Author Archives: admin

What Do Pharmaceuticals, Toxins and Nazi War Criminals Have in Common?

The short answer is vaccines.

In several articles published in Natural News, vaccines are reported to contain neurotoxins like thimerosal, which is a mercury-based preservative. Just a tiny amount of mercury ingested by human or animal can result in certain death. Thimerosal is not the only toxin used in making vaccines. This much the FDA admitted in a recent court case, according to Natural News.

In his article, S. D. Wells identified 11 more toxins found in vaccines. Among them are several additional neurotoxins, phenoxyethanol and MSG. Consuming phenoxyethanol is comparable to eating cosmetics. It is can shut down the human central nervous system, liver and kidneys. MSG (monosodium glutamate) can cause central nervous system disorders and especially brain damage in children. Bovine cow serum is another toxic ingredient of many vaccines. This serum is an extract of cow skin that is known to cause connective tissue disorders, arthritis, lupus, and other diseases. Human albumin is the protein part of human blood. When extracted from pooled blood, it can result in the loss of body cell mass and immune deficiency disorders thus increasing the likelihood of contracting viruses and other deadly diseases. Then there is formaldehyde that can cause liver damage, gastrointestinal issues, reproductive deformation, respiratory distress and cancer. Plus, formaldehyde has been known to fail to deactivate the virus the vaccine is intended to cure, thus enabling a live virus to enter your blood and infect your system. Maybe that is why formaldedhyde is ranked one of the most hazardous compounds to human health.

An interview was recently discovered in which Dr. Maurice Hilleman, former scientist at Merck, admitted he and others knew the vaccines they were making contained 40 or more viruses and bacteria including carcinogens.

By the way, Hitler’s investments in Merck Pharmacuetical were substantial, according to Wells.

What does this have to do with Nazi war criminals?

As Wells pointed out in his article, some of the world’s leading pharmaceutical companies have been lead by Nazi war criminals. I.G. Farben, BASF, Hoechst, Dow and Bayer not only helped build the Nazi gas chambers but also tested their vaccines on those Jews as well. Because I.G. Farben was the Third Reich’s equivalent to our Food & Drug Administration and Center for Disease Control., those corporations had Hitler’s approval.

After being convicted at the Nurremburg trials and serving a short prison term, Fritz ter Meer was appointed as Chairman of the Board at Bayer while Carl Krauch, an executive at Hitler’s I.G. Farben, became Chairman of the Board at BASF.

While head of Bayer Pharmaceuticals, Fritz ter Meer along four other drug companies convinced the United Nations to implement a plan called Codex Alimentarius, which means book of food rules. In a report titled Nutricide: The Killing Camps of Codex Alimentarius, Rima E. Laibow, MD claims the same ideology of ter Meer that included eugenics, sterilizations, ethnic cleansing, and the extermination of worthless consumers of Germany’s limited resources like the Jews is embedded in the UN sanctioned Codex Alimentarius. In this case, it is the useless eaters of the world’s supposed limited food supply who will benefit the world by eating to death that is eating food prepared for their economic status and tastes.

Remember, Margaret Sangster and followers used abortion to benefit America by helping the poor in urban black communities kill their unborn by the millions. With the birth of organizations like Planned Parenthood, Sangster’s socialist work has progressed up the social food chain to the middle class and university students.

As eugenics came to America during the 1960s in the form of abortion, so too did toxic vaccines. Maybe that is why drugs companies have government approval to drug America’s children with both mind altering and supposed sexual disease preventing dope. (See the stories by Washington Post, Huffington Post, and Citizens for Health.)

Now, Nutricide is coming to America. Our federal government intends to harmonize FDA regulations with the Nazi-born Codex Alimentarius, according to Rima Laibow.

Oddly enough, Laibow’s underlying concern is freedom. Freedom of all consumers of have health enriching food. Whether they be poor or rich, urban or rural, Jew or non-Jew, or citizens of first world or third world countries, Laibow seems to believes all people should have access to food and food supplements void of toxic chemicals, harmful bacteria and deadly viruses.

Looking forward to the Passover and Easter holiday, one of the things science and history ancient Egypt reveals the Jews were delivered from was slavery to a disease-ridden toxic environment that contaminated their food. Many died or lived in misery as a result. May the Living God and His Christ deliver us all from the life-diminshing conditions created by the heartless but laughing Pharaohs of the 21st Century.

October Baby Thanks: Hope for Orphans

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DYDm_Gj-sac&w=560&h=315]

Dump Starbucks

The National Organization for Marriage (NOM), America’s largest group dedicated to preserving traditional marriage and the faith communities that sustain it, announced it will lead an international “Dump Starbucks” protest of Starbucks Coffee Company to give voice to consumers around the world who support preserving marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Customers are invited to visit www.DumpStarbucks.com immediately to take action.

“Unlike our opponents, we do not target whole companies for the actions of an individual business executive in that company,” said Brian Brown, NOM’s president. “But Starbucks has taken a corporate position in support of redefining marriage for all of society. We will not tolerate an international company attempting to force its misguided values on citizens. The majority of Americans and virtually every consumer in some countries in which Starbucks operates believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. They will not be pleased to learn that their money is being used to advance gay marriage in society.”

The new protest campaign was announced after the annual Starbucks shareholders meeting today in Seattle, where NOM spokesmen queried the board on its new policies promoting gay marriage and demanded protection against discrimination for employees, vendors and customers who disagree.

“We respect the important role of businesses in providing goods, services and jobs, and that people of diverse moral views build great companies working together,” Brown said. “But Starbucks has corporately, as an organization, endorsed and helped pass gay marriage in the state of Washington. Its executive vice president of partner resources has stated that gay marriage “is aligned with Starbucks business practices and upholds our belief in the equal treatment of partners. It is core to who we are and what we value as a company.” Corporations should not take sides in a culture war that pits a company against half the American people, and nearly all its consumers in some international markets.”

NOM said it would mount a campaign to urge consumers to boycott Starbucks and contact the manager of their local Starbucks operation to complain about the corporation’s attempts to redefine marriage for all of society. The group will also launch an advertising campaign to inform consumers around the world about the company’s activities. Starbucks operates in 55 countries including many where same-sex marriage is strongly opposed.

“We are today announcing a sustained public campaign calling on Starbucks to stop waging war against marriage, and the views of more than half its worldwide customers. Starbucks should be in the business of offering all its diverse customers a great cup of coffee, not taking sides against the views of its customers, vendors, and employees around the world,” said Brown.

NOM will place ads throughout the United States, as well as in the Middle East and Southeast Asia, urging consumers to “Dump Starbucks” because purchasing a cup of Starbucks equals support for gay marriage. The “Dump Starbucks” campaign will ask consumers to join the campaign against Starbuck’s corporate irresponsibility.

“Starbucks may have been hoping that what happens in Seattle stays in Seattle, but we are going to make sure Starbucks customers, not only here but worldwide, know that drinking a cup of Starbucks coffee promotes gay marriage,” said Jonathan Baker, head of NOM’s Corporate Fairness Project and a Starbucks stockholder. “It’s ironic that even as Starbucks endorsed gay marriage here, its website on involvement in the Middle East claims the corporation does not, ‘support any political or religious cause.’ Lying to your customers is never a good business model,” Baker added.

To learn more or to sign the Dump Starbucks petition, go to http://www.dumpstarbucks.com.

Final Request of America’s Last WWI Veteran Fuels Effort to Build Memorial For All

Before dying at age 108, Frank Buckles, known as America’s last World War I veteran, said he wanted every WWI soldier that fought together to be honored together. During his visit to a memorial for WWI veterans who were residents of Washington D.C., Buckles was heartbroken by what he saw: a small, marble monument sitting dirty and stained at the end of a broken walkway, hidden by overgrown trees. At Buckles’ request, the World War I Memorial Foundation was formed to restore the memorial and rededicate it to all WWI veterans. Restoration efforts began in late 2010, but, upon completion, the city of Washington, D.C. withdrew its support for rededicating the memorial. Now there is an effort in Congress to build a privately funded national memorial honoring all WWI veterans on the Mall, where it would be accessible to the 25 million people who visit it each year. 116,000 American soldiers died in World War I, outnumbering the combined total of those killed in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan. (Liberty Watch, March 22, 2012)

Watch a video below about the efforts to restore this veteran memorial.

[youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnDX-D-jlxs&w=560&h=315]

Congress Passes NSBA-Supported JOBS Act

On Tuesday, the U.S. House of Representatives approved the Senate-amended version of Jump-Start Our Business Start-ups Act (H.R. 3606 or “JOBS” Act) by a margin of 380-41, addressing one of NSBA’s top priority issues. The bill, which will ease securities regulations on small businesses making it much easier for them to raise capital through public capital markets, will now head to the President’s desk to be signed into law.

The bill originally passed the House along a wide bipartisan basis (390-23) and was then approved with amendments by the Senate last week, also on a bipartisan basis (73-26.) Prior to passage in the Senate, however, an amendment offered by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and supported by Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Mary Landrieu (D-La.) and Scott Brown (R-Mass.), among others, was adopted 64-35, . This so-called “crowdfunding” amendment (S.Amdt. 1884), will insert the Senate’s version of crowdfunding legislation into the bill, and among other things, require crowdfunding intermediaries to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The original House-passed version of H.R. 3606 did not contain such language.

This bill was also supported by the administration.

This pro-growth, NSBA-supported legislation will positively transform the ability of small businesses to raise capital and help alleviate the disproportionate burden of compliance placed on small firms.

Anti-Semiticism At the United Nations?

According to Ambassador (ret.) Yoram Ettinger, the United Nations Human Rights Council is number one opponent of Israel. By implication, this makes the UN a most anti-semitic institutions in the world. The following is the indictment proposed by Ambassador Ettinger.

On Friday, the HRC will conclude a month long deliberation by submitting four more resolutions condemning Israel.

The HRC heard testimony from a representative of the Assad regime, in formulating one of the resolutions, which denounces Israel for, alleged, violations of human rights on the Golan Heights. At the same time, the Assad regime has already murdered 8,000 Syrian dissidents and rebels, causing tens of thousands of refugees, some seeking asylum in Israel’s Golan Heights.

The HRC was privy to testimonies from Palestinian representatives, while an increasing number of Palestinians attempt to relocate to Jerusalem, in order to avoid the ruthless rule of the Palestinian Authority. The HRC never discussed intra-Palestinian violence, which has caused substantially more fatalities than those produced during Israel’s confrontation with Palestinian terrorism. It failed to act against the PLO/Hamas-led hate-education, brainwashing Palestinian children to become suicide bombers; rewarding Palestinian mothers for raising suicide bombers; executing rival Palestinians by throwing them off high-rise buildings; spraying them with bullets from the waist down; torturing, maiming and executing Palestinian opponents; abusing Palestinian civilians as human shields; physically abusing critical Palestinian journalists; suppressing Palestinian civil liberties; and systematically and deliberately targeting Israeli civilians for terrorism, missile launching and mortar shelling.

The HRC welcomed a report by Professor Richard Falk – who accused the US Administration for complicity and cover up in the September 11terrorism – on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Prof. Falk – a Hamas sympathizer, justifying suicide bombing as a legitimate struggle – was appointed in 2008 to a six-year term as UN Special Rapporteur. Falk succeeded Professor John Dugard, who shares his worldview.

The HRC is assisted by an advisory committee, chaired by Morocco’s Halima Warzazi, who, in 1988, blocked a UN initiative to condemn Saddam Hussein’s chemical warfare against Iraq’s Kurds. The vice-chair is Switzerland’s Jean Ziegler, who co-established the “Qaddafi International Prize for Human Rights” and authored books accusing the USA of being responsible for global malaise. Another advisor is Nicaragua’s Miguel D’Escoto Brockman, former President of the UN General Assembly, an admirer of Ahmadinejad, a defender of Omar al-Bashir, Sudan’s president indicted by the International Criminal Court for crimes against humanity, a friend of Fidel Castro and self-hating Americans such as Ramsey Clark and Noam Chomsky.

Since June 2007, Israel has been the only country to be listed on the HRC’s permanent agenda. Out of the ten permanent items on the HRC agenda, eight are organizational and procedural, one deals with global human rights and “item seven” – “the human rights situation in Palestine and other occupied Arab territories” – is the only one that is country-specific. The outcome of the investigation is prejudged, not subject to review. Israel – the only Middle Eastern democracy – is the only UN member to be ostracized annually, while its enemies are exempt from scrutiny.

According to former US Ambassador to the UN, John Bolton, “there are permanent members of the Security Council and non-permanent members, but Israel is the only permanent non-member.”

80% of all 2010 UN resolutions criticizing specific countries for human rights violations were directed at Israel. Only six other UN members faced human rights criticism at all, one of which was the United States. The HRC subjected the USA to harsh criticism – by Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, Iran and Russia – for, supposed, human rights violations. The HRC criticized the elimination of Bin-Laden and Israel’s defense against PLO, Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists.

Simultaneously, the HRC has ignored Islamic terrorism, which has afflicted Asia, Africa, Europe and the USA. No emergency sessions and inquiries were held and no resolutions were adopted.

55% of the HRC members are Muslim countries, which contribute little to the UN budget, but dominate policy-making. The HRC is formally the guardian of human rights, but its members – e.g., Libya, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Cuba, China, Kyrgyzstan, Uganda, Djibouti, Senegal, Mauritania, Malaysia, Russia and China – deny their peoples fundamental civil liberties.

Of course, Arab ethnicity originates from the same ancient gene pool as the Jews. Although discrimination against Arabs is usually called Islamaphobia or injustice to Muslims or prejudice against Arabs, anti-Semiticism has been associated historically with the Jews. Because Jews make up a majority Israel’s population, the best label for the anti-Israel stance of the United Nations is anti-Semiticism.

Is U.N. anti-semiticsm to be explained merely as the result of a majority of Muslim nations represented on the UN Security Council? Another factor may be that Israel has yet to bow to the Arab/Muslim demand to submit to their rule of all Palestine or get out of the land. The two-state solution seems a useful tool to that end. Why else would Israel’s previous efforts to give back the land in accordance with UN Resolutions 181 & 242 have been thrown in the dust by Palestinian and Arab leaders when Israel made its reasonable demands to ensure the safety and prosperity of its citizens?

US Bullying Angers Developing World and Leads to US Defeat at UN

By Timothy Herrmann and Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

(NEW YORK C-FAM) Negotiations for a final document at the UN Commission on the Status of Women were supposed to end more than a week ago. However, they dragged on for another several days and resulted in a stinging defeat for the Obama administration and anger on the part of the developing world.

The US was trying to impose its sexual and reproductive rights agenda and in a dramatic showdown, delegations scuttled a final document rather than accept the US proposal.

Delegations openly resented the US emphasis on sexual and reproductive rights, and were particularly offended at being strong-armed by the US during negotiations for the resolution on maternal mortality. However, the US was able to push that resolution through without toning down their sexual and reproductive rights emphasis.

In the maternal mortality resolution, the US delegation insisted on new language that delegations feared could advance a right to abortion. Delegates were also concerned about references to “age appropriate sexual education” that did not acknowledge the role of parents, as well as dubious references to “gender.”

Negotiations on the final document, called “agreed conclusions,” were extended a week longer than expected because consensus could not be reached. Delegations carried negotiations well into the early hours of last Thursday, when the commission concluded its session, but the US would not budge, causing the negotiations to fail.

Michelle Bachelette, the head of UN Women, spoke to the delegates at the closing of CSW. She was disappointed by the commission’s “inability to reach consensus.” Several delegations voiced their frustration with the ideological rigidity of the US and other delegations in the reproductive rights camp.

The delegate from Zimbabwe, speaking for the African Group, complained about the position of “only one delegation” that had caused the process to falter. She also clarified that the African Group believed the use of the word “gender” referred to male and female, as outlined in previous international documents, and emphasized the sovereign prerogative of African nations to do so.

The Iranian delegation made a statement lamenting that a “tender bridge (consensus) collapsed last night at around 1:00am…only because of the intransigence, hardball playing and lack of flexibility on the part of one side of the room over issues that were not germane to the text.” Iran reproached these parties for coming to the negotiating table with “a mindset of achieving all they want, with no flexibility.”

On the opposite side of the negotiating table was the ambassador from Norway, who bluntly criticized nations for not abandoning “moral values” or accepting radical versions of gender equality: “[W]e have seen how moral values have been evoked to deprive women of their human rights, their opportunities – and ultimately, for some – their lives! This is the real moral hazard of our time!” She later added that “Many will have to let go of some traditional convictions, also when they are based on religious belief or culture…That’s what’s called development.”

Timothy Hermann is a U.N. Representative of the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) and Stefano Gennarini is writer for C-FAM as well. The above new article first appeared in Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM, a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.”

One Ring Government to Rule Us All?

By Cameron Smith

In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings, the protagonist is charged with destroying a ring of immense power. Throughout the novel, characters with the best and worst of intentions strive to possess and thereby control the power of the ring. The more they use that power, the more warped and twisted they become.

While The Lord of the Rings has made its way onto summer reading lists for generations, this work of fiction bears a strong resemblance to what Americans have come to expect of their federal and state governments.

The power of government is unparalleled in America. Combined state and federal government expenditures account for 35.4% of America’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Government’s spending influence is augmented by expansive regulation and social mandates.

In their zeal to wield such power, even for the noblest of ends, many American politicians have expanded government’s reach even further. Because the cost of securing control of government grows proportionally to government’s size, politicians who possess the power of government face the temptation to use it in a manner to perpetuate that control.

According to a recent Rasmussen report, almost 40% of Americans believe that the United States engages in crony capitalism where business success depends largely on favorable treatment from the government. Businesses benefitting from such practices have strong incentives to support “friendly” politicians when they come up for reelection. When the government’s role in the economy and society is reduced, so are the opportunities for cronyism.

But the struggle to reduce government’s role has been largely abandoned. The most aggressive political ideas for curtailing the size of government in Washington suggest “controlling” spending at about 18% of GDP. According to a Real Clear Markets article by Dean Kalahar, “for the first 130 years of [America’s] existence, federal spending as a percentage of GDP averaged around 2.5%.”

Instead of reining in government, political characters continue to wrangle over the “correct” way to swing the cudgel of American government.

America’s founding fathers recognized the appeal of expansive government power and the dangers associated with it. As a result, they instituted constitutional limits on the accumulation of that power. But they also knew the system would only succeed so long as it had the consent and active support of the people it governed. When asked at the close of the Constitutional Convention what the founding fathers had produced, Benjamin Franklin responded, “A Republic, if you can keep it!”

Regrettably, Americans have not kept the Republic because they have failed to demand America’s founding principle of limited government be maintained. Unless America elects men and women willing to set aside the ring of government power and enforce the Constitution, government will be, as Barry Goldwater noted, a “monolith of power…bounded only by the will of those who sit in high places.”

Tolkien probably could not have said it any better.

Cameron Smith is General Counsel and Policy Director for the Alabama Policy Institute, a non-partisan, non-profit research and education organization dedicated to the preservation of free markets, limited government and strong families, which are indispensable to a prosperous society.

Overturning Wickard Key to Ending Obamacare, All Other Unconstitutional Uses of the Comm

By Daniel Downs

The Supreme Court will soon hear arguments about the constitutionality of Obamacare. In many ways, the Court will decide the future of American liberty. The Justices will determine whether federal bureaucrats can dictate the purchase of consumer services and goods. The Court will also determine whether Congress and the President can continue increasing government programs and ever-increasing debt burden on American workers, business, investors, and families. In a recent program, Glen Beck compared the number of new agencies created by FDR’s New Deal to the astronomical increase of federal agencies created under Obamacare (see Beck’s video). Liberty Legal Foundation is challenging this issue and related tax code and debt escalation that will incur to the American people. More importantly, the Foundation will attempt to convince the Supreme Court to overturn the source of the problem. That problem is Wickard v Filburn that essentially handed Congress unfettered powers to enlarge federal authority over all aspects of our individual and corporate lives under the Commerce Clause as well as to ever increase the national debt.

As you can see in the chart below, the Wickard ruling opened the floodgates to federal regulations, new federal agencies, astronomical increases of new federal tax codes, federal spending, and federal debt.

The options to force Congress to limit its continued bureaucratic growth are few. One is get Congress to pass law regulating its own creation of debt producing regulations. However, the long debated balance budget legislation and tax reform along the lines of the Fair Tax or flat tax proposal have consistently been voted down. Even if Congress forced itself to balance the budget, its unaccountable growth of power and spending would merely be slowed. Congress still would not have to seek the approval of the citizens its members supposedly represent, which leads to the unlikely passage of an amendment to the Constitution to make Congress seek voter approval for debt increasing legislation. The best solution to reigning in Congress’s seemingly uncontrollable efforts to regulate our daily lives and spending too much of our money is to change how the Congress, the Executive branch and the Court has interpreted the Commerce Clause.

Let’s hope and pray that the argument to be presented by Liberty Legal Foundation lawyers convince the Supreme Court to overturn Wickard.

To learn more about Liberty Legal Foundation’s suit against Obamacare, go to http://libertylegalfoundation.org.

Mayhem in the Making: A Political Circus, An Out-of-Control Government Bureaucracy, and a Distracted Populace

By John W. Whitehead

With less than eight months to go before the next presidential election, political chatter among the candidates is ramping up and serious political discourse is declining. All the while, the corrupt government machine is taking advantage of a populace distracted by the political theater to advance agendas that are completely at odds with the nation’s fiscal, legislative and constitutional priorities. Indeed, the process of voting and electing a new president has become little more than an expensive, sophisticated ruse designed to deceive us into thinking we actually have a say in what happens in our government. However, the sad fact is that the United States government has ballooned into an overreaching, out-of-control bureaucracy accountable to no one in particular—not Congress or the president and least of all the taxpayers.

Thus, while the candidates mug for the cameras, American taxpayers are being taken to the cleaners—a different kind of mugging, altogether—by government officials eager to placate their corporate benefactors. While the surveillance state is slowly being erected around us, our civil liberties are systemically being dismantled. While our government wages war after endless war abroad, the war on the American people—fought with sound cannons, tasers and drones—is entering its early stages. And while the partisan rancor over who will occupy the White House becomes more toxic with each passing day, the elephant in the room—what no one is talking about—is the fact that it doesn’t really matter who gets elected, because no matter how often we change out the resident of the Oval Office, the immense, intractable, implacable, bureaucratic colossus that is our federal government remains entrenched.

For a start, consider national defense spending, which enriches the military-industrial complex to the tune of $740 billion and routinely falls prey to corruption and mismanagement. Who could forget the ten C-17 cargo planes purchased by Congress at the urging of the defense industry for a whopping $2.4 billion, despite the fact that the Pentagon insisted it didn’t need them? Incredibly, although the U.S. constitutes only 5% of the world’s population, America boasts almost 50% of the world’s total military expenditure, spending more on the military than the next 19 biggest spending nations combined. In fact, the Pentagon spends more on war than all 50 states combined spend on health, education, welfare, and safety.

Then there’s the $4 trillion War on Terror, which has seen at least $31 billion (and as much as $60 billion or more) lost to waste and fraud by military contractors and other government officials. A classic example of this was the $300 million diesel power plant that was built in Afghanistan despite the fact that it wouldn’t be used regularly “because its fuel cost more than the Afghan government could afford to run it regularly.” Or the $4 million paid to Afghan contractors for paving a 17.5-mile road in Ghazni province, which only resulted in 2/3 of a mile of road being paved.

Our expanding military empire is bleeding the country dry at a rate of more than $15 billion a month (or $20 million an hour)—and that’s just what the government spends on foreign wars. That does not include the cost of maintaining and staffing the 1000-plus U.S. military bases spread around the globe. A government audit found that defense contractor Boeing has been massively overcharging taxpayers for mundane parts, resulting in tens of millions of dollars in overspending.

Pork barrel spending (the earmarking of outrageous sums of money in federal contracting in return for personal gain and campaign contributions) borders on the ludicrous. In 2010, for instance, the federal government gave the University of California at Santa Cruz $615,000 to digitize Grateful Dead memorabilia. Then there was the $246 million tax break for Hollywood movie producers to buy motion picture film. Most recently, an $11 million federal grant intended to help 400 low-income people in the Detroit area secure employment only ended up helping two people.

Government contracts for building privatized prison complexes have also become a lucrative business in recent years—what one journalist referred to as “caging humans for profit.” Immigrant detention centers are especially viewed as future goldmines for savvy investors. For example, GEO Group Inc. was paid $32 million to build a detention center for low-risk inmates in Karnes City, Texas. The prison boasts a salad bar, a library with Internet access, cable TV, an indoor gym with basketball courts, and soccer fields. GEO Group will also rake in roughly $15 million a year for running the prison. The detainees being held indefinitely at Guantanamo Bay just received a $750,000 soccer field to relieve their boredom, thanks to American taxpayers.

And then there’s the generally indulgent and overall excessive spending that goes along with a government lacking in oversight or accountability. A case in point, at the end of the Bush administration, government officials were still getting official portraits painted for upwards of $30,000. Donald Rumsfeld even got two separate portraits for his two stints as Secretary of Defense. State dinners at the White House, as lavish as they come, are estimated to run as high as half a million dollars per event. The invitations for these dinners are engraved, gold-embossed and hand-addressed by calligraphers. Wine served at these dinners has been estimated to cost taxpayers between $115-$399 per bottle. Not surprisingly, the White House refuses to disclose the price tag for these extravagant affairs.

This brings me back to the topic at hand—namely, that nothing taking place on Election Day or in the days leading up to it will limit or restrain this out-of-control bureaucracy or alleviate the suffering of the American people. What we are being treated to right now is a stage show, full of sound and fury, but in the end it is nothing more than well-choreographed entertainment for a populace struggling to survive.

Constitutional attorney and author John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about the Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.