Category Archives: STDs

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.

36 Comments

Filed under Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Conservative, Democrat, Democratic, Election, Hilary Clinton, Liberal, President, STDs, White House

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

13 Comments

Filed under AIDS, Birth Control, Cancer, HIV, Liberal, Maine, Maine Middle School, Pregnancy, STDs