Andy Hailey: 'How We Go Into The DJT Political Swamp: It Has Little To Do With Russia'

Source: Wall Stats- Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Source:The New Democrat

Andy Hailey seems to making the argument that Washington lobbyists became a problem, when our tax rates became lower. That since we’ve cut taxes both in 1981 under President Reagan and again in the 1990s multiple times under President Clinton and again under President Bush in the 2000s and President Obama in 2009, that is when lobbyists became a problem in Washington. And that after we made lobbying easier in Washington that is when lobbyists became a problem as well.

Source: Steemit- Deep State Fantasy 

I have a different take. Economics Professor Classical Liberal Milton Friedman, who I didn’t agree with on everything mostly having to do with regulations of the economy where I tend to be in favor of them, if they’re commonsense and not intended to run private businesses, argued that the problem with money in Washington, has to do with power and money in Washington meaning the Federal Government. That the reasons why lobbyists lobby so much in Washington is the same reasons why bank robbers rob banks, because that’s where the money is. Since 1964 the Federal Government has only gotten bigger, with few exceptions in the 1990s. And since that time even if you want to go up to 1970 from 1964, we’ve also only seem more lobbyists in Washington.

My other take on this has to do with American voters themselves. One good definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. You continue to vote for the same people to serve in Congress and vote for members that are corrupt or if you prefer bought and expect their behavior to change, you’re acting insane. U.S. Representatives and Senators, are not lifetime appointments. They go up for reelection every 2 and 6 years which gives their constituents the opportunity every 2 or 6 years to evaluate them and decide if they’re doing a good job or not. Are they of strong character and have strong qualifications to serve in the House or Senate, or are they lazy, vote against their constituents interests, and are corrupt or bought by the people who write them checks and finance their political campaigns.

So if you want to better politicians in America, you have to have better voters. And voters who stop voting for politicians because they like the smartphone the person uses, or because the politician is up to date on pop culture references, catch phrases, and entertainment in general, but who can be bought for a 100 bucks to vote this way or that way. And instead vote for candidates and incumbents who will do the job that they’re elected to which is to represent their constituents especially the people who can’t afford too write big checks to political campaigns.

And to go back to the Milton Friedman argument. You want fewer lobbyists in Washington, a good way to do that is to get money out of the Federal Government and decentralize a lot if not all the social insurance programs and allow for the states and localities to run them, under basic Federal standards to make sure those programs for the people who truly need them are run the way they’re supposed to be. Stopping running budget deficits in the hundreds of billions of dollars every year. And get the the country’s fiscal house in order.

A couple of things that Congress can do and the U.S. Supreme Court might do one of these things for Congress, since Congress probably won’t has to do with gerrymandering and full disclosure. Eliminate gerrymandering all together and you’ll make Congress at least in the House accountable. Because representatives will no longer be able to just run to a hyper-partisan faction in their district and instead will have to represent a district that is more balance politically and ideologically.

And the second one being which unfortunately qualifies for the good luck with that column, because it goes against current members of Congress own political interests , would be full disclosure off all political contributions in America, at least at the Federal level and force members and candidates, as well political action groups and lobbyists, to disclose how they’re funding their political campaigns. And let the voters decide if their politicians and candidates, are bought or not.

A lot of the so-called Washington swamp and lobbyists issue in Washington, goes to personal responsibility. Back to my definition of insanity about doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, you keep voting for the same politicians and you’ll just get the same behavior and same policies. Which will probably be written by the lobbyists who make the biggest political contributions. But you vote for good qualified people instead and help them get elected and get them elected and you’ll get different policies that are designed to represent their constituents instead. And Congress if they decided to go against their current political interests, could be helpful here as well by eliminating all gerrymandering and passing full disclosure off all political contributions. But fixing Washington and Congress starts with the voters themselves.

Source: Fox News: Donald Trump- 'We're Going to Drain The Swamp'- In 2016

Julie Skyhigh: 'Pedal Pumping In Skinny Jeans in Brown Leather Gianmarco Lorenzi Boots'

Source:Julie Skyhigh- Julie Skyhigh's Boots. 

Source:The Action Blog 

"Julie skyhigh pedalpumping with my brown leather Gianmarco Lorenzi boots, 16 cm golden skinny heels." 

From Julie Skyhigh

Julie Skyhigh is supposedly a porn actress online who works out of Belgium. But what I've seem from her online is that she looks more like a fashion model than anything else. A very good one at that and a very sexy one who does some sexy perhaps pornographic videos online playing sexy office secretary's who are overly sexual at work and that sort of thing. But we're not talking about a woman ( at least from what I've seen ) who is at least overly pornographic. Who shoves her bare chest in front of the camera and that sort of thing.

Source: Julie Skyhigh Official - Julie Skyhigh

Julie Skyhigh the sexy fashion model ( as I see her ) sexiest videos are her jeans in boots videos. She wears skin-tight skinny jeans in boots and tends to wear them with a leather or fur jacket. And will walk around downtown perhaps in Brussels in this type of outfit and you get to see let's say a five minute video of her in that outfit.Which is very sexy because you're talking about a beautiful adorable woman, who is tall with beautiful legs and as she's said herself with a denim jeans fetish. 

Source: Julie Skyhigh Official- Julie Skyhigh

This woman loves denim jeans and loves boots and loves wearing them together. Loves leather and fur jackets and loves wearing those things together. Julie Skyhigh is no Stormy Daniels, she's more like a very attractive and sexual fashion model.


Pedal pumping is an online fashion trend with pornographic hipsters. Where a woman will walk up to a car, get in and starting pumping the pedal with her feet. Generally doing it with boots, but sometimes doing with heels, and sometimes barefoot. And generally doing this wearing skinny jeans. Which is what you see with Julie Skyhigh in this video. 

And to go back to my original point about Julie Skyhigh: this doesn't look very pornographic to me, even though that is what she's supposed to be. And I'm not complaining because I love sexy fashion models especially with jeans and boots fetishes and actually prefer that over porn.

The Aspen Institute: David Brooks: 'On Conservative & Liberal Values'

Source:The Aspen Institute- Conservative columnist David Brooks.

Source:The New Democrat

"David Brooks, the leader of a new Aspen Institute initiative to understand and reduce the growing fragmentation, alienation, and division around the country, spoke at the 2017 Aspen Ideas Festival.

This clip comes from a conversation with David Brooks, Michael Gerson, Amy Walter, and Peter Wehner...

From The Aspen Institute

If you just arrived on Planet Earth yesterday and were an adult and two of the first things you observed were supposed to be what it means to be a Conservative and Liberal and what conservatism and liberalism are supposed to be, you would probably think Conservatives are simply bigots who hate anyone who isn't of European, (especially Anglo-Saxon background) who isn't a Christian especially a Protestant and who isn't male. That conservatism is simply an authoritarian, bigoted political philosophy that is about conserving everything in society for Europeans, especially English-Europeans in America and especially Protestant males.

If you arrived on Planet Earth yesterday, you probably think Liberals are simply statists. In some cases democratic, but in many other cases communist, who believe European-Americans are all bigots, unless they come from the Northeast or West Coast and were educated there as well. Who hate European-Americans, again, unless they come from one of the coasts and were raised there. The Northeast and West Coast, that is and believe the role of government is to take care of non-Europeans in America and to punish Europeans for being successful.

You would probably think that Liberals are supposed to be people who believe that anyone who doesn't look at the world as they do are basically idiots who need to be babysat by government. That freedom is dangerous and it only gives people the freedom to make mistakes. That free speech is only the freedom to offend non-Europeans. That capitalism and property rights are selfish. That even education and self-improvement are dangerous things, because it means that people would be able to obtain the power and freedom to live independently and be able to think and act for themselves.

Now, I just gave you a pretty good idea about what conservatism and liberalism aren't. What it doesn't mean to a Conservative and what it doesn't mean to be a Liberal. The anti-conservative views when it comes to conservatism and the illiberal views when it comes to liberalism. Now, how about what it actually means to be a Conservative and what conservatism actually is and what it means to be a Liberal and what liberalism actually is.

I agree with David Brooks about one thing which seems to be a common theme when I hear him speak, at least about public policy and philosophy. That conservatism is about conserving tradition and a certain way of life in America. Which is different from saying that the role of government is force a way of life on the rest of the country and force everybody to basically live as straight fundamentalist Protestant Evangelicals. Which is what Christian-Conservatives who today are basically Christian-Nationalists believe, that the problem with the America is personal freedom and individualism and that Americans shouldn't have the freedom to live their own lives and have their own lifestyles.

My personal view of what it means to be a Conservative in the political sense, comes from Mr. Conservative Senator the late Barry Goldwater, who said that he wanted big government out of our wallets, bedrooms, boardrooms, and classrooms. He wanted big government out of our personal and economic affairs. He believed in limited government and federalism and that the role of government was to protect Americans from predators both foreign and domestic, but not try to protect Americans from themselves and punish Americans for their own personal decisions. And that a big role of government was to conserve the U.S. Constitutional and our constitutional rights. Not conserve some fundamentalist Protestant Christian way of life and to force everybody to live under the same religious and cultural values.

For me as a Liberal, defining Liberal and liberalism is very easy for me. A Liberal is someone who believes in liberal democracy what some people might call classical liberalism, but what I just call liberalism and liberal democracy. That government should be limited and there to defend our constitutional rights and civil liberties, including our property rights. That everyone in America is the same at least in the sense that no one is better simply because of their race, ethnicity, or gender and that everyone has the same civil rights and are all entitled to the same equal and constitutional rights.

Real Liberals believe in limited government, the U.S. Constitution, civil liberties, individual rights. A safety net for people who truly need it, but not having a government big enough to manage people's lives and to force everyone to live equally from an economic standpoint. Socialists believe in forcing equality on everyone. Liberals believes in quality opportunity for everyone, which is different.

Now, if you just watch Fox News and MSNBC, you might think Conservatives are from Mars and Liberals are from Saturn. Two completely different planets with very little if anything in common. Thousands if not millions of miles way ideologically. But if you look at the American political spectrum Conservatives are on the center-right and Liberals are also on the center-right, ideologically. They're political opponents ( not enemies ) but have the most in common ideologically of any two political factions on the American political spectrum. With the Socialists ( both democratic and communist ) and the Christian-Nationalists, having the least in common. 

Conservatives and Liberals both believe in the U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights, our federal form of limited government. But differ when it comes to government's role in the economy and national security. But don't live in two on two different planets ideologically. As much as Fox News and MSNBC may disagree with this.