Bernie Sanders has dropped out of the presidential race, suspending his campaign. But does that mean that Joe Biden will just walk in and obtain the Democrat nomination? Maybe not. Why? Because of there still may be the possibility of a brokered convention.

What is a brokered convention?  It is related to the selection of a presidential nominee at the national conventions of the two major political parties—the Democrats and Republicans—and needs to be understood in the context of the evolution of the presidential selection process.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the development of a partisan system of government.  Both Hamilton and Madison wrote in the Federal Papers 9 and 10 against the dangers of domestic political factions.  As a result, President Washington was elected by the Electoral College in both the 1789 and 1792 elections.  The Electoral College is written into the constitution and states in Article II, Section 1, and Clause 2 that the states’ legislatures are responsible for the manner in which these “electors” are chosen.  The total number of members is 538 and the presidential candidates must receive an absolute majority of 270 electoral votes in order to win the presidency.  The number of electoral votes for each state is determined by the total number of senators and members of the House of Representatives that each state has in Congress.

However, the simplicity of the Electoral College and the selection of a president became more complex with the inception of the political party system, ironically initiated by the two individuals who originally opposed their establishment.  Hamilton led the Federalist Party, while Madison, along with Jefferson, formed the Democratic-Republican Party.   Since the constitution did not provide for a procedure, it then became incumbent upon the political parties how their respective candidates were selected. Initially, the members of Congress or state legislators were responsible for selecting candidates.    Prior to the implementation of the primary/caucus system of choosing presidential candidates, brokered conventions were common, since, particularly with the Democrat party, the candidate needed to win 2/3 of the delegates’ votes at the convention.

The emergence of primaries started in 1901 in Florida; however, the first presidential primary was held in New Hampshire in 1920 and the primary/caucus system of selecting presidential candidates was born.  Primaries differ from caucuses in that primaries are state and local-government run, while caucuses are private events controlled by the political party.  There are two major types of primaries, open and closed.  Open primaries allow for all state voters to participate in a particular party’s primary, although they can only vote in one primary.  For example, a registered Republican can vote in a Democrat primary, but then cannot vote in the Republican primary.  The reason this might occur is for the purpose of “raiding,” or voting for the weakest candidate in order to impact the selection of the other party’s candidate.  Closed primaries restrict participation to the registered voters of that particular party.  There are other variations on these two types, but they are the most prevalent.

In the primaries, voters are either voting directly for the candidate or for delegates representing the candidate and the number of delegates each candidate receives is dependent upon the particular party’s method of determining the distribution of delegates.  Each party has developed their own formulas for determining how many delegates to the national convention each state will be allocated and the allocation of state delegates to the specific candidates. For the Democrats this may be based on the proportion of votes each candidate received in the state primary.  For Republicans, it may be the winner takes all.  These then become pledged delegates.

Additionally, each state has a certain number of unpledged delegates.  In the case of Republicans, it is limited to 3 top party members for each state.  For Democrats it is a much broader number, encompassing party leaders and elected officials who are called superdelegates or automatic delegates.

That brings us to the national convention, where a candidate must receive the majority of the delegates’ votes to become their party’s candidate.   For 2020, the Democrat convention will have a total of 3,768 pledged delegates and the winning candidate must receive approximately 1,885 pledged delegates’ votes.  If no candidate achieves this during the first round of votes, then a brokered convention occurs.   The pledged delegates are released from their pledged votes and second and third rounds may occur with horse-trading for super delegate votes and getting pledged delegates to change their vote. If it goes to additional rounds, then candidates would need to win 2,267 votes out of 4,532 votes which include the super delegates.

With President Trump having the full backing of his party, a brokered convention is not a consideration, but what about on the Democrat side? With sanders out, that just leaves Biden. The vast majority of progressives are not fans of Biden. More so, it is often difficult for Biden to string together more than a few sentences without either making a monstrous gaffe or just, plainly, losing his train of thought. many Democrats are quite concerned, and do not see him as a viable 2020 presidential candidate. Some, who perhaps liked him for the post in the past, are not rather reticent. And this may lead to a brokered convention, where Biden could be pushed out. In favor of who?

First and foremost, Michelle Obama (if the Obamas think this a winnable election by the Democrats, which it is not). Then to:

Andrew Cuomo, maybe.

Or Hillary Clinton, perhaps.

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?








In the midst of all the current day’s madness, let’s not forget the middle class.

Oh yeah, the middle class has once again forgotten in this violative mess.

But why not be reminded of another matter where the middle class is so often screwed?


William “Rick” Singer sang and sang and sang!   His audience is the F.B.I.  and his song, a tale of a major college admissions bribery scheme.  Mr. Singer was the architect of a scam to advantage children of the rich and famous into getting their offspring into prestigious colleges such as Yale, Georgetown and University of Southern California.  He did this by bribing school administrators and coaches, as well as influencing the SAT and ACT process by having a surrogate capable of acing these exams test in place of the actual applicants.  Parents paid for these services by donating to Rick’s sham charitable organization and then use the contribution as a tax write-off.  The scam, in place between 2011 and 2018, involved over 750 families who got their darlings into college fraudulently.  Mr. Singer has been charged with racketeering and money laundering conspiracy and conspiracy to defraud the U.S.

Back in March 2018, 50 people were indicted by federal prosecutors, including two Hollywood celebrities, Lori Loughlin, along with her husband Mossimo Giannulli, and Felicity Huffman in conjunction with the admissions scheme.  Lori and her husband paid a bribe for their two daughters to be accepted into the University of Southern California as members of the crew team, although neither had ever been involved in this sport.  Felicity paid for her daughter’s SAT scores to be altered.  Lori and her husband and Felicity have been charged with mail fraud and home services fraud and their careers have already begun to suffer as a result of their actions.

No one should really be surprised or shocked.  The rich and famous have consistently used their wealth to influence their children into getting into primo colleges and universities, albeit without apparently breaking the law.  This is regardless of political affiliation, Republican, Democrat or Independent.  There has always been inequality between the haves and the have-nots and particularly in where one goes to college.  The “old boys club,” the funding of buildings and programs and huge donations has guaranteed that offspring will continue in the tradition of their fathers and mothers before them in being accepted into elitist schools.

It was interesting and revealing the other night as Chris Cuomo, scion of a powerful political family and Anderson Cooper, part of the Vanderbilt clan, exchanged comments on this admissions scandal.  both are very intelligent men, who are good at their craft. But, you could see Anderson make a slight, but definite, grimace as Cuomo noted that they were both Yale alumni and understood how money can make a difference.  Was that a slip of the tongue?

For places such as Yale, the beneficiaries are either the very rich or the very poor.  It’s the schmucks in between that pay the price of inequality.

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?









Conservative radio/TV show host and constitutional scholar Mark Levin has, for weeks, been expressing serious concerns about many state governments’ blatant violations of Americans’ constitutional rights via draconian executive orders in response to the coronavirus – and the disastrous effects these measures have and will cause to the U.S. economy. Levin’s April 2, 2020 “Daily Recap” page, for his podcast “The Mark Levin Show,” states: “The government can’t replace the free market. It’s been tried in Venezuela and other places and it doesn’t work. Not everyone can stay home. If they did, there would be no food on our tables, no medications in our pharmacies, and no supplies in our hospitals. Grocery chains, e-commerce, and home delivery services are thriving, but small banks, restaurants, bars and many small businesses have been ordered to shut down by the governors of their states. The federal government must place equal focus on the economy as it has in the healthcare sector.” Per Levin’s site, former U.S. Senator Jim DeMint called in “to warn that we will not have the country that we want if we continue doing what the left wants.”

Although Americans definitively must abide by the new laws restricting their in-person assembly (just as they must follow any other laws with which they may disagree), they should strongly and loudly voice their opinions in opposition of these civil liberties-destructive/communist-style measures. At the same time, all should take the coronavirus seriously, just the same as they should take seriously the swine flu and all serious strains of the flu. That said, rather than the government forcing Americans into a freedom-less submission, people should be permitted to utilize their own acumen and good sense—and take certain normal precautions. Washing hands, being sanitary, and following the advice of medical experts is clearly the wise path. The very elderly and those with significant pre-existing conditions (and anyone thoughtful) should be wary and judiciously interact with others – through their own choice and judgment. Compelling all of the populous to succumb to dictatorial government strangleholds, however, is not only unwarranted, but illicit and unconstitutional.

This is not an alien invasion.

This is not war.

This is not a nuclear radiation disaster.

This is not a circumstance that threatens the extinction of populations.

This is a virus on the same plane as varied strains of the flu.

During this flu season (October 2019 – February 2020), approximately 30 million people in the United States contracted the flu, with, sadly, approximately 30,000 people dying from it; that is a death rate of approximately 0.1%. Currently, in the U.S. (and worldwide), the number of persons who have contracted the coronavirus is a small fraction of those who have been infected with the flu; obviously, it is understood that with the coronavirus being a communicable disease, the numbers are growing. However, it is not known whether the coronavirus is transmitted at a higher, lower or the same rate as the flu. The death rate for the coronavirus (reported at approximately 2% in the U.S.) is close to the flu’s death rate. Sadly, (1) if one accepts the reported death rate, approximately 20 out every 1,000 infected with the coronavirus die from the illness; (2) approximately one out of every 1,000 infected from this season’s flu die from that virus; and (3) death rates, a little more and a little less, exist for other strains of the flu and similar viruses. Factually, the death rates, through these varied strains of the flu and related viruses such as the coronavirus, are all at the same level (surely not the same exact amount, but at the same level). That said, it is important to note that the death rate for the coronavirus is actually quite a bit lower than the reported 2% in the U.S. – and that is because (a) there are a substantial amount of people who have had the coronavirus (with only minor symptoms) and have not reported it; and (b) there are a substantial amount of people who have had the coronavirus (with no symptoms at all) and have not reported it. This is basic math: when you divide the number of deaths by the true number of cases, the death rate for the coronavirus is either at 0.1% (the same as this season’s flu) or very near it, in either direction. Yet, the deep state, with the coronavirus, has gone far off the deep end, wherein individual state governments are making all kinds of irrational, liberty-restricting decisions including “stay at home” orders and related freedom-elimination mandates such as the complete closures of countless businesses (fortunately, the White House has been reacting with sanity and has not enacted similar federal constraints).

Amazingly, to date, there remain are only five U.S. states who have refused to enact such radical statewide orders. These holdout states are South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Arkansas. A handful of other states, such as South Carolina, Utah, and Wyoming, have set forth only limited restrictive measures which, although are not desired in any quantity or quality by many Americans, pale in comparison to the liberty-strangling dictates that have been fired off by a plethora of other states.

President Trump has refused to force any stay at home-type national orders upon Americans, recently saying at a press conference, “We have a thing called the constitution, which I cherish.” He has supported governors’ rights to handle these matters within the confines of their states.

Following the wishes of their constituents – and after thoroughly reviewing volumes of data and listening to the advice of numerous experts – some states’ leaders have determined to be cautious in breaching constitutional law rather than blindly following the path cemented by the hysterical actions of other states’ top officials. And they have explained their thoughtful decisions.

Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson has rejected issuing a statewide shutdown order, in face of hearing claims from certain experts that every state should follow suit. Hutchinson stated, “What’s important is that [a nationwide order] has not been given…The CDC…I watch their guidelines regularly…and they have not indicated that’s an appropriate or necessary step across the country.”

Nebraska Governor Pete Rickets has, likewise, refused to capitulate to the demands of other states’ governors and politicos. He specifically noted the advice of a leading medical expert in his state, Dr. James Lawler, co-director of the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s Global Center for Health Security.

Lawlor said, “What I think we should really focus on is improving compliance and adherence.” He explained that people should focus more on following the medical advice to engage in handwashing and social distancing, instead of going down the government-order road, adding, “What we’ve already implemented and we do it well, I think we’ll get much more bang for our buck than we would from going to a much more draconian posture.”

Standing out in the heroics of preserving the founding blocks of liberty defined in the United States’ birthing documents is a state of less than 900,000 residents, but with a people – and a governor – having the backbone of  nine million. It’s a midwestern state landlocked by six others: to the south, by Nebraska; to the east, by Iowa and Minnesota; to the north by North Dakota; and to the west by Wyoming and Montana.

This state’s taxes are low, as is its crime rate. But its contribution to the United States is large.

“In feeding the nation, it’s across the board,” Maggie Seidel, Senior Adviser and Policy Director to South Dakota’s governor, told Empire State News. “There’s ranchers on the west side of the state. And on the east side, it’s farmers,” Seidel continued, in explaining how this state’s residents are responsible for the development, cultivation, preparation, and delivery of a significant portion of America’s food supply. “You’ve got everything from pork and cattle, and you name it, on the meat side. Everything under the sun on the farming side too. Corn, soybeans, everything.”

Just as important, South Dakota is, in today’s world, the “everything” in protecting civil liberties, while at the same time protecting the economy – and the health of its residents. The state may now be entitled to the nickname “The Land of the Free,” given its sturdy posture in upholding its residents’ constitutional rights during these very turbulent times. Like all the other remaining holdout states, South Dakota is led by a Republican governor. And on April 3, this state’s GOP helmer, Governor Kristi Noem, very strongly stated:

“By now, many of you have heard me say that I’m relying on the science, facts, and data to drive the state’s response to the virus. Our team’s decision-making is guided by the realities on the ground in South Dakota, rather than trying to apply a one-size-fits-all approach…My role with respect to public safety is something I take very seriously. But it’s also important for us to remember that it’s the people themselves who are primarily responsible for their safety. Under our constitutions at the state and federal levels, the people have expansive freedoms. They are free to exercise their rights to work, worship, and play, or to stay at home, or to conduct social distancing….South Dakota is not New York City, and our sense of personal responsibility, our resiliency, and our already sparse population density put us in a great position to manage the spread of the virus without needing to resort to the kinds of draconian shutdowns adopted by big coastal cities or even other countries.”

Via these words, Noem etched the pleas of not just South Dakotans, but Americans from coast to coast, into the frayed political and media fabric that has been callously draped over the constitutional bedrock that this nation was founded upon. And what are those pleas? Simple:

Let us move about freely, without government intrusion. Uncover the constitution and let it reign.

Seidel expounded upon Governor Noem’s thoughts regarding the mandated restrictions levied by many other governors upon their states’ residents. “We don’t call them ‘mandates.’ We call them ‘dictates.’ Because that’s what it is. A mandate is a nicer term for what people are actually asking her to do. And that’s a dictate for the entire state.” Seidel added that “[Governor Noem] said from the beginning that she is not going to allow the mass hysteria at the national level to guide her decision making. She’s going to let the facts on the ground in South Dakota point her in the direction that we need to go.”

The Mayor of Pierre – South Dakota’s capital – Steve Harding, has supported Governor Noem’s direction, saying, “As Mayor of Pierre, at this time, I do not plan to enact an ordinance that is any more restrictive than those guidelines provided by Governor Noem.”

None of these elected officials’ declarations and decisions, however, equate to that they are not taking the coronavirus seriously. To the contrary, all of the liberty- and economy-protecting states’ leaders have delivered clear-cut urgings to practice varied important recommendations defined by medical experts.

In this regard, the Pierre mayor added, “For individual citizens, please continue personal responsibility and avoid gathering in groups of 10 or more people. I also encourage you to continue practicing social distancing and remember to wash hands and to stay home when you’re not feeling well. This is a difficult time for all of us. It’s important that we continue to support each other. That means supporting our local businesses, taking care of our personal health, and checking in on neighbors, friends and family.”

More so, Governor Noem has delivered some executive action, in yesterday changing directives that had previously stated that South Dakota residents “should” follow certain guidance – to that they “shall” do so. While South Dakota still does not have a statewide stay at home order issued (or any other similar intrusive measure), now there are directives such as “Businesses shall modify practices to ensure no more than 10 people are in one space.”

Seidel was quick to clarify the meaning of this provision, however, ensuring that the governor is not closing any businesses and that certainly many more than 10 people are permitted to be on site at business operations, saying that, “There’s a special caveat there. If you go above that [10 people], then they encourage you to stay six feet apart.” Seidel assured that there still are not any “dictates” by the South Dakota governor, but instead there are executive orders that, in practicality, amount to strong urgings. “She’s not going to go out and arrest anybody. We absolutely will not do that in South Dakota.”

Mark Levin’s April 3, 2020 “Daily Recap” page, provided: “Despite the attacks on this program from the left-wing media, the fact remains that some of the modeling used to recommend a national quarantine is misleading and has been called into question by other experts…The economy must be opened before the cure becomes worse than the disease…The Democrats continue pushing for a national stay-at-home order which would override the rights of the states and unnecessarily quarantine areas of the country that are not hot-spots like New York City. Rep. James Clyburn and Gov. Gavin Newsom suggest that the United States consider restructuring how the country does business and governs in light of the coronavirus pandemic.”

There is great hope that, with the likes of resilient, intelligent and thoughtful leaders like President Trump and South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem, there will never be a union where every state has blanket stay-at-home and other unsavory, unconstitutional orders.

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





Former Vice President Joe Biden now says he supports travel bans to contain the Chinese coronavirus after all, after he had previously called the China travel ban issued by President Donald Trump in late January “xenophobia.”

Deputy campaign manager Kate Bedingfield told CNN on April 3 that Biden “supports travel bans that are guided by medical experts, advocated by public health officials and backed by a full strategy,” adding, “Science supported this ban, therefore he did too.”

Was that before or after looking at a poll that said Trump would do a better job dealing with this crisis than Biden? Asking for the potentially hundreds of thousands of American lives President Trump saved by acting decisively in the early days of this pandemic at a time Biden was hysterically complaining about what he called “reactionary” travel restrictions.

And why wasn’t Biden the first one explaining his new position on this issue? Why tell us now? And why lie to the American people, to pretend he was in favor of it all along when he never supported it at the time? Why not just admit he was wrong?

Biden not only didn’t support the ban, he explicitly opposed it, repeatedly, saying it was unscientific, even though it turns out it ultimately was backed up by the science. Which, you don’t need a medical degree to understand. It’s just common sense. Travel restrictions are just another form of social distancing from those traveling from the hotspot at the time, which was China, to prevent the American people from coming into contact with others who had been exposed to the virus, just as not going to work if you’re sick might.

On Jan. 27, Biden had an oped published in USA Today, perhaps anticipating the upcoming travel ban and blasted President Trump’s calls in 2014 for travel restrictions during the Ebola outbreak as “reactionary”.

Biden wrote, “I remember how Trump sought to stoke fear and stigma during the 2014 Ebola epidemic. He called President Barack Obama a ‘dope’ and ‘incompetent’ and railed against the evidence-based response our administration put in place — which quelled the crisis and saved hundreds of thousands of lives — in favor of reactionary travel bans that would only have made things worse.”

On Jan. 31, President Trump issued the travel restrictions from China.

On Feb. 1, a day after the travel restrictions were put into place by, Biden said in Iowa, “We have, right now, a crisis with the coronavirus… This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia — hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”

Biden added, repeating a line from his USA Today oped: “Diseases have no borders, they have no borders.”

On March 12, the very same day President Trump implemented further travel restrictions on Europe, leaving little doubt about his thoughts on the travel ban, Biden said in a speech, “Banning all travel from Europe or any other part of the world may slow it but as we’ve seen will not stop it. And travel restrictions based on favoritism and politics, rather than risk, will be counterproductive.”

That might’ve been the first crack in Biden’s façade, when he first acknowledged that travel restrictions might slow the virus down. Still, he didn’t support the policy. As it turns out, slowing the virus down was exactly what President Trump’s policy did, buying valuable time for the U.S. to put in place mitigation and race to bring desperately sought medical supplies to areas of the country now experiencing surges of new cases and hospitalizations.

The same day, Biden tweeted similarly, “A wall will not stop the coronavirus. Banning all travel from Europe — or any other part of the world — will not stop it…”

Is that so, Joe? Then why are the doctors telling those who are sick to stay inside? Why are patients at hospitals kept in separate rooms behind glass?

You know who wouldn’t stop the virus? Joe Biden, that’s who. We know Biden wouldn’t have done the travel ban in late January, because he told us every chance he got. He called it “reactionary,” “hysterical,” “xenophobic,” and “counterproductive.” All he has done up to this point is mock and deride President Trump’s efforts.

In fact, until Bedingfield told CNN that Biden now supported the travel restrictions, nobody in the world ever knew Biden had changed his position on the issue. Bedingfield said Biden’s “reference to xenophobia was about Trump’s long record of scapegoating others at a time when the virus was emerging from China,” but not a reference to the travel ban. Uh-huh.

Finally, on April 5, Biden completed his about face on the issue on ABC News with George Stephanopoulos, who must have simply forgotten to roll the video tape of Biden blasting the travel ban. Biden said, “[Trump] indicated that I complimented him on dealing with China. Well you know 45 nations had already moved to keep—to block China’s personnel from being able to come to the United States before the President moved. So it’s about pace, it’s about the urgency and I don’t think there’s been enough of it.”

Perhaps ABC or CNN should bring Biden back to explain all his other statements away, or even better, to point out a single statement made in January or February supporting the travel restrictions. You know, when they might’ve still made a difference.

Ironically, Biden added, “I think it’s important to follow the science. Listen to the experts. Do what they tell you.”

But if President Trump had done that, there might have been no travel ban from China at all. We’d still be taking flights from there. At the time, Trump was acting against the academic models, according to Acting Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security Ken Cuccinelli, who testified to the House Homeland Security Committee on March 11.

Cuccinelli stated, “Our understanding at the time we recommended it to the President and we had that discussion with him was that the academic model suggested not to do that. So, our advice was contrary to the then existing models as it was described in the task force. We made the recommendation anyway. The President was well aware of that sort of contrary indication and he adopted the recommendation and we universally now believe we tremendously benefitted from adopting those measures.”

It was Trump who proved whatever model said travel restrictions wouldn’t work wrong. Even Biden admitted, albeit a month and a half too late, that such a travel ban might slow the virus down.

That bought us time, time we would have never had if Biden had been president.

Leadership does not come in a text book. It’s not something you can look up. It requires instincts and an ability to take decisive action. In politics you don’t a second chance to act decisively. Trump acted decisively. Biden failed. Coming back in April and saying in hindsight it was a good idea is nice and all, but at best it makes Biden a Joey come lately on this issue. He should just admit he was wrong. To say he supported it all along is a monstrous lie.

On Feb. 1 when it mattered, Biden in Iowa said, “The American people need to have a president who they trust what he says about it [the virus].” That’s right, Joe. They really do.

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





Let’s harken back to the days when kids were actually in schools…

Oh, the petty nonsense that has been dealt with…

This one started out with typical far left, so-called academic elitism, but…

Cheers to Harnett County School District in North Carolina for dumping the bonehead principal that made a student remove his “Trump 45” football jersey at a patriotic high school football game.

Matthew Collins, 18, exercised his First Amendment right to free speech and wore a red, white, and blue jersey to his high school football game on October 5. Students had been told to dress patriotically for the game. Collins’s jersey featured stars and stripes on the front, along with the letters “USA” and an image of the Statute of Liberty’s torch. The back of the jersey featured the name “Trump” and the number “45.”

Close to halftime, Cindy Gordon, then-principal at the high school, singled Collins out of the crowd and asked him to remove the jersey. She stated that the shirt was “too political” and that some parents complained about it. Collins complied with her request, although Collins’s father later reported that his son felt “humiliated” and “embarrassed” by the principal’s actions.

“There is nothing political about this shirt,” Mike Collins, Matthew’s father, noted. He also pointed out that he himself is a registered Democrat. The jersey was a show of respect for the sitting president, not an attempt to make a political statement.

Naturally, this incident received plenty of media attention and criticism. The school district, likely embarrassed by Principal Gordon’s lame attempt to appease some complaining liberals (or perhaps she was personally offended by this visual reminder to her that Donald Trump is the President of the United States), released this statement: “…we want to emphasize that Harnett County Schools supports and affirms students’ rights to express themselves — including wearing clothing expressing political messages or supporting political candidates or officeholders — in ways that are not expected to disrupt school or school events.”

A week later, the Harnett County School District reported that Cindy Gordon had been replaced. It is unclear whether Cindy Gordon is totally out of a job, or has just been relocated to another position in the district. In any case, thank goodness she is not serving as the leader of the high school. Anyone who squashes a student’s right to free speech should not be acting in a leadership role. Whether she was caving in to offended liberal parents at the football game, or she asked Collins to remove his Trump jersey because she just did not want to see this display of support for the president, she is not deserving of the respect of those in her school community.

It’s scary to think how often students in schools, who wish to express conservative viewpoints, face unfair repercussions. ESN has reported on several recent cases, where students’ freedom of speech was shut down because it was pro-Trump and/or conservative. In such cases, liberals get offended, melt down, and take unnecessary and unjust actions against young people simply because they are exercising free speech that does not fit into their anti-Trump, anti-Christian, anti-patriotic ideology. While it’s not likely that liberals will end their whiny, nonsensical antics anytime soon, let’s hope that those power-abusing libs in charge, like Cindy Gordon, find themselves out of power when they attempt to trample on young people’s free speech.

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.






Millennials have been raised in an environment which fosters a disdain of country and an affinity for socialism.  They have a cynical view of their nation’s past and have expectations that the government owes them big time and should provide for all their wants and needs.  They are indoctrinated in schools under union control and liberal bias whose teachers are more interested in political correctness rather than freedom of expression and the exchange of ideas.  A former winner of the National Teacher of the Year Award, Tracey Bailey, after giving up his membership in the American Federation of Teachers, indicated that unions are just “special interests protecting the status quo,” pillars of “a system that too often rewards mediocrity and incompetence.”

Millennials are very verbal about their discontent with capitalism.  Abel Delgado has been politically active in Flint, Michigan, regularly attending protests, city council meetings and community discussions throughout the ongoing water crisis in this city.  According to a NBC report in a November 2016 report, Delgado reflected: “It really came down to me seeing the effects of capitalism and seeing that all of that was driven by greed,” Delgado said. “It came down to (that) I’m sick and tired of seeing people oppressed.”

The election of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortes represents their growing tendency to reject capitalism in favor of a more socialist government which they perceive will, through control by big government, improve the climate, provide free higher education,  more inclusive medical care, and eliminate income inequality .  Yet they are very naive about finance, economics, budgetary issues and the workings of  huge bureaucracy.  Their heroes are celebrities that travel to aclimate change event in Italy in private jets, yachts and helicopters.

They are perfectly okay with someone like Colin Kaepernick taking a knee and refusing to salute the flag or sing the National Anthem; while intolerant of others who do not embrace  their liberal way of thinking.  They gladly support trying to obliterate the statues, pictures, symbols which represent the growth of a truly unique nation and the individuals who contributed to its formation, failing to realize that history is contextual and these represent historical points of reference.  Instead they are products of a school system imbibed in revisionist history, where  individuals are memorialized based on their sexual orientation rather than the relevance of their contributions.

They march in demonstrations against a country which has given them the greatest freedoms the world has ever known.  In a 2017 article in HUFFPOST, the headline was, “Millennials Are The Foot Soldiers Of The Resistance.”  PJ MEDIA writer Rick Moran decided to ask millennials how they felt about New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s comment that “America was never that great.”  By and large the young people queried by Moran backed Cuomo.  “I don’t believe that America has been great for all folks ever,” said one.  “Even today.”

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, millennials in Hong Kong are fighting and protesting to maintain the continuation of a democratic, capitalistic society. According to THOUGHTCO, a reference site with a 20+ year focus on expert-created education content: “In 1984, British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and Chinese Premier Zhao Ziyang negotiated the underlying plan for the lease to end, such that Hong Kong would remain a semi-autonomous region for a 50-year period after the lease ended.  The lease ended on July 1, 1997, and since then tensions between the democratically-minded Hong Kong population and the PRC have continued, although Hong Kong remains functionally separate from the Chinese mainland.”

These Hong Kong millennials see their freedoms gradually being eroded away by China’s desire to dominate and they have been protesting since June, putting their lives in peril, to prevent a communist/socialistic takeover.  Millennials in Hong Kong sing the Star Spangled Banner, holding American flags, during their protests, seeking U.S. support in their pursuit for their continued democratic way of life.

The millennials in America may think the “grass is always greener on the other side;” while those in Hong Kong realize that the seeds China is trying to plant are anything but green.

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?







President Donald Trump praised the Federal Reserve for cutting the federal funds rate to a range of 0 percent to 0.25 percent, and restarting quantitative easing with $500 billion of U.S. treasuries purchases and $200 billion of mortgage purchases in response to the Chinese coronavirus global pandemic.

“It makes me very happy and I want to congratulate the Federal Reserve,” he said. “That’s a big step and I’m very happy they did it.” Trump has been hounding the Fed for years to cut interest rates to make the dollar more competitive against trading partners’ currencies including the yuan, euro and peso. Now he gets his wish.

The move came a day after the President threatened to fire Fed Chairman Jay Powell, when he said, “I have the right … to remove him as chairman… I have the right to also take him and put him in a regular position and put somebody else in charge.  And I haven’t made any decisions on that.”

The Fed noted in its release the strength of the U.S. economy when the coronavirus struck: “Available economic data show that the U.S. economy came into this challenging period on a strong footing,” with a 50-year low of unemployment at 3.5 percent, but forecast “[t]he effects of the coronavirus will weigh on economic activity in the near term and pose risks to the economic outlook.”

Finally, the Fed said it would keep rates low until it was certain the economy gets past the worst of the virus: “The Committee expects to maintain this target range until it is confident that the economy has weathered recent events…”

That came as the President declared a national emergency on March 13 in response to the coronavirus and the House quickly passed legislation providing for paid sick leave and an expansion of unemployment benefits, foreshadowing an expected economic slowdown and uptick in unemployment as thousands of schools and businesses shut down to flatten the rate of infection from the virus that originated in Wuhan, China late last year.

Millions of Americans, especially older Americans, will be weathering the outbreak inside, only venturing out for groceries and largely working from home. Massive stockpiling of food and medicine is already occurring nationwide. Expect an uptick in retail spending in the first quarter of 2020. Any such spending surge, however, will surely be offset by slowdowns elsewhere by affected industries across the country.

Trump has already taken advantage of record low oil prices by stockpiling the strategic petroleum reserve, promising to support U.S. producers. And now there is a controversial push in Congress to bail out the airline, tourism and hospitality industries. The Trump administration is already making loans available to small businesses on an emergency basis.

Finally, President Trump is pushing for a payroll tax holiday to shore up cash flow issues almost every household in America could be facing if we get a situation akin to Italy.

These are all big government policies that have not been seen since the financial crisis and recession of 2007-09, and probably won’t be the full extent of it when all is said and done, highlighting the negative economic impacts that are widely expected from the sudden, dramatic change of behavior of millions of Americans to stay put and not participate in the economy.

The difference between a decade ago and now is that the policies in 2008 appeared to be reactive and long after the devastating effects of the financial crisis were already being felt for months.

Here, the policies look preemptive and aimed at anticipating downstream fallout from the virus. That is surely refreshing to the American people, even as it expands the government’s mandate.

The trick will be to make certain the measures are indeed temporary and are allowed to expire at the end of the year, especially since they incentivize temporary unemployment in a bid to slow down the virus. When this is all over, everyone needs to get back to work.

Hopefully, the measures are overkill and the effect of the virus will be mitigated by the aggressive actions now being taken to save lives, thereby limiting the long-term damage felt by the nation. It will certainly blow a massive hole in the deficit, the question is how big. The less impact from the coronavirus in terms of cases, then perhaps the less costly these Congressional measures will become to taxpayers. As it is, the legislation faces an uncertain fate in the Senate.

Lots of schools in the north have a lot of snow days saved up — it was a warmer winter in many states — and so it is possible that the virus may be no more disruptive than a month of bad snow. We’ll see.

In the near term, the effects to the outlook are predictable. Interest rates will continue to collapse or remain low in a flight to safety, thereby reducing the federal deficit and saving taxpayers tens of billions of dollars, partially offsetting the costs of Congressional actions.

Commodities may eventually respond to the weaker dollar and the presidential action to shore up U.S. oil producers.

Equities will struggle until they find a bottom in the midst of the continued uncertainty. When that comes, weeks or months from now, it will be the buying opportunity of the decade for investors, with the potential for massive capital gains in subsequent quarters.

Over the next month, as drive-thru testing becomes more widely available via the public-private partnerships being undertaken by the Trump administration, a lot will be learned about the extent of the virus’ spread. Expect a jump in new cases and more turmoil so long as the number of new cases rises.

But eventually, the number of new cases whether owing to a flattening of the curve or warmer weather will drop, and that could catalyze a massive bounce both on markets as well as economically as millions of Americans are able to begin participating in the labor force again.

The U.S. economy is the largest in the world, and thanks to the success of the past three years of cutting taxes, regulations and crafting better trade deals, and with your own efforts to mitigate the risk of the virus by following CDC guidelines, we will all weather this storm together.

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






After another big win, this time in Nevada with 46 percent of the vote, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a self-described democratic socialist, is the frontrunner for the Democratic nomination for president in 2020 — and the Democratic establishment has no idea what to do about it.

But really, Democrats have nobody to blame but themselves. If Sanders weren’t running, they’d have to invent him.

More than a generation has been spent declaring cultural Marxism to be a conspiracy theory, all the while the left was soft peddling socialism and radicalism in our public schools and universities, in Hollywood and in governmental and non-governmental institutions.

And in pushing radical environmentalism to transform the U.S. economy that has fostered the Green New Deal, a proposal to end oil, gas, nuclear and coal consumption by 2030, convert to solar and wind, and put the U.S. at a global disadvantage economically versus China and other emerging economies.

And in implementing a national, government-run health care system such that now the predominant Democratic proposal is to end private health insurance and institute socialized, single-payer health care.

And into demonizing wealth and success so that now the Democrats’ national platform now calls for redistributing wealth, raising taxes and pitting Americans against one another via class warfare, all the while disincentivizing work with universal basic income schemes.

Until now a full 50 percent of Democrats have a favorable view of socialism, according to the latest NPR-Marist poll conducted Feb. 13-16. Only 33 percent of Democrats polled had a negative view of socialism.

The same poll has Bernie Sanders leading the Democratic nomination 31 percent to Michael Bloomberg’s 19 percent.

And while the overall outcome of the poll shows 58 percent of Americans oppose socialism — creating an uphill battle for Sanders in the general election and giving President Donald Trump a decided advantage this November — that is a snapshot in time. Most people now think about the failures and brutality of eastern Europe, Cuba or Venezuela when they think of socialism.

But give it another four years or eight years or sixteen years and another recession or two. As Baby Boomers begin dying in greater numbers, and younger generations become the prime voters in elections, and eventually there will be an economic slowdown, it is conceivable that almost all Democrats will one day have a favorable view of socialism in the future. That’s the direction the chart is pointed in.

As a result, Sanders is the party base’s most honest representation. He is the future of the party. The fact he has never registered as a Democrat and views the party’s establishment as an obstacle to change, and yet is winning handily, shows that Sanders has bent the Democratic Party in his direction. He’s winning the argument.

If Sanders prevails in the nominating contest, he will have to perform the same feat in the general election to move the country towards socialism. It won’t be easy, and the odds are against him, but that’s just how Sanders likes it. He understands that politics is a generational affair.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater represented small government conservatism, but it would not be until 1980 with Ronald Reagan that a Republican would win on that platform, changing his party and the country as a result.

It might take another political cycle or two, but if this the direction the Democrats are moving in, given the nation’s two-party system, ultimately somebody a lot like Sanders is eventually going to. Republicans won’t win every election. Bernie running in 2020, even if he loses, could very well set the stage for a future socialist president.

In the meantime, whether the Democratic party establishment will be able to steal the nomination from Sanders in 2020 — likely putting the general election in doubt as Sanders supporters stay home — remains to be seen.

South Carolina may be the final firewall against a Sanders nomination. If Joe Biden can eke out a win, it will throw the nominating contest into chaos and create an avenue for thwarting Sanders at the convention, although Sanders’ momentum is undeniable.

For now, this is Bernie’s moment to shine, and it provides a useful glimpse of what’s in store for Democrats in the future. This will be the first time American voters have heard directly from an out-front socialist on the national stage in the general election. I, for one, hope they are paying close attention to what he is telling us.

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





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

The Author should be everyone.





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

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

Earned 1,001 awards for acting roles in movies.

Designed the largest three buildings in the world.

Scored 10 touch downs in a football game.

Painted a mile-long bridge in three hours.

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

Well, Charles Gleason has done it all. He is a true superstar.

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