Thursday June 21, 2018
SNc Channels:



Oct-02-2012 12:18printcomments

Carter Slams U.S. Supreme Court for its Endorsement of Corruption

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!”

Former U.S. President James Carter
Former U.S. President James Carter

(LONDON) - 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!”


Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East.

Over more than four decades Alan Hart enjoyed intimate access to, and on the human level friendship with, leaders of both sides including Golda Meir, Mother Israel, and Yasser Arafat,Father Palestine. (Others included Moshe Dayan, Shimon Peres, Nasser, Sadat, King Faisal, King Hussein—the list is long). He also participated at a leadership level in the secret politics of the search for peace in the Middle East (as an intermediary between Arafat and Peres when it was presumed that Peres was headed for leadership).

Alan recently announced the American edition of his epic book, Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews, Vol. 1: The False Messiah. This is Alan Hart’s epic three-volume journey through the propaganda lies and the documented truth of history as it relates to the making and sustaining of what has come to be called the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

He blogs on, and tweets on

See also:

Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews. The sub-title of this volume is Conflict Without End? It takes the story from the 1967 war and the creation of Greater Israel to the present and the question: Is Peace Possible?

Will President Obama be allowed to deliver an acceptable amount of justice for the Palestinians in order to achieve peace for all and, if not, what’s the most likely future for the region and the world?

  • "... immensely readable and a magnificent piece of work ..."
    -- Clare Short, MP and Int'l Development Sec't in Blair Govt
  • "... elucidates the dangers involved in the unconditional Western support for Zionism and its oppressive policies against the Palestinians."
    -- Ilan Pappe, Leading Israeli revisionist Historian

  • "... principled, ... historical, ... excellent, even heroic, in effort and scope."
    -- Mark Bruzonsky, founder,; World Jewish Congress, first Washington Representative




    Comments Leave a comment on this story.

    All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.

    Anonymous October 3, 2012 9:45 pm (Pacific time)

    Ralph I have noticed that the majority of government lawyers, like those on the left, like Carter. Especially those lawyers who could never pass the bar exam, or it took them several attempts... but the common thread running through all of them, an inability to be independent self-reliant people who can stand up to competition in the private matter where in the world they reside. Living off those who create the wealth is the zenith of their abilities.

    Anonymous October 3, 2012 7:39 am (Pacific time)

    DJ you are writing all this negative assessment about us...why? My time is valuable, so I have no desire, time, or give a rip about Canada. All I get from you is petty nonsensical and misguided critiques that no one really cares about, or at least they should not. Afterall DJ, just who are you? What professional qualifications to you bring? As per your Bio, you remind me of the hippies from the 60's, and not very well educated. Am I a troll? Well as soon as you hit one of our border checkpoints crossings, then you'll meet me. As it is you have never been here, and certainly have a very limited background on our history and your take on our current dynamics is from skewed leftists who also have limited knowledge of real world happenings. Come on down DJ and I'll see you get the welcome you deserve, count on it. By the way Canada is simply a bedroom state of ours, for as we go, you have existence. Maybe take care of your own problems, sure Harper would like your input.

    Of course you're a troll. You won't even give a name. What are you doing at a site like this, anyway? 

    Ralph E. Stone October 2, 2012 11:28 pm (Pacific time)

    Jimmy Carter is one of our best ex-presidents.

    Daniel Johnson October 2, 2012 3:14 pm (Pacific time)

    It's amazing how so many Americans are just blind to what's happening to and in their own country. I had a troll respond to one of my recent articles with:

    "...we are in effect an 'exceptional people,' and our form of government is superior to any other form of government so far.

    Exceptionally deluded  people... I'll go along with that. 

    Anonymous October 2, 2012 2:24 pm (Pacific time)

    Why is it some people, always leftists, just hate the 1st Amendmentt when those superior opposites use it? Of course the UK and Canada and most all other places on the planet don't have it. Have you noticed, if not you should, when someone says others are engaging in so-called "hate speech", then that is the tip off they are against the 1st Amendent, for anything they don't like, then it's hate speech. Our Founding Fathers knew their type well and were aware they will always be around to hurt free people if they can...not here so far, but they are encroaching on our rights every day a little bit more. They will lose big time.

    DJ: The other developed nations do have a FA, we just don't call it that (poor us). This from Wikipedia (

    "The core distinction between the United States Bill of Rights and Canadian Charter is the existence of the limitations and notwithstanding clauses. Canadian courts have consequently interpreted each right more expansively. However, due to the limitations clause, where a violation of a right exists, the law will not necessarily grant protection of that right. In contrast, rights under the US Bill of Rights are absolute and so a violation will not be found until there has been sufficient encroachment on those rights. The sum effect is that both constitutions provide comparable protection of many rights. Fundamental justice (in section 7 of the Canadian Charter) is therefore interpreted to include more legal protections than due process, which is its US equivalent. Freedom of expression in section 2 also has a more wide-ranging scope than the First Amendment to the United States Constitution's freedom of speech. In RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd. (1986), the Canadian Supreme Court considered picketing of the kind the US First Amendment did not permit, as it was disruptive conduct (though there was some speech involved that the First Amendment might otherwise protect). The Supreme Court, however, ruled the picketing, including the disruptive conduct, were fully protected under section 2 of the Charter. The Court then relied on section 1 to find the injunction against the picketing was just. The limitations clause has also allowed governments to enact laws that would be considered unconstitutional in the US. The Supreme Court of Canada has upheld some of Quebec's limits on the use of English on signs and has upheld publication bans that prohibit media from mentioning the names of juvenile criminals." 

    [Return to Top]
    ©2018 All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of

    Articles for October 1, 2012 | Articles for October 2, 2012 | Articles for October 3, 2012
Since 1985, Tattoo Mike is one of the most reputable tattoo artists in Oregon.

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

EVR Premium Hemp Oil ...LIVE YOUR LIFE


Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.