PROPOSED CALIFORNIA BILL TO MANDATE WOMEN ON BOARDS OF DIRECTORS IS RIDICULOUS AND INSULTING TO WOMEN

By CANDY STALLWORTH

A new bill proposed in the California state legislature would require all publicly traded California companies to “have a minimum of one female…on its board of directors.” If the bill passes, then by the end of 2019, any foreign or domestic publicly held company that identifies its executive office in California would have to have at least one female board director or face fines ranging from $100,000 to $300,000. The required number of female board members would increase in subsequent years, and more females would be required for larger boards.

Reasons cited for this potential directive, according to the bill, are that “publicly held companies perform better when women serve on their boards of directors”, “There has been a greater correlation between stock performance and the presence of women on a board since the financial crisis in 2008”, and other equally nebulous claims. The studies cited within the bill text perfectly exemplify how anyone can take any numbers and make them say anything. The goal is to achieve income parity between men and women, which, according to the bill, would take “40 or 50 years to achieve…if something is not done proactively.”

Now, I am all for women achieving at the highest levels, in business and in every sphere of life. I am a woman. I think women should be CEO’s, members of boards of directors, and top-ranking executives in companies of all sizes; they should be at the top levels of administration in schools, higher education institutions, hospitals, law firms, non-profits, research labs and every other type of organization imaginable. BUT they should be in those positions only when they EARN them. It is demeaning and insulting to women to put them in high-level positions simply because they are women. The message being sent is that their qualifications do not matter.

This California bill has been drafted to achieve the goal of income parity between men and women, and posits (via some rather fluffy statistics) that women make their companies better. But by dictating that women be put into board of director positions, the legislature is assuming that women cannot get there on their own. The message is that women do not have the skills and qualifications to earn their way onto their companies’ boards and that they need a “handout” of sorts, a free, unearned pass into the boardroom. It’s also saying that men cannot (or do not) evaluate qualifications fairly, and they will not even recognize when their female colleagues have earned top-level positions.

How could anyone within a company (or any entity), whether male or female, respect someone who is made a member of the board of directors simply because the company is complying with law, and not because the person earned the position? What woman would want to be handed a position, not because she has achieved it, but because her employer is mandated to give it to her?
Just let women shine on their own. They can do it. They do not need free passes; the strongest, most driven, talented, and qualified women will find their way onto boards of directors and other top-ranking positions. Government, stay out of it.

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.

IT IS TIME FOR A SECOND SPECIAL COUNSEL

By Printus LeBlanc

Something very disturbing happened on Tuesday that sent the media into a frenzy. On the same day, the Paul Manafort was found guilty on bank fraud and tax evasion charges a U.S. attorney once refused to bring, Michael Cohen pled guilty in a New York courtroom to charges that include tax and bank fraud and campaign finance allegations. The media crowed, “now we got him,” with all sights on President Donald Trump all day while pretending to be objective. All this latest episode does is show the world that as of right now, there is no equal application of the law in the U.S., and a second Special Counsel is needed to fix the problem.

The media and left may be in a state of euphoria over the two cases, in hopes it brings President Trump down. However, many people look at the two cases and notice something very scary. The only reason both men were prosecuted was because they were connected to Trump. The only reason both men had their homes and offices raided was because they were connected to President Trump. The only reason both men had their lives turned upside down was because they were connected to President Trump. Neither man had anything to do with Russian collusion, as was the basis for the investigation in the first place.

Both prosecutions also show what is most important; the Special Counsel is not looking into Russian collusion. From the beginning, it was clear the investigation had little to do with Russia and the election and was nothing more than a political hit job by the swamp.

This is easy to prove Mueller is not investigating Russian election meddling because the investigation is not conducting the most basic tasks to prove meddling in the first place. To do that, the FBI must examine the DNC server to prove it was hacked. All there is now is the word of a third-party partisan firm, Crowdstrike, with a habit for blaming Russia for everything.

If Mueller truly wanted to investigate Russian meddling in the election, he would be looking at the sources for the Steele dossier to see if it was a disinformation campaign launched by the Kremlin. As far as anybody knows, that has not been done yet either.

If Mueller wanted to investigate what happened in the election, he would be questioning the numerous people that approached members of the Trump campaign with offers of “dirt” on Hillary Clinton. He is not doing that, perhaps because almost all the people have connections to the Clintons also.

Robert Mueller seems to be going out of his way to investigate everything except anything that will make the DOJ, FBI, and Clinton’s look bad. The American people see this and are now beginning to question if there truly is equal justice under the law. If the people lose faith in the justice system and believe the only thing that matters is the political designation next to your name, America will fail.

There is a way to fix the problem. Attorney General Jeff Sessions must appoint a Special Counsel to look at the crimes committed by the DOJ, FBI, and Clintons in the election. This Special Counsel must have the same powers as Robert Mueller does, and have the ability to pursue a crime where ever it is found. This includes decades-old tax problems or IT security issues.

Thanks to the Justice Department Inspector General report, the world knows the investigators displayed bias in the Hillary Clinton investigation. The only reason the IG didn’t declare the investigation tainted, was because there was no smoking gun email stating, “I am going to throw this investigation because of bias,” but make no mistake about it, there was plenty of evidence of bias. The media just refuses to report it. This would be the perfect place for the Special Counsel to start.

Before anyone says the IG already did a report, it is important to remember the IG does not put people before a grand jury, nor does the IG have the ability to call on people not in the DOJ. The Clinton investigation involved dozens of people not in the DOJ, including Hillary Clinton herself.

From there the new Special Counsel can move onto the crimes committed by the DOJ and FBI. Lying to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) is a crime. And as everyone has seen, the FISA application to spy on Carter Page was filled with lies. If anyone reading this submitted false information to a judge in court proceedings, there would most definitely be a price to pay.

Many people are going to ask the question, “Why can’t Rod Rosenstein just oversee an investigation?” Because the Deputy Attorney General himself signed on of the FISA extensions that had false information in it, possibly making him guilty of perjury. He cannot be trusted to lead an investigation in which he is a possible defendant.

From there, the Special Counsel could move onto the only foreign agent that has been identified to have played a role in the election, Christopher Steele, and Mueller indicting anonymous Russians that put up Facebook memes doesn’t count. Christopher Steele was a foreign agent that influenced what became a politicized yet official investigation into Trump at the behest of Trump’s political opponents. Not only that, it is believed some of his information came from Clinton hatchet men Sid Blumenthal and Cody Shearer.

Many have called for a halt to a second Special Counsel, hoping everything would eventually work out. The time has passed, and Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning agrees, stating, “In the past, I have advocated patience with the Department of Justice as they pursue this matter through regular legal channels. They are out of time. America needs to know that there is equal justice under the law, and there is no reason to have any confidence that the Justice Department has the capacity or willingness to investigate itself and other agencies implicated through this scandal. It is time for a special counsel to focus on the Clinton and Obama side of the ledger where we know criminal activity occurred, in order to restore America’s faith that our justice system does not just go one way.”

If Robert Mueller was doing his job, Congress wouldn’t need to have hearings and threaten the Deputy AG with contempt. If Mueller was doing his job, he would have identified the crimes mentioned above and prosecuted them, but he didn’t because that was not his job. Robert Mueller’s job was to cover up for the DOJ and FBI, even if it means ignoring and participating in the ongoing coup attempt and shredding the U.S. Constitution. It is time for a second Special Counsel to do the job Robert Mueller won’t.

Printus LeBlanc is the Legislative Director at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at www.dailytorch.com.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.
YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

DEMOCRATS’ PLANNED LAUNDRY LIST OF INVESTIGATIONS BY ‘NEW’ CONGRESS WILL BE SHUT DOWN EN MASSE

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

The Democrats, especially the far left and angry overzealous congressional leaders such as Adam Schiff, have lost all credibility with most Americans with regard to investigations surrounding Donald Trump and his allies. The majority of Americans have already concluded that the probes into Trump are witch hunts rooted purely in politics and personal animosity against the president – and that they are unsupported by facts and evidence. A laundry list of new investigations planned by Democrats will not only be met with speculation, but grave disdain by the public.

Trump has a keen understanding of people and the true mainstream thought processes. He also recognizes that a great majority of Americans do not trust the so-called elites in media, academia, and Hollywood. Normal folk are less and less swayed by the sound bites delivered by these entities/people. The president will continue to seize on this groundswell of distrust by the populace, and he will use his executive powers and ample political pressures to shut down baseless investigations.

Although Jeff Sessions has quietly generated some considerable successes at the DOJ, Trump likely will replace him as attorney general; the new AG will be more in line with the president’s thought processes. This would mean that a larger number of dubious investigations pushed by Democrats in Congress will be shut down before they start. It may also mean that Trump finally pushes the button to end the ever-broadening Mueller investigation (if it hasn’t ended by the time a new Congress take their seats).

The substantial majority of Americans are justice-seekers. They are incensed by government conduct that violates the constitution and which is otherwise unlawful. They fear overreach in investigatory matters that infringe upon civil liberties; they are alarmed by illegal surveillance, criminal charges that are not grounded in probable cause, investigations that are germinated through political vengeance, cruel and unusual punishment, overt double standards, and unchecked powers. Too many recent circumstances, which so terrifyingly fit this bill, are fresh – and simmering in their minds. One (of numerous) examples: the recent Michael Cohen investigation and plea.

Donald Trump’s sacred right to a confidential attorney-client relationship was obliterated in a zeal-infested pursuit by prosecutors to procure any information they could scrap up to implicate the president in the engagement of illegal activity. They sidestepped the prohibition against seizing and utilizing conversations and correspondences between attorney-client by asserting that the discourse between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen was in furtherance of a crime by and between them. No such crime existed, as is thoroughly detailed in the recent Empire State News article MICHAEL COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA FOR ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WAS A PLEA TO A NON-CRIMINAL ACT BY A NON-CREDIBLE ACTOR.

Die-hard Trump voters, as well as many newly disgruntled Americans, will likely quell the investigatory hopes of Democrats before they can ever be initiated – and that’s because they will vote Republican at a higher clip. These people are ever-motivated to see the cessation of the media/political circus surrounding specious probes, with topics that they largely consider unimportant. The continued growth of the economy and lowering of unemployment are at the top of their lists, as well as the appointment of constitutionalist judges (e.g. – Brett Kavanaugh) and progression with the denuclearization of North Korea. These Americans know that the easiest route for such important goals to be accomplished is by having a Republican Congress behind Donald Trump. Although there are, no doubt, significant potholes created by plastic establishment types, a perpetuated Republican majority in the House and Senate is crucial to avoid a socialist agenda – and an agenda of “all things against Trump.”

The Trump voters are much wiser than those self-purported media/academic/Hollywood elites think, and they are passionate. They are very likely to mobilize and ensure enough GOP victories in November which, in and of itself, will terminate the Democrats’ wish list of baseless investigations before they start. If not, Trump has his eyes wide open, and his mosquito nets are already out. And, at this point of his experience in the White House, he has plenty of ideas – and strength – to crush unjust conduct at its insidious inception.

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.

THE BEST & WORST LIST, WITH SOCIALISM AT THE TOP

By EMPIRE STATE NEWS STAFF

Everyone here at Empire State News chipped in a few of the “bests” and “worsts”, as follows:

The Best Member of the Senate – Rand Paul

The Worst Type of Meat – Tongue, Liver & Knuckles

The Worst Type of Politician in the U.S. – The Idiots Who Think Socialism is a Good Idea

The Best Baseball Player Ever – Babe Ruth (Ted Williams, Barry Bonds, Alex Rodriguez & Ty Cobb follow)

The Best President Ever – Abraham Lincoln (Donald Trump is getting there)

The Worst Way to Go Through College – Fat, Drunk & Stupid (unfortunately, that’s many of today’s students)

The Best Form of Government – A Democracy (with capitalism, as through such is the only way a democracy can truly function)

The Best Actor – Clint Eastwood (of course)

The Worst Actor – Anyone Who is a Socialist

The Worst Way to Travel – With Socialists

The Best Way to Eat Steak – With Your Hands

The Best Type of Man – a Man’s Man

The Worst Fish – Salmon

The Worst Way to Eat Chicken Salad – Liquified

The Best Type of Woman – A Lady

The Worst Idea About Gender – That There Are More Than Two

The Best Way For Americans (And Anyone) To Live – Without Discrimination of Any Kind, Following the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution

The Best Actress – Cameron Diaz

The Best Word in the Dictionary – Loyalty

The Worst Word in the Dictionary – Jealousy

The Best Way For Football Players to Hold Themselves During the National Anthem – Standing

The Worst News Publications – Those That Proliferate Socialism Tied With Those Who Relay Fake News

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.
YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

MICHAEL COHEN’S GUILTY PLEA FOR ILLEGAL CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS WAS A PLEA TO A NON-CRIMINAL ACT BY A NON-CREDIBLE ACTOR

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

When Michael Cohen’s offices and hotel room were raided in April by federal law enforcement officials, there was outrage – and rightfully so. The outrage was not warranted simply because a lawyer’s privacy had been invaded. Rather, it was warranted because the government was invading the very precious safeguards of attorney-client privilege under a cloak that Cohen, a lawyer, had likely committed crimes.

As it turns out, Cohen did perpetrate some criminal offenses. Yesterday, he pled guilty to multiple counts of tax evasion and bank fraud; the prosecution has a valid case against him for these offenses. He also pled guilty to making illegal campaign contributions, which was a specious legal disposition, at best. The guilty plea to that offense underscores the outrage that many inside (and outside) the legal community felt when Cohen’s properties were raided. Why?

Because in obtaining this particular allocution of guilt from Cohen, the prosecutors had relied upon evidence, including conversations between then-presidential candidate Trump and Cohen, that directly violated Donald Trump’s attorney-client relationship. This is not only a frightening affront to the president, but to all Americans.

Donald Trump’s sacred right to a confidential attorney relationship was obliterated in a zeal-infested pursuit by prosecutors to procure any information they could scrap up to implicate the president in the engagement of illegal activity. They sidestepped the prohibition against seizing and utilizing conversations and correspondences between attorney-client by asserting that the discourse between Donald Trump and Michael Cohen was in furtherance of a crime by and between them. Although such illegal conduct would cause the attorney-client privilege protections to be vitiated, there must be probable cause that the lawyer and client were actually involved in unlawful conduct together. With regard to the purported campaign finance violation charge that Cohen plead guilty to, as oxymoronic as it may sound, probable cause for a crime did not exist. This means that the government wrongfully interfered with Donald Trump’s privileged communications with his lawyer and, thus, serves as a threshold rationale for why any companion charge against the president would be unlawful. But there are several more relatable reasons why a case against Trump will fail, if it is predicated by this dubious Cohen plea.

It is universally understood that Michael Cohen, affectionately referred to as Trump’s fixer, had paid $150,000 and $130,000 to a nude model (Karen McDougal) and a porn star (Stormy Daniels), respectively. When Cohen elocuted to the judge – meaning when he told the court why he was guilty – he stated that he made these payments under the direction of Trump and for the purpose of influencing the 2016 presidential election. According to the prosecutors, as well as Cohen’s own attorney, Democrat operative Lanny Davis, these payments amounted to a crime. Illegal conduct was executed, they say, because the monies doled out considerably exceeded the cap that an individual can donate to a presidential campaign.

The maximum donation that a person can make to the election fund of a presidential candidate is $2,700 per election. Unquestionably, $280,000 in payments toward a campaign would far supersede the legal limits. But there are several massive roadblocks to a moral – and legal – attempt at charges against Donald Trump in connection to these payoffs:

First, the prosecution’s entire case appears to be a “he-said, he-said” case. While Cohen says that the payments were at the direction of Trump “for the purpose of influencing the election”, Trump will surely say the payments were not for that purpose. Prosecutions predicated upon one person’s word versus another are inherently unjust, as one can never truly prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt under such unverifiable circumstances. For, who can ever know which person is telling the truth?

Another tragic flaw in this matter: Michael Cohen has no credibility. The soon-to-be disbarred lawyer had stated, on numerous occasions, that the payment made to Stormy Daniels was not at the direction of Donald Trump (and that Trump did not know about the same until afterward). Now, he claims that the payments to Daniels (and McDougal) were upon Trump’s orders. This flip-flopping, accompanied by several other apparent fabrications perpetrated by Cohen, render him incredible.

More so, how can anyone ever prove Donald Trump’s state of mind regarding why he would want payments made to Daniels and McDougal – meaning, even if he was aware of the payments, how can it ever be proved that they were issued “for purposes of influencing the election” versus “for purposes to protect his family and general reputation”? The answer is that such can never be proved, minus a smoking gun. Michael Cohen’s singular word certainly is not that smoking gun.

The dangerous slippery slope created through this charge and the ambiguity of the law itself are yet other massive hurdles in a potential prosecution against Trump for committing this alleged campaign finance violation. Albeit, Cohen pled guilty, but a law was indeed not broken by him in this instance.

First, there is nothing illegal in paying “hush money.” This is a media-manufactured sensation, perpetrated by either ignorant people or straight-up liars. “Hush money” – funds paid to individuals to keep quiet about a matter – is paid to settle cases, of every sort and type, thousands of times yearly; it is memorialized in court documents approved by scores of judges throughout the nation. “Hush money” is nothing more than payments made in exchange for confidentiality and the non-disclosure of information. Hush money is routinely paid by educational institutions, doctors, soda manufacturers, day care centers, corn farmers, home builders, and yes, even law enforcement agencies; it is paid by everyone and anyone. The media has dubbed disbursements for confidentiality/non-disclosure agreements as “hush money” in an effort to dupe people with an unsavory-sounding phrase, but the transaction is not only perfectly legal, it is totally normal.

The statute governing illegal campaign contributions is wildly broad and ambiguous, and it is a substantial overreach to employ it in Cohen’s case. In layman’s terms, who would think this type of payment violated campaign contribution caps? When Cohen issued these payments, his actions were those of an everyday attorney: he was settling cases. He paid out nuisance money – that’s all $280,000 is to a billionaire like Trump – as an ordinary course of business, to end a potentially embarrassing matter. The fact that the monies were paid during a presidential campaign is legally irrelevant. Trump, as well as an inordinate list of individuals and companies, settle such cases (over a wide array of topics) routinely—and they do so with a general purpose: to end a potentially embarrassing situation.

Invoking this campaign contribution statute to criminalize such matters that are so indirectly and tangentially related to a campaign creates a terrifying slippery slope that has never-ending implications against countless politicians and donors. The angry anti-Trump mob is so hateful, it has become blind and is willing to discard justice in their illicit pursuit to nail this man. They do not care, in this moment of a craze, what very dangerous slick-sloped ramifications this farcical guilty plea can create. It is instructive, if not critical, to evaluate other commiserate dealings to demonstrate just how legally irrational this “guilty” plea by Cohen was (and potential action against Trump for these payments).

Donald Trump and his companies, like most business leaders and corporations, have been involved in numerous ongoing lawsuits. What if Donald Trump and other principal shareholders settled a case during the presidential campaign? For example, what if they settled the Trump University lawsuit? Should the shareholders be charged with making illegal campaign donations because their portion of the settlement payment exceeded the $2,700 statutory limit? Should the lawyers handling the case be charged as conspirators? This, of course, is patently absurd. None of these people would be guilty of campaign finance violations because the case was resolved during the campaign, rather than after or before the campaign.

Let’s get real here: Michael Cohen didn’t think he was making a contribution to Trump’s presidential campaign when he paid $280,000 to Daniels and McDougal. He thought he was settling a case. The simple reason why Cohen pled guilty to a crime for these payments is because the prosecutors pressured him to do so. The actual offenses that Cohen committed (tax evasion and bank fraud) are of little consequence to these law enforcement authorities because they do not implicate the president. In order to involve him in Cohen’s legal woes, they needed to stretch, carve, and acid-wash the law. They needed to label ordinary legal dealings (paying nuisance settlement monies in exchange for a non-disclosure agreement) as a campaign finance violation.

So, Michael Cohen pled guilty to a charge that he could not possibly have had the mens rea (intent) to commit. Sure, in a global sense, one would understand that settling these cases could have some innocuous benefit to Trump’s campaign, but the existence of this indirect benefit is a far cry from causing these payments to be legally defined campaign contributions. There was an overall benefit to Trump, his family and businesses to settle these matters that can never be distinguished from the ancillary benefit their settlements had to the campaign.

For this last reason, alone, Trump is not culpable for any criminal offense, even if he instructed Cohen to make the settlement payments to the nude model and porn star. The prosecution would never be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his purpose in making such payments was “to influence the presidential campaign.” Equally problematic for the prosecutors is that this is a “he-said, he-said” case – and the first “he”, Michael Cohen, has zero credibility. The entire lot involved with his guilty plea lacks legal credibility.

Cohen’s own lawyer, Lanny Davis, revealed his motivations for the guilty plea when he gleefully tweeted the following after yesterday’s court appearance:

“Today he stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn’t they be a crime for Donald Trump?”

Davis threw his client under the bus, assisting the prosecutors in obtaining this unsavory guilty plea for the political purposes of trying to make a case against Donald Trump – and not for seeking justice in a case against Michael Cohen.

Any potential case against Trump for unlawful campaign finance activity was poisoned at the onset of Cohen’s legal woes, via the government’s abolishment of Trump’s attorney-client privilege, when law enforcement improperly seized and utilized confidential communications in furtherance of their case. It worsened when the prosecution elicited the unfounded Cohen guilty plea for illegal campaign contributions (in face of apparently other sound charges). The frightening slippery slope has already been launched through this illicit action, but the decline of this slope can be straightened out by justice-seeking legal authorities: overriding prosecutors can dismiss the charges on their own motions, judges can dismiss the charges, juries can return not guilty verdicts, and Congress can enact new, narrow and clear laws. And oh, the president can deliver pardons.

The injustice of Michael Cohen’s guilty plea yesterday – and what may be so wrongfully sought against the president pursuant to it – very likely will be remedied by some, or even all, of the above. Why so optimistic? Because the matter is so obviously legally ridiculous – and there are more good people in America than bad.

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.

WHAT BLUE WAVE?

By Printus LeBlanc

The mainstream media and Democrat Party are banking on a blue wave this November. 2016 was an embarrassment for them as they took a beating at the polls. Now they are hoping if they say “Blue Wave” enough, it will do two things. First, galvanize their base into turning out for the election, and second to depress voter turnout of the Republicans. If both happen, the Democrats can likely take back Congress and impeach the President for no reason, other than Hillary Clinton didn’t win. However, there is a flaw in their logic. Once again, they are counting their seats before the votes have even been cast.

Yes, history favors the opposition party in off-year elections. The party that takes the White House, typically loses seats and sometimes one or both chambers of Congress the very next election. That would be likely except the Senate map does not favor the Democrats. The left is defending 26 seats including 10 seats in states Trump won, of which several Trump won by large margins. The Republicans are only defending 9 seats, 8 of which are in states Trump won.

But the latest Senate polls show if the election were held today, Republicans might keep the Senate after all and possibly pick up a few seats. Now, why might that be?

Apparently, the media and the left are not even looking at the polls of what is important to the voters. For the last two months, the two leading subjects on the minds of voters has been immigration and government maleficence. President Trump and the Republican Party are leading the charge on both issues with the opposition wanting open borders and government run amok. Not a winning message for Democrats.

And what is perhaps most important in House races is the phrase, “all politics is local.” That is good news for the Republicans. The Republicans are the party that put extra money in the pockets of the voter, the Republicans are also the party that wants to get MS-13 killers off the street, and the Republicans are also the party that reduced regulations for that new business to open up down the street. What are their opponents offering? A pro-MS-13 anti-paycheck message.

The majority of the media is making the mistake of reporting national popularity polls as if that means something on the local level. How does taking the opinion of a single mother in California compare to a father of two in Texas? There is no way to get an accurate measurement of voter sentiment by measuring the whole country as one blob. The more accurate way is to do tracking polls, like the LA Times/USC and IBD/TIPP polls, the only two major surveys that predicted a Trump win.

Not incidentally, the latest IBD/TIPP poll has the direction of the country and quality of life over 50 percent. In fact, all metrics for the Presidential Leadership Index are significantly higher than when President Trump took power.

One must remember, the same people saying the Republicans were going to get destroyed in 2016, are the same people saying the Republicans are going to get destroyed in 2018. These are also the same people that said Republicans need to pander to illegal immigrants in the 2012 autopsy. Then candidate Trump blasted their advice and ran his own campaign and won the race no one said he could win.

Now the media and left are holding out for Mueller’s report, hoping it will be an October surprise that will sink the GOP. They should be careful what they wish for. The President is also capable of generating plenty of October surprises. As the investigations in Congress continue to show government corruption, the President has the power to release the documents the world has been waiting to see on how the FBI’s Russia collusion probe really originated. Is the President waiting until October to bombard the media and Democrats with document after document to prove he was right, the entire month of October? Mueller can drop one October surprise, but the President can drop 31.

The only thing that can blow this opportunity for the Republican Party is to grant illegal immigration amnesty in the upcoming budget battle. President Trump won by listening to the people, and the people are tired of open borders. Congress must not give in to the amnesty crowd, or perhaps they will face a wave election in November. Congress must follow the President’s lead if they want to win in November and quit listening to the people that were wrong in 2016. They were wrong for a reason.

Printus LeBlanc is the Legislative Director at Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at www.dailytorch.com.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.
YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

THE WHITE PRIVILEGE HOAX

By CANDY STALLWORTH

I reject, wholeheartedly, the notion of “white privilege.” It is propelled by both racists and idiots.

There is nothing that my mother, father, siblings, and myself have gained by being Caucasian. Everything we have succeeded at came through our hard work. The argument that we have prevailed by being a “whitey” is insulting and bigoted. More so, this propaganda is unsupported by any facts.

In this modern time, there is not a race in the United States that is treated with superiority over any other race(s). Whites are not given greater opportunities in the job market, educational environments, housing opportunities or any setting. If anything, via the unconstitutional affirmative action measures, Caucasians are discriminated against in today’s America.

My only response to these affronting affirmative action laws is to (1) call for their end, so we don’t live in society that discriminates against any race; and (2) work harder, so I can compete, successfully, with those who are just handed opportunities.

Even in the face of affirmative action, I do not bemoan those of other racial backgrounds. Rather, I accept the fact that there was a time when laws and American culture, in part, treated certain peoples unfairly and with grave prejudice. That era, however, is long gone.

Now, it is time for everyone to unite, without laws that favor one group over another.

Now, it is time for everyone to unite, and exclude only one group: those who seek to separate and divide.

Now, it is the time for everyone to unite, and look completely past skin color.

Now, it is time for everyone to unite, without labels levied upon any race.

Now, it is time for everyone to unite, and denounce the falsehood of “white privilege”, as this label is a derogatory, offensive, bigoted hoax designed to perpetuate the phony race war – and to keep us all apart.

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.

 

THE BATTLE FOR AMERICA’S SOUL

By Rick Manning

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed;”

This fifty-five word statement that begins the Declaration of Independence is the DNA of the United States of America, and it is under attack.

The attack is from those who deny the basic tenet that rights come from God, and insist that they are allowed or tolerated by government. If one doesn’t believe in God, they are not going to believe in natural rights as the two are inextricably intertwined.

If rights come from government, then they are not rights at all, but instead privileges bestowed and taken away by whoever happens to have their hands on the controls.

And when that kind of power is at stake, some will do anything to gain it.

Enter the new Democrat Socialists enforcement arm: Antifa.

Every American needs to understand what Antifa is.  The original Antifa movement was made up of communists in Germany who opposed Hitler’s Brownshirts, and that is what the modern violent left wing movement claims to be doing today.

But today’s reality is they are seeking to take down capitalism with an anything goes approach which includes violence. They have labeled anyone supporting President Donald Trump as a fascist without actually knowing or caring about the meaning of the word. They label those who stand up for individual liberty and freedom as racists because they reject the concept of equal opportunity as being a notion of white privilege and instead demand equal outcomes.

American Antifa is a local cell based entity which pops up to create chaos whenever a speaker they don’t like threatens to challenge their hegemony over thought on the formerly free-thinking institutions of “higher” learning.

They are dedicated to intimidating opposing views into silence, wearing masks to hide their identities so they can slip easily back into their comfortable lives, not unlike their white hood wearing brethren from a by-gone era.

We’ve seen them at Trump campaign rallies, college campuses, at various ICE offices. What we haven’t seen is an outpouring of outrage by the left at this commitment to violence against those who they cannot win a political argument.

When the Antifa supporting college professor of ethics injures three Trump supporters smashing their heads with a bike lock, he can justify the assault based upon the evil he ascribes to those who don’t agree with him.  And the greater good accomplished by shutting up someone who doesn’t agree with the message of tolerance for everyone but white men and Christians by the black wearing thugs.

Antifa rejects not only the precepts that individual rights are endowed by our creator, but the agreement that government should be by the consent of the governed. Instead, they seek the power of the guillotine to use against those who they cannot defeat in elections.

But that is the real question, the unmasked Antifa is the Democrat Socialist left which is every bit as intolerant of ideas like free speech and free markets, and can be counted upon to be every bit as tolerant of their political opponents should they gain power as their masked alter egos are when they are out of power.

Elections matter.  This one in November is about whether the violent left will be legitimized by the electorate.  For those who care about freedom and individual rights, there can be no sitting this election out, even with the imperfect choices offered.  The only thing more dangerous to freedom than an Antifa thug with a bike lock is a Democrat Socialist with a Congressional voting card.

Deny them victory at the ballot box and they will wither, but cede the field and allow them to win in November due to your inaction and the seed of hate they represent will germinate like crab grass in a once pristine lawn.

The battle for the DNA of America is being fought.  This is no time to sit on the sidelines.

The author is president of Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at www.dailytorch.com. 

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

SOME SCHOOL DISTRICTS TRYING OUT A FOUR-DAY WEEK: A BRIGHT IDEA OR AN “F” FOR FAILURE?

By CANDY STALLWORTH

As students pack up their backpacks and head back to school over the next few weeks, some will be doing so with the knowledge that their school week is now only four days. Adams County School District 27J, just outside of Denver, Colorado, is one of a growing number of districts, mostly in rural, western areas, that are implementing a four-day school week. Students in District 27J will attend school Tuesday through Friday from 8:30am – 4:30pm, and Mondays will be a day off. For parents who need childcare on Mondays, the district will offer it for children under 12 at a very affordable rate.

Some reasons cited for the move to a four-day week are to cut costs that would otherwise be spent on busing and/or paying substitute teachers, and to attract more teachers in an area where salaries are low and a shortage exists. Teachers will be required to work one Monday a month for half a day, but Superintendent Chris Fiedler is hoping that they will use the Mondays off  “to prepare and be better for kids…This will give people a chance to have a weekend and then come in on Monday — whether they’re paid to or not because they’re doing that work anyway to be prepared for kids and to be better for kids.” However, education policy expert Linda Darling-Hammond disagrees with the four-day week as a purported benefit to teachers, noting, “We can compensate these teachers all they want in more free time, but their pay is still not going up.”

Will the four-day week improve teacher recruitment and morale and raise student achievement? Other districts that have implemented a four-day week have cited evidence—mostly anecdotal, however—in support of the change. For instance, White Rock School in McCloud, Oklahoma, started a four-day week two years ago, where students attend Monday through Thursday from 8:00am to 3:30pm. Superintendent Bob Gragg points to lower absenteeism rates and increased student achievement. “We did it to save money and to make our teachers happier, and keep them happy. We’ve seen both of those things, and more.” Furthermore, he notes that Fridays are used for optional field trips to places that are educational in nature, such as to museums or libraries. These trips particularly benefit children from low-income families, who “wouldn’t get these experiences if we didn’t do this on Friday,” Gragg notes.

Because the four-day school week is a fairly new trend, long-term effects on important phenomena such as student learning and teacher satisfaction have yet to be determined. While some empirical research currently exists,  more studies certainly will need to be done. And the benefits of the short week may not extend to large, urban districts, where low-income families may not be able to afford childcare on the day off, even if it is at minimal cost. Furthermore, in areas plagued by high crime and drug abuse rates, there is potential for trouble if their adolescent population is out of school, without obligations or entertainment, for an additional day each week. And urban school districts, which are characterized by high teacher turnover, may need more than a four-day week to attract high-quality educators.

It remains to be seen if a four-day school week earns an “A” for its benefits to families, educators, and most of all, students. One thing’s for certain, though: there are many kids (and at least a few teachers) with fingers crossed, hoping for that weekly Monday or Friday off.

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.

TWITTER, SENATOR CHRIS MURPHY EMBRACE CENSORSHIP, USING SO-CALLED ‘HATE SPEECH’ AS 2018’S MCCARTHYISM

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

U.S. Senator Chris Murphy, a Democrat demagogue from Connecticut, recently issued a tweet, urging  that social media platforms censor speech with greater frequency for the “survival of our democracy.” What this frightening political power broker is truly seeking is this: the destruction of our democracy. First Amendment rights to speak in a manner and content as one chooses are at the core of America’s freedoms.

Twitter, a short snippet mass aggregator of information that influences the thoughts of far too many Americans, seems to be following Murphy’s ill-advised demand. The media outlet, which initially just appeared to dole out fun, uses its now mega-platform to censor speech that it deems “hateful.” To some, who do not think too deeply into the issue, this may seem valiant, perhaps moral, in regulating out such content.

But what is “hateful” speech? How about anything that one person, such as Twitter founder Jack Dorsey, disagrees with.

For other social media platforms, “hate speech” is whatever the rulers of those sites choose to define it as, wherein they use the fair, mature formula of “I don’t like it, so you can’t say it on my playground.” Of course, this fake news germinating mentality is nothing new. Voluminous more traditional media outlets (e.g. – print newspapers and magazines, TV, and radio) have called upon their internal censorship police for years, thus depriving their audiences of alternative points of view.

Something seems different with the censoring proliferated by Twitter and the other social media/social activist arenas, however. This difference is rooted in these platforms’ unique engagement nature with their users. The social media content, unlike the traditional media content, comes directly from plain, ole’ regular people. Social media has given them a voice. And now, outlets like Twitter, are more and more taking that voice away.

Some argue that Twitter bars speech in an indiscriminate or random manner, simply eliminating dialogue that is “obviously” hateful, and not targeting any particular type of thought. This claim, however, is disingenuous. Twitter, just like its social media brothers and sisters (excuse me, genderless siblings) speech-castrates many who espouse deeply-held conservative principles. They often bar, or as the industry calls it, “deplatforms”, users who routinely tweet in a political voice inapposite of theirs. Donald Trump supporters are on the victim number one list.

In deplatforming these users, Twitter is denying its users the very unique gift that it initially sought to provide. Regular folk content is no longer the dominant voice on this deplatformed platform. Instead, it is now becoming an amalgamation of, yes, still millions of voices—but millions of much the same, robotic voice. That voice is the one sounded by the far left.

Twitter defenders can point to scores of conservative tweets that are left standing. But this does not negate the factual reality that tweets from conservative users, en masse, are censored; meanwhile, it may, literally, be impossible, to find a liberal twit who has been discarded on Twitter.

The social media giant fervently asserts that it is not censoring based on conservative ideology, but on that amorphous evil of “hate speech.” Presumably, “hate speech” would be speech that is illegal. A fun fact, however, is that the Founding Fathers took great strains to ensure that almost no words uttered in America would be found unlawful. In order to ensure this right of free speech, they enacted the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Accordingly, in America, very little, in way of spoken and written word is illegal. What is unlawful?

Terroristic threats are illegal. It is crime for person to threaten to kill another, under circumstances where a reasonable person would believe that the threat of death is real, imminent and can be immediately carried out by the actor. Simply making a joke about killing someone or even issuing such a threat where it cannot be immediately consummated (e.g. – Bob threatens to kill Steve who is 500 miles away) is not a crime. The threat must be real and can be carried out immediately for it to be illegal.

It is civilly unlawful to commit acts of defamation (slander and libel). Culprits are liable for these torts where they purposely make false statements which are malicious and defamatory. It is very difficult to succeed in a defamation case, however, because (1) negligently and even recklessly false statements do not suffice; (2) a false statement is only considered “defamatory” if it tends to injure a person’s reputation; and (3) a “malicious” statement is something far greater than just making a rude or nasty comment. An opinion never amounts to defamation, nor does calling someone a terrible name.

The moral of the story is that although many types of speech may be considered “immoral” (i.e. – “hate speech”) by certain people, such speech is not illegal. Nor should it be. And, in legal fact, the United States Supreme Court has found that “hate speech” is constitutionally protected speech.

Nazi sympathizers can spew their Nazi nonsense. Louis Farrakhan-lovers can propound their racist diatribes. The N-word can be flouted. As can the H-word, W-word, or K-word (those are the racist words utilized against white people, Italians and Jews that not many, at least on the far left, care about).

People can lawfully employ all of this unsavory dialogue in America, with no legal repercussions. And while they should indeed be permitted to use these words in a free society, they should understand the professional, business and societal wrath that may occur: they may be shunned.

No doubt, private entities are not governed by the First Amendment’s mandates. Only the government must adhere to its dictates and protect speech. This means that Twitter, as a private company, of course has the legal right to ban what it considers “hate speech.”

The problems in media outlets “outlawing” speech are multi-fold – especially for social media networks who are allegedly providing a platform for users to speak their minds and, thus, proliferate the widest array of ideas. The advocates of censorship, such as Twitter, use “hate speech” as an umbrella term to cover anything they disagree with, which means that an inordinate, growing list of words and topics are being prohibited. Such lists by their nature are manufactured lists in that a very few people are deciding what’s hateful and what’s not and, accordingly, are biased and discriminatory. For example, don’t expect Twitter and other social media sites to ban the H-word, W-word, or K-word. One may also consider the U.S. Constitution and its wise doctrine when evaluating whether to prohibit any lawful speech on a social media platform. Although these private companies are not bound by the constitution, they may want to be guided by its spirit. This very likely is wishful thinking, however, as a currently-giant media outlet such as Twitter is controlled by not by a giant, all-encompassing mind, but rather a highly limited, narrow mind.

Today, a Twitter-type media entity simply labels something as “hate speech” and it has the same effect as the McCarthyism activities of the 1950s. During that dark time, any speech that the then-censorship police disagreed with, was labeled “communism”; this resulted in the mass removal of such speech (whatever it may have been) and the “offenders” were ostracized and, sometimes, were legally affronted. Oddly, those who called themselves liberals in that era fought, with great tenacity, to protect these free speech rights. In 2018, the ultra-liberals, in large groups, are now fighting against these freedoms. Some purposeful and evil, others ignorant, they are leading America toward a dictatorial society, wherein the most fundamental and precious of constitutional rights are sought to be subjugated. And that is dangerous.At that, I call on all just Americans who adore the First Amendment – and who are frightened by those government officials (e.g. – U.S. Senator Chris Murphy) and social media outlets (e.g. – Twitter) that censor speech – to stand by me and others who Tweet the following:

I will say whatever words I want, whenever I want. #FREE SPEECH #1ST AMENDMENT

I’m a proud, masculine, heterosexual white man, with great physical strength to go along with my great mental strength. #PROUD TO BE ME

Anyone who has a problem with the above is an angry bigot, as I’m happy for the other gender, other races, etc. to be proud of themselves. #HAPPY FOR ALL

If @Jack disagrees with me, he can combat me like a man, and write/speak something back to me, instead of being a coward who blocks me. @Jack can post here, on my news publication site, and I won’t neuter him; if he has already neutered himself, where he is beyond repair, that’s unfortunate. I will fight for @Jack’s right to say the categorical opposite of me. Instead of seeking to censor him, I will reject, in speech, his ill-advised thoughts – and school him on the correct ideology. He can debate, and he can grow as a successful human being. Or he can run and hide behind his deplatforming. The latter is the path of a loser, and usually a jealous, insecure one.

If Twitter blocks these posts, then the democracy-seeking Americans, for real, should boycott Twitter and its ilk. The free market, in America, can always deplatform a bigoted, censorship-sailing site such as Twitter et al. And new, First Amendment-furthering media outlets will spring up in their place. Twitter and its non-gender siblings are today’s norm in social media, but they unlikely will continue as the leaders in that space if they inhibit many ideas while attempting to propagate just some.

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.