WEAKLING RACIST ANTIFA ZEROS START FIGHT, BUT LOSE TO TOUGHER PROUD BOYS & PROUD BOYS GET ARRESTED – THAT’S NOT JUSTICE

By TEMPLE LI

So the PC police are overtaking the real police in New York City. That’s obvious, given that the NYPD has just arrested and charged a New City man, Geoffrey Young, for his role in a street fight on 82nd Street in Manhattan, last week. The arrest – for riot and attempted assault – was unlawful, pursuant to the following undisputed facts and the law applied to them.

Gavin McInnes, the founder of the Proud Boys, a hip group who are incensed with bigoted treatment and politically correct nonsense, spoke at the Metropolitan Republican Club in Manhattan last Friday evening. ANTIFA members and some other strange persons congregated outside the club, as an effort to antagonize McInnes and Proud Boy members. It should be noted that these far left weirdos’ right to assemble, heckle, yell – and curse – is protected speech under the First Amendment.

That said, a gaggle of about four or five ANTIFA goofballs – donned in black outfits and wearing masks to cover their gutless faces – approached a group of about four or five Proud Boys. The physically weak and sickeningly skinny ANTIFA-zeros yelled nasty things at the Proud Boys. The physically strong and manly-looking Proud Boys yelled nasty things back.

Then, something changed.

Someone took it to the next level.

Someone got violent.

Someone threw a bottle.

No, it was not one of the Proud Boys – the group wrongfully being attacked by the socialist, mainstream, racially-divisive media.

Rather, the one who got violent and hurled a bottle was a scrawny, communist-yearning ANTIFA-zero. The masked assailant, with all the athletic ability of a squirrel, whipped a bottle at the Proud Boys.

In legal self-defense, the Proud Boys responded, not with weapons (like the cowardly ANTIFA-zero), but with fists. Both sides then threw punches and kicks at each other. The fight lasted for less than 90 seconds. The result:

The ANTIFA-zeros got their asses roundly kicked. And they lost their masks, along with whatever manhood they had, in the brawl.

The ANTIFA-zeros lost the fight.

But, inapposite to what the hypocrite mainstream media and ultra-liberal mental midget pundits falsely tell their audiences, being losers in a fight does not make such losers victims. And being winners in a fight does not make the winners guilty of a crime.

Under one of the most basic tenets of criminal law in the United States – the doctrine of self-defense – the Proud Boys are, of course, not guilty of any crime. Conversely, the one weak, coward ANTIFA-zero who threw the bottle is guilty of an assault. The balance of those who engaged in the fight have not committed any criminal offenses. Any lawyer or law enforcement officer who says otherwise is either legally ignorant or is just lying (either for political reasons or politically correct reasons).

When men were men, no one would get arrested. Not even the ANTIFA-zero who threw the bottle (the weapon just hit the pavement). But in the age of the mob, the age of the masked and gutless, the age of the PC-gone-insane, and the age of guilty until proven innocent, the losers of the fight (especially if they are a non-gender group of weakling zeros) become victims. And the winners, even though they didn’t start fight and were assaulted with a weapon, well, many in the media and other far-left circles claim they committed a crime. That’s legal lunacy.

And some in law enforcement who are caving to these crazed PC pressures, well, they are not following the mandates of the law. They are perpetuating an injustice by arresting the Proud Boys. Because the Proud Boys acted lawfully, as they acted in self-defense. No one should be punished – in America – for defending themselves. And no one – in America – should be punished because they won a physical altercation that they did not start (and one where they just used their bodies when their assailants started with a weapon).

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

PRINCIPAL DUMPED AFTER MAKING STUDENT REMOVE “TRUMP 45” JERSEY AT PATRIOTIC FOOTBALL GAME

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Cheers to Harnett County School District in North Carolina for dumping the bonehead principal that made a student remove his “Trump 45” football jersey at a patriotic high school football game.

Matthew Collins, 18, exercised his First Amendment right to free speech and wore a red, white, and blue jersey to his high school football game on October 5. Students had been told to dress patriotically for the game. Collins’s jersey featured stars and stripes on the front, along with the letters “USA” and an image of the Statute of Liberty’s torch. The back of the jersey featured the name “Trump” and the number “45.”

Close to halftime, Cindy Gordon, then-principal at the high school, singled Collins out of the crowd and asked him to remove the jersey. She stated that the shirt was “too political” and that some parents complained about it. Collins complied with her request, although Collins’s father later reported that his son felt “humiliated” and “embarrassed” by the principal’s actions.

“There is nothing political about this shirt,” Mike Collins, Matthew’s father, noted. He also pointed out that he himself is a registered Democrat. The jersey was a show of respect for the sitting president, not an attempt to make a political statement.

Naturally, this incident received plenty of media attention and criticism. The school district, likely embarrassed by Principal Gordon’s lame attempt to appease some complaining liberals (or perhaps she was personally offended by this visual reminder to her that Donald Trump is the President of the United States), released this statement: “…we want to emphasize that Harnett County Schools supports and affirms students’ rights to express themselves — including wearing clothing expressing political messages or supporting political candidates or officeholders — in ways that are not expected to disrupt school or school events.”

A week later, the Harnett County School District reported that Cindy Gordon had been replaced. It is unclear whether Cindy Gordon is totally out of a job, or has just been relocated to another position in the district. In any case, thank goodness she is not serving as the leader of the high school. Anyone who squashes a student’s right to free speech should not be acting in a leadership role. Whether she was caving in to offended liberal parents at the football game, or she asked Collins to remove his Trump jersey because she just did not want to see this display of support for the president, she is not deserving of the respect of those in her school community.

It’s scary to think how often students in schools, who wish to express conservative viewpoints, face unfair repercussions. ESN has reported on several recent cases, where students’ freedom of speech was shut down because it was pro-Trump and/or conservative. In such cases, liberals get offended, melt down, and take unnecessary and unjust actions against young people simply because they are exercising free speech that does not fit into their anti-Trump, anti-Christian, anti-patriotic ideology. While it’s not likely that liberals will end their whiny, nonsensical antics anytime soon, let’s hope that those power-abusing libs in charge, like Cindy Gordon, find themselves out of power when they attempt to trample on young people’s free speech.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

 

TRUMP’S “NICKEL PLAN” TO CUT SPENDING LAUDED BY FISCAL CONSERVATIVES

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

President Trump is continuing to make good on his campaign promises. He has vowed to cut spending, and his “nickel plan” is a viable initiative to do just that.

The “nickel plan” is a proposed initiative that will require each Cabinet department to cut 5% from their budget by fiscal year 2020. This will force the departments to eliminate at least some fat and wasteful spending, which exists throughout government. Currently, the budget deficit is over $800 million. In the past, the “penny plan” (where Cabinet departments cut 1% from their budget) has been proposed, but the nickel plan calls for greater cuts and thus will be even more effective.

The military will not be affected by these cuts, as funding for defense was approved by Congress in September.

Trump points out that this is an easy and practical solution that will make a positive impact on the economy. “We’re going to cut spending, absolutely. It’s not as tough as you think. And frankly there’s a lot of fat in there,” he stated in a recent interview on FOXBusiness. He also suggested that perhaps he would ask for another nickel plan next year.

Economists are looking optimistically at the impact these spending cuts would make. Moody’s Managing Director John Lonski proclaimed, “The markets would love this, my goodness. Treasury bond yields would drop. Equity prices would soar if we had these type of spending cuts.”

And this is one of the many reasons why it was the right decision to elect an astute, succesful businessman, not a career politician, for president. With solutions such as this one, and refusal to accept anything less from the bureaucrats around him, President Trump continues to #MakeAmericaGreatAgain.

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

WHILE KNOW-IT-ALLS LECTURE ON TARIFFS AGAINST CHINA, TRUMP DIALS UP NEW TRADE DEALS WITH UK, EUROPE AND JAPAN

By Robert Romano

While President Donald Trump continues to bring the pressure to China, so far with 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods shipped to the U.S., rising to 25 percent in Jan. 2019, which comes atop another 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China, he is dialing up new trade deals with traditional U.S. allies.

Trade agreements with South Korea, Mexico and Canada are already going to Congress, accounting for a combined $1.4 trillion in trade with the U.S.

And now, Trump has notified Congress of his intent to negotiate deals with the UK, Europe and Japan, with whom the U.S. carried on a combined $1.7 trillion in trade.

These were supposed to be mutually exclusive things, according to all the experts. Trump could either put up more trade barriers or lower them, but he could not do both. Instead, Trump is proving that the U.S. can walk and chew gum at the same time as it pursues the Trump trade agenda.

If nations act fairly and reciprocally with the U.S. to lower trade barriers, they can get a good deal. If not, like China, then they face tariffs.

“Under President Trump’s leadership, we will continue to expand U.S. trade and investment by negotiating trade agreements with Japan, the EU and the United Kingdom,” said U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer in a statement.

“Today’s announcement is an important milestone in that process. We are committed to concluding these negotiations with timely and substantive results for American workers, farmers, ranchers, and businesses,” Lighthizer added.

It’s the ultimate carrot and stick. By acting tough, and levying across the board tariffs, Trump gave the U.S. room to negotiate and incentive for other countries wishing to export to the U.S. to close a deal.

As for China, for now they get to feel the pain. China has retaliated with tariffs on $60 billion of goods including agricultural products soybeans and pork. On currency, China has devalued the yuan almost 10 percent since February.

Trump has warned that if China retaliates, another $267 billion of tariffs could be in the offing.

Speaking on CBS’ 60 Minutes on Oct. 15, Trump said he “might” do more tariffs on China but held out hope they might want to do a deal, too.

“I have a great chemistry also with President Xi of China. I don’t know that that’s necessarily going to continue. I told President Xi we cannot continue to have China take $500 billion a year out of the United States in the form of trade and others things.”

Trump added, “I want them to negotiate a fair deal with us. I want them to open their markets like our– our markets are open.”

As for the prospect of retaliation, Trump dared China to intervene, stating bluntly, “They can retaliate, but they can’t — they don’t have enough ammunition to retaliate. We do $100 billion [in trade] with them. They do $531 billion with us.”

In other words, China could rapidly run out of bullets to fight a trade war with the U.S.

On Oct. 9 the President said, “Now look, China wants to make a deal, and I say they’re not ready yet. I just say they’re not ready yet. And we’ve canceled a couple of meetings because I say they’re not ready to make a deal. We can’t have a one-way street. It’s got to be a two-way street. It’s been a one-way street for 25 years. We gotta make it a two-way street. We’ve got to benefit also.”

So, no deal yet. In the meantime, Congress will have a multitude of trade agreements with South Korea, Mexico, Canada, the UK, Europe and Japan to consider later this year and in 2019 that promise to lower trade barriers for U.S. exporters and get a better deal for American workers.

China will just have sit back and watch. If it wants a good deal, too, then it’s time to talk about currency, intellectual property, dumping and other trade barriers that it has put up. No more free lunches.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of his articles at www.dailytorch.com. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

BERGEN COUNTY REPUBLICAN ORGANIZATION NEW CHAIRMAN JACK ZISA HEADING GOP INTO NEW ERA, WITH IMPRESSIVE YOUNG REPUBLICANS MATTHEW GILSON, GIANCARLO GHIONE & JOHN CROSS AND STALWART LEADER GERALD CARDINALE

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

The Bergen County Republican Organization (“BCRO”) has struggled in recent times to regain seats at the county level. Although it has had respected leaders in Paul DiGaetano and Robert Yudin over the last several years, in-fighting among Bergen County GOP leadership, coupled with substantial fundraising difficulties, have hampered progress. It has been quite some time since Bergen County has seen a Republican elected as county executive, sheriff, or county freeholder. With the election of Jack Zisa as the new BCRO chairman, many are now hopeful.

Zisa, a long time player in Bergen County politics, including formerly serving as the mayor of Hackensack – the county’s largest city which is normally a Democrat stronghold – took the reins of the BCRO in June. Already, excitement is beginning to grow throughout the county. Many Republicans who are members of local GOP clubs, as well as those who serve on the county committees for their respective towns, have become motivated by Zisa’s rise to the county chairmanship post. Some outwardly optimistic, others cautiously optimistic, look to him for unification within the party – and it seems that such may be occurring.

The turnout of county committee members to vote for the GOP candidate for the county sheriff special election was promising. A more-than-usual amount of the county committee electorate attended the Hasbrouck Heights gathering, which resulted in well-liked Hasbrouck Heights Mayor John “Jack” DeLorenzo winning the nomination over a few other candidates, including popular Midland Park Mayor Harry Shortway. The turnout – and enthusiasm – is notable, given that this election is a very likely a loss for the GOP. Although former sheriff Michael Saudino, a Republican-turned-Democrat, abruptly left the post amid purported race-related comments, the Democrat candidate is still heavily favored to win in November.

Likewise, the Republican candidates for county executive and the freeholder board – Norman Schmelz, Hector Olmo, and Eric Kulmala – have a significant uphill battle in this year’s election. Simply, the Democrats have substantially greater name recognition and, more so, a much bigger bank of money. The latter issue, funding, however, has, for the first time in recent years, been promising since Zisa took over the chairmanship role. Apparently, the BCRO is raising some money. And while this year’s candidates may suffer at the hands of the Bergen County Democratic regime’s war chest, next year the field of money may get closer to evening out. And if Zisa is able to wrangle candidates who provide excitement for the electorate, the combination could result in a win.

The Bergen Young Republicans have been a glowing light in a dim overall array of GOP players. Matthew Gilson, a 27-year-old lawyer who serves as the chairman of the Bergen County Young Republicans, has recently won a few impressive court battles on behalf of GOP candidates. Giancarlo Ghione, New Jersey’s statewide Young Republican Chairman, has been an important force in GOP growth in his home Bergen County. And new BCRO treasurer John Cross, a charismatic personality, has emerged as an integral leader for the younger Republicans.

The Bergen County GOP party also has a few veteran elected officials who provide guidance, clarity, and strength on the top-end of the state political spectrum. A powerful mainstay in Republican politics who is respected by elected officials across the board, State Senator Gerald Cardinale is the go-to official for wise leadership advice. The patriarch of the county for GOP voters, Cardinale is a proud conservative who has led by example and policy; according to most political observers, he is unbeatable because of his popularity within the Republican base. Joining Cardinale as admired Bergen-elected officials in state offices are Kevin Rooney (state assembly), Holly Schepisi (state assembly), Kristin Corrado (state senate), Christopher DePhillips (state assembly), and Robert Auth (state assembly). This cache of leaders, collectively and individually, have encouraged voters with not only their wins but their accomplishments in the state legislature.

The combination of the new BCRO leadership, young Republican burst, and experienced guidance may lead Bergen County Republicans into a new, overall positive era. So long as the party doesn’t revert to its fractured status.

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

AMERICA’S MOST FAMOUS PROSECUTOR, HERBERT STERN, AUTHORS PROLIFIC BOOK ‘DIARY OF A DA’

A BOOK REVIEW BY KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

Diary of a DA: The True Story of the Prosecutor Who Took On the Mob, Fought Corruption and Won, scribed in the first person, follows the storied prosecutorial career of Herbert Stern. The memoir travels from the inception of his barrister duties at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office in 1962 through his tenure as the U.S. Attorney for the State of New Jersey, which ended in 1974 when he was appointed to the federal bench. An easy to read personal tome, the book functions perfectly in equal parts of criminal suspense, courtroom drama, and a guide to understanding the trial work components of the criminal justice system.

Stern educates his readers about the lowest level duties of an assistant district attorney, such as trying minor cases while being part of the “Complaint Bureau” and the “Criminal Court Bureau”, and compiling indictments in front of grand juries. The author, in recounting his own tales in these units, doesn’t glamorize the seemingly smallish work of a youthful prosecutor. Instead, he paints the realistic picture of the monotony related to the court hearings associated with these bureaus. Stern unabashedly explains the bumps and bruises he took in learning his craft in these courts. He expresses that while law school only taught him legal theory, his first assignments with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office taught him the practical side of law (i.e. – how to object, introduce evidence, direct- and cross-examine witnesses, deliver summations, and negotiate plea bargains). Refreshingly, he admits to making mistakes in his on-the-job training.

Although the young prosecutor fought with tenacity in his first endeavors, Stern often recognizes the de minimis nature of many of the offenses that he was prosecuting. He internally questions the necessity – and sometimes even morality – of forwarding certain gambling and so-called obscenity cases. He laments that “All in all, it is a shoddy business, and I would feel better if I refused to be part of the moral police.” However, Stern is ambitious and realizes that this is just part of the job. What he doesn’t realize, in these earliest stages of his vocation, is just how quickly the job will change, and the heights of success that he will accrue. For, in just a little over two years in the business, Stern will be leading the charge in the investigation of the murder of one of America’s most well-known and controversial men: Malcolm X.

Diary of a DA progresses to chronicle, in a strict timeline fashion, the travails of Stern’s rapid movement through the prosecutor ranks. As the import of the cases grows, so does Stern’s agency resume. While still in his 20s, he moves to the Department of Justice. In 1969, at only 32-years old, Stern lands the second-in-command position at the U.S. Attorney’s Office in New Jersey, although he was not barred in the state. And just two years later, he is appointed the U.S. Attorney of New Jersey. In this federal post, Stern serves as the state’s most powerful law enforcement official. The gravity of the cases he prosecutes in these varied roles – coupled with the detailed and colorfully descriptive layman’s prose that Stern employs to communicate the normally complex material – is what makes this book a fast read that is nearly impossible to put down.

Stern spearheaded the successful prosecutions of the real-life mafiosos who inspired the HBO hit series, The Sopranos. He brought down guys with names like Sam “The Plumber” DeCavalcante and Anthony “Tony Boy” Boiardo, whose father, Richie “The Boot” Boiardo, maintained an incinerator at his Livingston, NJ property so he could effectively dispose of mob-hit bodies. He also oversaw the prosecutions of mafia made men Anthony “Little Pussy” Russo and Angelo “Gyp” DeCarlo, the latter of which was Frank Sinatra’s cousin.

On the government front, Stern shredded the most notorious of corrupted political machines. Not only did he ensure the convictions of the law-breaking mayors of Newark, Atlantic City, and Jersey City, but he broke the backs of their seemingly impenetrable behind-the-scenes bosses. Longtime Hudson County chieftain John V. Kenny was considered the most powerful – and most corrupt – political boss in New Jersey. His group heisted 10% of all monies paid for public contracts in Hudson County and extorted 3% of the salaries of municipal employees throughout the county. Stern ended their abusive operations.

Stern’s book has the intimate feel of a diary, but is written much more in novel form. It is replete with little – and large – gems of honesty and reality in the hopefully hallowed halls of justice.

In describing a New York City criminal court judge, former NYC Mayor Vincent Impellittmeri, in a 1963 diary entry, Stern relays, “…I do note that while he treats private counsel with great consideration, he is very tough on legal aid lawyers and their defendants.” In the same chapter, Stern delivers one of the most poignant and candid admissions of a prosecutor: that he mistakenly prosecuted a man who he thought might not be guilty. This was a haunting, transformative event for Stern as a 26-year-old lawyer.

Here he tells the story not of a major mob boss or top corrupted politico, but a no-name, represented by a legal aid attorney, who allegedly hit a person and stole five dollars. After the arresting police officer told Stern that he believed the complainant was lying and that the defendant was innocent, Stern interviewed the complainant and found that there were multiple holes in his account. Believing that it was his duty to put the complainant on the witness stand and let the court make the call, Stern initiated the trial.

As the purported theft/assault victim testified, Stern repeatedly attempted to bring out all the problems with the complainant’s version of the incident. This is something that the defense attorney would usually do and Judge Impellitteri (the jurist who wasn’t too favorable to legal aid-represented defendants), kept telling Stern, “Do not impeach your own witness.” The judge’s admonition was strange, if not improper, in that his role is supposed to be that of an impartial party – and not one who should be meddling in how the prosecutor is handling his own witness. Stern dismissed Impellitteri’s interference, thinking that this judge understood what he was trying to do, namely bring out the reasonable doubt in the case which would result in an acquittal. Stern was incorrect.

As part of a three-judge panel, Impellitteri convicted the man and sentenced him to the most harsh penalty the court could impose for the offenses: two one year prison terms, to run consecutively. Stern was shocked at the result, and in face of potentially being held in contempt of court, he yelled to the judge, “How could you do that?”

But  Impellitteri didn’t hold the young lawyer in contempt. Instead, the judge emotionlessly said to him, “Mr. Stern, if you did not want us to convict him, why did you prosecute him?”

Understanding this as the most valuable lesson he had learned to date – and it becoming a cornerstone in his personal canons of justice that he carried with him throughout his legendary prosecutorial career – Stern, wrote:

“I did not think my job was to judge credibility. I believed it was for the court to decide who was telling the truth and my function was just to present testimony…But standing before that cold man I see I am wrong, and I will remain wrong as long as people like him sit in judgment. I have learned that the prosecutor must do more than determine if a judge or a jury could legally convict. In that moment I see that the prosecutor must do more than advocate reasonable positions. The power of his office is too vast to permit him to shift responsibility from himself to any tribunal for the outcome of what he alone has the authority to initiate.”

A 537-page book, Diary of a DA constitutes an autobiography of just a 12-year portion of Stern’s career, to wit his term as a prosecutor. At just 37, he was appointed his federal judgeship, which resulted in even more notoriety for the ever-motivated legal stalwart. Presiding over the only case ever tried in an American court in the then-American occupied sector of West Berlin, Germany, Stern gained international acclaim through this 1986 trial and a book he authored about it, Judgment in Berlin. This first writing effort netted Stern a movie deal, as the book was adapted into a screenplay and produced into a feature film of the same title. Academy Award winner Martin Sheen played Stern in the movie, and Academy Award winner Sean Penn co-starred in the flick. Upon retiring from the bench at 50 (an age at which most lawyers do not even first-become federal judges), Stern launched one of New Jersey’s most fabled and respected criminal defense practices. The man required personally seeing justice prevail in all roles of the criminal law system, a quality of his that is easily understood within the confines of his memoir as a prosecutor. Although Stern makes it clear that as a U.S. attorney and assistant district attorney he carried out his duties with the greatest of passion, precision, and success, he is equally mindful, throughout the book, of his goal to see justice sought (and to do that, one must be mindful of the law and the rights on the other side).

Diary of a DA, by Herbert Stern, is a thought-provoking, educational, highly interesting and entertaining literary work. It belongs on the must-read list for anyone who enjoys crime genre books, and for anyone who simply likes a good, inspirational story.

Kenneth Del Vecchio, ESN publisher and editor-in-chief, is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and Thomson Reuters-ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/entertainment attorney for 24 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and E-1 Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years-old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks, Mr. Del Vecchio formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

TECH COMPANIES CLAIM THEY ARE ATTEMPTING TO COMBAT SCREEN ADDICTION

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

With a growing body of research about negative effects of too much screen time in children and adults alike, big tech companies such as Apple and Google claim they are attempting to develop and implement measures in their devices and platforms to decrease the mindless scrolling, the endless social media-checking, and the overall dependence on devices.

Tech insiders, such as former Google designer Tristan Harris, note that the overall goal of device and app developers was to hook the user into continuously checking his/her device and interacting with the content.  Features such as push notifications, Snapchat streaks, and viral videos that appear in news feeds persuade the user to keep using the device. Harris now leads a nonprofit called The Center for Humane Technology, and he also is credited with spearheading the “Time Well Spent” movement. The movement’s aim is to make time spent with technology productive, not mind-numbing.

Besides an overall awareness of the addictive power of tech devices and social media, some changes to the device-dependent culture may come through new apps that monitor device and app usage. For instance, Apple’s Screen Time app monitors how many times a device is picked up, how many push notifications come through, and how many times a particular app is accessed. Google is developing a similar app called Digital Wellbeing. These are particularly helpful for parents, who can even set limits for their children and have their phones lock after the limit is reached. Additionally, Google’s Wind Down feature allows its user to do just that by not showing push notifications, removing color from the screen, and putting the phone into Do Not Disturb mode. With no push notifications coming through and a lack of color, the user is less enticed to engage with the phone. And Marc Zuckerberg claims that Facebook has changed its algorithm so that users see more posts from their friends and less sponsored posts.

Are these changes for real? Will they turn the tide of tech addiction? Maybe big tech will truly work to reduce the persuasive power of their products by taking bigger steps and making greater changes to platforms, social media in particular. Maybe the novelty of a sophisticated device, instant access to information, and the immediate gratification of social media will wear off. Or maybe people will simply become more mindful of the pros and cons of technology and make the personal choice to cut down and use it wisely.

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

SAN FRANCISCO SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT DUMPS PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO PROTEST TRUMP

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Patriotism is under attack—again. This time, it’s the Pledge of Allegiance. No, it’s not an evil atheist who refuses to acknowledge that America is, in fact, one nation under God. Rather it’s the new San Francisco school board president, Stevon Cook. At the start of his first meeting, instead of reciting the pledge of allegiance, he chose to quote poet Maya Angelou with these words: “When you learn, teach. When you get, give.” He has said that he plans to continue this practice in future meetings, reciting quotes that, in his opinion, speak to social justice. Citing, for example, writer Toni Morrison and gay rights activist Harvey Milk, Cook claimed, “I really think that these people are a great testament to our values and who we should aspire to be as Americans.”

Cook expounded upon his reasoning for nixing the pledge. He claimed that the Trump administration is “attacking our liberties” and has made the political climate divisive. Furthermore, he noted that people do not even know anything about the pledge and merely recite it as a formality. He stated, “If you ask 10 Americans who wrote it, or when it was implemented, or why it is how we start our meetings, a lot of us would be hard pressed (to answer).” While it is reality that most people do not know the history of the pledge of allegiance, or the national anthem or God Bless America or America the Beautiful or anything patriotic for that matter, lack of knowledge does not override most patriotic, rationally thinking people’s desire to stand, sing/say the words, and show respect for their country and flag. Cook has a pretty lame line of reasoning, especially coming from an education leader (or politician in disguise?).

In contrast to another San Francisco left-wing kook, Colin Kaepernick, who infamously takes a knee for the national anthem, Cook pointed out that he stands for the pledge, but does not recite it. Using logic that only a liberal would spew (or understand), he stated, “We should stand for (the pledge) because those ideals are important to me,” he said. “To speak them is another thing.”

In the land of Nancy Pelosi and Dianne Feinstein, it comes as no surprise that at least one board member voiced support for Cook’s plan to start meetings with quotes. Rachel Norton said, “It feels respectful and it feels thoughtful…Maya Angelou is an alumnus of (San Francisco’s) Washington High School, so what better way to start a new tradition.”

As libs jump on the anti-patriotic bandwagon and attempt to coast toward their utopia of social justice, those who want to show respect and love for their country need to stand strong, stick to their principles, and see through the left-wing nonsense that seems to hang around like San Francisco fog. And, like the fog, hopefully ideas like Cook’s will dissipate.

Candy Stallworth, an Empire State News staff writer, whipped her way through a doctoral education at the finest of American higher ed institutions, noting how unoriginal, inept, and annoying many of the schools’ professors were in their robotic attempts to maintain a politically correct narrative. BTW: she hates words like “narrative”, “optics”, and “gaffe.” Other than that, her turn-offs include non-masculine men, women who hate men, men who hate men, phonies, disloyal people, and overflowing garbage cans. She likes New England clam chowder better than Manhattan clam chowder, but prefers Manhattan to New England.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

TRUMP, COOL CUSTOMER, TELLS CHINA ‘NO DEAL’ ON TRADE

By ROBERT ROMANO

“Now look, China wants to make a deal, and I say they’re not ready yet. I just say they’re not ready yet. And we’ve canceled a couple of meetings because I say they’re not ready to make a deal. We can’t have a one-way street. It’s got to be a two-way street. It’s been a one-way street for 25 years. We gotta make it a two-way street. We’ve got to benefit also.”

That was President Donald Trump’s declaration to China on Oct. 9 that there won’t be a deal on trade anytime soon.

Not while the U.S. is running a $375 billion trade in goods deficit every year.

So far, Trump is levying 10 percent tariffs on $200 billion of Chinese goods shipped to the U.S., rising to 25 percent in Jan. 2019. That came atop a 25 percent tariff on $50 billion of goods from China.

And Trump did warn that if China retaliates, another $267 billion of tariffs would follow.

Well, so far, China has retaliated with tariffs on $60 billion of goods including agricultural products soybeans and pork.

In one gambit, China tried to exact a political toll by taking out a 4-page ad in the Des Moines Register to try and rattle agriculture states like Iowa that tend to vote Republican. Nice try.

Trump responded to the tariffs with disbursing $6 billion of trade relief for farmersfrom monies already appropriated by Congress, with another $6 billion in reserve if things get dicey.

On currency, China has devalued the yuan almost 9 percent the beginning of the year.

Overall, the U.S. only exports $135 billion of goods to China. Once they’ve slapped tariffs on the other $75 billion what else can it really do to retaliate? They’re running out of bullets.

In the meantime, Trump has concluded major trade deals with South Korea, Mexico and Canada, with more on the way from Europe and Japan. China is becoming isolated globally.

Which is why Trump won’t do a deal right now. They’re not offering anything we want. In May, the Trump administration asked China to cut the trade deficit by $200 billion by 2020 as part of a trade agreement. They said no.

And that’s why the $200 billion tariff was levied.

While some economists have worried about consumer inflation, so far, it hasn’t been found. Consumer prices are relatively stable, with a 2.2 percent increase the last year less food and energy.

So, it remains to be seen what price China will be able to exact from the U.S. So far, it’s been a paper tiger. Round one goes to Trump.

Robert Romano is the Vice President of Public Policy at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of his articles at www.dailytorch.com. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

AMERICANS, IN GREAT MAJORITY, FAVOR KAVANAUGH CONFIRMATION AND ARE NOT FOOLED BY FAR LEFT FRAUDSTERS & FAKE NEWS ZEALOTS

By TEMPLE LI

On Monday, Brett Kavanaugh had his first day in the job at the U.S. Supreme Court. He received a friendly welcome from the eight justices who serve as his colleagues. John Roberts, the court’s chief justice, inspirationally greeted him with words of encouragement that bestowed upon Kavanaugh a wish for the new justice to enjoy his many years on the bench to come. Elena Kagan, a liberal Democrat and former dean of Harvard Law school, cheerily chatted with the court’s newbie while he sat directly to the right of her. Kagan notably had hired Kavanaugh as a Harvard Law professor.

Kavanaugh’s first day as a U.S. Supreme Court justice was unremarkable, at least in the courtroom. While hearing a criminal case that involved a stiffer sentence of incarceration than normally would have been delivered (the defendant was given additional prison time because of a prior violent offense), Kavanaugh began peppering both sides with questions about 20 minutes into the oral argument. His judicial conduct was identical to most others who have sat this highest bench in that he didn’t appear to take a side in his questioning. One obvious distinction: Kavanaugh piped up less than 30 minutes from taking his seat on the court, while it took Clarence Thomas 17 years to ask his first question.

Outside the Supreme Court, something else unremarkable was occurring. Approximately 20 idiotic, ultra-liberal mental midgets were performing some kind of ritualistic protest regarding Kavanaugh’s appointment to the court. Mostly women (and probably paid), they donned bizarre, cult-like outfits. These approximately 20 canoodlers were chanting, almost in tongues. That’s 20 people – yes, 20. That’s less than a half of a bus full of people. Saying that it’s less than .000000000000000001 percent of the U.S. population is being generous to these nutcases. In other words, almost no REAL people are truly upset that Brett Kavanaugh was confirmed to the US Supreme Court. More people, from a singular town, show up to a local Board of Education meeting to protest a minor spike in their property taxes.

But the phony fake news mainstream media would have you thinking that there is some kind of national outcry against Kavanaugh’s appointment. From Kavanaugh’s first day on the bench through this date, they are still portraying the farce that Americans en masse are wholly heated about Kavanaugh’s ascension to the Supreme Court. They reference fictitious polls and serve up silly pundit after pundit to explain the supposed atrocity of Brett Kavanaugh becoming a Supreme Court justice. In similar fashion, many of the Democrat elected members of the U.S. Senate and House are dribbling fraudulent nonsense about Kavanaugh’s appointment.

Why the so clearly fake news sham?

Because the far left (which is now basically the entire Democratic party) knew that they blew it with their relentless and disgustingly unjust attacks upon Kavanaugh and, thus, the man’s wife and children. As previously reported in another Empire State News article, SATAN’S PAWNS IN U.S. SENATE FALSELY ACCUSE BRETT KAVANAUGH, BUT THEIR EVIL MAY CHANGE AMERICA FOR THE GOOD:

“While keeping in mind that it is possible that Ford is telling truth, it is so unlikely that she is earnest in her condemnation of Kavanaugh that the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee should have dismissed her account, with lightning speed, after reviewing it. Ford’s allegation was initiated with a huge credibility albatross around its neck: it originated as a he-said, she-said case, where, at best, there is 50% chance that it is true. One can never know who is telling the truth in a he-said, she-said case. That, alone, should have stopped Senate Dems from going forward with an inquisition against Kavanaugh; a person’s reputation and career should never be destroyed simply based upon the accusation of one, singular person.

But Satan’s pawns plowed forward. As they raced, barefoot, through the hot coals of hell, however, they learned that this was not really a he-said, she-said case; they learned it was worse. Ford’s memory of the alleged Kavanaugh-perpetrated sexual misdeed was not an actual memory. It was a retrieved memory. Which means Ford somehow “found” this “memory” in the annals of her mind years after the incident supposedly occurred.

It is uniformly agreed among medical experts that a retrieved memory has significantly less reliability than a regular, ole’ memory. But the psychologist Ford, well, her retrieved memory was given substantial weight by Satan’s pawns. To the majority of the rest of the world, however, it caused the 50% he-said, she-said case to significantly dip below that already-low 50-50 margin. But things get even worse.

Ford conveniently cannot remember key components of her purported attack. Such as where it occurred, and when it occurred. Most people probably do not understand that there is actually a major benefit in Ford not recalling the date of her alleged assault. But, indeed, there is such a benefit – and Satan’s pawns certainly understood it. So what’s the benefit of Ford being unable to remember when the supposed assault happened?

It took away the ability of an alibi. If Ford had named the date of the alleged incident, Kavanaugh may have been able to prove that he was at a different location and, therefore, case – and Satan’s game – over. However, whether Ford, on her own, developed the date amnesia, or she was coached into it by Satan’s pawns, she nonetheless cannot name the happening time. And this further destructs her credibility. As does the following:

All four people she asserted were at the party, where the sexual assault allegedly took place, have affirmatively stated that they never attended such a party. The woman has no corroborating evidence. Put another way, Kavanaugh has multiple people corroborating that the illicit act did not occur.

All of these above factors riddle Ford’s story with credibility tank holes. Her 50-50 he-said, she-said case (which, as aforesaid, already was inadequate to destroy Kavanaugh’s life), thus has plummeted to less than a one percent chance of being a true account. But Satan’s pawns steamed on. Not only via their use of Ford, but with the propagation of the Ramirez and Swetnick allegations, which said allegations are even more incredible than Ford’s troubled account.

In the lead up to her uncorroborated mudsling, Ramirez was actually calling up friends from Yale, asking if they remembered the penis-in-the-face incident she touted (because she was uncertain about whether Kavanaugh was involved, due to her own inebriation). Ramirez’s claim was so awfully weak that the New York Times refused to report it; after a week of searching, and interviewing a bevy of witnesses, the esteemed liberal publication could not find a single person to corrobor   ate Ramirez’s accusation.

Swetnick’s story is so ludicrous that it’s not worth giving it any mention, other than to note that her advocate is Stormy Daniels’s lawyer, Michael Avenatti. He’s that awkward, angry, hairless, talentless goofball who is constantly on CNN and MSNBC making wild claims, in a desperate effort to get himself attention. Certain pundits and anchors froth at the mouth during his appearances, allowing Avenatti to dribble on about political and legal matters that he clearly misunderstands and/or misrepresents. But when he’s challenged by intelligent news studs, such as Fox News Channel’s Tucker Carlson, Avenatti goes down in flames. He may enjoy that, though, as he is an active player with Satan’s pawns, the latter even making Avenatti think he is viable 2020 Democratic candidate for president.”

The Democrat politicians and their cheerleading cronies in the media and special interest groups (or vice versa, as it actually may be) are extremely concerned that the great majority of Americans have actually sided with Justice Kavanaugh and, accordingly, those Republicans who so faithfully and fairly secured his appointment to the bench. These Democrats are so fearful not just because public opinion, in reality, is, by the great majority, so against them, given Americans’ thirst for justice and its guiding principles of “innocence until proven guilty” and “proof beyond a reasonable doubt.” But because they are well aware that their evil efforts have backfired so badly that they are going to lose their dream of recapturing the House and Senate in November. Accordingly, they surely will be continuing their media et al facade. These aren’t just evil people; they are desperate evil people. And that is a truly frightening concoction, one that so sadly has existed for quite some time – but they are unlikely to succeed in their fake news endeavors this time. And that’s because they overplayed their Grim Reaper hand, and the substantial majority of Americans know it and will back it up at the ballot box.

Temple Li is the news editor for Empire State News, where she frequently authors her own editorials (just because she feels like it). She graduated at the top of her class at a mediocre college, infuriating her professors with her conservative wit and sultry charm. Empire State News allows Ms. Li to make a living, and to have a platform to tell people what she thinks. What could be better than that?

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.