“America has the best democracy money can buy,” is not merely a catchy slogan; it accurately captures the essence and nature of US democracy.
“America has the best democracy money can buy,” is not merely a catchy slogan; it accurately captures the essence and nature of US democracy. Following the January 21, 2010 ruling by the US Supreme Court, this has become an indisputable fact of US political culture. Corporations are now allowed to spend directly on political campaigns to elect or defeat candidates. This open license given by the highest court in the land to buy candidates is a long overdue acknowledgement of the fraud that passes for American democracy. Even the most famous mouthpiece of the US establishment, the New York Times, was forced to decry the court’s verdict in an editorial on January 22. Under the heading, The Court’s Blow to Democracy, the paper wrote, “With a single, disastrous 5-to-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has thrust politics back to the robber-baron era of the 19th century. Disingenuously waving the flag of the First Amendment, the court’s conservative majority has paved the way for corporations to use their vast treasuries to overwhelm elections and intimidate elected officials into doing their bidding.”
But this is precisely what the Zionist lobby has been doing for decades
But this is precisely what the Zionist lobby has been doing for decades. True, a few others are also in the fray but the Zionists continue to occupy pride of place. Pat Buchanan, a one-time presidential contender, described the US Congress as Zionist-occupied territory in reference to how congressmen and women are in the pocket of the Zionist lobby. While President Barrack Obama decried the court’s ruling, he is the beneficiary of donations from many such corporations, especially on Wall Street, that propelled him into the White House. His first act upon being chosen as the Democratic Party candidate for president was to appear at the Am-erican Israel Pub-lic Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and pledge allegiance to the Zionist State.
Obama called the ruling “a major victory for Big Oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.” Brave words but they are meaningless when viewed against the backdrop of his actions. Did Obama not say during his presidential campaign that it was naïve to expect change by pursuing the same old policies by the same old Washington elite that have brought ruin to America in the first place? Yet even before he was sworn in as president, he chose the same Washington insiders to occupy key positions in his administration. The slogan of “change” had a good ring to it but it was a fraud perpetrated on the American people, especially the millions of poor. Has anything changed under Obama? The answer can only be in the affirmative if one believes increased militarism, wars and unquestioning support for Zionist crimes that surpassed even George Bush’s disastrous eight years, mean change.
The January Supreme Court ruling overturned a century-old restriction that in any case had long been circumvented by various lobbies using aliases. Hitherto, corporations and unions were barred from spending their funds on broadcast ads, campaign workers or billboards that urge the election or defeat of a federal candidate. Their members could still pay money to candidates directly. This is how Obama raised more than $200 million for his campaign and the US presidential campaign expenses topped $1 billion in 2009.
The Supreme Court ruling, however, demolished the last hurdle to this open and direct manipulation of the political system. The Zionist lobby is particularly adept at this. More than 90% of the 120 or so lobby groups in the US are controlled directly or indirectly by the Zionists. Some lobby groups even carry innocuous names that few people would be able to connect with the Zionists. But AIPAC has become quite brazen in its manipulation and blackmailing tactics. It acts on behalf of a foreign government, Israel, without registering as a foreign agent as other foreign agents are required to do.
While much has been made about the five justices who supported the Supreme Court ruling as being Republican nominees, it is disingenuous to turn the matter simply into one between Republicans (R) and Democrats (D). This is best illustrated by how the Zionist lobby funds members of both parties. Let us look at some of the beneficiaries of AIPAC’s handouts between 1978 and 2008, both in the Senate (S) and the House of Representatives (H).
|[S] Sessions, Jeff [R]||$224,325|
|[H] Davis, Arhtur [D]||$ 81,067|
|[S] Stevens, Theodore [R]||$100,200|
|[S] Pryor, Mark [D]||$ 63,000|
|[S] McCain, John [R]||$169,500|
|[H] Pelosi, Nancy [D]||$102,800|
|[H] Lantos, Tom [D]||$123,250|
|[H] Harman, Jane [D]||$103,771|
|[S] Lieberman, Joe [Ind]||$366,351|
|[S] Biden, Joe, Jr.[D]||$106,607|
|[S] Nelson, Bill [D]||$127,221|
|[H] Ros-Lehtinen, Ileana [R]||$155,740|
|[S] Durbin, Richard [D]||$372,422|
|[H] Kirk, Mark [R]||$191,882|
|[H] Burton, Dan [R]||$109,000|
|[S] Harkin, Thomas [D]||$546,950|
|[S] McConnell, Mitch[R]||$485,141|
|S] Landrieu, Mary[D]||$180,389|
|House Majority Leader|
|[H] Hoyer, Steny [D]||$197,275|
|[S] Cardin, Benjamin [D]||$ 92,015|
|[S] Kennedy, Edward [D]||$100,120|
|[S] Levin, Carl [D]||$728,737|
|[H] Levin, Sander [D]||$123,727|
|[S] Coleman, Norm [R]||$145,980|
|[S] Bond, Christopher [R]||$166,700|
|[S] Baucus, Max [D]||$352,648|
|[H] Berkley, Shelley [D]||$291,555|
|[S] Lautenberg, Frank [D]||$507,578|
|[S] Menendez, Robert [D]||$128,318|
|[H] Crowley, Joseph [D]||$ 92,657|
|[H] Engel, Eliot [D]||$ 216,418|
|[H] Lowey, Nita [D]||$ 141,738|
|[S] Conrad, G. Kent [D]||$267,539|
|[S] Specter, Arlen [R]||$503,473|
|[S] Reed, Jack [D]||$157,850|
|[S] Johnson [D]||$192,237|
|[H] Cantor, Eric [R]||$176,230|
|[S] Rockefeller, John [D]||$234,700|
|[H] Obey, David [D]||$159,600|
Notwithstanding the noise made about interference from corporations, American politics are controlled by moneyed groups. The masses have little say in how the government functions. This is the nature of virtually all so-called democracies. Hypocrisy would be a far more accurate description of how they function.