> Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little
personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr Spock's son committed suicide).
We said an expert should know what he's talking about. And we said OK.

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and
why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves.

Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with

Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell Funny how we
believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-
mail and they spread like wildfire but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think
twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace, but
public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace.

Are you laughing yet?

Funny how when you forward this message, you will not send it to many on your address list because you're
not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it.

Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us.

Pass it on if you think it has merit. If not then just discard it... no one will know you did. But, if you discard
this thought process, don't sit back and complain about what bad shape the world is in.

My Best Regards, Honestly and respectfully, Ben Stein

If there is anyone out there who doesn't know, this is an excellent visual.
Now don't be mad at old people, just remember who did this.......

Franklin Delano. Roosevelt
32nd. President, Democrat
Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945
GO TO HERE !  Our Social Security
Franklin Delano. Roosevelt (Terms of Office March 4, 1933, to April 12, 1945), a Democrat, introduced the
Social Security (FICA) Program.  He Promised:

1.)     That participation in the Program would be Completely voluntary,
2.)     That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first   $1,400 of their annual Incomes into the
3.)    That the money the participants elected to put Into the Program would be deductible from Their income
for tax purposes each year,
4.)     That the money the participants put into the Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the General
operating fund, and therefore, would Only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program, and no
other Government program, and
5.)     That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income..
Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month --
and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the Federal government to 'Put
Away' -- you may be interested in the following:  


Dwight David Eisenhower
34th. President, Republican,
Term Of Office: January 20, 1953 to January 20, 1961  Insert by Vincent Peter Render,

If  I recall correctly, 1958 is the first year that Congress, not President Eisenhower, voted to remove funds
from Social Security and put it into the General Fund for Congress to spend.
If  I recall correctly, it was a democratically controlled Congress.
From what I understand, Congress logic at that time was that there was so much money in Social Security
Fund that it would never run out / be used up for the purpose it was intended / set aside for.

-------------WORSE STILL------------------------------------------------

Lyndon Baines Johnson 36th. President, Democrat
Term Of Office: November 22, 1963 to January 20, 1969  
Question:   Which Political Party took Social Security from the Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it into the
General Fund so that Congress could spend it?

Answer:   It was Lyndon B. Johnson (Democrat, Term of Office: November 22,1963 to January 20, 1969) and
the democratically Controlled House and Senate.         

Question:   Which Political Party eliminated the income tax Deduction for Social Security
(FICA) withholding?
Answer:   The Democratic Party.

William Jefferson Clinton
(Bill Clinton)
42nd. President
Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001  
Albert Arnold Gore, Jr.
(Al Gore)
45th. Vice President

Democrat Term of Office: January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001  
Question:     Which Political Party started taxing Social Security annuities?
Answer:     The Democratic Party, with Albert Arnold Gore, Jr. (Al Gore)  [Vice President Term of Office:  
January 10, 1993 to January 20, 2001] casting the 'tie-breaking'  deciding vote as President of the Senate,
while he was Vice President of the US ...

------------------THE STRAW THAT BROKE THE CAMEL'S BACK !!-------------------------------------------------

James Earl Carter, Jr
(Jimmy Carter)
39th  President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1977 to January 20, 1981  
Question:   Which Political Party decided to start giving Annuity payments to immigrants?





Then, after violating the original contract (FICA), the Democrats turn around and tell you that the
Republicans want to take your Social Security away!

And the worst part about it is uninformed citizens believe it!

If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of Awareness will be planted and maybe changes WILL evolve!  
Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully sure of what isn't so.  But it's worth a try.  How many people can
YOU send this to?   

Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.  


Thomas Jefferson
3rd. President, Democrat
Term of Office: January 20, 1777 to January 20, 1781

"A government big enough to give you everything you want,
is strong enough to take everything you have".   
                         Thomas Jefferson  

Subject: Another view of B. Hussein Obama


Anne Wortham is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar
at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.   She is a member of the American Sociological Association and
the American Philosophical Association.  She has been a John M. Olin Foundation Faculty Fellow, and
honored as a Distinguished Alumni of the Year by the National Association for Equal Opportunity in Higher
Education.  In fall 1988 she was one of a select group of intellectuals who were featured in Bill Moyer's
television series, "A World of Ideas."  The transcript of her conversation with Moyers has been published in
his book,   A World of Ideas.  Dr. Wortham is author of   The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of
Black Race Consciousness   which analyzes how race consciousness is transformed into political strategies and
policy issues.  She h as published numerous articles on the implications of individual rights for civil rights
policy, and is currently writing a book on theories of social and cultural marginality.  Recently, she has
published articles on the significance of multiculturalism and Afrocentricism in education, the politics of
victimization and the social and political impact of political correctness.0 Shortly after an interview in 2004
she was awarded tenure.

This article by her is something else.

No He Can't

By Anne Wortham

Fellow Americans,

Please know: I am black; I grew up in the segregated South.  I did not vote for Barack Obama; I wrote in
Ron Paul's name as my choice for president.  Most importantly, I am not race conscious.   I do not require a
black president to know that I am a person of worth, and that life is worth living.  I do not require a black
president to love the ideal of America.  I cannot join you in your celebration.  I feel no elation.  There is no
smile on my face.  I am not jumping with joy.  There are no tears of triumph in my eyes.  For such emotions
and behavior to come from me, I would have to deny all that I know about the requirements of human
flourishing and survival - all that I know about the history of the United States of America, all that I know
about American race relations, and all that I know about Barack Obama as a politician.  I would have to deny
the nature of the "change" that Obama asserts has come to America.  Most importantly, I would have to
abnegate my certain understanding that you have chosen to sprint down the road to serfdom that we have
been on for over a century.  I would have to pretend that individual liberty has no value=2 0for the success of
a human life.  I would have to evade your rejection of the slender reed of capitalism on which your success
and m ine depend.  I would have to think it somehow rational that 94 percent of the 12 million blacks in this  
country voted for a man because he looks like them (that blacks are permitted to play the race card), and
that they were joined by self-declared "progressive" whites who voted for him because he doesn't look like
them.  I would have to be wipe my mind clean of all that I know about the kind of people who have advised
and taught Barack Obama and will fill posts in his administration - political intellectuals like my former
colleagues at the Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government.  I would have to believe that
"fairness" is the equivalent of justice.  I would have to believe that man who asks me to "go forward in a new
spirit of service, in a new service of sacrifice" is speaking in my interest.  I would have to accept the premise
of a man that economic prosperity comes from the "bottom up," and who arrogantly believes that he can will
it into existence by the use of government force.  I would have to admire a man who thinks the standard of
living of the masses can be improved by destroying the most productive and the generators of wealth.

Finally, Americans, I would have to erase from my consciousness the scene of 125,000 screaming, crying,
cheering people in Grant Park, Chicago irrationally chanting "Yes We Can!"  Finally, I would have to wipe all
memory of all the times I have heard politicians, pundits, journalists, editorialists, bloggers and intellectuals
declare that capitalism is dead - and no one, including especially Alan Greenspan, objected to their
assumption that the particular version of the anti-capitalistic mentality that  they want to replace with their
own version of anti-capitalism is anything remotely equivalent to capitalism.

So you have made history, Americans.  You and your children have elected a black man to the office of the
president of the United States, the wounded  giant of the world.  The battle between John Wayne and Jane
Fonda is over - and that Fonda won.  Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern must be very happy men.  
Jimmie Carter, too.  And the Kennedys have at last gotten their Kennedy look-a-like.  The self-righteous
welfare statists in the suburbs can feel warm moments of satisfaction for having elected a black person.  So,
toast yourselves: 60s countercultural radicals, 80s yuppies and 90s bourgeois bohemians.  Toast yourselves,
Black America.  Shout your glee Harvard,  Princeton, Yale, Duke, Stanford, and Berkeley.  You have elected
not an individual who is qualified to be president, but a black man who, like the pragmatist Franklin
Roosevelt, promises to - Do Something!  You now have someone who has picked up the baton of Lyndon
Johnson's Great Society.  But you have also foolishly traded your freedom and mine - what little there is left -
for the chance to feel good.  There is nothing in me that can share your happy obliviousness.

America Re-Invented?

It’s not your imagination. America and what it means to be an American is being re-invented and many
believe it’s okay or even necessary. You’ve heard it all from both the right and the left, the liberals and
conservatives, but has it hit home? Has it made you cringe or cry or even wonder about the future?
We had a revolution, a violent resistance and movement to bring about change. That change was freedom
from government intervention and dictates. It was in protest to taxation without representation, taxes
imposed by a government where the people had no voice. When the Declaration of Independence was signed,
our leaders knew the people of this country wanted freedom and the cost of that freedom would be
responsibility, loyalty, initiative, creativity, and honor. As others came to seek that freedom, they were
greeted at Ellis Island in New York, stood in line while they prayed, kissed the ground, and pledged allegiance
to the country that set them free. They learned the language, worked hard, prayed often, and grew the most
powerful country in the world, one nation, under God.
Though Native Americans suffered from the original settlers, they also knew this country was chosen. They
honored the Creator, accepted strangers, paid homage to Mother Earth and taught our forefathers how to
build a Congress.
When greed and power inflicted its first blows in the 1930’s, President Roosevelt thought a new deal should be
shaped to rescue the country. Welfare was invented, and the idea that spending stimulates an economy was
thrust on the people with the comforting words that all we had to fear was fear itself. Money was poured into
infrastructure with the promise of jobs for everyone. It didn’t work. As our enemies sensed our deepening
weakness, people like Hitler and Mussolini and the Emperors of Japan decided it was time to get aggressive
and better their own positions. Too long a discourse for this article, but know that the Japanese attacked
Pearl Harbor because they could, and ships were lost because they were placed there. We went to war, and the
economy changed quickly. When it was all over, we were a strong nation that was growing quickly and Happy
Days were Here Again.
We are once again living in reaction to greed and corruption. Not just one Presidential administration allowed
this to happen, but three of them. Not just one side of Congress, but both sides. But because we’ve been a
nation unaware of our history, untrue to our principles, unrealistic about our mission, we rush to change
things again, and put our hopes and dreams in one man who used those words in his memoirs.
Do we remember that Congress was supposed to be a check on the Executive Branch? That the Judicial
Branch of our government should adhere to the Constitution and check both the President and Congress?
That the President is first and foremost the Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces? Have we forgotten
that the right to bear arms is an American right so that we as a people may never suffer under tyranny
again? Did we somehow forget that becoming a citizen of this country means being true to the Constitution
and respecting the laws of the land? That it’s an honor to become and be an American? Have we grown so
accustomed to welfare and handouts that now even our corporations expect a free lunch?
President Obama in a recent speech declared that stimulus means spending. A week before that he said it
wasn’t stimulus, it’s recovery. Obama said he’d attack the budget the first day in office and cross party lines
to find answers and solutions. Instead, he told Pelosi, Reid and Geithner he needed a stimulus package that
was equal to 6-800 billion dollars and would give tax credits to the poor and let people have free healthcare if
they needed it. It should also provide jobs and maybe help the schools. Democrats went into conference not
knowing what to do, so they pulled everything off the shelves that never got passed and threw it into a new
stimulus package. They won, so they say, so no need for any input from the losers. They want new direction, a
new tone. They want change, and it doesn’t matter that it’s going to cost us and the next four generations
trillions of dollars to get it. The interest alone will keep us in debt for three generations, and that’s only if the
Chinese and other countries don’t call the loans.
It could have been so easy. It could have been inexpensive. Change the mark to market law. Reduce or
eliminate payroll taxes so employees have more money in their paychecks and employers can afford to hire
people. Reduce or eliminate capital gains taxes so investors can take risks and invest in other companies
without a tax burden. Prosecute the CEOs of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set the example. Give no money
to corporate heads who buried their companies from greed and corruption. Lower mortgage interest rates so
people can stay in their homes, and stop the welfare state of mind.
Instead, we are being re-invented. American jobs are outsourced so employers can pay lower salaries. Money
will be spent eventually on roads and bridges, but the workers will be illegal immigrants who send the money
home to their own countries. Taxes are staying high and will be raised so that companies can’t afford to stay
here. Healthcare will be socialized so people who will be used to standing in lines to get checks, can now stand
in line to get treated for illnesses and diseases that they got from poor diets, toxic water, and the inability to
find alternatives that the government didn’t hand out for free.
I want my country back. I want to honor my ancestors and my children. I want to re-invent the invention so
we once again are a nation that understands we were chosen to be America and each of us picked by God to be

- Let's hear it for Costco! (This is just mind-boggling!)

Make sure you read all the way past the list of the drugs. The woman
that signed below is a Budget Analyst out of
federal Washington,DC offices.

Did you ever wonder how much it costs a drug company for the active
ingredient in prescription medications? Some people think it must cost
a lot, since many drugs sell for more than $2.00 per tablet. We did a
> search of offshore chemical synthesizers that supply the active
> ingredients found in drugs approved by the FDA. As we have revealed in
> past issues of Life Extension a significant percentage of drugs sold in
> the United States contain active ingredients made in other countries.
> In our independent investigation of how much profit drug companies
> really make, we obtained the actual price of active ingredients used in
> some of the most popular drugs sold in America.
> Celebrex: 100 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $130.27
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.60
> Percent markup: 21,712%
> Claritin: 10 mg
> Consumer Price (100 tablets): $215.17
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.71
> Percent markup: 30,306%
> Keflex: 250 mg
> Consumer Price (100 tablets): $157.39
> Cost of general active ingredients: $1.88
> Percent markup: 8,372%
> Lipitor: 20 mg
> Consumer Price (100 tablets): $272.37
> Cost of general active ingredients: $5.80
> Percent markup: 4,696%
> Norvasc: 10 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $188.29
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.14
> Percent markup: 134,493%
> Paxil: 20 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $220.27
> Cost of general active ingredients: $7.60
> Percent markup: 2,898%
> Prevacid: 30 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $44.77
> Cost of general active ingredients: $1.01
> Percent markup: 34,136%
> Prilosec: 20 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $360.97
> Cost of gen
> eral active ingredients $0.52
> Percent markup: 69,417%
> Prozac: 20 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets) : $247.47
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.11
> Percent markup: 224,973%
> Tenormin: 50 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $104.47
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.13
> Percent markup: 80,362%
> Vasotec: 10 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $102.37
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.20
> Percent markup: 51,185%
> Xanax: 1 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets) : $136.79
> Cost of general active ingredients: $0.024
> Percent markup: 569,958%
> Zestril: 20 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets) $89.89
> Cost of general active ingredients $3.20
> Percent markup: 2,809%
> Zithromax: 600 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $1,482.19
> Cost of general active ingredients: $18.78
> Percent markup: 7,892%
> Zocor: 40 mg
> Consumer price (100 tablets): $350.27
> Cost of general active ingredients: $8.63
> Percent markup: 4,059%
> Zoloft: 50 mg
> Consumer price: $206.87
> Cost of general active ingredients: $1.75
> Percent markup: 11,821%
> Since the cost of prescription drugs is so outrageous, I thought  everyone should know about this.
> It pays to shop around! This helps to solve the mystery as to why they  can afford to put a Walgreen's on      
every corner. On Monday night, Steve  Wilson, an investigative reporter for Channel 7 News inDetroit, did a
> story on generic drug prices gouging by pharmacies. He found in his  investigation that some of these ge
> neric drugs were marked up as much > as 3,000% or more. So often we blame the drug companies for the
high > cost of drugs, and usually rightfully so. ! But in this case, the fault  clearly lies with the pharmacies
For example if you had to  buy a prescription drug, and bought the name brand, you might pay $100
> for 100 pills. The pharmacist might tell you that if you get the generic equivalent,  they would only cost $80,
making you think you are saving $20. What the  pharmacist is not telling you is that those 100 generic pills
may have  only cost him $10!
> At the end of the report, one of the anchors asked Mr. Wilson whether  or not there were any pharmacies
that did not adhere to this practice,  and he said that Costco consistently charged little over their cost for
the generic drugs.
> I went to the Costco site, where you can look up any drug, and get its  online price.. It says that the in-store
prices are consistent with the  online prices. I was appalled. Just to give you one example from my own
> experience I had to use the drug Compazine which helps prevent nausea  in chemo patients.
> I used the generic equivalent, which cost $54.99 for 60 pills at CVS. I  checked the price at Costco, and I
could have bought 100 pills for  $19.89. For 145 of my pain pills, I paid $72.57. I could have got 150
> at Costco for $28.08.
> I would like to mention, that although Costco is a 'membership' type  store, you do NOT have to be a
member to buy prescriptions there as it  is a federally regulated substance. You just tell them at the door that
> you wish to use the pharmacy, and they will let you in..
> Sharon L. Davis
> Budget Analyst
> U.S.Department of Commerce
> Room 6839
> Office Ph: 202-482-4458
> Office Fax: 202-482-5480
> E-mail Address:sdavis@doc.gov


> 36
> have been accused of spousal abuse

> 7
> have been arrested for fraud

> 19
> have been accused of writing bad checks

> 117
> have directly or indirectly
> bankrupted at least 2 businesses

> 3
> have done time for assault

> 71,
> repeat
> 71 cannot
> get a credit card due to bad credit

> 14
> have been arrested on drug-related charges

> 8
> have been arrested for shoplifting

are defendants in lawsuits

have been arrested for drunk driving
the last year

you guess which organization this is?
up yet? . . Scroll down,

> Neither,
it's the 435 members of the United States Congress

The same group of Idiots that crank out hundreds of new laws each year  designed to keep the rest of us in

Capitalism  or Socialism?
If we listen to the arguments for and against
Obama’s plans for “our” future, we had better understand the
meaning of the two key words that both sides of the argument frequently use. Let’s begin with the country
we now live in, or at least used to live in.
The United States of America is a
Republic. When we pledge allegiance to the flag, we also pledge allegiance
to the republic for which it stands. We are the republic, the people by, for, and about all of this country was
birthed. We freed ourselves, through revolutionary means, from an anarchy that made all of our decisions,
and ultimately, owned all of our rights. We declared this on paper and specific signatures were attached
attesting to its universal acceptance among the people. We declared our right to pursue our own lives with
freedom and to seek individual and national happiness.
Constitution declared more specifically what these individual rights are and how they are protected. It also
ensured that any government within the United States that tried to ignore or abolish these rights was not a
government by and for the people and that the republic had the right to abolish that government.
Within the context of these two documents, and with God’s guidance, a social economic system was born. It’s
birth name was
capitalism. The “ism” conotates a belief that the economy of our country is driven by privately
owned manufacturing and distribution, whether that be individual ownership or some form of corporate
ownership. It is the belief that money in all its forms is the bartering tool between people and that every
individual has the right to pursue it. It is also the belief that the pursuit of money will not and should not
take away that same freedom from anyone else as they also pursue their lives and individual happiness. It
encourages private investment and when we invest in companies we believe in, we become part-owners or
shareholders in those companies, whether that investment is through stock purchases or specific
commodities. If you buy a hamburger from XYZ company, you believe in their product, increase their profits,
and satisfy your hunger. If you own a share of that same company, you participate in their profits and satisfy
your hunger for the pursuit of money. Prices and profit dictate how and where resources are allocated and
Understanding this simplistic definition of capitalism, we then have to incorporate the limited involvement of
government and its three branches.  The judiciary branch of government on both a state and federal level  
was charged with maintaining rules of trading and bartering, what we call buying and selling. They regulated
the way companies conducted business to protect people, the individual consumer or buyer. XYZ had to sell
the same hamburger at the same price to everyone regardless of what street they lived on. Regulations were
fairly lax until the New Deal era when the judicial branch got more involved in business to presumably protect
the individual, but the involvement of the executive and legislative branches of government during this time
was a partial cause of business mal-practice which caused the courts to become more involved and definitive
in their  interpretation of the constitution.
Socialism is a belief in an economic system in which the production and distribution of goods and services are
controlled by the government rather than by private enterprise or the individual. It is a belief that
cooperation rather than competition drives economic activity. You buy a hamburger from XYZ and have no
choice to buy a better burger because everyone deserves the same burger. The government determines what
kind of burger you deserve and there is no incentive to make a better burger. The public does not own or
share ownership, nor does the individual reap the benefits or profits.
Socialism is often considered the next step to
communism which manifests in many forms and theories, but is
essentially collective ownership with no government. The collective decides what the collective needs and what
will be produced. Communist countries are often seen with everyone wearing the same basic uniform and
eating exactly the same food. Both socialism and communism are beliefs that the rich control the poor, that
the working class is oppressed under the ruling class and that sharing equally will abolish that oppression.
When we examine the definitions, history, evolution and outcomes of all of these belief systems, it becomes
clear that an individual belief will be determined by where that individual fits at a given time. If I am poor, I
may want more equality. If I am rich, I may want more opportunity. If I am somewhere in the middle, I may
want some opportunity without much risk of becoming poor.
Capitalism was not a bad idea until it branched into imperialism, something we should have learned  from
Imperial Japan when the war was lost and their economy bottomed out. Socialism was a good idea until
individuals within the system decided there should be tiers of influence and control, something we should
have learned from Germany and France. Communism seemed like a good idea in  countries where massive
populations needed to share more to survive, but it turned out there wasn’t enough production to share
anything and survival became a constant war to find freedom, something we should have learned from China
and Russia. What then is the right track?
If we return to the original Declaration of Independence and Constitution of the United States, we should
understand that we were built on the  belief  that we are One Nation (a commune), under God, (a religious
commune), with liberty (freedom from oppression) and justice (adherence to individual rights) for all(of
society.) The economy is driven by our social value system and determined by our beliefs. If we believe in the
United States of America, and we understand that the economy is driven by money, then we must also
understand that free markets, free enterprise, and individuals, not communes, collectives, or government
strengthen the economy and the value of money. We must also understand that our values are based in those
freedoms, under God. That is what we pledge our allegiance to. That is what we salute. That is why we cover
our hearts. And that is why we are the United States.
Rayna G. For President on Facebook