressmen—a divide many attributed to non-competitive and deeply GOP districts. But a deeper analysis of the vote reveals that the partisanship of districts is only part of the story: The party's north-south split appears to be a matter of ideology, too. That bodes poorly for the GOP's ability to adjust after November's elections, and promises yet another messy, protracted primary in 2016.

Although a strikingly high proportion of GOP-held seats in red states are safely Republican, southern Republicans were still more likely to vote against the Senate compromise after adjusting for the partisanship of their district. Just two of the ten southern Republicans reelected in districts with a Cook PVI between R+3 or R+6 (roughly as Republican as Florida or Indiana, respectively) voted for the compromise, compared to 13 of the 16 Republicans from similarly partisan districts in the Northeast or Pacific coast. And while six of the ten northeastern and Pacific coast Republicans from districts with a Cook PVI between R+7 and R+12 (roughly as Republican as Montana or Kansas, respectively) supported the compromise, the Senate’s measure was only supported by 5 of the 32 Republicans from the South with similarly partisan districts. Are southern, red-state Republicans less likely to compromise because of the danger of a Tea Party challenge, or because of their own ideology? It's impossible to say from these data, but general-election vulnerability probably doesn't explain most of the gap between southern and northern Republicans. 

One split along geographic lines isn’t enough to declare a civil war, especially since most GOP disagreements center on tactics, not policy. Nonetheless, disagreements over tactics have been enough to hint at real fractures within the House Republican caucus, with some Republicans, like Georgia Rep. Tom Price, going so far as to argue for “red-state leadership,” since Boehner and Cantor hail from states carried twice by the president. Indeed, 52 percent of House Republicans now hail from states carried by Romney, and just 34 percent of House Republicans come from the Pacific Coast or Northeast. While the red states have more clout in the next Republican caucus than the last, the blue states would hold even less sway within the House GOP without gerrymandering, which counter-intuitively is helping to moderate the House GOP caucus. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, for instance, Republican redistricting efforts yielded a larger number of Republicans from modestly safe districts in northern states, which tend to produce relatively moderate Republicans. The GOP delegation from Pennsylvania, perhaps the most GOP-gerrymandered blue state, unanimously voted for the compromise, and a majority of Republican representatives from Michigan and Illinois voted “yes,” too.

With potential caucus-splitting issues like gun control and immigration coming early in 2013, there's potential for the north-south divide to widen over the next few months. But even if Republicans survive 2013 without Krauthammer's civil war, it's easy to envision how it could come in 2016. Republicans do not yet agree on how to adjust to the demographic and generational changes that increasingly favor Democrats. Some Republicans prefer radical approaches like distancing the party from social conservatives or the wealthy, while others think the GOP can largely preserve its platform and reframe its message to appeal to a broader audience while cutting a few wedge issues, like immigration, marijuana, or gay marriage. It doesn't seem likely that the GOP could determine its approach without an intra-party fight; and such a battle over the future of the GOP seems likely to break along the same geographic lines evident in the fiscal cliff vote. As long as southerners keep supporting Tea Party candidates and northern Republicans keep supporting establishment-friendly candidates, neither side will prevail. 

The Republicans could nominate a unifying candidate in the 2016 primaries—you never know—but a contested primary would probably break along geographic lines. In retrospect, the 2012 primary might have been a sneak preview. Even though Romney possessed vastly superior resources and acceded to every substantive demand of the right, the GOP primary electorate divided neatly between north and south. Southerners concerned with nominating an authentic conservative never embraced Romney: Despite the help of a divided field, Romney only broke 31 percent of the vote in one southern state, Florida. Geographic polarization ensured that the 2012 Republican presidential primary lasted until April. The fiscal cliff vote shows that such polarization is becoming the rule rather than the exception. If a blue-state Republican secures the GOP presidential nomination thanks to winner-take-all contests in blue states like New Jersey and California, Krauthammer might actually get his civil war." 

From The New Republic

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

Source:Linkedin- Alex McGillis.

"It's somehow perfect that Barney Frank's first order of retirement, after 32 years as a member of Congress, was to show up at a community reading of Moby Dick in New Bedford, the erstwhile whaling hub in his former district where the book begins. Frank was given the honor of being the lead reader at the Saturday event, which means that it was he, with his notorious North Jersey garble, who got to utter the famous first line: "Call me Ishmael."

That retirement, however, may be short-lived. The day before the reading, Frank's line was a different one: essentially, "Call me Senator." After initially disavowing any interest in an interim appointment to John Kerry's Senate seat, Frank declared Friday that he is, in fact, eager to serve in that role--and he has told Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who will make the decision. Like most things Frank does, this caused a stir: having him in the Senate while, in all likelihood, Scott Brown and Rep. Ed Markey vie for the seat, would almost certainly be more consequential than going with a mere time-server. 

When I reached Frank on Friday, he gave the same explanation he had given others for his change of heart: watching the debate over the "fiscal cliff," and seeing that major decisions about spending and taxes had been left to be decided in the next few months had convinced him that he could make a real contribution in a brief interim role in the upper chamber. "March and April will be the most important months in American economic history, and I don't think I'm being immodest to think I could impact it," said.

But Frank went further in our discussion, laying out the exact approach he would advocate. Simply put, he thinks Democrats should push for additional revenue through an increase in the payroll tax for upper-income earners--not just the very rich, but also the near-rich who made out quite well in last week's fiscal cliff deal. With President Obama backing off of his original pledge to raise tax rates on family incomes over $250,000 and shifting the threshold to $450,000, the Democrats left vitally needed revenues on the table. The answer for the next round is clear, says Frank: Get more money out of the exempted swath of income -- from both those whose incomes fall within that window and above it -- via the payroll tax.

"We did not get at taxes between $250,000 and $450,000, which makes it good territory for putting it out for the Social Security payroll tax base…There is a segment of income from people who make between $250,000 and $450,000 who we think could sustain an increase in taxes," he said. "If they had been [hit with an income tax increase] I'd say we don't want to double-hit these guys, but now it's a second cut at the apple for this [income range] in a politically popular way, to protect Social Security rather than taking it out on the old woman in Boston living on $15,000 a year." 

Frank is referring to Congressional Republicans' proposal to save some money by limiting the growth in Social Security payments over time by changing the way inflation is calculated. The proposal is opposed by many on the left but is likely to return as a bargaining chip in the next round of debate. Frank's revenue suggestion offers an entirely different way to sustain Social Security, one that has been little-mentioned until now: raising payroll taxes on upper incomes. As it now stands, the payroll tax for Social Security is applied only to the first $110,000 of income, which means that a family making $100,000 pays just about the same in payroll taxes as one making $500,000 or $10 million. It's the most regressive part of the tax code, and its regressiveness became all the more noticeable last week when the tax-cut compromise ended a payroll tax holiday that had cut two percentage points off the rate.

Frank's approach would partly remedy that. It would also provide a way of getting revenue out of the $250,000-$450,000 income range that is easier to argue for than other options. After all, after both sides made a big show of agreeing to set the income tax-hike threshold at $450,000, it would seem a total nonstarter among Republicans for the White House to seek more revenue now by pushing to lower the income-tax-hike threshold after all.

But will Frank have the chance to push for his idea? There were signs over the weekend that he is not necessarily going to sail into the seat now that he's decided he wants it. Why is that? Well, partly because the personal dynamics around a Frank appointment are not uncomplicated. For starters, as the Boston Globe's Glen Johnson reminds us, there has been tension over the years between Frank and Markey, who arrived in Congress the exact same year. Most recently, Markey succeeded at getting the 2010 redistricting drawn to his benefit and to Frank's disadvantage. 

Patrick has not tipped his hand beyond saying that he demands that whoever serves as interim not run for the seat. But his former chief of staff, Doug Rubin, raised eyebrows with this tweet on Saturday: “I respect Cong. Frank and what he has accomplished, but there are better options for MA Senate interim appointment." Rubin expanded on this to Glen Johnson: "The theory that we have to send experienced people to Washington to break the gridlock; the experienced people are the ones creating the gridlock...If we get beyond the traditional names, there are a lot of smart, talented individuals from Massachusetts who could bring some fresh ideas and energy to Washington, and that’s what we sorely need.”

Adding intrigue to Rubin's comments is that he most recently worked for Elizabeth Warren's successful campaign to unseat Brown for the state's other Senate seat. Rubin says his comments reflect only his own thinking, not Warren's or Patrick's, but one cannot help but wonder what his shot at Frank would mean for the Frank-Warren dynamic, should they serve alongside each other for a few crucial months. The pair has a productive history together: Frank helped author the 2010 financial reform law, Dodd-Frank, that created the Consumer Finance Protection Agency that was Warren's brainchild and which she proceeded to set up before leaving to run for the Senate. "I worked very closely with her," Frank told me.

Making matters even more interesting is the fact that, in crafting the law, Frank also had a quite productive partnership with Scott Brown--to the point of causing grumbles among some Massachusetts Democrats. Senate Democrats identified Brown as a possible supporter of the legislation and asked Frank to make the overture to his fellow Bay Stater, whose state Senate district had overlapped with Frank's House one. Frank assured Brown that the legislation would protect large Massachusetts financial institutions such as Mass Mutual and State Street that had not been at the heart of the Wall Street collapse, going so far as to break off a gym session to assuage Brown. They eventually butted heads over Brown's successful opposition to a new tax on banks to help pay for future bailouts, but a working relationship had been established. 

That did not stop Frank from lining up strongly with Warren in her race last year, and sharply criticizing Brown for ridiculing Warren's claims to Native American heritage. But Frank still speaks of Brown as a breed apart from his fellow Republicans. "He's got some appeal, personally -- he's not a right-winger," Frank said to me. That said, Frank added, he'll be rooting for Brown's opponent, whether it's Markey or anyone else, because Brown "is a member of a party that is still hostile to the president...As long as the Republican Party is still in the grips of the right wing, you're an enabler of this."

Frank is confident that Markey or another Democrat can beat Brown. "It's an easy member to make to the people of Massachusetts: you voted overwhelmingly for the president. Do you want to now vote for someone whose victory would be an embarrassment to [Obama]?"

But other Democrats in Massachusetts are more cautious about predicting victory. They note that Brown has retained a high favorability rating, despite the loss to Warren, and that turnout in a June special election will in all likelihood be much closer to that of the January special election Brown won in 2010 than this past November's general election. "Brown emerged [from his loss against Warren] very nicely," said Lawrence DiCara, a former president of the Boston City Council. "But for the failed biology students in Indiana and Missouri [Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, whose odd declarations about rape were not helpful to Brown in Massachusetts] he may have won." While Brown's opponent will have even more evidence to point to of his party's obstinacy, DiCara added, he or she won't be able to make the case that Warren did that a Brown victory could decide Senate control, since Democrats now hold a five-seat edge. And Andrea Nuciforo, Jr., a former state senator who lost a run for Congress last fall, noted another difference: the Democrat will not "be running against the international Elizabeth Warren juggernaut." 

From 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 have sent to the U.S. Senate. 

Democrats as far to the left as Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy being the closest who might be every so-called Progressive hero. (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) 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.

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.

Learn Liberty: Antony Davies: 'Who Favors More Freedom: Liberals or Conservatives?'

Source:Learn Liberty- Antony Davies, talking about Liberals and Conservatives.

"Prof. Antony Davies analyzes the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives.  He then proposes an alternative method of viewing political issues, which looks at policies and their respective impact on individual freedom.  Prof. Antony Davies concludes that the conventional liberal/conservative dichotomy encourages us to ignore first principles, and hence, overlook contradictory views.

Want to advance liberty?:Learn Liberty."

From Learn Liberty

One of the things I don't like about American politics is that it tries to take complicated issues and philosophies and tries to divide them into two factions as if those factions are in sink on all of the issues and that the left and right is only made up to two political factions that agree on everything and all of the issues even though we do have a left and a right and so does every other country at least in the democratic world.

But the left and right are basically just the two ends of the political spectrum. But both sides of the political spectrum have multiple and diverse factions on both sides. It's not just About liberal vs conservative, but the left and the right where the left is made up of more than just Liberals, but the left has Progressives, Social Democrats/Democratic Socialists, as well as Communists. And the left has people who describe their politics as Socialist-Liberal or Socialist-Libertarian. People who Are socialist or social democratic on economic and perhaps foreign policy, but liberal-libertarian on social issues.

Whereas the right has Conservatives or Conservative-Libertarians, but they have people who are more classically libertarian and they have people who are neoconservative and religiously conservative. (Which is different from politically conservative) People who may be conservative on economic policy, but more statist on social issues and foreign policy.

So left vs right is not just about liberal vs conservative. And Liberals and Conservatives at least Liberals and Conservatives in a classical sense generally don't view themselves as liberal vs conservative in the sense that they are enemies, but competitors who have competing political ideologies. But not out to destroy the other side and they also have more in common than I believe Americans tend to think.

And they both have the same goals and see their philosophy as the best to achieve their goals which is individual freedom for all Americans. The ability to chart one's own course in life and be able to live their own lives as they see fit. As long as they aren't hurting innocent people with what they are doing.

Which is one example why Liberals and Conservative-Libertarians hate the War on Drugs (to use as an example) because we both believe in economic freedom as well as social freedom, we both believe in limited government and a limited foreign policy and national security. That our military can't be everything for everybody. And that it should be limited to protecting our own national interests and helping others that deserve it when we can, but that we can't do everything.

Where Liberals and Conservatives tend to differ is government's role in helping people who can't take care of themselves and need a hand up to be able to do that. Conservatives tend to be more hawkish on foreign policy and Liberals tend to be more internationalist, but we both believe in limited government and fiscal responsibility. But Liberals and Conservatives are the two dominant political factions in America. Center-Left and Center-Right where most Americans tend to be on one side or the other, rather than being Far-Left or Far-Right.