Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

FRSFreeState: The Hill: Opinion: US Representative Raul Grijalva: "What We Need is a New Deal": How We Can Avoid The Fiscal Cliff and Rebuild America

What we need is a New Deal - The Hill

What the Congressional Progressive Caucus is talking about, which is made up of roughly 70-80 members of Congress. Depending on how they did in the elections, from both the House and Senate, Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists. Depending on what you prefer, Progressive Democrats in the Democratic Caucus's in the House and Senate, what they are talking about led by their Leader. Representative Raul Grijalva, is creating a new New Deal from the 1930s and but using that type of economic plan. For now, investing roughly 1T$ in new infrastructure investment around the country, of course paid for with across the board. Tax hikes on everyone, at least thats what Green party Presidential nominee Jill Stein proposed this year, perhaps the CBC would only raise taxes on the wealthy to do this. Its back to the future for the Progressive Caucus to put millions of Americans back to work and then. Somehow the revenue from whatever would come from this would help us get our debt and deficit under control.

President Obama never proposed this even when he had a Democratic Congress, he understands that middle class Americans. Right now are over taxed and a 50% tax hike on them when they are struggling to pay their mortgage, car payment. Pay the bills for their business, could kill them financially even if it meant that more Americans would be working and they could get more customers as a result. We do need more infrastructure investment but we also need to pay for it in a way that doesn't make it harder for the. Middle class to pay their bills and doesn't make our debt and deficit any worse then it is, we could start to pay. Down our debt and deficit by eliminating and reforming things in the Federal Government to make it more effective. And less expensive and that means all across the Federal budget, as well as a millionaires taxes and closing wasteful tax loopholes.

What the President and Congress will have after they resolve the fiscal cliff in a responsible way, is to then. Have an opportunity to move to create some type of what President Obama calls the American Jobs Act. That would include new infrastructure investment, new investments in energy, cleaning up the tax code so companies. Are encouraged to invest in America, rather then somewhere else and more tax relief for consumers  and business's that encourages economic growth, rather then hoping it occurs. But this kinda Democratic Socialist model where they put all of the power in the Federal Government to. Achieve new economic and job growth, is not being considered by anyone who has the power to get it passed. Through Congress and signed into law.

Tuesday, November 27, 2012

James Miller Center: President Harry S. Truman- First Speech to Congress


Imagine living on a desert island all by yourself or locked up in solitary confinement for months and then suddenly being released one day and being told you have to run a very large organization. Like I don't know, wait I got it. The Executive Branch of the United States. Granted Harry Truman was only Vice President for a few months before he became President in 1945. But President Franklin Roosevelt and the cabinet didn't keep the Vice President in the light when he was there. He didn't know about the atomic bomb program and wasn't getting briefings about what was going on in World War II that was still happening both in Europe and the Far East when Truman became President in 1945. Very few people had even ever heard of Vice President Harry Truman before he became President, even though he was in the Senate ten years before that.

So when our brand new President of the United States Harry Truman, goes up to Congress for the second time since leaving the Senate to speak to his former colleagues there, I don't think anyone there knew what to expect from him and what President Truman might say. Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, probably knew Harry Truman fairly well. at least in the Senate. But Truman at least before becoming President wasn't a very highly respected man. He was basically seen as a small town hick from Missouri. Who had never seen a big city before he came to Washington in the 1930s. But Truman was always a very under appreciated and underrated man who thrived on that. Because even though he was never someone who commanded high confidence. Was very intelligent and had good judgment and tended to make the right decisions. 

So when President Harry Truman speaks to Congress for the first time as President in 1945, he was speaking 535 men for the most part in Congress and millions of Americans, who in Congress's case didn't know what to expect from him. And in America's case was hearing from their band new leader who they never even heard of. And he was also replacing perhaps the most popular president in American history in Franklin Roosevelt. During a time when America was still at war, when the economy was still trying to recover from the Great Recession. He was a man who until he was fifty-years old, never had a job with much responsibility since leaving the Army after World War I. The U.S. Senate was his first major job where he had any real power and responsibility on his own. And he was 50 when he became a Senator. So this all made for a very interesting presidential address. 

Monday, November 26, 2012

US Senate Democrats: Leader Harry Reid: Filibuster Reform Will Be Pursued In The Next Congress



Today Senate Democrats are talking about reforming the cloture rule, which is the filibuster that allows. Senators to talk indefinitely about bills and it takes sixty votes to cut them off, which is what the minority party. In this Congress Senate Republicans uses to block bills they don't like from the majority party, in this Congress being Senate Democrats. Senate Democrats led by Leader Harry Reid want to reform how the filibuster is used, not eliminate it but prevent the minority. From shutting down the Senate and preventing them from doing anything, knowing that when Senate Democrats. Are back in the minority, Senate Republicans will have the same power to use as well. What Senate Democrats want to do is basically eliminate the motion to proceed rule, which is probably. The biggest problem the Senate has as far as it rules, only in the US Senate does it take sixty votes. To bring up a bill and start debating the bill, offering and debating amendments on it, you eliminate that rule. And just allow the Leader to bring up a bill using his power as the Senate Leader, then you would see the Senate at least debating and legislating again.

Senate Democrats don't want to eliminate the filibuster, thats not what this debate is about because. They know that they could end up in the minority again with a Republican President, what they want to is. Allow the Senate and stop the minority from stopping them from even bringing bills up to the floor in the first place. Senate Republicans would still be able to block legislation at the end of the debate, just not prevent the Senate from even legislating anything. Again this is not about stopping the minority from weighing in or blocking legislation they don't like. But allowing the Senate to actually begin and start debating and legislating again.

Saturday, November 24, 2012

Africans TV: Malcolm X- Interview at UC Berkeley: Oct. 11th, 1963

Source: Africans TV- Minister Malcolm X, being interviewed at Berkeley in 1963 
Source:FRS Daily Press

Part of Malcolm X’s message was about the right to self-defense. Which is in the U.S. Constitution, that Americans have. Which means that if you are under attacked, you have the constitutional right to defend yourself to your best ability to prevent your attacker from hurting, or destroying you. Which is a perfectly legitimate thing to believe in. The problem with this philosophy is that it was sort of short-term and a good thing for African-Americans is that more of them didn’t take this message to heart and I say that for this reason.

Martin L. King, was a pacifist all around. At least when it came to civil rights and part of that was because Dr. King thought long-term. He was a visionary in the civil rights struggle and understood the power of the media and that African-Americans were undermanned in this struggle as far as their own population. And that they needed the support of non-African-Americans to advance this cause. And that if they were seen as dangerous or violent in this struggle, it would be harder for them to gain additional support.

I believe that part of Malcolm X’s message rose from frustration as far as how Africans were treated in America. And that African-Americans had taken it too long and that it was time to rise up and fight back. He was right that it was time to rise up and to fight back. Which is what Dr. King believed in as well. But they just had different approaches in how to fight back, Dr. King’s approach was more about using the power of media and message. Malcolm had that as well, but it also came with the right to physical self-defense.
Africans TV: Malcolm X- Interview at UC Berkley: October 11th, 1963


Friday, November 23, 2012

NFLN: A Football Life-John Riggins- The Diesel Engine That Powered a Team and Career

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I guess I'm very lucky as a Redskins fan, because my first year as a Redskin fan and I'm not even seven years old, yet a couple months away from that, was in 1982 the year the Washington Redskins win their first Super Bowl. I still remember John Riggins touchdown run like I saw it yesterday. Him breaking through that hole, that was designed on purpose to have one free Miami Dolphin defender, who was a safety a guy named Don MacNeil, who may have weighed 200 pounds back then. It was designed this way because Redskins OL coach Joe Bugel tolled JR, "look, there's going to be one free Dolphin defender who'll have a clean shot at you, but there isn't a DB in football that can tackle you by themselves." JR was called the Diesel for a reason, because thats the type of power he had. I think a better comparison would be a horse. Big, tall and strong, who could run like a horse. He would run through you or he could run by you. You try to tackle him, you have a better shot at hurting yourself.

When you think of John Riggins athletically, just don't think of the Super Bowl champion or the Super Bowl MVP. Or the Hall of Famer or even all of the records he held at least one point. Think of the athlete, think of the 18 year old who at the time was already 6'2  220 pounds, who was the Kansas state track champion in high school. Think of a fullback with tailback speed, who could out run WR's and DB's. And also think of JR from the perspective of a defender. "Even if I do catch this guy, if he's not at full speed, how am I supposed to bring him down. Maybe I should practice by trying to tackle a horse." A couple examples of JR's greatness, a regular season game against the Dallas Cowboys in December 1979. The winner of the game wins the NFC East and goes to the playoffs. It was the third or fourth quarter, QB Joe Theisman calls a trap play or a run up the middle. The problem is that JR out ran his OL. And turns the play into a sweep and bounces outside and takes the play for a sixty yard touchdown run. No Cowboy in sight trying to catch him until the end when a little Cowboy DB makes light stab at him.

Jim Brown is the best RB of all-time, the power back of all time as well, but JR is right behind JB as the best power back of all-time. And if you are number two to JB in anything when it comes to football, you are a Hall of Famer. The only thing was that JR was under utilized for probably half of his career. The New York Jets were awful in the early and mid 1970s and the Redskins tried to make JR a FB in his first two seasons in Washington. So my question would be had JR been a full-time TB for his entire career, how great would he have been.

Monday, November 19, 2012

Leathered Life: Chrissie- in Leather Jeans

Source: Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life 
Source:The Daily Press

Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women in they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.


November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy: They Go Together

Source: November Revolution Men-Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky- Neoliberalism vs Democracy

If you look at what Progressives (or Social Democrats) call neoliberalism and how they describe it, that economies and societies would be liberalized, or as they would call it forced liberalization of these societies, that freedom, or liberty would be forced on them, individuals would be forced to live in freedom, rather than having a strong state that would determine how life should be lived in the country or economically, it's not really neoliberalism vs democracy. Neoliberalism vs statism, or authoritarianism. Are we going, to let individuals live their own lives and chart their own courses in life, or are we going to have the state do it for them. That's the choice, the title of the video however is Neoliberalism vs Democracy. As if neoliberalism is anti-democratic, but again what is so-called neoliberalism which I believe is a false term and I'll explain later, but what does neoliberalism actually advocates are liberalizing societies. The economy as well as how people live their personal lives.

Liberalization is about freeing people in what  they can do with their own time and how they live their own lives. And in the privacy of their own homes and what they can say in public and so-forth. So instead of neoliberalism being undemocratic, it's purely democratic in the liberal democratic sense, because that's what it advocates. Progressives (or Social Democrats) idea of liberalism is not really liberalism, but more like democratic socialism, or social democracy. But the social democratic idea of liberalism is that there's a strong centralize state that's there to take care of and look after people with a large welfare state. Where taxes are so high to not only finance this, but to prevent people from making too much money. And to prevent income inequality and that neoliberalism is this idea that we liberalize the economy and society. So people can live their own lives and look out for each other. Rather than the state doing that for them. But again there's that word liberalize which again is a liberal word. Not socialist, social democratic,  or communist, but liberal.

My point being that neoliberalism is actual a form of liberalism, but more from the Right. In the sense that it's about essentially un-regulating markets and total free trade. And where so-called Neo-Liberals and Liberals would disagree is that both factions believe in private markets and private enterprise, Liberals believe in commonsense regulations to protect workers and consumers, but not to run business's and tax them real high. But both sides are strong believers in personal freedom and accountability. Civil liberties, privacy, freedom of choice, etc. Liberalism is the idea of individual freedom and democracy. The freedom for people to live their own lives. Rather than living off of the state, or the state deciding how they can live. Rather than the state being so big and centralized and taxes so high to the point that people rely on it in order to pay their bills and get by. Liberals want people to be able to have the opportunity and freedom to be able to make their own decisions and pay their own way in life. 

The New Republic: Jonathan Cohn: "Obama Tax Cuts For Middle Class—Let Them Expire, Eventually"

Obama Tax Cuts For Middle Class—Let Them Expire, Eventually | The New Republic

This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short term, would be a disaster. Pre 2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it. Lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over. Ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid. 7,500K$ a year in income taxes, after 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year. In income taxes, they saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out of work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$. A year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that, House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$. Cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. And come up with a balance approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that. Won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether its in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do. Without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy and we can do this by making. Entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in. A way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a. Cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balance approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and. Actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

Public Resource: 'We Work Again 1930s'- The Legacy of The New Deal


The New Deal, a monster that Libertarians and Conservatives would probably describe the New Deal as something they would like to tear down and perhaps start over with more of a free market approach. The American safety net that Liberals such as myself would like to reform and bring competition to it. Instead of the centralize Federal Government approach to how the New Deal was designed. And a gift from God, well actually a Gift from FDR as Progressives would probably describe as.

Something today's Progressives would like to protect and then expand and go back to the centralize big government approach. To solving problems in America by taking people's money and using it to take care of them. And create what they would call the Fair Deal. Something that President Harry Truman tried to create in the 1940s. With things like national health insurance and health care. Wherever your on the political spectrum, from the Far-Left to Far-Right or somewhere in between, where most Americans tend to be, if you're aware of the New Deal, chances are you have strong feelings about it.

The last two years we've basically been debating the New Deal in America and the role of government. Especially the Federal Government and exactly what the Federal Government should be doing. What should we do with Social Security in the future, as well as Unemployment Insurance. And how we should assist unemployed workers. And should everyone who pays into Social Security, be able to collect Social Security. Or should it be a Welfare Insurance program like Unemployment Insurance. Is 65 still the right retirement age, or should we move that up, especially for white-collar workers.

A lot of the New Deal had to do with how the assist the poor in America. And almost eighty years later we are still having that debate, like with Welfare Insurance. The New Deal at least in some form will always be around in the United States. The only question is how it will look but it will never look how it was designed. Because a lot of it is outdated, especially as it relates to Unemployment and Welfare Insurance. Where those programs were never originally designed to put those people to work. But just give them some income to survive and the question is. How will these programs be reformed in the future. But they will be reformed.

Understanding Power: Professor Noam Chomsky on Liberalism & Freedom

Source: Understanding Power- Professor Noam Chomsky-
Source: Understanding Power: Professor Noam Chomsky on Liberalism & Freedom

I have a lot of respect for professor Noam Chomsky's honesty and being able to communicate exactly where he is politically and being able to articulate what he thinks about other political ideologies. Noam Chomsky is an admitted Libertarian Socialist and very honest about that. Which means he's like a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist on economic and foreign policy. 

But Noam Chomksy is a Liberal-Libertarian on social issues. So we probably agree on most social issues. Myself being a Liberal Democrat, but my issue with professor Chomsky has to do with the fact that he sort of has this "you are either with me, or you are selfish and believe in selfishness and inequality. And that poor people should be kept down and so-forth". He's somewhat exclusive with his politics, you either agree with him and share his politics completely, or you're a bad person, or something. It's not that you disagree with him, but that you are a bad person all together. Which I don't have much respect for.

As far as libertarian socialism vs. liberalism, classical Liberalism even, I believe he's right for the most part. That people who are Liberals today, are not Social Democrats or even Progressives. But people who share my politics or are similar are actual Liberals instead. Where people who are called modern Liberals, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats. 

Today's so-called Progressives, Social Democrats who believe that the state, especially the Federal Government has a big role to play in taking care of the people. And insuring economic equality and that they are somewhat liberal on social issues, depending on what type of Progressive that they are.

Brookings Institution: Brookings Podcast: Remaking Federalism and Renewing the Economy



If you are someone whose familiar with politics but perhaps not a political junky and you are perhaps. Hearing a term like Federalism, the ultimate inside the beltway term for political junkies, you might think. That the term Federalism is a very Progressive philosophy, Social Democratic even thats puts a lot faith in the Federal Government. To solve the nation's problems and believe in a lot of central control with the Federal Government to solve the problems with. The country something that FDR put together as President in the 1930s and a Federalist is something. That believes in this type of philosophy when actually the opposite is true, a Federalist is actually a Liberal. Or even Conservative term that acknowledges that the country has problems and issues that need to be addressed. And if you are a Conservative you believe these issues are best taken care of by state and local governments. And if you are a Liberal you believe in that as well but that the Federal Government should layout what issues need to be addressed but. Then give the resources and authority to state and local governments to address these issues.

So things like anti poverty programs, the safety net and that sorta thing, if you are a Liberal you. Believe that government even the Federal Government should play a role in addressing these issues, set up programs and even fund them. But then let the states with the money and authority run these programs and if you are a Conservative you believe in giving the power and resources. Of these programs over to the states or eliminating them all together and letting the states and. Locals decide if these programs should be continued or not and Federalism Liberal or Conservative. Would be a great way for the Feds to solve their short and long term deficit and debt issues, because. It would mean they would have less programs to run and be able to cut back on what they do and the states and locals would have more authority and resources to solve these issues.

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

FRSFreeState: Nancy Pelosi: Why I'm Running Again For House Democratic Leader



So lets see I have this straight, Nancy Pelosi is running for reelection as House Minority Leader because. She believes that women need to continue to be empowered in America, in government and everywhere else. And somehow Leader Pelosi being a women herself obviously, that her keeping this role as the highest ranking women in Congress, House or Senate and either. Party would make it easier for this happen, so what Leader Pelosi is essentially doing is making. Her candidacy for reelection about her gender and thats hopefully not her best case for her being reelected, I don't have. Much doubt that Nancy Pelosi will be reelected as Minority Leader, unless some scandal hits her or House Democrats. Lose in another landslide again and are not only in the minority but buried in the minority where. They need to pickup 50-60 seats to win back the majority, she might be able to remain Leader of the House Democrats. Whether its either as Minority Leader or Speaker as long as she wants, the question is should she or. Are there better candidates for that job right now.

In an election where a President seeking reelection during the worst economy since the Great Depression. Not only gets reelected but by a blowout in the Electoral College and where Senate Democrats who are suppose. To lose their majority, actually pickup seats instead and where there are sixty plus House Tea Party Republicans, who probably have similar views on. Social issues as the Richard Mourdock's, Todd Akin's, Michelle Bachmann's and Rick Santorum's of. The World and House Democrats under the leadership of Nancy Pelosi, Jim Clyburn and Steny Hoyer's. Of the World are bringing up the rear as far as how Democrats did politically and there needs to be consequences for that. Sure you could put some blame on the gerrymandering of some of these House districts but the fact is House Democrats except for the ones who were reelected. And part of that has to do with Democratic gerrymandering as well, aren't connecting very well, House Democrats. When all the votes are counted, are maybe looking at picking up ten seats.

The top three Leaders of the House Democratic Caucus are all over seventy years old and in. Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson's case, pushing seventy years old,yes they are all. Healthy, vibrant, intelligent people who are still capable of serving their country and so fourth. But thats not the question, the question is are they best people to be running the House Democratic Caucus right now. I would argue with young but veteran House Democrats and Leaders like Chris Van Hollen and Xavier Becerra and a few others. That they aren't and that House Democrats need to look at replacing the current leadership, while they are still in. Position to take back the majority.

The New Republic: Opinion- Chuck Thompson- On Texas Secession: Be Careful What You Wish For

Source: The New Republic- Don't mess with Texas!
Source: The New Republic: Opinion- Chuck Thompson- On Texas Secession: Be Careful What You Wish For

Personally, I wouldn’t mind seeing South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas even seceding from the United States. Who the hell needs them from my point of view. They need us so they can fund their own roads and for all that welfare insurance they get from taxpayers in wealthy states. So their people don’t starve and so their kids can go to school and so-fourth. And do we really need a Alabama and a Mississippi in the union, couldn’t we get by with just one of them, or how about they combine and become one state. And we would have on less ignorant state in the union. And do we really need to Carolinas and two Virginia’s? I’m not looking for Virginia to leave the union, but do we need a Virginia and a West Virginia.

West Virginia, is not seceding. Even they know like the rest of the country that they need America more than America needs them. But South Carolina might be a different story and the idea of an African-American, not only being elected, but reelected President of the United States, is appalling to a certain percentage of South Carolinians. And they may leave the country, some of the nuts in that state. My whole point about this is that the people in these states that are considering leaving the United States, good riddance. As far as I’m concern and maybe they can move somewhere and start some new Confederate Republic like they tried in the 1860s. And even if these states were to secede, which will never happen because even these states have enough intelligent people in them to know better.

People who were perhaps educated outside of these states, to understand that they need America more than we need them. That as much as they may bash the U.S. Government and public assistance, a lot of their people still need that. Just to get by. Which makes this whole discussion a little ridiculous, because this will never happen. Texas, won’t leave the United States. They have the most uninsured people in the country per-capita. They need us again for the public assistance that they collect. America, needs Texas to become energy independent. And get off of foreign oil. Which would be a boom for both our economy and foreign policy. But if these third-world American states in the Southeast want to take a hike, I’ll help them pack. And see how well they can do on their own.
The Centrist Word: Hardball With Chris Matthews- Governor Rick Perry on Texas's Right To Secede From The U.S.


Tuesday, November 13, 2012

AP: House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi to Announce Plans Wednesday



I believe House Minority Leader Pelosi is one of the most skillful Leaders in Congress, House or Senate. And in either party but there comes a point where you either move on or you get moved out of the way. House Democrats under Minority Leader Pelos's leadership were not successful in winning back the House. They needed a pickup of twenty five seats and as it stands now with about half a dozen seats still in play. They are eighteen short in an election where the Republican Presidential and Vice Presidential nominees were running on a plan to turn Medicare into a. Voucher system and when the GOP is about s unpopular across the board except for maybe Caucasian voters. As they were unpopular when President Bush stepped down, House Democrats ran on Medicare, raised a tone of money. Either matched or came real close to what House Republicans raised, despite being in the minority but didn't put up very good candidates in a lot of cases. Even though sixty two Tea Party Republicans were up for reelection in 2012.

I would like to see Minority Leader Pelosi step aside and watch House Democrats bring in new leadership. I love Jim Clyburn whose the Assistant Minority Leader and fellow Marylander Steny Hoyer the Minority Whip. But House Democrats badly need some new blood with their top three Leaders all over seventy years old. And someone like Xavier Becera whose the Vice Chairman of the Democratic Caucus, whose in his mid fifties, a very bright politician and policy maker. Would bring in the new blood that House Democrats need.

VOA News: Despite Political Divides, Syria's Kurds Want Autonomy



The future for the Kurdish people maybe a United Kurdistan, which would include parts of Iraq, Syria and Turkey.

Sunday, November 11, 2012

Bria Parks: Malcolm X Project History

Source: Bria Parks-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

I don’t believe Malcolm X was a racist at least at the point when he died. And I don’t believe he was a segregationist, meaning that people of different races should never interact with each other. But he was a separatist. Someone who did believe that integration wasn’t the magic bullet to the problems of African-Americans. He believed that this community should be empowered and even empowered themselves to be able to handle their own problems and issues and stand up for their rights. And not be put down by racist Caucasians, or anyone else.

And the African-Americans should stand up for their constitutional rights and not expect that others will give them to them or give them anything else. As well as treating people as people and not members of groups. But that he believed in empowering African-Americans to be able to handle their own affairs. Because this was his community, and not expecting others to empower them, or be dependent on government and others who are already independent to take care of them for them. Malcolm X’s message was truly about African-American freedom. Not some violent revolution.

Unlike Fidel Castro, who was a Marxist and someone who believed the central state should be in complete control and that the state should be responsible for everyone’s well-being, Malcolm X was a true freedom fighter. Someone who wanted to empower an entire community of Americans to take charge and complete responsibility over their own lives. Today’s Conservatives and Libertarians, should actually at least respect Minister Malcolm and not put him down as some racist thug. Because he was someone who truly believed in individual freedom and not government dependence for his community.
Bria Parks: Malcolm X Project History


ABC News: This Week: Senators Patty Murray, Saxby Chambliss: David Petraeus Scandal & The Fiscal Cliff



Here's a solution for the fiscal cliff and the economy, savings in defense, entitlements, tax reform. But done in a way that doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it, which means putting in something like a millionaires tax. Where anyone making a million dollars or more, would pay the same tax rate that they are paying today but every dollar over a million dollars. There taxes would go up and those savings would go towards deficit reduction, should be part of this. Agreement because individuals not business's or organizations, making a million dollars or more can. Afford to pay more in taxes right now and then we close expensive and wasteful tax loopholes and cut wasteful subsidies. Like in agriculture and if Congressional Republicans House and Senate were to go along with this, we would then as separate from the deficit reduction package. Would pass a stimulus bill that would include tax cuts that are designed to boost economic growth, that would be equal. To the amount of money that would be raised in new revenue to pay for deficit reduction and Democrats. Would also get new infrastructure investment as well around the country, in Democratic and Republican states and districts and the stimulus package would be paid for as well. But we would pay for the stimulus package as well.

There's a deal to the fiscal cliff, where both Democrats and Republicans can win but also give up something. That would solve the problems and boost economic and job growth here on the table but both sides have to give something as well. Do something they normally wouldn't do because of the politics and they simply don't believe in it and if Republicans come to the table. On new revenue a deal like this would happen.

Saturday, November 10, 2012

ABC News: Good Morning America: President Obama, Speaker Boehner 'Taxmaggedon' Showdown



Speaker Boehner has already put tax reform that would include closing tax loopholes on the table to. Pay for deficit reduction, President Obama has already put entitlement reform on the table to pay for deficit reduction as well. Thats what the final deal is and if Speaker Boehner is going to hold to this, for every tax loophole thats eliminated. Other taxes have to be cut to offset closing the loophole, then they should negotiate that as part as another stimulus bill. To jump start the economy, that would also include things that Democrats want like more. Infrastructure investment and pay for that as well, this what they could avoid the fiscal cliff and boost the. Economy as well, so you would get deficit reduction and a stimulus, both paid for and done at the same time.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Leathered Life: Michaela's Black Leather Suit

This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press: Leathered Life: Michaela's Black Leather Suit

Short quick video. Perhaps a little redundant to say that this video is both short and quick. Unless the video was short vertically or something, but you get the idea. And no I haven’t seen a tall video yet. But I think you get a pretty good idea of what this women is wearing here and how good she looks. A black leather suit, with a black leather jacket, black leather jeans, black leather boots. A very sexy black day for this gorgeous women. As I said before you need the right body for leather jeans. Especially skin-tight or skinny leather jeans. The body is even more important in skinny leathers than skinny denims. Because even if you do have beautiful legs and a beautiful butt and leather jeans make your body look even better and tighter. But if you’re a little weak in the lower body and either overweight or underweight, skinny leathers will over highlight those weakness’. You’ll look even fatter or skinnier in skinny leathers if you’re overweight or skinny, because the pants ae made from such a thin material. The women you see in this video looks great in this leather suit, because she has great legs and a great butt. And those jeans and boots just showcases her physical qualities.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

The New Republic: Eli Sanders: Washington State Voters Legalize Gay Marriage And Marijuana, Cementing State's Liberal Preeminence

Washington Voters Legalize Gay Marriage And Marijuana, Cementing State's Liberal Preeminence | The New Republic

Washington State does look like it might be the most Liberal State in the Union at least on Social Issues, perhaps. More so then New Hampshire which is the "Live Free or Die State" or Maryland which is suppose to be the Free State. The State of Washington took two big steps Tuesday when it comes to Individual Freedom, by passing Same Sex Marriage and Legalizing Marijuana. And Maryland also took two big steps towards Individual Freedom as well by passing Same Sex Marriage and legalizing more. Casinos in Prince George's County but to say Washington State is some type of lets call it a Liberal Utopia where. People are almost completely free to live their own lives as long as they aren't hurting anyone else with what they are doing. Would be a stretch with their high taxes and everyone else, perhaps more of a Liberal/Socialist Utopia, because Washington State also has Legalize Gambling as well. Something Progressives tend not to support.

Leathered Life: Sexy Biker Chick- In Leather Jeans

Source: Leathered Life- Sexy biker chick, all leathered up 
Source: The Daily Press

Love biker women for multiple reasons. And two of them having to do with the facts that they tend to be in great shape, because they have to be because of the lifestyle they live being on the road so much and having to manage their motorcycles. But the other having to do with the wardrobe. You see a lot of leather, denim and boots, with their wardrobe. Tight leather, tight denim, tight boots. Skin-tight leather and denim jeans with boots. With a leather jacket, or sometimes just a tank-top or t-shirt. And the great leather biker boots. And then the combinations with biker women wearing biker leather jackets, with Levis denim jeans or other denim jeans, and the biker boots. Or going all leather with a biker leather jacket, skin-tight leather jeans and biker boots. Jim Morrison, is not the only person to wear leather suits and boots a lot.

You have to have a great body to look even good and not embarrass yourself in skinny leathers. Which are skin-tight leather jeans. If you’re worried about how you look in skinny denims, because of how they showcase your legs for good and bad and make you look ever heavier or skinnier than you actually are, skinny leathers, might be twice as risky. Obese women, look even fatter in skinny leathers and rail-thin women look even skinnier. Because they’re cut so thinly to showcase great legs on women and the butt as well. And if you’re weak in those areas, you’ll look even weaker in skinny leathers. Every time I see rail-thin women in skinny denims, she looks about a hundred pounds to me and perhaps has just lost even more weight. A fat women in those pants will look like she’s grown another ass. (To be frank)

My point about this is a big reason why biker women and lets say mature biker chicks and not the porn stars who like to model motorcycles, is that they tend to have great bodies and know exactly what they’re doing. How to look sexy while not looking like they have to look sexy in order to pay their bills, because they also have style and class and know bikes very well. Biker women tend to be professionals, but in other fields. Law enforcement, teaching, military background, even law, but they’re also very attractive and very sexy. And love showing the world that and their bikes on their free time. And these are just a few reasons why I’m so attractive to them. Because they’re so healthy and sexy, but with class and style as well and a pleasure to check out.


Wednesday, November 7, 2012

NFL Films: NFL 1978- Week 12- Philadelphia Eagles @ New York Giants: Miracle at The Meadowlands


Source:NFL Films- Eagles DB Herman Edwards, running in the fumble recovery for the Eagles winning TD.
Source:The Daily Press

"Miracle at the Meadowlands (New York Giants - Philadelphia Eagles 1978)"

From NFL Films

One of the interesting things about this game is that both the Eagles and Giants were still in the NFC Playoff race at this point. This was week 12 in the NF, but Giants only won one more game in 1978 finishing 6-10. The Eagles made the NFC Playoffs in 1978 for the first time since 1960, but they were a 9-7 wildcard team that won some games that they shouldn’t of, like this one being an obvious example of that. And perhaps lost some games they shouldn’t have. And without this victory, the Eagles miss the playoffs again in 1978.

The obvious facts here are the Giants shouldn’t have ran the ball at all. They already had a kneel down play with QB Joe Pisarcik falling down on the ball on first down and then for some reason they ran the ball for an eleven yard gain on second down. But Pisarcik falls down on the ball two more times and the ball game is over, because the Eagles didn’t have any timeouts left. This is a game that makes or breaks a team’s season, especially if they are a borderline playoff team or even a borderline winning team. Like the Eagles and Giants were in 1978.


Sunday, November 4, 2012

McFadden: Raquel Welch On Her Life, Career and Philanthropy

McFadden: Raquel Welch On Her Life, Career and Philanthropy

Raquel Welch, really is a true goddess. A women now in her early seventies is still this hot, cute and sexy. Who is also a hell of an actress and entertainer in general, who is not just about her hot sexy looks. But had made a great career with her looks, but ability to act and entertain as well. She’s someone who was born with goddess looks and features, which probably got her in the door in Hollywood and got her a lot of work early on.

But I sort of her look at her like I look at a great talented athlete who gets noticed real quickly, but then takes full-advantage of that and make a great career for them self. Raquel, is a very good actress whose used her physical talents, lets say to get herself parts and work, because directors want to work with her and use her. Because they know she’ll sell their movies and projects. But then does a great job in the roles that she gets. Because guys simply want to see her, but then they also can see that she can act, sing and make people laugh as well.

Raquel Welch, has truly made a great life and career for herself as a Hollywood goddess. Showing women of all sorts of backgrounds that if they work hard and take care of themselves and are responsible, they to can make a great career and life for themselves. Perhaps not age as gracefully as Raquel, but age well and not have to look like a senior citizen even if they already are one in years. The old cliche, “age is only a number”, could have been written for Raquel.

She’s not someone who was discovered in her twenties, but then burned out in her thirties, or dead in her thirties. She’s someone if anything is doing better now in her seventies than she did in her thirties. In some ways perhaps even sexier with great curves now. A women at her age whose still a sexy baby, a hot baby-faced adorable women, in her seventies. Who can probably make women young enough to be her granddaughter jealous. Only a goddess, or some made up Hollywood figure could still have that at this point in their life. But Raquel is the real thing who fully taken advantage of all of her abilities.


Friday, November 2, 2012

AP: Mark Hamrick: US Economy Adds 171K Jobs, Rate Rises to 7.9 Pct



The last jobs report before the 2012 General Elections, a bad jobs report would've probably made President Obama's. Chances of getting reelected very difficult, even with the momentum he's built up since the Hurricane Sandy this week, with his poll numbers looking better in Virginia and. Florida, a bad jobs report would've looked like 50K jobs or even a bit more then that with unemployment going back up to 8%. Especially if it were to go up in these swing States, Virginia, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin to use as examples, a good jobs report like today, 171K jobs created in. October are the best number in like thirty months, this jobs report doesn't guarantee that President Obama. Will be reelected but it builds on the momentum that he built this week and probably makes Ohio and Virginia look better. And make it more difficult for Mitt Romney to pull out Ohio or pickoff Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin and this is just the politics of the jobs report.

The economics of it are that its another positive sign along with the Economic Growth picking up last quarter. Consumer Confidence picking up as well which means Americans are ready to spend money again, which means we'll probably see a boost in Economic Growth in the next quarter. Especially with the Holiday Season coming up so it looks like 2013 could look very good economically. For the United States when it comes to Economic and Job Growth, whoever the President is.