NATIONAL DEBT COULD HIT $100 TRILLION BY 2037 IF TRUMP BUDGET IS IGNORED, CUTS $4.4 TRILLION OVER 10 YEARS

By ROBERT ROMANO

President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget have completed another budget, this time for Fiscal Year 2021, that proposes $4.4 trillion of spending cuts over the next decade and reaching balance within 15 years.

Put another way, the Trump administration proposes spending $56.3 trillion over the next decade instead of the $60.7 trillion projected to be spent under current law.

But, unless Congress acts on those proposals, the federal government will continue to spend the monies already allocated under the law—and then some—causing the national debt, now $23.2 trillion, to continue to skyrocket.

Since 1980, the national debt has averaged 8.74 percent growth a year while the economy has only managed 5.4 percent nominal growth, that is, before adjusting for inflation.

If these trends continue without any fiscal adjustments by Congress, by 2037, the national debt will reach a whopping $100 trillion, or about 192 percent of debt to GDP, which will only be about $56.5 trillion by that time.

Incentivizing vast spending schemes in Congress is rising market demand for U.S. Treasuries. With interest rates as low as they are, and the potential they might go negative, the counterargument is that markets actually want more debt.

Could we have a funding crisis one day? If we do, it will be because of this perverse incentive for the government to borrow at the behest of investors.

But it might not be that bad. If the debt only grows at 5.1 percent, the average since 2017, while the economy grew at a nominal 4.6 percent a year that we’ve seen since then, you’re still looking at 118 percent of debt to GDP, up from 105 percent currently. Not as terrible a scenario.

The real question is what receipts will do relative to outlays. Since 2017, tax revenues have increased an average 1.97 percent a year, but spending increased 4.94 percent, according to OMB data. But that data is during arguably from the best of economic times, with the Trump economy scoring record low unemployment, 7 million new jobs and sustained economic growth.

The times the deficit blows up is when the business cycle ends and an eventual recession occurs, as one surely will. Then, receipts take a huge hit while Congress tends to engage in countercyclical spending.

Which is why the best way to keep debt to GDP under control is to control spending when times are good.

The main reason for the steady growth of the debt is that two-thirds of the federal budget operates on autopilot with outlays baked into law, so-called mandatory spending. Congress could pass no budget resulting in a partial government shutdown but the vast majority of spending would continue.

It is this annual failure to consider most of the budget that explains why it keeps growing. Programs like Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are codified in law, making expenditures subject to the eligibility of applicants. The more people eligible, the bigger the budget.

That is why Congress needs to prioritize. If these larger ticket programs are a top priority for funding — both parties say they are — then Congress has to find other areas to cut not deemed essential.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued a statement praising the Trump budget and urging Congress to act now, saying, “President Trump continues to produce budgets that provide a pathway to balance in 15 years, with $4.4 trillion of cuts over 10 years. It is up to Congress to pass appropriations bills that include a similar commitment to cutting the deficit. Unfortunately, Democratic politicians like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer continue to attack President Trump for the escalating budget deficit while ignoring their primary role in increasing government spending. If Congress worked, and the House majority actually wanted to govern, they would make budget deficit reduction a primary focus in 2020. Unfortunately, what they really want is to blame the President for their credit card abuse. It’s time for Americans to tell Congress the cut the budget now.”

With Congress, when it comes to the debt, the sky’s the limit. Meaning, President Trump’s budget with its modest $4.4 trillion of cuts over 10 years is the only game in town. It may not balance the budget immediately, but at least there’s a horizon, and that’s more than Congress can say.

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.

A RATIONAL THOUGHT ABOUT THE ULTIMATE EVIL OF ABORTION

By THE LOGICAL & GOOD

Think about the person who you love the most. You wouldn’t allow another to kill him or her before he/she was born – because of some “constitutional” right (or any reason), would you? If you say yes, you are either evil or a liar…If you would elect for this person (who you dearly love) to be dead instead of taking away another’s choice to kill him/her, certainly, you would be one sinister person (who actually doesn’t love anyone). Just a rational, logical thought.

The Author should be everyone.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

BERNIE TAKES NEW HAMPSHIRE FROM MAYOR PETE AS TWO-WAY RACE EMERGES, BIDEN, WARREN ON THE ROPES

By ROBERT ROMANO

A two-way race has emerged in the Democratic presidential nomination as Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a self-professed democratic socialist, narrowly defeated former Mayor Pete Buttigieg (D-Ind.) in the all-important New Hampshire primary, 25.7 percent to 24.4 percent.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and former Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.) were distant fourth and fifth place showings, putting their campaigns on life support without wins in the first two contests.

This could be their political swan songs.

Now, late-deciding voters in subsequent contests will likely choose between Sanders and Buttigieg — which is what usually happens.

In more than three-quarters of the years where no incumbent Democrat was running for president — 1976, 1984, 1988, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2016 — the nominee had won either Iowa or New Hampshire.

It’s winner’s bias. Iowa and New Hampshire narrow the field. If you start off losing, and losing badly, then it’s harder to make a case that your campaign is viable.

Do you donate money? Time?  Energy? Or do you bet on the candidates who have a shot? History suggests the latter.

There are two notable exceptions. Bill Clinton managed to secure the nomination in 1992 without winning either Iowa or New Hampshire, and so did George McGovern back in 1972.

But the difference is that in 1992, Clinton had a case to make with a strong second place showing in New Hampshire with 25 percent to Paul Tsongas’ 33 percent. Same deal with McGovern in 1972 with a strong second place in New Hampshire with 37 percent to Edmund Muskie’s 46 percent.

The only candidate who might be able to defeat the two-man contest is Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), who surprised with a strong third place at 19.8 percent. Biden and Warren have a much harder road, and surely late-deciders in South Carolina are taking note.

Biden’s only handhold remains on the polls, and so the question is whether Biden can leverage his months-long lead in the polls in South Carolina.

The big question is how long will Biden’s lead in those polls last as Sanders and Buttigieg continue to outperform Biden on the campaign trail.

A rich undercurrent is the impeachment saga, which predictably harmed Biden’s prospects by highlighting his role in firing Ukraine’s top prosecutor in 2016 who says he was investigating the corrupt natural gas firm his son worked for and destabilizing the region by pushing Viktor Yanukovych out of power there in 2014.

Impeachment drove up Biden’s negatives early in the process, and it is clearly showing on the campaign trail. Ironically, this might not have been the case had Democrats not impeached Trump.

Democrats interfered in their own campaign and sabotaged their own frontrunner, Biden, who had been leading polls nationally for months uninterrupted. Fox News commentator Sean Hannity called it the “boomerang.” That’s about right.

In the meantime, the close race for the Democratic nomination between Sanders and Buttigieg favors President Donald Trump, who easily won the primary in New Hampshire with 85.5 percent of the vote running relatively unopposed.

Democrats and independents watching who don’t like any of the Democratic candidates will be ripe for the President’s picking as he exploits chaos in the Democratic field.

Who the Democrats choose at this juncture is akin to reading a crystal ball, but in South Carolina and beyond, Sanders’ organization and campaign’s experience may prove determinative as Biden fades.

Or, Biden could be about to mount the greatest political comeback in history. Who knows?

The next thing to watch for are fresh polls from South Carolina and Nevada. Stay tuned.

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.

BOB AUTH AND BOB YUDIN BOB THEIR WAY THROUGH BERGEN COUNTY POLITICS

By TEMPLE LI

The bob-racing team of State Assemblyman Bob Auth and former Bergen County Republican Organization Chairman Bob Yudin have aligned together for something; apparently, though, onlookers aren’t quite sure what that something is. Don’t end a sentence on “is”, one may say. Well, Auth and Yudin should not end-around the Bergen County (and New Jersey)  Republican Party, others may say. Does that make sense?

Not really.

But neither do some of the recent actions of the Bob Team, as they bob around Bergen County politics and beyond. An example, you ask?

Recently, Bob (Auth) jumped into the GOP primary race for New Jersey’s 5th Congressional District seat. Currently, Josh Gottheimer, a Democrat, holds the position. Gottheimer, a D with a lot of M (that’s moula, otherwise known as money), defeated a longstanding conservative congressman, Scott Garrett, back in 2016. Gottheimer, much like Pete Buttigieg (the nobody mayor from somewhere in Indiana who is playing like he is running for president), purports to be in the role of a moderate, although he is a tried and true liberal Democrat who voted to impeach President Trump. Gottheimer is no joke, however. He is a polished politician, who knows how to run a campaign and appeal to voters who are unaware of his actual political leanings. How does Auth (one of the Bobs) fit into this fray?

Not really too well.

Bob (Auth) has jumped into a crowded field, with much more established candidates, who likely have much more money than him. And who, therefore, can likely at least put up some kind of fundraising fight with Gottheimer. The field also includes at least one bona fide conservative, with a great life story—Montvale Mayor Mike Ghassali. A Christian born in Syria who became an American citizen after legally immigrating to the U.S. at 16, Ghassali has been both a successful entrepreneur and dynamic humanitarian. Auth’s background, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to include much of anything impressive, although he should be given some credit for being elected to a state legislature seat. In that seat, however, there does not seem to be anything remarkable that he has accomplished. Yup, nothing, at all, comes to mind.

One thing of interest with Bob (Auth) and his state assembly seat is that he had over one thousand five hundred (over 1,500) less votes than his Republican running mate, Assemblywoman Holly Schepisi, in the November 2019 election. Yes Sir, Madam and Otherwise (if you’re one of those non-binary, non-gender type of whatever), according to Ballotpedia Auth clunked in with 25,494 votes as opposed to Schepisi who commanded 27,125 votes. For those who like exact numbers, Auth hobbled his way across the finish line, ostensibly on Schepisi’s back, with 1,631 less votes than her.

Also of interest with Bob (Auth) is his apparent relationship with Bob (Yudin). Let’s use a form of  the word “apparent” again. Here we go:

Apparently, Yudin, who at one time was the chairman of the Bergen County Republican Organization (lovingly called the BCRO) is embroiled in some kind of ongoing battle with the BCRO, presumably – or apparently – because he is antithetical to the mission of the Republican Party. Per an article in one of New Jersey’s leading daily newspapers, The Record, Yudin is opposed to Trump’s presidency. The article’s headline kind of says it all:

Meet the New Jersey Republican who is calling for Trump’s removal

Yes Sir, Madam and Otherwise (if you’re one of those non-binary, non-gender type of whatever), that New Jersey “Republican” is Bob (Yudin).

Oh no, that New Jersey “Republican” – Bob Yudin – also endorsed Josh Gottheimer for Congress. And he endorsed yet another Bob – Bob Menendez – for U.S. Senate. It’s all explained in this article in the New Jersey Globe, Former Bergen GOP chairman endorses Menendez, Gottheimer. Holy non-Republican times 10 – Bob (Yudin) endorsed these Democrats over his supposed Republican counterparts.

But, alas, Yudin is not a turncoat on all Republicans. He loves his Bob brethren. Just as much as he apparently loves Bob (Menendez), he apparently loves that other Bob: Bobby-baby Auth.

According to the website Vote Smart, Bob (Yudin) donated $5,200 to Bob Auth’s state assembly campaign.

Yeesh…One can see the Bob (Yudin)-Bob (Menendez)-Bob (Auth) + Josh Gottheimer twisted political team Bobbing and Joshing around New Jersey (and Washington) together. Well, probably not a team in that completed form. And that’s because only one person can win the 5th Congressional seat in New Jersey. And if Auth were the GOP nominee (which is incredibly doubtful), no doubt Gottheimer will politically trounce him with all his money and so-called moderate positions. Either way, with Auth or Gottheimer, at least one New Jerseyan would seemingly be happy: “Republican” Bob (Yudin).

On the other hand, the majority of the voters in NJ’s 5th Congressional District will be happy if another, more viable candidate (i.e, Ghassali) is the GOP nominee. Especially, since a guy like Ghassali doesn’t have a $5,200-type donor who has called for the removal of Donald Trump (and is not a congressman who voted for the impeachment of Trump). A fun fact: in 2016, when Gottheimer was first elected, Trump won NJ’s 5th Congressional District. These voters like the President – and they like him a lot. Commonsense says that they will also like a candidate who is supportive of him.

Meanwhile, the Bobs are bobbing around…

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.

FAT IS NOT WHERE IT’S AT

By TEMPLE LI

Who is in charge of TV advertising for major companies? Fat and ugly just doesn’t sell.

Fat.

Gorgeous.

Square.

Round.

Sexy.

Homely.

All people are equally important as human beings. However, just being honest, beastly and obese just are not saleable in the advertising marketplace. In the noxious pursuit of being politically correct, the major corporate world has determined to forego profits. And that’s just stupid.

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?

 

HOW NEITHER TRUMP NOR BIDEN HAVE COMMITTED CRIMES

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

If one REALLY cares about justice, please review the following: A U.S. elected official (e.g., president or other top leader) can legally withhold aid from a foreign country if the foreign country refuses to perform one of countless mandates made by that elected official. In other words, contrary to what the uniformed (or liars) are saying, a quid pro quo is perfectly lawful in numerous circumstances. For example, a president could legally say to a foreign leader that he will withhold a billion dollars in aid: (1) if you don’t return an American fugitive who had committed a crime in the U.S. and fled to a foreign country; OR (2) if you don’t release a wrongfully convicted American citizen from your prison and return him to the U.S.; OR (3) if you don’t eliminate tariffs on U.S. goods; OR (4) if you don’t investigate an American who we believe may have committed a crime in your country; OR (5) if you don’t legalize gay marriage in your country; OR (6) if you don’t cease the development of nuclear weapons; OR (7) if you don’t criminalize heroin use; OR one of countless other matters…Get the picture? A quid pro quo is perfectly legally in voluminous situations, as I’ve been saying for months on TV news shows…Specifically reviewing the Trump and Biden matters again, the following explains how each of these matters are crimes – and how they are not crimes:

(1) If Joe Biden, as VP of the U.S., had a good faith, reasonable belief that a Ukrainian prosecutor was illegally investigating his son and/or his son’s company – and he instituted an actual quid pro quo, whereby he threatened to have the U.S. withhold billions of dollars in aid unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor – then there is NO crime. It is irrelevant that Biden, in that circumstance, derived a benefit (i.e., the cessation of the investigation into his son/son’s company) from the firing of the prosecutor. The fact that he had another – legally valid – reason (i.e., a good faith, reasonable belief that the prosecutor was committing a corrupt act in illegally investigating his son/son’s company) to have the prosecutor fired, afforded him the legal authority to institute the quid pro quo and thereby refuse to have the U.S. turn over the billions of aid unless the prosecutor was fired…If, however, Biden did not have a good faith, reasonable belief that the prosecutor was illegally investigating his son/son’s company, then the quid pro quo would be unlawful. In that scenario, he would be guilty of a crime for using his power as VP to threaten that the U.S. would withhold billions of aid unless the prosecutor is fired. There, Biden would be solely extracting a personal benefit (the cessation of an investigation into his son) in exchange for using his elected official powers to provide billions of U.S. government dollars.

(2) The same exact analysis is legally accurate in Donald Trump’s matter. If Donald Trump, as President of the U.S., had a good faith, reasonable belief that Joe Biden committed a crime (by threatening to withhold billions of dollars unless the Ukrainian government fired the prosecutor investigating his son) – and he instituted an actual quid pro quo, whereby he threatened to have the U.S. withhold billions of dollars in aid unless the Ukrainian government investigated Biden – then there is NO crime. It is irrelevant that Trump, in that circumstance, may derive an ancillary benefit (i.e., that a potential political opponent may be “politically damaged”) from the investigating of Biden. The fact that he had another – legally valid – reason (i.e., a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden was committing a crime by threatening to withhold billions in aid unless the prosecutor was fired) to have Biden investigated, afforded him the legal authority to institute the quid pro quo and thereby refuse to have the U.S. turn over the billions of aid unless Biden was investigated…If, however, Trump did not have a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden had committed a crime, then the quid pro quo would be unlawful. In that scenario, he would be guilty of a crime for using his power as President to threaten that the U.S. would withhold billions of aid unless Biden is investigated. There, Trump would be solely extracting a personal benefit (the investigation and “political damage” of a potential political opponent) in exchange for using his elected official powers to provide billions of U.S. government dollars.

A few critical notes:

*A qualitative difference between the Biden and Trump matters is that in the Biden matter, there was indeed a definitive quid pro quo. Biden can be seen on video explicitly bragging about that the quid pro quo: (a) that he he threatened to withhold billions in U.S. aid if the Ukrainian government didn’t fire the prosecutor; and (b) that the quid quo pro deal was actually consummated, whereby the prosecutor was fired – and the billions in U.S. aid was thereafter paid…In Trump’s matter, there is no such evidence of a quid pro quo. It’s mere, unsupported speculation. There is no evidence that Trump said anything like, “If you don’t do this (e.g. – investigate Biden), then the U.S. government won’t do that (e.g. – provide billions in aid)”…In any case – whether it is Biden or Trump – as detailed above, the existence of a quid pro quo does not legally mean that a crime has been committed. It MIGHT mean that a crime has been committed (it depends upon the circumstances).

*It is a complete fabrication – and not supported by any law whatsoever – that an elected U.S. official (president, senator, or anyone) cannot ask a foreign government (or the U.S. government) to investigate someone, including a political opponent. A person doesn’t become immune from a president (or any elected official) seeking an investigation into him merely because he declares that he is running for office against that official. Aside from such an argument simply not being rooted in any law, it is, in layman’s terms, completely stupid. If Trump had a good faith, reasonable belief that Biden had committed murder or stolen millions of dollars in the Ukraine, he certainly would have the legal right to ask the Ukrainian government to investigate Biden (regardless of Biden’s status as a potential political opponent of his). The nature of the possible crime (murder vs theft vs bribery vs abuse of power) is irrelevant. Any argument to the contrary is, plainly, dumb.

*BTW: Biden isn’t even Trump’s opponent. He is a POTENTIAL opponent. Right now, he is an opponent of other Democrats in a Democrat primary. But, as aforesaid, the “opponent” issue is legally irrelevant under the law.

*Some information about the so-called Obstruction of Congress: (1) it is neither a high crime or misdemeanor; and (2) more so, it is hoax. Worse, it is an abuse of power by the congressional members who voted for this article (and I stated that publicly before anyone). Why? Because the alleged Obstruction of Congress charge is based upon Trump’s refusal to respond to subpoenas UNTIL or UNLESS he is ordered to do so by the Supreme Court. There are 3 branches of the government, not one. When the executive branch disagrees with the legislative branch (as happened here), the dispute – according to the separation of powers defined by the U.S. Constitution – shall be resolved by the third branch of the government (i.e., the judiciary – meaning the Courts). By Congress not only seeking to deprive President Trump of this constitutional rights, but punishing him for it via an impeachment charge, those congressional members have themselves engaged in an abuse of power.

Above and beyond all else, a very dangerous slippery slope has been underway, wherein criminal law is being misused for political gain. People are either wholly ignorant of the law, or worse: they are lying about it. The underpinnings of this impeachment inquiry – that Trump committed a crime in this Ukrainian matter – is legal lunacy. It’s also immoral, as it’s the use of criminal law at its worst. This misuse of criminal law is something that, so unfortunately, has happened countless of times over the years.

All that said, the only time that an elected official or a member of the media – or any member of the public – should claim that someone has committed a crime (or seek a criminal investigation into someone) is where he has a good faith, reasonable belief, rooted in actual evidence, that a crime has been committed. For all other matters – which are the vast majority of the matters that are manufactured by plastic politicians and media mental midgets – criminal law should not be invoked. Most Americans understand this: any matters, political or otherwise, where criminal law is not applicable, it should not be employed. Arrogance, mixed with stupidity (a very bad combination) has led some people to this misuse of the law.

As many hardworking lawyers and law enforcement personnel have stated many times: falsely accusing someone, forwarding cases based upon unfounded investigations without requisite evidence, carrying out arrests/prosecutions without probable cause, and conducting hearings, etc rooted in inadequate, specious claims are not only violative of our most fundamental constitutional precepts and protections, but has, in recent times – rightfully so – been resulting in the illicit investigators/accusers being investigated and facing legal troubles themselves. This all can stop – for everyone – by simply ending the improper conduct, wherein all can walk into the sunset. That’s the smart move for all; for anyone with commonsense.

Kenneth Del Vecchio 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 ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  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 eOne 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. 

HAIR-ABOVE-AVERAGE PELOSI

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Isn’t it obvious that Nancy Pelosi is not all that bright? Her politics, of course, are awful.

And she’s a phony.

…To be fair, she does dress exceptionally well…

She claims to be a Catholic, but is pro-choice.

She purports to be a moderate, but is a robotic advocate, in public, for every ultra-liberal issue under the sun. This, of course, includes that man is responsible for climate change – pun intended.

She comes from uber  wealth and privilege. Hopefully, she does not believe in the hoax “White” privilege. But she does indeed hail from good ol’ blue blood monetary wealth, Daddy/Mommy privilege.

Now back to Pelosi’s intellect or lack thereof. She’s not a stupid woman; it’s just that she’s not all that smart. The woman is a little bit above average in intelligence.

All of the above renders a pretty crappy elected official, especially one in such a powerful post.

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.

YOSSI HARTMAN SHINES AS A SUPERSTAR

By TEMPLE LI

Has anyone ever hit three grand slams in a single baseball game? How many people have climbed Mount Everest in an hour?…Count the number of individuals who have:

Built a 100-floor skyscraper – by himself – and in a week.

Earned 1,001 awards for acting roles in movies.

Designed the largest three buildings in the world.

Scored 10 touch downs in a football game.

Painted a mile-long bridge in three hours.

Swam across the Atlantic – and back – in less than 24 hours.

Well, Yossi Hartman has done it all. He is a true superstar.

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.

THE CASE FOR BARRY BONDS IN THE HALL OF FAME

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

He is the all-time baseball career home run leader.

He holds the single-season record for home runs.

He was walked more – intentionally and “non”-intentionally than any player in MLB history.

Other than Babe Ruth, he was the most dominant baseball player than history.

Barry Bonds, definitively, belongs in the Hall of Fame. Alleged steroid use or not.

And FYI: he was convicted of no offense; he was actually acquitted. Additionally, he played in an era where numerous baseballers were doing steroids. In every era, players have utilized substances that enhanced their abilities. Steroids or no steroids, Bonds should be in the HOF.

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. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

JUST AN ABSOLUTE SCIENTIFIC FACT: ABORTION KILLS HUMAN LIVES, NOT PLANKTON AND GIRAFFES

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

Just a thought.

Abortion, no matter what anyone argues, is the killing of a human life.

At any stage, it is a HUMAN life.

From the moment of conception, it is a human life. Two weeks after conception, it is a human life. The same is factual a month later, three months later, six months later, and none months later. It all times, it is a human life. It may be in different stages of human life, but, nonetheless, it is indeed always human.

It’s not a giraffe.

It’s not a carp.

It’s need a sunflower.

it’s not a kangaroo.

It’s not plankton.

It’s not a lizard.

No, it’s a human. Scientifically, it’s human – period.

Why don’t the abortionists just admit that they just don’t care about killing human life. It’s simple – and it’s true. it’s just a matter of convenience for some. For others, it’s a money-maker.

For anyone who thinks, though, it’s murdering a human life. Most of these people are not thinking, however. They’ve been propagandized for decades, and they throw around fraudulently, court-created notions of constitutional rights. Aside from the fact that there of course is no right to an abortion anywhere in the U.S. constitution, there isn’t even a right to privacy (the alleged right that the 1973 Supreme Court) grounded its sadly-drafted Roe v Wade decision in; simply, those 5-majority justices manufactured something that wasn’t there. But even if there was a right to privacy in the constitution (which there isn’t), how such a matter could get stretched to killing a human life inside a woman’s woman is confounding – and absurd. Unfortunately, however, the propaganda machines have been at work for over five decades, and the legality of this horrific American tradition of genocide has become a normal activity to mass millions. And people just don’t think; people just don’t think abortion is an act of killing other people (not blades of grass or deep sea bass).

Once people start thinking – which will, inevitably, happen – they will understand this reality. and the tides of aborting human life will turn to saving human life. Or, maybe, Roe v Wade will just be overturned by a conservative court, and the abortionist wil be $hI# out of luck.

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. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.