The Blue Site

The Attacks on Reagan Continue

Two parts of a cyber alert from the media research center in regards to Ronald Reagan.

On Tuesday night CNN devoted a segment of Anderson Cooper 360

to how, as CNN's Dr, Sanjay Gupta put it, throughout his

presidency "many would accuse President Reagan of ignoring AIDS,"

as if Reagan talking about it would have done more to prevent it

than those in the homosexual community modifying their unsafe sex

practices. Leading into a Reagan clip from 1987, Gupta complained

that "the first time President Reagan would utter the word AIDS in

public would be well into his second term, six years after the

virus was discovered." In fact, Reagan talked about AIDS in 1985

and cited it repeatedly in his 1986 State of the Union address.

Gupta relayed how one "AIDS activist" believes "the administration

avoided AIDS all those years because of homophobia." Interviewing

Dr. Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health, Cooper

pointed out how "the San Francisco Chronicle said that Ronald

Reagan was guilty, and I quote, of a 'shameful abdication of

leadership in the fight against AIDS.'"

How could Reagan have had any effect on AIDS in the homosexual community. Men who engage in VERY dangerous sex acts with one another...would Reagan go into the bathhouses and demand that men stop having anal sex with each other? This is a ridiculous attack that is always thrown out there by the pushers of the homosexual agenda...an agenda that has become so insane that they made up their own word- "homophobia" a 'phobia' that no doctor recognizes as even existing. Worse than that- the agenda has twisted the imaginary word into a new meaning...a word which now means anyone who rejects the immoral lifestyle or the behavior of those who live such a lifestyle. PHOBIA- key word here folks. I don't agree with homosexuality, I think it is digusting, I think it's wrong, it's harmful to all people, it's unnatural, etc. That doesn't make me SCARED of it. And being scared of something isn't even a "phobia." A phobia is a severe, irrational fear of something! Those who wish to push their lifestyles on all of us need to get off of this particular attack, because it's nonsense.

They always call AIDS an epidemic. BUT, it doesn't meet the criteria in the US to be anywhere near an epidemic. It might be an epidemic among gay men, but come on- that's a tiny minority of the population, one...and, two- these men engage in obscenely dangerous behaviors, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. Yet, the gay lobby has made us all believe that this disease that affects so few Americans is an epidemic.

As if a coordinated attack on Ronald Reagan's image, on

Wednesday four major newspapers and the AP featured stories which

relayed liberal attacks on Ronald Reagan's policies, particularly

centered on the views of liberal black leaders and AIDS activists.

ednesday's CyberAlert dissected the Washington Post's front page

story, "Schisms from Administration Lingered for Years," but

Wednesday also brought these other front page stories: In the New

York Times, "Critics See a Reagan Legacy Tainted by AIDS, Civil

Rights and Union Policies," in the Los Angeles Times, "For Some,

Unpleasant Memories: Blacks, gays remember Reagan with bitterness,

saying he neglected the poor and lacked leadership as the AIDS

epidemic exploded" and in the Chicago Tribune, "Liberals may mourn

man, but not the Reagan years." Plus, the AP distributed an

article titled, "Many Still Troubled by Reagan's Legacy," which

complained that Reagan cut taxes for the rich "while slashing

welfare benefits" resulting in "a huge surge in the nation's poor

and homeless population."

I find this funny because, again, they mention AIDS, which is, as I said before, a stupid attack, and it's just plain stupid to think him mentioning the word could have done anything to change the behavior of gay men. Oh, we'll stop having sex because Ronnie said so. I don't think that's a line you would have heard from a gay man in the 1980's!

Also- tax cuts for the rich? Wow. That's the same lie the dems are spreading about the Bush tax cuts. All the experts say the tax cuts are responsible for the economic recovery- the downfall started with Clinton, all you Bill lovers. Not that the president has much power over the economy, as I will continue to point out. The 90's weren't booming because of Clinton, they were booming because of the thing you're reading this on- the internet. Also, tax cuts have ALWAYS helped. Reagan's helped the economy, as did Bush's cuts. Cuts in welfare? Believe it or not, the federal government shouldn't be involved in welfare to begin with, and the Framers would be rolling in their graves if they knew the government was handing out billions to nearly any lazy drunk who can qualify...or the millions of families in the inner-city who have ten kids and stay on welfare forever. Welfare does NOT work, the inner cities should be a testament to that! People get to where they know they don't have a reason to work, a reason to contribute, because they become addicted to the free government handout.

So, Reagan gets attacked because he cut taxes, which history has shown HELPS, and he wanted to cut government spending on things the government was never supposed to be used for...the military buildup that gave us morale, that ended the Cold War, and now makes us the best military in the world IS called for in the Constitution. It's one of the very few things the fed is supposed to do.

Also, I have no idea what so-called civil rights problems Reagan had. Isn't he the one who signed the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday into law? You know why a lot of blacks didn't care for Reagan? In general, blacks seem to have a mentality that says- Republicans are evil, and we always vote democrat. It's that whole herd mentality that has gripped so many people in this country. History shows that Republicans are the ones who pushed thru civil rights in the 60s...and, Lincoln, the man who fought slavery, was THE FIRST republican. There's more history to add to this, but we all know the truth about minorities, civil rights, and republicans. So, I'm not seeing any supposed civil rights problems with Reagan.

The facts are there, but many of the reports coming out on the administration are just completely inaccurate...and the attacks from many on the left are totally uncalled for. They can disagree, but let's base such disagreement on the facts, not some made up tales meant to attack a patriot who just died.

No liberal media? I'll just sit back and laugh at such a claim.

Posted by Josh at June 10, 2004 09:50 PM | TrackBack