Brittle: Video: Milton Friedman: Liberty and Equality?

Source:The FreeState

Bill Maher had me almost all the way, until he put the entire focus on the defense budget, which represents about twenty-percent of the budget. Gutting defense and corporate welfare alone won’t eliminate the debt and deficit. We are not going to eliminate the debt anyway at any point and don’t need to. What we need to do is get it down to a point where it isn’t draining so much out of the economy and is at an affordable level. Good thing Bill Maher is not a member of the National Security Council or has no background in foreign policy or national security policy. Because cutting the defense budget in half would be a horrible idea.

Maher makes a good point about the Tea Party and perhaps American voters in general when it comes to the debt and deficit. That Americans have a tendency to say that the debt and deficit are problems and that Congress and the President should address those issues. “Oh by the way, don’t cut spending, at least something I want and need. And don’t raise my taxes either, or I’ll fire your ass!”. The ultimate case of the person trying to lose weight by eating nothing but junk food and never exercising. And then wondering why they just put on ten pounds.

But here’s where I agree with Maher on the defense budget, but perhaps would phrase it differently. Europe! Time to tell those pacifist Socialists that it is time for them to defend themselves, by paying for their own damn national defense. Instead of charging American taxpayers for their own defense. Same thing goes to Canada, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea! Bring our troops home and use that money to rebuild our own national infrastructure and deal with terrorists in this country and secure our borders the best we can. That is where the waste in the defense budget truly is.

The problem with American politics is not so much our politician’s, but the people who elect and reelect them. American voters have this wild idea, perhaps drunken or marijuana fantasy that these people can give them everything that they want at no cost to the taxpayers. When the fact is everyone who is familiar with government, knows that is well, bullshit! That of course we as taxpayers pay for all the government services that they give us. So if you want government to give you something, tell your politician what you’ll pay for it. And they’ll tell you what you can get in return for your investment.

Liberty Pen: Video: The Open Mind With Richard Heffner: Milton Friedman, Other People's Money

Source:The FreeState

If you make money on your own, you have a job you get a pay check, if you work for yourself, you support yourself with your own business, chances are if you’re responsible, you’re going to spend your own money in a responsible manner. Because if you don’t, you’re going to pay a price for that. No pun intended, but for your own irresponsible spending. And have less money than you otherwise would’ve had on things you need to spend money on to survive, had you spent your money responsibly. So knowing that you’re most likely to spend your money in a responsible way, when your spending others people money, you should spend it in the responsible way that you would spend your own money. Not believing that you can take more chances with other people’s money.

Especially if you’re spending someone’s money and they give you more money and keep giving you money. You’re not going to be as responsible generally speaking, because mistakes you make with other peoples money, unless consequences come with that spending, won’t affect you the same way. As the persons whose credit card, or checkbook, or even cash that you’re spending. So you’re going to be more likely to make mistakes spending other people’s money than your own. Because it doesn’t come with the same consequences. The Federal Government is a perfect example of this and why it wastes so much money. 100B$ a year alone in some programs and departments alone according to GAO.

Because the Federal Government doesn’t make a dime on its own, all of its revenue comes from tax collection. Plus since it controls the U.S. Currency, it can print money like drunk sailors spend it. Giving it even more incentive to waste money and spend it irresponsibly. I bet you anything that if the Federal Government was a business and I’m not suggesting it should be, that they would be a lot more efficient with the taxes it collects. I’m not making a case for not having a Federal Government, or making it weak. But what I am suggesting that it have solid rules on what it spends the money on that it collects. And that there’s strong oversight from Congress and the GAO, or Government Accountability Office, on its spending and operations to cut back on the waste in it.

Liberty Pen: The Mike Wallace Show 1959: Ayn Rand- Liberty vs. Statism

Source:FRS FreeState 

If you’re a Liberal such in my case, or a Libertarian/Objectivist in Ayn Rand’s case, you believe in individual liberty. That the people have the right to essentially govern themselves. Now, my approach to liberty compared with Ayn Rand’s, is much different, but our objectives are the same. Ayn Rand, is exactly what a Classical Libertarian is. Keep government completely out of the economy. No taxation, regulation, or a safety net coming from the government. I however, believe that government has a role in not regulating how people live their own lives, but how they interact with each other. To protect innocent people from those who would hurt them, but not try to protect people from themselves.

If you’re a Socialist, you essentially believe that the country is in it together and that no one should have a lot more than others. Even if they created that material wealth on their own. And that government should heavily tax those who make a lot. For one, to give to those who don’t have much. And that government essentially knows best in what the people need to live and should be the one providing those service for the people. That government’s role is essentially to spread the wealth throughout society through high taxes. But not just high taxes on high earners, but everyone in general.

If you’re an authoritarian, or statist, lets take Communists for example, you essentially believe that government’s role is to protect people from themselves, but also to protect people from the government. And that power comes and rests with the government. That if people have liberty, they won’t know what to do with it, which will cause instability. This is essentially the argument that the Chinese Communist Party and the Iranian Theocratic Islamists have made since they’ve been in power.

Despite all the stereotypes that Liberals have now about being about the welfare state and centralized power, especially coming from the right-wing and being bought in by the mainstream media, that’s really not what liberalism is about. Liberalism, is not about the welfare state, centralized power and government control. Those things relate to socialism and statism. Liberalism, is about individual liberty and equality of opportunity for the individual. Liberalism, has more in common with libertarianism like in Ayn Rand’s case, but different from libertarianism and socialism.

Passionate Patriots: 1968 DNC Nightmare in Chicago

Source:FRS FreeState

The Democratic Party cost themselves the presidential election of 1968 and a chance to win the White House for a third straight time and 8-10 presidential elections, going back to 1932 with FDR. To go along with another Democratic Congress because of how divided they were on the Vietnam War. A lot of that can be blamed on President Johnson’s handling of the Vietnam War, but this can also be blamed on the Far-Left flank of the Democratic Party that’s anti-war period. Even when we are attacked and they can take their anti-war feelings to extreme at times, as we saw with the 1968 riots at the Democratic Convention.

The New-Left in the Democratic Party doesn’t deserve all the blame here. The Chicago Police didn’t do a very good job of handling the situation either. And of course Richard Nixon being the master politician that he was, jumped all over on the Democratic division and moved himself to be a unity candidate. Which of course he wasn’t. By the time President Nixon left office in August of 1974, America if anything was even more divided. 1968 was a crazy year with a lot of bad for the country with some good in it. But all bad for the Democratic Party.

A year where President Johnson announced he wasn’t running for reelection as President because of how unpopular he was. But even had he run for reelection, he would’ve had a very hard time getting renominated by a party that had moved away from him. And had moved into an anti-war socialist direction. That wanted to bring all of our troops home from Vietnam and use that money to build the country.

1968 was also a crazy year for democrats who once they moved away from LBJ, the Far-Left flank of the party went searching for their own candidate to take on the GOP in the fall. First it was Senator Eugene McCarthy until Senator Robert Kennedy declared his candidacy for President, then they threw all of their support behind him up until he was assassinated in June of 68. And then of the party went behind Vice President Hubert Humphrey, the establishment wing of the party.

But some New-Left support went back to Senator McCarthy, as well as Senator George McGovern. Another candidate from the Far-Left flank of the party. As it turned out even though 1968 might have looked like a fluke, it clearly wasn’t. Because in 1972 Democrats had similar issues. They were disorganized, didn’t have a clear leader with more divisive presidential primary’s and once again the Far-Left flank deciding who the Democratic presidential nominee would be. Senator George McGovern taking on an establishment GOP Candidate President Nixon and losing 49 States in a landslide.

When the Democratic Party is united it tends to win and do very well. Because its bigger than the Republican Party and represents more people in the country. But when it’s divided like it was in 68, 72, 80 and 84, it loses very bad. Because a faction of their party doesn’t show up to the polls to vote.

Associated Press: U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner Resigns in Wake of Sexting Scandal

Source:FRS FreeState 

Today U.S. Representatives Anthony Weiner, Democrat from New York, New York City to be specific, stepped up to the plate and hit a home Run. (Sorry for the baseball analogy for you non-sports fans) And did the right thing by resigning his seat in the House of Representatives. As I’ve said before it’s not what Representative Weiner did that was wrong with his own private time, (well his wife might disagree with that) and yes members of Congress do have private time, they are not always at work, just look at the U.S. Senate, I rest my case. When do they ever work?

It’s not what Representative Weiner did with his free time that’s the problem with me and a lot of other people. As a liberal I could care less with what people do with their free time. With what Representative Weiner did is between him and his wife and their family if they have one yet. It’s the consequences of his actions that are the problem, the fact of how public he alone made them by sharing them on Twitter and professional status that’s the problem. We are not talking about Joe Jones truck driver, not that there’s anything wrong with Joe Jones truck driver. I’m sure he’s a fine man, I’m not trying to sound like a snob or something here.

We are talking about a U.S. Representative and a member of Congress, a constitutional officer and a public official. The fact in today’s information age, what people do in public especially public officials, the whole world literally gets to see it. And in a way is all of our business whether that’s the right thing or not. Because of the fact that we all have the ability to weigh in on it. As I’m doing now by blogging about it, but blogging is not the only way to weigh in on stories like this. WordPress, YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, MySpace go down the line. And that’s enough plugs on my part, no wait I forgot my personal favorite Blogger.

Because of Representative Weiner’s irresponsible actions to post in public his affairs so to speak, the U.S. House especially the Democratic Leadership and the rest of the Democratic Caucus, are forced to deal with it in one way or the other. Either take questions about it, or take official actions, which is apparently what the House as a whole was preparing to do. Which is to file and investigation into the Weiner story. (The big Weiner story) Politically this would be bad for everyone, House Democrats for having to deal with this story with hearings and investigations as well as the House GOP.

But it would be a huge distraction especially for the House Democratic Leadership who as of right now are in good position of retaking the majority in the House in 2012. And pushing their own agenda once they were to retake the majority. Thanks to House GOP mishandling of Medicare back in April, but the House Democratic Leadership were already breaking records in fundraising and recruiting candidates to take on the 62 Republican freshmen from 2010.

And the House GOP Medicare fiasco just reinforced that, but with the Weiner story, instead of concentrating on their own agenda they have to concentrate on Representative Weiner instead. So I’m glad Representative Weiner stepped up to the plate today and did the right thing and stepped down from office. Which I hope will bring and end to this story, which I think will continue, but at least he did his part to close this ugly chapter.

The Huffington Post: Richard Eskow: If the President Won't Do Something About Jobs, Who Will?

Source:Free State MD

Ever since the mid-term elections of 2010, the President has been in full reelection mode. Thinking that if Democrats can lose the House, he could lose the White House just as easily. And every decision and policy position and speech he’s given, has been based on that. Only when President Obama has to take a stand on anything, its after endless concentrated thought on every possible proposal and idea that's out there. Libya being a perfect example of this and then after finally taking a position on anything.

Watching Barack Obama make up his mind on anything, from a distance anyway, is like watching a midget try to tackle an elephant. It is really difficult and painful thing to see that you want it to end and for some resolution to the matter. "If we do this, than that will happen and that will be bad. But if we don't do this, than than this could happen and that might be worst". Politicians who try to please everybody tend to be the most unpopular. Because they end up offending everyone. And that is sort of where President Obama is right now. 

It's the weakest position possible designed to offend the very least. It's  Independent voters that the President is targeting. Meaning that he can’t seem too strong on anything, because he might offend those who look for the middle ground on everything­. Which means that President Obama ends up doing what he wants the least, which is looking weak. Because he can't figure out what the hell he should do. Right now President Obama who’ve I tended to agree with on foreign and economic policy, is the On the Other Hand President. "Well if we do this, it could work, but on the other hand if we do this instead, it might work better. And costing the country economically because we have a weak economy that needs strong action". Sometimes you just got to say, screw it! And do what you think is right and let the chips fall where they may. That is what leadership is about and what being President of the United States is about. The On the Other Hand Presidency might turn out to be Effective Leadership in the long-term. But its definitely weak leadership in the short-term. And costing President obama popularity and the ability to lead a large divided country.

AlterNet: David Morris: 'Why You Want Government Running Health, Education & Defense'

Source:Free State MD

The title of this blog from the AlterNet that I read is called “Why You Want the Government Running Health, Education and Defense”. No for real, just look up top incase you missed it. Yet the whole blog is about comparing the American health care system with foreign health care systems. This blog had nothing about education and defense. Because I believe this writer understands that the American public education system isn’t very good right now. We’re ranked I believe by the United Nations, and organization that the Left especially the Far- Left puts a lot of faith in, 39th in the World.

And no one is calling for privatizing the Defense Department. Except for perhaps Dick Cheney, Ron Paul and Libertarians in the Tea Party. Another issue I have with the AlterNet blog is some of its facts. I know, why would the AlterNet care about fact or let them get in their way of a good ideological argument. But saying that in America the private sector runs our health care system and in the rest of the developed world the public sector runs their health care systems. Which is purely false, Holland, Switzerland, France, Germany, Italy, Taiwan and Japan to use as examples, France, Germany, Italy and Japan all being large countries, all have private/ public health care systems. America has a private/public health care system. Its just different and not nearly as effective as these other countries, with its health insurance.

Socialists like to say that government ownership or management of the economy and other key services, is the best way to go to have the best country possible. And they point to Sweden as their example of how well this system works. Not recognizing or realizing the fact that Sweden has a very large private sector and a lot of their economy is privatized. What Sweden does have and why I call it a social democracy, well because that is exactly what it is, speaking of facts. But what they have is a very large welfare state at least by American standards with very generous benefits financed through high taxes again at least by American standards. In other words the Swedish Government or Swedish Socialists tax most of their people’s money away, so they can give that money back to take care of them. Or another way of putting it, they tax people to death and them bring them back to life with their own money.

The economy’s that work best are the economy’s that privatize most of their economy, but regulate them well to prevent and punish abuses. That has unlimited fair and open competition and a substantial and affordable safety net for people who fall through the cracks. That empowers them to get on their feet. America used to have an economy like this, but we moved away from it and look where we are now. What doesn’t work well in an economy are monopoly’s, whether they are public or private. Where Big Government, “my people are essentially if not officially, because my public school monopoly doesn’t teach them very well. So what I have to do is take most of their money from them to prevent them from spending it unwisely, to take care of them”.

And you can just look at the former Soviet Union, or Cuba or North Korea today. What also doesn’t work well is what I and others would call “cowboy capitalism”. Which is capitalism with essentially no rules or the rules aren’t enforced. Or the referees are paid off and essentially taking coffee breaks over at the closest Starbucks from the stadium the whole game and they allow whatever to happen to happen, the free market being everything that is is. Except that it is not free when the government at taxpayers expense pays these companies for the hell of it, who play by no rules. And I give you the Bush Administration of 2001-2009 as the only example I need. And look at where we are today.

Government should let the people be free to live their own lives as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. Thats the economy that works the best, freedom with responsibility. I don’t and I imagine most Americans don’t want a federal, or for that matter a state, country or municipal babysitter, meaning government to take care of us, for us, at of course our expense. Big Government to its taxpayers, “give me your money, so I can take care of you for you”. Uh no, just give the people the tools they need in life to be successful and allow for them to take care of themselves. Freedom and responsibility, reward good behavior and discourage bad behavior.

Tina Turner: Viva La Money (1979)

Source:Real Life Journal

Tina Turner to me is the Queen of Blues Rock because of her songs, her sound, her lyrics, her style. And the realness she puts into her music. She not only has one of the best singing voices in the music business, but one of the best sounds. She combines both classic rock with rhythm and blues as well as about anyone. Only Eric Clapton and Bob Dylan both Hall of Famers when it comes to musical artists I believe are better than Tina. 

Tina doesn’t have one or two great songs, but a long list of great songs. Like Proud Mary, Rolling on the River, Simply the Best, I don’t Want to Fight and others. She’s not a one-hit wonder, but a master of developing hits that goes back to the 1960s. Because of how professional she is and how hard she works. She’s dedicated to her craft which someone would have to be to look, sound and perform as well as she has at now 71 years old. 

She’s a Hall of Famer as a rocker, but also as a human being and I hope she last for years if not decades to come. And I wouldn’t be surprised if she does now in her early seventies. Because of how professional and dedicated to her craft she is. Tina Turner is the Queen of Blues Rock and Simply the Best at what she does because of her talent and how hard and well she works.

Kintaro Oe: Sexy Women in Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press 

I love watching sexy women on the move especially when they are dressed sexy. I love watching sexy women on the move in tight Jeans, whether they are wearing denim or leather jeans and watching their legs move in those jeans. And I especially love watching sexy women in tight jeans with boots, under or over their tight jeans on the move. 

I love watching their butt move in their tight jeans. I love hearing the sound that their boots make on concrete floors or sidewalks. Sexy women love being seen on the move looking like this and showcasing their legs and how they move. And the tight jeans with boots look is as good as it gets in doing this. Because they are tight and show what kind of legs women have. 

Which is why it’s really important for women to make sure when they are wearing the tight denim jeans that’s right for their body. Especially their legs and butt. Because if they are well-built, strong legs with a tight curvy butt, they are going to be well highlighted. But if women are obese or rail thin, they are going to look real obese and rail thin in tight jeans. 

The American Spectator: Jeffrey Lord: ‘Sarah Palin to Sean Hannity: I May Run’

Source:The American Spectator- columnist Jeffrey Lord.

Source:The Daily Times 

“Nbsp;Does Sarah Palin have a secret Nixon strategy?

Last night on Hannity (as seen here in Part 1 and here in Part 2) former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin dropped into the Iowa State Fair to say that she is indeed considering a presidential run….and the place went nuts. Calling for an “American Restoration” her appearance drew noisy cheers from the surrounding crowd when she suggested among other things (and here she pointed to the crowd) that it was the job of Americans to be “holding those liars accountable” who insist big government is the answer.

Time moves quickly, and what was interesting in Palin’s appearance was not just the crowd response. It was almost that in her long absence from the presidential campaign, leading many to suggest she was in fact not a candidate, rank-and-file Republicans had scanned the potential candidates and suddenly realized it was Palin they had loved all along.

If in fact Palin finally jumps into this race, there is an interesting historical precedent for the idea that a self-enforced absence from the political scene makes the public’s heart grow fonder for the missing candidate.

In 1967 Richard Nixon, rejuvenated by the GOP success in the 1966 elections (like the GOP 2010 victories a stunning GOP comeback) and wanting badly to have a second shot in 1968 after his narrow loss to JFK in 1960, had an interesting strategy. He believed his biggest problem was the belief by many that, in his words, “Nixon can’t win.” How to ge around this? While privately telling his closest friends he wanted them to move ahead with plans to run, publicly he announced that he would spend 1967 in a self-imposed political “moratorium.” Nixon later wrote:

… I considered the ability to remain officially undecided for as long as possible to be one of my greatest advantages. Not only would this allow me more independence, but the speculation about my intentions guaranteed far more media attention than I would have if I announced…

Here’s another interesting coincidence. The front runner of the day in 1967 for the GOP? That would be the popular Republican Governor of Michigan – Mitt Romney’s dad, George. Nixon said the risk in letting Romney have all the attention in 1967

was carefully calculated. George Romney would be out front taking the heat from the press and the pundits while I continued my quiet planning.…

In the end, Romney did step in it, saying he had been brainwashed while in Vietnam by the LBJ folks. Nixon, on the sidelines, suddenly looked very responsible — and electable. Palin is decidedly not Nixon. Still… a famous old strategy for someone dismissed as not being able to win can still be a good one.

And based on her Iowa appearance and the response from the crowd watching her newsworthy re-emergence on Hannity, Palin may suddenly be a serious threat not just to Romney but every other GOP candidate as well.

Palin will make her decision by the end of this month or early September, she has said.

Stay tuned.” 

From The American Spectator

“In a June 3, 2011 interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News , former Alaska Governor and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin expressed frustration over the Republican Party and hinted of a possible third party run in 2012.

“You know what, a year ago I would have said please don’t even consider third party,” Palin told Hannity. “I think conditions have changed in this last year…if they’re not careful in the GOP there will be a third party rise up just like back in the day when the Whigs finally went away and Republicans rose up.”

Please proceed to The New Conservative Journal for the full transcript of this portion of Gov. Palin’s interview.” 

Source:Conservative Journal- Sean Hannity talking to Tea Party activist Sarah Palin.

From the self-described Conservative Journal 

It would be a great day for the Republican Party and a bad day for comedians, pundits and bloggers if Sarah Palin left the GOP to run for President. Probably for some Far-Right third-party.

She doesn’t have a blizzard’s chance in hell of winning the GOP nomination for president in 2012 and perhaps ever. Because the GOP establishment has essentially told her, perhaps even to her face that she won’t win it. Because they are looking for a presidential nominee that can beat the President and win the White House in 2012.

Which is why Mitt Romney and Tim Pawlenty look so good to them right now. And why Mitch Daniels had he decided to run for President for 2012, would’ve look so good to them as well.

The GOP establishment wants to win in 2012. While the GOP base is looking for a presidential nominee that’s perfect in their mind ideologically. Especially on social issues where Sarah Palin fits in so well with them: anti-abortion, anti-gay, etc, where they don’t trust Mitt Romney.

Sarah Palin doesn’t belong in a major political party like the GOP. But at the head of a fringe Far-Right party. And the GOP would be better off if she left them for good.

IBob 1983: Sexy Blonde Women in Tight Denim Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press 

Here’s a tall gorgeous curvy sexy blonde that proves that the myth that all blonde women are rail-thin is a myth. Yes blonde women have curves as well and this blonde is proud of hers and showcases them very well. In her tight denim jeans in leather boots. As well as a leather jacket. Gorgeous sexy women that’s very proud of how she looks and wants the world to see it. 

Skinny women to me aren’t sexy. I’m not interested in stereotypical valley girls or stereotypical rail-thin models. I’m not interested in obese women who’ve never missed and opportunity to eat or never turned downs seconds as well. I’m interested healthy women, women who take care of themselves. Who eat well, balanced meals who work out as well, who take care of themselves. 

Healthy women to me are sexy women as you see in this video. Beautiful sexy women in a very sexy outfit that combines both worlds of leather and denim into one very sexy package, a pleasure to check out. Tall gorgeous sexy blonde because she takes care of herself and is proud of that and lets the world see how healthy she is. 

Alyssa Milano: NFL Commercial

Source:Real Life Journal

I used to have the impression of actress/comedian Alyssa Milano as a little baby-face cutie, who became famous from Who’s the Boss, Melrose Place and later Charmed. Who yes was and is beautiful, but her baby-face looks is what I noticed about her physically. But the last few years, she’s grown up physically and I’ve seen her in a couple of denim jeans commercials and she has looked great in them. 

And she’s clearly has sex appeal while still being as adorable as she probably always has been. But now we see her out in public showcasing her sex appeal, the legs especially and even her butt. Lately we’ve seen a lot of her out in tight denim jeans in leather boots and photographers love to take her picture out in this outfit. Why wouldn’t they, she’s a beautiful sexy women and she loves to showcase that. 

Not many better ways if any for a sexy women to show what she’s working with, especially the lower body, than tight denim jeans with boots. Whether it jeans in boots which is more common today, or jeans over boots, which is classic and still sexy, for women and men. Alyssa Milano is no longer a baby cutie, she’s still baby-face and probably always be that. 

But now Alyssa has a women’s body to go with that. You gotta to be sexy women, a grownup to pull off the tight denim jeans in boots look. You have to have legs where you are short, average, or tall and that means healthy looking legs. Rail-thin women look rail-thin in this look and of course skinny jeans make obese women look ever large. But now Alyssa is a sexy women with a beautiful baby-face that looks great in jeans in boots.

Blondes in Boots: Women in Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press

I saw a video on YouTube a year ago of a beautiful sexy looking women I guess out shopping for the day. Looking very sexy with a very tight body. She was about as sexy and well-built a women as I had seen in a while. She looked great in a sweater, tight denim skinny jeans in black leather boots. Out shopping or that is what the video wanted to portray and she looked great. 

This women knows she’s beautiful and sexy, knows she has a great body and how she looks in tight denim jeans. And is apparently very proud of that, I’m guessing so is her husband or boyfriend, who I believe shot this video. And I can’t blame her, she really knows how to get guys attention and why not. She is not ashamed or her sex appeal and why should she be, she’s obviously proud of it, as she should be. 

I doubt it’s the only quality she has going for her. But physical appearance at least for sighted people is the first thing that we notice about people. Both men and women and she has a very sexy physical appearance, so why not highlight that. And with skin-tight blue denim jeans with her body and how they showcase her butt and legs. 

Plus throw in a tight sweater and jacket and black Leather Boots. She did about as good of a job that could be done, in highlighting her physical sex appeal. Sexy women out for the day is a YouTube video I would suggest if you're interested in sexy women that know and are proud of their sex appeal. 

Nice Sexy Video: Tall Sexy Blonde Wearing Tight Denim Jeans in Boots

Source:The Daily Press 

Gotta love women who are physically confident and are confident because they know they are sexy. They know they are beautiful and sexy because they have natural sex appeal. Natural beauty with a great natural body, or they work hard at taking care of themselves, or both. It's depressing to me to see beautiful sexy women who look ragged by the time they reach their mid 30s, or in Marilyn Monroe’s case dead by 36. 

Or in Whitney Houston’s case a beautiful women one of the best looking in the music industry, looking very unhealthy because of drug abuse and perhaps not eating properly and starving herself, in her 40s. But it's very impressive to me to see gorgeous Sexy Women in their 40s, take Mariah Carey for example. Or in their 50s with Catherine Bach or 60s like Jaclyn Smith’s case or 70s in Raquel Welch’s and Tina Turner’s case. 

Because these sexy women take care of themselves, they don’t take drugs. They eat properly, balanced meals, they get enough sleep, they workout and they have a good time. Which relieves stress and many of these middle age, or upper middle age women look better than a lot of these younger women. And they don’t burn out because they take care of themselves. 

And don’t get swept away in the Hollywood lifestyle and celebrity culture. They have ability as far as their job and are always able to find work. But they also always look great because they work at it. It's great to have natural beauty and a great natural body, but that only goes so far. Just like a car or a house you have to be able to maintain it, to keep looking great.