Author: Papa Giorgio

RPT’s Primary Voter Guide for 11/5/24 (Pinned Post)

Published by Papa Giorgio

RESOURCES USED FOR MY VOTER GUIDE:

Here is my downloadable and printable PDF:

RPTs 2024 Primary Election Voter Guide (PLUS)

I include the Santa Clarita Women Republican Association’s guide as page 2 of the printout. Why? Because I fashion mine off my Newhall ballot… ballots vary slightly for our areas. So the SCV GOP ladies will assist in some minor differences. Best practice is to print on both sides so you have one sheet to bring with you.

Also note, every guide was spot on the same, except for JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 135.  All the guides had Steven Mac as their choice. But the source I have used the longest and trust to the point that I even donate to, had Georgia Huerta as their choice. So that is my choice as well.

Here is the post form of my guide:

VOTER GUIDE

CITY/LOCAL

SANTA CLARITA CITY GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION Member of the City Council District 1

  • I am voting Patsy Ayala (Tim Burkhart is a good choice as well)

STATE SENATOR, 23rd District

  • Suzzette Martinez Valladares

MEMBER OF THE STATE ASSEMBLY, 40TH District

  • Patrick Lee Gibson

UNITED STATES REPRESENTATIVE, 27th District

  • Mike Garcia

DISTRICT

SANTA CLARITA WATER AGENCY Member, Board of Directors, Division 1 [Vote for no more than two]

  • Gary Martin & Dan Masnada

[District Measure] FIRE PROTECTION SPECIAL TAX MEASURE ELECTION – MEASURE E

  • NO

COUNTY

DISTRICT ATTORNEY

  • Nathan Hochman

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 39

  • Steve Napolitano

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 48

  • Renne Rose

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 97

  • Sharon Ransom

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 135

  • Georgia Huerta

JUDGE OF THE SUPERIOR COURT Office No. 137

  • Tracey M. Blount

G COUNTY MEASURE G

  • NO

A COUNTY MEASURE A

  • NO

STATE

2 State Measure 2

  • NO

3 State Measure 3

  • NO

4 State Measure 4

  • NO

5 State Measure 5

  • NO

6 State Measure 6

  • NO

32 State Measure 32

  • NO

33 State Measure 33

  • NO

34 STATE MEASURE 34

  • YES

35 State Measure 35

  • NO

36 STATE MEASURE 36

  • YES

NATIONAL ELECTION

PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT

  • Donald J. Trump & J.D. Vance

UNITED STATES SENATOR – Full Term [and short term]

  • Steve Garvey

Trader Joe’s Employees Regret Unionizing | Armstrong and Getty

Published by Papa Giorgio

The article they are reading from will follow the audio.

Here is the Wall Street Journal article (source):

Apparently it’s OK to unionize but not to get rid of our labor union. We learned this lesson on Oct. 8, when the National Labor Relations Board dismissed our petition to hold a decertification election at the store where we work. The bureaucrats say our employer might have acted unfairly, but what’s really unfair is saving the union by denying our rights.

We’ve both worked at Trader Joe’s for 10 years. In 2022 our store became the first in the company to unionize. Both of us opposed it, but we were outnumbered: 45 of our fellow crew members voted to join Trader Joe’s United, while 31 of us voted against it and seven abstained.

But the union hasn’t been what many of our co-workers expected. The officers basically selected themselves. They then delayed negotiations with Trader Joe’s while forfeiting our annual bonus retirement contribution. Amid growing discontent in the store, the two of us attended a bargaining session in February 2023, which the union president invited all crew members to join. We were shocked at what we saw.

We thought the union would focus on things that matter, like wages and benefits. Instead, union representatives negotiated over things like “pronoun pins,” which the company already provides. They demanded that Trader Joe’s cover abortion and “gender-affirming care.” The company’s response: The health plan already covers that. Either the union negotiators were embarrassingly uninformed, or they were playing a political game with workers as the pawns. Either way, our team deserved better.

We wrote up what we saw at the bargaining session and posted it in the break room. Within hours, the union asked the store captain to take it down. He refused. We then showed up to the next bargaining session in April 2023, only for our own union to deny us entry and ask security to escort us from the building. Why don’t the people who have a legal duty to represent our interests want us to see what they’re saying and doing?

Our frustration kept building, so last November, we told our fellow crew members that we were gathering signatures to hold a decertification election. We need the support of only 30% of the bargaining unit to force another election. We thought this would be tough, since many of our colleagues told us they were afraid of union reprisals and would sign only if we kept their names secret. Yet by July of this year, 46% of our co-workers had signed our petition. We felt we had a real shot, especially since a majority of the crew members who initially voted for unionization have since left. In July, we filed our petition with the National Labor Relations Board.

Two months later, our hopes were dashed. The NLRB’s regional director dismissed our petition on grounds that Trader Joe’s is under investigation for unfair labor practices at our store. The company is accused of everything from having an “overly broad” dress code to giving one of our co-workers a “negative appraisal.” The union has also claimed that managers in our store made “threats,” though in our experience they did nothing of the kind.

We’re floored. Most of the allegations against the company took place before the initial unionization election. If Trader Joe’s was acting unfairly, which our experience disputes, why didn’t the NLRB intervene before we voted? What’s more, labor unions often file bogus complaints about unfair labor practices as a negotiating tactic. If the mere allegation prevents us from holding a decertification election, it’s hard to see an election ever moving forward. All union officers have to do is keep filing complaints, thereby trapping us in a union that a growing number of us want to ditch.

It’s hard not to conclude that the NLRB cares more about protecting unions than it does about workers’ rights. We haven’t merely met the threshold of support to force a decertification election; we’ve dramatically exceeded it. Surely if we have the right to unionize, we also have the right to get rid of our union. Until we’re allowed to hold that vote, our rights might as well not exist.

Steer Clear of ACDSee Photo Editing Program

Published by Papa Giorgio

BTW, I just have to say that at one point I was a super fan of a program for editing photos called ACDSee. In fact, I used them for years via a recommend by Dennis Prager. However, I have had a horrible experience with their customer service. So bad that I have opted to now use PIXLR.

Here is my Trust Pilot review:

Customer Service Drove Me Away

I had a recurring yearly license, which had slipped my mind… so I mistakenly bought a year of their Ultimate 2024 as a way to upgrade. A month later Ultimate 2025 came out and when I got into my account info and realized I already had an automatic subscription, I asked for a refund on the 2024 purchase because my yearly subscription was a week away from renewing (which would have given me the 2025 version). The response was, no, I could not get a refund. I was days past my month allowable time for a refund.

They did  offer me a “recurring” Ultimate 2025 yearly license for the same price I just paid a month and a half earlier for my 2024 Ultimate.

So kind of them to rip me off.

So I am writing this as a way to steer others away from their product. I have moved on to PIXLR as my main photo editing program, which I have used as well.

Here is a similar review as well:

Software superseded almost as soon as purchased.

Brought as a management tool for my images more than anything else. Doesn’t do that very well as it doesn’t support most of my image file types (Affinity).

Almost as soon as I purchased the Ultimate 2024 version they brought out the 2025 version and asked me to pay again. Beware of this practice. They do have a subscription model that may well be cheaper than having to buy a new update license.

Won’t be buying again.

They could have kept me on as a happy customer, but chose instead to drive me away.

I hope this helps others choose wisely,

PapaGiorgio200 [RPT]

People Are Seeing Thru the Left’s “Hitlerian/Fascist” Tropes

Published by Papa Giorgio

Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski are at the tip of the spear yet again to paint Donald Trump as Hitler and his supporters as Nazis. When they’re launching this drivel THIS CLOSE to an election, it’s CLEAR how desperate they are over at MSNBC and “Morning Joe.”

The first video below is a “short” of my much longer video (at the end of the post) that includes clips from Dinesh D’Souza’s movie, “Hillary’s America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party,” which I interrupted with a clip from the movie, “Runaway Slave.” The article I am including is a capstone to Larry Elder’s article, “Democrats Want a ‘Return to Civility’; When Did They Practice It?,” used HERE. As well as the Wall Street Journal’s article, “The ‘Fascist’ Meme Returns,” used HERE.

Remember,

Hillary’s Husband Reenacted the 1939 NAZI Rally 

At least it is so bad that the Washington Post has joined the Los Angeles Times in deciding not to endorse Kamala Harris (or anyone else) for president. Woah!

Here is an excerpt as well from Jonah Goldberg’s book, Liberal Fascism (pages 71, 73, 74-75), which is actually a wonderful read… even though he is now an unhinged anti-Trumper:

But even if Nazi nationalism was in some ill-defined but funda­mental way right-wing, this only meant that Nazism was right-wing socialism. And right-wing socialists are still socialists. Most of the Bolshevik revolutionaries Stalin executed were accused of being not conservatives or monarchists but rightists—that is, right-wing so­cialists. Any deviation from the Soviet line was automatic proof of rightism. Ever since, we in the West have apishly mimicked the Soviet usage of such terms without questioning the propagandistic baggage attached.

The Nazi ideologist—and Hitler rival—Gregor Strasser put it quite succinctly: “We are socialists. We are enemies, deadly ene­mies, of today’s capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, its unfair wage system, its immoral way of judging the worth of human beings in terms of their wealth and their money, instead of their responsibility and their performance, and we are determined to destroy this system whatever happens!”

Hitler is just as straightforward in Mein Kampf He dedicates an entire chapter to the Nazis’ deliberate exploitation of socialist and communist imagery, rhetoric, and ideas and how this marketing con­fused both liberals and communists.

[….]

What distinguished Nazism from other brands of socialism and communism was not so much that it included more aspects from the political right (though there were some). What distinguished Nazism was that it forthrightly included a worldview we now associate al­most completely with the political left: identity politics. This was what distinguished Nazism from doctrinaire communism, and it seems hard to argue that the marriage of one leftist vision to another can somehow produce right-wing progeny. If this was how the world worked, we would have to label nationalist-socialist organizations like the PLO and the Cuban Communist Party right-wing.

[….]

The notion that communism and Nazism are polar opposites stems from the deeper truth that they are in fact kindred spirits. Or, as Richard Pipes has written, “Bolshevism and Fascism were here­sies of socialism!'” Both ideologies are reactionary in the sense that they try to re-create tribal impulses. Communists champion class, Nazis race, fascists the nation. All such ideologies—we can call them totalitarian for now—attract the same types of people.

Hitler’s hatred for communism has been opportunistically exploited to signify ideological distance, when in fact it indicated the exact opposite. Today this maneuver has settled into conventional wisdom. But what Hitler hated about Marxism and communism had almost nothing to do with those aspects of communism that we would consider relevant, such as economic doctrine or the need to destroy the capitalists and bourgeoisie. In these areas Hitler largely saw eye to eye with socialists and communists.

John Toland - Hitler 330

Here we see a stark admission of the ideals/ethos driving Hitler:

“We are socialists, we are ene­mies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are determined to destroy this system under all conditions.” ~ Hitler

John Toland, Adolph Hitler: The Definitive Biography (New York, NY: Anchor Books, 1976), 223-225.

Here is the WASHINGTON EXAMINERS excellent study of Democratic historical tropes against Republicans. How do the writers at WE sum up the below the idea that Trump and the many other Republicans they call Hitler and Fascists and NAZIs?

  • It is pure, unadulterated, radical, extremist, left-wing propaganda.

Continuing they note that “the only people who believe these Nazi and fascist comparisons are the massively brainwashed and indoctrinated Democrat voters and left-wing sycophants.” To wit:

… Let’s start with former Sen. Barry Goldwater (R-AZ) and his acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in 1964. Over 50 years before Trump decided to run for president, celebrities, journalists, politicians, and other politicos warned that the GOP presidential nominee was an extreme fascist who would cause considerable harm to the country. Goldwater, who served as a pilot during World War II, was likened to Nazis and fascists for promoting conservatism during his presidential campaign. 

For example, the then-Democratic governor of California, Edmund Gerland “Pat” Brown, remarked about Goldwater’s acceptance speech, claiming it “had the stench of fascism. All we needed to hear was Heil Hitler.” It should be noted that Goldwater served as a pilot in the military during WWII. Brown didn’t have any military service at all.

Other comments about Goldwater included a scathing rebuke from civil rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. 

“We see dangerous signs of Hitlerism in the Goldwater campaign,” King said. 

Baseball legend Jackie Robinson, who broke Major League Baseball’s color barrier, said of Goldwater’s speech, “I would say that I now believe I know how it felt to be a Jew in Hitler’s Germany.” 

The then-mayor of San Francisco, the city where the 1964 Republican National Convention was held, said the GOP “had Mein Kampf as their political bible.”

The despicable comments continued the following election in 1968. Then-Vice President Hubert Humphrey, and Democratic nominee for president, remarked about the election, “If the British had not fought in 1940, Hitler would have been in London, and if Democrats do not fight in 1968, Nixon will be in the White House.” 

Former President Richard Nixon won the election, but the Hitler, Nazi, and fascist comparisons never stopped. For example, in 1970, a political poster featured an image of Adolf Hitler, wearing a Nazi armband, holding a mask of Nixon. 

Meanwhile, a news article from October 1972, available for viewing on the CIA’s website, referred to “Nixon’s Nazis” as part of commentary criticizing Nixon. Then there is a photograph from October 1973 of someone wearing a Nixon mask with a crown, giving the Nazi salute.

Gerald Ford followed Nixon as president and as a Republican who was called a fascist. In 1974, a member of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized Ford for his lack of punitive action against Nixon.

“If [President] Ford’s principle had been the rule in Nuremberg,” he said, “the Nazi leaders would have been let off, and only the people, who carried out their schemes, would have been tried,” the ACLU said at the time.

Additionally, in the Gerald Ford Library Museum, a document describes an interaction with a woman in 1975 in which Ford was harassed and repeatedly called a “fascist” and a “fascist pig.”

Surely, over a decade of accusations and allegations of fascism never coming to fruition would stop Democrats from calling Republicans Nazis, fascists, or comparing them to Hitler, right?

Wrong.

Former President Ronald Reagan was the next target in the Democrats’ line of unsubstantiated accusations of fascism.

Rep. William Clay (D-MO) stated that Reagan wanted to “replace the Bill of Rights with fascist precepts lifted verbatim from Mein Kampf.”

The Los Angeles Times cartoonist Paul Conrad drew a panel depicting Reagan plotting a fascist putsch in a darkened Munich beer hall. Harry Stein (later a conservative convert) wrote in Esquire that the voters who supported Reagan were comparable to the “good Germans” in “Hitler’s Germany.”

American Enterprise Institute scholar Steven Hayward highlighted another incident in which the intelligentsia and academia also contributed to the Reagan fascist comparisons when John Roth, a Holocaust scholar from the Claremont Colleges, commented about Reagan’s election:

“I could not help remembering how 40 years ago economic turmoil had conspired with Nazi nationalism and militarism — all intensified by Germany’s defeat in World War I​—to send the world reeling into catastrophe. … It is not entirely mistaken to contemplate our postelection state with fear and trembling.”

Former President George W. Bush might have been the Republican politician who faced the harshest and most vile criticism before Trump. Bush was regularly called every dirty name in the book, from racist to Nazi to fascist to war criminal. There are many examples of linking Bush to Hitler, Nazis, and fascists.

In 2012, Sen. Mitt Romney (R-UT), the same Romney so many Democrats love today, was also linked to Nazis and fascism. One delegate from Kansas (at the time) said Romney was a habitual liar and likened him to Hitler “while criticizing the accuracy of Romney’s campaign talking points.”

A chairman of the California Democratic Party compared then-vice presidential candidate (and eventual former Speaker of the House) Paul Ryan, again, the same Ryan loved by many Democrats today, to Nazi filmmaker and propagandist Joseph Goebbels. 

Does any of this sound familiar? It should. It is the same line of attacks Democrats have used against Trump.

(READ IT ALL!)

Very long current affairs via ARMSTRONG & GETTY (with additions by me), and a history lesson[s] in the second half of the 42-minute video:

BONUS FLASHBACK:

(March 26, 2010) Rev. Wayne Perryman Speaks With Michael Medved About Historic Democratic Racism

  • My Vimeo account was terminated many years back; this is a recovered audio from it.

KILLING BLACK & WHITE REPUBLICANS

This made me think of a connection to the Democrat Party’s historical past. Here is my comment on that part of the group on Facebook:

You know, this reminds me of something from the Democrats past. What this is is a “hit card” that the violent arm [the KKK] of the Democrat Party use to carry around with them. They would use it as an identifier to kill or harass members of the “radical group” (Republicans who thought color did not matter) in order to affect voting outcomes. While we hear of the lynchings of black persons (who did make up a larger percentage of lynchings), there were quite a few white “radicals” lynched for supporting the black vote and arming ex-slaves. It is also ironic that the current Democrat melee is focused on racial differences.

I could go on, but I won’t.

Here is a short video discussing the matter:

  • “…virtually every significant racist in American political history was a Democrat.” — Bruce Bartlett, Wrong on Race: The Democratic Party’s Buried Past (New York, NY: Palgrave MacMillan, 2008), ix;
  • “…not every Democrat was a KKK’er, but every KKK’er was a Democrat.” — Ann Coulter, Mugged: Racial Demagoguery from the Seventies to Obama (New York, NY: Sentinel [Penguin], 2012), 19.

For the record:

Brutal Ad Via MAHA Alliance!

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via MAHA Alliance (X)

One of the most brutal ads you’ve ever seen against a politician. Wow. Just watch. 

Dennis Prager Uses Bret Stephens To Explain TDS – and more

Published by Papa Giorgio

Via QOSHE / NYTs: Kamala Harris Has an Unexpected Ally

The Conversation

By Gail Collins and Bret Stephens

Bret Stephens: Please don’t tell me you’re going to ask how I’m going to vote.

Gail Collins: Well, Bret, why would you imagine such a thing? Just because I keep getting stopped by people on the street, demanding to know whether you’re going to support Kamala Harris. I am not making this up.

Come on. Give us a hint.

Bret: You really want to know?

Gail: Um, yeah.

Bret: Kicking and screaming, I’ll cast my ballot for Harris.

I really would rather have just sat out Election Day. But Jan. 6 and election denialism are unforgivable. And as my friend Richard North Patterson likes to say, “Donald Trump is literally bleeping crazy.” And what crazy brings in its wake is JD Vance, whom I find worse than Trump, because he’s just as cynical but twice as bright. And what it also brings in its wake is Tucker Carlson and the Hitler defenders he likes to platform.

Gail: OK, gonna take a little time to run up to the roof and toot a horn. Be right back.

Bret: Well …

Gail: Hear that, don’t-like-anyone people? Really, if Bret can bring himself to vote for Kamala, you can.

Bret: It’s a 99.999 percent vote against Trump and a 0.001 percent vote for Harris.

Gail: And to bolster the argument, how about a short list of the things that bother you most about your new choice for president of the United States?

Bret: If the G.O.P. had nominated Nikki Haley, Ron DeSantis or Doug Burgum, I’d be voting Republican. Probably even Tim Scott: That’s how reluctant I was to vote for her.

I fear that Harris is every bit as vacuous behind the scenes as she seems to be on the public stage. I fear she will be tested early by a foreign adversary and stumble badly, whether it’s in stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon or China from blockading Taiwan or Russia from seizing a portion of a Baltic country. I fear she will capitulate too easily to her party’s left flank, especially when it comes to identity politics, economic policy or polarizing cultural issues. I fear she’ll have no domestic policy ideas that don’t involve mindlessly expanding the role of government. I fear she’ll surround herself with mediocre advisers, like her embarrassingly bad veep pick. I fear she won’t muster the political will to curb mass migration. And I fear that a failed Harris presidency will do more to turbocharge the far-right in this country than to diminish it.

Gail: That does cover a lot …

Bret: But I won’t fear that she’ll refuse to recognize the result of the……..

Prager’s Description: Dennis defines “Trump Derangement Syndrome” and explains why “Never Trumpers” have a narcissistic attitude that could ruin our country.

Before reading the meat of the convo, keep in mind that the only people really talking about violence if Trump is elected and not authorizing the election are Democrats. A couple examples. Long time Clinton and Democrat ally, James Carville, called for armed revolution if Harris loses:

“People say, ‘What’s at stake in this election?’

“I say the Constitution is at stake,” Carville went on.

“We live under a set of laws, it’s literally at risk and he is telling you that.”

Carville then upped the fearmongering ante.

He blasted journalists and commentators who are discussing polling data showing black and Hispanic men’s wavering support for Harris.

He then claimed this is petty compared to Trump’s alleged authoritarian agenda.

“People want to know about [Harris’ polling] weakness among males of color,” Carville said.

“Okay? He’s gonna arrest all of ya,” he claimed.

[….]

He argued that journalists and even a retired Democratic Party strategist like himself would be rounded up during Trump’s possible future presidency.

“When the paddy wagon comes, you and I are going to be in the back of it, bouncing around, and it’s not going to be very much fun, and they will tell you, the judge said, ‘I’m sorry, Mr. Carville, Trump said he was going to get rid of the Constitution, I have no choice but to enforce the democratic norms of this country.’”

[….]

“When the Republic was threatened, people picked up arms and answered the call,” Carville said.

“Or, you know, in 1965 in the middle of the Civil Rights movement, I think people decided they were gonna take matters into their own hands and create a better country and that’s what I hope we do here in the next few weeks,” he finished….

(SLAY NEWS)

Another call to not qualify Trump comes from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who said that Democrats would not certify Trump because he would be a crises for the consitution — adapted.

  • Congressman Jamie Raskin says EVEN IF TRUMP WINS they will disqualify him on January 6th, 2025 under 14A. — END WOKENESS

(More at LEGAL INSURRECTION)

THE ATLANTIC as well notes the following after talking to multiple Democrats:

Murray and other legal scholars say that, absent clear guidance from the Supreme Court, a Trump win could lead to a constitutional crisis in Congress. Democrats would have to choose between confirming a winner many of them believe is ineligible and defying the will of voters who elected him. Their choice could be decisive: As their victory in a House special election in New York last week demonstrated, Democrats have a serious chance of winning a majority in Congress in November, even if Trump recaptures the presidency on the same day. If that happens, they could have the votes to prevent him from taking office.

In interviews, senior House Democrats would not commit to certifying a Trump win, saying they would do so only if the Supreme Court affirms his eligibility.

Democrats Call For Violence

A long montage (8-minutes), but the key point is the first few minutes of the longer montage. I have another montage of Democrats calling for violence here

The Fascist Meme | Trump is Hitler

Published by Papa Giorgio

“I was a Trump hater until I learned the truth of the media’s ‘very fine people’ lie.”

See my FINE PEOPLE main post.

Via the WALL STREET JOURNAL:

The ‘Fascist’ Meme Returns:

Why the public isn’t buying this Democratic claim about Trump.

No doubt it was inevitable. As Election Day nears, and the progressive panic over Donald Trump escalates, Democrats are closing their campaign with a favorite theme: Mr. Trump is a threat to the Constitution, to democracy itself, and is even a “fascist.” But is this true, and could he really impose authoritarian rule in the U.S.?

The fascist meme is all over the place, an upgrade from President Biden’s description of the MAGA movement in 2022 as “semi-fascist.” MSNBC interviews earnest academics who draw a straight historical line between mid-20th-century Europe and the 21st-century GOP. A writer for The Atlantic takes the hyperbole prize with a headline that says Mr. Trump is talking like Hitler, Stalin and Mussolini. Why leave out Chairman Mao?

Kamala Harris is also hitting the theme. Mr. Trump “is seeking unchecked power,” she told a crowd this week in Pennsylvania. “Listen to General [Mark] Milley, Donald Trump’s top general. He has called Trump, and I quote, ‘fascist to the core,’ and said, quote, ‘No one has ever been as dangerous to this country.’ ”

Let’s stipulate that there are many reasons to be wary of handing Mr. Trump power again. His rhetoric is often coarse and divisive. His praise for the likes of Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping is offensive, and betrays his view that he can by force of personality cut favorable deals with them. He indulges mediocrities who flatter him, and his attempt to overturn the 2020 election was disgraceful. These columns preferred any other Republican nominee.

Yet despite it all he won the GOP nomination for the third time, was headed toward victory over Mr. Biden, and is essentially tied with Ms. Harris. Are tens of millions of Americans really falling for a fascist takeover?

The answer is that most Americans simply don’t believe the fascist meme, and for good reasons. The first is the evidence of Mr. Trump’s first term. Whatever his intentions, the former President was hemmed in by American checks and balances. Democrats, the press and the federal bureaucracy were relentlessly opposed to all his works, as they would be again.

Mr. Trump’s worst attempt at stretching executive power—reallocating military construction money to build the border wall—was small beer compared with Mr. Biden’s lawless $400 billion student loan forgiveness.

Fascism historically was “national socialism”—government control over much of the economy. By that definition, Democrats today are the national socialists—using regulation, mandates, law enforcement, and trillions of dollars in subsidies to coerce Americans to follow their dictates on climate and culture. Mr. Trump was a deregulator in his first term and promises to be more so in a second.

Ms. Harris is making much of Mr. Trump’s comments on Fox last Sunday that “we have some very bad people. We have some sick people, radical left lunatics. And I think they’re the—and it should be very easily handled by—if necessary, by National Guard or, if really necessary, by the military, because they can’t let that happen.”

It was a typically grandiose and self-defeating statement, but when we asked about it Thursday in an interview, Mr. Trump made clear after some rambling that he was talking about destructive riots. He said he’d “certainly not [use force] against my opponents—it’s against civil unrest.”

Even if Mr. Trump doesn’t mean this, he’d have to face the obstacles built into the American system. His own judicial nominees rejected his claims about a stolen election, and Republicans in and outside his Administration blocked his attempt to overturn the election.

JD Vance is no Mike Pence, but the Electoral Count Act makes a replay of 2020 more difficult. We have confidence that American institutions—the Supreme Court, the military, Congress—would resist any attempt to subvert the Constitution.

This gets to another reason most Americans don’t think Mr. Trump is a unique threat to democracy. They have seen Democrats break all sorts of political norms to defeat him.

Democrats exploited the Russia collusion narrative in 2016 until it was exposed as a lie financed by Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Democrats tried to keep Mr. Trump off the presidential ballot this year. Democrats have used the law in no fewer than five cases to disqualify him—and New York’s Attorney General campaigned explicitly on a promise to find something, anything, to charge him with. This subverts a basic principle of American justice.

Democrats—including Ms. Harris—are also candid in saying they want to compromise the independence of the Supreme Court with new political rules and supervision. If they get even narrow control of the Senate, along with the House and White House, they say they will break the 60-vote filibuster rule to do it. That in our view is a greater threat to the Constitution than anything Mr. Trump might be able to do in a second term.

All of which is to say that the fear of fascism would have more credibility if Democrats didn’t abuse power themselves. If they lose the election against a flawed Mr. Trump, it won’t be because he is a wannabe Mussolini. The reason will be the Biden-Harris record.

A Call To Vote By a Pastor After a Sermon on Revelation 18

Published by Papa Giorgio

For a better context, we are studying the book of Revelation, and the entire sermon this is the end of is HERE.

This is what Churches should do, teach civics at times from the pulpit. Conservative, Evangelical civics. Plus, LBJ was the one who not only devastated the minority families in America, he also hamstringed the church into changing their message:

  • From a tax code that limits the free speech of churches, to a welfare state that destroys families, Zo tells you why the Democrats and the Great Society are agents of oppression.

A book I recommend the book by Dr. Wayne Grudem titled,

If you are a student of American history and do not have them are these:

A two volume collection of sermons written between 1730-1805 by people such as Jonathan Mayhew, John Wesley, Moses Mather, John Witherspoon, Richard Price, Jonathan Edwards, and Noah Webster.

Jim Gaffigan and President Trump’s Al Smith Dinner Speeches

Published by Papa Giorgio

Jim Gaffigan Shows No Mercy To Democrats Or Republicans At 2024 Al Smith Dinner — Comedian Jim Gaffigan roasted the full political world in his remarks to the Al Smith Dinner in New York City.

Former President Donald Trump Full Remarks at Al Smith Dinner — Former President Donald Trump speaks at the Al Smith Dinner in New York City.

  • BTW, note Gaffigan’s wife, Jeannie Gaffigan, noted: “I thought you were going to leave that out” — what a cute interaction between husband and wife.

Bret Baier Single Handedly Shuts Down Harris’ Campaign

Published by Papa Giorgio

Vice President Kamala Harris discusses immigration, the economy, responding to U.S. adversaries and more with Fox News chief political anchor Bret Baier on ‘Special Report.’

BTW, I thought of this when I watched the FOX interview, and I finally had some time to cobble it together:

“I Will Never Vote For a Democrat Again!” | Howard Stern

Published by Papa Giorgio

FOR THE RECORD

Howard Stern said he would never vote for a Democrat again, because they are Commies! Then he proceeds to vote for the most Communist Democrat to run to date:

Fox News host Greg Gutfeld and the panel react to Howard Stern’s interview with Vice President Kamala Harris on ‘Gutfeld!’

  • “Yes, I’m voting for you. But I would also vote for that wall over there,” Stern told Harris during a Tuesday interview on his radio show. (BREITBART)

BONUS ~ JESSE WATTERS

Jesse Watters discusses how there is possibly some concern among Democrats about Vice President Kamala Harris’ lack of media appearances on ‘Jesse Watters Primetime.’

Carbon Pipelines | Another Kamala [Deadly] Legacy

Published by Papa Giorgio

FIRST ORDER OF BIZNESS BEFORE MINI-DOCUMENTARY:

  • The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which dedicated $370 billion to investments in clean energy projects, was the biggest climate legislation in American history when it was signed into law just two years ago. — Foreign Policy Magazine
  • It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever. “We should have named it what it was” — Joe Biden
  • Two years ago, President Biden signed the Inflation Reduction Act, with Vice President Harris casting the tie-breaking vote in Congress. — White House

Here is more from the Western Journal:

It was, according to Biden, “the most significant climate change law ever.”

“We should have named it what it was,” he said.

The problem Democrats faced then, and face now, is that if they name things for what they are, they won’t be able to convince the American public to go along.

During the Trump administration, Democrats tried to sell a “Green New Deal” that didn’t get anywhere — for good reason. The idea of energy created from wind and solar power might sound great on the surface, in a dewy-eyed, dreamy kind of way. But when it comes to spending massive amounts of money for negligible returns, sane, adult people tend to balk.

But when inflation is ravaging household income, coming up with a bill called the “Inflation Reduction Act” makes it much more appealing.

Biden has made a similar admission before. In 2023, during a speech in Park City, Utah, he acknowledged outright that the bill “has less to do with reducing inflation than providing alternatives where we generate economic growth.”

So, an “Inflation Reduction Act” it wasn’t.

“I wish I hadn’t called it that,” he said.

But Thursday’s admission — “we should have named it what it was” — was far more explicit.

And that should be a problem for the Kamala Harris president campaign. It was Harris, remember, who cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that passed the monstrosity of a bill in August 2022 and sent it to the then-Democratic controlled House for final approval before Biden got it.

If Biden is admitting its title was a lie, what does that say about Harris? ….

(READ IT ALL)

Tie breaking vote of a bill purposefully mislabeled to lie to the American public so it could pass!

Effe Democrats!

Kamala’s carbon pipeline climate scam impacts human health, destroys the environment, and costs taxpayers billions of dollars. Let’s get President Trump back in the White House and me to Washington so we can stop this massive boondoggle.

Damn!

More on the Pipelines created by the “Inflation Reduction Act,” so called (I emphasize a couple things as well – as well as adding a [snippet or two]):

WASHINGTON, D.C. — The Biden-Harris Administration, through the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), today issued Notices of Intent to fund two programs that will advance carbon capture demonstration projects and expand regional pipeline networks to transport carbon dioxide (CO2) for permanent geologic storage or for conversion into valued end uses, such as construction materials. The two programs – the Carbon Capture Demonstration Projects Program and the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design (FEED) Program – are funded by a more than $2.6 billion investment from President Biden’s Bipartisan Infrastructure Law. Together, the programs build on the Administration’s  recent actions to catalyze investments in clean energy and industrial innovation and advance President Biden’s goal of a net-zero greenhouse gas emissions economy by 2050—creating good paying jobs and economic opportunity. The investments also support the Justice40 Initiative, and DOE continues to prioritize engaging with environmental justice communities to ensure that equity is at the center of reaching our climate goals. [JUMP]

“To meet President Biden’s climate goals, we have to rapidly decarbonize our power generation and heavy industries – such as steel production – that are essential to the clean energy transition,” said U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer M. Granholm. “The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law enables DOE to invest in carbon capture, conversion and storage technologies that play essential roles in the development and deployment of clean energy.” 

Greenhouse gas emissions, of which CO2 is the primary component, have risen dramatically over the past several decades. Greenhouse gases fuel climate change, increasing the risk of droughts and floods, and putting our agriculture, health, and water supply at risk. These programs will enable the capture, transport, and permanent storage of greenhouse gas emissions to help mitigate the impacts of climate change on communities. They will also benefit communities across the nation by creating good-paying jobs and improving air quality. 

[….]

Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent  

The $100 million Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program will design regional carbon dioxide pipeline systems to safely transport CO2 from key sources to centralized locations. Projects will expand DOE’s knowledge of carbon transport costs, transport network configurations, and technical and commercial considerations to support the country’s broader efforts to develop and deploy carbon capture and carbon dioxide removal technologies, carbon conversion, and storage at fully-commercial scale.  

DOE is also working closely with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration to incorporate their safety guidance into DOE’s research, development, demonstration, and deployment portfolio for CO2 pipelines. To read DOE’s statement of support for the new CO2 pipeline safety measures recently announced by the U.S. Department of Transportation, click here. 

More information on the Carbon Dioxide Transport/Front-End Engineering Design Program Notice of Intent can be found here.

(ENERGY.GOV)

Since FEMA has been in the news for handing out monies meant for Americans in case of natural disasters to housing and feeding illegal immigrants, here is another boondoggle of American transfer of tax money to DEI type projects by FEMA:

[FEMA Press] Release Date: July 15, 2022

WASHINGTON — Today, FEMA released an initial list of programs covered under the Biden-Harris Administration’s Justice40  Initiative, which aims to deliver 40% of the overall benefits of climate, clean energy, affordable and sustainable housing, clean water and other investments to disadvantaged communities that are marginalized, overburdened and underserved. There are four covered programs within FEMA, each of which advance the Biden-Harris Administration’s commitment to environmental justice.

President Biden is committed to securing environmental justice and spurring economic opportunity for disadvantaged communities that are marginalized and overburdened by pollution and underinvestment in housing, transportation, water and wastewater infrastructure, and health care.

Under Administrator Deanne Criswell’s leadership, FEMA has been integral to fulfilling the Biden-Harris Administration’s whole-of-government approach to advancing environmental justice and delivering on the President’s Executive Order on Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad, including the critical Justice40 Initiative.

“The Justice40 Initiative strengthens FEMA’s commitment to ensure quick and equitable distribution of funds and benefits to the communities who need it most,” said Administrator Criswell. “We know that socially vulnerable communities bear the brunt of climate change and are more likely to be impacted by the associated extreme weather events. Thanks to President Biden and the Justice40 Initiative, FEMA will be able to better serve these communities by making them more resilient when disaster strikes.” ….

The CITY JOURNAL responds. Hat-tip to HOT AIR!

… At the start of his term, Biden issued Executive Order 14008, which set aggressive targets for clean energy but also included the demand that 40 percent of the “overall benefits” of environmental programs should flow to disadvantaged communities. The White House says this “Justice40 Initiative” must be a major focus of every government agency. The underlying concept holds that poor and minority communities are exposed to higher levels of pollution and are entitled not just to lower emissions but to various economic benefits to make up for historic underinvestment in those communities. In effect, the Justice40 project redefines the purpose of environmental programs to include not just less pollution but also various social goals such as “empowering communities” and reducing poverty.

What are the key problems with that effort?

Biden’s EJ agenda is a confusing jumble of requirements that burden government agencies with new layers of bureaucracy and contradictory demands. Some of the key requirements of the program, including the meaning of the word “benefit,” are left undefined. At a time when the White House says we are in a “climate emergency,” the EJ requirements will make it harder to get clean energy infrastructure projects approved. It will also raise the costs of those projects by adding demands such as favoring more expensive union labor. In practice, this means it will cost more and take longer to reach the administration’s ambitious climate targets. The EJ rules will also make it easier for activist groups to tie up private industry in litigation, which will undermine economic opportunity in poor communities.

Could you describe the distinction between the “practical” and “extreme” wings of today’s EJ movement?

The EJ movement contains a mix of ideologies and policy goals. On the practical side, advocates seek basic fairness in the application of environmental laws and reasonable goals, such as replacing lead pipes or reducing airborne pollution in cities. On the extreme side, activists see environmental justice as part of a larger progressive movement that pursues radical social change. For example, the influential Climate Justice Alliance describes its mission as working for “regenerative economic solutions and ecological justice—under a framework that challenges capitalism and both white supremacy and hetero-patriarchy.” The White House invited leaders of the Climate Justice Alliance and similar groups to advise it on how to shape its EJ policies.

Do you see parallels between the administration’s EJ agenda, which tries to expand social-welfare programs under the rubric of environmental concerns, and efforts by medical organizations and federal agencies to promote concepts like the “social determinants of health?”

The progressive movement is good at taking goals most Americans agree with—less pollution, or better health outcomes for minorities—and then using them as a kind of smokescreen under which to enact a more radical agenda. In both cases, activists want to take programs aimed at specific, concrete problems and then redirect those programs toward an amorphous set of social goals. For example, the White House’s EJ advisors demand that federal programs prioritize installing solar panels on the roofs of public-housing buildings. That wouldn’t help reduce CO2 emissions; these panels will be less efficient than rural solar farms. But it would mean more inner-city jobs and empowerment for activist groups. These activists imagine a future of “decentralized grid ownership,” in which poor communities control power generation communally. So, while most voters see Biden’s climate policies as being aimed at reducing emissions, EJ extremists see them as a vehicle for building the kind of post-capitalist future they desire. So far, the White House hasn’t followed every extreme EJ policy recommendation, but the activists are planting seeds. They might not fulfill their whole vision, but they can certainly tie up green programs with costs, delays, and contradictory goals.