The Market Coalition

In the event of that a threatening nation to the security of America requires a pre-emptive attack, we may wish to consider creating a News Event of an expected meteor shower in the media or consider launching the attack during a real meteor shower. There are many events such as Solar Flares, Space Weather which could give us a few minutes of additional surprise as the enemy looks to consider if in fact it is something else, before they launch, thus giving our multiple warheads time to reach separation point, it also allows us to allow for separation of multiple dummy warheads as decoys to overwhelm the enemies defenses to help us fulfill our kill ratios on desired targets.

On the flip side our Missile Defense system should categorize all solar storms, meteor showers, UFOs, etc, so that we can in fact determine the differences so we do not try to launch a defense against nothing and jeopardize the integrity of our missile supply. A computer program needs to be developed to instantly tell us if we are seeing a solar anomaly or if the meteor shower is exactly what it is and not an enemy surprise attack under cloak of the known meteor shower.

If you have thoughts on our Missile Defense System or ideas on using ICBMs to surgically attack key targets of our enemy without risking pilots, planes and expensive equipment in the battlespace to protect the American People and serve our political will and most of all to WIN.

“Lance Winslow” - Online Think Tank forum board. If you have innovative thoughts and unique perspectives, come think with Lance; www.WorldThinkTank.net/wttbbs/

As baby boomers, we have been spoiled all of our lives. When we were teenagers, the world took note because there were so many of us. Our music, our beliefs, our fashions, our styles dominated the culture of the age. When we took to the streets to protest the war in Vietnam and to support the Civil Rights Movement, we found a ready audience. Television came into its own and we splattered ourselves and our causes across the living rooms of America.

For some of us, that was the best of times. We were young, idealistic, and nave. We truly believed that we were making a difference. We were creating a future of hope, justice, fairness, and peace.

As we move towards retirement age, we look around us with diminished hope, broken promises, reddened eyes, and cynicism. Where is the new world order we so desperately sought? In the violence-filled streets of Baghdad? In the ruins of the World Trade Center? In the hills of Afghanistan? In the political condemnation of gay rights, resistance to a woman’s right to control her own body, the death of Affirmative Action?

We look back in longing to the days before political assassinations turned the world upside down. Life was, indeed, so much simpler then. Involvement in revolution is for the young and nave who, no matter the century, no matter the nation, no matter the cause, see only the possibilities and none of the difficulties that maintenance of profound social change demands.

Can we keep our ideals alive in the muck and mire of reality?

If our ideals are still there, perhaps hidden beneath the layers that decades of responsibility, work, fatigue, and the need to take care of personal matters have deposited, we can resurrect them. We can revitalize their tenets with the bolder judgment and broader understanding wrought by experience and maturity. We can still return to the fight we abdicated with the demise of the Great Society.

1. Political action.

We now know that marching in the streets has less of a lasting effect than the power of the voting booth and the closed door deals of professional politicians. Although many have fallen along the way, including some of the best and brightest, the boomers still have tremendous numbers and therefore significant potential political power. As our involvement in work and careers starts to taper off, we can use our newly found time to participate in the political process: listening, organizing, contributing, and supporting those who represent that new society we still so desperately seek. For us, the infringement of civil liberties generated by the Patriot Act and the horrors of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay demand that questions be asked, motives revealed, and expected outcomes honestly assessed. We can still throw off the conservative shackles of age we have unwittingly donned and re-enter the fray: as candidates, as volunteers, as individuals who demand accountability and justice from those in power.

2. Community action.

Supporting and fighting for civil rights no longer requires travel to the Deep South nor marching through the streets. The struggle now permeates all levels of our society: the workplace, the schools, the churches, the home. Community involvement may range from active support, to speaking out, to neighborhood organizing, all in the knowledge that our better world starts right outside our front door. Racial profiling, bias against those of Middle Eastern descent, and widely administered wiretaps confront us in our own corner of the world. An African-American child in a schoolroom without enough books, without internet access, without afterschool programs, without personal safety and a quiet academic atmosphere, is as cheated of his natural human heritage as his forefather in the back of the bus. A gay couple denied the social and financial benefits of married straights are as much the victims of prejudice as their forbears in their proverbial closets. A poor urban neighborhood without basic resources: libraries, museums, music, culture, is as disadvantaged in the modern age as in the shameful shanty towns of old. We may feel a lack of power to sufficiently effect a national change of direction but in our local communities the power is there for the taking if we choose to assert our energies and our concerns.

3. Personal witness.

We need to practice constant vigilance to bear witness to our beliefs. We must repeatedly re-assess ourselves to ensure that we have not inadvertently bought into the bias and prejudice that colors so much human thought. We cannot stand silent while others talk or joke about ethnicity, or religion, or sexual preferences. The need to get ahead does not require the sacrifice of all that we hold dear — the winner of the rat race is, after all, a rat. We must consider our families and ensure that our children are fully exposed to the potential and worth of every individual, no matter how different from us they may appear. Our expectations and demands of coworkers and subordinates needs to be fair and consistent, regardless or race, gender, or cultural differences. We can stand up and speak out, letting all know that nothing less than equal opportunity and fair evaluation will be tolerated in our personal sphere. We will continue to look for quality of character, knowing that little else matters.

As each generation ages, the qualities it represented in youth tend to dissipate. With the addition of multiple personal and occupational responsibilities and the acquisition of assets and at least a degree of wealth, the earthquake of social revolution is no longer a promise but a threat. We jealously guard what we have worked so hard to obtain. We become a force for conservancy rather than a force for change.

The baby boom generation has the potential to shatter that familiar pattern. Born on the cusp of the most horrifying war the world has ever seen, we continue to represent an opportunity for the world to evolve, for mankind to rise above the baseness of his bestial nature and to internalize the human capacity for true civilization. As we enter the autumn of our lives, we are presented with the opportunity to finally, and lastingly, make a difference. It is up to us to stand together now, as many years ago we stood in the streets of Chicago, Washington, and Birmingham, for the rights and liberties of all.

Virginia Bola is a licensed clinical psychologist with deep interests in Social Psychology and politics. She has performed therapeutic services for more than 20 years and has studied the effects of cultural forces and employment on the individual. The author of an interactive workbook, The Wolf at the Door: An Unemployment Survival Manual, and a monthly ezine, The Worker’s Edge, she can be reached at http://www.virginiabola.com

Almost every weekday, for the last thirty some years, I have purchased three or four newspapers and read them at lunch time. I do this in order to relax and in some cases learn something. One of the ‘newspapers’ I buy is the Los Angeles Times and I am going to use that ‘newspaper’ as my example for this article. In my opinion the Los Angeles Times has always been a somewhat liberal paper. I never minded that as some of my views were also somewhat liberal. A while back, however, the paper was purchased by the Tribune Company and the paper went from taking a slightly liberal slant to taking a very liberal slant and it went from reporting the news to trying to influence the news. Now, the paper seems to have gone off the deep end and is trying to control the news and brainwash it’s readers.

As long as I can remember, newspapers have used their front page to report hard news, news that they considered to be of great importance to their readers. The Los Angeles Times and many other newspapers now seem to be using their front pages to influence their readers. Now, in addition to slanting their stories to the left or right, many newspapers are slipping op-ed pieces (I am all for op-ed pieces as long as they are printed in the op-ed section of the paper and listed as opinions or editorials. I like reading other people’s viewpoints. After all, I might learn something new.) into the news sections of the paper and even onto the front page.

Today, December 23, 2005, the paper ran, on the front page, above the fold, near the center, a piece headlined “GOP Hitting Limits of Agressive Tactics”. To be fair the paper did insert in smaller type, above the headline, the words “News Analysis” (I wonder how many readers know that ‘news analysis’ is just another way of saying editorial opinion. I also wonder how many people even read the words ‘News Analysis’.). This piece was written by a ‘Times Staff Writer’ who as far as I can tell, has never written a hard news item in his life. The only pieces, written by this writer, that I have ever read have been anti Republican, anti Bush and anti anyone and everyone who is not to the far left, opinion pieces. This piece slams the Republican Party and the Administration, praises the Democratic Party, gives a few partial statistics, lists several half truths and gives the writers opinion as to how the Republican Party is out to harm the environment, destroy the poor, overrun the Democratic Party and ruin this country. It does everything but report news, yet it is made to appear as a hard news piece. I would not mind this piece if it were published in the op-ed section of the paper (Everyone has the right to his or her opinion.) but, it offends me that it was published on the front page where news items belong.

Right (pardon the pun) below that piece is a piece headlined “U.N. Hit by a Bolt From the Right”. This piece about, John Bolton, the United States Ambassador to the United Nations, seems to be innocuous, but if you read the whole piece you come away with the impression that Ambassador Bolton is a bullying right wing trouble maker who is ruining our relationships with our allies and with the U.N.. This piece is again an opinion or editorial. It is not hard news or even news. It would have been okay in the op-ed section, but it did not belong on the front page.

Neither of those pieces belonged on the front page. The only reason to have them there, is to attempt to influence the thinking of the paper’s readers.

The foregoing are just two examples of how the paper is trying to control public opinion. Whenever the paper publishes something good that has happened in Iraq or Afganistan the insert, into the piece, several bad things. Everytime they publish something good about a Republican, or even a moderate Democrat, they insert something negative. Negative pieces about Moderates and Conservatives are published on the front page or near the front and positive pieces are published near the back. Positive pieces about the left are published on the front page or near the front and negative pieces about the left are published near the back. In today’s paper they published a piece about the President defending our spy program. Where did they publish it? On the last page, page 32, of the national news section. They also published a piece about the President okaying troop cuts in Iraq. This piece was published on page 3 of the national news section, however, in the piece they also mention that there have been 2,150 U.S. deaths in Iraq, that a soldier was killed by a bomb and that the President “is under growing pressure to pare back U.S. troops in Iraq”. Again, the paper can’t print something positive without printing something negative, when it comes to the President.

By the way, who is putting pressure, on the President, to ‘pare back the troops in Iraq’? I know that I’m not. I don’t know enough about what is needed in Iraq to make that type of suggestion. As far as I can tell, most of the ‘pressure’ is coming from the far left, their spokespeople, the people that have bought into their ranting and the ‘talking heads’ that love to go on talk shows and show everyone how ‘in the loop’ they are, even though they usually turn out to know less than we do. Maybe we should pull back troops and then again maybe we should not. The only people that the President should be listening to are his Generals and certain people in the intelligence community, the Department Of Defense and the State Department. He should not be listening to his opponents (They have their own agenda.), reporters, publishers or the Hollywood Elite. They may think they know everything, but they don’t.

David G. Hallstrom, Sr. is a retired private investigator and currently publishes several internet directories including www.resourcesforattorneys.com a legal and lifestyle resources directory for attorneys, lawyers and the internet public. For more lifestyle information see lifestyle.resourcesforattorneys.com, the Lifestyle directory from Resources For Attorneys.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

REALISTIC LIFE SOLUTIONS FOR THE YOUNG AND YOUNG AT HEART.

“Life 101 for the Young and Young at Heart,” is a fresh and revealing approach to many of life’s daily challenges. This no-nonsense novel provides insights into not blaming others for our shortcomings; living life for the moment; never giving up; simplifying our daily livesand, using personal life experiences, the author has outlined practical solutions. Finally, someone has dared to say, “How do we do this?” The author has composed a life applicable novel for any reader by assuming that everyone, from adolescent to senior, is seeking simple and practical solutions to life’s daily challenges. The format of Life 101 is easy to follow and the “how-to’s” so logical that readers will find themselves nodding and wondering, “Why didn’t I think of this?”

Preliminary reviews have been positive:
• “I have enjoyed reading your book and it has inspired me to begin taking inventory of my life.”
• “This is such great advice for any reader.”
• “I like the anecdotes, it makes for entertaining reading.”

While our experiences are unique, Adams has focused on those with which we share commonality. The author ponders, is it possible to stop blaming others for our own shortcomings? According to Adams, we need to take control of who we are but she does not stop there. Rather, the author discusses personal situations in which this and many other lessons have been learned, and lays out the course of action that helped in understanding the behavior. Then, solutions are applied in a practical manner to the problem. Insights into career, finances, well-being, and other lessons are revealed. The author has the readers ask themselves “Why should I do this?” and then maps the route that will guide the reader towards clarity. “How to do this?” takes the reader step-by-step through the process of clarification and, ultimately, the attainment of the skill. Along the way, facing and dispelling obstacles that impede our growth. Life 101 takes the reader on life’s journey.

About the Author
Caren Adams has a Masters from Pepperdine University and a Business Diploma from Southwest London College, England. Her business background is extensive, covering everything from airlines to manufacturing, with a number of diverse industries in between. In this premier novel, Life 101 serves as a reminder to all that we can live happier, healthier lives… and can begin the process today.

You may obtain Life 101 for the Young and Young at Heart! by Caren A. Adams, trade paperback, 5.5 x 8.5, 222 pages, four-color cover, ISBN 1-59457-835-4 book from bookstores, as well as directly from the publishers for $13.99 retail, plus $5.86 shipping, ($7.99 E-book). Contact BookSurge, LLC, 5341 Dorchester Road, Suite 16, North Charleston, SC 29418 Toll Free: 1-866-308-6235 or 1-843-853-8310, Website: www.booksurge.com or www.amazon.com Email: info@booksurge.com, orders@booksurge.com

http://www.booksurge.com/product.php3?bookID=GPUB00869-00001

For Media Only: A review copy and/or a photograph of the book or any other information are available from publicists Amaca Publishing, division of Amaca Investments, Inc. P.O. Box 4104, Burbank, CA 91503, Phone: 1-818-425-5118, Fax: 1-818-688-8174, Email: amacapublishing@aol.com
###

What is the so-called “nuclear option” that Senator Bill Frist may deploy soon in a precedent-setting attempt to break a potential filibuster? It sounds ominous, but what is it all about, really?

President Bush has the opportunity to nominate and fill numerous federal judicial positions this year. Eventually he will have the opportunity to nominate one or more Supreme Court jusices as well. However,this issue isn’t about the potential Supreme Court nominations yet, but ultimately it will be.

The Democrats in the Senate plan to use the filibuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the federal judicial nominees that the Democrats see as objectionable. A simple majority of 51 Senators is needed to confirm the nominees. However, once a filibuster has begun, 60 votes are then required to invoke cloture, ending the filibuster, and forcing a vote. There are 55 Republicans in the current Senate, enough votes to confirm President Bush’s federal judicial nominees, but not enough to break a nomination-ending filibuster without bipartisan cooperation.

The Republicans contend that requiring 60 votes to effectively confirm a nomination is unconstitutional. The Constitution is imprecise on this point. The Constitution only asks the Congress to “advise and consent” regarding judicial nominees, which implies that only a simple majority vote is needed. The Democrats contend that the filibuster is not unconstitutional and has been used often in the past by the minority party, both Republican and Democratic, and that rules governing its usage should be left intact.

Republican Senator Bill Frist has proposed the “nuclear option,” which would set a precedent and effectively change the rules. Currently, Senate Rule XXII stipulates that invoking cloture requires a supporting vote of 60%, and it further stipulates that to change the rule requires a supporting vote of 67%.

Here’s one possible scenario about how Senator Frist might trigger the “nuclear option.”

1. A controversial judicial nomination goes to the Senate floor for consideration.
2. Senate Democrats begin a filibuster to prevent a confirmation vote.
3. Senator Frist raises a Point of Order. He contends that further debate would be dilatory and that a vote must be taken within a specific period of time.
4. Vice President Cheney, the presiding officer, sustains the Point of Order.
5. A Democratic Senator appeals the ruling.
6. A Republican Senator moves to table the appeal, which would effectively eliminate the appeal.
7. The Senate votes on the motion to table the appeal. This is a procedural issue and cannot be filibustered. Only 51 votes are needed to pass the motion to table the appeal.
8. If only 50 Senators vote to table the appeal, Vice President Cheney can cast the tie-breaking vote. 51 votes would sustain the ruling, thus requiring the filibuster to end within a specified time frame.

This is considered a “nuclear option” because it circumvents Senate Rule XXII which governs cloture. It also would cause further division among Republicans and Democrats, making bipartisan cooperation in the future more difficult. The option would also be a tactic that would be used against the Republicans in the future when they are the minority party and a Democratic President nominates federal judges.

About the author:

Garry Gamber is a public school teacher. He writes articles about politics, real estate, health and nutrition, and internet dating services. He is a founding member of http://www.GoodPoliticsRadio.comand the owner of http://www.TheDatingAdvisor.com

A friend just brought it to the attention of Gary Revel today that the United States Government has indeed recognized his conclusion of a conspiracy in the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. The House of Representatives and the Senate of the United States clearly confirmed that ‘THEY SLEW THE DREAMER’ versus he slew the dreamer that the lone gunman (James Earl Ray) theory of King’s murder implied in a joint resolution. On January 15, 2001, after the civil trial in Memphis that concluded King’s assassination was the result of a conspiracy and many years after Gary’s song ‘They Slew The Dreamer’ about the conspiracy and assassination was recorded and released the House and Senate concurred to present a resolution to the Reverend Willie Woodson, of Living the Dream, Inc. Within the context of the resolution it was quite deliberately stated that in fact even though ‘they slew the dreamer’ the dream was not dead. The wording in this presentation makes it clear that the present government of the United States of America believes that officials and leaders of our government in the 1960’s, 1970’s and some in the 80’s, 90’s and possibly even some today are guilty of being involved in the conspiracy or at least the cover-up of King’s killing. It must also be recognized that the news organizations of America are culpable as well in promoting the lie of ‘he slew the dreamer’ in thousands of news articles, stories and press releases over the last thirty five years and at this point owes all Americans as well as interested people around the world a great apology for such deliberate acts of criminal conspiracy to cover-up a crime

The resolution follows:

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 755
Offered January 15, 2001
Commending “Living the Dream, Inc.” on its work to preserve and promote the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
———-
Patron– Robinson
———-
WHEREAS, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., history’s greatest visionary and orator, was a “drum major for justice, peace, and righteousness” who decided early to give his life to something eternal and absolute; and

WHEREAS, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., noted scholar, prolific writer, peacemaker, and theologian, embarked on his divine calling in 1955 when he organized the Montgomery Bus Boycott and led the citizens of Montgomery, Alabama, to protest the arrest of Rosa Parks, who refused to relinquish her seat near the front of a bus to a white man; and

WHEREAS, the Montgomery Bus Boycott was the catalyst for the Civil Rights Movement, marshaling, galvanizing, and unifying African-Americans and other justice-loving persons across the nation to change the social order and the status quo through nonviolent protests; and

WHEREAS, many persons, inspired by his message of love, faith, hope, peace, and the equality of mankind, labored with him to bring freedom, justice, and human dignity to a people oppressed by centuries of cruel bondage, rejection, and discrimination, thereby transforming and liberating all men; and

WHEREAS, Dr. King’s message and legacy stands as a beacon for the humble masses throughout the world, encouraging them to keep “their eyes on the prize for the promised land is ahead”; and

WHEREAS, six years before the signing of legislation by former Governor Charles S. Robb, on April 9, 1984, to establish the Martin Luther King, Jr. holiday in Virginia, the Richmond Committee of Black Clergy and Virginia Union University created Community Learning Week, Inc., a community-based, educational program designed to honor the memory and commemorate the accomplishments of Dr. King; and

WHEREAS, since 1978, Community Learning Week, Inc. has led the Richmond metropolitan communities in celebrating the King holiday with appropriate year-round commemorative, educational, spiritual, and service-oriented activities whereby his philosophy and principles of the Beloved Community can be practiced; and

WHEREAS, this year, “Community Learning Week, Inc.,” currently known as “Living the Dream, Inc.” marks 23 years of continuous community-owned and community-based observances of the King holiday, one of the original and the longest organized event of its kind in the nation; and

WHEREAS, the success of annual commemorative events and activities under the auspices of Living the Dream, Inc., co-sponsored by more than 125 businesses, public and private schools, higher education institutions, and religious and civic organizations, is the result of “tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals”; and

WHEREAS, Living the Dream, Inc. exemplifies the spirit of service and leadership espoused by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and represents a consensus-building force and a multifaceted, interfaith, culturally diverse union devoted to healing, improving, and enhancing the racial climate in the Richmond metropolitan area; and

WHEREAS, Justice John Marshall Harlan insightfully wrote, “the destinies of the two races in this country are indissolubly linked together, and the interests of both require that the common government of all shall not permit the seeds of race hate to be planted under the sanction of law,” and it is the profundity of this expression that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. so eloquently articulated during his lifetime and now fervently championed by Living the Dream, Inc.; and

WHEREAS, Living the Dream, Inc. urges us to remember and draw strength from the fact that though they slew the dreamer, the dream is not dead, and it is fitting that we recognize and commend this organization for continuing the great work begun by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That “Living the Dream, Inc.” be commended on its work to preserve and promote the philosophy of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.; and, be it

RESOLVED FURTHER, That the Clerk of the House of Delegates prepare a copy of this resolution for presentation to the Executive Director, the Reverend Willie Woodson, of Living the Dream, Inc., as an expression of the General Assembly’s respect and admiration for the outstanding contributions of Living the Dream, Inc. in promoting greater understanding and appreciation of the brotherhood of mankind.

About the Author

Gary Revel: Born in Florala Alabama June 29, 1949. Raised in Lower Alabama and Florida. Formed rock band at 15, played guitar and sang lead. Graduated high school from Holmes County High School in Bonifay Florida. At 18 he joins the United States Navy and from there it’s the music business in Hollywood California. An involvement with Naval Intelligence prepares him for work on the investigation of the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

In last week’s column, I argued the merits (or rather the lack thereof) of extending decency regulations to cable and satellite TV. This week, I’ll point out just how much of a quagmire this would actually be and how difficult it would be to implement, regardless of the merits.

Regulating cable and satellite TV would not be as clear-cut as it might seem on the surface. Remember, we are talking about the regulation of indecency which, unlike obscenity, is protected by the First Amendment. The complexities of such an undertaking are quite formidable, to say the least. There are several key issues that would have to be dealt with and overcome. Like they say, the devil is in the details.

For one thing, Congress would need to determine the scope of what is to be regulated. Would it be cable and satellite TV only or all forms of pay-TV?

If Congress sets out to regulate all forms of pay-TV, the term - “pay-TV” - would have to be legally defined. Besides satellite and cable, would it also include the new IPTV technology in which TV channels, programs, and movies are delivered to TV set-top boxes from the internet? Would internet video viewed on a computer also be included? Or would everything originating from the internet be automatically exempt?

Would wireless pay TV services also be included?

Would videos, whether rented or purchased, also be defined as a form of pay-TV? One could make a case for them being included because videos, both VHS and DVD, are ultimately played on a TV.

What about video delivered by cell phone? Couldn’t that also be considered a form of pay-TV?

Now, if Congress decides that the new regulations will only apply to cable and satellite TV, there are still problems. Would all channels on every cable and satellite TV system be regulated or would the regulations just apply to the so-called “basic” channels. Would the term, “all channels”, include pay-per-view and video-on-demand (VOD) programs and movies? If so, how would the safe-harbor hours be enforced with VOD, since the subscriber determines when the programs and movies play?

If only the basics are to be included, some definition would be have to be devised to determine the difference between a basic and a premium channel. Would any channel that could be purchased as part of a package of channels be defined as a basic channel? If so, then most channels we currently think of as premiums would be included because they can be packaged together with similar channels. For example, HBO is sometimes packaged with channels like Cinemax, Showtime, Starz, or even other multiplexes of HBO.

Or would basics be limited those channels available in the first tier or two? Since this packaging varies from one cable and satellite system to the next, how would anyone know which channels are the real basics? Would premiums be limited to channels that could be subscribed to individually at an additional price? If that’s the case, would a multiplex channel like HBO Signature will treated like a basic, since it cannot be subscribed to individually? Also, the channels that one can subscribe to individually vary slightly from one cable and satellite system to the next, so how would anyone know which channels are the real premiums? When things like that differ from one cable and satellite system to another, would the rules be based on how the majority of the systems operate? Or would some other method be used to resolve this matter?

Perhaps the presence or absence of commercials could be used to separate the basics from the premiums. Under that system, all channels that are advertiser-supported would be considered basics and those that are not would be considered premiums. However, there are potential problems with this methodology as well. Congress would have to come up with a definition for advertiser-supported. Would it be based on the amount of advertising a channel carries? If so, how much advertising would it have to carry to be legally considered advertiser-supported? Or perhaps it would be based on the amount of revenue a channel derives from advertising. If so, what would that threshold be?

Even the term, “advertising”, would have to be legally defined. Would product placement found in movies and TV shows be included in the advertising equation? What about promos run for shows on related channels? Would those count as ads?

Even when all of that is sorted out, this methodology still leaves us with the problem presented by channels like Turner Classic Movies, Fox Movie Channel, and the Independent Film Channel, which don’t carry commercials but are included in many basic packages.

Now, assuming that all of the issues surrounding the scope of the new regulations could be worked out, the penalty issues would then have to be resolved. Who would pay the fines? Channel owners? Cable and satellite operators? Performers? All of them?

If internet audio and video are included in the scope of the regulations, would internet service providers and/or IPTV operators also have to pay?

If cable and satellite operators have to pay, couldn’t large fines potentially limit some smaller cable companies’ ability to expand and implement new technology like high-definition channels?

Then there’s the issue of license revocation. Cable and satellite channels don’t have licenses like broadcast channels. How could a habitual offender’s license be revoked if it doesn’t have license to begin with? Or would it just be put out of business? But wouldn’t that limit the channel choices available to cable and satellite customers?

Could cable and satellite operators be put out of business? Wouldn’t that leave people in some areas with no cable franchise? Wouldn’t it squash competition for cable service in areas that currently have it? Would the FCC actually shut down Directv and/or Dish Network and render thousands of backyard dishes worthless?

As you can see, there is a mountain of complicated questions that would have to be answered before the decency regulation of pay-TV could become a reality. Obviously, there would be lots of i’s to dot and t’s to cross. As this legislation is being considered, lawyers throughout the Capital area are already licking their chops!

About the Author

Terry Mitchell is a software engineer, freelance writer, and trivia buff from Hopewell, VA. He also serves as a political columnist for American Daily and operates his own website - http://www.commenterry.com - on which he posts commentaries on various subjects such as politics, technology, religion, health and well-being, personal finance, and sports. His commentaries offer a unique point of view that is not often found in mainstream media.

The multiple tithes and offerings of ancient Israel were collected by the priests and distributed as social welfare by the Levites, who were the civil administrators of their times. Those who handled the funds were known to the people as righteous men, concerned with matters of social justice. They could be and were trusted by those who gave and those who received. In modern societies civil government has replaced the Levitical priesthood and can not be trusted by givers or receivers. The reason is the ease with which laws are changed - this year the law is one thing; next year, another. Proud people tell us we are a nation of law and not of men. And whose laws do we obey but the laws of rich and foolish men - men who study law and know no justice. Men who make laws for many to benefit few.

In ancient days, the basic annual tax was ten percent of increase, due at the beginning of the harvest. Increase was essentially net profit. If a citizen spent a thousand dollars in materials to earn ten thousand, he knew God expected him to offer up ten percent of nine thousand dollars. It was a voluntary tax because scripture said to withhold it from the poor was to rob God and robbing God would be considered grand theft and cause for curses. There was no civil penalty or judgment against one who withheld the tithe because his future depended upon divine grace, Karma. He would be rewarded according to his works or lack thereof.

Today civil government pretends they can require whatever they wish, from whoever they wish, to create whatever they wish. In their thinking they are gods and they are righteous gods. Every day, more and more of those they rule over are made increasingly aware that leadership does quite the opposite of their claims. Eyes closed by many years of repetitive indoctrination, slowly open in the weariness of obedient, unquestioning compliance and service.

In ancient days, there were no standing armies providing nothing but a false sense of security at great public expense, to the detriment of rich and poor alike. Trained militias allowed voluntary service a man could render a few hours of each month until more was required to secure the social order. No great space explorations to be financed. No debt burdens on which interest must be paid. No professional lawmakers thinking themselves worthy of great salaries in exchange for their exclusive services to the highest bidders. There were not great infrastructures to create, repair and maintain. Civil administration was simple, voluntary and cheap, like charities.

Now it does not matter what is just or what is practical. Public servants have become masters with the consent of the masters they are supposedly serving and the consent of the money masters they are truly serving. Roles are reversed and the new servants make few demands upon the new masters. Confusion becomes the only certainty in such an arrangement.

In ancient days, the tithe was collected to ease the burdens of the poor. Today, we have a far more global consciousness and tithes are collected to be disbursed among the poor who are not exactly among us, yet often in much greater need, such that a dollar has a much greater value to them, than those we used to consider “our own” - our domestic poor.

Due to the unmerited blessings of great wealth, the rich nations have received over the past two centuries, we can see that a tithe of twenty, thirty percent or more is appropriate if we are to show gratitude, continue our wasteful practices and also support the third of us in abject poverty.

A Christian national government would give no less than ten percent of its annual revenues and it would be the very first ten percent collected - to relieve the great need of people in other nations. Had this been the case in “Christian” America over the past two hundred years, the poor of the world would not be driven to come to America to have a better life. But this tithe has been rejected in America. The present budget for foreign aid comes in at seven tenths of one percent. A so called Christian nation officially robs God by ninety three percent per year. We are a nation of “Christian” thieves. We lend on usury and we borrow on usury. Christian America is deathly ill. Christian America is terminally ill. And so what!

All that matters to America as a nation is appearance. Let us present a pretty picture to the world that hides the underlying rot. Fooling the world is so much easier than loving it and caring for or about it. Let convenience reign. It is time for someone else to do the hard work. We will cheer them on.

The sentiment expressed on U.S. currency; “In God we trust” is only that - sentiment. For the measure of trust is the national tithe. We can give any amount because we know God will not only replace what we give but will multiply it both for giver and receiver. The niggardly people in authority are certain this is not so. They trust in nothing but their own “sacred” law and the opposition of nature to their good intentions. The sickness of the nation makes a growth industry of medicine. An industry with minimal trust in God.

I have heard my whole life how generous Americans are and I would be surprised if personal giving collectively surpasses seven tenths of one percent and that would be due to the great philanthropy of perhaps seven tenths of one percent of our number. As a society, we do not trust in God, cannot trust the men of God and only half trust the men of science. As a result we neither trust our intuitions nor our neighbors. We are free. We are free from trust, filled with doubt - the wellspring of fear, which is the wellspring of violence, foreign and domestic. We have become the prisoners of freedom and most of us would not have it any other way. To do so would be un-American. Get all we can while the getting is good. Hire an Army to help us keep it and get us more. It’s the American thing to do.

About the Author

Freelance writer published in newspapers and many websites.
justanotherview.com