Unfortunately you don’t have Warren Buffett’s coin — which is a mere 160 billion. You would settle for one percent of that pile — a paltry 1.6 billion. Preferably, half the amount would be liquid, since you want to fund your own major OTA Network, or smaller national cable television channel like CNN, ESPN, etc. Or you could also choose to go the IPTV route (Internet Protocol Television); but you believe crashing Legacy Media’s OTA playing field would be more irritating and effective, not to speak of a bloody blast. But don’t be misled. You would have no intention to personally organize and implement a new broadcast animal. All you could bring to the enterprise is the idea and somebody else’s money. You would have to hire top drawer execs who would procure killer technology, killer talent and killer content. The field test name for your new TV entity is Broadcast Bunk (BB). The primary purpose of BB would be to review reviewers and commentators — that is, the companies and people who own the national microphone — who are responsible for television and radio programming.  Likely, BB would concentrate on talk shows that are in the business of spouting non-stop opinions and analysis. Essentially, Broadcast Bunk would critique the broadcast industry product on a timely basis. You imagine BB would also devote time  to critique its own bunk. Broadcast bigwigs might dump on your idea this way: “The marketplace is the proper judge of broadcast programming and talent. If the people don’t like the bunk we dish out, they can tune out; and if they tune out, the advertisers simply wouldn’t spend their money supporting our bunk. It’s called free market capitalism.” As a capitalist, you would reply, “Exactly. Let the people decide.” For instance, they could decide if advertisers themselves aren’t in the dishing-out-bunk business. Since the BB concept is still under development, you’re not prepared to divulge specific programming and formatting; but you’re willing to share some initial concepts. Most likely, BB would resemble Gutfeld and other bold gabfests. However, BB would require a huge cast — hosts, permanent talent and a bevy of expert guests keen on audacity. Also likely, the daily content would consist of departments and/or categories like Politics, Advertising, Sports, Entertainment, etc. For instance, political prattle on shows like The Five or The View would definitely stand scrutiny as would the Sean (you know) Hannity Show on Fox, or his daily, three-hour (count it) syndicated radio broadcast. Since ESPN airs wall-to-wall chatter like Get Up, First Take, College Game Day, etc., the cliche-ridden channel is ripe fruit for picking. Advertising perhaps represents the most fertile plowing ground, since so much of it is impossibly insipid. Without question, BB must be funny, outrageously provocative, often offensive, devoted to the truth and religiously opposed to all things PC. The big question for this endeavor? Can it gradually build and sustain a large audience? Can the audience justify attracting advertisers, considering that most of them would be subject to ridicule? It’s simply too early to tell how the concept might jell. Let’s just say for now it’s a good idea — that it would motivate Mr. Buffett to send you the gravy asap, and that BB would stimulate the entire nation and entertain the brains of viewers who at this very moment agree that 80% of broadcast media is swill. However, if this particular fantasy fizzles, something else has to happen. Because the American Way needs defenders. Raped repeatedly, The Constitution needs restorative surgery. Journalism is in a coma. Group Identity tramples individualism. America’s soul — Her moral precept — is long forsaken. Hmm. Matilda, Buffett could pass on BB. It would be tough to identify 1000 people willing to shell out a million apiece. You have to face the very real possibility that BB is far-fetched. Charlie Kirk was headed in this direction. If people like Charlie, Tucker, Joe, JP and Elon, don’t see a place for BB, you have to face reality. Well, all you can do is wait. You really want to pummel MSNBC

www.conventionofstates.com

Generally speaking, all serious writers probe existential subjects — good vs evil, the human condition and the meaning of life. This assessment is true of literary giants 2000 years ago and also true of those who aspire to greatness today. Generally speaking, the first work of most serious authors is their crowning achievement, their magnum opus, while all of their other work, however equally brilliant, digs the same essential ground. This assertion is most evident in the works of writers like Dostoevsky, Hugo, Bronte, Pasternak, Austen, Marquez, Poe, Wilde, Sophocles, etc. Unfortunately, these legends didn’t live to cash it in with Hollywood and network television. But their genius has nonetheless been on full display for decades. Millions have flocked to stage and screen to witness their achievements, some even induced to take up reading, thinking and learning. Generally speaking, the modern era is also congested with fine authors, prolific authors. On the popularity front, many of them are darlings of the movie industry. The novels of Grisham, Clancy, Rowling, Sparks, Steele, Irving, Fleming ( J. Bond), King (of horror), Atwood and many other literary heavyweights, check all the boxes of human drama, with big helpings of love, hate, wickedness, courage,, intrigue and heroism. But, generally speaking, the publishing industry also has an abiding interest in the huge, lucrative, non-fiction category, although critics like you might suggest there’s a big helping of fiction in non-fiction. Especially in the autobiography category. Consider how  all manner of celebrities, including politicians, eagerly capitalize on their names. The publishing hucksters routinely create provocative book titles and dramatic book jackets well before the ghost writers complete a first draft. This reproach, of course, is not aimed at the political star who recently decided to put aside ego and give her adoring fans the  lowdown on a selfless loyalty to Joe Biden.  Generally speaking, 107 Days is likely the inside story of Kamala Harris’ self sacrifice — of her dogged determination to continue the fight, even to admit to one reporter that, during the campaign, “she was terrified about what this (her loss) would mean for the country and for democracy.”  Hmm, touching. Or more likely, touched. For personal reasons, you have decided to postpone a review of the book.  As Scarlett so often and so famously said, “I can’t think about that right now. If I do, I’ll go crazy. I’ll think about that tomorrow.” After all, during the campaign, you did listen carefully to Kamala’s shrewd, penetrating wit, to her astute grasp of complicated issues, her bold solutions and spontaneous humor. What else can there be? You feel confident to guess at some of her back story. Certainly, the underdog complaint will surface — that 107 Days is a wink of an eye, so little time to prepare, so little time for people to know the real me, all the while facing the insults of a  former president who was also a media celeb.  Perhaps it didn’t occur to Kamala that, in fact, too many people might have come to know her too well in too short a time. Generally speaking, the political pundits are quick to weigh-in on a possible Harris rerun. Those who give thumbs down say that key Democrat power brokers are leaning to a photogenic, big State Governor who has the charisma to grow a diverse electorate. Now who could that be? you ask, tongue firmly in cheek. Others — fewer others — believe Harris still has credentials that appeal to a wide, assorted audience, not the least of which is the largest voting group in America. Take a guess, Matilda. Still other experts say she will decide, for private career reasons, to skip 2028. Face it, you have zero standing to have an opinion. If you decide to read 107 Days, you may find a clue lurking about. You may detect a combative resolve, or a vengeful remark, that exposes her intentions. While Kamala plugs her book on the requisite media stops, you discover another book that ranks #1 on Amazon, based on pre sales. Stop, in the Name of God, authored by Charlie Kirk, will be released posthumously in three months. Generally speaking, Charlie Kirk was no literary giant, no literary technician. He was no Dostoevsky, Dickens, Steinbeck or Rowling. But, as a self avowed disciple of Jesus Christ, he authored several best seller books** to remind a nation that America’s founding principals are precisely aligned with the principles of Christianity. You believe he would say the Founders got it exactly right, that The Constitution was immaculately conceived in its simplicity; then  summarily distorted and perverted to give a Central Government absolute power. The outpouring of love for Charlie Kirk was not for the shock of how he died, but for the realization of how he lived — hands outstretched to the young — his willingness to have conversations with anyone who disagreed with him. For centuries, great writers have observed and analyzed the human condition. Charlie reached out to touch humanity, face to face.  Gratefully speaking,  his splendid life speaks for itself.

** Note: Selected  works of Charlie Kirk: Stop, in the Name of God: Why Honoring the Sabbath Will Transform Your Life; Right Wing Revolution: How to Beat the Woke and Save the West; The MAGA Doctrine; Time for a Turning Point; The College Scam. Ed.

www.conventionofstates.com

Congress needs to listen to the life of Charlie Kirk. Congress needs to embody one tenth the virtue of Charlie Kirk and that one tenth would be a trailblazing improvement for a polluted organization. But Congress has proven it has no interest in anything approaching virtuousness. As a practitioner of perfidy, Congress sits at the epicenter of blame for the death of Kirk and the heartless deaths of millions of other Americans. Congress and its vile handmaiden, Legacy Media, sustain an evil culture that has ripped apart the very foundation of the basic American ethic — the noble belief in Christian virtues. Rip apart the family unit. Rip apart the ideals of individual responsibility and accountability. Rip away free speech. Rip away Truth and replace it with deceit. Unfortunately, good people shrink from passing judgment, for casting blame. Christians embrace Christ’s admonition “Let the person with no sin be the first to cast a stone . . . .” Sorry, Lord. What happened to Charlie Kirk is beyond sin. The people who contributed to his death must be called out. All but a few of the 260 Democrat house members and senators are complicit to murder on a grand scale. They freely supported, if not encouraged, the immigration policies of Joe Biden — policies that knowingly led directly to the murder of Americans — deaths that occurred day after day, month after month, year after year, as a nation stood by witnessing a modern-day holocaust. Listen closely. Do you hear one confession? One hint of remorse? Football coaches take more heat for the loss of one game than Washington politicians take for the loss of thousands of lives. Have you heard Legacy Media (LM) condemn the Democrat Party and demand an end to ill-fated policies? Instead, LM ginned up lies about Donald Trump, creating an atmosphere of hate that played an important role in the two attempts to end his life. To be fair, Media — or what used to be called Journalism — died before Donald Trump or Charlie Kirk made national headlines. Always left-leaning, evidenced by their disdain for powerful business interests and successful individualists, Journalism sold its soul to Barak Obama. Willfully, unreservedly, LM betrayed its professional oath as the honorable Fourth Estate — the vow to seek objective Truth. In succession, America’s slide into Socialism became a landslide. Whether you believe the rest of the story or not, you may not deny the injection of critical race theory and sexual orientation studies into the public school system. You may not deny the subsequent glorification of BLM, accompanied by nationwide riots, civic destruction and loss of life — crimes that went unpunished, ignored and often celebrated. Quickly, the dogmas of DEI, Woke-ism and Gender subjectivity infiltrated the hallways of government, universities, corporations and even houses of worship. When Trump blew back into town the second time, despite the marshaled forces of the Establishment who, by the way, no longer need naming, the people who still believe in the American ethic stood up and spoke up to send a message — and for the time being, post modern dogmas have drifted from the limelight. But Tyler Robinson (and you might as well face reality), Legacy Media, the Democrat Party and millions of rich, poor, old and young voters, are unwilling to debate issues and recognize that free speech is among the Constitution’s most revered freedoms. Therefore, true to the blueprint for success in achieving power, Leftist zealots fall back on a not so secret weapon — simply eliminate the obstacle. One of their ilk — as so often is the case, a young activist — decided he hated Charlie Kirk, and had at least one family member who also hated Charlie Kirk for allegedly “spreading hate and fascism.” That crime seemed egregious enough for Robinson to hide on a rooftop about 150  yards away and courageously end the life of a young man who was willing to courageously and openly say what he believed. Too bad Robinson couldn’t bother speaking with millions of his generation who would say that love was at the heart of Kirk’s message. Too bad Robinson didn’t find a way to meet and talk with Charlie Kirk. Too bad he chose instead to steal the life of someone he didn’t even know. Kill him for what he said. Your anger for him and the culture of tyranny that bred him knows no bounds. And yet you’re insistently reminded of other words: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

Note: Typically, LM stands shoulder to shoulder to infer that Kirk got what he deserved. He aligned himself with Donald Trump. The message is clear.  Better watch your tongue. The war against the 1st Amendment of the Bill of Rights will never end. And neither will the war against the American Republic itself. Ed.

www,conventionofstates.com