Author: Papa Giorgio

One Day Of Biden Gaffes (Hugh Hewitt)

Published by Papa Giorgio

As above/below:

I just wanted to share a couple posts about polls, the first is via POWERLINE:

It is an odd election season. Pretty much everyone thinks the Democrats are on their way to a crushing victory, yet it is hard to see why. A whopping 56% of Americans say they are better off now than they were four years ago, and President Trump draws large, enthusiastic crowds wherever he goes. Meanwhile, Joe Biden is a pale shell of his formerly buffoonish self. When Joe is able to get out of bed, his campaign schedules intimate invitation-only events. Supposedly this is because of COVID, but everyone knows it is really because he doesn’t want to be embarrassed by his inability to draw a crowd. Probably no one outside of Biden’s immediate family particularly wants him to be president.

So what is going on? One possibility is that the conventional wisdom is wrong. At TOWNHALL, Kevin McCullough, who has a pretty good record as an election forecaster, argues that we should believe our lying eyes:

To be exceedingly clear — I find no evidence of a Biden win outside of the media polls.

The candidates already know that the president is winning by a mile. President Trump can’t help but to continue to draw massive crowds (even while in the hospital.) Every weekend, in every state, in hundreds of cities bikers, truckers, boaters, horse and buggy people, and regular pedestrians are having larger and larger participation in various parades of support from Miami to Manhattan and from Beverly Hills to Capitol Hill. Meanwhile Biden has trouble getting more than a dozen to show up at a tour stop in Yuma. And we all know people who say “I didn’t vote for him then,” or “I wasn’t really sure about him in 2016,” who have converted to “I’ll crawl over broken glass to vote for him now.”

[….]

We can dream. Finally, here is McCullough’s predicted electoral map (the first graphic is his most updated prediction):

Not to pour cold water on a much-needed bit of optimism, but McCullough has Minnesota going for Trump. But it has been reported here that the Trump campaign has pulled all of its remaining television ads from Minnesota stations.

Still, we can dream.

Remember, Kevin McCullough called the map dead on in 2016. Okay, the next is from RED STATE

Mainstream media have been trumpeting a lot of the polls being for Joe Biden.

We’ve pointed out the problems of some of those polls and how there are the other polls, like the Democracy Institute poll, that find President Donald Trump ahead because they’re measuring likely voters not registered voters and they aren’t oversampling Democrats. Most are also not measuring things like the shy Trump voter or that the youth vote is again unlikely to come out in greater numbers.

But what’s missing in a lot of the discourse is that the measures apart from MSM national polls by which you judge whether a president will be reelected are all for Trump.

First there’s no indication of a youth voter surge, that’s bad for the Democrats who poll much higher with the young than other age groups.

As I already wrote about, Trump has a 51% approval rating from Zogby.

[….]

Gallup has found whenever the incumbent has over 50%, he’s reelected.

Gallup also found that 56% Americans thought they were better off now than four years ago under Barack Obama and Joe Biden. A reporter asked Joe Biden about that, he got snippy and said that if people thought that they didn’t have to vote for him and that their memories were somehow wrong.

The important thing to note? How high that number is for Trump and that all the prior president in 2012, 2004, 1992, 1984 who even had lower numbers were reelected.

[….]

David Chapman did a great Twitter thread of some of the other historical measures.

From Townhall:

“[N]o incumbent who has received at least 75% of the primary vote has lost re-election. Donald Trump received 94% of the primary vote, which is the 4th highest all-time. Higher than Eisenhower, Nixon, Clinton, and Obama.”

Oh, and it gets better.

“Three times in history America has faced a pandemic, recession, and civil unrest during an election year. The incumbent party is 3-0 in those elections,”

This tallies with the Helmut Norpoth prediction model that cites the importance of the primary numbers and also predicts a Trump win. People came out in droves for Trump in the primary when they didn’t even have to.

Want more? There’s more.

Every candidate who has led in voter enthusiasm since 1988 has won. Trump not only leads in voter enthusiasm, he leads by a lot, a 19 point enthusiasm gap….

(READ IT ALL)

Trump’s Taxes Were Legal!

Published by Papa Giorgio

After the news came out about Trump paying very low taxes in recent years, Larry Elder was left wondering: Where are all the people who are paying more in taxes than they’re legally required to? How would this possibly make sense to a businessman? Meanwhile, experts say there is nothing wrong with arranging your financial affairs to pay the lowest amount of taxes possible. Everyone does it, rich or poor. (See also: “NYTs Buries What Trump Paid in Taxes“)

How Government Caused “The Boy Crisis”

Published by Papa Giorgio

Author Warren Farrell says welfare programs encouraged fatherless households.

Warren Farrell, author of The Boy Crisis, was once associated with the feminist movement. Then he changed his views. “I don’t agree with the part of feminism that says, ‘Men are the oppressors and women are the oppressed,'” Farrell tells Maxim Lott, a senior producer of Stossel on Reason.

For example, men die five years earlier than women, have more dangerous jobs, and are often passed over for custody. Boys are two times more likely than girls to commit suicide. Boys are 29 percent less likely to get a college degree than girls.

So why do men earn more and have more influence in government and business? A big reason, Farrell argues, is that men are filling social expectations to become the family breadwinner.

“Our dads and our grandpas, they made sacrifices…to make more money, and then the feminist movement turned all of that sacrifice on the part of men against men,” Farrell says.

Both sexes struggle, but Farrell thinks the feminist movement’s single-sided focus on women’s inequalities has led to an atmosphere that harms boys. A dramatic increase in fatherless households—which Farrell believes is largely responsible for boys’ problems—goes ignored.

Study after study finds that having both a mother and father is best, at least for straight families. (Gay families may do just as well; Farrell notes that the overall evidence is inconclusive.) “Even when we control for the amount of money a father and mother earn, children with dads still do much better,” Farrell notes.

The rate of fatherless households has increased partly because of welfare programs that “tear the family apart by giving the money to mothers when fathers are absent,” Farrell argues, “and not giving money to mothers when fathers are present.”

Why would fatherless households hurt boys more than girls? “Boys tend to not have as many skills at developing friendships, at developing emotional connections,” Farrell says. “So when the family connection breaks apart, it affects them more profoundly than it does their sisters.”

Farrell says fathers are critical for several non-intuitive reasons. One is roughhousing, which teaches kids boundaries. Fathers roughhouse more than mothers, and when they do, “the father is creating a bond with the child, so the children don’t mind discipline….The discipline is the price they pay for more fun with dad.”

Many people think that mothers tend to be better parents because women are, on average, more empathetic and pay more attention to a child’s needs. But Farrell says this by itself is not enough, because “an empathetic parent does not create an empathetic child. An empathetic parent is someone who’s always thinking of the children’s needs, which teaches the children to always have his or her needs thought of.”

Requiring a child to think of others’ needs is what actually build empathy, Farrell says.

Finally, Farrell says that mothers are more likely to express their love for a child by doing things like homework for the kid. They’re more likely to engage in “helicopter parenting,” which leads to overly dependent kids.

What’s the solution to “the Boy Crisis”? Farrell says that society should offer more respect to men who focus on fathering rather than career success. He wishes there were more men in classrooms, and that schools would bring back things like recess.

The views expressed in this video are solely those of John Stossel, his independent production company, Stossel Productions, and the people he interviews. The claims and opinions set forth in the video and accompanying text are not necessarily those of Reason.

LeBron James Analyzes MVP “Narrative,” But Not Killer Cop Narrative

Published by Papa Giorgio

What’s up with these celebrities and athletes weighing in on police shootings and buying the narrative that police are out killing black people just because they’re black? For example, LeBron James has been very vocal about the Black Lives Matter movement. This year, James did not win the Most Valuable Player award, and he gave a thoughtful response, saying voters may have embraced a “narrative” instead of “really watching the game of basketball.” Why didn’t he use this type of analysis to study police interactions with black people?

Jason Whitlock Discusses BLM’s/Left’s Anti-Christianity

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jason Whitlock: “This has been the intent from Black Lives Matter from the very beginning. We’re seeing it reshape right before our eyes the hostility toward Christianity is overtaking the sports world and Kurt Beathard is paying the price… It’s a calculated, not an organic deal. This has been underway for years… You’ve got to usher out God to usher in immorality.”

The Bible vs. Andy Stanley (Updated)

Published by Papa Giorgio

I do wonder if Andy Stanley considers Trump, like he did Obama, a “pastor-in-chief.” But I like how REFORMATION CHARLOTTE puts it: “Andy Stanley’s Church Closing is a Blessing From God to His People, We Should Thank Him!” Heh, so true.

This is an updated post regarding the false teacher, Andy Stanley, with some more video by Wretched (above). But always the J. Gresham Machen’s portion comes first — with some video of the questionable sermons added as well:

J. Gresham Machen’s Christianity and Liberalism, first published in 1923, has shown amazing resiliency in the applicability of its message. When I heard Andy Stanley’s recent comments that we should stop asking, “What does the Bible say about that?” Machen’s words immediately came to mind. According to Stanley, that terrible question should be exchanged for, “What does the New Covenant teach?” or “Even better, what does Jesus teach?” because the two covenants conflict. Watch his comments here, or the full message entitled “Mix ‘N Match”. In light of Stanley’s teaching, read the quote below from Machen, but every time Machen writes about the modern liberal substitute the name Andy Stanley.

If the Christian make full use of his Christian privileges, he finds the seat of authority in the whole Bible, which he regards as no mere word of man but as the very Word of God. Very different is the view of modern liberalism. The modern liberal rejects not only the doctrine of plenary inspiration but even such respect for the Bible as would be proper over against any ordinarily trustworthy book. But what is substituted for the Christian view of the Bible? What is the liberal view as to the seat of authority in religion?

The impression is sometimes produced that the modern liberal substitutes for the authority of the Bible the authority of Christ. He cannot accept, he says, what he regards as the perverse moral teaching of the Old Testament or the sophistical arguments of Paul. But he regards himself as being the true Christian because, rejecting the rest of the Bible, he depends upon Jesus alone.

This impression, however, is utterly false. The modern liberal does not really hold to the authority of Jesus. Even if he did so, indeed, he would still be impoverishing greatly his knowledge of God and of the way of salvation.

The words of Jesus, spoken during His earthly ministry, could hardly contain all that we need to know about God and about the way of salvation; for the meaning of Jesus’ redeeming work could hardly be fully set forth before that work was done. It could be set forth indeed by way of prophecy, and as a matter of fact, it was so set forth by Jesus even in the days of His flesh. But the full explanation could naturally be given only after the work was done. And such was actually the divine method. It is doing despite, not only to the Spirit of God but also to Jesus Himself, to regard the teaching of the Holy Spirit, given through the apostles, as at all inferior in authority to the teaching of Jesus.

As a matter of fact, however, the modern liberal does not hold fast even to the authority of Jesus. Certainly, he does not accept the words of Jesus as they are recorded in the Gospels. For among the recorded words of Jesus are to be found just those things which are most abhorrent to the modern liberal Church, and in His recorded words Jesus also points forward to the fuller revelation which was afterwards to be given through His apostles. Evidently, therefore, those words of Jesus which are to be regarded as authoritative by modern liberalism must first be selected from the mass of the recorded words by a critical process. The critical process is certainly very difficult, and the suspicion often arises that the critic is retaining as genuine words of the historical Jesus only those words which conform to his own preconceived ideas. But even after the sifting process has been completed, the liberal scholar is still unable to accept as authoritative all the sayings of Jesus; he must finally admit that even the “historical” Jesus as reconstructed by modern historians said some things that are untrue.

So much is usually admitted. But, it is maintained, although not everything that Jesus said is true, His central “life-purpose” is still to be regarded as regulative for the Church. But what then was the life-purpose of Jesus? According to the shortest, and if modern criticism be accepted, the earliest of the Gospels, the Son of Man “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many” (Mk. 10:45). Here the vicarious death is put as the “life-purpose” of Jesus. Such an utterance must, of course, be pushed aside by the modern liberal Church.

The truth is that the life-purpose of Jesus discovered by modern liberalism is not the life-purpose of the real Jesus, but merely represents those elements in the teaching of Jesus—isolated and misinterpreted—which happen to agree with the modern program. It is not Jesus, then, who is the real authority, but the modern principle by which the selection within Jesus’ recorded teaching has been made. Certain isolated ethical principles of the Sermon on the Mount are accepted, not at all because they are teachings of Jesus, but because they agree with modern ideas.

It is not true at all, then, that modern liberalism is based upon the authority of Jesus. It is obliged to reject a vast deal that is absolutely essential in Jesus’ example and teaching—notably His consciousness of being the heavenly Messiah. The real authority, for liberalism, can only be “the Christian consciousness” or “Christian experience.” But how shall the findings of the Christian consciousness be established? Surely not by a majority vote of the organized Church. Such a method would obviously do away with all liberty of conscience. The only authority, then, can be individual experience; truth can only be that which “helps” the individual man. Such an authority is obviously no authority at all; for individual experience is endlessly diverse, and when once truth is regarded only as that which works at any particular time, it ceases to be truth. The result is an abysmal skepticism.

The Christian man, on the other hand, finds in the Bible the very Word of God. Let it not be said that dependence upon a book is a dead or an artificial thing. The Reformation of the sixteenth century was founded upon the authority of the Bible, yet it set the world aflame. Dependence upon a word of man would be slavish, but dependence upon God’s word is life. Dark and gloomy would be the world, if we were left to our own devices, and had no blessed Word of God. The Bible, to the Christian, is not a burdensome law, but the very Magna Charta of Christian liberty.

It is no wonder, then, that liberalism is totally different from Christianity, for the foundation is different. Christianity is founded upon the Bible. It bases upon the Bible both its thinking and its life. Liberalism, on the other hand, is founded upon the shifting emotions of sinful men.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1923), 64-66. (FREE HERE)

(PRINCE ON PREACHING)

EVANGELICAL DARK-WEB

The Evangelical Dark Web exposes Andy Stanley’s heretical worldview. Andy Stanley is a pastor at one of America’s largest megachurches 5th according to Wikipedia, #1 according to Outreach. His influence on the evangelical church is perhaps second to none. As a result many, Christians and churches are influenced by his teachings. This video is intended to be a concise way to show fellow believers that Andy Stanley is a wolf in sheep’s clothing.

UNBELIEVABLE

[Editor’s note: I think the main issue is shown well at the 1hr-2-min and 25 second mark] Don’t miss this very special event! Tell the world! Andy Stanley and Jeff Durbin spend time discussing Andy’s book, “Irresistable”. They have a radio debate on the “Unbelievable Radio” program with Justin Brierley. Andy has claimed that we should “unhitch” the Old Testament from the New Testament. He claims that we the Old Testament Law (like the 10-commandments) is not binding upon Christians, today. In this radio show, Andy and Jeff discuss apologetic methodology (how to defend the faith) and whether or not the Law of God in the Old Testament is relevant for Christians, today.

FIGHTING FOR THE FAITH

Andy Stanley Denies the 10 Commandments (and the Old Testament)

 

The Exodus From The Golden State (Red States vs. Blue)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(UPDATED)

We’re supposed to be the United States of America. But in many ways, we’re now divided into two very different nations: red states and blue states. Which ones are succeeding? Which ones are failing? And why? To answer these questions, economist Stephen Moore compares them side-by-side.

Why are millions of people leaving California and moving to other states? What do those states have that California doesn’t? PragerU’s first mini-documentary explores the root causes of this mass exodus from the Golden State. “Fleeing California,” featuring PragerU’s own Will Witt, sheds light on one of the most significant but underreported stories of our time.

Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talks to Bryan Callen (Actor, Comedian, Podcaster) about Americans desire for Socialism, the ignoring of black conservatives who don’t think what they’re supposed to and if leaving California is what all Los Angeles residents should consider. Bryan talks about whether leaving California or staying and fighting is the best option. Under the leadership of people like Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Eric Garcetti he has seen the homeless encampments near his home in Venice grow year after year while the state income tax goes higher and higher. Is fleeing California and their high taxes to move to Texas or Florida the only option left to escape California’s inevitable financial crisis from it’s wasteful spending, and endless chants of “tax the rich”? (FULL INTERVIEW HERE)

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk

It used to be the California Dream. Now, it’s the California nightmare. That was basic.

In case you haven’t heard, a TON of people are fleeing California. You can’t blame them. We’ll get into all the reasons why later, but the overall theme here is – California kinda sucks now.
A total of 691,321 people moved from California to another state last year. That’s more than the whole state of Wyoming – every single year!

And that was more than the previous year. It’s like a damn breaking and all the California people are spilling out all over the place.

Sure, there are a lot of people moving here, too. About a half million people decided to move to California last year, for whatever reason I don’t know. Maybe cause it’s warmer? Or for a job maybe.

Anyways, the negative migration was the 9th year in a row for California. There are only a handful of other states that can claim that.

(You can find more on my YouTube about California’s woes) California is the one of the most beautiful states in the union, however, its high taxes, excessive regulations on business, high cost of living, and out of control housing market has forced much of the middle class to move to other states. We show the stats of why people are leaving in droves out of CA and show where they are going through in this documentary of The Golden State.

A followup video to our “Leaving California,” above.

hhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

ppppppppppp

ppppppppppppp

BONUS: The Salton Sea

What happened to the Salton Sea in California? In my first travel documentary about this strange yet fascinating place in California’s Imperial Valley, I explore the sea and surrounding communities of Bombay Beach, Slab City, East Jesus, and Salton City. The area was also the inspiration for the fictional desert town of Sandy Shores which appears in the popular video game Grand Theft Auto V and Grand Theft Auto Online. In the game, Trevor Philips acquires a small landing strip in the area which may be in reference to the Salton City airport. I encourage you to read more about the lake’s history and the current ecological crisis it has become. You can find an interesting article written by Ian James and Sammy Roth on USA Today here: THE DYING SALTON SEA

 

Larry Elder vs. Michelle Obama (Or, Reason/Evidence vs. Rhetoric/Lies)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder goes through the most recent “pro-Biden Screed” by Michelle Obama. Larry Elder lays out a negative and positive case for Trump… but even with Trump’s negatives, he is far better than Biden [now] and Hillary [previously]. Let me say also, while I can tell when Prager gets mad about a subject… people show anger in differing ways. I believe this is about the most upset that I have heard Larry on a topic. It may not sound like it — but I have been listening to the many for YEARS.

Hugh Hewitt Touches On MSMs Meltdown Over Trump

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt goes over some MSM craziness after Trump’s coming back to the While House. CNN and MSNBC lead the way in their out-of-control rhetoric.

Larry Elder Debunks Media’s Latest Lies (“Hoax” Lie)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(An older two posts somewhat combined with a new Tweet added by Robby Starbuck)

Larry Elder goes through the lies of the media and Democrats saying Trump called the Coronavirus a hoax. Democrat politicians and the Media (and some #NeverTrumpers) continue to spread this untruth, like they did the Charlottesville Lie and the lie that Trump made fun of a man’s handicap. The other DOUBLE-STANDARD by the media is that they themselves called the Coronavirus the Chinese Virus or Wuhan Virus themselves. When the “Bad Orange Man” used it they switched gears and said it was racist.

Here are some posts I think are worthy to compliment the audio:

  • Fact Check: Did Trump Call Coronavirus a ‘Hoax’? (DAILY SIGNAL)
  • Media Claim Trump Called Coronavirus A ‘Hoax.’ But Video Shows That’s Not What Trump Said at All (THE BLAZE)
  • Woke Media Calls Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ Racist After Using Term ‘Wuhan Virus’ (THE FEDERALIST)
  • [WATCH] 35 Times the Media Said ‘Wuhan Coronavirus’ or ‘Chinese Coronavirus’ (PJ-MEDIA)

Click on the graphic to open it, then click on the graphic to enlarge it. This comes via Robby Starbuck:

Democrats and the media (and #NeverTrumpers) try to say that the Trump administration refused and slowed test kits for the Wuhan Virus (COVID-19). This just is not the case, as the interview Larry Elder excerpts from between Dr. Anthony Fauci and Hugh Hewitt (YOUTUBE) shows clearly.

BONUS

The media and Democrats push false Trump coronavirus narrative.

AMERICAN THINKER runs some good Tweets by Steve Guest (You can find the entire Twitter thread HERE):

MUZZLED?! CUT FUNDING?!

When the AP fact-checks Democrats… you know its bad. More from an earlier AMERICAN THINKER article:

…To set the stage, here are a few indisputable facts:

On January 31, 2020, as China confirmed that 259 people had died and there were about 100 cases reported outside of China, President Trump ordered that the U.S. would prevent foreign nationals who had recently visited China from entering the country. He also ordered quarantined American travelers who posed a high risk.  

Democrats called Trump a racist.

Democrats were worried that Trump’s germ phobia would make him issue even more and worse racist orders.

President Trump held a press conference during which (1) he was surrounded by government scientists who explained what was going on (2) he appointed Vice President Pence, a competent, experienced administrator, to be the White House point person on coronavirus efforts.

Democrats called Pence a killer.

Democrats also announced that henceforth they would call coronavirus “TrumpVirus” because Trump had appointed Pence to oversee the administrative end of dealing with coronavirus and because Trump said there was no need for panic.

Nancy Pelosi complained that Trump had waited too long to act, even though when she spoke not a single American had died.

Elizabeth Warren said that she would end the “racist” border wall by taking all wall funds and putting them into coronavirus research (never mind that, since time immemorial, sealing borders has been one of the prime ways in which governments have been able to protect their citizens from epidemic disease).

Trump stated during the rally in South Carolina that the Democrats’ unceasing and dishonest attacks against him for his handling of the coronavirus risk were their latest hoax.

The media reported that Trump had declared that coronavirus itself was a hoax, one of the most blatantly dishonest bits of reporting ever to come from the media.

Leftists are actively hoping that coronavirus causes so much economic disruption that it will hurt Trump politically – never mind that it will also hurt ordinary Americans….