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.

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

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 Everyone.

“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!

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

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

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

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.

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.

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