Author: Papa Giorgio

RPT’s 2020 General Election Voter Guide

Published by Papa Giorgio

I may update if I come across new information, but, for the most part everyone is on the same page. I disagreed with John and Ken on prop 18, that was it.

RESOURCES USED:

Here is the PDF printable/download for those that wish to have a hard copy.

SAMPLE BALLOT

Newhall

SANTA CLARITA CITY GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION

MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL

  • Cameron M. Smyth
  • and, Jason Gibbs

STATE SENATOR

  • 21st District — Scott Wilk

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY

  • 38th District — Suzette Martinez Valladares

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE

  • 25th District — Mike Garcia

SANTA CLARITA VALLEY WATER AGENCY

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, DIVISION 1

  • Gary R. Martin
  • and, Karla Waymire

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  • Jackie Lacey

OFFICE 72

  • Steve Morgan

OFFICE 80

(WRITE-IN Candidate if not on ballot)

  • Nick C. Rini

OFFICE 162

  • David D. Diamond

MEASURE J

NO

PROPOSITION 14

NO

PROPOSITION 15

NO

PROPOSITION 16

NO

PROPOSITION 17

NO

PROPOSITION 18

NO

PROPOSITION 19

NO

PROPOSITION 20

YES

PROPOSITION 21

NO

PROPOSITION 22

YES

PROPOSITION 23

NO

PROPOSITION 24

NO

PROPOSITION 25

NO

FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

DONALD J. TRUMP

SAME but MORE

Major Races and Campaigns

FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

DONALD J. TRUMP

CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE BALLOT MEASURES:

PROPOSITION 14 – The California Stem Cell Research, TreatmeMs, and Cures Initiative of 2020

NO

PROPOSITION 15 – The California School and Local Communities Funding Act of 2020

NO

PROPOSITION 17 – Voting Rights Restoration for Persons on Parole Amendment

NO

PROPOSITION 18 – Primary Voting for 17-Year-Olds Amendment

  • JOHN and KEN say YES (here is their reasoning): What’s that line? If an 18 year old is old enough to be drafted , then why can’t he vote ? Or buy liquor? Ah, 17 is close enough . Not all will qualify and most won’t vote anyways.
  • THE HOWARD JARVIS TAXPAYERS ASSOCIATION says NO to the measure (here is their reasoning): Proposition 18 would change the voting age in California to allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries and special elections if they will turn 18 by the date of the next general election. While some states allow this, California is different than other states because under Prop. 13 and Prop. 218, tax increases must go on the ballot for voter approval. These proposed tax increases are frequently on primary and special election ballots. Proposition 18 would allow high school students to vote on tax increases. This is unwise. The voting age in California should not be changed. VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 18.

I SAY NO

PROPOSITION 19 – Property Tax Transfers, Exemptions, and Revenue for Wildfire Agencies and Counties Amendment

NO

PROPOSITION 20 – Criminal Sentencing, Parole, and DNA Collection Initiative

YES

PROPOSITION 21 – Local Rent Control Initiative

NO

PROPOSITION 22 – App-Based Drivers as Contractors and Labor Policies Initiative

YES

PROPOSITION 23 – Dialysis Clinic Requirements Initiative

NO

PROPOSITION 24 – Consumer Personal Information Law and Agency Initiative

NO

PROPOSITION 25 – Replace Cash Bail with Risk Assessments Referendum

NO

LOS ANGELES COUNTY BALLOT MEASURES:

MEASURE RR – School Upgrades and Safety Measure

NO

MEASURE J -Community Investment and Alternatives to Incarceration Minimum County Budget Allocation

NO

SELECT POLITICAL OFFICE RACES

US HOUSE – CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT # 25

  • MIKE GARCIA

STATE LEGISLATURE – STATE SENATE DISTRICT # 21

  • SCOTT WILK

Superior Court Judges

OFFICE 17

  • Shannon Kathleen Cooley [uncontested]

OFFICE 42

  • Robert Villa

OFFICE 72

  • Steve Morgan

OFFICE 76

  • Emily Cole

OFFICE 80

  • Nick C. Rini

OFFICE 97

  • Timothy D. Reuben

OFFICE 129

  • Mark MacCarley

OFFICE 131

  • Michelle Kelley [uncontested]

OFFICE 141

  • Lana Kim [uncontested]

OFFICE 145

  • Troy Slaten [perfect score BTW]

OFFICE 150

  • Manuel Alejandro Almada

OFFICE 162

  • David D. Diamond

Supervisor

LOS ANGELES SEAT #

2: Albert Robles

4: No Recommendation

5: Kathryn Barger

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  • Jackie Lacey

 

38th District FACEBOOK Post

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Free the Freelancers (Prager U)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Editor’S Note: this is a prime example of when the Left says “we want to help protect you” they often use language to get you to think they are helping… when in fact they are hurting the same people they purport to wish to help. Which is why President Reagan’s quip is so true — because it enumerates what our Constitutional republic was founded to protect us from:
  • The most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the government and I’m here to help. — Ronald Reagan

I truly believe Reagan was influenced partially by C.S. Lewis in this thinking:

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.”

C.S. Lewis, God in the Dock (Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans, 2002), 292.

Which is why voting YES on Prop 22 is a must!

What’s the best way to protect the rights of workers? Let them determine their own job preferences, or mandate that companies provide them with certain protections? California has chosen to take the latter path. Has it worked? Is it a victory for workers, or a debilitating defeat? Patrice Onwuka of the Independent Women’s Forum looks into these questions. Her findings may surprise you. For more information on Independent Women’s Forum, go to iwf.org/AB5

Dennis Prager Interviews Proud Boys Leader, Enrique Tarrio

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager interviews Enrique Tarrio, the co-founder of the Proud Boys. (BLUE COLLAR LOGIC has a good “origins” story of the Proud Boys):

It’s a lie they are white supremacists — one of the media’s ???? lies. THE WASHINGTON TIMES has a good article: “Black Professor Insists ‘Proud Boys Aren’t White Supremacists’ As Trump Takes Flak”.

  • “We’ve been called many names, but probably the most inaccurate name you can call us is white supremacists,” Tarrio said. (WESTERN JOURNAL)
  • 10% to 20% of Proud Boys activists are people of color…. “I’m a person of color, I’m a brown person, I’m chairman of the organization.” (WASHINGTON TIMES)
  • “Many people use us as political cannon fodder,” Tarrio said. “It’s right before the election. The country has been rioting for four-plus months, and it is left-wing anarchists that are going out and burning down cities, and liberal politicians, Democratic politicians, need a boogeyman.” (CHRISTIAN POST)

I Laughed So Hard To This! (Humorous Political Chicanery)

Published by Papa Giorgio

This is one of the best this political season!

And another favorite….

(Via 100% FED-UP)

Click to enlarge if needed.

Capitalism or Socialism: Which One Is More Democratic? (Prager U)

Published by Papa Giorgio

What is the difference between free-market capitalism and democratic socialism? And which system is actually more fair and responsive to the needs of the people? Here’s a hint: names can be deceiving. Dinesh D’Souza has the answers.

Even Glenn Greenwald Gets Censored (Armstrong and Getty)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Armstrong and Getty cover Glenn Greenwald resigning from the “free speech” news outlet he founded. The article mentioned them of Glenn’s is this one: “Article on Joe and Hunter Biden Censored By The Intercept”. [As an aside, I added MUCH MORE of the Tucker interview.]:

In Glenn’s article, this stood out (SUBSTACK):

….The U.S. media often laments that people have lost faith in its pronouncements, that they are increasingly viewed as untrustworthy and that many people view Fake News sites are more reliable than established news outlets. They are good at complaining about this, but very bad at asking whether any of their own conduct is responsible for it.

A media outlet that renounces its core function — pursuing answers to relevant questions about powerful people — is one that deserves to lose the public’s faith and confidence. And that is exactly what the U.S. media, with some exceptions, attempted to do with this story: they took the lead not in investigating these documents but in concocting excuses for why they should be ignored.

As my colleague Lee Fang put it on Sunday: “The partisan double standards in the media are mind boggling this year, and much of the supposedly left independent media is just as cowardly and conformist as the mainstream corporate media. Everyone is reading the room and acting out of fear.” Discussing his story from Sunday, Taibbi summed up the most important point this way: “The whole point is that the press loses its way when it cares more about who benefits from information than whether it’s true.”

For more by Glenn see here:  as well as his TWITTER

MSM and Social Media Censorship Allows for Massaging Outcomes

Published by Papa Giorgio

Armstrong and Getty make a notable point that by censoring news stories to one segment of the population (here, the Left: CNN, MSNBC, NYTs, WaPo, NPR, Twitter, Facebook, etc) allows time for the “massaging” of “how” the MSM will present the story to it’s readership. It is a way to push a narrative rather than allow the facts of the case to get to the people and then allow the people to decide for themselves what the deal is. Good stuff.

Here is just one example of a narrative that was attempted — but failed to those that want to know or chase the truth. Sadly however, the people who simply hear headlines probably still think this story to be how it was first encapsulated: “The Media Narrative About the Portland Stabber Crumbles“

TUCKER

‘Tucker Carlson Tonight’ host discusses the Hunter Biden story and media bias.

Joe Biden Is Not Moderate… Kamala Proves It

Published by Papa Giorgio

Larry Elder recaps 60-minutes discussing Kamala’s leftist ideology. Here is a list of most right to most left… even NEWSWEEK opines, “Democratic California Senator Kamala Harris, was ranked as being more liberal than Democratic Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the congressperson often considered the furthest left within the Democratic caucus.”

Here is the list via GOV-TRACK:

MOST POLITICALLY RIGHT

  1. 1.00 Sen. Marsha Blackburn [R-TN]
  2. 0.96 Sen. Joni Ernst [R-IA]
  3. 0.91 Sen. Mike Braun [R-IN]
  4. 0.91 Sen. Ted Cruz [R-TX]
  5. 0.91 Sen. James “Jim” Inhofe [R-OK]
  6. 0.91 Sen. Kevin Cramer [R-ND]
  7. 0.90 Sen. Tom Cotton [R-AR]
  8. 0.90 Sen. John Cornyn [R-TX]
  9. 0.89 Sen. James Risch [R-ID]
  10. 0.88 Sen. Marco Rubio [R-FL]
  11. 0.88 Sen. Mike Rounds [R-SD]
  12. 0.88 Sen. James Lankford [R-OK]
  13. 0.87 Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith [R-MS]
  14. 0.87 Sen. David Perdue [R-GA]
  15. 0.86 Sen. Thom Tillis [R-NC]
  16. 0.85 Sen. Pat Roberts [R-KS]
  17. 0.84 Sen. Roger Wicker [R-MS]
  18. 0.84 Sen. John Barrasso [R-WY]
  19. 0.84 Sen. John Boozman [R-AR]
  20. 0.84 Sen. John Kennedy [R-LA]
  21. 0.84 Sen. Michael Crapo [R-ID]
  22. 0.84 Sen. Steve Daines [R-MT]
  23. 0.83 Sen. Rick Scott [R-FL]
  24. 0.83 Sen. Michael Enzi [R-WY]
  25. 0.83 Sen. Roy Blunt [R-MO]
  26. 0.83 Sen. John Hoeven [R-ND]
  27. 0.82 Sen. Tim Scott [R-SC]
  28. 0.82 Sen. Deb Fischer [R-NE]
  29. 0.80 Sen. Joshua Hawley [R-MO]
  30. 0.79 Sen. Jerry Moran [R-KS]
  31. 0.76 Sen. Bill Cassidy [R-LA]
  32. 0.76 Sen. John Thune [R-SD]
  33. 0.75 Sen. John “Johnny” Isakson [R-GA, 2005-2019]
  34. 0.75 Sen. Martha McSally [R-AZ]
  35. 0.74 Sen. Todd Young [R-IN]
  36. 0.74 Sen. Benjamin Sasse [R-NE]
  37. 0.74 Sen. Shelley Capito [R-WV]
  38. 0.73 Sen. Cory Gardner [R-CO]
  39. 0.72 Sen. Mitt Romney [R-UT]
  40. 0.71 Sen. Ron Johnson [R-WI]
  41. 0.71 Sen. Patrick “Pat” Toomey [R-PA]
  42. 0.71 Sen. Dan Sullivan [R-AK]
  43. 0.71 Sen. Charles “Chuck” Grassley [R-IA]
  44. 0.70 Sen. Mike Lee [R-UT]
  45. 0.70 Sen. Lindsey Graham [R-SC]
  46. 0.69 Sen. Lamar Alexander [R-TN]
  47. 0.69 Sen. Kyrsten Sinema [D-AZ]
  48. 0.65 Sen. Rand Paul [R-KY]
  49. 0.64 Sen. Mitch McConnell [R-KY]
  50. 0.64 Sen. Doug Jones [D-AL]
  51. 0.64 Sen. Robert “Rob” Portman [R-OH]
  52. 0.62 Sen. Richard Burr [R-NC]
  53. 0.59 Sen. Joe Manchin [D-WV]
  54. 0.56 Sen. Susan Collins [R-ME]
  55. 0.56 Sen. Richard Shelby [R-AL]
  56. 0.50 Sen. Lisa Murkowski [R-AK]
  57. 0.48 Sen. Jon Tester [D-MT]
  58. 0.45 Sen. Angus King [I-ME]
  59. 0.44 Sen. Chris Coons [D-DE]
  60. 0.42 Sen. Gary Peters [D-MI]
  61. 0.42 Sen. Margaret “Maggie” Hassan [D-NH]
  62. 0.40 Sen. Mark Warner [D-VA]
  63. 0.34 Sen. Jeanne Shaheen [D-NH]
  64. 0.34 Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
  65. 0.32 Sen. Michael Bennet [D-CO]
  66. 0.32 Sen. Jacky Rosen [D-NV]
  67. 0.31 Sen. Maria Cantwell [D-WA]
  68. 0.29 Sen. Robert “Bob” Casey [D-PA]
  69. 0.28 Sen. Charles “Chuck” Schumer [D-NY]
  70. 0.28 Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
  71. 0.28 Sen. Robert “Bob” Menendez [D-NJ]
  72. 0.28 Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto [D-NV]
  73. 0.28 Sen. Benjamin Cardin [D-MD]
  74. 0.26 Sen. Tammy Duckworth [D-IL]
  75. 0.26 Sen. Elizabeth Warren [D-MA]
  76. 0.26 Sen. Timothy “Tim” Kaine [D-VA]
  77. 0.24 Sen. Martin Heinrich [D-NM]
  78. 0.23 Sen. Tammy Baldwin [D-WI]|
  79. 0.22 Sen. Brian Schatz [D-HI]
  80. 0.22 Sen. Debbie Stabenow [D-MI]
  81. 0.21 Sen. Patty Murray [D-WA]
  82. 0.21 Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D-CA]
  83. 0.21 Sen. Patrick Leahy [D-VT]
  84. 0.20 Sen. Christopher Murphy [D-CT]
  85. 0.18 Sen. Tina Smith [D-MN]
  86. 0.17 Sen. Ron Wyden [D-OR]
  87. 0.17 Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
  88. 0.16 Sen. Sherrod Brown [D-OH]
  89. 0.16 Sen. John “Jack” Reed [D-RI]
  90. 0.16 Sen. Chris Van Hollen [D-MD]
  91. 0.15 Sen. Richard Durbin [D-IL]
  92. 0.14 Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
  93. 0.12 Sen. Richard Blumenthal [D-CT]
  94. 0.10 Sen. Edward “Ed” Markey [D-MA]
  95. 0.09 Sen. Mazie Hirono [D-HI]
  96. 0.07 Sen. Cory Booker [D-NJ]
  97. 0.07 Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
  98. 0.03 Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
  99. 0.02 Sen. Bernard “Bernie” Sanders [I-VT]
  100. 0.00 Sen. Kamala Harris [D-CA]

THE MOST POLITICALLY LEFT

 

More Reasons To Be Excited About Super Tuesday

Published by Papa Giorgio

I just wanted to add some portion of a post I recently read to support the post of mine here, “One Day Of Biden Gaffes (Hugh Hewitt),” in which Kevin McCullough predicts Trump winning by 331 on the  Electoral Map. Here is AMERICAN THINKER’S article:

Two more hints [excerpts] that should make the optimist about 2020 happy.

….As things stand, Trump has a clear path to victory. But, in my humble opinion, it’s much more likely that Trump wins big than loses — even with “polls” showing Biden up by 15%.

I find that the data shows that Trump is likely keep all his 2016 states and win Minnesota and New Hampshire. Additionally, it is highly likely that Nevada, Colorado, and Virginia are in play. This could land him 35 states and an overwhelming victory in the popular vote. Here is why:  

  • Republican Support: 77% (2016) vs. 96% (projected 2020). That’s 10,000,000 votes!
  • Evangelical Christians: 81% (2016) vs. 90% (projected 2020)
  • Hispanics: 28% (2016) vs. 36.5% (projected in 2020). A potential swing of 8.8 million from 2016.
  • Catholics: 45% (2016) vs. 53% (projected 2020). A potential swing of 12.4 million votes from 2016.
  • Black vote: 8% (2016) vs. 15% (projected 2020). A potential swing of 6.8 million votes from 2016. 

Any of these projections coming half-true would guarantee the President a victory. A combination would lead to a landslide.  

On the flip side, Democrats that lost in 2016 have struggled to grow their voter base in large part because they focus on marginal groups and those with low turnout. 

Democrat support for Antifa and defunding the police has alienated significant portions of key swing demographics like African Americans, Hispanics, union workers, and suburban women. Enthusiasm has been further dampened with the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court. Securing a 6-3 conservative majority for the next 20 years one week before the election will do that.

What is Joe Biden’s base? He has no base. That is why nobody shows up when he appears in public.

So, the map itself looks favorable for Trump despite what the mainstream media tells you……

The DAILY WIRE has an interesting post suggesting another “shotcaller” in 2016 that was one of the few that predicted Trump’s win. Here is a portion of that article:

….Most presidential pollsters blew the call in 2016.

But Trafalgar Group chief pollster Robert Cahaly got it mostly right. His group’s polling in 2016 showed Donald Trump leading Hillary Clinton in key battleground states like Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan on the eve of the election. Trump won all three, despite most polls saying he would lose the states.

Now, Cahaly says Trump is poised to do it again and will top the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win re-election.

“I see the president winning with a minimum of high 270s and possibly going up significantly higher based on just how big this undercurrent is,” Cahaly said on Fox News.

“What we’ve noticed is that these polls are predominantly missing the hidden Trump vote, what [we] refer to as the shy Trump voter,” he said. “There is a clear feeling among conservatives and people that are for the president that they’re not interested in sharing their opinions so readily on the telephone. We’ve seen people be beat up, harassed, doxed, have their houses torn up because they expressed political opinions that are not in line with the politically correct establishment. And so, these people are more hesitant to … participate in polls. So if you’re not compensating for this, if you’re not trying to give them a poll that they can participate in … you’re not going to get honest answers.”

His hypothesis is supported by polls. A survey in July by Monmouth University of 401 Pennsylvania voters found that a majority of voters think there are Trump supporters out there who aren’t being counted.

“The media consistently reports that Biden is in the lead, but voters remember what happened in 2016. The specter of a secret Trump vote looms large in 2020,” said Patrick Murray, director of the independent Monmouth University Polling Institute.

“Most voters (57%) believe there are a number of so-called secret voters in their communities who support Trump but won’t tell anyone about it. Less than half that number (27%) believe there are secret voters for Biden. The suspicion that a secret Trump vote exists is slightly higher in swing counties (62%) and Clinton counties (61%) than in Trump counties (51%),” the pollsters wrote.

The Trafalgar group’s poll of 1,051 likely voters from Oct. 14-16 shows Biden leading Trump in Wisconsin by just over 1 percentage point, 47.5% to 46.3%. Other Trafalgar group polls show Trump ahead of Biden by 1 percentage point in Michigan, 2 points in Florida, and 4 points in both Arizona and Ohio, according to October surveys.…

I would hope to throw a little love in the faces of a FB rival’s confidence…

Hunter Biden’s CEO, Tony Bobulinski, Speaks Out

Published by Papa Giorgio

Tony Bobulinski will attend Thursday night’s debate as guest of President Trump.

JONATHAN TURLEY [Lefty Legal Scholar] notes this about Tony Bobulinski giving AMPLE evidence of who “the big guy” is:

A former business partner to Hunter Biden, Tony Bobulinski, has made a bombshell statement that not only are the emails on the Biden laptop authentic but the reference to giving a cut to “the big guy” was indeed a reference to former Vice President Joe Biden. More emails are emerging that show Hunter Biden referring to his family as his asset in these dealings.

The emails that have attracted the most attention refer to an actual meeting of Joe  Biden with these foreign figures and one referring to a proposed equity split of “20” for “H” and “10 held by H for the big guy?” Bobulinski confirms that “H” was used for Hunter Biden and that his father was routinely called “the big guy” in these discussions.

Another email Bobulinski being instructed by James Gilliar not to make any mention of the former veep’s involvement: “Don’t mention Joe being involved, it’s only when u [sic] are face to face, I know u [sic] know that but they are paranoid.”

 Bobulinski said he was brought on as CEO by Hunter Biden and James Gilliar and stated that he believes Joe Biden was lying in denying any knowledge of these dealings, stating Hunter “frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals.”  He added that “The Biden family aggressively leveraged the Biden family name to make millions of dollars from foreign entities even though some were from communist controlled China.”

His statement reads in part:

I am the CEO of Sinohawk Holdings which was a partnership between the Chinese operating through CEFC/Chairman Ye and the Biden family. I was brought into the company to be the CEO by James Gilliar and Hunter Biden. The reference to “the Big Guy” in the much publicized May 13, 2017 email is in fact a reference to Joe Biden. The other “JB” referenced in that email is Jim Biden, Joe’s brother.

Hunter Biden called his dad ‘the Big Guy’ or ‘my Chairman,’ and frequently referenced asking him for his sign-off or advice on various potential deals that we were discussing. I’ve seen Vice President Biden saying he never talked to Hunter about his business. I’ve seen firsthand that that’s not true, because it wasn’t just Hunter’s business, they said they were putting the Biden family name and its legacy on the line.

I realized the Chinese were not really focused on a healthy financial ROI. They were looking at this as a political or influence investment. Once I realized that Hunter wanted to use the company as his personal piggy bank by just taking money out of it as soon as it came from the Chinese, I took steps to prevent that from happening.

This is obviously just one side and the documents do not show a direct role or benefit for Joe Biden. However, it would seem that between the FBI statement and this witness statement, there is ample foundation for media scrutiny.  Yet, organizations like NPR has dismissed the story on Thursday as a “distraction.”….