The United States under President Barack Obama??

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery

“I fear that giving mankind a dependence on anything for support in age or sickness, besides industry and frugality during youth and health, tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty, the very evil it was intended to cure.” Ben Franklin

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Friedrich Nietzsche

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
Patrick Henry

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery
by: Joe Leonardi

Liberalism is a scourge of modern society. It’s mantra of entitlement is slowly leading the United States into an inescapable abyss. The liberals hide their treachery in the promotion of human kindness. They claim that their interests are only “what is best for the common people.” Their subterfuge hides a more sinister outcome. Liberals are destroying the independent spirit of humankind.

A recurring theme in American history is that of the rugged individual. The belief that most people unencumbered by an oppressive government not only can, but desire to provide for themselves. In today’s nanny state we are slowly losing this.

There are two primary questions to ask. How do liberals do this and why?

The why is easy. Pure, unmitigated power. Through dependence the liberal seeks to control the masses. It is much the way many of histories most tyrannical despots ruled their countries. While the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used fear and intimidation to keep their political opponents silent, they also fostered government reliance to keep the masses in check and enslaved.

The how is a little more complicated and, in my opinion, much more malevolent. Liberals, since the progressive era, have chosen Robin Hood economics to demolish the American dream and break the American spirit. Early 20th century progressives sought to steal from the most productive citizens and give their money, transferring it unearned, to the least productive. To accomplish this they required the power to tax all income. To ensure unbridled authority to take from the rich and give to the poor, the progressive movement introduced, passed, ratified and enacted the Sixteenth Amendment. Congress was given the authority to “wet their beaks.” In less than half of a century the American government abolished slavery over a portion of the population and reintroduced it over the whole.

In the beginning, this was sold as a tax on only the wealthy. Because to gain popular support liberals, then and now, vilify those who create wealth and earn large incomes, often ignoring the fact that those are the same who create jobs.

Of course, the rich are not the only ones taxed. The ability to tax shackles the American income earner at every rung of the economic ladder. The harder we work, the more we earn, the more we are extorted to give the federal government “their cut.” Taxation is the means the government utilizes to enslave the middle and high wage earners, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Most everyday folks don’t care what happens to these people, because liberals indoctrinate them into the belief that “rich” people don’t deserve what they have and they must be compelled to share what they have earned. What the believers of this fallacy do not realize is that they too are being enslaved by the liberal ruling class.

How? Redistribution. Utilizing this method the lower classes become tacit wards of the state, forever trapped in poverty, begging the omnipotent liberal government to provide.

In the liberal mind, we are unable to make the appropriate decisions concerning our own lives or our own welfare. Awash in the justification that they have to “force” us to do what is best for ourselves, they go forth to legislate personal conduct. The elitist that populate the liberal leaning mind set are, in their own minds, all knowing. To be good citizens, we must be automatons — blindly, blissfully following their educated, egalitarian ways. Of course, to be considered equal, you must embrace their self aggrandizing viewpoint.

One of our local, lofty, liberal talk show hosts opined the other day that we need government to control our lives. Yes, he actually said that.

To paraphrase, he stated that since citizens are unwilling to live the right way, it was up to government to persuade us. He is in favor of smoking bans in eateries, not solely for the health of those who work in the restaurant industry, but to stop people from smoking, period. If it were up to him the tobacco industry CEO’s would be imprisoned.

He intimated that the government should tell people how much they should weigh and how physically fit they should be. Since people were unable to make the right decisions, government must make those decisions.

To the liberals, laws should go beyond protecting the public safety. Laws, under the control of government, should determine the way free citizens conduct their daily lives. From parenting, to education, to morals, to religion, to body habitus — it is the liberal, via the regime, who decides for everyone.

What egomaniacal motivation allows one to think that no one is entitled to make their own mistakes? Take their own chances? Live their lives within the law? What mind set wants to control others down to the minutia of what condiment a person tops a sandwich?

We should be allowed the option to find our own way. However, to the liberal, that can not stand. They demand that if we do not willingly choose to learn from their innate, intelligent, insight — then under the omnipotent, oppressive, ominous hand of government our will must be broken.

The liberal defenders of freedom only believe in freedom, if it agrees with their doctrine of cohesive, communal behavior. They do not simply imply they know what is best for everyone, they are fanatically convinced that they are correct. If those of us, who embrace living in a free society, don’t abide by their definition of “what is best,” then they demand government should be the instrument to force it upon us. Because, according to them, government has a responsibility to control us, the stupid, simple, unenlightened, uninformed masses.

I am often baffled, that the same group of ideologues who strongly believe it is a woman’s right to murder an in utero baby, are so interested in controlling people once they are born.

Does anyone not get the connection, that controlling the masses, for our own good or not, is government sanctioned slavery? How many times have groups of people been told that, their confinement and restrictions were for their own good?

We must defeat those who want to shackle us! We must reignite the fire that existed at the birth of our great nation! We must prevent the destruction of autonomy. We must embrace the emphatic proclamation of Patrick Henry. We must demand liberty!

Locally, we have a talk show host who wants free health care, free swimming, free skateboard parks, free everything for everyone. Well — nothing is free. The hard working income earners and producers will be over-taxed to provide these gratis services.

The simple truth that these liberal slave masters don’t want you do know is that the more you are “given,” the less you have. Soon the United States will resemble much of Europe. People will be locked into the class to which they are born. Upward mobility will be a thing of the past. Those that do not earn their way in our society will be placated with all the basic necessities of life. Their ability and desire to provide for themselves will no longer matter. They will have been stripped of inherent traits that made America and Americans the envy of the world.

When Stalin died much of the free world rejoiced in the departure of a ruthless, cold-blooded tyrant. However, the populace of the former Soviet Union wept in fear. They cried out, “who will take care of us?” They did not need to be beaten into submissive servitude. No, they were conciliated into it.

Will this be our dreadful, dire destiny? Do we yearn to be hand fed from cradle to grave; or do we “yearn to breathe free?”

When did adversity, hardship and struggle become dirty words. I want the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon my decisions, based upon my drive, based upon my actions. I want the freedom to live my life unrestrained by government sanctioned slavery. Don’t you?

Beware the modern, moderated, boisterous beatnik beating the drum for a free, fanciful, easy existence, because the cost of “free” — is freedom.

Joe Leonardi

That’s all folks…..

For those of you who check here on a regular basis you have noticed that I haven’t written in quite awhile. I have been busy with my life in the world, expanding my business and teaching. Additionally to all that is going on, by request I have designed and will teach a political science class for one of the local colleges.

With my schedule being what it is, I will not be posting here for the foreseeable future. I still plan to contribute at least one column a month to The Pennsylvania Republican, I will also be writing on a fibromyalgia related blog that I will be starting in the near future.

Between this blog and running for Congress I had the pleasure to make many new friends. I wish you all the best of luck in your continued efforts. At the risk of omitting anyone I would like to mention a few folks:

Gort, he keeps a very active blog and has scooped the local papers on more than a few occasions. Exposure on Gort’s site led to many readers of mine. I will continue to read, but since I am returned to the life of a private citizen I will no longer be commenting.

The Yonk, Dave is a class act and a well of local political history, I will be trying to get him as a guest lecturer for my political science course.

Don, The Susquehanna River Sentinel, he showed that one man, with a will of iron, can take on the big guys and win.

Sue Henry, I can never say enough good about Sue. She gave me plenty of opportunities to get my message out during the campaign, and was never hesitant to ask me the tough questions. I have enjoyed keeping in touch in the years since the campaign and hope to continue to do so in the future.

Nancy Kman, programming director extraordinaire and WIK’s morning voice of reason. Thank you for the chance to guest host when Kevin was on vacation. I had a great time and if you ever have need again in the future— I will make the time. Her bravery battling cancer in the public eye should be an inspiration to all.

Steve Corbett, Steve and I could not be more politically opposed, however we have developed a phone (both on and off the air) and email acquaintanceship, one I hope becomes a long lasting friendship, since he has returned to the area. I have enjoyed our conversations, it is a demonstration that when people with opposing positions actually listen to one another — they discover that they have the same goals. YOU BETTER TALK!

To everyone else, I sincerely thank you for reading and I thank you for commenting.

Until we meet again;

Keep up the Dialogue

Dr. Joseph F. Leonardi

Happy Easter

Happy Easter Everyone.

Meuser’s Misstep

“I certainly feel employers are obligated to follow the law. But it’s not employers’ responsibility to enforce the law. It means they cannot be fully expected to be able to identify a phony ID from a valid ID.”
Dan Meuser  3/7/08 Scranton Times-Tribune

Meuser’s Misstep
by: Joe Leonardi

Dan Meuser is a candidate seeking the republican nomination to represent the PA 10th in Congress. Because my business is in the district I am interested in the primary, however since I do not reside in the 10th, I can not vote for or against Mr Meuser.

Recently it has been reported that Mr.Meuser’s company, back in 1997, was fined for hiring three illegal immigrants. Out of the thousands of people that Pride has hired since the Meuser family has taken over, an incident over the hiring of only three illegal immigrants should be no big deal.

Due to one major misstep it now will become one.

Dan Meuser has come out as the tough on illegal immigration candidate. Yet, he does not seem to have truly researched the issue. In addition to this misstep look at his position section on illegal immigration, it states, “Before any immigrant can become a United States Citizen, we should require them to read, write, and speak English.”

Dan you are running for Congress, you should be aware this is already taking place.

One, the test is given in English. Unless it has changed since my father took it, he needed a basic, functional familiarity with the English language to pass.

Two, check the USICS web site under redesigned test, the new test effective this year, makes a better understanding of English even more of a necessity.

Three, illegal immigrants aren’t the ones applying for citizenship — so this little caveat has no place in a position with the heading “Combating Illegal Immigration.”

It appears for all the money Meuser has spent on his team they are operating like a bunch of rank amateurs.

This flap over hiring illegal immigrants should never have happened, it should be a non-issue. Now it will be an issue. Why?

It is not the fact that Pride hired illegal immigrants.

It is not the fact that they were fined.

It is the fact that he was not the one to disclose it.

If I were on Meuser’s team this 1997 incident would have been a huge advantage. Instead, now, it appears that it may provide a hindrance to Dan Meuser becoming the republican nominee.

But Joe, how could an anti-illegal immigrant candidate use the fact that his company hired and was fined for hiring illegal immigrants as an advantage? Isn’t it better to avoid it and hope no one finds out?

No! From President Nixon to Congressman Sherwood the lesson that no one in politics ever seems to learn is — that the cover-up is worse than either an actual or perceived scandal. Right now the perception is that Dan Meuser, while not actively covering it up, hoped that no one would have learned about this — which again reeks of amateurism.

If you are going to claim the mantle of immigration enforcer, common sense would have told you this was going to come out.

Who is advising Mr. Meuser? Dan, whoever it is — fire them.

How would I have turned this to Dan’s advantage? Simple, one of his first commercials should have gone something like this:

I am Dan Meuser and I’m running for congress.

Several years ago my business was the victim of the current failure in our immigration policy. Our company unknowingly hired three people who were in this country illegally. Utilizing forged identification documentation they secured employment with my company.

When their ruse was uncovered, at my direction we cooperated fully with the INS and payed a substantial fine. As a result we upgraded our employee screening process. However, this was allowed to occur, and may occur again, because of the failure of our government to control our borders.

My family’s business was the victim of inept illegal immigration legislation and enforcement. To ensure this does not happen to any business in the future I ask for your vote.

Send me to Washington D.C. so that our country’s borders will be protected.

Send me to Washington so no other individual, small business owner or company will be the victim of illegal immigration.

The above simple commercial would have:

One - demonstrated Dan Meuser’s honesty and integrity.

Two - demonstrated the he is a leader by taking the steps necessary to internally rectify the situation.

Three - avoid the insinuation that Mr. Meuser was hiding something and not give ammunition to his primary and general election opponents.

Four - identified a reason hirings like this may occur.

Five - give voters the chance to end the current government’s failures by electing Mr. Meuser.

By not addressing this issue head on, the Meuser Campaign has opened itself up to a full frontal assault. If his opponent in the primary does not attack and exploit, Congressman Carney will.

It is not too late for the Meuser Campaign to rectify its’ errors, but he needs to get away from the D.C. management and start counting on local people for his advise.

Those D.C. hired guns do not care if Mr. Meuser wins. They only care about advancing their own careers. Whether Dan Meuser or Mayor Lou Barletta in the 11th win is irrelevant to the beltway boys, the fact that they brought in “promising” candidates is enough to advance their careers.

Unfortunately, that advancement will come at the expense of the candidates.

Joe Leonardi

Corbett Called it!

Corbett Called It!

by: Joe Leonardi

WILK afternoon radio host, Steve Corbett, has been saying for weeks that PA will decide the Democratic Primary and after last night he just may be right. I mean correct.

Pennsylvania is now, most definitely, in play.

I thought last night it was going to be over for Senator Clinton.

I was wrong.

Senator Clinton has family roots here in Northeast Pennsylvania and many will consider her their own. That can have serious implications in our primary in April.

It is going to heat up here in the Keystone State and those of us who love politics are salivating. It is going to be interesting and fun.

Steve Corbett has been talking about this web site:

http://thepresidencystopshere.com/

I give Steve props and credit; he has not given up on his candidate Senator Clinton and now it appears Senator Obama may have lost his momentum.

Don’t miss Corbett on WILK radio weekdays from 3 to 7pm. His blog, Corbett’s Corner, is linked on my blog roll. If you are interested in politics tune in your radio and:

YOU BETTER LISTEN

Congratulations on this call Steve.

Joe Leonardi

Qualifications

No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
United States Constitution

“We need someone who’s been tested, because the United States presidency is one the toughest jobs in the world, she is the best qualified candidate.” Scranton Mayor Chris Doherty

Qualifications

by: Joe Leonardi

I have a good friend who is a huge Hilary Clinton supporter. This person consistently tells me that Hilary has been the most qualified democrat running for office.

I am not so sure.

I admit that I do not care for Senator Clinton. She rubs me the wrong way and I don’t think that I could ever cast a vote for her — even if she were a republican.

She is talking up the qualifications issue against Senator Obama, but I am curious how she will deal with the experience and qualification issues if she wins the primary.

Senator John McCain is considerably more qualified than either Democratic contender.

Does experience and qualifications give us an insight on to what kind of president we will get?

I say no.

I wrote in an earlier commentary that the two most qualified Presidents of my lifetime were Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush. Both were one term presidents and looking back, both were poor presidents. They both lacked, though should have possessed, solid leadership qualities.

Senator Clinton would like Democratic primary voters to vote for her because, she claims to be the most qualified and experienced candidate. As I wrote earlier, presidential elections have little to do with either. It is likability and a person’s innate ability to lead.

Hilary Clinton is not likable and she has never demonstrated any genuine leadership abilities.

The president of the United States must be an individual that can muster people to his or her cause. To bring the populace, elected officials and heads of state together for the common good. That person must be able to lead people of all political persuasions.

Leadership has nothing to do with education, experience, or qualifications.

Leadership is an inherent, intangible trait.

It appears Senator Obama has that trait and Senator Clinton is attempting to blunt that effect by claiming she is, and has been, the most qualified democrat in the race.

The following are brief biographies of two individuals. These biographies are snapshots of their qualifications to be President.

The first one:

-Roughly 1 year of structured education
-Elected to a state’s General Assembly four times
-Elected to U.S. House of Representatives only once
-At various times was a farmhand, clerk, flatboatman, store owner, surveyor, postmaster and a lawyer
-Served in a state Militia as a Captain and private

The above resume’ is relatively unimpressive.

No real education, a few years in a state assembly and two years as a U.S. Congressman and not much of a military career.

This person was Abraham Lincoln.

The President that saved the Union.

One of four Presidents on Mount Rushmore.

Arguably, one of the greatest Presidents in United States history.

If we follow Senator Hilary Clinton’s logic, based upon his prior qualifications, he should never have run, let alone be elected President. We should be thankful that Hilary and her advisers were not around in the 1860 election.

Next we have the following:

-Bachelor’s degree from Tufts
-Master’s degree from Tufts’ Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
-Elected to U.S. House of Representatives seven times
-Former Ambassador to the United Nations
-Former U.S. Secretary of Energy
-Twice elected Governor
-Served as Chairman of the Democratic Governors Association
-Authored two books
-Taught at New Mexico State University, Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government and the United World College
-Nominated five times for the Nobel Peace Prize
-Former Chairman of Freedom House, a private, non-partisan organization that promotes democracy worldwide

The above resume is quite impressive. Who’s bio is it?

It is that of Governor Bill Richardson. The first person of Latino descent to seek the office of the President.

Looking at this snapshot —- the Governor is extremely qualified to be President of the United States.

He is well educated.

He has legislative experience.

He has executive branch experience.

He has experience in educating others.

He has extensive foreign policy experience. Instead of hanging out with foreign heads of state with his spouse, he actually worked with these leaders. More importantly, Bill Richardson negotiated the release of U.S. servicemen, hostages and political prisoners.

Unfortunately, to the supporters of Senator Clinton, Governor Richardson is a man. So though eminently qualified, he should not have been and was not seriously considered to be the democratic party’s nominee.

We must be honest, Senator Clinton is not looking to be the most qualified person to be President. She and many democrats are looking just for a woman, any democratic woman, to be President. So, intellectual honesty be dammed. The Hilary democrats want a woman, no matter how qualified the man is that she has run, is running or will run against.

If the phone rang in the White House at 3 a.m. and democrats were concerned about the right person for the job, Bill Richardson would still be in the race and he would be the front runner going into Super Tuesday Jr.

Governor Richardson was the most qualified democrat in the primary, yet he did not receive the support of his party or the voters.

I asked my friend, the one who believes that Hilary is the most qualified to be president, why this person had not gotten behind Governor Richardson. My friend’s answer was — “Because I can’t take someone who has such a bad toupee serious.”

So much for qualifications.

The Democrats may decide as early as March 4th who their nominee is. I think it might be Barack Obama.

Politically, Senator Obama is extremely liberal. Policy wise he is everything I am opposed to. However, he is bringing republicans to his side. Like the Reagan Democrats of the eighties, there is currently a movement of republicans for Obama. They even have a catchy name, they are called Obamicans.

I am not on that bandwagon just yet.

I don’t know if I ever will be.

Senator Obama makes you believe he can pull our country out of the depths of misery and hell that President George W. Bush has placed us.

The question is, can he?

I don’t know the answer.

I do know that another divisive figure in the White House, such as Senator Hilary Clinton, can not.

Joe Leonardi

Comments

At the encouragement of my friend Gort I have opted to no longer moderate comments. Please keep it clean and try to keep it civil.

Thanks

Joe

We miss you

Carmalita “Mom” Leonardi

One year ago my Mom was unexpectedly called to heaven. The person I am, all that I have accomplished, is because of my parents. I am saddened by my loss, but thankful for what I have been given. I had the typical Italian-American upbringing. Being not only the first born, but the only son, because of my Mom’s love I always believed, until I tried — that I could walk on water. My Mother was with me from the first day I opened my first practice. She was “Mom” to everyone and she put the family in Leonardi Family Chiropractic Office. The above picture looks out over the reception room, though her presence is missed, Mom is not forgotten.

New Hampshire

I have one prevailing thought: I am glad that the primaries aren’t over yet. The nation’s first primary demonstrated that only one poll matters. Selfishly I would like to see this go on for two reasons. One I love politics and two, who knows maybe Pennsylvania’s primary will actually be important. Okay maybe number two won’t happen.

Hilary Clinton and The Likability Factor

Lately the national media has been discussing whether or not the voters like Senator Clinton, it was even a debate question. I not only wrote back in March that Hilary was not likable, I explained why.  So for all the so called experts here it is again:

Original post date and time: March 21, 2007…7:09 am

The Next Democratic Nominee

“President Hilary Clinton? Nah I don’t think so!”
Me

The Next Democratic Nominee
By: Joe Leonardi

Not a single primary has been held, not a single vote has been cast, heck before nothing more than a presidential exploratory committee had been formed, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton had been anointed the Democratic nominee and the next President of the United States. The big question is not if Senator Clinton will get her party’s nomination and eventually become President. No, the big question is why she won’t.

Straight out Hillary Rodham Clinton is not all that like-able. The most unspoken reason someone wins the presidency is like-ability. Other words such as charisma and appeal are used to make it sound more complex, more meaningful, more serious. However, the simple fact is like-ability rules the roost in electing our presidents. Ronald Reagan was our grandfather. Bill Clinton was every man, “the man from Hope”, and George W. gave the appearance that though born to privilege, he could be everyone’s best friend.

Qualifications and education are played up, but they really aren’t that important. President Harry Truman did not posses a college degree. Other than Governor, President Ronald Reagan never held any other elected office, never ran a business, he was simply a B movie actor and spokesperson. President George W. Bush’s business failures are well chronicled. The two one term presidents of my lifetime may have been the most “qualified” to hold office. Both Presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter had excellent educations, distinguished military careers and worked their way up the political ladder. Each failed in their re-elections bids because they weren’t like-able. President’s Reagan, Clinton and George W. Bush all had potential scandals that should have prevented their re-elections, but they won because of the like-ability factor. President Reagan is remembered with great fondness by supporters and detractors alike. President Clinton won over the man he vanquished. And the future will tell about President George W. Bush.

Since the age of television the shallower qualities are played up. A great example is the Nixon/Kennedy debate. Those who watched it on television felt Kennedy won, those who heard it on the radio felt Nixon won. President Kennedy embraced the then new media. He was tanned, used stage make up, and though he was a man in great pain and suffered from an illness few were aware, appeared young and vibrant.

President Nixon looked, well looked like Nixon.

Back to Senator Clinton. Hillary is just not like-able. She rubs many people, including fellow Democrats, the wrong way. She went from being a Goldwater conservative to a 60’s liberal and fervent feminist. She went from single Hillary Rodham to the married Hillary Rodham, to Hillary Clinton to finally Hillary Rodham Clinton. She went from a socialist utopic idea of nationalizing one seventh of the U.S. economy to being a conservative war hawk. She was quoted as saying, “I’m not some Tammy Wynette standing by my man” to a doormat of a blatant philandering husband time and time again. She was born in Illinois resided in Arkansas and Washington D.C. but ran for the Senate in New York. She went from unflappable and undeterred to tossing her beliefs to the wayside for political expedience and popularity.

The reason Senator Clinton is not like-able is because no one knows who is the real Hillary Clinton. There is no genuine, consistent character to her. It is hard to like someone who doesn’t like him or herself. How do you like yourself if you can’t decide who you are? There are those that seek the presidency to lead and there are those that seek the presidency just to be president.

Which is Senator Clinton?

Who knows?

I would guess even she doesn’t know.

Joe Leonardi

Happy New Year

Starting with the January issue I will be contributing to a new conservative newspaper in the state. The Pennsylvania Republican, An Independent Conservative Monthly. I encourage you to check out the web site and to please subscribe to the paper. The web site is www.PennRepublican.com

Happy New Year

Joe Leonardi

Merry Christmas

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

Joe

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery Part II

“Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death.”
Patrick Henry

“There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.”
James Madison

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery Part II
by: Joe Leonardi

In Part One I discussed how liberals, to enslave the American people, have ingeniously implemented the income tax . Now, I am going to discuss how liberals are trying to legislatively lock the chains of slavery.

In the liberal mind, we are unable to make the appropriate decisions concerning our own lives or our own welfare. Awash in the justification that they have to “force” us to do what is best for ourselves, they go forth to legislate personal conduct. The elitist that populate the liberal leaning mind set are, in their own minds, all knowing. To be good citizens, we must be automatons — blindly, blissfully following their educated, egalitarian ways. Of course, to be considered equal, you must embrace their self aggrandizing viewpoint.

One of our local, lofty, liberal talk show hosts opined the other day that we need government to control our lives. Yes, he actually said that.

To paraphrase, he stated that since citizens are unwilling to live the right way, it was up to government to persuade us. He is in favor of smoking bans in eateries, not solely for the health of those who work in the restaurant industry, but to stop people from smoking, period. If it were up to him the tobacco industry CEO’s would be imprisoned.

He intimated that the government should tell people how much they should weigh and how physically fit they should be. Since people were unable to make the right decisions, government must make those decisions.

To the liberals, laws should go beyond protecting the public safety. Laws, under the control of government, should determine the way free citizens conduct their daily lives. From parenting, to education, to morals, to religion, to body habitus — it is the liberal, via the regime, who decides for everyone.

What egomaniacal motivation allows one to think that no one is entitled to make their own mistakes? Take their own chances? Live their lives within the law? What mind set wants to control others down to the minutia of what condiment a person tops a sandwich?

We should be allowed the option to find our own way. However, to the liberal, that can not stand. They demand that if we do not willingly choose to learn from their innate, intelligent, insight — then under the omnipotent, oppressive, ominous hand of government our will must be broken.

The liberal defenders of freedom only believe in freedom, if it agrees with their doctrine of cohesive, communal behavior. They do not simply imply they know what is best for everyone, they are fanatically convinced that they are correct. If those of us, who embrace living in a free society, don’t abide by their definition of “what is best,” then they demand government should be the instrument to force it upon us. Because, according to them, government has a responsibility to control us, the stupid, simple, unenlightened, uninformed masses.

I am often baffled, that the same group of ideologues who strongly believe it is a woman’s right to murder an in utero baby, are so interested in controlling people once they are born.

Does anyone not get the connection, that controlling the masses, for our own good or not, is government sanctioned slavery? How many times have groups of people been told that, their confinement and restrictions were for their own good?

We must defeat those who want to shackle us! We must reignite the fire that existed at the birth of our great nation! We must prevent the destruction of autonomy. We must embrace the emphatic proclamation of Patrick Henry. We must demand liberty!

Joe Leonardi

Why Lou Barletta Should Not Run For Congress

“I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it.” President George W. Bush

DCCC cash on hand $46,494,438.30
NRCC cash on hand $22,594,563.55
* as of Oct. 2007

Why Lou Barletta Should Not Run For Congress
by: Joe Leonardi

Republicans are more than likely going to lose more seats in 2008. Throughout the country President Bush has destroyed our party unity. All you have to do is look at the cash on hand and donations coming into the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee compared to the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Mayor Lou Barletta — this is not the time, in a democratic district, to take on a democratic incumbent.

To break it down:

- According to FEC filings the Barletta for Congress committee is still in debt about one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Kanjorski’s committee has over 1.2 million dollars on hand. No matter what Lou raises, he is still over 1.3 million dollars down.

- The DCCC is not going to let a senior house member go without a major fight. The money that the DCCC will pour into the 11th will be astronomical. The NRCC will not have the money to fight back.

- Lou has made quite a splash with his stance on illegal immigration. However, Congressman Tom Tancredo has been more vocal and more effective. Tancredo actually helped kill the amnesty bill in the Congress. Has that translated into more support for his presidential bid? If immigration was the end all and be all of national politics, Tom Tancredo would be a top tier candidate in the presidential primary race. Is he?

- The big issues against Kanjorski are nepotism and cronyism. In Luzerne County the voters simply do not care. The money to the Kanjorski nephews was an issue in 2002 and 2006. Cronyism was an issue in the Luzerne County Commissioners race. However each and every time the incumbent democrat won. The fact is, that in Luzerne County, the voters don’t care about cronyism.

The 11th congressional district is more than just Luzerne County.

- Lackawanna County’s republican precincts went democratic in the last commissioner’s race. Granted, many of these precincts were in the 10th, but that only emphasizes the dissatisfaction. Most precincts in the 11th are democratic. If they are angry with republicans, does anyone think, that over one issue they are going to turn republican?

- Monroe County, for the first time in years, has elected democratic majority commissioners.

- Carbon County is a democratic stronghold. Kanjorski is very highly thought of there.

- Columbia County, which is probably the most conservative county, has strongly supported congressman Kanjorski. He has currently promised a levy system on the banks of the river. His seniority, being a member of the majority party and his accomplishments with the levy system up river, will all but assure continued support.

- On two major issues; abortion and gun control, Congressman Kanjorski is solidly in line with the voters in his district. He has received high ratings from the National Right to Life Committee and National Rifle Association. These are huge issues in Northeast Pennsylvania, and with no difference between candidates, most are likely to stick with their party.

- There is no conservative at the top of the republican ticket. Translated — on election day conservatives will stay home. The myth that Hilary Clinton will push conservatives to the polls is one that should not be counted on. If anything, after eight years of President Bush, it is my belief that Democrats will turn out in force to ensure the election of, along with a democratic house and senate, a democratic president.

- Finally, the Mayor’s experience is in the executive branch. In my opinion, Lou Barletta should run for either Governor or Lieutenant Governor. Congress would be a waste of his leadership qualities and abilities. In the House of Representatives he becomes one voice in a sea of four hundred thirty five. He will be a freshman in the minority party. He is not going to be given any committee assignments to raise his profile. If anything, with the democrats in control, he will be minimized and probably never get anywhere near a committee that has anything to do with immigration. Additionally, the democrats will likely cut off funds to much of his district. By freezing out “Congressman” Barletta, it ensures that in two years the seat will go back to the Democrats.

Mayor Barletta is a good, decent honorable man. If he chooses to run he will have my vote. However, presently he possesses secure, salient, powerful political capital. If he opts to misspend it — it will be Lou Barletta’s parting, political swan song.

Joe Leonardi

The Primary Season

‘‘We have no input into who’s the nominee at all. Does that make any sense? The state that is one of the most important in the general election has no input in the primary.” Ed Rendell March 2007

‘‘It is absolutely insane to have it (the primary) front-loaded the way it is…It’ll only be the candidates who have the huge money who can survive.” Ed Rendell April 2007

The Primary Season
by: Joe Leonardi

The primary season has “officially” begun. Though the candidates for president have been running for almost one year, the November 2007 general election is over and it is time to focus on 2008.

As a Reagan conservative, I still don’t know for whom I will cast a vote. The front runners aren’t conservative and Fred Thompson, whom prior to his announcement caught my attention, has thus far been lackluster. I have not really chosen anyone to support, but I am narrowing it down.

My preferred candidate would have been Senator Chuck Hagel, but he has opted out. It is a shame, because a true conservative, one who actually served not only in the military, but in a war, was blacklisted because he spoke out against President Bush’s blundering in Iraq. The most inane part is he was shouted down and shut out by those who avoided military service. Not only the current administration, but many conservative commentators, pundits and bloggers who never served a day in uniform derailed, denounced and demeaned the heroic Hagel.

Being a resident of Pennsylvania my vote will be rendered unnecessary. Or to be more blunt, in the primary, it appears PA will be irrelevant. There was a chance to move the primary election up to February, but thanks to those in Harrisburg, even Governor Rendell was on both sides of the argument, ours will not take place until April. If history is any indicator the nominee will have been chosen.

One comment concerning primary elections. Here in northeast Pennsylvania, we have a local radio talk show host, Steve Corbett, who is a registered independent. He has railed against the unfairness that Pennsylvania does not allow him to vote in the primary. That the big bad stringent state does not permit him and other independents to participate in the process. Well, I like Steve and say this with the utmost respect — tough.

Steve, it is not the state that is forbidding, it is the choice to register as an independent that limits one’s voting opportunities. If you or any individual chooses not to support a party, then you should not vote in that party’s primary.

Personally, I am strongly opposed to open primaries. The primary process is set up so that members of a particular party nominate a candidate to represent their party. Why should someone who does not share an ideology want to vote or be permitted to vote in a primary. In my opinion they should not.

An open primary allows the opposing party to unjustly effect the outcome of the other party. For example, let us say that Hilary Clinton has the lock on the the nomination — there is no way, no how she is going to lose. Let’s make this example even more absurd and say that every other democratic candidate has dropped out.

In my example, let us also say that on the republican side, there remains a full slate of candidates. If every state had an open primary, or permitted independents to choose a party on election day, what is to stop all the democrats or democrat leaning independents to go into the polls and cast a vote for a third or fourth tier candidate? One who has no chance in the general election. So now the democrats have influenced the republican nominating process. They have now corrupted and co-opted the general election. Is this proper? Is this just? Of course not!

Can you imagine if the Republicans were to hypothetically do the same thing? The democrats, from the pages of the New York Times, will yell voter fraud and election thievery.

If you choose to be independent that is your right and I applaud you. However, grow up and don’t complain because you can’t vote in the democratic or republican primary. The choice is yours. If you more closely identify with one of the major parties, change your registration and work to get the candidate that best represents your views elected to office.

Your party affiliation or lack thereof is your choice, it is not the government, it is not the party, nor is it the process that is excluding you from voting — it is you excluding yourself.

Joe Leonardi

Happy Thanksgiving

Enjoy our national day of Thanksgiving.

Joe

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery

“I fear that giving mankind a dependence on anything for support in age or sickness, besides industry and frugality during youth and health, tends to flatter our natural indolence, to encourage idleness and prodigality, and thereby to promote and increase poverty, the very evil it was intended to cure.” Ben Franklin

“That which does not kill us makes us stronger.” Friedrich Nietzsche

How Liberalism Leads to Slavery
by: Joe Leonardi

Liberalism is the scourge of modern society. It’s mantra of entitlement is slowly leading the United States into an inescapable abyss. The liberals hide their treachery in the promotion of human kindness. They claim that their interests are only “what is best for the common people.” Their subterfuge hides a more sinister outcome. Liberals are destroying the independent spirit of humankind.

A recurring theme in American history is that of the rugged individual. The belief that most people unencumbered by an oppressive government not only can, but desire to provide for themselves. In today’s nanny state we are slowly losing this.

There are two primary questions to ask. How do liberals do this and why?

The why is easy. Pure, unmitigated power. Through dependence the liberal seeks to control the masses. It is much the way many of histories most tyrannical despots ruled their countries. While the likes of Stalin, Mao, and Hitler used fear and intimidation to keep their political opponents silent, they also fostered government reliance to keep the masses in check and enslaved.

The how is a little more complicated and, in my opinion, much more malevolent. Liberals, since the progressive era, have chosen Robin Hood economics to demolish the American dream and break the American spirit. Early 20th century progressives sought to steal from the most productive citizens and give their money, transferring it unearned, to the least productive. To accomplish this they required the power to tax all income. To ensure unbridled authority to take from the rich and give to the poor, the progressive movement introduced, passed, ratified and enacted the Sixteenth Amendment. Congress was given the authority to “wet their beaks.” In less than half of a century the American government abolished slavery over a portion of the population and reintroduced it over the whole.

In the beginning, this was sold as a tax on only the wealthy. Because to gain popular support liberals, then and now, vilify those who create wealth and earn large incomes, often ignoring the fact that those are the same who create jobs.

Of course, the rich are not the only ones taxed. The ability to tax shackles the American income earner at every rung of the economic ladder. The harder we work, the more we earn, the more we are extorted to give the federal government “their cut.” Taxation is the means the government utilizes to enslave the middle and high wage earners, entrepreneurs and job creators.

Most everyday folks don’t care what happens to these people, because liberals indoctrinate them into the belief that “rich” people don’t deserve what they have and they must be compelled to share what they have earned. What the believers of this fallacy do not realize is that they too are being enslaved by the liberal ruling class.

How? Redistribution. Utilizing this method the lower classes become tacit wards of the state, forever trapped in poverty, begging the omnipotent liberal government to provide.

Locally, we have a talk show host who wants free health care, free swimming, free skateboard parks, free everything for everyone. Well — nothing is free. The hard working income earners and producers will be over-taxed to provide these gratis services.

The simple truth that these liberal slave masters don’t want you do know is that the more you are “given,” the less you have. Soon the United States will resemble much of Europe. People will be locked into the class to which they are born. Upward mobility will be a thing of the past. Those that do not earn their way in our society will be placated with all the basic necessities of life. Their ability and desire to provide for themselves will no longer matter. They will have been stripped of inherent traits that made America and Americans the envy of the world.

When Stalin died much of the free world rejoiced in the departure of a ruthless, cold-blooded tyrant. However, the populace of the former Soviet Union wept in fear. They cried out, “who will take care of us?” They did not need to be beaten into submissive servitude. No, they were conciliated into it.

Will this be our dreadful, dire destiny? Do we yearn to be hand fed from cradle to grave; or do we “yearn to breathe free?”

When did adversity, hardship and struggle become dirty words. I want the opportunity to succeed or fail based upon my decisions, based upon my drive, based upon my actions. I want the freedom to live my life unrestrained by government sanctioned slavery. Don’t you?

Beware the modern, moderated, boisterous beatnik beating the drum for a free, fanciful, easy existence. Because the cost of “free” — is freedom.

Joe Leonardi

Veterans Day

Veterans Day is the day we, citizens of the United States of America, honor those whom have served our country. I present a handful of quotes. They were not chosen because of the speaker or writer, they were chosen for the words. So on this day let us remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our country. Respect the men and women who have worn and who continue to wear the uniform and serve the United States of America

“Veterans Day is not about the hawk nor the dove. Neither is it about right or left, liberal or conservative, republican or democrat. Most definitely, it is not about politics nor politicians. November 11th is about — Veterans. Let us praise them. Let us honor them. Let us never, forget them.”
—Joe Leonardi, U.S. Navy Veteran

——————————————————————————————-

“The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war, no matter how justified, shall be directly proportional to how they perceive veterans of early wars were treated and appreciated by our nation.” — George Washington

“No arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women.
— Ronald Reagan

In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot. ~Mark Twain, Notebook, 1935

“A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good
enough to be given a square deal afterwards.

More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have.”
Theodore Roosevelt, Speech to veterans, Springfield, IL, July 4, 1903

“Heroism is latent in every human soul - However humble or unknown, they (the veterans) have renounced what are accounted pleasures and cheerfully undertaken all the self-denials - privations, toils, dangers, sufferings, sicknesses, mutilations, life-”
Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain

Never in the history of the world has any soldier sacrificed more for the freedom and liberty of total strangers than the American soldier.
And, our soldiers don’t just give freedom abroad, they preserve it for us here at home.
For it has been said so truthfully that it is the soldier, not the reporter, who has given us the freedom of the press.
It is the soldier, not the poet, who has given us freedom of speech.
It is the soldier, not the agitator, who has given us the freedom to protest.
It is the soldier who salutes the flag, serves beneath the flag, whose coffin is draped by the flag, who gives that protester the freedom he abuses to burn that flag. — Senator Zell Miller of Georgia

In war, there are no unwounded soldiers. ~José Narosky

I think there is one higher office than president and I would call that patriot. ~Gary Hart

Courage is almost a contradiction in terms. It means a strong desire
to live taking the form of readiness to die. ~G.K. Chesterton

[Mr. President, how did you become a war hero?]
It was absolutely involuntary. They sank my boat.
John F. Kennedy

Iran — the next great threat

“Those that fail to learn from history, are doomed to repeat it.”
- Winston Churchill

Mutual assured destruction – Severe, unavoidable reciprocal damage that superpowers are likely to inflict on each other or their allies in a nuclear war, conceived as the heart of a doctrine of nuclear deterrence. U.S. Military Dictionary

Iran — the next great threat
by: Joe Leonardi

Iran remains on the move toward becoming a nuclear power. What should we, the United States, do about it?

Prevent it!

I don’t think I am speaking out of turn by stating that Iran must not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. They have a history of anti-west, specifically anti-United States, sentiments. They are a state sponsor of terrorists. Iran is currently led by a president who openly calls for the destruction of Israel. What choices do we have?

None.

How did we get here?

That, will take more than a one or two word answer.

The blowback effect is one of the important concepts overlooked by those who discuss geopolitics. Blowback is a metaphor for the unintended consequences of the U.S. government’s international activities.

In one of the debates Ron Paul actually attempted to discuss it. However, an arrogant and condescending Rudy Giuliani glibly and erroneously shot him down. In that solitary moment, the former Mayor demonstrated his lack of global political comprehension and exhibited that he is not ready to govern a world power.

Understand, I am not stating, by any stretch of the imagination, that we deserved what happened to us on September 11th. The attacks on 9/11 were acts of pure cowardice. Acts of evil perpetrated by fanatics who have zero respect for human life.

Yet, when making decisions, we can not negate the strength of insightful reflection and thoughtful foresight. We presently need someone in office who understands that actions today have consequences tomorrow. In President Bush we do not have that person. This president has no sense of history nor future. He has a very narrow world view, and he sees issues only in present, constant absolutes.

After September 11th the world was at our side. It was an unprecedented opportunity to unite the globe. An opportunity demonstrated by the fact that Iran, our enemy since the Carter Administration, aided us in our Afghanistan campaign.

Then in 2002 George W. Bush squandered all the goodwill the United States garnered. In what had to be, in my opinion, one of the dumbest diatribes a United States President has ever given — George W. Bush lashed out at our most recent ally and grouped Iran in the infamous “axis of evil.”

Commentators, politicians, pundits and many others have forgotten that prior to that silly, simplistic speech, Iran was in the process of a pro-west, moderate movement. So much so that Iranian assistance helped us make short work of the Taliban. However, in one stupid, sanctimonious sentence George W. Bush destroyed years of moderate Iranian reformation.

Next, in 2003, our brilliantly blundering President compounded the situation by attacking the one “axis” country least capable of developing nuclear weapons. If I were the leader of another country named in the axis of evil and I was developing nuclear weapons, I most definitely would have stepped up the process. That is exactly what both North Korea and Iran did.

In 2005 the moderate leadership in Iran was replaced by hard liner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In response to a perceived threat from the United States, Ahmadinejad accelerated Iran’s movement into the nuclear age. If they develop an atomic bomb, the nuclear nightmare we feared throughout the cold war may be realized.

I do not like to throw the Hitler analogy out there, but Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may very well be today’s Adolf Hitler. U.S. Mideast policy is responsible for his rise and we need to be sure he does not act on his stated ambitions.

There are some disturbing parallels between these two men. Parallels that should not, that must not be overlooked.

Both had taken a similar path to power. When Hitler first ascended he was not in charge. It was the intent of those that appointed him, through von Hindenburg, to keep him in check. Ahmadinejad is not in control, the Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah is the ruler.

Hitler used the treaty of Versailles to rally the German people. Ahmadinejad is using the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq to rally his.

Hitler allied himself with charismatic, fascist leader Benito Mussolini. Ahmadinejad is allying himself with charismatic, socialist leader Hugo Chavez.

Hitler initially reached out to Russia. Ahmadinejad is reaching out to Russia.

Adolf Hitler held, and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad holds the view that Jews are an encroaching, expendable race. Hitler, in his book Mein Kampf, wrote of his hatred, racism and bigotry. Utilizing the final solution, he conceived and carried out the extermination of many Jews. Ahmadinejad has many times called for the elimination of Israel, the Jewish state, as the solution to the Mideast crisis.

Many in the English-speaking world attempted to appease Hitler so they would have had “peace in their time.” Many in the English-speaking world are calling for diplomacy to maintain peace with Ahmadinejad.

It would appear that Ahmadinejad has studied, and is following, Hitler’s path to power.

George W. Bush, as the WWI victor’s at Versailles brought about Hitler, has caused the emergence of Ahmadinejad.

We must keep a watchful eye on Iran and be ready, if necessary, to use overwhelming, precise and decisive disabling strikes. If we don’t, we could bear witness to a nuclear weapon falling into the hands of an enemy that will not be deterred by, but actually welcome, “mutually assured destruction.”

Joe Leonardi

How to Halt Hillary

“Not only are we going to New Hampshire … we’re going to South Carolina and Oklahoma and Arizona and North Dakota and New Mexico, and we’re going to California and Texas and New York! And we’re going to South Dakota and Oregon and Washington and Michigan. And then we’re going to Washington, D.C. to take back the White House, Yeeeeeaaaaaargh!”
– Howard Dean, Iowa concession speech

How to Halt Hillary
by: Joe Leonardi

The above quote was made when people still thought, even though upset in Iowa, Howard Dean was still going to be the Democratic nominee for president. It demonstrates many things. Notably, that one bad moment on camera can take you, in the blink of an eye, from champ to chump. However, most importantly it demonstrates that pre-election polls don’t mean a thing.

Senator Hillary Clinton, in all the national polls, is leading her democratic primary opponents. That is great, there is just one problem. The primary or the general election are not nationwide elections. To capture the nomination a candidate must, in each statewide primary, win a majority of delegates. As I have stated earlier, presidential elections are a series of statewide elections, not one national referendum.

Will Hillary win the democratic nomination? I still don’t believe so, but I don’t know and honestly I don’t care. As a republican, I can’t vote in the democratic primary — not that my state, Pennsylvania, will matter much by the time we finally get to the booth.

With this years general election coming to an end next week, the 2008 election cycle will heat up. It looks like January third the games will begin. So it is just about time to cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

To date the Hillary machine has been running a safe, conservative, error free campaign. She is the front runner and as already stated, the perceived nominee on the board’s blue side. It begs a certain questions.

Why is Senator Clinton the presumed nominee? Why would anyone vote for her? Her public persona is one of an abrasive, cold, distant, power hungry individual. She projects a stoic, non-caring, emotionless facade. Though independent and educated she demonstrates neither. She allowed herself to be continually duped and embarrassed and oft opened herself up to possible exposure to sexually transmitted diseases via her husband’s womanizing. So what makes her an attractive candidate for president.

The answer — former President Bill Clinton.

It has been intimated by many and flat out said by a few that the reason democrats are high on Hil is to get Bill back in the White House.

Here is my advise to the other democratic nominees, start telling this one simple truth. A vote for Hil is not, I repeat not, a vote for Bill. Hillary Clinton’s first term will not be Bill Clinton’s third.

Hil is not Bill. For those who have forgotten — William Jefferson Clinton is probably the best pure politician to walk the planet. He had and has an easy charm. He is educated, intelligent and articulate. Bill Clinton could read the classified ads of a newspaper and draw you in as if he were reading Shakespeare or Hemingway. I remember watching his televised States of the Union and sitting upright, being drawn in by his masterful oratory. It was only after I focused on the words that I remembered, I didn’t agree with a thing he said, but still, I listened.

Bill Clinton, in person, could put friend and foe alike at ease. He was a man with whom whether you agreed or disagreed — you appreciated the fact that he wanted to be president to do something for the American people.

Hillary Clinton possesses none of her husband’s charm, oratory abilities, kindness nor presence. She is where she is today soley because of her marriage to Bill Clinton.

Whereas greatness brought Bill Clinton to the presidency, Hillary pursues the presidency because she thinks it will bring her greatness.

Again, I advise all the participants in the democratic primary, if you want to rally the base and win the nomination, shout it loud and clear Hillary Clinton is no Bill Clinton. Make your slogan — A vote for Hil is not a vote for Bill.

Valerie Plame — I’m still right and correct

I have received a few emails asking me how I feel about Valerie Plame’s book coming out. I remain baffled how this is a right/left, conservative/liberal, republican/democrat issue. I said it all back in March, so I am reposting this under a new title. It is the exact column I wrote back then. Time has not changed my feelings. I have read that someone on another board claims that Richard Armitage was not part of the administration. I suggest anyone who feels that way do a Google search. Mr. Armitage was Dep. Sec. of State from 2001 until 2005, the Novak article came out in 2003. I’m not sure in what world 2003 doesn’t fall between 2001 and 2005, however here in the real world consecutive numbers fall in succession.

Joe

“Loose lips sink ships.”
My Boot Camp Company Commander

Libby’s Guilty —– Big Deal
By: Joe Leonardi

I. Lewis Libby, I refuse to call an adult Scooter, has been convicted of perjury, obstruction, and lying . Special prosecutor Fitzgerald has reportedly said that there will be no further indictments, that the investigation is “inactive.”

Well all is right with world, correct? The Democrats and the Left are awash in a celebratory glow, so much so that Senator Harry Reid has decided that the Constitution now gives him the power to tell the President who he can pardon. The Republicans and the Right are overwhelmed with indignant anger; White House spokespersons Limbaugh and Hannity are now convinced the the jurors are all filthy liberals. All of this is just, I hate to say, a disgrace.

I don’t care either way about Lewis Libby. Did he perjure himself ? Did he lie to the FBI? Did he obstruct justice? Maybe, the jury thinks he did, but I don’t care. What bothers me about this entire mess is that a CIA agent was outed. She was most likely exposed for political retribution and this trial and conviction is more of the same. We should be ashamed of all involved.

I served in a branch of Naval Intelligence, and while not an operative, I learned the importance of National Security. I learned the seriousness of protecting intelligence. I also was extremely aware, if not involved in, that the most dangerous off all was HUMINT; human intelligence. Of course, the fact that a person possibly engaged in HUMINT was exposed has been lost in the wake of the trial. I’m sure that the hearing, book and movie deal will reveal all from the Wilson’s side, but for now and through most of this, we have neglected the true tragedy of this saga.

Valerie Plame was an employee of the CIA. At the time of this disclosure there had been claims and speculation that she was or was not covert. The right claims that she wasn’t and the left claims she was. Nonetheless, it doesn’t matter what her status was at the time. The simple fact of the matter is, at one time or another, she MAY have been covert. That is what makes her name being disclosed obscene and irresponsible if not possibly treasonous. Intelligence gathering is an ongoing endeavor and in most cases operations rarely cease. They build upon each operation forming layers upon layers.

If Ms. Plame was a covert agent at any time during her service, her status must be protected. Why? Because, any agent who had been affiliated with her through any previous operation can now be at risk. This is common sense. However, in D.C. and the politics of personal destruction this doesn’t matter. Her name and position were given to a prominent CONSERVATIVE columnist, Robert Novak. Mr. Novak subsequently published this tidbit in his column. Novak claims he learned of Plame’s CIA affiliation from Richard Armitage and confirmed it with, I know here was the big surprise, Karl Rove —- shocking. If these two gentlemen didn’t know that it was wrong to give out Valerie Plame’s affiliation they should have been immediately fired and never allowed to serve in government again. The reason, they must be stupid. Not to let Bob Novak off the hook, he should have used reasonable judgment and quashed the story. I don’t know about most people, but I am an American first and it is simply wrong to release something that common sense tells you could be a danger to national security.

Bob Novak is a columnist, commentator and pundit of great renown. If he got scooped on this story it would have done nothing to his reputation, his status or his earning potential. However, to those of us conservatives who genuinely put America first, he has fallen to the level of — Al Franken.

The members of the Silent Service are dedicated individuals who function with little recognition. Their reward is the knowledge that their efforts ensure the safety and security of the United States. These brave agents are well aware that they live in a clouded, mysterious sphere of cloak and dagger activities, though I’m sure they never expected members of their own government to use the dagger on them.

Joe Leonardi

Birth Control for Children?

“This isn’t encouraging kids to have sex. This is about the kids who are engaging in sexual activity.” Richard Veilleux, executive director of the Maine Assembly on School-Based Health Care

Birth Control for Children?
Joe Leonardi

For years those on the left have been preaching the need to make condoms available in schools. They have used the argument that teens are going to engage in sex and the need to protect them from HIV/AIDS was and is important. For the purpose of this conversation, I will concede as fact that in today’s age with many sexually transmitted diseases back on the rise — we need to teach our children the importance of utilizing a latex barrier to help prevent those diseases.

Considering that many of these infections, most notably HPV, demonstrate a link with cervical cancer, the argument that condoms can potentially save lives, from a health care stand point, is valid. So why is an educational institution willing to discount past thought and encourage the practice of unprotected, potentially lethal sex? Why are we willing to send the message to a child that, yes, you are sexually active and the most important thing is to avoid getting pregnant, take this pill or wear this patch and all will be okay?

So if the child opts for the birth control pill or patch over a condom; who will be responsible if a child contracts HIV? Will it be the school district, the doctor or the child who wrongfully thought they were “protected?” One of the benefits to the safe sex message is that properly used condoms can possibly prevent pregnancy as well as disease. Abstinence actually does prevent both but liberal thinking does not allow, into the conversation, that fact.

Another question to pose; is the child of legal age to make a medical decision for herself? The child is not of age to enter into a legal contract, so is the young girl now able to sign a medical informed consent form? Will an eleven year old be able to understand the plausible side effects? Even if they do comprehend and experience an adverse reaction; will they tell their parents? Considering the medication was given without parental knowledge it would not be a stretch to think that the child would not tell the parent.

What about possible drug interactions? If the parent takes the child to the family doctor for another condition and the family doctor is unaware the child is on the birth control pill and prescribes another drug, if there is a negative reaction — who is responsible?

We are now seeing, in post menopausal women, a possible link between breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy. What can of worms are we going to open when we introduce adult level hormones into an immature reproductive system and body? Does being on the pill make one more susceptible to breast cancer?
From drgreen.org, “According to Dr. Leslie Bernstein, et al., looked at many studies, some showing a risk from birth control pills, others showing no risk at all. They did a careful meta-analysis of all the data and concluded that the risk of breast cancer does increase with prolonged use of the pill. (Relationship of hormone use to cancer risk. Monograph of the National Cancer Institute 12:137 1992). At 120 months or ten years of use the relative risk was 1.38. These women were 1.38 times as likely to get breast cancer as those who had not used the pill.”

If these children, start on the pill prior to the age of eighteen, stay on it until they are twenty eight, they will be past the ten year mark. If they develop breast cancer who is liable? Did the child, at eleven years old, understand the potential risk of developing breast cancer into their thirties, forties, or fifties and beyond. Again, can the child make an educated, responsible, informed, consenting decision? I say no! And I say shame on the doctor who irresponsibly, without parental knowledge and consent, prescribes a controlled, hormone based, medication to a child.

This decision negatively impacts true safe sex efforts, parental responsibility, parental rights and puts children at greater potential risk. One must question the motivation behind this decision. Is it about the children? Are the proponents well meaning, but short sighted? Or is there another agenda?

When you examine the facts — this zeal to prevent pregnancy, via prescription drugs, could potentially prove fatal.

Joe Leonardi

The Man, The Myth, The Legend — Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore

I’d kill for a Nobel Peace Prize.
- Stephen Wright Comedian

The Man, The Myth, The Legend — Nobel Prize Winner Al Gore
by: Joe Leonardi

First and foremost, I would like to Congratulate Al Gore on winning the Nobel Peace Prize. His victory has sparked renewed calls for him to run for President circling the internet he invented. I know, I know all you Gore-a-maniacs will yell he never said that, he just implied it.

Al Gore deflects calls for his entry into the race by suggesting he is having too much fun.

Translated. Ya’ll are nuts, I’m making way too much freaking money and I don’t have to do a dam thing to earn a penny of it.

Citizen Gore has been a master salesperson for the carbon credit industry. He has used a combination of fear and guilt to CONvince people to pay to pollute. In a nutshell carbon credits work like this: people who over-pollute, like celebrities and former politicians who have ten thousand plus square foot homes for two or three people, utilize private jets and get driven around in gargantuan, gas guzzling limos can alleviate their gullible guilt by paying to pollute. Yes, I know they are buying “offsets” that go into green industries.

Please. These liberal elitist are sending the message, to the majority of Americans who live pay check to pay check, that it is okay to pollute if you can afford to pay for it. I have a novel idea — pollute less.

Nobel Prize winner Al Gore has made statements to the effect that the work he is doing is too important to stop now; or he needs to keep the issue of global warming in the public eye.

My response — Huh?

The U.S. Presidency is the most visible bully pulpit in the world. If Gore wants to change the world’s attitudes about global warming; what better position could there be?

Sorry my bad, that gig only pays four hundred grand a year and it requires… well it requires work.

I know many people like Al Gore and that is fine, it is their opinion. I like Al Gore too, out of office. I will admit that Gore does not lack the qualifications. I may not agree with him but his resume, if not his ideology, is impressive. However, former Congressman, former Senator, former Vice-President Al Gore will not run for President for one major reason — if he loses again, he doesn’t get to cry about how he really was the next President of the United States.

My Gore supporting friends have never gotten over the 2000 election. I often like to point out one nagging fact the Al-a-holics never discus. If then Vice President Al Gore won the state of Tennessee, his home state, the state that sent him to the Senate twice, he would have been President of the United States of America.

We like to think of the presidential election as a national referendum, however it is not. Our system turns the race for president into a series of state wide elections. The goal of which, by calculated electoral math, is to attain a majority of the electoral college.

Forget the Florida fiasco, which I will admit it was, if he won Tennessee he would have won. The 2000 electoral college results Bush 271 Gore 266. Take Tennessee’s 11 electoral votes away from Bush he gets 260, give them to Gore he gets 277— Al Gore is victorious. I know it lacks the conspiracy theories we like so much. This simple truth takes the blame away from the evil Supreme Court and mean republicans and makes Al Gore responsible for his own loss.

Sacrilege?! How dare I suggest Gore actually lost instead of being robbed.

Al Gore had previously won two Tennessee state wide elections, but he lost the state wide election for Tennessee’s electoral votes in 2000. It makes you wonder — What do the people of Tennessee know that we don’t?

Wishing for Al Gore to run is like me wishing there was a conservative candidate for president. Neither is going to occur.

Gore must maintain the illusion that he is a legend — if only in his own mind.

Joe Leonardi

Barack the Magic Miscreant

“You know, the truth is that right after 9/11, I had a pin,” Obama
said. “Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we’re talking about
the Iraq War, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism,
which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national
security, I decided I won’t wear that pin on my chest.” Barack Obama

Barack the Magic Miscreant
by: Joe Leonardi

Does Senator Obama have the right not to wear the U.S. Flag lapel pin?
Of course. Does he have the right to say that he wants to demonstrate
his patriotism a different way? Of course. Does he have the right to
intimate that other politicians wear it for political gain? Again, of
course he does and he may be right. Does he have the right to demean,
debase and devalue the patriotism of every day American citizens? The
first amendment says yes. Should he be held accountable. Dam right.

I read about this quote, but I waited it until I watched it replayed
on “This Week,” before commenting on it. I wanted to not only read
what he said, I wanted to observe him say it.

I listened to the Senator’s words, but I also noted that he spoke
methodically — carefully choosing each word. When the clip
ended, I rose from the comfort of my chair and walked out of the room.
I was angry, so incensed I needed to walk off my ire fueled energy. I
could not believe that a man that I actually liked, one whom I thought
could have been a good president, though I vehemently disagree with his
politics, could genuinely be so far out of touch. If he fooled me,
I’m sure he fooled others. Thank God his facade faded prior to any
elections.

I always thought he had his finger on the pulse of the average
American. I thought he could unite America in a way she has never been
united before. Now, I realize he is nothing more than garbage. Yes, I
wrote the word garbage. I know, I know — I realize that I risk
insulting garbage, but since garbage does not have consciousness I’m
guessing I am on safe ground. I also know I keep things respectful,
but the Senator has lost my respect.

Not only should this sad excuse for a Senator be defeated in the
Democratic primary, he should be voted out if he attempts to return to
the Senate. He needs to summarily exit civic life and become a private
citizen.

My mom wore her U.S. Flag pin proudly and daily. She wore it after
9/11 because of my prior service and because one of our patients was
called to Iraq. After he returned she continued to wear it because she
felt for every mother who had a son or daughter serving in Iraq.
However, mostly she wore it because she was proud to be an American.

My mother didn’t live her life in the public eye. She was a middle
class mother of three who loved her family, loved her friends and loved
our country. Should the fact that she wore a U.S. Flag pin on her
blouse imply, Senator Obama, that she possessed pretended patriotism?

I wore a U.S. Flag pin prior to by entrance into the political foray as
a Congressional candidate. I was proud to wear it because, though I
disagreed with our President, I was proud to have served our country.

I saw no reason to stop wearing it when I entered the race for
Congress. Yes Senator, I showed my patriotism through the action of
running as you have and are still doing, however, did that mean that I
couldn’t display my support for my fellow Americans? Did it mean I
could not demonstrate my pride for being a citizen of our grand
country?

I continue to wear my lapel pin, not only because of my patriotism, my
former candidacy , my service in the United States Navy, but also
because my mother always wore hers. It has become something I do to
remember a special woman. A woman who consented to have her son enter
the Navy at age seventeen. A woman who worried about one of our
patients during his time in the middle east. A woman who felt sorrow
at the report of every service person who died in action. A woman who
loved our country.

Barack Obama is the worst example of a politician, of an American and of
a human being. This mental miscreant should voluntarily vacate his
public presence. He has become an example of what happens to many
politicians when they get to D.C.. He has forgotten that government
service is not bout the self, it is about the populace.

The majority of Americans display the flag not to demonstrate
their patriotism — their patriotism drives them to display the flag.

Joe Leonardi

The Crap Catching Cupola

Throughout the Susquehanna River watershed, aging sewer systems discharge enormous
volumes of raw or poorly treated sewage, which eventually flow into the Chesapeake
Bay. Unless local, state, and federal lawmakers invest in prevention and cleanup, the Susquehanna will remain among the nation’s dirtiest rivers and more and more of the Chesapeake Bay will become a dead zone.
Summary from American Rivers’ Web Site

The Crap Catching Cupola
By: Joe Leonardi

The preposterous proposal of damming the Susquehanna River has been floated by Congressman Paul Kanjorski for years. On Earth Day one man

http://home3.netcarrier.com/~susquehanna/

stood on the Market Street Bridge to Show his passion for stopping this obscenely ridiculous idea. During my run for Congress I wrote an editorial and filmed an internet commercial concerning damming the river. Recently I wrote a letter to the editor praising Don Williams and calling out a local talk show host who claims to be an environmentalist but supports the dam project. This dam project needs to be stopped, spread the word and help save the most endangered river in America.

Thank you.

Here is the link to the commercial, and yes that is what it looks like floating in the river:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1579720751701764924&q=joe+leonardi+susquehanna+river

First the letter and then the editorial:

Dear Editor,

Susquehanna River advocate Don Williams, during his radio appearance on Friday April 20th, as expected was right on the money concerning the proposed inflatable dam project. I was busy with patients and didn’t get a chance to call The Sue Henry Show, but all in my office were tuned in and not a one could understand the practical purpose of visiting the Grim Reaper upon our free flowing river.

I was surprised that the local, paternal paragon of the environmental movement, WILK’s Kevin Lynn,