BLITZER: Governor Perry, I’m going to move on to Governor Huntsman in a second, but you did sign legislation giving some illegal immigrants in Texas the opportunity to have in-state tuition at universities in Texas, explain what that…

PERRY: In the state of Texas, if you’ve been in the state of Texas for three years, if you’re working towards your college degree, and if you are working and pursuing citizenship in the state of Texas, you pay in-state tuition there.

And the bottom line is it doesn’t make any difference what the sound of your last name is. That is the American way. No matter how you got into that state, from the standpoint of your parents brought you there or what have you. And that’s what we’ve done in the state of Texas. And I’m proud that we are having those individuals be contributing members of our society rather than telling them, you go be on the government dole.

This answer is so wrong and disingenuous it makes my head explode. It’s hard to even know where to start. He begins by accusing everyone who would oppose this policy of racism, implying that they only reason that we don’t want to allow illegal aliens to enjoy in-state tuition is because we don’t like the “sound of their last name”. This is the exact strategy that the Democrats out here in California have used for years to ruin this state through illegal immigration, all the while taking the election returns to the bank: anyone who opposes unlimited, unrestricted immigration into this country, with all immigrants regardless of legal status enjoying the same rights as U.S. citizens, is called a racist.

It’s a simple game they play: If I say that we should enforce immigration law, people like Rick Perry immediately respond as if I just said that we should round up everyone with a Latino surname and put them in concentration camps. It’s awful, ridiculous, disingenuous and ultimately extremely damaging to our country — just come hang out with me in South Central Los Angeles and take a look at the schools, the hospitals, the neighborhoods, the jails. Do you want all of America to look like that? If so, vote for Perry.

And no Mr. Perry, giving public benefits to people who are in this country illegally is not the “American way”. The American way is that we are governed by the rule of law, not the arbitrary and capricious rule of men, and the people who need to learn that lesson the most are the new entrants. When you tell them that laws do not matter, that their salvation lies in voting for politicians who will bend the laws in their favor, then you are not supporting the American way, you are destroying it.

And how pray tell are these illegal aliens becoming “contributing members of our society” when they cannot legally work in the United States, Mr. Perry? Why is the “government dole” even an issue when illegal aliens don’t quality for welfare, or do they Mr. Perry? These open borders fanatics need to make up their minds: either it’s true as they say that illegal aliens don’t cost the taxpayers “a dime” because they don’t qualify for welfare, or alternatively, it’s true as they say that illegal aliens do not take jobs from American citizens. It can’t be both. Either they are on welfare or they are working, which is it Mr. Perry? The answer doesn’t matter though; in both cases, we the American people lose.

I won’t vote for this man at any level, not in the primary, not in the general. Accusing me of being a racist for wanting to our immigration laws to be enforced fairly and equally against all, regardless of race, is a “bridge too far”. Mandating that kids be inoculated against a sexually transmitted disease so that your buddies over at Merck can get paid is exactly the kind of crony capitalism that is killing our nation, but it’s also par for the course in politics today. Running around calling the Social Security program that tens of millions rely upon for their daily sustenance a “Ponzi scheme” is idiotic politics, but whatever, there’s some truth to it. But participating in the destruction of America through the dissolution of the principles of citizenship and the rule of law is something that I cannot abide in a candidate that gets my vote. Sorry.

Republicans hold a 10-point edge when it comes to voter trust on Social Security-related issues, 46% to 36%, up from a virtual tie last month.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

That has to be pretty disturbing to Democratic strategists. If their Party is not even trusted to defend their most cherished and celebrated legislative achievement, what can they win on?

But it also raises the question of why? Republicans are not known as fans of big government social programs, and Social Security is the biggest of them all. Why would voters trust Republicans more than Democrats on this of all things?

And what should Republicans do with this trust? Should we fritter it away because of our ideological predisposition against programs of this sort?

I would like to propose that conservatives and Republicans instead capitalize on this voter trust and step up to defend not these programs as a whole, or even in concept, but the benefits that have been earned by those who currently rely on them.

In their inception, Social Security and Medicare are not welfare programs. They are government-mandated retirement and health insurance programs. In my opinion, the contract that has been created between those who paid into those programs and the federal government should be considered as sacrosanct as any other contract. People worked their whole lives to earn, and the federal government owes, the benefits that they now enjoy.

The starting point for any proposed reform of these programs should be to make good on that contract. We should fulfill the promises made to current beneficiaries, and guarantee that every cent that has been taken out of the trust funds for the two programs to pay for other federal expenses will be paid back in full, with interest. Neither of these trust funds is upside down from an accounting perspective at present, and neither will be in the short-term. There is no reason that current beneficiaries cannot enjoy the benefits that they have earned.

It is in fact the Democrats who have been perfectly willing to raid these trust funds for all manner of government waste, inefficiency, and patronage. They have, as always, taken the money from those who have earned it and given it to those who have not. But the prommissary notes (T-bills) are still there, signifying that they must pay that money back. Now they don’t want to, and they are looking for a way out of that obligation so that they can continue with their profligate ways. We should not give it to them. We should demand that those notes be paid in full, exactly as promised.

Now, with respect to those who are under the age of 65 and are not currently enjoying benefits, I think it’s fair to put some things on the table: privatization and personalization; changes in promised benefits to reflect actuarial realities; elimination of unearned benefits. All of that should be fair game.

But please, can we agree out the outset that we will respect the obligation that the nation has toward those who have earned their benefits. Although a government-enforced social program such as Social Security can never really be called conservative, respecting the sanctity of contract, the value of work and earnings, and the fulfillment of obligations are, to me, very much part of the conservative ideal.

Some years down the pike, we’re going to get the real solution, which is going to be a combination of death panels and sales taxes.
– Paul Krugman, This Week, November 14, 2010

Wow, so Sarah Palin was right after all?

Well, maybe she’s wrong because she was talking about the health care bill, and he’s talking about proposed solutions for the future. Fair enough, until you consider the fuller text of his statements:

KRUGMAN: If they were going to do reality therapy, they should have said, OK, look, Medicare is going to have to decide what it’s going to pay for. And at least for starters, it’s going to have to decide which medical procedures are not effective at all and should not be paid for at all. In other words, it should have endorsed the panel that was part of the health care reform.

If it’s not even — if the commission isn’t even brave enough to take on the death panels people, then it’s doing no good at all. It’s not educating the public. It’s not telling people about the kinds of choices that need to be made.

http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/week-…

So, is Paul Krugman admitting that Mrs. Palin was right? Does he owe her an apology for statements like this:

Right now, the charge that’s gaining the most traction is the claim that health care reform will create “death panels” (in Sarah Palin’s words) that will shuffle the elderly and others off to an early grave. It’s a complete fabrication, of course.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/14/op…

Here’s what Mrs. Palin said to which Krugman was responding:

The Democrats promise that a government health care system will reduce the cost of health care, but as the economist Thomas Sowell has pointed out, government health care will not reduce the cost; it will simply refuse to pay the cost. And who will suffer the most when they ration care? The sick, the elderly, and the disabled, of course. The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?not…

Here’s Krugman explaining himself on his blog:

So, what I said is that the eventual resolution of the deficit problem both will and should rely on “death panels and sales taxes”. What I meant is that . . . health care costs will have to be controlled, which will surely require having Medicare and Medicaid decide what they’re willing to pay for — not really death panels, of course, but consideration of medical effectiveness and, at some point, how much we’re willing to spend for extreme care.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/201…

So, I guess one man’s “medical effectiveness board” is another (wo-)man’s “death panel”. And so it goes . . .

Although he and his followers are absolutely convinced that their “analysis” is the only one that promises success addressing the “structures of inequality” that hold back “oppressed minorities” (there’s actually a long list of them) in America, only about 2% of real people actually understand and agree with them, and the majority of those are cranky, left-wing professors who nobody really pays attention to anyways.

In any event, not unexpectedly, last night he lost it. In his first post-election diary, An Open Letter to the White Right, On the Occasion of Your Recent, Successful Temper Trantrum, Mr. Wise lays bare the truly sick and disgusting perspective of the far-left, identity politics-obsessed, wackos who, in my opinion, absolutely determine the underlying philosophy and agenda of people like Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi:

You have had this confidence before, remember?

You thought you had secured your position permanently after the overthrow of reconstruction in the wake of the civil war, after the elimination of the New Deal, after the Reagan revolution, after the Republican electoral victory of 1994. And yet, they who refuse to die are still here.

Because those who have lived on the margins, who have been abused, maligned, targeted by austerity measures and budget cuts, subjected to racism, classism, sexism, straight supremacy and every other form of oppression always know more about their abusers than the abusers know about their victims.

They have to study you, to pay careful attention, to adjust their body armor accordingly, and to memorize your sleep patterns.

. . .

And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now – we are – your destruction.And I do not mean by that your physical destruction. We don’t play those games. We’re not into the whole “Second Amendment remedies, militia, armed resistance” bullshit that your side fetishizes, cuz, see, we don’t have to be.

We just have to be patient.

And wait for your hearts to stop beating.

And stop they will.

And for some of you, real damned soon truth be told.

So, there you have it folks. The self-appointed representatives of the oppressed “people of color” of the world, claiming that we are all sitting around with baited breath waiting for white people to die off so that we can be “free” of their oppressive ways. Demography is destiny.

But there’s a big wrench that has been thrown into the gears of the hate machine maintained by the likes of Mr. Wise: the Tea Party. When Mr. Wise is confronted with the likes of Sen. Marco Rubio, and Rep. Tim Scott, and Rep. Allen West, and (God-willing) President Sarah Palin, and the thirty percent of African-Americans who already identify with the Tea Party, Mr. Wise’s head is going to explode. His head will explode when he discovers that “the oppressed” like freedom just as much as everyone else does, and would prefer to run their own lives as opposed to having their lives run by fascist socialists such as Tim Wise.

The Tea Party has provided the spark for a wildfire that will clear away a lot of the dead wood in Washington, revealing a stark choice for all to see: “liberty or tyranny”. The tyranny of leftists such as Tim Wise who believe that we as people of color can only be free once our “enemies” (as Obama recently put it) do us all a favor and stop breathing, or the liberty that we can enjoy as independent, self-reliant, free people enjoying the blessings of limited, constitutional government and healthy and vibrant free enterprise.

So, suddenly, and humiliatingly, “the Bush tax cuts must be extended” . . .

Except . . . “not for the rich”!

Obama cannot risk his “street-cred” by allowing the rich to get away with another year or two of making off with their ill-gotten gains under the Bush tax rates, and so he’s drawn his line in the sand. OK, sure, the plebes can keep their measly tax cuts, but no way in hell will Obama let the fat cats keep theirs. No matter that the majority of them are actually small businesses who are the key to job growth, or that raising taxes on just two percent of the population will have almost no positive effect on the deficit — as long as Obama can say that he “stuck it to ‘em”, that’s all that matters.

But wait, now Obama’s own former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag is out with a New York Times Op-Ed arguing for an extension of the Bush tax cuts . . . for everyone. And even a number of Democrats in Congress are having doubts about the wisdom of maintaining Obama’s psuedo-populist appeal, even if it means sinking the economy.

So, now starts what could rapidly become an epic game of political chicken: with no legislation, all of the tax cuts expire, and Obama will have violated his campaign pledge not to raise taxes on those making less than $200,000. But those who want to extend the Bush tax cuts for everyone may have to vote against legislation that would extend the Bush tax cuts only for the middle-class.

Clearly, if the Republicans are united, and they even grab a few Democrats, they have the votes to stop a middle-class only bill. But will they do that, or will they cave?

And this game of chicken will also take place in a heated political and economic environment, and in a shortened fall session where legislators will be looking to get back onto the campaign trail as quickly as possible.

Grab your popcorn folks, this should be interesting, to say the least!

The last refuge of a liberal

By Charles Krauthammer

Friday, August 27, 2010http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/08/26/AR2010082605233.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Liberalism under siege is an ugly sight indeed. Just yesterday it was all hope and change and returning power to the people. But the people have proved so disappointing. Their recalcitrance has, in only 19 months, turned the predicted 40-year liberal ascendancy (James Carville) into a full retreat. Ah, the people, the little people, the small-town people, the “bitter” people, as Barack Obama in an unguarded moment once memorably called them, clinging “to guns or religion or” — this part is less remembered — “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them.”

That’s a polite way of saying: clinging to bigotry. And promiscuous charges of bigotry are precisely how our current rulers and their vast media auxiliary react to an obstreperous citizenry that insists on incorrect thinking.

– Resistance to the vast expansion of government power, intrusiveness and debt, as represented by the Tea Party movement? Why, racist resentment toward a black president.

– Disgust and alarm with the federal government’s unwillingness to curb illegal immigration, as crystallized in the Arizona law? Nativism.

– Opposition to the most radical redefinition of marriage in human history, as expressed in Proposition 8 in California? Homophobia.

– Opposition to a 15-story Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero? Islamophobia.

[removed -- fair use]

WASHINGTON — After skirting the controversy for weeks, President Barack Obama is weighing in forcefully on the mosque near ground zero, saying a nation built on religious freedom must allow it.

“As a citizen, and as president, I believe that Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as everyone else in this country,” Obama told an intently listening crowd gathered at the White House Friday evening to observe the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.

“That includes the right to build a place of worship and a community center on private property in lower Manhattan, in accordance with local laws and ordinances,” he said. “This is America, and our commitment to religious freedom must be unshakable.”

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/…

As glad as I am to see President Obama stick up for the constitutional freedoms of Muslims seeking to build a mosque in New York, I wish that he had similarly defended another group of Americans who were seeking to exercise their constitutional rights:

After a warning from a Brooklyn-based Islamist group, Comedy Central decided to censor last night’s episode of South Park over concerns about further offending Muslims by featuring a satirical representation of Mohammed.

Following last week’s episode, the cartoon-rendering of the prophet appeared with his body obscured by a black box and the name Mohammed was bleeped out, the Associated Press reports. Muslims consider any representation of the founder of their religion to be blasphemous.

Last week’s episode depicted the founders of various religions, including Moses, Jesus and Buddha, but did not show Mohammed outright. Instead, he was represented wearing a bear costume, and that angered members of a group calling itself Revolution Muslim. The group posted a warning on its website “that what they are doing is stupid and they will probably wind up like Theo Van Gogh for airing this show.”

http://content.usatoday.com/communit…

Theo Van Gogh, Vincent Van Gogh’s great-grand nephew, you might recall, was the Dutch filmmaker who was murdered in 2004 for his movie questioning Islam’s views of women:

Van Gogh worked with Somali-born writer Ayaan Hirsi Ali to produce the film Submission, which was critical of the treatment of women in Islam.

. . .

Working from a script written by Ayaan Hirsi Ali, van Gogh created the 10-minute movie Submission. The movie deals with the topic of violence against women in some Islamic societies, telling the stories, using visual shock tactics, of four abused Muslim women. The title itself, “Submission”, is a translation of the word “Islam” into English, referring to Muslims’ submission before God. In the film, women’s naked bodies are veiled with semi-transparent shrouds as they kneel in prayer, telling their stories as if they are speaking to Allah. Qur’anic verses some argue are unfavourable to women are projected onto their bodies in Arabic.

. . .

Mohammed Bouyeri murdered Van Gogh in the early morning of 2 November 2004, in Amsterdam . . . while he was cycling to work. Bouyeri shot van Gogh eight times with an HS 2000 handgun, and Van Gogh died on the spot. Bouyeri then attempted to decapitate him with one knife, and stabbed him in the chest with another. The two knives were left implanted in his torso, one attaching a five-page note to his body. The note threatened Western countries, Jews and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (who went into hiding).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theo_va…

Ayaan Hirsi Ali eventually fled the Netherlands and now lives in the United States. She has written two books about her life — Infidel and Nomad: From Islam to America — wherein she lays out in excruciating detail how women are treated in many Islamic societies and the danger that radical Islam represents to Western liberal democracy.

A year and a half ago, President Obama declared that “We are not at war with Islam”.

That may be true, but based on Ms. Ali’s experiences, and the experiences of many others including the victims of 9/11 and Mssrs. Parker and Stone, it is also true that at least some parts of Islam are war with us.

And these segments of Islam is not just at war with “us”, as in “the West” — they are at war with everything and everyone not sufficiently Islamic, as they define it. Almost everyplace in the world where you find large Muslim populations living in, or in close proximity to, non-Muslim societies, or even to other Muslims not of their own sect, there is conflict.

Just in recent times, some of the better known sites have included Israel (vs. Jews), Lebanon (vs. Christians), Chechnya (vs. Russians), Bosnia (vs. Serbians), Western China (vs. ethnic Chinese), Iraq (Shiite v. Sunni), Afghanistan (vs. Buddhists), Pakistan (vs. India, Hindus), Mindanao (vs. Filipino, Christians), Indonesia (vs. Bali, Buddhists), Uganda, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Nigeria (vs. African Christians).

And one of the patterns to be found in this conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims is that Muslims have consistently sought to celebrate and consolidate their conquests and defeats of non-Muslims by erecting mosques at or near non-Muslim holy sites that they were able to capture and/or destroy.

The most famous example of this of course is the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem:

Al-Aqsa Mosque . . . is an Islamic holy place in the Old City of Jerusalem. The site that includes the mosque (along with the Dome of the Rock) is also referred to as al-Haram ash-Sharif or “Sacred Noble Sanctuary”, a site also known as the Temple Mount, the holiest site in Judaism, the place where the First and Second Temples are generally accepted to have stood. Widely considered as the third holiest site in Islam, Muslims believe that Muhammad was transported from the Sacred Mosque in Mecca to al-Aqsa during the Night Journey.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Aqsa…

An example from Christiandom is the Umayyad Mosque:

The Ummayad Mosque, also known as the Grand Mosque of Damascus . . . is one of the largest and oldest mosques in the world. Located in one of the holiest sites in the old city of Damascus, it is of great architectural importance.

After the Arab conquest of Damascus, the mosque was built on the Christian basilica dedicated to John the Baptist since the time of the Roman emperor Constantine I.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umayyad…

Then you have the Hagia Sophia:

Hagia Sophia . . . is a former Orthodox patriarchal basilica, later a mosque and now a museum in Istanbul, Turkey. From the date of its dedication in 360 until 1453, it served as the cathedral of Constantinople, except between 1204 and 1261, when it was the cathedral of the Latin Empire. The building was a mosque from 29 May 1453 until 1934, when it was secularized.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hagia_S…

These are just some of the more notable examples, but there are thousands more smaller examples. And it is not just Christian and Jewish sites that have been targeted:

In his book “Hindu Temples – What Happened to Them”, Sita Ram Goel included a list of 2000 mosques that it is claimed were built on Hindu temples. The second volume of the book excerpts from medieval histories and chronicles and from inscriptions concerning the destruction of Hindu, Jain and Buddhist temples. The authors claim that the material presented in this book are only the tip of an iceberg.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convers…

Although America may have been the first nation founded in world history without a recognized national religion, the World Trade Center in New York did in a very significant way symbolize the free enterprise system that is in fact akin to a recognized national religion of sorts.

Is was logical, then, that the Muslims who sought to strike a blow at that way of life in the name of Islam would choose the World Trade Center as a potent symbol of that way of life to be destroyed.

The desire of other Muslims to now construct an Islamic mosque and cultural center in what used to be the shadow of the World Trade Center has to be seen in light of the ongoing war between Muslims and non-Muslims around the world, and the desire of Muslims to construct Islamic holy sites at or near the sites of their “victories” against non-Muslims.

Again, we may not be at war with Islam, but no one can deny that at least some parts of Islam are most definitely at war with us.

I think he would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery. That’s where I think he would like to see all black people end up again.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwNBy…

Shirley Sherrod and her husband Charles operated a farming cooperative (“New Communities, Inc.) in the 1970′s and early 1980′s. In 2009, New Communities received $13 million from the USDA as a settlement for alleged racial discrimination in loans processing by the USDA. The Sherrod’s personally received $150,000 each for “pain and suffering”.

Ron Wilkins, a former organizer with the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, wrote yesterday at Counterpoint that he was hired on to the New Communities farm in 1974:

The 6,000 acre New Communities Inc. in Lee County promoted itself during the latter part of the 1960s and throughout the 70s as a land trust committed to improving the lives of the rural black poor. Underneath this facade, the young and old worked long hours with few breaks, the pay averaged sixty-seven cents an hour, fieldwork behind equipment spraying pesticides was commonplace and workers expressing dissatisfaction were fired without recourse.

The unfortunate story of Mrs. Annie Hawkins and her family in particular is instructive. Persuaded by NCI that their lot would be improved, the Hawkins family stole away from the Georgia plantation that they had called home. After suffering abuse meted out to them and others at NCI, Mrs. Hawkins sadly stated that,

“We stole away from one plantation, but just ended up on another.”

http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins0…

According to Wilkins, now a professor of Africana Studies at Cal State Dominiquez Hills, the workers eventually launched protests and strikes against the New Communities farm, and the United Farm Workers union stepped in to help protect the workers’ rights. The September 28, 1974 issue of the UFW’s newspaper, El Macriado, tells the story:

Not only must they work behind machines spraying lethal pesticides, but there is no definite pay scale . . . management pays each workers whatever they please, according to personal preference. Strikers say they must put in unnecessary overtime, on a half hour’s notice, at ungodly hours because the farm is poorly managed.

. . .

Robert Johnson, one of the employees, finally organized the current strike, but was promptly fired.

. . .

Though several of this Black cooperative’s funding organizations are pressuring Charles Sherrod, the farm’s manager, to reach a settlement with the strikers, he remains unwilling to negotiate.

http://www.farmworkermovement.org/uf…

Wilkins notes the irony of the Sherrod story in retrospect:

It is bitter irony that the Sherrods have succeeded in being awarded $300,000 following a discrimination lawsuit, while Mrs. Hawkins and other impoverished NCI black laborers whom NCI exploited were never adequately compensated for their “pain and suffering”.

While it is true that loan discrimination and relentless creditors can be cited for the eventual demise of New Communities Inc. in 1985, NCI’s unfair labor practices and poor leadership, were equally, if not more, to blame.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wilkins0…

“People who live in glass houses . . .”

Here’s the transcript in relevant part:

ANDERSON COOPER:

I interviewed Shirley Sherrod last Thursday and in the course of that interview I failed to something that I should’ve — I believe in admitting my mistakes. I looked at the interview again today, and Ms. Sherrod said during that interview that she thought Andrew Breitbart was a racist. She said, “I think he [BREITBART] would like to get us stuck back in the times of slavery.” She went on to say that she thought his opposition to Obama was based on racism.

Now, she of course, is free to believe whatever she wants, but I didn’t challenge her that night and I should have. I don’t want anyone on my show to get away with saying things which cannot be supported by facts. I should’ve challenged her on what facts she believes support that accusation. That’s my job and I didn’t do it very well in that interview and I’m sorry about it. If I get the chance to talk to her again, I will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfqzH…

He goes on in the video to discuss allegations that her original job offer at the USDA was connected to a nearly contemporaneous settlement she received in a lawsuit against the USDA for $150,000 and new video footage that may or may not show racism on the part of Shirley’s husband, Charles Sherrod.

A rare display of journalistic integrity, or yet more cowardice in the MSM?

To recap:

Charles Sherrod called the USDA racist.

The Obama Administration paid Charles and Shirley Sherrod $150,000 each to compensate for the USDA’s racism.

Glenn Beck called Obama a racist.

The NAACP called the Tea Party racist.

Andrew Breitbart called the NAACP and Shirley Sherrod racist.

The NAACP condemned Shirley Sherrod’s racism.

The Obama Administration asked for Shirley Sherrod’s resignation because of her racism.

Bill O’Reilly called Shirley Sherrod racist.

The MSM called Shirley Sherrod a racist.

The MSM discovered that Shirley Sherrod is no longer a racist.

The NAACP apologized for calling Shirley Sherrod a racist.

The White House apologized to Shirley Sherrod and offered her a new job fighting USDA racism.

The MSM apologized for calling Shirley Sherrod a racist.

Bill O’Reilly apologized for calling Shirley Sherrod a racist.

Shirley Sherrod called Andrew Breitbart a racist.

Anderson Cooper apologized to his viewers for failing to question Shirley Sherrod for calling Andrew Breitbart a racist.

Anderson Cooper said that Charles Sherrod might be a racist.

Here’s the video of the interview (starting at about 4:03):

In the interview, Angle is asked about the rumors that she plans to dismantle Social Security and Medicare. She responded not just by denying this, but by turning it around into a call for a “lock-box” around Social Security and Medicare, and against the Harry Reid’s of the world who have been “raiding” those funds for a whole host of unrelated purposes. She argues that seniors have paid their money into those funds “in good faith”, and that we need to “personalize” Social Security and Medicare “so that the government can no longer raid it”.

Republicans should be able to whip Democratic behinds up and down the political field with this argument. I’ve had conversations with many liberals and progressives, and it literally makes me sick to my stomach when their true feelings about these programs are revealed. They see Social Security and Medicare as two more sources of government income and welfare programs, entirely dependent on the whims of politics.

Just look at the ridicule that they heap on the Tea Partier who carries a picket sign that reads, “Keep your government hands off my Medicare!” Ideological liberals think that’s the stupidest thing ever because they truly believe that the federal government can do with that money whatever it wants, and any notion of that the beneficiaries have any kind of individual, quasi-contractual right based on their years of work is pure anathema.

But the vast majority of the American people do not see it that way. Most people would be appalled to learn that the Democrats feel empowered to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits however they see fit in any given year, to take money from Social Security and Medicare for other purposes. They would be disgusted to to see senior citizens who dutifully worked their whole lives paying their hard-earned money into those programs reduced to nothing more than welfare recipients begging the government for a few crumbs of their own money back. Social Security and Medicare benefits are promises that have been made to individuals, and should not in any way be made subject to the whims of whoever happens to be in power in Washington and the fiscal nightmare that is the U.S. federal government.

OK, I understand that in a pure libertarian/conservative world, there would be no Social Security and Medicare. But I would also argue that a view that puts Social Security and Medicare funds into a “lock-box” to be used only for their intended purpose, where individuals earn and enjoy their benefits as individuals, not subject to any political interference and machinations, is much closer to the conservative ideal of the role of government, as opposed to the Democrats’ view, where Social Security and Medicare are simply more arbitrary and capricious government taxation and welfare programs, with no attachment whatsoever to the individual.

Before Sharron Angle, I hadn’t heard anyone talking about this in terms of “personalizing” Social Security and Medicare, but that is exactly right. At this point in history, if Republicans simply stand for the original concept upon which those programs were founded, i.e. as government-sponsored, personal, individual old-age retirement accounts and health insurance policies, I believe that Democrats, who stand for the corruption and bastardization of those programs into just more arbitrary and capricious tax and welfare programs, will be absolutely shredded on this issue.

And, besides, once the personal and individual nature of those programs is conclusively established, then the door is open to all kinds of market-based reforms to make them as effective and fiscally sounds as possible.

But if Republicans let their general opposition to government programs and commitment to fiscal sanity get in the way of articulating support for “personalizing” these programs, then Democrats will score once again by painting the Republicans as the party that is “out to get your Social Security and Medicare”, as they are trying to do with Ms. Angle.

I believe that this battle will be key in the coming years, as the federal budget crisis gets worse and worse. The Democrats will be taking a serious look at the “IOU’s” referred to by Angle as a huge source of potential new revenue to feed their social engineering programs. Already, $500 billion was taken out of Medicare to fund Obamacare.

But the American people have said time and time again that Social Security and Medicare are the “third rail” of American politics, not to be touched by any but the most suicidal of politicians. By personalizing and individualizing these programs, Republicans will be able cut off one more huge source of oxygen to the Democrats, and portray themselves as the protector of average Americans against a rapacious and out-of-control federal government.

That statement alone, IMHO, warrants a generous contribution to Sharron Angle’s campaign:

http://www.sharronangle.com/