Christopher Leonard
@ChrisLeonardATL • 10,220 subscribers
Founder/CEO - OMG Media Partners, LLC Creator Content Distribution Specialist. Podcasts: JudgeNap, KyleAnzalone, Jim Webb Podcast, TripTheBeltway, ..and more!
Shorts
Videos
Some say Pointing Out That “Keeping the Oil” Sounds a Lot Like WWII — and Honestly, They’re Not Wrong. People get visibly uncomfortable when someone points out that a modern U.S. president saying “we’re keeping the oil” doesn’t sound all that different from how empires talked in the 1940s. The comparison to Nazi Germany is treated like a nuclear option in debates — not because it’s inaccurate, but because it short-circuits a comforting story we like to tell ourselves about how power works now. I didn’t expect this to be the takeaway from reading about World War II, but once you notice it, it’s hard to unsee. Strip away the uniforms, the accents, and the black-and-white footage, and the core action is simple: a powerful state uses military or economic force to take resources that don’t belong to it. Nazi Germany did this openly. They invaded, seized oil fields, factories, ships, grain — and justified it as national survival. When a modern administration does something similar, it’s wrapped in cleaner language about stability, national security, counterterrorism, sanctions, or the “rules-based international order.” The vocabulary changed. The logic didn’t. Whenever this comparison comes up, someone usually insists it’s different now because there’s "legal justification". But that argument doesn’t survive much scrutiny. International law doesn’t allow one country to take another country’s resources without consent, no matter how many lawyers are involved or how carefully the press release is written. Calling it asset seizure, economic pressure, or temporary control doesn’t make it morally different. It just makes it sound more professional. Others argue that Nazi Germany was uniquely evil, which is obviously true — and also beside the point. You don’t need genocidal ideology for imperial theft to still be theft. Stealing oil doesn’t become ethical because it’s done without death camps, or because it’s framed as temporary, or because the people doing it insist it’s for everyone’s own good. Harm doesn’t require the worst imaginable motive to still count as harm. What really separates then from now isn’t morality; it’s presentation. Nazi Germany was blunt about conquest. Modern empires prefer indirection: sanctions instead of sieges, asset freezes instead of looting, naval “interdictions” instead of blockades, and occupations that are always described as temporary until they quietly aren’t. One side talked about Lebensraum. The other talks about global stability. Same impulse, better branding. The reason this comparison causes so much outrage is because it exposes how selective our moral language is. Nazi Germany lost the war, so its actions are universally labeled crimes. The United States won, built the institutions, and writes much of the narrative — so similar actions are often described as policy. International law exists, but its enforcement follows power, not principle. That doesn’t make past crimes less criminal. It just explains why some countries get tribunals and others get talking points. There’s an easy way to test this that made the issue click for me. If Russia announced it was “keeping the oil,” no one would debate nuance. If China seized ships in the name of stability, no one would talk about complexity. If Iran froze foreign assets to maintain order, it would be called exactly what it is. The only reason the debate exists here is because people are emotionally invested in believing that our violence is different. That belief falls apart the moment you judge actions instead of flags. Taking resources by force was wrong in the 1940s. It didn’t become right because the calendar flipped or the messaging improved. The real difference isn’t ethics — it’s who gets to explain themselves afterward. One empire did it loudly. The other does it politely. It’s still theft.
Christopher Leonard55,108 次观看 • 6 个月前
Marandi: Born in Richmond, Virginia, United States to Alireza Marandi, later the doctor of the second supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Ali Khamenei. Marandi moved to Iran at the age of 13 when he volunteered to fight in the Iran–Iraq War. Marandi is a graduate of the University of Tehran and Birmingham University (UK), where he earn his PhD. He currently serves as a Professor at the University of Tehran. Tracey: West Caldwell, New Jersey. Graduated from James Caldwell High School in 2006. Freelance journalist. Attended The College of New Jersey (TCNJ). I think you might be "Punching above your weight" here Mr. Tracey.
Christopher Leonard27,334 次观看 • 4 个月前
Darryl & Scott share their thoughts on the Tucker/Fuentes interview! Martyr Made Scott Horton Nicholas J. Fuentes Tucker Carlson Tucker Carlson Network Watch the Full Episode Here: What if refusing to talk to the most controversial voices is exactly what cements their power? Cooper & Horton pull back the curtain on the platforming dilemma, asking whether careful engagement can cool a heated audience better than blanket exile. Without excusing anyone’s worst statements, they examine a hard reality: the audience exists, and it doesn’t disappear when a figure is erased. So how do you guide influence toward the real world rather than drive it deeper underground? ProvokedPod traces the path from an 18-year-old Fuentes tossed into the storm to a 26-year-old with a massive live viewership, and how early isolation can forge an identity around conflict. Darryl breaks down a rare moment of conciliation after the #charliekirkassassination and why even incremental shifts in rhetoric can matter for followers at the edge. Darryl and Scott hold a clear line: dialogue is not endorsement. A rigorous, transparent interview can reveal differences that caricatures hide, and it can model how to challenge claims without performative outrage. If someone shows up to speak plainly and without hate, we keep the door open—and keep the temperature down.
Christopher Leonard30,886 次观看 • 8 个月前
WATCH the entire drop from Tucker Carlson - but here's an edit of one of he most important points... Judge Napolitano Judge Andrew Napolitano Scott Horton Martyr Made Dave Smith Tom Woods Daniel McAdams Ron Paul Kelley B. Vlahos James R. Webb Kyle Anzalone Dave DeCamp AntiwarNews
Christopher Leonard13,281 次观看 • 3 个月前
In 1941, after German submarines struck U.S. ships in the Atlantic, President Franklin D. Roosevelt addressed the nation with moral clarity. He framed the attacks as lawless aggression, a violation of sovereignty, and a threat to global stability. The United States, he argued, was being drawn toward war not by choice, but by necessity — because free nations could not allow powerful states to seize resources, control trade routes, and intimidate others by force. Across Latin America, that speech is remembered not only as a prelude to Pearl Harbor, but as a declaration of principle: that nations, large or small, possess the right to commerce, sovereignty, and self-determination without fear of predation by empires. That is why current events feel both familiar and inverted. From the vantage point of Latin American societies, when U.S. forces strike ships, when oil is seized or “secured,” when assets are frozen and trade routes are controlled under military protection, the rhetoric emerging from Washington echoes the very behavior Roosevelt once condemned. The language has softened — stability, deterrence, enforcement of the international order — but the effect remains unchanged. Power is being used to determine access to resources and to dictate economic outcomes beyond U.S. borders. This pattern is instantly recognizable in Latin America, a region shaped by more than a century of foreign intervention. Gunboats once enforced customs houses. Oil nationalization was treated as provocation. Economic pressure replaced invasion, and “temporary measures” hardened into permanent leverage. When officials claim oil must be “kept,” ships must be seized for security, or trade must be controlled for the good of the world, reassurance is not what is heard. What is heard is precedent. In 1941, Roosevelt argued that Germany’s actions were dangerous not only because of ideology, but because of behavior — the normalization of force as a legitimate tool of economic control. He warned that allowing such conduct to stand would mean that might, not law, would govern international relations. That warning applies no less today. International law does not become flexible because the flag changes. The seizure of resources without consent does not become lawful because it is described as order rather than conquest. The control of shipping lanes does not become defensive simply because it is framed as preventative. From a Latin American perspective, the contradiction is impossible to ignore. When great powers violate the principles they once articulated, smaller nations are taught a dangerous lesson: that rules are temporary, morality is situational, and power ultimately answers only to itself. It is often said that today’s actions are different — limited, strategic, reluctant. That language is familiar as well. It was used when coups were described as stabilization, when embargoes were framed as humanitarian pressure, and when sovereignty was treated as negotiable. If another state were to strike ships and seize oil today, the response from Washington would be immediate and unequivocal. The actions would be labeled aggression. They would be condemned as threats to international order. Intent would not be carefully parsed. That double standard is the central issue. In 1941, the United States claimed moral authority by opposing the idea that force could justify economic domination. That claim helped shape the postwar world. But moral authority is not permanent; it must be sustained through consistency. Latin America does not demand perfection. It demands coherence. If the principles invoked in 1941 were valid then, they remain valid now. And if they no longer apply, the world is not witnessing a rules-based order, but a familiar hierarchy, updated for a new century. Empires rarely recognize themselves while speaking the language of restraint. Those who have lived under them usually do. History, after all, tends to look very different depending on which ships are struck — and whose oil is taken.
Christopher Leonard19,809 次观看 • 6 个月前
"We've seen evidence" - Vice President JD Vance JD Vance - Sounds a lot like Feb 2003 when Colin Powel said, "...every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we're giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. Dear Mr. Vice President, don't fall to the fate of history repeating. American citizens deserve better from you.
Christopher Leonard14,776 次观看 • 4 个月前
Today, 4-December, Retired Combat Veteran, COL. Douglas Macgregor called for Sec. Pete Hegseth and Admiral Bradley's suspension pending an investigation of the 2-Sept 'drug boat' strike and the murder of 2 survivors. Calling it not the "Fog of War", but the "Fog of Fear" given their remarks and actions following the strikes. Secretary of War Pete Hegseth President Donald J. Trump Douglas Macgregor
Christopher Leonard16,163 次观看 • 7 个月前
Hi Y'all..... That's how we say hello in the South. :) I've been doing this podcast thing for a while. Before that, I spent some time at iHeartMedia (28 years) - both in front of the camera and in the boardroom as an Executive. This clip I'm sharing with you today is the most PROFOUND and emotional experience I've ever heard. I'll say more once the episode is published. I hope you'll tune in. It's truly remarkable !!!! Catch the Premiere on Friday at 8pm EST... Martyr Made Scott Horton #Provoked
Christopher Leonard20,524 次观看 • 10 个月前
没有更多内容可加载