As the national race for the Democratic nomination for President in 2020 kicks into high gear with debates on June 26 and June 27, the race is Joe Biden’s to lose as he has led every single poll against his Democratic opponents both nationally and in statewide races compiled by Real Clear Politics since the end of April.

Biden’s advantage comes as having served as Barack Obama’s vice president from 2009 to 2016, with the highest name identification.

At this point in the 2016 cycle, Hillary Clinton was leading all of the polls on the Democratic side, and Jeb Bush was temporarily leading a few polls for the GOP nomination in June 2015 but soon trailed to then candidate Donald Trump who dominated the field starting in July 2015.

Biden is being viewed as the “safe” candidate to take on now President Trump, even as some his utterances and votes on trade issues might make him ill-suited to take on Trump, particularly in the Rust Belt states that gave Trump a majority in the 2016 Electoral College in Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan.

Biden voted for NAFTA and granting China permanent normal trade status, and the Obama White House he served in proposed the 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership and served as its leading spokesman in Congress. He thought he could pressure House Democrats into voting for it, telling them at a yearly retreat in 2016, “I know a lot of you don’t like TPP, but you’re going to have to see me.”


In May, Biden said at a campaign stop in Iowa, “China is going to eat our lunch? Come on, man…they can’t even figure out how to deal with the fact that they have this great division between the China Sea and the mountains… they can’t figure out how they’re going to deal with the corruption that exists within the system. I mean, you know, they’re not bad folks, folks. But guess what, they’re not, they’re not competition for us.”

Biden also claimed in a fundraising call in April that world leaders were begging him to run: “I get calls from people all over the world — world leaders are calling me — and they’re almost begging me to do this, to save the country, save the world.”

It is not hard to conceive how the Trump campaign will take advantage of these positions as the campaign unfolds, portraying Biden as a globalist who does not agree with the union and conservative households that voted for Trump in 2016.

Biden’s biggest advantage is the perception that he is the one who can beat Trump among working class voters, but what if that assumption does not resemble reality come Nov. 2020?

So far, the rest of the Democratic field, including Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren and California Senator Kamala Harris, have been unable to really lay a glove on Biden, perhaps in an effort not to damage the eventual nominee.

That will probably begin to change at the debate, but his opponents have to be willing to get their hands dirty. Are they?

Democrats may be ignoring the risk that Biden might be another George McGovern or Walter Mondale, both senior Democratic senators that went on to lose 49 states in 1972 and 1984, respectively.

In Mondale’s case, he also served as Jimmy Carter’s vice president and some early polls including a 1982 poll showed he led Reagan, giving Democrats a false impression that he would be competitive. Reagan went on to win the election by 18 points.

John Kerry, who was also a senior Democratic senator from Massachusetts, was tapped by the party in 2004 to take on George W. Bush. Certainly that election was narrower than 1972 and 1984.

This is in no way predicting an eventual Trump triumph in 2020 or some sort of landslide, but it is worth noting that the past three Republican presidents who got reelected, their opponents came from the Senate and in some cases were considered favorites to win. Biden appears to be leading early polls against Trump, too.

The last Republican president to lose after a single term was George H.W. Bush, and he lost to then Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and nobody heard of him until after he won the South Carolina primary and then his Super Tuesday rout of his opponents in 1992.

Biden’s opponents should be aware that history may be repeating itself again. The question is if they smell blood or not. Stay tuned.

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





China cheats.

All of those who get worked up over negligible increases in U.S. tariffs on Chinese made goods, please remember this basic fact – China cheats.

China manipulates their currency by artificially pegging it well below the dollar, and devaluing it further to offset tariff impacts, because they desperately want, no need, to maintain their U.S. market share to keep their economy running.

China also steals U.S. company’s intellectual property and then sells that innovation around the world for pennies on the dollar.

China then dumps products onto the U.S. market with the intent of driving U.S. manufacturers who are the innovators out of business so they can be sole source providers of critical component parts.  They not only do this directly from China but also utilize other countries as pass-throughs for Chinese originating goods, as well as steel and aluminum products, and this is a big problem for the world.

America’s energy industry is thriving and the President’s stated goal of energy dominance is within sight, but Chinese dumping onto U.S. markets of couplings which hold together sections of drilling pipe threatens everything.  This three year old strategically targeted play by the Chinese to inject themselves into the oil drilling supply chain is having a devastating impact on U.S. coupling manufacturers according to testimony before a May, 2019  U.S. Trade Representative, Section 301, Tariff hearing.

Jimmy Legg, the general manager of LB3 Pipe & Coupling testified that couplings are essential to oil and natural gas extraction and that Chinese originated couplings are being sold at less than the cost to his company for the raw steel. Legg emphasized that you can’t drill for oil without steel couplings and that this dumping of a critical infrastructure product is causing his company to cut back in what should be a time of prosperity, forgoing hiring up to 40 to 50 new people for their manufacturing plant.

Sean Keogh, the operations manager of AmTex Machine Products the largest independent U.S. coupling manufacturer agreed, testifying that his company is operating at 35 percent capacity strictly due to Chinese policies designed to create a pricing disadvantage for his company. But Keough clearly states that the Chinese flooding of the markets with cheap, government subsidized alternatives is not the only threat, as he testified that China also reverse engineers proprietary threads created by his company’s heavy investments in research and development.

In his testimony, Keough explained, “The pipe mills and oil and gas engineers invest heavily in research and development to bring these new technologies to challenging drilling and extraction environments.  We invest to obtain licenses for those patented designs to produce these semi-premium and premium couplings.  Once we obtain the license, we should have the opportunities to sell these couplings globally, but the Chinese have flooded the South American and Middle Eastern markets with their reverse engineered couplings.  As a result, the Chinese government programs are not just impacting their U.S. sales, they are also taking away export markets and our ability to help reduce the U.S. trade deficit.”

In clear, unambiguous terms, Legg and Keough have made it clear that China cheats, both by flooding markets around the world to create market dominance for their companies and drive competitors out of business, but also by stealing technological innovation by U.S. companies that would allow our nation’s manufacturers to win based upon technological superiority.

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative can and should use its authority to include pipe couplings in with the steel tariffs, but they also should seek all other remedies at their disposal using the International Trade Court.

Most importantly, as President Trump meets his Chinese counterpart, at the G-20 meeting, his team needs to remember that China is strategically seeking to inject itself into America’s critical industries including our vibrant energy extraction sector.  This is not friendly competition of an ally, but rather a planned attack designed to create leverage and potentially cripple critical sectors of our economy.

The President is right to insist upon the ending of China’s currency manipulations, protection of intellectual property rights and the ending of forced technology transfers for U.S. companies seeking to enter the Chinese market.  But it is equally important that he remember President Reagan’s credo when dealing with the former Soviet Union to “trust but verify.”

Given the Chinese history of trade abuse, perhaps this phrase should be altered to “verify and then trust” to force some transparency on the historically opaque Chinese system.

Rick Manning is the President of Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of his articles at 





A 13-letter Latin motto, used on the Great Seal of the U.S., representing the 13 original states uniting under one government—“out of many, one.”

Fast forward to 2020, 50 states and the District of Columbia in chaos and crisis, hardly united under a corrupt political system of politicians, many of whom have remained in the government far too long for the purpose of personal profit, financial gain and power grabs.  Fifty states are at lager heads with the government and among themselves on major issues which affect the moral fiber of our country, failing to find common ground and reach any consensus.   This is clearly demonstrated by looking at the wide divide when it comes to policies on marijuana, sanctuary cities and abortion.

The country is currently facing a major opioid epidemic, which has grown over the last 20 years since “pain” became the 5th vital sign.  Proponents of medical marijuana usage would have you believe that is a substitute for opioids in relieving pain.  According to the Missouri State Medical Association in their May-June, 2018 Journal of Missouri Medicine, marijuana is a companion drug to opioids and does not result in the decrease of opioid usage.  In 2017, Colorado reported a record number of deaths from opioids, including heroin; yet they have had a medical marijuana program in place since 2001. The current body of evidence supporting cannabis as a treatment for pain is based on 28 studies comprised of 68 reports and 2,554 patients.  Contradictory evidence based on the study of 33,000 people demonstrates that cannabis contributes to opioid overdosing.

Regardless of your belief as to marijuana medicinal attributes, it is abundantly clear that both the medical and recreational use of marijuana have substantially increased the coffers of those states where it is legalized.  In California, with a state tax of 15% on marijuana as both a recreational and medical drug, the state boasts $2.75 billion in sales.  Given that kind of revenue it is understandable that state legislatures would turn a blind eye to any body of evidence which support the negative results of marijuana usage. Despite many states’ acceptance of cannabis for medical use and others for recreational use as well, under federal law, it is still illegal and treated as any other controlled substance, including heroin and cocaine.   According to a map developed by DISA Global studies, twelve states currently have laws making marijuana illegal; 28 states have legalized marijuana for medical use and 13 of these states have reduced penalties related to its recreational use, while 11 states have fully legalized cannabis both for recreational and medical use.

What about “sanctuary” cities?  Those cities, counties and states which have polices and laws preventing local and state law enforcement agencies from cooperating with Federal agents related to the harboring of illegal immigrants are considered as “sanctuaries” for these aliens.  This then makes it more difficult for the Federal government to enforce immigration laws; often results in harm caused to American citizens and encourages the continued influx of illegal immigrants into the U.S.  According to CNN Politics, 6/14/2018, currently, Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Iowa, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee have banned sanctuary cities, while California, Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington are pro sanctuary states.

Finally, abortion, which through Roe vs Wade, a legal decision made in 1973 by the United States Supreme Court striking down a Texas law banning abortion, made this procedure legal in the United States  and protected under Federal law.  However, according to a Marist Poll taken in mid-February, 2019, equal numbers of those polled—47% each– were pro-life or supported abortion.  This was a dramatic difference from the same poll done in early January which showed 55% were pro-abortion and 38% pro-life.  According to Barbara Carvalho, poll director, in media release from the Knight of Columbus, the poll sponsor, “current proposals that promote late-term abortion have reset the landscape and language on abortion in a pronounced, and very measurable, way,” Additionally, the poll reported “that among Democrats, the gap between people who identify as pro-life and those who support abortion was cut in half from 55 percent to 27 percent. The number of Democrats who identify as pro-life stood at 34 percent, up from 20 percent in January. Similarly the number of Democrats who said they support abortion fell to 61 percent from 75 percent.”  According to NPR, nine states have passed laws to outlaw abortion—Ohio, Kentucky, Missouri, Arkansas, Utah, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Georgia—while nine state have passed laws with no limits on abortion– Illinois, Alaska, Colorado, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon and Vermont, along with D.C.

E Pluribus Unum?  Hardly!

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?





The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under President Donald Trump has finally rescinded the Obama era Clean Power Plan that sought to end coal as a form of electricity and puts states in the driver’s seat in terms of regulating carbon emissions rates.

But because Congress has left the 2009 carbon endangerment finding in place the probability is that carbon emissions will once again be regulated nationally as a harmful pollutant under the Clean Air Act as soon as Democrats are back in power.

Per the EPA release on June 19, the Affordable Clean Energy rule “establishes emissions guidelines for states to use when developing plans to limit carbon dioxide (CO2) at their coal-fired power plants. Specifically, ACE identifies heat rate improvements as the best system of emission reduction (BSER) for CO2 from coal-fired power plants, and these improvements can be made at individual facilities. States will have 3 years to submit plans, which is in line with other planning timelines under the Clean Air Act.”

The Clean Power Plan, initially proposed in 2014 and finalized in 2015, was designed to reduce carbon emissions by retrofitting existing coal power plants and making the costs of building new ones so onerous that it nobody would bother investing.

It succeeded, even as the Supreme Court eventually stayed the rules’ implementation in Feb. 2016. The problem for the coal industry was the initial Obama EPA regulations aimed at coal power plants started being proposed in 2011, and surely the 2009 carbon endangerment finding had an impact on industry decisions as well.

Everyone could see which way the wind was blowing and coal plants were taken off-line and replaced with cheaper natural gas, and the new plants built also run on natural gas.

In 2007, coal-generated electricity made up 49 percent of the total U.S. grid, while natural gas was just 21 percent, according to the Energy Information Administration.

In 2018, after Obama, now natural gas makes up 35 percent of the grid, and coal is down to 27 percent.

Just by getting the process started in 2009, the Obama EPA had signaled a sea change. You’d have to have been crazy to invest in coal electricity generation after that.

To be certain, under the new EPA proposal, the carbon emissions rules have been eliminated, to be certain. The EPA’s new plan will leave it up to states to determine what rates of carbon emissions will be allowed. Presumably, this will allow some states that want to keep their coal power plants to do so. It buys some time.

But the trajectory remains the same.

The law of the land remains the Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in 2007 that carbon dioxide could be regulated under the terms of the Clean Air Act even though the law never contemplated doing so. It’s what made the carbon endangerment finding possible and essentially why it would be a speed bump to rescind it. It could just be issued again, consistent with the 2007 ruling.

The Trump EPA was left to do what it could under the existing statutory and regulatory framework, mindful that it is much tougher to rescind regulations than to modify them and have courts uphold it.

In 1983, the Supreme Court unanimously decided in Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual that in rescinding a regulation, the agency must provide a reasoned analysis, “for the change beyond that which may be required when an agency does not act in the first instance.” That has left every rescission subject to judicial review, where you have to prove not only that rescinding the regulation in question is rational based on the statutory scheme, but prove that enacting it was irrational to begin with.

Meaning, the current outcome, which modifies the Obama regulations by relaying decision-making on carbon emissions to the states, may be the best that can be hoped for via regulation under the current law.

All of which underscores the need for Congress to act. Congress could have addressed this issue in 2017 and 2018 when Republicans controlled majorities in both chambers of Congress, and clarified the terms of the Clean Air Act either by reforming the statute or by defunding implementation of the Obama era regulations but that was not even attempted. Undoubtedly such a move would have been filibustered.

Americans for Limited Government President Rick Manning issued this statement in response to the EPA’s action saying, “The EPA action is a step in the right direction but by leaving the carbon endangerment finding in place, the knife is still at the throats of the coal industry. Although the new standards some states will adopt should be technically feasible for coal power plants to still exist, it will remain a risky endeavor to invest when the carbon allowed standard is one national or state election away from becoming technologically impossible again.”

So, if the goal is to help reduce the long-term costs of producing coal-based energy, the Trump EPA approach certainly has afforded time for power plants to continue operating and maybe build a few new ones and has shifted for now the focus to states and what degree of regulation they wish to implement. When Democrats return to power, Federal courts may yet halt future attempts to repeal these new rules, too, so there is something of a firewall.

But to prevent any more attempts to regulate carbon nationally, Congress must reform and amend the Clean Air Act to foreclose the possibility of carbon emissions regulations. Otherwise, it’s just a matter of time and an election cycle or two and the War on Coal will begin again — with the Green New Deal not too far behind.

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





Taking a page from the playbook of Dwight D. Eisenhower, President Donald Trump announced on June 17 that the federal government will be undertaking a massive operation to remove millions of illegal immigrants from the United States. Once derided as impossible by Trump’s opponents, this may be the most major undertaking at deportation in more than 60 years.

On Twitter, Trump wrote, “Next week ICE will begin the process of removing the millions of illegal aliens who have illicitly found their way into the United States. They will be removed as fast as they come in.”

At the moment, the current rate of apprehensions is more than 144,000 a month in May, up from 109,000 in April, 103,000 in March and 76,000 in February, according to data compiled by Customs and Border Patrol. That’s on top of the millions of illegal immigrants already here. So, off the bat, that is hundreds of thousands of removals needed on a monthly basis to keep up with the flow.

The announcement came on the heels of a joint agreement between the U.S. and Mexico to dramatically curb illegal immigration after Trump had threatened Mexico with up to 25 percent tariffs on goods by October if no deal was made. Per the agreement’s text courtesy of the U.S. State Department, “Mexico will take unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration, to include the deployment of its National Guard throughout Mexico, giving priority to its southern border. Mexico is also taking decisive action to dismantle human smuggling and trafficking organizations as well as their illicit financial and transportation networks.”

In addition, the U.S. will be expanding the Migrant Protection Protocols, per the agreement, “those crossing the U.S. Southern Border to seek asylum will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims… [And,] Mexico will authorize the entrance of all of those individuals for humanitarian reasons, in compliance with its international obligations, while they await the adjudication of their asylum claims.”

Trump praised Mexico in his tweet, writing, “Mexico, using their strong immigration laws, is doing a very good job of stopping people… long before they get to our Southern Border.”

The overall program of mass deportation was once said to be impossible by Trump’s opponents in the 2016 GOP primary. One of those skeptics was former Florida Governor Jeb Bush. At the Fox Business-Wall Street Journal Republican Presidential Debate in Milwaukee, Wis. on Nov. 10, 2015, Bush expressed his skepticism, saying, “12 million illegal immigrants, to send them back, 500,000 a month, is just not — not possible.”

Bush was responding to Trump’s call for the deportation of millions of illegal immigrants at the debate, when he cited the Eisenhower program: “Let me just tell you that Dwight Eisenhower, good president, great president, people liked him. ‘I like Ike,’ right? The expression. ‘I like Ike.’ Moved 1.5 million illegal immigrants out of this country…”

Now, it looks like Trump is actually moving forward with the plan, which harkens back to the 1954 Eisenhower deportation program in Border States, which came after more than a million estimated migrant workers had crossed into the U.S. illegally in the prior decade as illegal immigration exploded under the U.S.-Mexico Bracero guest worker program.

The deportation program appears to have been designed to scare people away, notes the Texas State Historical Association (TSHA) in a 2010 article by Fred L. Koestler: “The forces used by the government were actually relatively small, perhaps no more than 700 men, but were exaggerated by border patrol officials who hoped to scare unauthorized workers into flight back to Mexico. Valley newspapers also exaggerated the size of the government forces for their own purposes: generally unfavorable editorials attacked the Border Patrol as an invading army seeking to deprive Valley farmers of their inexpensive labor force.”

As for the number actually deported by the government in the operation, the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) reported a little more than 80,000 apprehensions in all of Texas outside of El Paso and the Trans-Pecos. But, notes the TSHA article, “It is difficult to estimate the number of people forced to leave by the operation. The INS claimed as many as 1,300,000, though the number officially apprehended did not come anywhere near this total. The INS estimate rested on the claim that most undocumented immigrants, fearing apprehension by the government, had voluntarily repatriated themselves before and during the operation.”

The same thing might be happening here with the Trump plan, where a major crackdown on both sides of the U.S.-Mexico border may result in more self-deportations. There is some evidence, with the number of voluntary departures accelerating in the first two years of President Trump’s term, according Justice Department data compiled by the Marshall Project and Github. The number of voluntary departures hit 29,818 in 2018, up from 13,898 in 2017 and 8,556 in 2016.

A piece from Politico in May certainly highlights the advantage of illegal immigrants leaving voluntarily, “Under immigration law, voluntary departure is considered a kind of privilege. If you are deported, you have to wait years to apply for a visa to reenter the United States, but those who leave voluntarily don’t have the same wait.” Now, with the odds of deportation rising under Trump, many are choosing to leave before they are removed.

Overall, time will tell if the current crackdown is effective as the administration monitors the numbers of individuals making it across the border and how many apprehensions from Customs and Border Patrol occur as the new U.S.-Mexico agreement is enforced. But like Ike, Trump is giving it a shot and fulfilling his promise to get the border under control. It’s certainly more than his opponents would have done.

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





President Donald Trump’s re-election kick-off event featuring overflow crowds gathered in Orlando, Florida could not be more different from his 2015 Trump Tower announcement of his intention to run for president. The 2015 event was treated as a media curiosity, rather than one that should be taken seriously, yet some of the president’s words and promises from that opening of his serious political career have truly shaped his first two and a half years in office.

This is particularly true on the trade front, where President Trump has transformed America’s thinking.

In the president’s June 16, 2015 announcement speech he said, “It is time to stop sending jobs overseas through bad foreign trade deals. We will renegotiate our trade deals with the toughest negotiators our country has… the ones who have actually read ‘The Art of the Deal’ and know how to make great deals for our country. “


And renegotiate trade deals he has, with NAFTA completely re-done to end the giant sucking sound and restore American jobs through the USMCA agreement that is projected to come before Congress before the fall leaves drop being just one example.

But manufacturing jobs are already being brought to the U.S. due to the president’s trade policy. South Korea corporate giant, Samsung is manufacturing washers and dryers in Newberry, South Carolina after a long history of illegally dumping their product onto the United States market. And in Clarksville, Tennessee, LG, another South Korean company, has just opened a washer and dryer manufacturing plant after being found guilty of dumping charges.

While some would argue that these plants have been in the works for a while, the hard truth is that President Trump’s get-tough policy on dumping exemplified by what an anonymous Samsung official called a “worst case” scenario.

Reading between the lines, the admission of the Samsung official was that their South Carolina plant was going to be little more than an assembly plant to avoid tariffs with the parts and components imported in low-cost countries. The Trump policy changed that forcing Samsung and LG to change their business model to include manufacturing parts in America, using American workers. As a senior executive at Hyundai Motor told Reuters, “You’ve got to find a way to adapt or circumvent somehow.”

LG senior executive Jung Hyun-mo flatly stated in January of 2018, “There’d be little point on trying to figure out how to export components from Korea to the United States, and then building a washing machine there.”

And that is exactly why the LG plant which broke ground in Clarksville, Tennessee on August 24, 2017, and celebrated its official grand opening on May 30, 2019, chose to “shorten it’s supply chain” by manufacturing at least some of its components at its new state of the art facility.

While many in the business community grouse about the Trump trade agenda and some local officials worried about the impact on foreign companies investing in U.S. manufacturing facilities, the Samsung and LG case studies tell a different story.

A story about two companies who were regular tariff scofflaws deciding that truly manufacturing washing machines and many components made economic sense due to the increased tariff costs the President’s Commerce Department trade team imposed.

Now, LG is recruiting more workers for manufacturing careers and not just as entry-level assembling jobs, and Samsung’s Newberry, South Carolina plant has dramatically expanded over the past year with an additional 150,000 square feet of new factory and an additional 650 new full-time employees. A win for the company, the state of South Carolina, the city of Newberry and most importantly for the people of South Carolina.

You see, Newberry, South Carolina is one of those towns whose people were devastated by the exporting of the textile industry to Asia, but now, Asian manufacturers have come to this small town of 10,000 people to build products to sell to Americans. That is winning in Donald Trump’s America.

With almost 500,000 new manufacturing jobs created in the United States since he took office, President Trump can proudly stand on his policies which are beginning the revitalization of America with some of the latest high-tech, advanced manufacturing factories in the world.  And anyone who doubts should go to Clarksville and Newberry for the proof.

While America still has a long way to go to restore our manufacturing sector, President Trump’s America First trade policy is working to rebuild our nation’s economy, creating the economic and political environment where good paying jobs are returning and the average wage of the American worker is on the rise.

And that’s a record that any president would be proud to run on.

Richard Manning is President of the Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of his articles at 




By John Constantino

Our liberal, socialist politicians, what passes for our media, the Hollywood crowd and educators all seem to think that MURDER is HEALTHCARE.

After all, abortion is MURDER.

We keep hearing about a woman’s right to choose. Doesn’t the baby have a right to choose. What about the father. The baby is his also.

How about choosing abstinence or birth control. Stop using abortion as a form of birth control.

Read more about Miley Cyrus’s campaign to raise money for Planned Parenthood on Breitbart;


By John Constantino

Hillary Clinton has been voted the biggest HYPOCRITE in the history of the United States of America.

She has committed many high crimes and misdemeanors. She continues to squeal that the election was stolen from her.

She continues to say that President Donald Trump should not be above the law.

Isn’t that the epitome of the pot calling the kettle black.

Read further on The Gateway Pundit;




James Comey appeared recently on a CNN Town Hall hosted by Anderson Cooper.  Anderson was once a respected journalist who reported from hot zones throughout the world.  However, he has succumbed to CNN’s “lemonade,” and has been reduced to interviewing the “flavors” of the day, who eventually fall into irrelevance or worse.   Comey’s impressive height may lend itself to the impression of a lofty nature, but his godlike demeanor belies a narcissistic personality that apparently prevents him from accepting the fact that he was fired as Director of the F.B.I.    Why CNN decided to provide this disgraced individual with any venue, let alone not one, but two town halls, can possibly be explained by the bottom line and their plummeting ratings.  Unfortunately, improved ratings did not pan out, with 1.6 million viewers watching the town hall, while 2.9 million watched Fox cable network shows airing during the same time slots.

During the recent town hall, Anderson sat appropriately enraptured; hanging on Comey’s every word, much the same as he did with the Avenatti interview.  Michael Avenatti is an attorney whose original claim to fame was representing Stormy Daniel, a porn star and stripper, who was suing President Trump.  Avenatti was interviewed over 100 times on CNN and MSNBC during a 10-week period in 2018.  During his interview with Anderson, he confirmed the accuracy of his information related to Trump’s collusion with the Russians during Trump’s campaign for the 2016 presidency.  He was CNN’s major celebrity…until  his federal grand jury indictment on 36 counts, including embezzlement, wire fraud, tax evasion, bankruptcy fraud and bank fraud.  Oh, and the Mueller Report exonerated Trump from collusion with the Russians.

As CNN’s celeb du jour,  Comey asserted to Anderson and the audience at the town hall that Attorney General William Barr had wrecked his reputation;  Rod Rosenstein, Assistant Attorney General, was of weak character and President Trump appeared to have obstructed justice.  Meanwhile, at the Justice Department, the Inspector General, Michael Horowitz, is investigating the sources and methods used by the FBI to initiate the surveillance of the Trump campaign.   And who was in charge of the F.B.I. at that time—none other than James Comey.   Are the CNN Avenatti interviews and his current status with the Feds a harbinger of what Mr. Comey’s future might portend?  Let the interviewee beware!

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?






Of the 435 members of the House of Representatives, three members are of Muslim faith and 34, Jewish.  The three Muslim members are Andre Carson from Indiana serving since 2008; Ilhan Omar, newly elected to the 2019 Congress, from Minnesota, along with Rashada Tlaib, from Michigan.   Rep. Carson has managed to remain non-controversial related to Israel and voted in favor of a 2009 House resolution authored by Nancy Pelosi for Israel’s right to defend itself, although later, against the Safeguard Israel Act.

Unlike their male counterpart, the two new female Muslim representatives have distinguished themselves so far by their outspoken animosity toward Israel and their anti-Semitic remarks.  Ilhan Omar is a Somalian immigrant and naturalized citizen and represents the largest Somali community in the country, the 5th district of Minnesota, which includes Minneapolis.  Rashada Tlaib a Palestinian American, was born in Detroit, Michigan, and serves the multi-racial, Democrat controlled 13th district.  Both women started their political careers in their respective states’ house of representatives and their campaigns have received substantial funding and support from the Council on American Islamic Relations.  According to an article in Algemeiner, by Morton Klein, national president of the Zionist Organization of America, CAIR was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation Terror financing trial for funneling money to Hamas. FBI testimony reportedly indicated that CAIR has been a Hamas front group,

Omar brought attention to herself in 2012 with a tweet “Israel has hypnotized the world, may Allah awaken the people and help them see the evil doings of Israel.”  The New York Times columnist Bari Weiss wrote that Omar’s statement tied into a millennia-old “conspiracy theory of the Jew as the hypnotic conspirator”.  However, during her campaign for the House of Representatives, she reassured her Jewish constituents during an August debate that she felt BDS, the movement to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel, “was not helpful in getting that two-state solution.”  Her comments to the Daily Wire in January, 2019, seem to belie this and appeared to the Jewish Minnesotans like a bait and switch.  “Most of the things that have always been aggravating to me are that we have had a policy that makes one superior… When I see Israel institute… law that recognizes it as a Jewish state and does not recognize… the other religions that are living in it and we still uphold it as a democracy in the Middle East, I almost chuckle because I know that if… we see that in any other society we would criticize it… We would call it out… We do that to Iran.”

Omar has continued to have “foot-in-mouth” disease with her condemnation of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), alleging American politicians get paid to support Israel with her infamous “It’s all about the Benjamins baby” statement to journalist, Glenn Greenwald, February 10, 2019.  This is somewhat ironic since she has a history of violating and abusing rules governing finances related to her Minnesota House of Representatives political campaign and the receiving of money for speaking engagements at public colleges–this in violation of rules for which she voted restricting honorariums for such appearances.  During her tenure in the Minnesota House of Representatives, she was fined several times for these transgressions and was forced to return the money she received for the speaking engagements.

Omar appears to lack the ability to set boundaries and has irritated many of the Americans pubic with her remarks at an event hosted by CAIR that “CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized “that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties.”  The front page of the New York Post following this statement denounce her by splashing the words “Here’s Your Something” over the image of the World Trade Center towers ablaze after the planes hit.

Rashada burst on the national political scene when recalling the moment she won the election to the House of Representatives, “And when your son looks at you and says, ‘Mama look, you won. Bullies don’t win,’ and I said, ‘Baby, they don’t,’ because we’re gonna go in there and we’re going to impeach the motherf****r.”  Additionally, according to the Jerusalem Post, “The day of her inauguration, she hung a map of the world in her office and placed a sticky note over Israel on which she wrote the word Palestine.”  Most recently, Rashada has recently ticked off the Jewish community with remarks which seem to suggest a revisionist history regarding the Holocaust and the establishment of the Jewish state.

The remarks and actions of these two women are all the more alarming because they are members of the U.S. House of Representatives, privy to matters of national intelligence and security, with Omar sitting on the House’s Foreign Affairs Committee. Remember, it was not the Jews that took down the Twin Towers.  And, as long as we continue to refer to ourselves as S0malian American or Palestinian American, we will never be an integrated country.

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?