Democracy Challenged

by Hal Lindsey

 

On August 18th, the FBI’s Cyber Division issued an “eyes only” alert to state election officials.  Various news organizations have now let the cat out of the bag, so I’m not divulging secrets here. The FBI told of intrusions into two different state election websites.  In one, computer thieves stole actual voter registration information.

 

Yahoo News Chief Investigative Correspondent, Michael Isikoff, wrote that the flash alert “comes amid heightened concerns among U.S. intelligence officials about the possibility of cyberintrusions, potentially by Russian state-sponsored hackers, aimed at disrupting the November elections.”

 

Imagine Russian hackers deciding American elections.  Computerized voting terminals and servers can be hacked.  This undermines the very idea of democracy.  It strikes locally, nationally, and internationally.

 

Democracy in 2016 is under assault from every quarter.  Bible prophecy foretells a future with autocratic rulers and small ruling councils.  Critics point out that in the years since the American Revolution, representative government has taken hold all over the world.  There are more democracies now than ever.

 

But they’re missing the big picture.  Democracy is beginning to unravel.  There are dozens of threats to representative government around the world.  Perhaps the biggest is that the world’s elites have, for the most part, lost confidence in the voting public.  The “great unwashed” voted Britain out of the European Union, and that may have been the last straw for the elites.

 

European Commission president Jean-Claude Juncker represented the thinking of world elites recently, when he said, “Borders are the worst invention ever made by politicians.”  Look where that logic takes you.  If borders are a bad idea, then individual nations must also be a bad idea.  If individual nations are a bad idea, then the only thing left is global government.

 

In another sign that the elites no longer trust the masses, high-end media corporations, run by global elites, have almost completely abandoned old-fashioned fair and accurate journalism.  They believe commoners need to be told what to think.  And that seems fine with a new generation of reporters trained at elite schools to follow the corporate line.

 

No matter who you plan to vote for in this year’s presidential election, you have to be concerned over the death of journalistic standards.  I’m not talking about columnists, editorialists, or those giving commentaries on television. Opinion is fine, but it shouldn't be labeled news.

 

Journalism is based on a tradition of trying to be balanced and fair in the presentation of facts.  Everyone has a worldview, and it will color the way they say things.  But journalists traditionally strove for accuracy and fairness — objectivity.  They didn’t take sides.  As much as possible, they simply reported the facts of the story.

 

The Reuters’ “Handbook of Journalism” says, “Accuracy and fairness are the hallmarks of Thomson Reuters journalism.”  Most journalistic organizations have a similar credo. It may be in a dusty book on a back shelf, somewhere behind the no-longer-in-use copy machine.  But they have it somewhere.  They just don’t pay attention to it any more.

 

The new perspective has been well-expressed by the Univision anchorman, Jorge Ramos.  The New York Times says he “is often called the Walter Cronkite of Latino America.”  Ramos is fiercely, even viciously anti-Trump.  He says, “Trump has forced journalists to revisit rules of objectivity and fairness.”

 

Without objectivity and fairness, what does a reporter have?  If Donald Trump is bad, give fair and objective news about him, and let voters decide for themselves.  But Mr. Ramos clearly wants reporters to stop being fair; stop being objective.  Slanting the news equals lying.  They lie to their viewers because that’s the best way to manipulate voters.

 

As the leading voice on one of the most watched networks in the United States, Ramos is enormously powerful.  Give him credit for honesty at least.  Other members of the mainstream media hold the same beliefs, but don’t say it.  New York Times Media Columnist Jim Rutenberg wrote, “It’s not unusual to see news stories describe [Trump] as ‘erratic’ without attribution to an opponent.”  Then Rutenberg excused the reporters’ lack of objectivity because Trump is… well, Trump.

 

Journalists are simply reflecting their elite boss’s attitude of disdain for voters, and, therefore, for democracy itself.

 

What if other American professionals should sink to the levels of modern journalism?  What if others decide that a Trump or Clinton presidency is so dangerous they should stop them with every means available?  It would be the end of government that is “of, for, and by the people.”

 

In a conference call with state election officials a few days before the FBI alert, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson warned of cybersecurity concerns, and offered his department’s help in securing local voting systems.  That’s good . . .  except, do you fully trust Homeland Security?  What if that department’s computer engineers are as willing to trash professionalism and integrity as Jorge Ramos - the new CNN, or the New York Times?  

 

Local election officials certainly need federal help.  Few communities can afford the kind of security needed to defend against modern computer hackers.  And we can’t allow the Russian government, or American kids in basements, to alter U.S. election results.  Representative government only works when there is a broad societal consensus on the supremacy of integrity.  So another clear path to one world government and the Anti-christ is prominent on the horizon.