Comedian Bill Maher is famous, and infamous, for stating outrageous opinions, and sometimes, he states opinions through humor that one can find unacceptable, or disagree with.
But other times, he is right on the mark, and such case occurred two weeks ago, when he dared to challenge the mythology around President Ronald Reagan.
The Republican Party and conservatives tend to worship the ground that Ronald Reagan walked on, and while interpretations of Reagan will continue to evolve, both positive and negative, what Maher had to say about Reagan in a negative way, makes a lot of sense!
Maher said that Reagan, by his comments and his actions, fit the following profile:
That Reagan was the forerunner of the Tea Party Movement, that he was anti government, that he believed in busting unions, that he was anti abortion, that he was insensitive to gays on the issue of AIDS, that he was anti intellectual, that he cut the taxes of wealthy people while raising taxes on the average middle class person, that he worshiped the military industrial complex, that he believed Medicare was Socialism and that senior citizens were waiting for handouts on the program, that he promoted states rights, that he spread the myth of the welfare queen in Chicago who was black, and that minorities were waiting for the government to support their needs, described the New Deal as Fascism, said that unemployment compensation was a prepaid vacation for freeloaders, that he had no concern for the poor, that he said trees cause pollution, that he promoted hate of government, and that he is the man most responsible for our decline since the high point of the economy and wages in 1973!
Can anyone deny that all of the above is true and factual, based on what Reagan said and did, in and out of the Presidency?
Proposition 6 was a 1978 ballot measure that called for the dismissal of California teachers who “advocated” homosexuality, even outside of schools.
“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this. Since the measure does not restrict itself to the classroom, every aspect of a teacher’s personal life could presumably come under suspicion. What constitutes ‘advocacy’ of homosexuality? Would public opposition to Proposition 6 by a teacher — should it pass — be considered advocacy?” Ronald Reagan, September 24, 1978.
That November 7, Proposition 6 lost, 41.6 percent in favor to 58.4 percent against. Reagan’s opposition is considered instrumental to its defeat.
In February 1986, President Reagan’s blueprint for the next fiscal year stated: “[T]his budget provides funds for maintaining — and in some cases expanding — high priority programs in crucial areas of national interest…including drug enforcement, AIDS research, the space program, nonmilitary research and national security.” Reagan’s budget message added that AIDS “remains the highest public health priority of the Department of Health and Human Services.”
In a Congressional Research Service study titled AIDS Funding for Federal Government Programs: FY1981-FY1999, author Judith Johnson found that overall, the federal government spent $5.727 billion on AIDS under Ronald Reagan. (See: http://www.fas.org/spp/civil/crs/96-293.pdf)
“You could have poured half the national budget into AIDS in 1983, and it would have gone down a rat hole,” says Michael Fumento, author of BioEvolution: How Biotechnology Is Changing Our World. “There were no anti-virals back then. The first anti-viral was AZT which came along in 1987, and that was for AIDS.” As an example of how blindly scientists and policymakers flew as the virus took wing, Fumento recalls that “in 1984, Health and Human Services Secretary Margaret Heckler predicted that there would be an AIDS vaccine by 1986. There is no AIDS vaccine to date.”
Reagan also is accused of staying mum about AIDS. According to The Encyclopedia of AIDS: A Social, Political, Cultural, and Scientific Record of the HIV Epidemic edited by Raymond A. Smith, “Reagan never even mentioned the word ‘AIDS’ publicly until 1987.”
Actually, as official White House papers cited by Steven Hayward, author of the multi-volume Age of Reagan show, the 40th president spoke of AIDS no later than September 17, 1985. Responding to a question on AIDS research, the president said:
” [I]ncluding what we have in the budget for ’86, it will amount to over a half a billion dollars that we have provided for research on AIDS in addition to what I’m sure other medical groups are doing. And we have $100 million in the budget this year; it’ll be 126 million next year. So, this is a top priority with us. Yes, there’s no question about the seriousness of this and the need to find an answer.”
President Reagan’s February 6, 1986 State of the Union address included this specific passage where he says the word “AIDS” five times:
“We will continue, as a high priority, the fight against Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). An unprecedented research effort is underway to deal with this major epidemic public health threat. The number of AIDS cases is expected to increase. While there are hopes for drugs and vaccines against AIDS, none is immediately at hand. Consequently, efforts should focus on prevention, to inform and to lower risks of further transmission of the AIDS virus. To this end, I am asking the Surgeon General to prepare a report to the American people on AIDS.”
Could Reagan have said more about AIDS? Surely, and he might have done so were he less focused on reviving America’s moribund economy and peacefully defeating Soviet Communism. Could he have done more? Of course. Who could not have? But the ideas that Ronald Reagan did nothing, or worse, about AIDS and hated gays, to boot, are both tired, left-wing lies
Medicare: “There you go again” . http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qN7gDRjTNf4
Juan, Reagan and his cabinet joked at a meeting about San Francisco and gays, despicable! Members of the cabinet mocked the whole issue of AIDS in the first term. Reagan avoided the issue publicly until his good friend, Rock Hudson, was dying of AIDS, and Ryan White had AIDS, and was a hemophiliac who gained it through a bad blood transfusion.
It is clear that Jimmy Carter would have confronted the issue publicly in a second term much sooner than Reagan, who allowed evangelicals to delay his dealing with the issue until a second term!
Reagan could laugh, but he made a video presentation against Medicare in the 1960s–it is actually arrogant of him to say “There you go again”!
On the states and federalism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BuwYjbQOC8
Bear in mind that the AIDS virus was not identified until 1982 then from 1984 onward every Reagan budget contained a large sum of money specifically earmarked for AIDS.
As for that joke, were you there or did you watch “The Reagans” on Showtime Sunday? That despicable TV movie! This is how Hollywood depicted Reagan, as always.
“You’re president of the United States,” Nancy Reagan, reminded Ronald Reagan as he sat up in bed in 1983. She begged him to do something about the growing scourge of AIDS. “If you don’t talk about it, nobody will talk about it. Nobody will do anything, and all these people — these children, these young boys — they’re all going to die. And the blame will be on our heads, Ronnie.”
President Reagan quietly kept reading through his half glasses. He seemed very cozy, clad in his bathrobe, beneath his blankets.
“Ronnie, say something,” Nancy pleaded. The president coolly maintained his silence. He never even looked at his beloved First Lady.
The original script was far worse.
“Those who live in sin will die in sin,” says President Reagan, as portrayed by actor James Brolin. Teleplaywright Elizabeth Egloff eventually admitted she had no evidence on which to base this scandalous comment. “We know he ducked the issue over and over again,” she told the New York Times in self-defense. Again another lie.
You libs are all about lies and lies. As always.
As for socialized medicine of course we are against it! http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fRdLpem-AAs#at=437
Back in 1927 an American socialist, Norman Thomas, six times candidate for president on the Socialist Party ticket, said the American people would never vote for socialism. But he said under the name of liberalism the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.
There are many ways in which our government has invaded the precincts of private citizens, method of earning a living; our government is in business to the extent of owning more than 19,000 businesses covering 47 different lines of activity. This amounts to a fifth of the total industrial capacity of the United States.
But at the moment I would like to talk about another way because this threat is with us, and at the moment, is more imminent.
One of the traditional methods of imposing statism or socialism on a people has been by way of medicine.
It’s very easy to disguise a medical program as a humanitarian project, most people are a little reluctant to oppose anything that suggests medical care for people who possibly can’t afford it.
Now, the American people, if you put it to them about socialized medicine and gave them a chance to choose, would unhesitatingly vote against it. We had an example of this. Under the Truman administration it was proposed that we have a compulsory health insurance program for all people in the United States, and, of course, the American people unhesitatingly rejected this.
So with the American people on record as not wanting socialized medicine, Congressman Ferrand introduced the Ferrand bill. This was the idea that all people of Social Security age, should be brought under a program of compulsory health insurance. Now this would not only be our senior citizens, this would be the dependents and those that are disabled, this would be young people if they are dependents of someone eligible for social security.
Now , Congressman Ferrand, brought the program out on that idea out , on just for that particular group of people. But Congressman Ferrand was subscribing to this foot-in-the door philosophy, because he said, “If we can only break through and get our foot inside the door, then we can expand the program after that.” (THE FOOT IN THE DOOR FOR OBAMACARE AND THE FUTURE SINGLE PAYER PUBLIC SYSTEM)
Walter Ruther said, “It’s no secret that the United Automobile Workers is officially on record of backing a program of national health insurance.” And by national health insurance, he meant socialized medicine for every American.
Well, let us see what the socialists themselves have to say about it. They say once the Ferrand bill is passed this nation will be provided with a mechanism for socialized medicine capable of indefinite expansion in every direction until it includes the entire population. Now we can’t say we haven’t been warned. ( AND THIS IS WHAT IS HAPPENING VIA OBAMACARE MANDATE)
Now Congressman Ferrand is no longer a Congressman of the United States government. He has been replaced, not in his particular assignment, but in his backing of such a bill by Congressman King of California. It is presented in the idea of a great emergency that millions of our senior citizens are unable to provide needed medical care. But this ignores that fact that in the last decade, 127 million of our citizens, in just 10 years, have come under the protection of some form of privately owned medical or hospital insurance.
Now the advocates of this bill when you try to oppose it challenge you on an emotional basis. They say, “What would you do? Throw these poor people out to die with no medical attention?â€
That’s ridiculous and of course no one is advocating it. As a matter of fact, in the last session of Congress a bill was adopted known as the Kerr/Mills bill. Now without even allowing this bill to be tried to see if it works, they have introduced this King bill, which is really the Ferrand bill.
What is the Kerr/Mills bill? It is a frank recognition of the medical need or problem of the senior citizens I have mentioned and it has provided from the federal government, money to the states and the local communities that can be used at the discretion of the state to help those people who need it.
Now what reason could the other people have for backing a bill which says we insist on compulsory health insurance for senior citizens on a basis of age alone regardless of whether they are worth millions of dollars, whether they have an income, whether they are protected by their own insurance, whether they have savings. (REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY ARE WORTH MILLIONS!!!!)
I think we can be excused for believing that as ex-congressman Ferrand said, this was simply an excuse to bring about what they wanted all the time — socialized medicine.
James Madison in 1788 speaking to the Virginia convention said, “Since the general civilization of mankind, I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations.â€
They want to attach this bill to Social Security and they say here is a great insurance program; now instituted, now working.
Let’s take a look at Social Security itself. Again, very few of us disagree with the original premise that there should be some form of savings that would keep destitution from following unemployment by reason of death, disability or old age. And to this end, Social Security was adopted, but it was never intended to supplant private savings, private insurance, pension programs of unions and industries.
Now in our country under our free-enterprise system we have seen medicine reach the greatest heights that it has in any country in the world. Today, the relationship between patient and doctor in this country is something to be envied any place. The privacy, the care that is given to a person, the right to chose a doctor, the right to go from one doctor to the other.
But let’s also look from the other side. The freedom the doctor uses. A doctor would be reluctant to say this. Well, like you, I am only a patient, so I can say it in his behalf. The doctor begins to lose freedoms, it’s like telling a lie. One leads to another. First you decide the doctor can have so many patients. They are equally divided among the various doctors by the government, but then the doctors are equally divided geographically, so a doctor decides he wants to practice in one town and the government has to say to him he can’t live in that town, they already have enough doctors. You have to go some place else. And from here it is only a short step to dictating where he will go.
This is a freedom that I wonder if any of us has a right to take from any human being. I know how I’d feel if you my fellow citizens, decided that to be an actor I had to be a government employee and work in a national theater. Take it into your own occupation or that of your husband. All of us can see what happens once you establish the precedent that the government can determine a man’s working place and his working methods, determine his employment. From here it’s a short step to all the rest of socialism, to determining his pay and pretty soon your son won’t decide when he’s in school where he will go or what he will do for a living. He will wait for the government to tell him where he will go to work and what he will do.
In this country of ours, took place the greatest revolution that has ever taken place in the world’s history; the only true revolution. Every other revolution simply exchanged one set of rulers for another. But here, for the first time in all the thousands of years of man’s relations to man, a little group of men, the founding fathers, for the first time, established the idea that you and I had within ourselves the God given right and ability to determine our own destiny. This freedom was built into our government with safeguards. We talk democracy today, and strangely, we let democracy begin to assume the aspect of majority rule is all that is needed. The “majority rule†is a fine aspect of democracy provided there are guarantees written in to our government concerning the rights of the individual and of the minorities.
What can we do about this? Well, you and I can do a great deal. We can write to our congressmen and to our senators. We can say right now that we want no further encroachment on these individual liberties and freedoms. And at the moment, the key issue is, we do not want socialized medicine.
In Washington today, 40 thousand letters, less than 100 per congressman are evidence of a trend in public thinking.
Representative Hallock of Indiana has said, “When the American people wants something from Congress, regardless of its political complexion, if they make their wants known, Congress does what the people want.”
So write, and if this man writes back to you and tells you that he too is for free enterprise, that we have these great services and so forth, that must be performed by government, don’t let him get away with it.
Show that you have not been convinced. Write a letter right back and tell him that you believe government economy and fiscal responsibility, that you know governments don’t tax to get the money they need; governments will always find a need for the money they get and that you demand the continuation of our free enterprise system.
You and I can do this. The only way we can do it is by writing to our congressmen even we believe that he’s on our side to begin with. Write to strengthen his hand. Give him the ability to stand before his colleagues in Congress and say that he has heard from my constituents and this is what they want. Write those letters now call your friends and them to write.
If you don’t, this program I promise you, will pass just as surely as the sun will come up tomorrow and behind it will come other federal programs that will invade every area of freedom as we have known it in this country until one day as Normal Thomas said we will wake to find that we have socialism, and if you don’t do this and I don’t do this, one of these days we are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children, what it once was like in America when men were free.
I am glad to see that EVERYTHING you put on this blog, Juan, is absolute truth, no lies, no deception, except that you are full of it, much of the time. You seem to think that by having extensive entries, and quoting people, that covers all truth and facts, but you are simply advocating a view which is NOT backed up by truth much of the time! Notice I give you credit for some good ideas, but you are close minded about everything I say, not giving credit for anything! This is the right wing way of dealing with opposition, attempting total destruction with lies, fables, myths, and pure bull MUCH of the time!
And quoting Reagan on Medicare as if he had absolute facts and truth is hilarious, as he was a massive deceiver and propagandist, who could not be trusted to tell the truth. He lied so often, and always denied responsibility when there was an uproar over outrageous ideas, and he would say, “I did not suggest that”, while aides around him took the blame!
Ron: Please of course I sometimes agree with you, few true, but it’s not my fault your views are so extreme sometimes that you are way off the center. Not most of the times, but sometimes you are. On abortion, for example we are not that far off I think. I don’t believe you are for post-partum abortion, am I correct? I think that once science determines if a fetus is viable, has sensory nerves and can feel pain, abortion should not be permitted, except in case of rape, or threat to the life of the woman. In case of rape, abortion would probably occur during the first trimester. In any event I don’t think my views are that extreme or not mainstream. Abortion on demand I believe is an extremist position. On contraceptives to minors I think we agree. On the importance of parenting I believe we also agree. Why I even agreed with Obama the other day on the importance of having a father. I personally am not against redefining marriage, I just think the people of each state have the constitutional authority to do so. As a matter of fact I am more “liberal” on what the people can redefine as marriage than you probably.
We disagree mainly on the role of the Federal government, on tax policy and welfare programs. I believe they should be reformed for viability and have more flexibility for the people. Even market oriented solutions for retirement. You seem to totally disagree and prefer to stick with the first half of the 20th century management program. Could you imagine any corporation today in the 21 st being manage with first half of the 20th centuries ideas? But somehow government has to function like it did almost 100yrs ago. And we even created another program “Obamacare” based on old 20th century models. That is big bureaucratic and inefficient.
Finally one word about Reagan. You insult him constantly and repeat senseless venomous accusations made by third parties against him. All I did what put Reagan on his own words (who knows maybe some unexpected reader of your blog might read or even listen to Reagan’s own words without the left’s media and “educational” filter) and his even actions. Like opposing that Californian proposition against gay teachers or his budgets that from 84 onward always had funding for Aids research. I explained that the world discovered the virus in 1982. Nothing was known about it then. Yet on the second year after its discovery the Reagan administration started funding research. But your hate towards him doesn’t even allow you to see that.Why? Because you as well as the majority of leftist modern liberals always assume conservatives have evil motives. We on the other hand just think the majority of you guys are just simply mislead and naive. Sometimes even mislead by people who don’t have such good intentions.
I do not hate Reagan, and in fact, do not hate anyone. I disagree strongly, which is very different than the word “hate”! I just am tired of those who make Reagan an icon, without seeing his multitude of faults and contradictions.
And I see the New Deal and Great Society as important periods of reform, and do not think we should wipe them out, destroy them, just because Tea Party radicals and libertarians see them as evil. By the way, the Tea Party wing nuts actually “hate” modern progress and are very selfish and self centered, so if one wants to talk about “hate”, that is where you find it for certain!
And by the way, I do NOT think I am so extreme that I am off center in any way, but think you are off base with your views, so what else is new? 🙂
Very excellent post Professor! 🙂
Ron: I know who you feel. I was tired and sick of people who made FDR , LBJ and now Obama and icon. But I just got over it. The majority of the people are like sheep. Although Obama is more of a “pop culture” figure especially among the young, and a true “messiah” among fanatics. As for Reagan he happens to be one the the President with whom I would agree 85% of the time and that happens to be way more than any other President. With Bush Senior I agreed 50% of the time, Clinton 40%, Bush W 50% and with Obama 15% of the time. In any event I do not believe in iconic figures. I detest that! I reminds me of the Peron’s (both Juan and Evita) , Castro, Che, and Chavez to name a few. And I think that’s was one of the first things that made me reject Obama, the construction of his iconic figure in 2007-08 for the elections. With his policy I disagree almost completely of course, much more that with Clinton for example. Obama is a totally different breed of politician. He is a true believer in the cause of the left, in redistribution, in reshaping and fundamentally changing America. Clinton tried with his healthcare plan, but realized the majority of American hated it. Obama didn’t care, he did it any when he saw the opportunity and had his “fellows” in Congress ram it through the budget conciliation process. 1/6 of the economy practically nationalized, the biggest bureaucratic monster created in our time, and he passed it on a single party basis. That proved he is an extreme ideologue.
But what really got me, really made me reject Obama, before he was elected or implementing is monstrous policies, was the construction of this bigger than life iconic untouchable figure. When Oslo gave him the Nobel Peace Prize just for being elected, having done nothing at all, I said, “that’s it for me, this is not only weird but terrible.” From then one I knew nothing absolutely nothing could touch him, not matter what screw ups his administration would make, because all administrations screw up more or less, it’s natural, but he would be immune to anything. And not only has his reelection confirmed it, these last few months undeniably prove that he is untouchable. Scandal after scandal, any President would be in some kind of trouble, even Clinton, who was adored by the press. But not Obama, he just flies through it as if he were an outsider, as if he were not in Washington,as if he for certain purposes was not governing. That is an icon, a total Teflon President, for who to the masses of loyal followers and the media, nothing human, as in shortcomings and errors, are ever attributed to him. An if ever there were grounds for impeachment, like with Clinton for example, it would be useless. Even in a hypothetical that Republicans controlled both houses of Congress, the American people would not tolerate the impeachment of the First African-American President. People would just not accept it,even if there were to be objective grounds for impeachment. So the best thing we in the opposition can do is forget about Obama, and focus on leftist liberalism and its statist authoritarianism and failures. And then tie those failures to whoever the next Democratic Presidential candidate is and of course offer the alternative of guaranteed freedom and general overall prosperity.
You sound like you should get up at a conservative conference and make a speech! LOL
I disagree, as Obama has come under heavy criticism for everything including his birthplace, and there is nothing he can do or say that will not be bitterly attacked by the opposition. I do not see Obama as perfect, far from it, but to me, he is far preferable to any President since LBJ domestically, although Vietnam remains a major negative for him. Also, one must realize that any President will disappoint, and fail at many initiatives, but I see Obama as having persevered in the midst of constant negativism by his critics. This last few months have been very difficult, but not all that different than for every other second term President, as I have stated in an earlier blog entry!
I see the last two Presidents that come closest to my ideal as being FDR and Truman. I am often critical of JFK, Carter, Clinton, and LBJ in foreign affairs. I see Nixon as having positive aspects despite Watergate, and have become more sympathetic to Ford, and will be visiting his Grand Rapids Museum next month. Reagan is the most destructive President in modern times, trying to reverse everything from FDR through Nixon, and only stopped by the Democratic House for six years, and both houses for two years. Bush I looks better as he ages, but not thrilled about him, and Bush II is the worst of all in my mind!
But then you probably knew most of this already, am I right, Juan? 🙂
Saw this link on another blog: http://thelosangelesbeat.com/2013/05/modern-day-fascism-tea-party/
Excellent article concerning women’s rights: http://www.winningprogressive.org/the-politics-of-reproductive-health
Thanks for these two articles, Princess Leia!