Total Tight Jeans: Amanda in Tight Black Levi's Denim Jeans

Source:Total Tight Jeans model Amanda in her black Levi's denim jeans.

Source:The New Democrat

The second time I've seen this women named Amanda in her classic black Levis. The problem I have with this video, is that it is forty-seconds. But even in that short amount of time you see beautiful sexy curvy women looking great in black Levis. Women know men very well as far as what men like especially when it comes to women. And this video is a perfect example of that, with this very sexy women in her classic Levis with the great body.

Seeing a women like this makes me want to get down on my knees and thank God I'm a man. And keep in mind, I'm an Agnostic, but seeing a women like this could make a man rethink his religious affiliation. Could bring to sight to a blind man and perhaps even change a gay man. And get him to thinking "OMG! What have I've been missing all of these years? A perfect women physically where the perfect Levis jeans. Not much more than a guy can ask for.

CDC's Worst Nightmare: Inside SuperMax

Source:The New Democrat

For me at least it is not a question of whether we need super max prisons or not. The answer is obvious of course we do with all of the violent inmates and criminals that we have and in a lot of cases inmates that are so violent and lack conscience so much that they can’t control their violent behavior. And even enjoy hurting people so of course we need institutions to deal with these people.

The question at least for me is how should we deal with these inmates. The status-quo would be do what we are doing as a country in most cases. Which is to warehouse them and hope they do not get worst and that these institutions the staff can deal with these people, or try to improve their behavior or give them an out from their destructive behavior. Incentive for them to improve their lives in prison in the time that they do. 

Rehabilitation so these inmates are easier to manage while in prison, but also for the inmates who get out an opportunity for them to be successful in prison so they can be successful on the outside and never have to come back to prison and based on the super max prisons that we have, I also believe the answer to this question is obvious as well. With how hard these inmates are to manage and how violent they still are while in these prisons.

That even super max prisons with the increase in security need to be institutions where inmates have opportunities to improve themselves. If for no other reason so they can be transferred to a regular maximum security prison. And have the opportunity to get better rehabilitated with better educational and work opportunities, so they can be productive, especially if they have a release date.

Robert Carter: Sexy Women in Tight Denim Jeans Slideshow

Source:Robert Carter- Sexy Cassandra in her Levi's denim jeans?

Source:The New Democrat

Love the women in the Levis jeans especially. I first saw her on a web site back in like late 2009 called something to the affect of, Girls in Denim Jeans, something like that. She's called Sexy Cassandra, I doubt that is her real name. I mean seriously, who would name their daughter Sexy as her first name. I mean what sober sane person would do that, unless you're raising your daughter to be a porn star. Perhaps you're a porn king or pimp or something. I've seen several photos of Cassandra in her classic Levis. And she looks like a goddess in them and has a real nice body and proud of it and proud to show it. A real sexy women to me at least who takes care of herself with a real nice body. Doesn't starve herself, or unable to fill herself up to the point of obesity. But a sexy women who takes care of herself and proud of her body to the point that she wants the world to see it.
Source:Robert Carter

Euro News: Jose M. Barroso- 'Calls For a Federation of States'

Source:Euro News- EU Commission President Jose M. Barroso.

Source:FRS FreeState

“Europe must become a ‘federation of nation-states,’ the EU Commission’s chief Jose Manuel Barroso has said.

The call for deeper European integration came in Strasbourg during the President’s State of the Union speech to MEPs.

“The present European Union must evolve. And let’s not be afraid of the word: we will need to move towards a federation of nation states. This is what we need. Not a superstate. A democratic federation of nation states that can tackle our common problems through to the sharing of sovereignty in a way that each country and each citizen are better equipped to control their destiny,” Barosso said.

While, Barroso stressed he was not calling for a European ‘superstate’ to tackle Europe’s economic problems, Liberal group leader Guy Verhofstadt said.

”The euro crisis is calling for the creation of a true federal state, a European state, a state that has a European treasury, a European bond market, European government. All this is necessary. Obviously, this takes over from nation states. It is a transfer of skills and powers from a national to a European level.”

Other pro-Europeans also greeted Barroso’s vision with enthusiasm but insisted more needed to be done to lessen Europe’s social problems.

“What Mr Barroso did today is present a toolbox to help Europe to deal with the crisis. Most of them are in the right direction. We would prefer, as a group, more emphasis on the need to reinvent social Europe,” Greek MEP Maria Elena Koppa said.

But, Barroso’s idea of pooling more sovereignty rankled eurosceptics, especially British MEPs, who remain strongly opposed to more powers going to Brussels.”

From Euro News

Before I layout what a Federal Union of Europe which I’m guessing this new European superstate would like and what they would need to do, first I’ll tell you what I believe the borders of the country would look like. It wouldn’t be the entire European/Eurasian continent going from let’s say Belgium all the way over to the Caucus States and Turkey and Middle East.

The United Kingdom would probably never want to be part of a Federal Europe, because of its history and the fact they are a monarchy and do very well as a power by themselves. You would probably be talking about a country going from Belgium in the Northwest with Brussels being the capital of this new Federalist Republic and I say Federalist for a reason which I’ll get into later.

It would range from Belgium in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast. To Portugal in the Southwest to Italy in the Southeast with the former Soviet Union Slavic states in Eurasia out of this new country, as well as the former Yugoslavia. As well as Scandinavia which physically is about the size of continental Western Europe anyway. Out of this Federalist Republic as well.

So we would be talking about a huge new country physically about half the size of the continental United States. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50 million more people who would be either the new largest economy in the world or right there with the United States. That would also be military and diplomatic, as well as political power because this new country would replace NATO with a President and executive branch now controlling this military.

This new Europe could compete with anyone in the world economically and everything else that would be a leader in some of these areas as well. That would also be a democracy again if this was done right and set up successfully which is just as important as the idea of a Federalist Republic of Europe getting it right. Similar to how the United States of America was set up in the late 1700s.

So how would a Federalist Union of Europe look like: somewhere between 27-30 states. Federal capital in Brussels and probably similar to the United States that it would have checks and balances, separation of branches simply because of the fact that each state in the union use to be an independent country so they would want their own autonomy over their domestic affairs, but also so the big states in the union like Germany, France and Italy to use as examples do not control most of the political power in Brussels.

So you would have an executive branch like the commission which is called administration in America. With a President at the head with several different cabinet level ministries. But with a legislative branch that would probably be Bicameral Assembly or Congress, or Parliament so the smaller states as well as the people are well represented as well. You would have some type of Federal assembly. With a lower House and an upper house called the Senate or council. The lower House would represent Federal House districts and the Senate would represent the states.

This new assembly similar to how Congress works in America would be able to write and pass their own legislation. In other words, write laws with the President getting veto and signing power over them. And the assembly would have to pass the same laws before it would go to the president. The House and Senate would have to conference and pass the same law before it is sent to the President. The President as head of the commission would get to send legislation to the assembly as well as veto or sign assembly legislation.

You would then need a Federal judicial branch that would judge the constitutionality of laws that are passed at all levels. As well as handle civil disputes including a high court. As well as criminal cases that the commission prosecutes which again is similar to how America and a lot of other Western democracies function. The difference being the Europe would be more Federalist with more power going to the states over their own affairs. So Europe probably wouldn’t be a social democracy with so much power centralized with the central government. Because states rights because of the fact these states use to be countries would be highly respected.

Because of all the cultural, ethnic, and national tensions like with creating a national language, Europe would have to be Federalist with the states having autonomy over their domestic affairs. With a lot of power going to the governors and state legislatures. So these states feel well represented in Europe and feel that this new powerful country is home for them and being able to live in their native state and speak their native language. But having a Federal language which would probably be English so the Federal Government could do its business, but also so Europeans of different ethnic backgrounds could communicate with each other.

STV News: Scotland Tonight- Rona Dougall Interviewing Laurie Clark & Peter Hughes: ‘How Would Independence Affect the Prospects of Business’

Source:STV News- interviewing Laurie Clark & Peter Hughes about Scottish independence.

Source:FRS FreeState

“STV News: Scotland Tonight- How Would Independence Affect The Prospects of Scottish Business?” Originally from STV News, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube. 

Perhaps the future of the United Kingdom should be a federalist one where the states or republics in Britain: England, Scotland, Wales, and North Ireland would be able to handle their own domestic affairs. Have their own state or provincial governments and handle their own education, law enforcement, regulatory system, social welfare systems. The things that the states in America do or provinces in other developed democracies do.

But where the national government in London handles the things that only national governments should be doing. Like the currency, foreign affairs, national security, etc. Where the English, Scotts, Welch and Irish feel closer to the U.K. and feel British because they have a large say in what happens in their daily lives in the places that they live.

With a federalist system it wouldn’t be top-down with big government thinking it knows best for everyone. Instead the states and localities would be able to handle the issues that they see and are on top of live with everyday.

The national government handling the things that countries need to have done at the national level. Like interstate commerce, interstate crime, foreign policy, the national economy, taxation, but where the states and localities could have their own tax revenue to pay for the operations of their own governments.

Clinton Foundation: Governor Bill Clinton's 1992 Democratic Nomination Speech

Source: Clinton Foundation- Governor Bill Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) accepting the 1992 Democratic Party nomination for President, at the Madison Square Garden, in New York City.

Source:FRS FreeState

In 1992 when the Democratic Party nominated Bill Clinton for President, the Democratic Party completed the transition it started in the mid 1980s after losing the 1984 presidential election in another landslide similar to 1984 and the third landslide loss they had at the presidential level since 1972 and after the 1984 landslide loss. A coalition of Democrats who by the time Bill Clinton wins the Democratic nomination for President in 1992 were called New Democrats who aren’t Moderate Democrats, but Liberal Democrats, but not in the stereotypical ways that Liberals tend to get stereotyped as today.  

But Liberal Democrats who weren’t pro-government, but not anti-government either, but Democrats who wanted to use government to empower people to be able to take care of themselves. Not use government to try to managed Americans lives, but empower people so they can do that for themselves. Which is very different from the way the Democratic Party was prior to 1985 and how they were seen.

I believe the biggest legacy that Bill Clinton had as President of the United States and his political career in general was how he changed the Democratic Party and moved the Democratic Party. Changing it from a party that was at least as seen and in some cases with the Far-Left in the Democratic Party. As a anti-business, anti-wealth, anti-success, anti-military, ant-religious, anti-American even party. To a party that became in favor of all of those things, but wanted them to be used in a responsible way. 

Didn’t want people to be able to force their values on the rest of the country that didn’t agree with them especially through law. Wanted all Americans to have a good opportunity to be successful in America instead of a select few being able to control most of the wealth in America. Who weren’t anti-military and didn’t believe America should or could police the world, but protect America. That was pro-law-enforcement but also respected civil liberties and personal freedom as well.

The New Democratic wave in the Democratic Party really started in 1976 with the Democratic Party nominating Jimmy Carter for President. And how President Carter moved the country as President on economic and foreign policy. By taking the position that the country didn’t have unlimited resources and couldn’t do everything for everybody. That there was a limit to what government could do for the people who people themselves needed more power and freedom to be able to take care of themselves and that America also needed to be strong at home as well as abroad. 

One problem with Jimmy Carter is that he didn’t get reelected and as a result the Democratic Party in the early 1980s went back to the Social Democratic Party that was at least seen as against those things I’ve already mentioned. And seem to have a new tax increase or government program for all of the country's problems. And what Bill Clinton did in 1992 was move the party back to what Jimmy Carter started in 1976 and was able to move the party forward because he got reelected in 1996.

I give Bill Clinton a lot of credit as it relates to the Democratic Party especially because he essentially saved the Democratic Party and kept it as a national party that remained competitive at the presidential level. And thanks to George W. Bush and Barack Obama the Democratic Party wins back Congress in 2006 and have retained control of the Senate since 2007 even though they lost the House in 2010 and the Democratic Party has been able to do these things because they are no longer seen as a Far-left Social Democratic Party. 

But instead a Liberal Democratic Party that in a lot of these areas are now beating the Republican Party. And all of this started with Jimmy Carter in 1976 and went full circle with Bill Clinton in the 1990s. And that trend has continued ever since with McGovernites the Social Democrats in the Democratic Party now finally fighting back to try to take back the power they had in the Democratic Party in the late 1960s and 70s.
Source:Clinton Foundation

President William Jefferson Clinton: Farewell Address (2001)

Source:American Rhetoric- President William J. Clinton (Democrat, Arkansas) 42nd President of the United States (1993-2001)

Source:FRS FreeState 

"My fellow citizens, tonight is my last opportunity to speak to you from the Oval Office as your President.

I am profoundly grateful to you for twice giving me the honor to serve, to work for you and with you to prepare our nation for the 21st century. And I'm grateful to Vice President Gore, to my Cabinet secretaries, and to all those who have served with me for the last eight years. This has been a time of dramatic transformation, and you have risen to every new challenge. You have made our social fabric stronger, our families healthier and safer, our people more prosperous.

You, the American people, have made our passage into the global information age an era of great American renewal. In all the work I have done as president, every decision I have made, every executive action I have taken, every bill I have proposed and signed, I've tried to give all Americans the tools and conditions to build the future of our dreams, in a good society, with a strong economy, a cleaner environment, and a freer, safer, more prosperous world. I have steered my course by our enduring values: opportunity for all, responsibility from all, a community of all Americans... 

You can read the rest at American Rhetoric 

"President William Jefferson Clinton's Farewell Address to the Nation. Delivered 18 January 2001. Audio corrected re-issue. Courtesy William Jefferson Clinton Presidential Library. Complete transcript and audio at:American Rhetoric." 

From American Rhetoric

Before Bill Clinton became President of the United States, Liberal Democrats in America were seen as something we are not. We had all sorts of negative stereotypes about us, not all of them unfair because there are Democrats back then and today who meet these stereotypes, but they just aren’t Liberal Democrats. And there’s a different and accurate term that defines their politics. But they just aren’t liberal, even though they have some liberal views on social issues.

Pre-President Clinton, Liberal Democrats were seen as tax and spend, big government supporters, Socialists. Who are soft on crime, soft on defense, soft on welfare. That we just wanted to soak the rich in taxes to take care of the poor. And soak the middle class in taxes to take care of them as well. That we wouldn’t do what was necessary to protect the country. And that we see the U.S. Constitution a document to use for advice. But that it wasn’t enforceable.

By the time President Clinton left office in 2001, Democrats were more trusted on law enforcement, national security, foreign policy, the economy, fiscal responsibility then Republicans who use to own these issues. And this didn’t happen by accident. Just within the first two years of the Clinton Presidency, President Clinton got a deficit reduction package through Congress. That had deep budget cuts and a tax hike on the wealthy. 

President Clinton got two trade agreements through Congress as well. NAFA and GAT and got the 1994 Crime bill through Congress as well. That had the Brady bill on Handguns, meaning to buy a new handgun, you had to pass a background check. And new tough sentences on violent offenders. Including a Three Strikes Law, 25-Life for criminals convicted of violent felonies. 

Presidents are judged by what shape the country was in when they took over and what shape the country was in when they left office. President George H.W. Bush by a lot of measures was a successful President. Especially on foreign policy, but the country was just coming out of recession with high unemployment, low economic growth, high interest rates and Inflation and a large Federal debt and deficit. 

President Clinton also inherited a high crime rate when he took over in 1993 and all of those problems were either gone by 2001, or those problems were under control when he left office in 2001. And it didn’t happen by accident, because of the policies that the President got through Congress from 1993-95. But with also Welfare to Work in 1996, working with a Republican Congress.

President Clinton showed Americans that liberalism is not about being soft and irresponsible and that taxpayers will always cover the mistakes of others. That it was about individual liberty, the U.S. Constitution, and limited government. But that people also had to be held accountable for their decisions. And that America had to do what it takes within the U.S. Constitution to defend itself. And that government can help people who are down get on their feet and become self-sufficient. This is why President Clinton was such a successful President, the best President we’ve had since Harry Truman.