Below are straight FACTS. These facts render only one conclusion: that widespread voter fraud existed in each contested state (PA, WI, MI, GA, NV and AZ), wherein there was far more than enough fraudulent votes in each of these states to definitively change the purported “certified” election results from Biden to Trump. Here it goes, using Nevada as an example (noting that each of the aforementioned other states has the exact same type of swing):

In Nevada, Joe Biden allegedly won the state by 33,596 votes, yet there were over 130,000 FACTUALLY fraudulent votes cast, as follows (of course, there were more, but these are undisputed by all parties):

*42,000 people voted twice

*1,500 dead people voted

*19,000 voters did not live in NV

*8,000 voters had a nonexistent address

*15,000 voters had a commercial or vacant address

*4,000 non-citizens voted

There is no legal – or commonsense – response regarding why these factually fraudulent votes do not, in and of themselves, overturn the election results. People ask: then why have supposedly 59 of 61 court cases brought on President Trump’s behalf been dismissed? The answer is one that is rooted in manipulation/false reporting and legal ignorance:

ALL of those cases were dismissed on procedural/technical grounds – and not on the basis of the review of evidence; in fact, in ALL of these cases, no evidence was reviewed at all. The courts punted, refusing to evaluate ANY numbers, stats, or substantive evidence at all. These courts dismissed the cases on legal technicalities such as “standing” or that other governmental bodies (such as election boards) had already purportedly made decisions regarding the vote tallies. Of course, as a matter of law, no “other governmental bodies” have the constitutional authority to make any decisions pertaining to the time, place and manner of a presidential election; that authority rests solely in the discretion of state legislatures (which is a separate, distinct legal reason why the election results must be invalidated in these six states).

Simply, the courts, to date, have refused to evaluate the evidence of fraud – and that’s a fact. Perhaps, the U.S. Supreme Court will select a case(s) to review the evidence, wherein it may overrule the alleged election results in favor of President Trump. Alternatively, the U.S. Supreme Court may leave that task (and corresponding decision-making process) to Congress and/or the state legislatures. All that said, the statistical facts do indeed exist—and they are now quickly being rolled out to the public through congressional and state legislative hearings.

Following is another very inconvenient, rather crappy FACT for the Biden-sters:

On Monday, a Michigan court released a previously suppressed expert report that uncovered that the 16 Dominion voting machines utilized in Antrim County had a 69% error rate, which translated into over 6,000 votes being switched from Trump to Biden; this, in turn, initially led to a purported “win” for Biden in that county. The machines were then confiscated, wherein it was revealed that this massive fraud had occurred. The report, which was drafted by former CIA, DHS and Secret Service officials, concludes that the machines were purposely designed to create such errors. If this sounds alarming, the below will sound even more alarming:

Upon these 16 machines (from just one county) being confiscated, on December 1 Michigan Democrat officials ordered that all 83 other county clerks delete all election data and software held on Dominion machines. Prior to that, when data from these machines had been sought, mysteriously, all Dominion logs in Michigan had been lost or scrubbed clean (since 11:04pm November 4, 2020). But Biden-bidders think people are idiots, telling people that they must believe that no illicit algorithms existed. Maybe, just maybe, where there are mushroom clouds of smoke, there is fire…As an aside, the legally acceptable error rate in voting machines is .0008%; thus, a 69% error rate is, well, astounding.

A few other facts:

Ninety percent (90%) of registered voters in Wisconsin supposedly voted in the 2020 presidential election. Ninety percent (90%), though not statistically impossible, is statistically implausible. The usual range in a presidential election is 50% to a very high of 70% voter turnout. In neighboring Ohio, for example, approximately 51% of registered voters cast ballots in this year’s election…Now, for what is statistically impossible:

In many city precincts, in the key battleground states, 200%, 300%, 400% – and greater – of registered voters cast ballots. Elementary school mathematics explains that 101% of people voting (or doing anything for that matter) is impossible because there is no such phenomenon as 101% of people, much less 500% of people. Accordingly, these voting irregularities constitute prima facie fraud.

Another mind-boggling set of numerical facts that might make one ponder a bit:

Hillary Clinton (in 2016) outperformed Joe Biden (in 2020) in nearly every city in the country – except Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Pittsburgh. These very rare Biden-municipalities, very ironically, are the big cities in the battleground states (the exact places he needed to win in order to be victorious in the election). Commonsense dictates that such fortuitous, surgically exacted results make absolutely no sense. It just so happens that voters in the oh-so-important cities of Philadelphia, Detroit, Milwaukee, Atlanta and Pittsburgh like Biden a lot more than Clinton – but nowhere else in the country? If that question is confusing, things do start becoming clearer, though, when one adds in factors like (1) a USPS truck driver was ordered to pick up over 100,000 ballots in New York and transport them to Pennsylvania and; (2) a video showing a scant crew of Democrat “ballot counters” in Atlanta pulling out suitcases filled with ballots in the middle of the night (after all the Republican election workers were sent home because of a “water main break” that never happened).

Oh, a few other FACTS:

Over 650,000 ballots were counted in Philadelphia without oversight by GOP poll watchers permitted; other battleground states’ urban areas had similar unlawful circumstances beset upon them.

Ballot signature verification was prohibited in multiple battleground states. In some states, oddly,  signature verification was required at in-person voting, but not for the mail-in ballots where signature verification is significantly more crucial…Calling upon all people with commonsense. Calling upon all people with commonsense. Calling upon all people with commonsense:

How easy would it be for people to commit fraud in states where ballots were – without the request of the voters – mailed en masse to EVERYONE? In voluminous circumstances, people received two, three, four, five and more ballots. Ballots, in massive amounts, were mailed to homes where people had long-since moved. Ballots, in great figures, were mailed to people who had, sadly, passed away. Ballots, in substantial numbers, were mailed to people who weren’t registered voters (including illegal immigrants). In multiple states, the ballots were stripped from the envelopes, with no envelope signature checked against the registered voters’ signatures. With no signature verification, it’s just plainly obvious that fraud can extremely easily occur. For, how do you know who sent in the ballot if the election worker has no credible, verifiable mechanism to verify who the ballot came from? And once the ballot is separated from the envelope, one can never again match them up.

Even in the states where signature verifications are required – and where the ballots actually must be requested – mail-in ballots can still be ripe for easy, successful fraud. This is the case where certain states have feigned “signature verification” requirements. It goes like this: (1) a phony voter, let’s say “Archie”, can request a mail-in ballot for a real registered voter, let’s say “Jeff”; (2) Archie signs off for the ballot, using Jeff’s name; (3) when Archie mails in the ballot, Archie signs the envelope, again with Jeff’s name; and (4) when the envelope and ballot arrive at the board of elections, the election worker looks to match “Jeff’s” signature on the ballot request document with “Jeff’s” signature on the envelope that carries the ballot. Of course, this process is worthless, as the fraudster (Archie) who signed Jeff’s name on the ballot request document is the same fraudster who signed the envelope carrying the ballot. If the goal of the signature verification was to prevent fraud, the rule (as it is in most states) is to match the signature on the envelope with the registered voter’s signature on his original voter registration documents. A thought to consider: why would Democrats want such a flawed system, where fraud can be so easily perpetrated?

Another thought to consider:

If one reads this article – and ignores, dismisses or otherwise denies the FACTS – still trying to argue that widespread election and voter fraud hasn’t occurred (to the level that the vote tallies in those battleground states should switch from Biden to Trump), what do you call those people? Archie?

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. The legal editor and on-air legal analyst for Quick Hits News, Mr. Del Vecchio has appeared as a legal/political analyst on hundreds of shows on multiple other major news networks (Fox News, i24 News, Newsmax). 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.”  He also formerly served as the publisher and editorial page editor for a New Jersey daily newspaper. A former judge, Kenneth Del Vecchio is also a former prosecutor and, currently, 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.  





When April Long, a 45-year old suburban mother in Detroit pays the family bills, she sets aside an extra $100 each month that she calls her “Trump cash.” That’s how much her family saves each month from the 2017 Trump tax cut.

“Trump has been a blessing to our family,” Long said. “Under Obama, our family struggled for many years. My husband lost his job. We couldn’t afford to buy a home. Those were tough times and I don’t want to go back to those days.”

Democratic Presidential candidate Joe Biden has promised to repeal the Trump tax cuts if elected.

“My husband and I work hard to support ourselves and our son,” explained Long. “That extra Trump cash goes to savings. I don’t want Joe Biden taking that from us for pay for more of his big government programs.”

In elected, Biden plans to  roll back that tax cut and raise taxes to finance his socialist healthcare agenda. He’ll need to raise $2.25 trillion over the next decade to pay for it, according to an analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That’s not counting the cost of lowering Medicare’s eligibility age to 60.

But Biden has repeatedly promised voters who earn under $400,000 that his tax hikes will not affect them. Narrowly speaking, that is true. However, according to the independent analysis of  the Penn Wharton Budget Model, those households would see lower investment returns and wages as a result of Biden’s corporate tax increases.

Economists at The Tax Foundation, agree. Board member and former head of the Congressional Budget Office Doug Holtz-Eakin recently pointed out, “it simply is not economically possible to segregate the impacts on the high-income from everyone else.”

That’s because the rich purchase items from others, some not as rich, and from businesses that employ workers across the income spectrum. The corporate tax falls partly on workers in the form of lower pay. Similarly, the individual income tax that is paid by pass-through businesses falls partly on employees of those businesses.

Senior policy analyst Garrett Watson of the Tax Foundation has written at length about the Biden-Harris campaign plan to eliminate deductible traditional contributions for 401(k)s, individual retirement accounts (IRAs), and other types of retirement vehicles. The plan would instead provide a 26 percent refundable tax credit for each dollar contributed. As a result, this plan would reduce the tax benefit of traditional retirement accounts for those earning above $80,250.

The Biden-Harris campaign proposes multiple reforms to firearm regulation, including an expansion of the number of firearms subject to the National Firearms Act (NFA), which imposes a $200 tax on the registration of each NFA weapon. As a result, certain gun owners would see their tax liability rise, regardless of their income.

Analysts at the National Taxpayer’s Union warn that America’s middle class should be worried about a Biden presidency.  A recent study concluded, “any kind of tax plan intended to pay for a massive spending program like ‘Medicare for All’ or student loan forgiveness would have a hard time raising sufficient revenue without dramatically increasing taxes on middle-income households.”

Americans for Limited Government president Rick Manning put a finer point on it, saying, “Joe Biden’s tax plan is going to ruin this country. The idea that he is going to only raise taxes on people who make over $400,000 is a complete fraud. The money is in the middle class.”

Biden often talks about eliminating Trump’s corporate tax cuts. Manning explained that those cuts resulted in a net drop to federal coffers of between $50-75 billion. “That’s not anywhere near enough money for Joe Biden to pay for all his government giveaways. The real money, as everyone knows, is always in the middle class. That is why big-spending politicians like Biden always end up taxing the middle class, either directly or indirectly.”

In addition, when politicians tax corporations, the corporations pass that along to the consumer. Governments don’t really tax corporations, they tax consumers.

“Biden will raise taxes on the middle class,” concluded Manning. “The very people who are struggling to make a living. He wants to raise taxes on somebody who is trying to save money so their kid can go to college or trying to figure out how to pay for their parents’ elderly care. There are so many people in the middle class, politicians can raise taxes by five seven percent and get a lot more money than raising taxes on the wealthy and corporations.”

Biden is simply not telling the truth when he says his tax hikes would not affect households earning less than $400,000 a year.

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





If there ever was a story that epitomized the insanity over mask-wearing during the COVID-19 pandemic, here it is. Recently, a woman attending a middle school football game in Logan, Ohio was handcuffed, tased, and arrested for not wearing a mask while she sat outside on the bleachers and watched the game.

Alecia Kitts, a parent from the visiting team of Marietta City Schools, was simply sitting maskless with her mother and attempting to watch her son’s football game when she was approached by the school’s assistant principal, who asked her to put on a mask or leave the game. She refused to do so, stating that she had asthma.  The school resource officer, Christopher Smith, quickly intervened and, according to cell phone video footage of the incident, physically struggled with Kitts, a woman who appears to weigh at least 100 lbs. less than him. Kitts resisted the burly officer’s attempts to physically remove her from the stands, proclaiming, “I’m not doing anything wrong”, “Get off of me,” and “What the f**k is wrong with you?” Her mother tried to assist by attempting to reason with both the officer and the assistant principal, who stood by watching the officer’s efforts to cuff Kitts.  Smith, evidently quickly frustrated with her, tased her to subdue her. Then he cuffed Kitts and proceeded to arrest her for trespassing.  The video of this event immediately went viral and angered many; indeed it is shocking (no pun intended) and disturbing on many levels.

ESN has detailed here the uselessness and even harmful effects of wearing masks. At the start of the pandemic, many well-meaning people did believe that masks were needed and complied with government mandates to wear them. But now, months later and with much research available for anyone to inform themselves, many more people have now caught on to the reality that they do absolutely nothing to stop the spread of COVID.  It is obvious that they are not needed in any setting, certainly not outside at a football stadium, with no one else immediately adjacent in any direction. It is pure insanity that Kitts was told to put on a mask or leave her son’s game.  What ensued next is appalling and downright scary. While BLM and Antifa protestors have been allowed, and encouraged, to gather en masse and protest, riot, and loot all over the country with or without masks, this woman was engaging in an everyday, law-abiding activity of watching a youth football game. She is the one got arrested, not the actual lawbreakers.

In response to the outcries and threats against Logan High School, the official word was that Kitts was not arrested because she was not wearing a mask, but because she refused to leave the stadium. Nonsense. She should not have even been asked to leave the game. Mask mandates are not about public health. They are all about control. This incident clearly demonstrates that reality.



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.




Every holiday season welcomes movies that are inspirational and can bring joy to viewers. This holiday season is not only no exception, but can use divine motivation and exultation more than ever, given the hysteria that has beset the world over the last several months. Enter A Wrestling Christmas Miracle, a new, somewhat star-ladened film that does just that.

A thoughtful, very often funny holiday flick, A Wrestling Christmas Miracle is, at its core, a story of inspiration. There is inspiration through friendship. Inspiration through family. And, though not thrust in the audience’s face via preachy dialogue, inspiration through God. The movie’s synopsis provides a fine overview of the film:

An 11-year old phenom wrestler with an undefeated record, Kace Gabriel gives up the sport to write/direct a movie. He believes that if the film makes his best friend, Charlie, laugh on Christmas Day it will awake the boy from a coma. Kace’s dad, Ajax Gabriel, an Olympian wrestler with a mysterious side career, supports his son’s wish, cautioning that the friend may never come out of his slumber. A week before Christmas, the movie is produced – with Ajax and a zany cast of characters starring in it – ready to make all laugh. Ajax departs to Africa, where he headlines The Christmas Coup in the Congo, a wrestling tournament that has him scheduled to return on Christmas, just in time for the movie presentation to Charlie. Instead of all going as planned, however, the sole hard drive containing the movie is stolen by disgruntled, bumbling actors. And The Christmas Coup in the Congo turns out to be a real coup with the overthrow of the country’s communist dictator – and with Ajax being right in the center of it all. Kace and his mother, unable to get in touch with Ajax in the Congo, go on a crazy cat and mouse game in trying to retrieve the movie hard drive that is being held for ransom. What ensues is an inspirational, funny thrill ride, with twist after twist – and a climatic, unexpected ending that could only happen on Christmas. 

 As promised, A Wrestling Christmas Miracle does indeed deliver an inspirational ending, though the audience may be able to figure it out. Viewers, however, likely will not see the twist in the climatic scene coming.  The movie is indeed rather humorous; it could fairly be described as extremely funny several times throughout. The writing is smart, in that it is a comedy that will resonate with both adults and children alike. It’s a family film, but, more so, it’s a Christmas movie. In that regard, the movie produces the required emotion to make people smile – and happy – during the holiday season or any time of the year. Its motivational moments are strong. The writing, in its sum total, warrants an “A” grade, as it quite perfectly mixes comedy with mystery, and skillfully intertwines a “movie within the movie” aspect, something which often fails in films that try to carry out such a complicated endeavor; the audience is never confused with what’s happening.

The director, Chris T. Anthony – who also tripled-up as the film’s cinematographer and editor – very capably technically led the production ship as a first-time helmer. In dealing with the visual hardship of explaining how the movie’s patriarch, Olympian Ajax Gabriel, has victoriously wrestled an elephant, giraffe and the Congo dictator (as he orchestrated a CIA-style overthrow of that dictator), Anthony cleverly designed a series of moving radio shots, that transferred from character to character. His efforts compensated for the lack video footage, allowing for the information to not only be understood, but to also be entertaining. Well directed actors, likewise, assisted in efficaciously completing this task.

Like nearly all independent movies (and all movies altogether, for that matter), however, A Wrestling Christmas Miracle has a few flaws, namely insufficient production funds to show much of anything that occurs in the aforementioned “The Christmas Coup in the Congo” part of the film. In other words, there is no battle footage or any scenes in The Congo at all; instead, we hear about it through radio reports (as described above), TV reports, and dialogue among characters who are in America. But, alas, this does not matter much in the overall evaluation of the film, since the production is otherwise a stalwart, most notably through its actors.

Ingenious are the performances of the two villains, Chuck played by Buddy Fitzpatrick (American Criminal) and Ms. Kitty Kat played Julie McCullough (“Growing Pains”). Fitzpatrick, who co-wrote the movie with producer Kenneth Del Vecchio (The Life Zone; The Great Fight), is brilliant as the “brilliant” mastermind behind the theft of the “movie within the movie’s” hard drive. In many ways, he is reminiscent of Gene Hackman’s “Lex Luthor” in Superman. He is no dummy; rather, he is mad intelligent. He has a chip on his shoulder, and despises his nemesis; in A Wrestling Christmas Miracle, it’s Ajax Gabriel (played by co-writer Del Vecchio). But can Chuck actually defeat Ajax and, more so, Ajax’s superstar son Kace? Well, like any true comic book-style villain, Chuck thinks so—and Fitzpatrick flawlessly delivers. He is wicked, yet somehow has a smidgeon of likeability. In the scene where Chuck and Kitty Kat steal the hard-drive (and all of Kace’s Christmas presents), clad in Grinch costuming, the viewer feels like he/she is actually watching Dr. Seuss’s the Grinch in observing Fitzpatrick’s measured performance. A simple sly smile by Fitzpatrick later in the movie so effortlessly says “The Grinch”, which is the act of a truly outstanding actor.

The comedic timing between the pair of Fitzpatrick and his on-screen partner in crime, McCollough, is just right. McCullough is equal parts “Ms. Teschmacher” (Valerie Perrine) and “Otis” (Ned Beatty), Lex Luther’s sidekicks. She is bumbling, vibrant, and so sillily funny in her portrayal of Kitty Kat. McCullough ensures that she evens out Chuck, so the pair, in their totality are not villains who you are rooting for, but you enjoy the ride with them.

Candy Fox as Cassandra Gabriel is charming, witty, a bit sassy, and strong in playing the film’s only “straight guy” (though she’s clearly the pretty mom/wife). Scott Schwartz (The Toy; A Christmas Story) – the kid who got his tongue stuck on the pole in the latter Christmas classic – is formidable in an amusing performance as the out-of-synch uncle. Schwartz and Fox work well together as the opposing tandem to Fitzpatrick/McCullough in the cat and mouse efforts over the stolen movie hard drive.

Fitzpatrick, McCullough – and multiple other actors from the primary A Wrestling Christmas Miracle storyline – double as actors in the “movie within the movie”, making the totality of their performances  more substantive and impressive, while allowing the “movie within the movie” to seamlessly blend into the overall film. Additional key players in the “movie within the movie” include some recognizable names, all of whom are quite funny: Martin Kove (“Cobra Kai”; The Karate Kid), Gilbert Gottfried (Emmy nominee; Problem Child), Jimmie Walker (Golden Globe nominee; “Good Times”), Michael Winslow (Police Academy; Spaceballs), and Todd Bridges (“Different Strokes”; “Everybody Hates Chris”). Joe Bronzi, playing a multi-personality movie sales agent, and Suzi Lorraine, playing Charlie’s quirky mother, provide additional laugh-out-loud moments in the film.

While Chuck and Kitty Kat serve as the potential foils, the Gabriels are at the center of A Wrestling Christmas Miracle. But how couldn’t they be? They’re a family of Olympians, almost above the fray of reality – but still real and believable in their astonishing physical and mental facilities. The actors playing Kace and Ajax Gabriel, in real-life, have rather amazing backgrounds, and they bring those aptitudes to their roles.

A real-life nationally ranked youth wrestler, Mario Del Vecchio (who placed second in Alabama’s Deep South Nationals tournament in July of this year), expertly plays the lead role of Kace Gabriel. Also an experienced child actor who has acted in over 10 films alongside multiple Oscar and Emmy nominees, including playing the lead in last year’s companion film, A Karate Christmas Miracle, Del Vecchio delivers in high gear in both thespian and athletic abilities, in successfully pulling off this role. Co-star Julie McCullough said in an article in New Jersey’s daily newspaper, The Record, that Del Vecchio is “a little girl’s dream”, matching an assessment of  many that he is a strikingly handsome young man. More so, his true wrestling bonafides instantly render him wholly believable in this role. The film’s trailer exhibits his superior wrestling skills, as well as numerous clips in the movie; Del Vecchio has won and placed in numerous tournaments over multiple states.

A straight-A student who also is a real-life standout football player, Del Vecchio is a QB sack machine, as seen here. Equally important, Del Vecchio is poignant in his character’s intensity and strength to not only write/direct a film (the movie within the movie) to roust his best friend out of a coma, but in the family’s search to retrieve the movie’s stolen hard drive. In A Wrestling Christmas Miracle, 12-year-old (at the time of the movie’s production 11-year-old) Mario Del Vecchio beats away the difficulty of playing a role that requires multiple skills, and provides the requisite highly-talented performance needed of a child actor to make a family Christmas movie a success. He makes this movie work.

Real-life father Kenneth Del Vecchio delivers a proficient performance as Ajax Gabriel. His “movie within the movie” role of “Agent Truman”, though, is what really stands out. A reprise of Del Vecchio’s critically acclaimed role in the crazy horror-comedy cult film Scavenger Killers, Del Vecchio tones Agent Truman down to Christmas movie status, letting loose some of the funniest moments in the movie via his ego-maniac, mute, wheel-chair bound government agent character. His sign language delivery is gut-busting funny, this time verbally through “Agent Sheridan” (Oriana D’Agostino), played in the same, poised matter-of-fact, dark humor skill as her Scavenger Killers predecessor, “Agent Templeton” (Kim Allen).

The elder Del Vecchio also shows off some of his own real-life physical strength prowess, in exacting a rough-house arm drag upon Fitzpatrick, crippling his on-screen archenemy into a perfect wrestling cradle. A former high school wrestler himself, Del Vecchio has been much more recognized for his aberrational weightlifting abilities. At one point, he was in the top five in the nation in bench press for his weight class; he has won over 50 bench press competitions, at his best lifting 450 pounds while weighing just 170 pounds. See it here. And see it here. The younger Del Vecchio, Mario, also is quite the physical strength specimen. Watch him here.

Not far off from his brash “Agent Truman” character, in the real world, adversaries of Del Vecchio have called him bombastic, hard, argumentative, overly masculine, and yes – an ego maniac. However, it seems many others have complimentary words for him.

Legendary actor Paul Sorvino (GoodfellasNixon) called Del Vecchio “an extraordinary man.” Two-time Academy Award nominee Charles Durning (TootsieThe Best Little Whorehouse in Texas) exclaimed that “Kenneth Del Vecchio is an excellent filmmaker and would make a great leader!” Academy Award nominee Eric Roberts (The ExpendablesThe Pope of Greenwich Village) stated that “Kenneth Del Vecchio is the only judge I ever agreed with in personal conversation. He’s got some great views about freedom and liberty…and he’s a little bit nuts!” TV star Joyce DeWitt (”Three’s Company”) declared that Del Vecchio has “a vision and concept based on excellence and integrity.” Academy Award nominee Robert Loggia (ScarfaceBig) said of Del Vecchio: “The man is honest. Hard-working. Talented. And oh so intelligent.”

A veteran writer/director/producer of over 30 movies distributed through majors such as Sony Pictures, Lionsgate, NBCUniversal, and Eone Entertainmnet, Del Vecchio is also a best-selling author of legal books (Pearson Education/Prentice Hall and ALM), best-selling novelist (wrote first novel as a law student),  TV legal analyst (Quick Hits News, Fox News, i24 News) who has also published for ESN, attorney who has tried hundreds of cases, former judge, and the founder/chairman of Hoboken International Film Festival, called by Fox and other major media “one of the 10 biggest film festivals in the world.”

The combined unique accomplishments between real-life father and son Kenneth Del Vecchio and Mario Del Vecchio have culminated in them being called a modern-day “Renaissance Man” and “Renaissance Boy” by this media outlet and multiple others. The combined accomplishments of their performances through their movie characters, Ajax Gabriel/Agent Truman and Kace Gabriel – in concert with the great performances of the other notable actors in this movie, as well as the film’s writing and directing – has resulted in A Wrestling Christmas Miracle being called a critical winner. This film is a must see for families, Christmas and holiday film fans, wrestling enthusiasts, and those who enjoy inspirational films – not to mention, those who just like a good comedy.

A Wrestling Christmas Miracle, distributed by Green Apple Entertainment, can be watched on demand on many cable networks, as well as on Amazon Prime Video and several other VOD platforms.

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.





The 2020 presidential election has been the most irregular election in the history of the United States. Arguably, some very clever, fanciful evildoers have extrapolated mega-hysteria from a disease equivalent to the flu, as the centerpiece of an illicit plot to rig the results in favor of Joe Biden. Without the manipulative usage of the coronavirus fearmongering, the election would have occurred in its usual, longstanding manner: the vast majority of the voting happening in-person at polling stations. Instead, scores of people were frightened, via devilish trickery, into believing that it was dangerous to vote in person – because of the coronavirus. This farce has led to an extraordinary list of problems that is calling into legitimate question the efficacy and credibility of America’s voting processes.

It is unsound, if not completely silly, to blindly accept that the vote counting has been an honest process. Indeed, it is patriotic to inquire, investigate, and initiate lawsuits to determine if fraud has been perpetrated against the voters; the evidence, no doubt, is bountiful in showing that there has been massive fraud, in numerous different manners, in the vote-taking and vote counting. Although many may not understand it – and some of the tricksters are trying to downplay and/or delegitimize it – this factual evidence, along with square legal issues, will be evaluated in the courts. As this process proceeds, many lower courts will be hearing arguments, but, ultimately, it will be the nation’s highest court, the United States Supreme Court, who will be deciding the winner of the 2020 presidential election. Much to the dismay of the Democrats and their entrenched allies (the mainstream media, big tech, Hollywood, the deep state, and the so-called academic elites), President Trump will most likely succeed.

The trend in the ballot counting has been highly troubling and alarming—and it raises several valid legal and evidentiary questions. President Trump initially had a very sizable lead in multiple key states (WI, MI, PA, GA), with a substantial percentage of the votes counted. Then, suddenly, the vote counting went dark; it, literally, stopped wherein either very little votes (or no votes at all) were counted for quite some time. Miraculously, after the deafening silence in vote counting, there was an enormous shift in the vote tallies, with Biden emerging as the leader.

The liberal pundits have openly, if not gleefully, stated the root cause of this strange trend: it is because of the purported “mail-in” ballots, which have skewed heavily in favor of Biden. The Democrats shouldn’t be so excited about this phenomenon, however, given that it showers their candidate with numerous legal pitfalls which, in the aggregate, may be insurmountable. An array of facts demonstrate that voter fraud was weaponized and executed through the exploitation of the mail-in voting system. Here are some salient factual problems with the mail-in voting system that, shortly, will be under review by the U.S. Supreme Court:

Mail-in ballots, in massive bulk numbers, that suddenly just arose, with no indication of their origins.

Mail-in ballots where, at certain points, Democrat officials have announced that there are (way) more than originally thought.

Mail-in ballots, in huge batches, that somehow all go to one candidate (e.g., 138,000 to Biden and zero to Trump) which is, of course, statistically impossible.

Mail-in ballots where, en masse, Republican poll watchers have been forbidden to oversee their counting.

Mail-in ballots with unverifiable signatures.

Mail-in ballots that have no post marks or indiscernible post marks.

Mail-in ballots, in great numbers, from deceased people or those who no longer live in the state.

Mail-in ballots, in large batches, that are attributed to the wrong candidate by faulty software.

Mail-in ballots, in significant groups, that arrive after Election Day.

Mail-in ballots accumulated from postal workers who were ordered to back date them, so they would erroneously appear to have been timely submitted.

Mail-in ballots, in the millions, that list only a vote for Biden (and no other candidates.

Mail-in ballots, in monstrous figures, that are fraudulent on their face because they are missing the necessary water mark.

Mail-in ballots, in such giant amounts, that have triggered a state’s voter turnout to appear to be either greater than the actual number of registered voters in the state (or extremely close to the number of registered voters), which is, of course, statistically impossible.

Mail-in ballots – in huge, incalculable numbers – where it cannot be determined where they came from (once they are removed from their arrival envelopes, they are impossible to track – who knows if they ever came in envelopes in the first place).

In short, mail-in ballots present voluminous opportunities for mega-fraud, as is quickly unfolding – and the same is supported by substantial evidence. This all renders one important result: the “calling” of the election by the Democrat operatives and their cohorts, at least at this stage, is completely meaningless. Joe Biden, currently, is indeed not the President-Elect; he is still just a candidate. The U.S. Supreme Court, in due course, will be determining this election’s fate.

The Court will evaluate all the above-described evidence of voter fraud. The justices of that highest court will also resolve straight legal issues. For example, it is quite likely that all Pennsylvania ballots received after 8:00pm on election night will be disallowed. This is because the Pennsylvania State Supreme Court acted in violation of the U.S. Constitution when it erroneously ruled that the state could accept ballots for three days after the election. This is actually a simple legal issue:

That state court erred because the U.S. Constitution unambiguously and unequivocally only permits state legislatures – and not state courts – to enact, void, or modify voting laws within their states. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, for some inexplicable reason, bypassed the Pennsylvania State Legislature and unilaterally overturned the legislature’s longstanding law that ballots, to be valid and counted, must be received no later than 8:00pm on election night; the Pennsylvania court unlawfully extended that deadline for three additional days. With the majority of the U.S. Supreme Court being constitutional contextualists (i.e., they follow the law as is defined in the U.S. Constitution), this unconstitutional Pennsylvania court action will almost definitely be struck down. If so, this means that (1) all ballots that were received in Pennsylvania after 8:00pm on election night will be discounted and void; and (2) Pennsylvania will shift from the Biden win column to the Trump win column, if the number of late votes is large enough.

It should be noted that even if the tally of late votes doesn’t, in and of itself, offset the difference between the Biden vote total and the Trump vote total, it is very likely that this issue – combined with one or more of the other instances of voter fraud as defined earlier – will turn the Pennsylvania victory to Trump. Similarly, one or multiple acts of voter fraud in Georgia, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and/or Arizona may very well result in Trump wins in some or all of those states. Certainly, there is no guarantee which states’ cases the U.S. Supreme Court will hear (there are so many to choose from), much less how the justices will rule, but with the overwhelming factual evidence mounting – coupled with square, identifiable legal issues – the U. S. Supreme Court will be delivering decisions that ultimately will be determining who is the victor of the 2020 election. And, already, President Trump, by any commonsense, rational evidentiary and legal analysis, is the favorite. Although the numbers propounded by these varied Democrat-controlled states show Biden as the “winner”, these numbers appear to have fruited through human/computer error and several avenues of voter fraud (unlawful acts that, arguably, were part of a well orchestrated plot to rig this election in favor of Joe Biden).

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. 




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. 





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

David Shuster is an Emmy award winning broadcast journalist who is best known for his work at NBC News and MSNBC where he hosted his own news shows and served as the primary backup host for “Countdown with Keith Olbermann” and “Hardball with Chris Matthews.” Shuster anchored the channel’s prime time coverage of breaking news stories including politics, natural disasters, and the death of MIchael Jackson. As a field correspondent, his assignments included the Iraq war, the selection of a Pope, and Hurricane Katrina. Shuster was an evening news anchor for Al Jazeera America, where he guided the network’s political coverage. He most recently served as Anchor and Managing Editor for i24News, where he co-anchored prime time shows with Tal Heinrich. 

Antonio Mora is a Miami, Florida based award-winning broadcast journalist who is best known in the U.S. for his work at ABC News. For four years, Mora served as the news anchor and chief correspondent for “Good Morning America.” He worked for 8 years at ABC, covering news from more than a dozen countries on five different continents. He was the first Hispanic American male to anchor a primetime newscast in Chicago. Mora also served as a 9pm news anchor for Al Jazeera America. He is currently news editor in chief of NewsandNews.com, a news aggregator web site and app. Mora was born in Cuba and grew up in the United States and Venezuela. He holds a law degree from Harvard.
Tal Heinrich is an Israeli journalist and news anchor in New York. She is the host of ‘TIJ Talks’ for the London-based Investigative Journal. Tal previously co-anchored the prime-time show ‘CROSSROADS’ on i24NEWS with David Shuster. In Israel, she produced for CNN International and contributed content during the 2014 Gaza war. She also hosted major news shows on Israel’s Channel 20, Walla News and Sport 5. In 2013 Tal served as a parliamentary assistant at the German Bundestag. She is fluent in Hebrew, English, German and Arabic. She holds a B.A. in Arabic literature and general history and a master’s degree in contemporary Middle Eastern studies.

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.”

Mike Yam joined Pac-12 Network as its lead studio host for its August 2012 launch. Prior to his arrival he spent four years at ESPN where he served as an anchor on SportsCenter and was heavily involved in the network’s NBA, college football, and college basketball coverage. Yam currently hosts Pac-12 Network’s football and basketball pregame and postgame shows, weekday shows and sport specific podcasts. Outside of his Pac-12 Network duties, Yam can be heard regularly on SiriusXM radio. Intel Sports leans on Yam’s skills as a host and play-by-play voice on its NFL, college basketball and golf coverage in virtual reality. Previously, Yam was a regular voice on the radio as co-host of ESPN’s “Fantasy Focus” and a frequent fill-in on ESPN Radio and its affiliate in New York City. Yam was also an NBAtv anchor and studio host. A graduate of Fordham University and winner of the Marty Glickman Play-by-Play award, Yam began his broadcasting career hosting “One-on-One” on WFUV radio in New York.

Rahmah Pauzi is a video producer and documentary filmmaker based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Her works have been published on PBS NewsHour, NPR-affiliate WNYC New York Public Radio, PBS Frontline (VR), Channel News Asia, Al Jazeera English, The Huffington Post, NY1, International Business Times, and BFM Radio Kuala Lumpur. She has worked on documentaries for Foreign Policy Association, Malaysia Investment & Development Authority (MIDA), British Council Malaysia, New York Community Trust, and was also a part of the team for the documentary film The Kleptocrats.

Robert Ray is an Atlanta based broadcast journalist with a decade of experience as an on-air correspondent, producer, writer, and videographer. He is currently working as a traveling correspondent and visual producer for the Washington Post. Previously, Ray served as a national correspondent for Al Jazeera America. Ray specializes in live, “breaking news” coverage during hurricanes, storms, wildfires, and other natural disasters. He has also reported on terror attacks, U.S. politics, and major sporting events including the Super Bowl, World Series, and Daytona 500.

If there’s a been a big, national story happening anywhere in the country in the last 15 years, correspondent Andy Roesgen has probably been there. From Hurricane Katrina, to migrant family separations at the border; from the El Paso mass shooting in 2019, to the George Floyd protests in Minneapolis, and plenty of politics, severe weather and cultural events in between, Andy has covered it. He’s reported for many news outlets you’ve heard of — ABC, NBC, Al Jazeera, The Weather Channel — and international ones you may not have — i24 News (Israel), World Is One News (India), and Euronews (France). He cut his reporting chops in local TV markets from Michigan to Las Vegas and points in between, but this Montana native now loves to call Chicago “home.”
Sara Hassan is an Istanbul-based global affairs reporter, producer, photographer and writer who was previously based in Doha, New York and Washington, D.C. for Al Jazeera. She has nearly two decades of journalism experience working for TV, magazines, and newspapers. She’s been to 30 countries and has an expertise in the Middle East, South Asia, and the United States. She has a Master’s from Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism.
Harriet Marsden is a freelance journalist based in London, specialising in politics, culture and feminism. She has written or edited for The Independent, The Times, The Sunday Times, the Guardian and Foreign Policy magazine, and others.

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.




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 21st 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. 



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. 





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.