Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who has covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. His Latest book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah, is a three-volume epic in its American edition. He blogs on

View Latest Posts >>>

Carter slams U.S. Supreme Court for its endorsement of corruption

Carter slams U.S. Supreme Court for its endorsement of corruption


By Alan Hart


I have often said and written that in some important respects America is the least democratic country in the world because what passes for democracy there is for sale to the highest bidders (the Zionist lobby being one of them). It’s now apparent that former President Jimmy Carter agrees.

In his latest Conversation at the Carter Center, he said:

You know how much I raised to run against Gerald Ford? Zero. You know how much I raised to run against Ronald Reagan? Zero. You know how much will be raised this year by all presidential, Senate and House campaigns? $6 billion. That’s 6,000 millions.” (It was “zero” from private donors, corporates and individuals, because Carter accepted public funding).

That was part of his devastating indictment of the U.S. electoral process which, he said, “is shot through with financial corruption that threatens American democracy.” He added: We have one of the worst election processes in the world right here in the United States of America, and it’s almost entirely because of the excessive influx of money.”

And that’s because of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2010 ruling that gave unlimited freedom to special interest groups, which represent the wishes and demands of corporations and lobbyists of all kinds, to provide unlimited campaign funding to third-parties that don’t have to disclose their donors. (The Supreme Court justified its decision on the grounds that the First Amendment of the American Constitution prohibited government from restricting independent political expenditures by corporations and unions).

Carter expressed his hope that “the Supreme Court will reverse that stupid ruling,”

President Obama is on the record in a chat with the internet community Reddit as saying that if the Supreme Court does not re-visit the issue, he will seek to challenge its ruling by pushing for a constitutional amendment. (Right now Obama’s concern is obviously aggravated by the fact that a handful of conservative billionaires – some if not all of them rabid supporters of the Zionist state of Israel right or wrong – are pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars to saturate media markets in vital swing states. They seem to share one of the ideas that drove Adolf Hitler’s propaganda maestros – no matter how big the lie, the more you tell it, the more likely it is to be believed. Zionism knows that to be true).

There is also support for Carter and Obama’s contempt for the Supreme Court ruling from Judge Richard Posner. He is a highly respected member of the Chicago-based Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, widely regarded as his nation’s most prolific jurist-academic and seen by some as the most influential judge outside of the nine members of the Supreme Court.

What has he said? This:

Our political system is pervasively corrupt due to our Supreme Court taking away campaign-contribution restrictions on the basis of the First Amendment.”

In a recent National Public Radio interview Judge Posner also expressed a degree of contempt for what he described as the “real deterioration in conservative thinking” in recent years. He added: “I’ve become less conservative since the Republican Party started becoming goofy.” (From my side of the water it seems that if Romney’s funders fail in their efforts to buy the White House for him, the Republican Party will have no future unless its moderate, old-fashioned conservatives break away from the “goofy” extremists who have taken over the party machine).

It might well be that a second-term Obama will seek to mobilize support for a constitutional amendment to enable the Supreme Court’s ruling to be reversed, but his chances of success on that front would be poor to say the least because a constitutional amendment requires ratification by three-quarters of the country’s 50 states.

As I write I am reminded (as I noted in my book Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews) that President Kennedy tried and failed several times to introduce legislation to end the corruption of election campaign funding; and I can almost hear some of my readers saying, “Yes, and look what happened to him!”






Related Posts:

The views expressed herein are the views of the author exclusively and not necessarily the views of VT, VT authors, affiliates, advertisers, sponsors, partners, technicians, or the Veterans Today Network and its assigns. LEGAL NOTICE - COMMENT POLICY

Posted by on October 2, 2012, With 0 Reads, Filed under Of Interest. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

FaceBook Comments

11 Responses to "Carter slams U.S. Supreme Court for its endorsement of corruption"

  1. Marks2Much  October 4, 2012 at 9:00 pm

    Chief Justice Roberts went out of his way in arranging to hear the case of Citizens United, even though it wasn’t slated for the court’s docket. A year later, Ron Paul had the cohones to publish an article on his website about the secret slush fund of millions of dollars waiting in the Vatican Bank for Roberts (and several other prominent officials, including Obama).

    What amazes me is that Roberts was worried about his “legacy” after the Obamacare decision. Stunning. Absolutely stunning.

  2. Worker Bee  October 4, 2012 at 5:54 pm

    Better results searching “Farewell to Israel”.

  3. Dan  October 3, 2012 at 7:08 pm

    Your mentioning Jacques Ellul had me reaching for his gem of a book, Propaganda, the Formation of Men’s Minds, to look over his many comments on Goebbels. One thing that caught my eye (p. 280, Vintage ed.), relevant to the upcoming election, was his witty comment on the self-deluded “undecided” voter: “How can…one explain the famous ‘undecided’ in elections and on all political questions? The undecided do not make their decisions in consonance with pre-existing tendencies, but according to where they are being pushed by propaganda.” Also in the running for the world’s biggest suckers for propaganda, according to Ellul, are the highly educated, who ironically fancy their absorption in factoid news, or pure propaganda, as a mark of their immunity to propaganda and intellectual independence. In any case, I’m looking forward to having people ask me what I thought of tonight’s debate, as if the candidates’ talking past each other like concatenated TV commercials is a debate, and telling whoever asks that watching the old movie Dr. X playing on the tube tonight was as relevant to next year’s policies as watching that pure propaganda.

  4. Stewart Ogilby  October 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm

    Pallmall, I have no bone to pick with you. The populist sentiment of government of the people, etc., sounds great, as did most of what the great enforcer of central government, Mr. Lincoln, said. As Mencken pointed out, the Gettysburg Address is mere poetry and does not bear on the motives of those who spilled blood to concentrate power in Washington Dc. You are totally correct. Stupid is the word. That is why mankind turns to its rulers.

    Jefferson’s vision that an increasingly educated electorate would place more educated socially responsible betters into public office strikes one today as wishful thinking. That is why the brilliant redhead referred to our new republic as an experiment. It is noteworthy that he envisioned a continent with populated communities from coast to coast yet proposed that our citizens remain tied to the land as yeoman farmers, with demands for industrial products satisfied from abroad. We can only marvel today at such a utopian dream, but understand how prescient Jefferson was. We are the stuff that dreams of made
    of. Dreams enable us to evaluate the real stuff in our little lives, matching it against dreams of a better world.

    When and if the time comes that mankind’s masses are able to take responsibility for their own governance and elevate the concept of social justice to its primary position, they may turn to the imperfect but exceptional blueprint given us by Mr. Jefferson and his friends. Until then, the best we can hope for is
    some degrees of benevolence from dictators and their bankers.

  5. LC  October 3, 2012 at 11:04 am

    Well done Mr. Hart. this case shows that U.S. Supreme Court endorses even drug cartels:

  6. Derek X  October 3, 2012 at 9:53 am

    I think many people are losing their isms these days. This judge says he’s become less conservative since his party has become goofy. The same is happening on the democrat side. How many in it now fight for peace and the basic rights of our citizens? I think more and more people are gravitating towards the center, and along the way will realize that all of us are in the same boat and will hopefully unite with one another against a system that is strangling us.
    The democratic party is just as goofy, and speaking out of both sides of its collective mouth. Yes, let’s let the peace prize winner and signer of NDAA a chance to amend the constitution. Why does that idea give me the heebie-jeebies?

  7. Dan  October 3, 2012 at 9:23 am

    Nice article, but Judge Posner is being disingenuous when he says there’s been a real deterioration in conservative thinking in recent years. Chroniclesmagazine, for example, is currently posting an ongoing series by Thomas Fleming about what constitutes the “paleoconservative” stance, or traditional sense of conservatism, as opposed to neoconservatism and the balance of despicable, fascist statism that makes up the Republican platform, which is anything but “goofy.” Judge Posner also says he’s becoming less conservative, and if he means he’s leaning more toward the Democratic Party, why doesn’t he come right out and admit he’s a socialist?

    It’s getting tiring hearing about what Obama, who’s merely a figurehead in any case, is promising to do in his second term, since he’s broken every promise he made before the first, giving far more power to Wall St, banksters, and their Fedl Res to rape American workers and expropriate their savings through inflation; increasing these interminable wars for Israel and bankrupting the country in the process; and, implementing the structures of a police state at a pace that’d make Dubya’s Zio handlers envious.

    As for campaign financing, any money from outside a state or congressional district should be barred for the obvious interference in the election process it represents. Only registered voters should be allowed to contribute, and any such contributions should be limited according to a small portion of the state or district’s average income to prevent undue influence by the rich. No non-voter institutions or organizations should be allowed to make campaign contributions under any circumstances.

  8. Stewart Ogilby  October 3, 2012 at 6:53 am

    Let’s not be naive. It was always thus. Google “United Fruit Company”, or “Transcontinental Railroads”. Learn who Ida Tarbell was. Our nation’s history evidences the fact that laissez faire capitalism leads to corporate monopoly and eventually to oligarchy. The idealist is quick to point out that it is government that interferes with true social benefits of Smith’s “invisible hand”. So be it in the world of real human beings.

    Oligarchy naturally means astronomical wealth for only a few and poverty for the many. That condition rather quickly results in the rule of law vanishing and resulting social disorder. We see this happening today. Efficiency of corporations must be measured against their overall value to human civilization.

    Those who created today’s financial and environmental world became wealthy by catering to whims and passions of the masses. Discounting utilitarian and other ethical arguments, thinking persons who are concerned about the future of our species must ponder systemic changes and alternatives to past economic and political policies. To fall back on tired old cliches about various “isms” is not constructive.

    To cry, Chicken Little style, that the sky has begun to fall is naive. It has been falling at least since the formation of “The Dutch East India Company”. Money makes what we call civilization go around. Those whose business is money and finance bear a huge responsibility. Present worldwide crises should be driving that point home. Those who control financial determinants of human destiny must figure out appropriate new policies for the masses if they are to retain power and wealth for themselves and their own progeny.

    • PallMall  October 3, 2012 at 9:18 am

      Maybe so. But then you can retire the confection of ‘government of the people, by the people, and for the people’.

      “Those who created today’s financial and environmental world became wealthy by catering to whims and passions of the masses.” They became rich because the definition of an American company was enlarged in US law in the last 30 years to embrace wherever they wanted to operate globally, transnationally, out of US jurisdiction. They became rich because they got the regulations in place to protect those who have no access to law-jiggering changed to make their actions legal wherever they operated. They became rich because those same people on their lawn chairs with the tea bags sewn into their hats intoning the government-of-the-people line are uneducated about how their monetary system works, and are therefore easily bamboozled. The latter bought the Reagan line (they thought they heard) about small government and no regulations little realizing they were signing their own economic death sentence. September 2008 was proof of that. Reagan, like Clinton and Bush Jr, were state governors, and they sadly brought their state government accounting to the federal level, and over three decades managed to destroy the middle class. The federal government issues the currency, and no one in this damn country knows what it means,

      The hoi polloi have zero idea what a sovereign nonconvertible currency is, how it works, or what is does. (Japan, Australia, Great Britain, Canada, and the US have sovereign currencies.) The US currency went completely sovereign on August 15, 1971, and people like Romney, Ryan, and even Obama talk about it as if it were 1932.

      Our problem is ignorance. Failure to resolve ignorance is an act of stupidity. That’s actually where we are: stupid.

  9. OrdinarySerf  October 2, 2012 at 6:43 pm

    Thank God ! A short essay that hits the nail on the head…..we are in a ‘Corporatocracy’ pure and simple.

  10. Mike Kay  October 2, 2012 at 4:58 pm

    Mr. Hart,
    You have hit this one out of the park, sir. The endemic corruption in American politics today-the blatant, flagrant abusive condition of lawlessness and pillage, is all directly related to money-massive amounts of money, pouring into Washington from sources legit to completely illegal.
    Unfortunately, hoping for our gov’t to develop a backbone and stand up to corruption is like hoping for any renaissance of the human spirit-endless frustrating. Even when the people work to directly inject backbone into our officials, they fall into a puddle of jelly, surrounded by dollar bills.
    Will prez O. do something about it? How about this one, beginning with the prosecution of wall street criminals?

You must be logged in to post a comment Login