By Robert Romano

Republicans have come within striking distance of reclaiming a majority in the House of Representatives, based on the latest tally of votes from the Nov. 3 election.

If every seat Democrats are clearly leading goes their way in the final tally, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would lose 14 seats — Republicans could pick up 15 seats including the Justin Amash seat — an outcome almost nobody was predicting.

With the results still coming in, that would bring the Democratic majority at a scant 219 to 216, if the current numbers hold.

During this cycle, this author had toyed with the notion that Trump could be the first sitting President since Harry Truman in 1948 to flip the House in an election bid for a second term as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) held up coronavirus economic relief legislation.

Trump got close. Really, really close.

And the counting is not over yet. Republicans would potentially need to only flip two more seats, and they would get the majority. It may be unlikely, but it’s still out there.

In fact, Democrats have not picked up a single seat in the election on a net basis. They have picked up three seats, two in  North Carolina, and one in Georgia. But that is being more than offset by 18 potential Republican gains elsewhere.

Elsewhere, one race to keep your eye on is Pennsylvania’s 17th Congressional District is within a point, with U.S. Rep. Conor Lamb (D-Pa.) slightly leading challenger Sean Parnell.

Iowa’s 2nd District is too close to call, too, in a dead heat with Mariannette Miller-Meeks (R-Iowa) and Rita Hart (D-Iowa). That would be a pickup for Republicans should it come through.

There’s a couple of races in Nevada that are somewhat close, but Democrats usually hold those seats. It’s hard to find any other seats that Republicans might claim, and it’s still possible Democrats hold on to a few of these seats.

California’s 25th District between U.S. Rep. Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), who won a special election earlier this year against his current opponent former U.S. Rep. Christy Smith (R-Calif.), is in a neck-and-neck battle, for example. If the Democrats stand a chance of picking up any seats, it’s this one.

So, I write potentially a net 15 seats could be picked up by the GOP. Maybe more, maybe less. We’ll see.

Still, this is an extraordinary outcome. President Donald Trump had major coattails in the House in this election, and that extended to the Senate, where control will be determined by two Senate runoffs in the state of Georgia and by the outcome of the race for president, which remains too close to call with lawsuits being filed all over the place by the Trump campaign alleging fraud.

And unquestionably, President Trump’s strategy for in-person voting on Election Day — combined with his historic airport rallies, akin to Truman’s whistle stop campaign 1948 — is to thank for the outcome.

All that was done as so-called experts were urging that the President cede his advantage in the election to stave off the pandemic. If he hadn’t done it, the election would not be as close as it is.

Congressional Republicans should write a giant thank you to President Trump. In terms of electoral strength, he is one of the most consequential presidents of this generation. Truly remarkably.

With such a narrow majority in the House, and Republicans poised to keep the Senate, even if Trump loses, Biden and Democrats have virtually no mandate to govern and will hardly get anything done. The radical left’s agenda will be stopped dead in its tracks:

No Green New Deal.

No statehood for D.C. and Puerto Rico.

No bans on hydraulic fracturing.

No national, Congressionally imposed lockdown.

No tax hikes.

No public option socialized medicine.

None of it.

Republicans should do nothing to legitimize and broker no quarter to any new Democratic administration should it be seated. They get no help.

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.

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

In an unusual media twist, a news network has emerged that is designed to do something that was last seen as a normality in a galaxy long, long ago: to deliver actual news. Although some straight news reporting still exists on cable news and major networks, for better or for worse, most of the programming is opinion-based. The art of broadcast news journalism, to many, is a skeletal relic of the past. Many bemoan what they see as nonstop editorial pieces, no matter how the material is presented or masked.

Is it a bad thing – to have opinion shows in an abundance?

Not necessarily. It depends upon one’s tastes, desires and, well, personal opinion. Some, maybe many, viewers prefer opinion-based shows—and absolutely love them; some even love one-sided opinion shows, especially those that comport to their own views. Others, however – and it may also be many others – despise, can’t stand, and outright hate ONE-SIDED opinion programming. All that said, based upon overall ratings, surveys, and polling, the great majority of viewers like some two-sided opinion shows, but mixed in with straight, factual news shows. 

Enter Quick Hits News, a new broadcast news network, comprised of several award-winning, well-known TV journalists, including Emmy winner David Shuster (former MSNBC host/anchor and Fox News correspondent) and Antonio Mora (former ABC and “Good Morning America” anchor and correspondent). Created for the purposes of telling straight, factual news, the network – which has daily programming that can be watched at QuickHitsTV.com, Happs.TV, and on most cable and satellite systems – is delivering just how they have promised, which means: news, news, and more news. Opinion, of course, is integrated into the programming because, let’s face it, as stated above, most viewers want to hear some opinions. The opinions on Quick Hits News, however, are even-handed, where both sides of the spectrum are always evaluated. 

At a time when the approval ratings for the media are, literally, at under 10%, the show style at Quick Hits News appears to be what nearly all Americans are seeking. The programming features a true anchor, who serves as a moderator. Straight news is delivered to the audience, with no spin or filter. Topics are discussed and debated, with opinions (and even strong opinions) levied. But, again, the audience is always getting both sides of the coin. And the participants – all well-known journalists and TV personalities who can be quite entertaining – ensure credibility and respectability in their work. And that’s because a cornerstone of the new Quick Hits News shows is the promise of professionalism in their presentation of the news. Upon the network continuing in this path, it can fast-track to the top of the broadcast news industry because, in simple terms, there currently is no other network quite like it. 

Who are the journalists on Quick Hits News? 

Arielle Hixson is a powerhouse journalist, recognized for her riveting passion for storytelling. Most recently Arielle was a Correspondent/Fill-in Anchor at i24 News, an international news network. She reported live on a variety of global topics, from unrest in the middle east, to Brexit in the UK and protests in Asia.  Prior to i24 she worked as an Anchor/Reporter with Channel One News, an educational news network that reached millions of students across the U.S. While working at Channel One she earned a Telly for her eight part series on technology, science and the brain. Arielle was also sent to Cambodia for a special series on the Cambodian Genocide, where she interviewed victims of landmines while walking through an active minefield. She received her masters in Journalism at Georgetown University where she had the opportunity to work as the sole White House national press intern during the 2012 Presidential Election. Arielle graduated with honors in psychology from Wesleyan University.

Joe Williams is a senior news editor for US News & World Report and is a reporter-at-large for the Economic Hardship Reporting Project, which focuses on social and economic inequality. His work has appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic and other national publications. Before joining US News, Williams was deputy White House editor for Politico and deputy chief of The Boston Globe’s Washington bureau.

Julia Sun is a television host known for her uplifting energy and passion to serve Millennial and Gen Z viewers. She’s been seen on a hundred NBC, CBS, ABC and FOX affiliate channels across America, on streaming platforms Roku and Amazon Fire TV, and on THE world’s foremost broadcast agency, Reuters. Among the luminaries on her shows are A-list celebrities and influencers, Olympic and Super  Bowl champions, U.S. presidential candidates and White House staff,  star entrepreneurs and CEOs, and New York Times best selling authors. Away from the camera, she was an aeronautical engineer at a leading aerospace and defense manufacturer, an analyst at a top investment bank, a co-founder and chief architect of a women’s healthcare mobile app, and an actor Off-Broadway. Forever a California gal at heart, Julia holds a B.S. degree in engineering from Cornell University.

Randall Pinkston was a correspondent/anchor for Al Jazeera America. Previously he was with CBS News. After a stint as a White House Correspondent in CBS’s Washington Bureau, Pinkston became a general assignment reporter, contributing to CBS broadcasts, including CBS Evening News, Morning News, Weekend News, CBS News Sunday Morning and 48 Hours. Pinkston also contributed to the CBS Reports documentary, Legacy of Shame with Correspondent Dan Rather. Pinkston has filled in as anchor on the CBS Evening News-Weekend Edition,  Up to the Minute and CBS Morning News.

Kenneth Del Vecchio has served as a legal/political analyst for multiple major news networks, such as Newsmax, Fox News Channel and i24 News, appearing on hundreds of shows. Frequently involved in fiery, but professional debates, Del Vecchio is a noted Republican political strategist and criminal and constitutional law expert. A former judge, Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM. Also a best-selling criminal suspense novelist, Del Vecchio is 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, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies as well. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other leading media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.” In addition to previously sitting on the bench, Del Vecchio is a former prosecutor, who is a practicing criminal defense, commercial litigation, and entertainment law attorney for 25+ years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases.

Teresa Krug is a reporter, producer and videographer, who has worked out of East Africa, Southeast Asia and the Middle East for some of the world’s largest news outlets, including The Associated Press, Al Jazeera English/America, CBS News, The Guardian and NowThis. Krug is best known for her extensive work profiling Samia Yusuf Omar, a Somali Olympic runner who fled her home country in hopes of realizing her athletic dreams in Europe. Krug now resides in Arkansas, where she focuses on issues of human rights, politics and climate change across Middle America. She has an MPA from Columbia University, and double degrees in sociology and journalism from Iowa State University.

Michael Shure is a Los Angeles based award-winning broadcast journalist who has spent most of his career covering U.S. politics. He worked as a field correspondent for CNN, served as a host/correspondent for the on-line news show, “The Young Turks,” hosted his own politics show on Current TV, served as a national political correspondent for Al Jazeera America, and most recently served as the Senior national correspondent for i24News. Shure has appeared as an actor in several films and the television show “Curb Your Enthusiasm.”

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By Catherine Mortensen

Judge Amy Coney Barrett is a new role model for young women, and even women of her own generation. While her success is built upon the trailblazing work of the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, she takes feminism in a new direction. She has reached the pinnacle of her career while still raising young children and sustaining what looks to be a happy, functional marriage, something men have done for years.

Feminism has turned a corner. With past women justice nominees, it felt like their gender defined them. It seems different with Barrett. President Trump selected her because of her extraordinary intellectual gifts and her commitment to an originalist view of the Constitution and the role of the courts, not her gender. She clerked for the late Justice Antonin Scalia, and shares his textualist philosophy to interpret the law as written.

While Barrett’s confirmation vetting should be solely about her past court decisions and her views on the Constitution, and not her gender, it is worth noting her gender because Barrett represents a new image of a successful career woman. It is clear that women today can succeed in careers at the same pace as their male colleagues. This was rarely the case in the past when women often left the workforce when they got married or had children and returned later, always behind their male counterparts. It is refreshing to see a woman reach the top of her field while still in her prime.

This was largely the theme shared by a  group of Republic women senators spoke in support of Barrett at a  Sept. 30  news conference.

Sen. Debra Fischer (R-NE): “I think it is so remarkable that we have such a woman before us now. When we look at Judge Barrett, we see an accomplished woman. We see a brilliant jurist. We see a nice person. We see someone who has been able to balance their family life with a husband and seven children and keep everybody on track. We see someone who’s had to make choices in her life in order to move forward in her chosen career. We see someone who’s a success.”

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA): “Folks, this is what a mom can do. I tell my daughter all the time that a mom can be a farmer or a rancher. A mom can be a combat veteran. A mom can be a financial planner, a mom can serve in the United States Senate, and most certainly a mom can be a Supreme Court Justice. Anybody that says different is absolutely wrong.”

Sen. Martha McSally (R-AZ): “If confirmed on the court, she will be the first with school-age children serving on the Supreme Court. That is something that should be celebrated. Judge Barrett is by all accounts a woman of faith and of grace and of brilliance and of compassion. She is someone with seven kids, including two adopted ones and one with special needs. She is able to balance it all and do it in an amazing way. That really sets the example for so many women and girls. We should encourage everyone in America to really celebrate the fact that we have this brilliant woman who rose into the top who has been able to balance it all with grace and dignity.”

Sen. Shelley Capito (R-WV): “We should be rejoicing in the fact that we have an accomplished woman to consider that we have a role model for our girls, our daughters and our granddaughters.  She has traveled a journey that not many of us get to do and we should use that as an opportunity to inspire that next generation.”

For many young women today, feminism has a slightly negative connotation. Old school feminists are often seen as harsh, combative, and judgmental. Many women would prefer to be seen as smart, strong, and compassionate. While today’s youth certainly owe a debt of gratitude to women such as Gloria Steinem and Justice Ginsburg, to name a few, many in the rising generation have moved on to a new type of feminist ideal. An ideal that allows them to be a parent, a spouse, a community volunteer, and still succeed in careers, just as men have always been able to do.

Thanks, Judge Barrett, for your 21^st century brand of feminism.

Catherine Mortensen is Vice President of Communication for Americans for Limited Government. You can read more of her articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

By ROBERT ROMANO

Twitter and Facebook have both limited distribution of an Oct. 14 report from the New York Post’s Emma-Jo Morris and Gabrielle Fonrouge entitled, “Smoking-gun email reveals how Hunter Biden introduced Ukrainian businessman to VP dad” detailing an alleged meeting between former Vice President Joe Biden and Burisma executive Vadym who Biden’s son, Hunter, used to work for, in April 2015.

The Wall Street Journal’s Robert McMillan and Jeff Horwitz reported on Oct. 15, “Twitter on Wednesday blocked users from posting links to the articles, initially citing a potential violation of its rules regarding hacked materials. The company later said the articles also violated its policies on displaying private information like email addresses and phone numbers without a person’s permission… Twitter’s move came after Facebook also limited the distribution of the articles on its platform, saying it was awaiting guidance from its third-party fact-checking partners—independent organizations that routinely review the accuracy of viral content. Facebook has slowed the spread of the Post articles pending a decision by those partners, company spokesman Andy Stone said in a Twitter message on Wednesday morning.”

According to the email obtained by the New York Post, allegedly from Pozharskyi to Hunter Biden, “Dear Hunter, thank you for inviting me to DC and giving an opportunity to meet your father and spent [sic] some time together. It’s realty [sic] an honor and pleasure.”

Twitter and Facebook have claimed the news report somehow violated their terms of service in republishing illegally obtained materials.

The outrage for Twitter and Facebook is that regardless of where the computer containing the emails came from, the New York Post has a First Amendment right to publish them. It’s freedom of the press, something social media companies have in the past defended.

For example, Twitter has never banned or throttled the Twitter account for Wikileaks, which routinely publishes classified information or other news outlets that have similar national security sources and classified materials included that by definition are illegally obtained.

The Biden campaign has denied any such meeting took place, saying it was not in the former Vice President’s “official schedule”, calling the disclosure, without evidence, supposed Russian disinformation.

Later, the Biden campaign admitted it was possible Biden met with Pozharskyi, according to Politico’s Kyle Cheney and Natasha Bertrand reporting on Oct. 14: “Biden’s campaign would not rule out the possibility that the former VP had some kind of informal interaction with Pozharskyi, which wouldn’t appear on Biden’s official schedule. But they said any encounter would have been cursory.”

The trouble for Biden, of course, was that Burisma was the natural gas firm being investigated in Ukraine, that his son worked for, and who Biden bragged he got the prosecutor looking into the company fired by threatening an International Monetary Fund loan.

Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations at the Jan. 2018 event he threatened $1.2 billion of loan guarantees in 2016 to get Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin fired: “I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.’ …Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.”

Shokin in April 2019 told journalist John Solomon that prior to the election of the new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, he was removed in 2016 because of his investigation of Burisma, on which Biden’s son, Hunter, served on the Board of Directors.

In an affidavit in a European court in 2019, Shokin testified, “The truth is that I was forced out because I was leading a wide-ranging corruption probe into Burisma Holdings, a natural gas firm active in Ukraine and Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, was a member of the Board of Directors… On several occasions President Poroshenko asked me to have a look at the case against Burisma and consider the possibility of winding down the investigative actions in respect of this company but I refused to close this investigation.”

A call from May 2016, leaked in May 2020, between former Vice President Joe Biden and then-Ukraine President Petro Poroshenko confirmed the quid pro quo in Ukraine,  that is, the $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the IMF approved by the Obama administration and the firing and replacement of Shokin.

In the May 2016 phone call, Biden clearly says, “[C]ongratulations on installing the new prosecutor general, it’s going to be critical for him to work quickly to repair the damage Shokin did. And I’m a man of my word. And now that the new prosecutor general is in place, we’re ready to move forward in signing that one-billion-dollar loan guarantee.” The phone call was said to have been recorded by Poroshenko himself.

This was the matter President Donald Trump sought to have Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky “look into” on the July 25, 2019 phone call with current Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In the phone call with Zelensky, Trump said, “It sounds horrible to me.”

And now, it looks like Biden may have even met with Burisma executives, putting the lie to Biden’s claim that “never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings”.

In the meantime, Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) has told Fox News that his committee is in touch with the individual who provided the emails and is in the process of authenticating them.

“We regularly speak with individuals who email the committee’s whistleblower account to determine whether we can validate their claims,” said Johnson, adding, “Although we consider those communications to be confidential, because the individual in this instance spoke with the media about his contact with the committee, we can confirm receipt of his email complaint, have been in contact with the whistleblower, and are in the process of validating the information he provided.”

And Federal Communications Commission Chairman Ajit Pai is promising to put forward a regulation clarifying Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act that is used by social media companies as a shield from liability, stating, “Members of all three branches of the federal government have expressed serious concerns about the prevailing interpretation of the immunity set forth in Section 230 of the Communications Act. There is bipartisan support in Congress to reform the law. The U.S. Department of Commerce has petitioned the Commission to ‘clarify ambiguities in section 230.’… Many advance an overly broad interpretation that in some cases shields social media companies from consumer protection laws in a way that has no basis in the text of Section 230. The Commission’s General Counsel has informed me that the FCC has the legal authority to interpret Section 230. Consistent with this advice, I intend to move forward with a rulemaking to clarify its meaning.”

Pai added, “Social media companies have a First Amendment right to free speech. But they do not have a First Amendment right to a special immunity denied to other media outlets, such as newspapers and broadcasters.”

Adding to the furor at Twitter, White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany was locked out of her Twitter account for sharing the New York Post story. “It’s not a temporary blockage. When I log onto my Twitter account it says I’m permanently banned. They essentially had me at gunpoint and said unless you delete a news story reported by the New York Post I cannot regain access to my account,” McEnany told Fox News’ Sean Hannity on Oct. 14.

McEnany has since had her account restored, but the threat to press freedom posed by these big tech firms is quite clear who have anointed themselves the arbiters of truth. But while Twitter, Facebook and other firms are certainly a part of the marketplace of ideas, they by no means have a monopoly on that market — yet.

In April 2018, Twitter co-founder and CEO Jack Dorsey retweeted an article by Peter Leyden and Ruy Teixeira that called our political discourse a “new civil war,” with Leyden and Teixeira writing, “America can’t afford more political paralysis. One side or the other must win. This is a civil war that can be won without firing a shot. But it is a fundamental conflict between two worldviews that must be resolved in short order.”

It called for “Democratic One-Party Rule” in the U.S. as a means of reconciling issues facing the country and ultimately implementing the progressive agenda. Dorsey called it a “great read.”

Are we beginning to see what one party rule will look like in the U.S. — with Twitter and Facebook acting as party spokespersons and ministries of propaganda for the Democratic Party? It sure looks that way. This is a mortal danger to freedom of the press and of speech.

In John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty, the philosopher warned how a “social tyranny” of the majority could impose censorship that would be “more formidable” than even government censorship and that it could “enslav[e] the soul” with little room for escape.

Mill wrote, “[W]hen society is itself the tyrant — society collectively over the separate individuals who compose it — its means of tyrannising are not restricted to the acts which it may do by the hands of its political functionaries. Society can and does execute its own mandates; and if it issues wrong mandates instead of right, or any mandates at all in things with which it ought not to meddle, it practices a social tyranny more formidable than many kinds of political oppression, since, though not usually upheld by such extreme penalties, it leaves fewer means of escape, penetrating much more deeply into the details of life, and enslaving the soul itself.”

Now that “social tyranny” appears to be taking root in America, arbitrating what can and cannot be shared — unless we stop it now.

It is irrelevant how the New York Post, or any other news organization obtains its information, classified or otherwise. The question is whether the freedom of the press will be protected or not. We do not support corporate censorship and social censorship anymore than we support government censorphip. As Mill wrote, “If all mankind minus one were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

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.

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

Two guys walk into a bar. The third one ducks.

The first two men are comedians Buddy Fitzpatrick and Joe Bronzi. The third is a guy who never made it in the business – because he took the easy way out.

Fitzpatrick and Bronzi, who have over 60 years of stand-up comedy experience between them, are relentless (constantly walking into bars) and ever-continuing to reach for the brass ring. They have each developed technique, bits and material that span audience markets, including theatres, casinos, resorts, corporate events, and comedy clubs. They are a rare breed, for sure, in the comedian world, since both Fitzpatrick and Bronzi can play to audiences from ages 7 to 107, using language that is clean, suggesting or down right raunchy – although both tend to stay on the PG-13 side of writing for their general audience.

Like most comics coming from the 90’s genre, Bronzi  and Fitzpatrick began their careers in “open mic” venues, which often consisted of bars and make-shift clubs in the back of bowling alleys, laundromats, or anywhere a stage and a mic could be placed. Like rats sniffing out fodder to fill their bellies, the two comedians would find these amateur places to tryout their material. The key was, and still is, stage time.

Bronzi’s background includes extensive improv training, and his performance style mixes award-winning writing with fast-paced “of -the-cuff” crowd interaction. He has opened for many of the industry’s top talents, including , Jerry Seinfeld, Chris Rock, Brad Garret, Louis Anderson, Robert Klein, John Pinette, Brian Regan, Dom Irrera, Gilbert Gottfried, and Kevin Pollock. For five years, he was the regular (and only) opener for the comedy legend David Brenner.

At the age of 18, Fitzpatrick left his hometown of Philadelphia to pursue a career in the arts. He obtained his acting chops via graduating from New York’s American Academy of Dramatic Arts. While auditioning, Fitzpatrick never wanted to wait tables or drive cabs, so he took to the comedy stage, honed his craft and, soon after, became a regular at all the prominent showcase clubs in New York City. His act is made up of inventive material delivered in a self-assured style, where he combines the skill of a great monologist with a physical style that brings his observations to life. Fitzpatrick’s stand-up made him a regular on the Cable Comedy Channels of the 1990’s and 2000’s.

The two comedians would meet in the late 90’s, working the same stage, and formed a close friendship. But as often happens when comics become headliners, their gigs would ultimately keep them apart, taking their careers and relationship in a completely different direction. Bronzi became a regular on the high seas for Carnival and Royal Caribbean cruise lines. Fitzpatrick went on to be a regular opening act for Joan Rivers, Amy Schumer, Bobby Slayton and Susie Essman.

Bronzi’s calling would also find him performing as a warm-up Comedian for “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire” on NBC, “Room for Debate” on ESPN, “Crowd Rules” on MSNBC, and “The Match Game” hosted by Alec Baldwin. As Bronzi is also a trained actor, he has landed roles in independent films including Due Diligence and The Cleaning Lady, and a starring role Off-Broadway in James McClure’s Pvt. Wars.

Fitzpatrick never lost the acting bug and congruently continued auditioning, securing roles in the films Harlem Aria with Damon Wayons, and The Business of Strangers with Julia Stiles. His television credits include HBO’s “The Sopranos”, and most recently, Apple TV’’s “Faces” – written by Stephen King and starring Julianne Moore, Clive Owen, and Joan Allen. Fitzpatrick has written, produced and performed his biographical play “Sides” at various NYC theatres. Upcoming is his new one-person play (which he wrote and will perform), I Bet You Think This Play is About You.

Fitzpatrick, the longtime Opening Night Host of one of the world’s largest film festivals, Hoboken International Film Festival (Gilbert Gottfried is the festival’s Closing Night Host), has also played lead and significant supporting roles in multiple successful independent films, including Rock Story, American Criminal, The Brawler, and A Karate Christmas Miracle. In these films, he has acted alongside the likes of Academy Award nominee Eric Roberts,  Joyce DeWitt, Martin Kove, Joe Pantoliano, Amy Smart, Taryn Manning, Yancy Butler, Dominique Swain, and Gilbert Gottfried.

Fitzpatrick and Bronzi reunited on the stand-up circuit, and immediately started tying comedic – and dramatic – knots together. The paid began serving as writer partners, inking scripts; joining them in their writing endeavors has been Bronzi’s wife, Lindsay Gelfand.

When Fitzpatrick was tapped to co-write, co-produce and star in an upcoming star-filled indie, A Wrestling Christmas Miracle, he brought Bronzi into the project’s 2020 shooting. Fitzpatrick, playing a Grinch-like thespian-turned-thief, suggested Bronzi for a key supporting role – a bizarre businessman who talks to himself in varied crazed accents (Broniz has a special talent for accents); Bronzi landed the role. Fitzpatrick plays one of the film’s lead males, alongside child star (and real-life nationally-ranked youth wrestler) Mario Del Vecchio, Martin Kove, Julie McCullough, Gilbert Gottfried, Jimmie Walker, Candy Fox, Todd Bridges, Scott Schwartz, and Michael Winslow. The film – a comedy with the tagline “It Could Only Happen on Christmas” – will be released in late November/early December.

Daniel Sonninshine is an Empire State News staff writer, who is in search of greatness. A 20-something smart fellow, he is now lifting weights in an effort to obtain more power. If that doesn’t work, he will ask to write more editorials for Empire State News and less fact articles. He also dabbles in film reviews. Favorite flicks include The Godfather, Blazing Saddles, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, It’s a Wonderful Life, and The Passion of the Christ.

COMMENTS DISABLED BY SITE.

YOU MAY, HOWEVER, COMMENT THROUGH FACEBOOK.

By RICK MANNING

Last night’s debate between Vice President Pence and Senator Harris was a direct contrast between conservative Midwestern values and San Francisco, California values. Pence’s steady, low-key leadership is the perfect balance for President Trump as he leads America on his bold agenda. Senator Harris’ main distinctions were being named the most liberal senator in a Senate that includes socialist Bernie Sanders and attacking Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in what was nothing more than a #MeToo witch hunt.

One of the key issues in the debate is America’s relationship with the Communist Chinese government.  While President Trump and Vice President Pence have worked to establish a fair trading relationship with China, Senator Harris criticized the tariffs placed on China’s cheating steel industry which has systematically destroyed American made steel jobs due to government subsidies and the use of near slave labor.

It was stunning that the clearly biased, unknown debate moderator from USA Today, did not ask about Senator Harris’ personal financial ties to the Communist Chinese government through her husband’s law practice as a partner at DLA Piper.  While her husband Doug Emhoff left the firm in April of this year, it is imperative to know what actions he was engaged in with his communist Chinese partners over the past three years where Beijing’s overt attacks on America and the rest of the world became more and more apparent.

What’s more, Emhoff’s firm played a role in helping the Chinese with their infamous Belt and Road initiative, which has dramatically increased their influence in the world while permanently financially indebting many African nations to their Chinese colonizers.

And it is beyond belief that Harris who has little good to say about America, has no problem standing up for China, which is actively engaged in using child- and slave-labor according to the U.S. Labor Department, has set up concentration camps for millions of Muslim minorities and even kills political and religious dissidents by harvesting their organs one by one keeping the victim alive until their bodies are no longer of use, selling their vital organs to the wealthy around the world for transplant.

The lack of any outrage from the Biden-Harris ticket when it relates to China which has heavy business ties to both Biden and Harris is indicative that if elected, America will not any longer be a beacon of hope for oppressed peoples, but will soon kneel before its Chinese masters.

It is equally incomprehensible that Harris and Biden see nothing wrong with the hollowing out of the American economy due to Biden’s support for and eventual passage of Permanent Normalized Trade Relations with China in 2000, as well as Biden’s strong support for NAFTA in the 1990’s.

The very same NAFTA that President Donald Trump replaced with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade (USMCA)  agreement that will bring thousands of automotive jobs back to the United States while also increasing agricultural trade with our North American trading partners.  The Vice President wisely noted that Senator Harris voted against the USMCA, showing her disdain for the American worker who she would gladly sacrifice on her Green New Deal altar.

In other revelations, Harris joined Biden in refusing to pledge to not pack the Supreme Court, which would eliminate the independence of the judiciary, instead making up a story about why Abraham Lincoln did not appoint a Supreme Court Justice in 1864.

Here is why packing the Supreme Court ends judicial independence.  If the executive and legislative branches choose to expand the nation’s high court to rubber stamp their dubious constitutional policies, they have effectively ended the rule of law as the courts will not be a check on unconstitutional actions as they were designed to be.

Yet, Harris, an attorney and former prosecutor, refused to pledge to protect the Supreme Court’s independence.

On taxes, Harris tried to have it both ways when she said that her ticket would end the Trump tax cut which lowered taxes for middle class Americans by $2,000 on average, while denying that their policy is a tax hike on the middle class. Huh?

And finally, she and former Vice President Biden want to tell the public that they won’t destroy America’s energy independence through imposing the Green New Deal which Harris eagerly co-sponsored, yet their website still says that the Green New Deal underpins their climate policy which is endorsed by Green New Deal authors Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders.

America has been given a choice of competing visions for the future. Vice President Pence represents the hope of freedom and opportunity in line with the DNA of America. California Senator Harris represents the failed Marxist philosophy that impoverishes and enslaves people wherever it is tried in the world.  Mike Pence represents the solid middle American values that have made America great, and Harris promises to impose San Francisco values on the rest of America.  The choice is clear.

Rick Manning is the President of 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.

By Catherine Mortensen

After Joe Biden and Kamala Harris dodged debate questions about “packing the courts,”  Biden, when pressed further finally said, “You’ll know my opinion on court packing when the election is over.”

Biden is playing games with the American people on what could be the most consequential issue of the election and here is why this matters.

Presidents are constitutionally bound to fill vacancies on the courts including the Supreme Court which has been set to nine justices since 1869. It is expected that they will nominate judges who share their views on the constitution. Naturally, these presidential appointments can have far-reaching impacts on the nation.

What is not normal, expected, or natural is to “pack the court.” Packing the court is a different thing altogether. It is when a president attempts to increase the number of judges on any given court in order to get a desired political outcome.

“Packing the court” was coined by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, and was a slang term for the Judicial Procedures Reform Bill of 1937.

Roosevelt sought to reform the number of Supreme Court justices in an effort to obtain a favorable ruling for the New Deal legislation.

The central provision of the bill would have granted the president power to appoint an additional justice to the Supreme Court – up to a maximum of six – for every member of the court over the age of 70 years and six months.

Roosevelt’s bill went nowhere. The public and Congress rejected it, seeing it for what it was, a power grab. No president has ever tried it since. At least not with the Supreme Court.

However, during the Obama-Biden Administration, Senate Republicans accused the White House and Senate Democrats of trying to pack the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. This court is often referred to as the second highest court in the land because it hears important cases concerning the federal government.

In 2013, The 11-panel court had three vacancies which Obama sought to fill. But Republicans pointed out that the court did not handle enough cases to warrant 11 judges and sought to reduce the number to 9.

Republican leaders tried to make the case that “the most underworked appeals court in the country should not be manipulated by the president and his political allies to advance their agenda.”

According to an October 2013 Senate Republican Policy Committee memo, an unnamed D.C. Circuit Court Judge said, “I do not believe the current caseload of the D.C. Circuit or, for that matter, the anticipated caseload in the near future, merits additional judgeships at this time. … If any more judges were added now, there wouldn’t be enough work to go around.”

That same memo noted, “Senate Democrats and their allies have been quite clear: they are pushing to make more appointments to the D.C. Circuit — not because they are needed, but because they want judges who will rubber-stamp the President’s agenda.”

Ultimately, the Obama-Biden Administration succeeded in appointing four judges to that court in which Democrats now hold sway.

This matters because the D.C. Circuit has sole responsibility for deciding cases having to do with the balance of powers of the branches of government and decisions made by government agencies affecting issues such as health care, national security, and energy development.

“In 2013, when Obama attempted to pack that court, his administration had a problem,” explained Rick Manning, president of Americans for Limited Government. “There were a number of disputes involving the power of the executive branch that were headed to the federal district court of appeals, and that court was philosophically evenly divided. Fearing that the courts would curtail their power, the Obama-Biden team schemed to add three left leaning judges to the district court of appeals. They sought to guarantee that the executive branch would win all legal challenges.”

The fact that Biden has been involved in what looks like court packing in the past, should concern every American.  If he is allowed back into the White House, and his party gains control of the Senate, he could very likely abolish the filibuster in order to push through a Roosevelt-type scheme to politicize and pack  the Supreme Court.

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of her articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

By Catherine Mortensen

This morning, my son, a high school senior doing virtual learning, texted me, “I didn’t get out of bed for first period.” I replied, “Yikes!” To which he shot back, “It’s okay, I just did the class from bed.”

This cannot be a thing! Kids should not be going to school from their beds!

A few hours later, a friend on Facebook posted: “I’m totally winning at this parenting thing! I slept through my alarm and logged onto my son’s calendar time right as they were saying goodbye to everybody. So, he got marked tardy for today. And then I was trying to help my daughter with her math, but I don’t know the current math jargon, so I wasn’t able to explain it without making her cry. It’s only 11:00 am. This is going to be a stellar day.”

Another girlfriend posted in a Facebook group dedicated to reopening schools: “I went in to check on my 9th grader because she was yelling at her class – well it was at her computer. She was in tears telling me she was going to have to drop out or fail because there are too many tabs, and too much technology, and she doesn’t understand where she is supposed to find all her work. She said she asked for help but got kicked out of the group and couldn’t get back on and when she tried to talk to the teacher, they couldn’t hear her. ‘I can’t turn it in because I can’t find it. I can’t understand it when I do find it. Why can’t they just give me a sheet of work to do, I can do that, but I can’t do this computer stuff. It’s going to kill me.’ And I’ve been in tears since.”

Another friend, a therapist who works with youth, said all of her patient visits are done remotely and many of the young people she visits with online are home alone. “Yesterday I spoke to a 12-year old patient who is home with three younger siblings,” she said.

Whether parents are home, at work, or working from home, virtual learning is not working for anyone.

A parent at the office cannot fully focus on their job because they are worried about their child at home. Similarly, it is difficult for a parent to productively work from home if they have children who need help.

In the short term the schools closures and larger economic shut down resulted in a 37 percent drop in non-farm worker output from May to July and nation’s economy contracting by 31.7 percent in the second quarter.

With the economy now on the rebound, those losses appear to be temporary, however, scholars from The Brookings Institution looked into the long-term consequences of virtual learning and it’s not good.  From the COVID-19 cost of school closures report finding “lost earnings of $1,337 per year per student: a present value loss of earnings of $33,464 (63 percent of a year’s salary at current average wage rates)… [and] a look at the impact on the whole of the country is much more sobering. In this model, the cost to the United States in future earnings of four months of lost education is $2.5 trillion—12.7 percent of annual GDP… Extrapolating to the global level, on the basis that the U.S. economy represents about one-quarter of global output, these data suggest the world could lose as much as $10 trillion over the coming generation as a result of school closures today.”

The human and economic costs of virtual learning are real. Our kids are losing years right now. By ignoring them we are placing our future in peril — and the cost may be more than we can bear.

Catherine Mortensen is the Vice President of Communications at Americans for Limited Government.  You can read more of her articles at www.DailyTorch.com. 

By DANIEL SONNINSHINE

By KENNETH DEL VECCHIO

Forced mask-wearing is a massive blunder, at minimum. At maximum, it has been an evil endeavor. This two minute and thirty second video, from a medical doctor, in and of itself, destructs the false assertion that masks prevent either (1) the mask wearer from spreading the coronavirus; and (2) others from getting the coronavirus from those wearing masks. WATCH IT. Your eyes will not deceive you. The doctor puts on every type of mask available and demonstrates, with complete, unadulterated certainty, that aerosols (i.e., the particles that make up the coronavirus and other respiratory illnesses) not only are not blocked by the masks, but that they seamlessly go through the masks. The vape he utilizes to prove this phenomenon (which already had been proven through numerous scientific studies over the last few decades) has the same size or LARGER particles than the coronavirus.

Anyone who watches this video and still claims that masks prevent the spreading of the coronavirus is either a total idiot or an evil liar with a political agenda.  I choose to believe that most people are neither “total idiots” or “evil liars.” I choose to believe that most people have just been uniformed; they have listened to falsehoods at the mouths of manipulating media, puppetry pundits, and prickly politicos—and they haven’t done their own research. Alas, I – and many others – have done the research. The aforementioned video is just one of hundreds of videos, studies, documents, and interviews that I reviewed and considered. Please READ THIS ARTICLE that I authored – MASKS ‘R US: MEDICAL FACTS SAY OTHERWISE – which explains, in comprehensive detail (and with mega factual support), that masks do not prevent the spreading of the coronavirus.

The mask-wearing compulsion is an ultimate unconstitutional act of politico control. It is part of an overall illicit effort to conform our precious democracy into a socialist (really, communist) society. The goal is to make everyone be “the same.” Take away people’s identities, while making them squirm in fear.

                                                                                                                    UNCONSTITUTIONAL STAY AT HOME & SHUTDOWN ORDERS

As a purely factual matter, the death rate of the coronavirus has turned out to be less than the flu. I – and several other rational people in the media, political world, and general public – have been saying this for months. It is, however, a disease that should be taken seriously, just the same as the flu. With that said, there was no justification whatsoever for the radical fear-mongering. Likewise, there was no justification whatsoever for the state-mandated stay at home/work and school closure/social distancing measures (the “Dictatorial Dictates”).

In legal terms, the Dictatorial Dictates are unconstitutional. They violate the First, Fifth and Eighth Amendments. And they are in direct contravention of the separation of powers conscription of the United States Constitution. Americans’ most fundamental rights of freedom have been obliterated. Freedom of Assembly has been stripped. Freedom of Speech, thereby, has been gravely restricted. Freedom of Religion has been nullified. The basic God-given right to move about freely has been wholly tainted by an unholy tampering.

The Dictatorial Dictates completely crushed America’s economy. The orders resulted in over 20 million citizens losing their jobs. Every facet of the economy has been under siege.

Most saliently, medical and scientific data has, at this point, unequivocally, proven that the number of deaths caused by the Dictatorial Dictates already is – and will continue to be – greater than the number of deaths caused by the coronavirus itself.  The Dictatorial Dictates are causing deaths to Americans from the following:

(1) increased mental illness and stress that have manifested into lethal physical conditions;

(2) people who have been completely unable to visit with their physicians because of restraints put on the doctors;

(3) people who are unable to visit, in-person, with their physicians because certain doctors are only consulting with patients, regarding certain health issues, via online video;

(4) people who are too afraid to leave their homes to visit with their physicians or go to the hospital;

(5) the abolition of crucial elective surgeries (e.g., for joint replacements and brain surgeries);

(6) the restriction of certain kinds of vital routine doctor visits (e.g., for tumors and mammograms);

(7) increased suicide;

(8) increased drug usage and overdoses;

(9) increased alcohol abuse;

(10) increased domestic violence;

(11) increased lethargy and obesity; and

(12) increased poverty.

The Dictatorial Dictates are unsustainable. They are unwanted, en masse – by the vast majority of Americans. The politicians who have enacted these diabolical measures (wittingly or unwittingly) have an obligation to listen to their constituents and immediately cease and desist from their further propounding of them. It is, indeed, these elected officials’ absolute duty to repeal the Dictatorial Dictates immediately – and in full.

The evidence, at this point, is undeniable.

There are FACTS.

There is SCIENCE.

There is MATH.

Even with all the censorship by certain mainstream media, big tech, and politicos, it is still easy to find all of the above-referenced facts, science, and data via internet searches and watching/hearing/reading much in the media. Below are links to just samples of the concrete factual evidence:

Many Medical Experts Were Against Lockdowns, the Media Just Didn’t Want Us to Know

Death By Policy: Mortality Statistics Show That Many People Have Died from Lockdown-Related Causes, Not From Covid-19

The Truth About Lockdowns

Suicide Deaths Higher Than COVID-19 Deaths Amid Lockdown, CDC Chief Warns

The Lockdown is Killing Thousands

Odds of Dying from COVID-19 – COVID Fatality Rate

Getting realistic about the coronavirus death rate

The coronavirus, definitively, has not warranted the imposition of any of the Dictatorial Dictates – not now, and not ever.

President Trump, who has been a pillar of rationale during the hysteria created by the Dictatorial Dictates, has examined the evidence presented by a plethora of leading medical doctors and scientists – not just the wild opinions of a few – to reach valid conclusions that can lead the nation out of an unnecessary crazed panic (and economic, constitutional, and non-coronavirus health crises caused by the Dictatorial Dictates). Several governors and state leaders have followed suit and eliminated or greatly minimized freedom-restricting orders in their states, returning to the constitutionally-required normality. All of the state governments should now put politics aside and disregard past decisions (some made by power-hungry evildoers, others made mistakenly in good faith) that led to the incorrectly-leveled Dictatorial Dictates. Although all definitively must abide by new laws restricting their constitutional rights (just as they must follow any other laws with which they may disagree), the government should quickly eliminate all remaining Dictatorial Dictates, as they are not justified by facts, science, medicine, or the law…All in government should follow the President’s lead in completely opening America back up.

Kenneth Del Vecchio is the author of some of the nation’s best-selling legal books, including a series of criminal codebooks published by Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM/New Jersey & New York Law Journal Books. He is a former judge, a former prosecutor and a practicing criminal/commercial litigation attorney for 25 years, wherein he has tried over 400 cases; he is partner in the prestigious law firm, Stern, Kilcullen & Rufolo.  Mr. Del Vecchio is also an acclaimed filmmaker who has written, produced and directed over 30 movies that star several Academy Award and Emmy winners and nominees. His films are distributed through industry leaders such as Sony Pictures, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, Cinedigm, and eOne Entertainment. He has starred in numerous movies, as well. A best-selling political thriller novelist, he penned his first published novel at only 24-years old. Additionally, Mr. Del Vecchio is the founder and chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by FOX, Time Warner, and other major media “One of the 10 Biggest Film Festivals in the World.”  A regular legal and political  analyst on the major news networks (Newsmax, Fox News, i24 News) who has appeared on hundreds of shows, 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.