The Melchizedek Chronicles --- Do You, as Sons and Daughters of God the Creator, violate the Divine Law of God? --- No, No, No, No not me!

Today, Christmas Day, God gave us his Son whose life would be sacrificed for our salvation.  Hopefully we do not lose sight of such a significant commitment to our survival and salvation.  Yet, there seems to be an unsettling hypocrisy when you consider that we, like Jesus, are also the sons and daughter of God.   

If God is our Creator, provider, progenitor and protector, and we are God’s creations, then why do we foolishly keep doing things to abrogate, denigrate, deprecate, expostulate, abominate, emasculate, and violate the Divine Law of God?

I mean our Declaration of Independence, founding document, says we are “under God.”  Then it is reinforced by stamping “In God We Trust” on our currency.  As if that is not clear, we stated, “One nation, under God, Indivisible, with liberty and justice for all” in our Pledge of Allegiance.

Could there be any doubt as to the intent of our Founding Fathers?  We were guaranteed “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” as long as it is consistent with our human laws, and as long as they are consistent with God’s Divine Law.

No group of people, creations of the Creator, whether identified by religious, cultural, race, gender, or wealth, can claim to speak for God, but the Creator is inclusive of all of them.

One reckons if we were really living by God’s law, we would intuitively know it, no matter how much people tried to manipulate it.  Of course, there will always be those who try to manipulate it for their own selfish reasons.

Ironically, God’s Law also says we are not the judge and jury for the violators of God’s Law.  That is God’s role.  We should accommodate people, tolerate people, communicate with people, honor their right to think like they do, and if any of that gets too difficult for you to tolerate, stay away from those people.

So, if you are one of the many of political fanatics of the radical right or more radical left, and you are scouring the internet and social media every day to find anyone who dares to oppose you and your opinions, or those opinions you were told to say because you lost the art of forming your own words and opinions, then you are a stalker in search of your next victim.

There is nothing greater in the life of a political stalker than to crush someone who disagrees.  So consumed are they with their armchair philosophy and beloved knack for intellectual constipation that nothing on earth matters more.  What a shame.

People blinded by rage and hate are morally suicidal, egotistically consumed, spiritually bankrupt and pretty miserable to hang around.  Thank goodness most radical political assaults occur in cyberspace so only your pride, ego and mind are beaten up leaving your body largely intact.

However, the very fact you are a victim means you were one of the radical lost souls looking for someone to tongue-lash in the first place.  You probably never expected to encounter the bionic tongue of blasphemy on line using vicious words and illogical arguments to crush you.

Here’s a news flash – you both are on the wrong side of Divine Law, there will be no winners at this game.  Your addiction to the virtual world where you can escape from all reality and even recreate yourself with false names and information is enough to cause you serious problems, long after you depart this life.

When you use your virtual platform to attack others, that is double-jeopardy.  You are addicted to the virtual world, and addicted to hate.  Now the only way you could possibly be willing to give up God for social media and risk your happiness for all of eternity by  attacking people (or simply hating them), is to embrace the dark side.

Risking eternity for the self-serving task of humiliating someone who does not agree with you seems like a rather reckless undertaking.

Mind you, when you pursue such a path, not only do you drag yourself into the abyss but you are also touching everyone around you with the kiss of spiritual death by dumping your negativity on them.

No matter how you cut it, you are far removed from the very enlightenment you claim to pursue.  A hypocrite is too kind a label, because they spend most of their time just hurting themselves. You, on the other hand, as a self-declared pious preacher of good, use your forum to do the work of the dark side.

No one should be opposed to people having different opinions.  However, no differing opinions should be accentuated with an underlying message of hate.  Disagreeing is not a license to destroy, and destroying is quite a deviation from Divine Law.

There is plenty of room in Dante’s nine circles of Hell to accommodate all those seeking asylum in the asylum of Hell if that is your intent.  In fact, the sooner you get there the better for the rest of us.  But are you really in control of yourself and speaking for yourself when you spout hate and attack differing views?

Or are you simply another weak victim of the dark side hiding your fears behind the bravado of your mouth as you sink deeper and deeper into the void from which there can be no salvation and no return, but total obliteration as if you never even existed in the first place.

It is never to late to ask Jesus or God for help, but you cannot continue to drift down without passing the point of no return and condemning yourself to nothingness.

In summary, when you feel the need to shoot off your mouth, pen or post, be careful what message you transmit and the intent you attach to it.  Your words and actions will seal your fate for all time.

Where do I find the Truth?

Fact check

The Fact checkers

To find the

Truth!!!

Election wrap up if you are interested in the Truth!

The Truth, nothing that happened in the elections yesterday will have any impact on the 2020 presidential election.  There are off-year elections when congress runs for office and the president does not (2018) and there are off-off or way-off year elections like yesterday when a handful of states have mostly obscure offices up for grabs, except for the governor races in Virginia, Kentucky and Mississippi.

In Mississippi the Republican won an open race, meaning no incumbent was running.

Virginia Returns to Democrat controlled state

When one party controls the three vital centers of state political power—the office of the governor, the state House, and the state Senate — it is considered a Democrat or Republican state.  Such control makes it easier for the dominant party to pursue its agenda, and more difficult for opposition parties to challenge it.

Virginia currently operates under divided government.

In Virginia, Republicans held control of state government from 2000 to 2001 and again from 2012 to 2013. Democrats held control from 1992 to 1993. In all other years, control of state government was divided.

One of the Virginia Democrats elected yesterday as supervisor for the Algonkian District in Loudoun County, Virginia became famous because she flipped off the President's motorcade in a great showing of respect for the presidency.

GOP loses Kentucky Governor but reasserts statewide dominance

One of the most unpopular governors in the nation lost re-election in Kentucky and not even President Trump could save him, although the actual vote is still too close to call and subject to a possible recount.

While Democrats around the country are celebrating Andy Beshear’s narrow win Tuesday in the high-profile gubernatorial race in Kentucky, some analysts are playing down what his victory over Republican incumbent Matt Bevin could mean for the 2020 election.

There were six statewide elections in Kentucky and while the governor’s race is still too close to call, the other five races were easily won by Republicans backed by Mitch McConnell and President Trump.

Cook Political Report analyst Dave Wasserman offered what he described as a “reality check.” Wasserman tweeted that a Democratic victory by less than a percentage point against “an unpopular GOP governor” is not a sign that Kentucky will be “competitive at the federal level in 2020.” In other words, don’t bet on Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell losing to Democratic challenger Amy McGrath, or on President Donald Trump struggling in the state, which he carried by a 30-point margin in 2016.

Other analysts echoed Wasserman’s view on the election results in Kentucky, where Bevin so far hadn’t conceded. The Republican incumbent reportedly lost by less than 5,000 votes, as 1.4 million Kentuckians voted and turnout rose to 41% from 31% four years ago.

Here is the most stunning outcome of the election.

In Tucson Arizona, a very liberal and Democrat controlled town where over one third of the population is Latino, the liberal effort to change Tucso into a Sanctuary City was easily defeated to the astonishment of the progressive and left-leaning backers sho poured out-of-state money into the campaign.

Liberal Tucson, Arizona rejects plan to be sanctuary city

 Associated Press 7 hours ago

FILE - In this Monday, June 25, 2012, file photo, a small crowd protests at the Arizona State Building in Tucson, Ariz., during a rally after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Arizona SB1070. On Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2019, residents voted not to designate Tucson a “sanctuary city” with further restrictions on how and when police officers can enforce immigration laws. The initiative explicitly aimed to neuter the 2010 Arizona immigration law known as SB1070, which drew mass protests and a boycott of the state. Courts threw out much of the law but upheld the requirement for officers to check immigration papers when they suspect someone is in the country illegally. (David Sanders/Arizona Daily Star via AP, File)

TUCSON, Ariz. (AP) — After Arizona passed a law that required local police to check the immigration status of people suspected to be in the country illegally, the state's second-largest city wanted to send a message.

The Democrats who control Tucson designated their town an "immigrant welcoming city" in 2012, and the police department adopted rules limiting when officers can ask about the immigration status of people they encounter.

But on Tuesday, given the chance to push the envelope further, the heavily Democratic city voted overwhelmingly not to become an official "sanctuary city" with more restrictions on how and when police officers can enforce immigration laws.

The incongruous result followed a contentious disagreement that divided progressives between those eager to stand up for immigrants and against President Donald Trump, and those who said the initiative would bring nothing more than unintended consequences.

"The city of Tucson, in all respects except being labeled as such, operates as a sanctuary city," Mayor Jonathan Rothschild said in an interview before the vote.

The sanctuary initiative, he argued, would have tied the hands of police even on matters unrelated to immigration while inviting expensive retaliation from the Trump administration and Republicans in the state Legislature.

The Trump administration has fought sanctuary cities and tried to restrict their access to federal grants. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in June that the Trump administration could consider cities' willingness to cooperate in immigration enforcement when doling out law enforcement money.

Tucson has a deep history welcoming immigrants. It's widely credited as the birthplace of the Sanctuary Movement in the 1980s, an effort by churches to help refugees from Central America and shield them form deportation.

The ballot measure was pushed by activists who wanted to give a voice to Tucson's Latino community. They said it would have sent the message that immigrants are safe and protected in Tucson at a time when many are fearful of Trump's immigration policies.

"We have been failed by the city government here," Zaira Livier, executive director of the People's Defense Initiative, which organized the initiative, told supporters following the vote, according to KOLD-TV.

Tucson politicians say they stand with immigrants, but when the going gets tough, they back down, she said.

"We are here to test you and to tell you that the bare minimum is no longer good enough and we expect better," Livier said.

The initiative explicitly aimed to neuter a 2010 Arizona immigration law known as SB1070, which drew mass protests and a boycott of the state. Courts threw out much of the law but upheld the requirement for officers to check immigration papers when they suspect someone is in the country illegally.

A handful of Republican state lawmakers have said they would pursue legislation to punish Tucson. Prior legislation approved by the GOP Legislature to tie the hands of liberal cities, including Tucson, allows the state to cut off funding for cities that pass laws conflicting with Arizona laws.

Meanwhile, Tucson voters elected their first Latina mayor. Regina Romero will be the first woman to lead Arizona's second-largest city after Phoenix, with a population of about 546,000 people.

Tucson's last Hispanic mayor was Estevan Ochoa, who was elected in 1875 — nearly four decades before Arizona became a state and just 21 years after the United States bought Southern Arizona, including Tucson, from Mexico in the Gadsden Purchase.

Romero, who is on the city council, opposed the sanctuary city initiative, saying it's unnecessary given Tucson's welcoming attitude and policies toward immigrants.

"I am so proud and so humbled for tonight," she said in a victory speech.

Thanking her family, she added, "No single person can make history on their own."

What Happened to the News Media in America? Part 2 – The Golden Age of News – Destroyers of the Truth

Finally, I get to Part 2, the “Destroyers of the Truth.”  Turn your clock back to the 1970’s, the twilight of the Golden Age of news.  Events starting in the early 1960’s like the Cold War between the USA and Soviet Union, the Cuban missile crisis, the Kennedy assassination, Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy assassinations, then Watergate shook the news business to the bone.

Instead of a fifteen-minute national news broadcast, they expanded to 30 minutes with additional “news” shows like 20/20 or Sixty minutes among others added to the line-up.  This and a demand for real time coverage of events like the Kennedy assassination in 1963, where network coverage pre-empted regular programming, changed the face of media forever.

Suddenly national and local news became a big deal which led to an explosion of media innovations including the live broadcast of events, field reporting, live inter-active reporting between news anchors and field reporters, and a digital revolution in the collection, processing and distribution of news.

The second major shift taking place simultaneously was the wild and wacky decade of the 1960’s, as the post-World War II baby boomers became the dominant force.  Suddenly the youth of our nation faced crisis after crisis as they filled secondary and college educational institutions with their thirst for a new world.

The Baby Boomers, born in the shadow and deadly radioactive fallout of the only two atomic explosions ever used in war, which were dropped on Japan and ended World War II.  It would take a book to describe the impact the 1960’s had on this new generation and so far, none have done it justice.

“Within the span of a single decade the greatest revolution in world history took place…”

Within the span of a single decade the greatest revolution in world history took place as the Boomers faced civil rights bloodshed, demands for academic freedom, the threat of a Cold War, the added threat of biologic or chemical warfare, death in Viet Nam, death on college campus’s protesting the war, political assassinations, bloody peace protests, and so much more.

The entertainment industry also reached their Golden Age as Broadway, movies, and television all exploded before they would settle into bitter rivals in the battle for the hearts, souls and pocketbooks of the people.  How appropriate the end of the decade would result in Woodstock, a rock festival and anti-war protest drawing over 400,000 concert-goers to a muddy field in the other New York, meaning upstate from NYC.

“I call it the Second American Revolution.”

This amazing decade is what I call the Second American Revolution.  What emerged at the end of the decade showed little, if any, resemblance to what began the decade.  There was not an institution, idea, principle, or political policy that was not tested, tried and trampled over.

At this point I will offer you multiple choices of what caused such a venerable and respected institution like the news media to pretty much self-destruct in the ensuing decades until today.  Decide for yourself which were most responsible as the “Destroyers of the Truth” here in the American. News media.

Causes of the Collapse of the News Media

Cable News? Competition

Internet Technology

Changes in news media valuation from viewers to profits

Profit-driven companies bought news interests as investment

Astonishing increase in political spending for media

Courts rejecting campaign finance laws

Failure of government to regulate Internet

Proliferation of media advertising revenue

Blurring of the distinction between news and editorials

Apathy of a disenfranchised population

Reporters becoming advocates of causes and politics

A general public seemingly disinterested in the truth

Conflicts of interest between media and politics

No enforcement of News Media Code of Ethics

Lack of media accountability for sources and stories

Government abuse of classifying information

To sum it all up, greed, a lust for power, and exorbitant advertising revenue from politics and the private sector fueled the demise of the news media.  Once again, the pendulum has reversed itself and the credibility and believability of the news media by the public has gone off the cliff.

What was once intense competition between news groups has morphed into an insidious and ruthless effort to not only dismember and destroy those of opposing views, but to trample on the free rights of everyone but yourself.  Respect for our Constitutional rights to individual freedom, opportunity and free speech are spit upon by ego-centered, celebrity-driven news media.

“A new, more powerful special interest has cast a long dark shadow over our world.”

A new, more powerful special interest has cast a long dark shadow over our world, the digital answer to control.  Dominated by greed and the lust for power and fueled by an explosion of ad revenues from even more special interests, the news media of today, have no code of ethics.

When it comes to the Internet news providers and news aggregators, stories being pursued are no longer of broad interest but serve their own agenda.  Fake news is highly successful because, quite frankly, the reader is lost in the abyss of power and control.  People have willingly become pawns, because they have no backbone for the truth.

The news media embraces polarization, character assassination, and political agendas which are a violation of the Journalism Code of Ethics.  They are caught up in a tangle of special interests whose interest may be the enslavement of the general public to technology.  We are data-driven fools whose every thought, action, purchase, interest, and personal health and wealth are already under the microscope of Big Brother.

The Internet changed the dynamics.  The loss of integrity, absence of fairness, and failure of news groups to take responsibility for their stories or actions has undermined any hope for credibility in the news media.

“Social media news organizations and so-called news aggregators for the Internet services have become the new overlords of the news media…”

Social media news organizations and so-called news aggregators for the Internet services have become the new overlords of the news media, and the new censors for determining news media content.

I suspect somewhere along the line the institutions of higher learning who once defended the freedom and fairness of the news media decided corporate underwriting of the academic endowment funds was more important than telling the truth.  Or, perhaps they were just taking care of their university graduates in the private, “capitalism” sector.

In summary – the truth has been checkmated, the game is over.

What Happened to the News Media in America? Part 1 – The Golden Age of News – Defenders of Truth

There was a time between the Civil War and the dawn of the twentieth century when the American news media became so corrupted and so viciously biased that character assassination, fake news, lies, scandalous rumors, bias, racism, and invasions of privacy were the new norm.

In time the few honest news organizations and reporters decided such “Yellow” journalism tactics had to end in order to protect the integrity of the entire news industry that claimed Constitutional protection under the Bill of Rights.

For those of you ignorant of history and blinded by political correctness, the term “Yellow” at the time was used to denote gutless, unethical, immoral and outright lies promulgated by certain publishers and reporters.

The general public was sick of the nonsense and the vast majority no longer believed the news media or press.  To the public, the media had lost all signs of objectivity, were beholden to their advertisers, and intent on destroying opposing views or competition.

The newspaper business started in the 1800’s with papers being affiliated with political parties.  In time the editorial was introduced to allow papers to post articles showing the other party opinion on issues, a technique adopted more to expand the business than to result in fair coverage.  Horace Greeley, founder of the New York Tribune in 1841, is credited with inventing the idea of segregating news reports from opinion writing, by giving opinion its own page.

No national media organizations existed at the time but eventually a group that today is known as the Society of Professional Journalists, founded in 1909, first adopted a Code of Ethics in 1926 covering the print media only.

Although the Code was not enforceable except by voluntary means and had no basis under the law, it was still embraced by all major members of the news media, including radio and television networks and affiliates after the 1973 rewrite.

Three major technological advances would eventually revolutionize the news media industry with the commercialization of the radio in the 1920’s, telephone in the 1930’s, (just 32% of American households had a phone by 1937), and television in the 1950’s (in 1950 just 10% of homes had black and white television, by 1964 a staggering 94% of all homes had television).

Reporting, as a result of the Code of Ethics, took a sharp turn to become popular with the general public.  This tremendous growth in public exposure by television heralded in the Golden Age of reporting, the 1960’s and ‘70’s.

Suddenly television news anchors were among the most trusted people in America, like Edward R. Murrow, Walter Cronkite, Chet Huntley and David Brinkley who drew millions of faithful followers for their nightly news broadcasts.

Announcing death of JFK

Cronkite’s integrity was so beyond reproach he reached 57 million viewers for the Apollo landing on the Moon in 1969.  At the time there were 125 million viewers in a population of 202 million Americans meaning nearly 50% of all viewers were tuned to the CBS News with Cronkite.  In terms of average network followers, the 1969 average was about 31 million, with Cronkite pulling 11 million versus 9 million in each of the other two networks.

The population has tripled since the 1969 Moon landing but what happened to network news watchers?  As noted, 125 million people watched the Moon landing on all three networks, with Cronkite pulling 57 million.  Today, with three times as many people, we still only have about 119.6 million network viewers.

From the 31 million average network news viewers in 1969, it rose to 48 million viewers in 1985, then began a rapid descent.  By 1998 there were 30.4 million network news watchers, but today the number has dropped to about 21 million total watchers.

As for the popularity of anchors, Walter Cronkite was consistently voted the most trusted anchor on television and in 1972, he was named the most trusted man in America in all walks of life.  Today the most trusted network news anchors are only known by 21% of the TV audience.

Watch for Part 2 – The Golden Age of News – Destroyers of the Truth.