The Crisis of Democracy

[DavidJJohnso]

The Trilateral Commission

"The Trilateral Commission is international…[and]…is intended to be the vehicle for multinational consolidation of the commercial and banking interests by seizing control of the political government of the United States. The Trilateral Commission represents a skillful, coordinated effort to seize control and consolidate the four centers of power—political, monetary, intellectual, and ecclesiastical.”—

Barry Goldwater (1909–1998) US Senator (R-Arizona)


in his book With No Apologies.

The Trilateral Commission, was founded in 1973. Jimmy Carter appointed 25 members of the Commission to high posts in his administration, including his national security adviser, Secretary of State, Ambassador to the United Nations, Secretary of Defense, and chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. He also selected his Vice-President, Walter Mondale from the commission. The Trilateral Commission represents the international business roundtable, and by 1977, they had begun to take control of the government of the United States of America.

The Crisis of Democracy

"The vulnerability of democratic government in the United States [comes from] a highly educated, mobilized, and participant society."

The Crisis Of Democracy:


Report On The Governability Of Democracies


To The Trilateral Commission


(New York University press, 1975)

Solutions To The Crisis


The trilateralists will stop at nothing to avoid being confronted by a "highly educated" society which explains why our public school system is failing. Everything began going downhill since JFK was assassinated in 1964.
• Between 1960 and 1995, average per-pupil spending in U.S. public schools rose 212% in inflation-adjusted dollars.
• Between 1960 and 1995, the student/teacher ratio has dropped by 35% -- from approximately 26 students for every one U.S. public school teacher to only 17.
• Between 1960 and 1995, the average salary of U.S. public school teachers jumped 45% in inflation-adjusted dollars.

What do we get as a result of all our investment in our children? The following statistics provide the answers
• American 12th graders rank 19th out of 21 industrialized countries in mathematics achievement and 16th out of 21 nations in science.
• In fourth grade, 77% of children in urban high-poverty schools are reading "below basic" levels on the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests.
• Since 1983, over 10 million public school students have reached the 12th grade level without learning to read at the basic level.
• Since 1983, more than 20 million students have reached the 12th grade unable to do basic math.
• Since 1983, more than 25 million students have reached the 12th grade not knowing the essentials of U.S. history.
• In 1995, nearly 30% of first-time college freshmen enrolled in at least one remedial course to compensate for a sub-standard high school education.

They have sacrificed our children's future, and therefore our future, by maintaining a public school system that is void of any new ideas - a system that continues to introduce teenagers that can't read or write into our society. More and more of them will turn toward life of crime. The failing public school system is producing individuals that possess no morals, values, or ethics. As a result, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, the family unit is disintegrating, and our children suffer not just from being uneducated, they suffer because they are being raised in dysfunctional families. The Trilateral Commission has created a vicious syndrome. It feeds on itself, and gets worse every day.

[WiseOne]

Nice post! Very interesting statistics. I DO think that America IS on it's way down and is falling now. IF Hillary is elected, I think it really would be the last nail. She is NOT the problem really, she is a symptom of the problem in general and if she is elected it will prove that America's fight with "cancer" is lost. She is a cancer waiting to ravage this society to the end.

If Hillary gets elected, ALL the world should know this "Roman Empire" is at an end. The fact that she has gotten this far, elected in New York (the hillbilly from Arkansas), constitutes a clear and present danger to the world at large. I am worried about our country and can feel my stomach turn at the thought of this woman becoming President. Sigh.

[nohil-billy]

What depresses me is that this mindset is all encompassing. I was an avid backer of George Bush until this week. Now I think they can all go to hell. Trent lot thinks that talk radio needs to be dealt with? Where would he have been had talk radio not backed him several years ago. We are being sold out by our leadership. These power hungry SOB's are using us as pawns for their own personal gain.

They have a lot of nerve calling us bigots on the immigration issue. It's not about bigotry, it's about a lack of trust in our leadership to follow through on their hollow promises. These people create the laws and then break them by not enforcing them, and then they ask us to trust them while they screw us again?

I know this is a terrible thing to say, but I regret that flight 77 couldn't find it's intended target. We would have been better off starting all over.

[WiseOne]

I know this is a terrible thing to say, but I regret that flight 77 couldn't find it's intended target. We would have been better off starting all over.

I know, it is hard to say, but sadly true. I am deeply depressed anymore about our whole system. Maybe it is time for a MAJOR change? IDK. Well, I voted for George W. Bush twice and I almost hate him anymore with his illegal amnesty stance and all...I, TOO, am sick of them ALL. Trent Lott can piss off as well because I will DIE before we live in a censored (talk radio free) country. That's why I am so adamant that Hillary Clinton should NEVER become President or we are REALLY screwed then!

I will NEVER stand by and watch my freedoms taken away, talk radio censored, us censored, and the like. That is why I started this site and Discuss World News site to talk about these issues. Even if I sit here and talk about it all to myself, at least I tried to do what my little peon butt can do, LOL. (Plus, I feel better getting out my thoughts and ranting at times)

[lenahan]

America is NOT a Democracy! We are a Republic. We elect representatives to protect our interests in the legislature, then they vote for the chief executive. If we were a democracy, we would long have been destroyed. If we allow for democracy, mob rule would elect people based on stupid promises that would have lead to our destruction. People who talk of getting rid of the electoral college are ignorant. Also, it is Trent Lott. And the fairness doctrine would simply stifle free speech and force people to listen to crap in the name of fairness. If we force you to listen to people, we are censoring others. It's all a smokescreen to force people to listen to Air America. Nobody wants to listen to it, so the libs want to force us to listen to it.

[nohil-billy]

"If we allow for democracy, mob rule would elect people based on stupid promises that would have lead to our destruction."

Think about that statement and then think about the goals and the tactics of the Democratic party.

Then read it again and think about what mob rule did to the "Immigration Bill."

[DavidYeah]

And the fairness doctrine would simply stifle free speech and force people to listen to crap in the name of fairness. If we force you to listen to people, we are censoring others. It's all a smokescreen to force people to listen to Air America. Nobody wants to listen to it, so the libs want to force us to listen to it.

I sometimes ask myself if I'd argue the opposite if liberal talk was the dominant format and conservatives were trying to get the government to balance things out on the public airwaves. I don't know exactly how I'd respond to that situation.

Anyway, nobody would be forcing you to listen to anything. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted for years and nobody was forced at any sort of metaphorical gunpoint to listen to any viewpoint. What would happen is the public airwaves would be forced to put ideological diversity over profit. You could still get your Rush and your Hannity, but right after that would be Air America hosts like Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow.

On your second point-- there already is censorship. It's censorship based on capital, instead of the desires of government. You said that if some people are being heard, then others are being censored. How is that any different than what is going on today-- it's just that CEOs are looking at ratings instead of a government censoring based on differing opinions. That's a form of censorship that happens to favor conservatives.

Conservatives have the major share of listenership on the public airwaves because decades ago they convinced millions of people that other news media is somehow biased towards liberals, thus attracting that crowd. The money came after the fact, and here we are decades out and conservatives, predictible, have the advantage, and thus the time slots. It's simple business.

Now that media consolidation has occured and a handful of media corporations own the majority of the public airwaves, they're going to go after what makes the most money- conservative radio. If you aren't pulling in big bucks that can compare to these mainstays in American culture, these media companies have no interest in putting you on the air. In fact it is in law that corporations must do what is most profitable for their shareholders.

How is totalitarian government forcing viewpoints off the radio any different from what is being described here? I'd almost argue that the corporations that run the airwaves are a style of totalitarian government that has an ideological perspective of simply capitalism. Conservatives not only appeal to them through income, but also by preaching free market fundamentalism all day long, thus giving the corporations even greater opportunity to make money.

Hopefully progressive/liberal talk grows and can attract the interest of these businesses somehow so we can have a larger discussion of the principles expressed by the likes of Air America and other liberal outlets compared to conservative ideas.

[lenahan]

Originally Posted by DavidYeah

I sometimes ask myself if I'd argue the opposite if liberal talk was the dominant format and conservatives were trying to get the government to balance things out on the public airwaves. I don't know exactly how I'd respond to that situation.

Anyway, nobody would be forcing you to listen to anything. The Fairness Doctrine was enacted for years and nobody was forced at any sort of metaphorical gunpoint to listen to any viewpoint. What would happen is the public airwaves would be forced to put ideological diversity over profit. You could still get your Rush and your Hannity, but right after that would be Air America hosts like Thom Hartmann or Rachel Maddow.

On your second point-- there already is censorship. It's censorship based on capital, instead of the desires of government. You said that if some people are being heard, then others are being censored. How is that any different than what is going on today-- it's just that CEOs are looking at ratings instead of a government censoring based on differing opinions. That's a form of censorship that happens to favor conservatives.

Conservatives have the major share of listenership on the public airwaves because decades ago they convinced millions of people that other news media is somehow biased towards liberals, thus attracting that crowd. The money came after the fact, and here we are decades out and conservatives, predictible, have the advantage, and thus the time slots. It's simple business.

Now that media consolidation has occured and a handful of media corporations own the majority of the public airwaves, they're going to go after what makes the most money- conservative radio. If you aren't pulling in big bucks that can compare to these mainstays in American culture, these media companies have no interest in putting you on the air. In fact it is in law that corporations must do what is most profitable for their shareholders.

How is totalitarian government forcing viewpoints off the radio any different from what is being described here? I'd almost argue that the corporations that run the airwaves are a style of totalitarian government that has an ideological perspective of simply capitalism. Conservatives not only appeal to them through income, but also by preaching free market fundamentalism all day long, thus giving the corporations even greater opportunity to make money.

Hopefully progressive/liberal talk grows and can attract the interest of these businesses somehow so we can have a larger discussion of the principles expressed by the likes of Air America and other liberal outlets compared to conservative ideas.

If liberals want more liberal people heard, here is what u do: buy a station; put on a lib. not use the gov't to force you to put certain shows on the radio. There is no imbalance of talk radio. people lis ten to what they want to hear. they will not listen to Air America if they dont want to. Rush is not on every station. If u don't want to hear him, turn the dial, or turn it off.

[Herb Schaffler]

"If liberals want more liberal people heard, here is what u do: buy a station; put on a lib. not use the gov't to force you to put certain shows on the radio."

Sounds fair to me. If I own a radio network or television network or newspaper, I should be allowed to report what I want to. If I have no political principles, I'll air or print whatever will make me the most money. There's nothing wrong with that. There is nothing immoral about making money if done honestly and legally. The government or any other entity has no right to tell me what I can air or print.

[DavidYeah]

Herb: But the radio waves are different. They are owned by the American people and used by companies. If Americans, through the representatives, determine that the public airwaves should express a diversity of opinions, your business is #### out of luck. Hire some lobbyists while you can (before they're banned, of course). The airwaves are part of the public commons and are completely open to any manner of reform we see fit. It's a shame that media consolidation has put the vast majority of stations in the hands of a minority of operators who care not for diversity of opinion but for profits.

lenahan: There are liberal stations all over the country; I think the same should occur with them if or when they grow and have higher frequency levels. They should have a diversity of opinions on their stations. I think this should be done to prevent left wing talk from creating a sort of one party rule, given that one day liberal talk overtakes conservative talk in the ratings down the road, which is not impossible as you all may think. The younger generation is developing democratic/liberal/progressive points of view, and I fear they will try to go too far in time.

The internet, as I've already stated, is still a beacon of hope for diversity of opinion that will hopefully maintain a constant balance of expressed points of view, but anti-net neutrality efforts could result a sort of "bandwidth" consolidation that would reflect what occured with newspapers and radio and certainly television.