The racist party hates Reagan

Yes, there is little to distinguish many of the two parties' leaders, but the principles those politicians are supposed to represent couldn't be more diametric.

A response to this with credit to this:

A greater percentage of Congressional Republicans than Democrats supported the Civil Rights Act.

You ought to ask the reasons for Reagan's positions, but you won't, since facts are anathema to you.

Blacks benefited from Reagan's economic policies more than Whites (color-based identifiers are revolting, but since you define people by the melanin-content of their skin cells, so be it).

Pat Buchanan (who's got his own issues with jihad and Israel) invented the term "Southern strategy"; what did he say about the "change" in Republicanism?

"We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense, and leave it to the ‘party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

If Southerners wanted to stay with the racist party, they'd have stayed Democrat. They went to the Republican Party because of the freedom issues Buchanan noted.

And right after Reagan's "states rights" speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi -- where Democrat Michael Dukakis spoke eight years later -- he went to New York to speak before the Urban League.

Reagan opposed "affirmative action" -- racial quotas -- just like JFK, Bayard Rustin, and the Urban League board of directors. He hired Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell. And Reagan signed Martin Luther King, Jr.'s birthday into a national holiday and approved a 25-year extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

Why do you hate "states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense"? Why do you hate America and its citizens of every hue?

Democrats depend on the obedience -- and ignorance -- of "minority" voters in fastening their chains on them.

You're either too gullible to realize it or too complicit to admit it.

Democrats rip away the mask; finally admit their contempt for God, Jews, the unborn, your children, and you

Which makes them a natural fit for Islam (and unfit for citizenship, let alone public office). If you are a decent person and a Democrat, you can no longer be both.

One of the great things about the Drudge Report is that often even a quick glance will provide revealing snapshots of national and global trends. The screen capture below shows all that needs to be said about the malice, greed, mendacity, and perverseness of today's Democratic Party.

This is not the party of even Jimmy Carter, who recently expressed his concern at the Democratic Party's becoming the party of abortion. (Speaking of Mr. Carter, he must delight at the Obama presidency in one respect: He's no longer America's Worst President Ever.)

This is the Democrats' creed, their vision for America:

Hostility toward God (but not Allah, I'll bet).

Typical Liberal Jew-hatred (a perfect fit for Islam).

Using your tax dollars to fund the slaughter of our children (an American holocaust).

Sixteen trillion dollars in debt (but give Obama four more years, and this time, he'll do something about. Honestly, he will. For real. What are you, racist?)

Record food stamp usage (because it's hard to vote on an empty stomach. Just remember where that came from).

There was a time when such positions would incur public wrath. Now it's a national political party. Is that what you want America to be?

As if there was any doubt. At least now there's no more pretending.

When decent Americans are classified as potential terrorists and treated like criminals by their own government, but Muslims are shielded from any real scrutiny (even just basic fact-telling) whatsoever -- despite claiming fealty to a god demanding the enslavement or slaughter of all who refuse the "invitation" to convert -- then you know that the enemy is not only within the gates, they're in control.

As destructive as Franklin Roosevelt was to the Constitution and American Liberty, even he would be demonized by today's Democrats as a right-wing, religious extremist. And JFK? Clearly, a Nazi. And don't even think about giving any sort of credence to Colonial proto-terrorists like Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Franklin, or Madison. As for Lincoln? Reagan? Republicans.

This is what happens when citizens allows the ignorant, perverse, and craven to gain control over government, media, and education. You end up with malignant narcissists on parade and in power, on your dime.

Congrats, tyrants, there's a political party just for you, and now, it's official.

Update 2:03 AM, 9/5/12: According to Drudge, a DNC video declares: "The government is the only thing we all belong to."

Of course. Now we're just one or two steps away from Democrats informing us that we exist at their discretion and for their benefit.

Cake, anyone?

For Obama, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is today, while Romney endorses the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the final word on all things Constitutional

Whether it's King George or King Barry, "tyranny" by any other name would smell as rank.*

Officials have already drafted 13,000 pages of new regulations for the new ObamaTax law.

King Barry will be hiring thousands of new tax people to enforce "the largest set of tax law changes in more than 20 years." And you won't get your refund until you provide proof of insurance.

It's bad enough that when you're pulled over you have to show proof of auto insurance. That's the government punishing you for driving. This is being pulled over for proof of health insurance. That's government punishing you for living.

If the Obamacare "tax" is really a penalty (which it is), then the law is unconstitutional. The federal government does not have the power to force free people to buy a particular product. Misdefining "penalty" as "tax" is how Chief Justice Roberts justified siding with the deranged half of the Court in upholding Obamacare, and its how Obama's liars lawyers argued it before the Court, all of which is an admission not only that Obama knows that the law is unconstitutional, but that he thinks you're stupid.

Why is Obama changing definitions again? Because he knows that the American people are sick of taxes, and we will not tolerate 13,000 pages of new taxation. If we opposed socialized medicine when it carried with it a "penalty," how much more despised will it be now that the "penalty" is a massive tax increase?

And there is Romney's problem: He's right to call it a "penalty" (liberals, like all tyrants, love to punish those who disobey them) and not a "tax," but his handlers want him to call it a "tax" because they think that will make it easier to defeat Obama. They think that We the People are incapable of understanding Obama's shell game. But if it wasn't obvious before, it should be clear now that Obama's the operator, the politicians, media, and Supreme Court justices are the lookouts, muscle, and shills, and the American people are the mark.

Romney would be best off calling the penalty what it is and not endorsing the liberal half of the Supreme Court as the "final word" on all matters constitutional. We the People, judging in accord with our nation's founding principles as stated in our Declaration of Independence and enumerated in our Constitution, are the final word. Mitt should explain Obama and his fellow Socialists' willful, condescending deception and vow to repeal it.

How will the Republic survive when its only alternative to King George is afraid to state plainly that the emperor is wearing Marxist underwear?

Obama silent while spokesman denies mandate is a tax:

Anchor Soledad O’Brien asked LaBolt: “His spokesman…said it’s a penalty. The Supreme Court has said it’s a tax. What does he believe?”

“That it’s a penalty,” LaBolt answered.  “You saw our arguments before the Supreme Court…”

“So then he disagrees with the Supreme Court decision that says it’s now a tax?” O’Brien asked.

“That’s right,” said LaBolt.  “He said that it’s a penalty.  You saw our arguments before the Court.”

At that point, O’Brien pointed out that the Obama administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, argued before the Court that if the justices chose not to find the mandate constitutional under the Commerce Clause, they could still uphold it because it is a tax, and Congress has broad power to levy taxes.

*Apologies to Messrs. Ramirez and Shakespeare

Hope for a change? We'll see, since it's a different dose of the same socialized medicine

Does anyone really believe that the guy who did "for" Massachusetts what Obama's done to the Republic will deliver on this video's implied promise?

What choice do we have? When the patient is hemorrhaging to death, you've got to stop the bleeding. Our chance to do so is this November. Vote out B. Hussein Kevorkian. And if Romney lacks the sense and courage to restore the Rule of Law, vote him out, too, and every other politician who promises to "take care of" the American people, when what they're really doing is coaxing voters into selling their God-given liberties for a bowl of soup.

Politicians' positions exist to protect our rights, we do not exist to provide them position.

Statists in both parties selling out the American people

"Sales pitch" is right, since the greedy fiends in both parties are selling out the Republic. At least China might find a bargain or two.

When passed, this deal with the Marxist devil will be the largest debt-limit increase in American history (it and the second-greatest both coming during the Obama reign). To illustrate how depraved our politicians have become, the United States treasury lacked the legal authority to hold a total debt of $2.4 trillion until 1987. This is a $2.4 trillion increase.

John Boehner's right about something else: His deal with Obama doesn't violate any of the principles exhibited in recent years by the Republican establishment. It's too bad that burying the nation, our children, and our children's children into perpetuity under crushing debt doesn't violate any of their "principles."

Subversive, exploitative fools. Emasculating America removes the only bulwark protecting them from the barbarians. I suppose they're hoping to ingratiate themselves to their new masters by feeding on whatever's left of us.

"There is nothing in this framework that violates our principles," he [Speaker Boehner] said. "It’s all spending cuts. The White House bid to raise taxes has been shut down. And as I vowed back in May – when everyone thought I was crazy for saying it – every dollar of debt limit increase will be matched by more than a dollar of spending cuts. And in doing this, we’ve stopping a job-killing national default that none of us wanted."

It's too bad Ron Paul doesn't understand jihad and shari'a, because he gets duplicitous crooks enslaving the electorate for their own political and financial benefit. Nothing's changed in thirty years:

One might think that the recent drama over the debt ceiling involves one side wanting to increase or maintain spending with the other side wanting to drastically cut spending, but that is far from the truth. In spite of the rhetoric being thrown around, the real debate is over how much government spending will increase.

No plan under serious consideration cuts spending in the way you and I think about it. Instead, the "cuts" being discussed are illusory, and are not cuts from current amounts being spent, but cuts in projected spending increases. This is akin to a family "saving" $100,000 in expenses by deciding not to buy a Lamborghini, and instead getting a fully loaded Mercedes, when really their budget dictates that they need to stick with their perfectly serviceable Honda. But this is the type of math Washington uses to mask the incriminating truth about their unrepentant plundering of the American people.

The truth is that frightening rhetoric about default and full faith and credit of the United States is being carelessly thrown around to ram through a bigger budget than ever, in spite of stagnant revenues. If your family's income did not change year over year, would it be wise financial management to accelerate spending so you would feel richer? That is what our government is doing, with one side merely suggesting a different list of purchases than the other.

In reality, bringing our fiscal house into order is not that complicated or excruciatingly painful at all. If we simply kept spending at current levels, by their definition of "cuts" that would save nearly $400 billion in the next few years, versus the $25 billion the Budget Control Act claims to "cut". It would only take us 5 years to "cut" $1 trillion, in Washington math, just by holding the line on spending. That is hardly austere or catastrophic.

A balanced budget is similarly simple and within reach if Washington had just a tiny amount of fiscal common sense. Our revenues currently stand at approximately $2.2 trillion a year and are likely to remain stagnant as the recession continues. Our outlays are $3.7 trillion and projected to grow every year. Yet we only have to go back to 2004 for federal outlays of $2.2 trillion, and the government was far from small that year. If we simply returned to that year's spending levels, which would hardly be austere, we would have a balanced budget right now. If we held the line on spending, and the economy actually did grow as estimated, the budget would balance on its own by 2015 with no cuts whatsoever.

We pay 35 percent more for our military today than we did 10 years ago, for the exact same capabilities. The same could be said for the rest of the government. Why has our budget doubled in 10 years? This country doesn't have double the population, or double the land area, or double anything that would require the federal government to grow by such an obscene amount.

In Washington terms, a simple freeze in spending would be a much bigger "cut" than any plan being discussed. If politicians simply cannot bear to implement actual cuts to actual spending, just freezing the budget would give the economy the best chance to catch its breath, recover and grow.

Obama admits it: He's "sold" the Republic down the river

And he thinks that eight out of ten of us want to have more of our hard-earned income confiscated and squandered on individuals, corporations, and nations who neither deserve nor appreciate it.

Is this Obama's morbid sense of humor? A sly double entendre? Like when Muslims addressing non-Muslims refer to Islam as "peace," never explaining that Muhammad's idea of "peace" is that condition when there's no one left to disagree?

Here it is, straight from the Bankrupter-in-Chief:

"The American people are sold," President Obama said.

"The American people are sold, I just want to repeat that."

"You have 80% of the American people who support a balanced approach. 80% of the American people support an approach that includes revenues and includes cuts. So the notion that somehow the American people aren't sold is not the problem. The problem is members of Congress are dug in ideologically."