WHEN YOU THINK OF THE KAVANAUGH ALLEGATION, THINK OF YOUR SON OR DAUGHTER BEING CHARGED WITH A SERIOUS CRIME BASED SOLELY ON ONE PERSON’S WORD

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

Everyone should ask himself this: do you think it would be justice if you – or your son, daughter, husband, wife, mother or father – was dragged through hearings and/or ridiculed in the media simply because one, sole person claimed you committed an offense? Should you go through the anguish of having your reputation destroyed, paying tens of thousands of dollars to a lawyer, enduring the horrors of hearings, because one person accused you of a crime?

Certainly, one person’s word versus another’s – alone, with no corroborating evidence of any sort – is not enough to justify holding hearings – and destroying a person’s reputation. “One person’s word versus another’s” is otherwise known as a he-said she-said case. Such a case is the poster child for “reasonable doubt”, as how can someone, anyone, know who is telling the truth?

If your son or daughter, or wife or husband, were going on a job interview, should you lose the job because one, singular person claimed you committed an illicit act (aggravated assault, burglary, sexual assault, etc)? Where there is no corroborating evidence of any sort that is, in any sense of justice, used to support a sole claim – such as video, audio, eyewitness testimony, physical evidence, forensic evidence, admissions? If your answer is yes – you are either lying or you do not at all care about your son, daughter, husband or wife. Since any person – who cares at all about justice – would surely never deny a person a job (nor destruct his reputation based on a lone allegation), then all such people should assess this 35+ year-old claim for what it is: an uncorroborated, unverifiable claim that can’t, in any moral manner, be used against Judge Kavanaugh.

To remove the emotion, and demonstrate how unjust it is to malign a person’s reputation (and worse, drag him through hearings), it can be best evaluated through an example: Let’s say that Martin claims that Charlie punched him in the face. Charlie denies it. There is no corroborating evidence at all. The entire case is simply Martin’s “word.”

Some judges and prosecutors (and politicians and pundits) arrogantly believe that they can assess the witnesses’ credibility and determine if they are lying, by matters such as their demeanor, the tone of their voices, if they are sweating, how their faces look, their body language, etc. Well…I am a former judge and prosecutor. And I have considerable courtroom experience (tried hundreds of cases), as well as have taught a few thousand police officers/lawyers and provided substantial analysis of criminal law on TV and in published articles…And I can’t figure out if someone is lying by how they appear on the witness stand or in an interrogation. I suppose some people either like to believe that they have special powers (e.g. – are mind readers) or are so carried away with their personal positions of power that they opine to “just know” if someone is lying and, therefore, can render a finding in a he-said she-said case. However, even though I have great confidence in my intellect and experiences, I wholly admit that I do not have this ability – and I am quite positive that no else does as well.

In the alleged Martin/Charlie squabble, we do know one thing for certain: one of the two men is lying. Either Charlie was a bad actor and punched Martin in the face. Or Martin was a bad actor and falsely accused Charlie. People have motives to lie equally the same as people have motives to commit wrongful physical acts. If the only evidence the politicians and pundits have is Martin’s word, they should never go forward on this matter (i.e. – a hearing), as under the true tenets of “justice” they will not only never be able to prove this allegation, but they will never even come close to ascertaining who is telling the truth. In other words, Kavanaugh – nor anyone – should never lose a job (and have his/her reputation destroyed) because of a singular person’s unsupported claim…Think of your son, daughter, husband, or wife – and you will agree…

Not to mention, in Kavanaugh’s case (as in many other wildly ridiculous uncorroborated claims), the unsupported allegation is decades-old, conveniently coming out publicly when he has reached celebrity status, and it is being lobbed by a woman who cannot even remember some of the most basic details concerning the alleged incident. When liars have no evidence (and disingenuous politicos and pundits know there is no evidence), they point to the notion that the accuser told his/her mother, friend or therapist about the alleged incident – and that somehow serves as corroborating evidence. Any person of moderate intelligence (or greater) knows that such is not supporting evidence. If the person is lying – he/she was lying then and is lying now. Telling another person the same lie doesn’t magically make the lie true–telling 100 million people a lie also doesn’t magically make it true.

Finally, a reverse example may be instructive: In 2002, Max tells his friend, Eddie, that he had sex with a beautiful budding, unknown actress; Max lied to his friend, as no such sexual relation occurred. Now, in 2018 – 16 years later – the actress is a superstar celebrity. Max goes on CNN and tells 100 million people that he had sex with the actress – and he points to the fact that he told Eddie, 16 years ago, that he had sex with her (as proof of the carnal event). Max was a liar then, and he is liar now–and the fact that he told someone about the alleged incident in 2002 (and now to 100 million people) doesn’t make the lie true…

Of course, no one knows who is the liar in the Martin/Charlie case, and no one would know who is telling the truth in the matter of Max and the actress. Similarly, it is literally impossible for anyone to know whether or not the allegations against Kavanaugh are true. What we do know, however, is that it is, at most, a he-said she-said case, which is woefully inadequate as an evidentiary basis to destroy a person’s reputation and/or cause them the loss of a career opportunity. And, at it worst, it’s an illegitimate, contrived story riddled with confounding flaws that is being utilized for wholly inappropriate political causes.

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 ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/litigating attorney for 24 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo..  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and 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.

 

ONE MAINSTREAM THEORY FOR THE PAUL MANAFORT GUILTY PLEA, TWO THEORIES NO ONE HAS DISCUSSED

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

There are three possibilities regarding what may be brewing through Paul Manafort’s guilty plea, the second of which rarely, if ever, has been conjectured. The third hypothesis definitively has not been opined; at least a comprehensive media search has not revealed such a theory.

Most pundits and politicos think that Manafort has pled out because he believes that a pardon from Trump will not be occurring for one of a variety of reasons. Therefore, he has decided to provide all of the information he has related to Trump and any others who the special counsel, Robert Mueller, considers “more important” than Manafort (the list of who could be considered “more important” to Mueller would be very small, but perhaps included people like Trump’s kids and son-in-law).

In a rather distasteful pecking order type of activity, the special counsel may be trying to obtain evidence regarding the Trump kin, that would purportedly amount to a crime, as an effort to get Trump to finally cave on his own. In other words, given that it appears quite clear that the special counsel investigation has reached a dead end against Trump directly (although the same is not certain because the public may not know all that he has amassed), if Manafort delivers information that affirmatively supports a crime(s) committed by a Trump family member, then Trump, as a father, would step in and take the heat rather than see his children be prosecuted.

Remember, some of the Trump children and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law, attended interviews with the special counsel. If Manafort delivers information that shows that one of the children lied during an interview, such individual could be prosecuted under that notorious fallback charge of lying to federal investigators. Prosecuting people under this statute is considered an unsavory practice by many but, nonetheless, it is often used by federal law enforcement when they do not have any substantive offense with which to charge a target. The question is what information could Manafort deliver that contradicts statements that a Trump family member made to federal investigators.

One such potential can arise under the facts surrounding the Trump Tower meeting among Manafort, Donald Trump, Jr, Kushner, and a Russian lawyer. All available information leads any qualified and genuine legal mind to conclude that there was absolutely nothing unlawful about that meeting; however, if Manafort simply provides proof that a statement made by Donald Trump Jr or Kushner about anything pertaining to that meeting (no matter how immaterial it may be and regardless of the legality of the meeting) was false, the special counsel could file a criminal complaint for lying to federal investigators. Of course, it is speculative, at best, whether Manafort has such evidence against one of the kids. But the same may be an avenue that Mueller  plans to travel with Manafort.

The alternate route is that Mueller is seeking to generate evidence of illegal acts directly perpetrated by President Trump. The special counsel investigation was chartered for the sole purpose of determining whether the Trump campaign engaged in illegal collusion with Russians during the 2016 presidential campaign. Once again, the public isn’t necessarily in receipt of all the evidence gathered by the special counsel investigation, but it appears highly unlikely that they have proofs that any illegal collusion occurred by any American, including Trump. The legal reality that “collusion”, in of itself, is not a crime – and the great likelihood that the special counsel investigation has resulted in no evidence of illegal collusion with Russians – are thoroughly explained in the following recent ESN articles: (1) Time to End Special Counsel Investigation That Never Should Have Begun in First Place; (2) The Propaganda That Collusion is a Crime is a Result of the Far Left’s Abandonment of Civil Liberties; and (3) Common Sense Dictates That Russians Have Attempted to Interfere With Elections, But Far Left’s Propaganda is Disingenuous & Dangerous. And the other far reaching prosecutorial quests that are unrelated to alleged Russian collusion are examined in other recent ESN articles, such as Michael Cohen’s Guilty Plea for Illegal Campaign Contributions was a Plea to a Non-Criminal Act By a Non-Credible Actor. These articles detail how all roads lead to no crimes by Donald Trump. Given these factors, it is highly improbable that Manafort has any information to offer that links Trump to an unlawful act of collusion with Russians (or other crimes), as such misconduct simply appears to be the null set.

What no one is saying, however, is a credible hypothesis predicated upon the following: perhaps Robert Mueller is just handling his job in the appropriate manner, by carrying out the true duties of a prosecutor. A prosecutor’s role is to seek justice. In many cases, seeking justice by a prosecutor means that he fervently prosecutes a case after he has obtained enough evidence to prove a case behind a reasonable doubt. However, in a number of matters, seeking justice means that the prosecutor, by his own decision, must determine not to prosecute a person(s) – because, via his investigation, he has concluded that he cannot prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Paul Manafort is required to fully cooperate with the special counsel and provide truthful testimony. It is possible that Mueller is equally looking to see if Manafort provides evidence that exculpates Trump and others. Mueller may be nearing the end of his investigation and, under all circumstances, he looks at Manafort as an individual who can deliver key information – material that may prove that crime(s) have occurred and material that may dispel that criminal activity existed. It just may be that Mueller is conducting himself by the ethical mandates of his position, and is on a hunt for justice. He may be looking at Manafort as that final key witness (or one of the final few), who confirms an already-brewing conclusion that neither Trump nor anyone in his campaign engaged in illegal collusion with Russians during the 2016 presidential election. After all, Manafort is definitively the highest-ranking member of the campaign who had substantial ties with powerful Russians, and his truthful testimony may very well cement the finding that prosecutions of Trump et al under a Russian conspiracy theory would be unjust.

The final theory for Manafort’s sudden guilty plea? Maybe, just maybe, as per the above, he has no damaging evidence against Trump, his family or any participants of the Trump campaign. And he wants to prove this to the president – and the American public.

Following this path, he fully cooperates with the special counsel and provides truthful testimony, which does not inculpate Trump or any ally – and which further debunks any purported offense of unlawful Russian collusion. Given that he has put all on the line – by adding a guilty plea to his guilty verdict, thereby facing substantial incarceration – Manafort would show all of America, including the president, where he really stands and what he really knows. If he tells, thorough his cooperation, nothing damaging about Trump and company, and he is finally sentenced, then the Manafort saga is over for himself, Trump, and all of America. And this could trigger an immediate pardon for him. Now that just might be a better gambling path for Manafort than enduring another trial – and leaving open speculation as to where he stands.

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 ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/litigating attorney for 24 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo..  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and 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.

THIS ECONOMY BELONGS TO TRUMP, NOT OBAMA, HERE’S WHY

By Robert Romano

You got to give former President Barack Obama credit, at least he’s consistent.

When he came into office, the economy was in a deep recession that began when financial markets crashed in 2008, and, he said, he was blameless for the 8 million job losses that occurred, even as they continued into 2009 and the unemployment rate kept rising through 2010.

But after that, he deserves all the credit, apparently. Speaking to a crowd at the University of Illinois on Sept. 7, Obama bragged, “[W]hen you hear how the economy is doing right now, let’s just remember when this recovery started. I’m glad it’s continued, but when you hear about this ‘economic miracle’ that’s been going on when the job numbers come out…”

To be fair, the number people with jobs did increase after 2010 substantially when the worst of the recession was over at a rate of a little more than 2 million a year, about what it is right now. That’s the point Obama wants to make. But here’s what he doesn’t want to hear. It wasn’t good enough — by a long shot.

During Obama’s tenure in office, the economy never grew above 3 percent, a number not seen since 2005. It wasn’t a robust recovery.

Labor participation among 16-to 64-year-olds continued to drop significantly seven out of Obama’s eight years in office, as working age adults found it harder to find work and enter the economy, representing millions of people who lost opportunity from 2009 to 2016.

Which is little wonder. The $800 billion stimulus was not aimed at boosting labor participation.

Obamacare and Dodd-Frank did nothing to get working age adults back in the labor force.

The continued outsourcing of American jobs overseas and supporting massive one-sided trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership was not designed to bring production and jobs back to the U.S.

It wasn’t merely the poor economic numbers that we saw during the Obama administration, it was the policies that were implemented that did so little to make things better for working age adults.

But now that the economy is turning a corner, with 4.2 percent growth annualized in the second quarter and the possibility of the first year above 3 percent growth since 2005, labor participation among working age adults is rising, Obama wants the credit.

After all, in Obama’s eyes, his economic record did not begin until the economy had completely cratered. So, from that same partisan lens, naturally, President Donald Trump won’t earn any credit for the current upswing.

Of course, the moment it goes sour, in Obama’s eyes, Trump will likely warrant any and all blame when the business cycle does run its course. It’s convenient.

But it also shows a tremendous lack of leadership.

How about taking responsibility for the economy and doing those things that will get Americans back into the labor force and boost growth?

Grow or not, President Trump will be held accountable to the state of the economy come 2020 when he stands for reelection. That’s how voters are going to decide. If he’s going to get the blame if it goes down, then he should get credit when it goes up.

One of the reasons President Trump did so well in 2016, particularly in the Rust Belt states that have been decimated by globalization, bad trade deals and outsourcing, was because of Obama and Hillary Clinton ignoring the plight of blue-collar workers. They kept passing the buck, and they paid dearly for it in 2016.

Trump’s economic message, particularly on trade, resonated with conservative and union households alike, much to Democrats’ chagrin. Now, with the combination of tax cuts, deregulation and the push for better trade deals, the economy stands a real chance of growing above 3 percent for the first time in 13 years. We’re not there yet, but we’re on the right track.

The next go around, in 2020, it will matter quite little what Obama or Trump or any politicians says. Actions will speak louder than words, and results will speak the loudest of all.

To the extent President Trump succeeds, economic growth accelerates and jobs are boosted along with labor participation, 2020 will take care of itself. It will tell us whether or not Trump gets four more years. For better or for worse, Trump owns this economy. That’s the real accountability the American people deserve and expect from their current leaders, not political diatribes from former presidents hoping to rewrite their legacies.

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

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

THE NIKE-KAEPERNICK COLLUSION

AN ESN EDITOR SHORT

Perhaps the NFL owners are colluding with Russia to keep Colin Kaepernick out of the NFL. If so, they must not understand how to carry out a true conspiracy because they forgot to block the other several dozen players who have committed the same kneeling antics.

Or maybe Kaepernick isn’t in the NFL because his talent, at this point, is inadequate?

Nike’s use of a below average QB as its front man is not perplexing. It’s simply a publicity stunt decision where their internal actuaries have failed. For the same reasons that the NFL haven’t gained a single fan via the national anthem snub (instead losing many), Nike will lose many customers while adding zero more.

If Nike’s goal was to promote so-called social justice, maybe they should close down all of their foreign sweat shops and open factories in inner cities of the United States. If the company obtains such business rationale, then they should continue down the path of logic and replace Kaepernick with Aaron Judge (they need a judge).

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

CUOMO TROUNCES NIXON IN NY GOV PRIMARY; JAMES EMERGES AS WINNER FOR AG

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

Thursday, September 13 was one of New York State’s primary election days. While Congressional primaries were held on June 26, state primary races are held on a separate day.  New York is the only state in the country where federal primaries are scheduled on a separate day from state primaries, thus wasting resources and taxpayers’ dollars, but that is a matter for a separate discussion. The September 13 races featured Democratic primaries for governor, attorney general, and state senate seats.

Two-term governor incumbent Andrew Cuomo easily defeated challenger Cynthia Nixon with  65.5% of the vote. Nixon, who is known mostly for her role as Miranda on Sex and the City, and most recently for jumping into the race with “progressive” (aka socialist) views, garnered 34.4%. Nixon’s platform included advocating for universal healthcare, reforming the city’s subway system, advancing LGBTQ rights, legalizing marijuana, and improving public schools and was trying to jump on the bandwagon of socialist Congressional candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  However, Cuomo maintained a $30 million war chest and a 20+ point-lead in the polls throughout the primary season and faced no real threat from Nixon. He will face Republican Mark Molinaro in November.

The state attorney general race featured an interesting cast of characters: The current acting AG, Barbara Underwood (who took over when Eric Schneiderman resigned amidst allegations of physical violence by four women accusers) did not seek election, which opened the door for several Democrat candidates: Letitia “Tish” James, who is New York City’s public advocate, Sean Patrick Maloney, who is also a current Congressman running for re-election in that race, Zephyr Teachout, an attorney and law professor who has run unsuccessfully for governor and Congress in the past, and Leecia Eve, who has served as an aide for Cuomo, former Vice President Joe Biden, and Hillary Clinton. Liberals were excited about the diversity of the field: James and Eve are African-American women, Teachout is also a woman, and Maloney is gay.

James emerged as the victor, with 40.6% of the vote. Teachout gained 31.0% of the vote, Maloney won 25.0%, and Eve received 3.4%.

James seemed to be the favorite all along, with an endorsement from Cuomo and excitement bubbling over the possibility of the first African-American woman elected to statewide office. Why didn’t this excitement extend to Eve? She was likely considered too “establishment,” given her work with Cuomo, Clinton, and Biden. Perhaps voters were wary of Maloney’s quest for both re-election to Congress and the AG seat, and this will likely hurt his bid for Congress in November.

All eyes will continue to be on the AG election. Whoever wins can dive right into the headlines by taking over attention-grabbling lawsuits that have already been filed by this office against the Trump organization, former Trump attorney Michael Cohen, and the Trump administration itself. The Republican candidate is attorney and political newcomer Keith Woffard.

So NY’s second round of primaries yielded no real surprises. Liberals voted for liberals—nothing new there. On to the midterm elections…

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

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

 

TWITTER CEO ADMITS CONSERVATIVE EMPLOYEES FEEL “SILENCED”

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey recently admitted that the climate in his company has led conservative employees to feel uncomfortable expressing their views.

In a recent interview with NYU journalism professor Jay Rosen, Dorsey stated, “We have a lot of conservative-leaning folks in the company as well, and to be honest, they don’t feel safe to express their opinions at the company… They do feel silenced by just the general swirl of what they perceive to be the broader percentage of leanings within the company, and I don’t think that’s fair or right.” Dorsey went on to share that his father was a Republican, but his mother was liberal and that political debate was a part of everyday life when he was growing up.

He also claimed that Twitter does not shadow ban anyone based on political ideology, despite the recent permanent ban on Alex Jones and his site Infowars. When Dorsey recently testified on Capitol Hill to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, he claimed, “Twitter does not use political ideology to make any decisions, whether related to ranking content on our service or how we enforce our rules. We believe strongly in being impartial, and we strive to enforce our rules impartially.”

Is this just talk? Will the ultra-liberal environment of Twitter and other social media giants change? It is a sad situation for conservatives—particularly young conservatives who are newly entering the work force and may aspire to work at a Big Tech corporation—that they do not feel comfortable in speaking their minds in their workplace.

The irony is glaring here…Liberals blast conservatives for being narrow-minded and intolerant, but the reality is the other way around. Has anyone heard anything about a conservative company making liberal employees feel uncomfortable? Anyone? Anyone? Didn’t think so…

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.

TEXAS SUPREME COURT UPHOLDS CHEERLEADERS’ RIGHT TO DISPLAY BIBLE VERSES ON BANNERS

By CANDY STALLWORTH

Three cheers for the Texas Supreme Court for recognizing religious liberty. Last Friday, the court upheld an appellate court’s ruling that allowed a group of high school cheerleaders to display Bible verses on banners at football games.

This case dates back to 2012, when seven cheerleaders displayed banners with Bible verses, such as Philippians 4:13 – “I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me”, for their football team to run through at the start of games.  Naturally, an atheist group, the Freedom From Religion Foundation, came out of nowhere and complained, and thus the cheerleaders were banned by the Kountze Independent School District from displaying signs with Bible verses or other references to God. The district claimed that the cheerleaders’ banners, because they were displayed at a public school setting, amounted to government speech. The cheerleaders’ parents sued the district, having their case taken on by First Liberty Institute, a law firm that specializes in religious liberty, and attorney David Starnes of the law firm of Gibson, Dunn and Crutcher. The cheerleaders also garnered support from Texas senators Ted Cruz and John Cornyn.

The court ruled that the cheerleaders’ banners were their own expressions of faith, not school-sponsored speech. The district appealed, with Kountze ISD attorney Thomas Brandt maintaining that the “banners were held by public school cheerleaders while they were cheering for the school’s football team, while they were in uniform at a school-sponsored event, and while they were on the school’s football field to which access was limited by the school.” However, he should have realized that he was no match for God, as the Texas Ninth Court of Appeals upheld the ruling. And the district attempted to appeal to the State Supreme Court, but last Friday, the court denied the appeal to hear the case again. “This is the private speech of these cheerleaders and for the school district to censor that speech violates the Constitution,” said Jeremy Dys, one of the attorneys for the cheerleaders. “The school district has fought us every step along the way.”

Commenting on this hard-fought victory on a long, drawn-out battle, First Liberty Institute’s Hiram Sasser stated, “As the football season kicks off across Texas, it’s good to be reminded that these cheerleaders have a right to religious speech on their run-through banners – banners on which the cheerleaders painted messages they chose, with paint they paid for, on paper they purchased…”

And, given that these cases do occur from time to time, where atheist whiners attempt to keep football players, cheerleaders, and fans away from God and the Bible, it’s good to see that the Texas Supreme Court stands in support of freedom of religious expression. According to Allyson Ho, lead appellate counsel, “This is a total victory that protects the religious liberty of students everywhere.”

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.

 

BACKLASH AGAINST NIKE FOR KAEPERNICK AD CAMPAIGN CONTINUES; COLLEGE OF OZARKS DUMPS NIKE TEAM APPAREL

By Daniel Sonninshine

Nike continues to get kicked, dumped, and dropped faster than one can say, “Just Do It.” The athletic footwear, equipment, and apparel giant has angered many fans and customers by choosing Colin Kaepernick as the face of its new ad campaign, with the slogan “Believe in something. Even if it means sacrificing everything.”

The College of the Ozarks, in Point Lookout, Missouri believes this: that Kaepernick is not a  hero and not deserving of this glory. The private Christian college has announced that it will remove all Nike athletic apparel from its sports teams. In a statement, college president Jerry C. Davis said, “In their new ad campaign, we believe Nike executives are promoting an attitude of division and disrespect toward America… If Nike is ashamed of America, we are ashamed of them. We also believe that those who know what sacrifice is all about are more likely to be wearing a military uniform than an athletic uniform.”

This college takes patriotism seriously. In 2017, it revised its sports participation contracts, requiring all student athletes to show respect for the American flag and national anthem and that they would refuse participation in any game where the opposing team kneeled or otherwise disrespected the flag and anthem. The college has approximately 1,400 undergraduate students and six athletic teams.

Now that’s believing in something. Nike, the NFL, and college football could take a cue from this obviously principled school that truly understands respect.

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

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

SEN. BOOKER CONTINUES THEATRICS DURING KAVANAUGH HEARING

By TEMPLE LI

While many Democrats have resorted to histrionics during Brett Kavanaugh’s Supreme Court confirmation hearings over the past three days, none other have been as dramatic and comical as Sen. Cory Booker (D – New Jersey). His and others’ antics are blatant attempts to draw attention to themselves in preparation for upcoming elections, or as auditions to be the 2020 Democratic presidential nominee.

In obvious pandering to his base, Booker questioned Kavanaugh on his views on race relations, racial profiling, and voter identification laws, trying any way he could to portray Kavanaugh as racist. Booker attempted to accuse Kavanaugh of supporting racial profiling by citing emails that Kavanaugh had written in 2001 and 2002 on the subject of racial profiling following the 9/11 terror attacks.  Kavanaugh did not have a copy of the emails, as they had been marked “committee confidential.” Sen. Mike Lee (R – Utah) objected, saying that it was unfair to “cross-examine” Kavanaugh on a document to which he did not have access.

Booker began his grandstanding by saying that the documents should not be confidential because they were not a matter of national security and that he was going to release them, even though doing so would violate Senate committee rules. Sen. John Cornyn (R – Texas) called out Booker’s antics for what they were with the statement, “Running for president is no excuse for violating the rules of the Senate or of confidentiality of the documents that we are privy to…”

But Booker, perhaps in attempt to be Nike’s next spokesman for standing for something and losing everything, bloviated, “I come from a long line of Americans that understand what kind of civil disobedience is and I understand the consequences. So I am right now before your process is finished, I am going to release the e-mail about racial profiling and I understand that that — the penalty comes with potential ousting from the Senate.”

He went on to say, “This is about the closest I’ll ever have to an ‘I am Spartacus’ moment.” And some of his colleagues, including Sen. Dick Durbin (D – Illinois) and Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D – Minnesota), voiced their support, apparently ready to line up behind Spartacus.  Booker repeated several times that he was “knowingly violating the rules,” to which Sen. Chuck Grassley (R – Iowa) asked, “Can I ask you how long you’re going to say the same thing three or four times?”

Booker, apparently reveling in his impending self-sacrifice, replied, “I’m saying I’m knowingly violating the rules,” Booker replied. “Senator Cornyn has called me out for it.”

And Grassley, who also was wise to Booker’s campaign grandstanding retorted, ““How many times are you going to tell us that?”

Booker, in fact, did tweet out the emails, but as it turned out, the documents had already been cleared for releasing. Apparently, Booker even knew the documents could be released at the time; thus, the theatrics were for nothing.

Nothing related to Kavanaugh’s confirmation hearing, anyway. If Booker was hoping to create a glorious video clip to use in his 2020 presidential campaign, he’s certainly given his opponents fodder for their campaigns to show how disingenuous and self-serving he really is.

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

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

NFL PLAYERS SADLY KEEP KNEELING DURING NATIONAL ANTHEM

By MARIO DEL VECCHIO

Some NFL players continue to kneel at the national anthem.  While it may be wrong, they have free speech rights so they can do whatever they want. They say they kneel because they are “protesting against police brutality and because they want illegal arrests against African Americans to stop.”

These NFL players should not only be concerned  about illegal arrests of African Americans, but also all races. Illegal arrests are wrong and they do happen, but not standing for the national anthem does nothing in stopping this problem.

Far left wing Democrats act like they are siding with the players, but they are tricking them. Half of the  players are kneeling because of their “protest”, but the other half are just following their teammates and the left wing people who are deceiving them. This is sad.

ESPN will not even show the national anthem now, and the new rule is if players kneel they stay in the locker room. Some NFL players even think they are gaining fans by kneeling, but they are losing fans instead.  Hopefully, the kneeling thing will stop soon so there can be no more controversy.

Mario Del Vecchio is a precocious young lad who turns 10 in September. He prides himself in knowing more about politics and such than most adults. He also is quite confident that being a tattle-tale is for zeros, and that only losers are jealous. He has no use for disloyal people, but he has a lot of use for karate, wrestling, football, baseball, and Fortnite. And if you try to push him around, he will defend himself and push back harder than you – otherwise, he will leave you alone.   

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.