So let us look at the article you posted. For that is what it is an article. First, while Ronald Reagan did campaign in Philadelphia, MISS, he kicked off his presidency in New York City in November 1979, is this the first lie or just a mistake???

Immediately following his campaign appearance in Mississippi, Candidate Reagan flew to New York to address the Urban League. Yes some closet racist.

BTW believing in States' Rights does not equate with supporting racism. For if this far-fetched belief were true, then our very Constitution would be racist. (10th Amendment ring a bell?) Also let us be reminded that it was Southern DEMOCRATS that used the state rights argument to support slavery, not Republicans. George Wallace, Al Gore Sr to name just a few.

Reagan believed that the government most responsive to the needs of the people was the government closest to the people. That is why as Governor of California he fought Washington to reform Welfare in California, and as a result, the benefits for Californian recipeints increased to help the people who needed the help the most, while eliminating from the rolls people who did not need the assistance. Reagan's idea of allowing those who are able to work, work, is the basis of the successful reform of welfare in the 1990's by the left's hero Bill Clinton. So tell me, is the so-called "first black President" actually a racist as well??? Or does that title only apply to Republicans. At least Republicans can proudly say we have no Senator and have supported no Senator who was a former member of the KKK. What about the Democrats???? Oh that's right, can't do it, Senator Byrd the former Kleagle.

Reagan engaged in constructive engagement with South Africa. Congress passed their Anti-Apartheid act in 1986. Yet by 1979 thanks to economic growth, the South African government had begun to recognize Black Labor Unions. By 1985 thanks again to economic growth, 50% of all skilled jobs were filled by black workers. Why did Reagan veto the act?? Did anyone bother to read his message to Congress when he returned the legislation?? Of course not, immediately it meant he was a racist. The act would have place punishing restrictions on South African labor, including the banning of sugar imports. Did anybody bother the think about the 25,000 black sugar farmers?? Reagan did. The sanctions would ban import of natural resources from South Africa. Did anybody think about the 500,000 black miners?? Reagan did. The act would have prohibited the import of wheat from the US, wheat that went to feed the black population.

So not only did Congress wish to starve the blacks, they also wanted to make them jobless. Some legislation. While Bishop Tutu may have supported it, many blacks in South Africa did not, including Zulu Chief Gatsha Buthlezi. In his message to Congress Reagan asked;

Are we truly helping the black people of South Africa--the lifelong victims of apartheid-- when we throuw them out of work and leave them and their families jobless and hungry in those segregated townships? Or are we simply assuming a moral posture at the expense of the people in whose name we presume to act?

Reagan warned that the legislation would lead to more repression, and it did. The South African government clamped down hard, immediately stopping the recognition of Black Labor Unions, and unemployment for blacks continued to rise well above the 50% it already stood, nearing close to 70%.

In his closing of his message Reagan stated;

That is why sweeping punitive sanctions are the wrong course to follow, and increased American and Western investment--by firms that are breaking down apartheid by providing equal opportunity for the vicitms of official discrimination--is the right course to pursue.

When American companies were forced to leave South Africa because of the sanctions, their very factories were bought by members of the white minority who wish to maintain apartheid. Tell me how did this help blacks??? Finally Reagan appointed the first black ambassador to South Africa in 1986.

Finally let us look at the economy. From 1982 to 1989 black unemployment dropped from 20.4% to 11.4%, 9 full points. Income for blacks increased by 84%, and black firms in the US rose 38%. Is the Labor department lying, or is the media?? As far as his domestic policies, the numbers don't lie. From 1981 until 1989 domestic spending on social programs increase 19.7%.

The simple fact of the matter is that by looking at isolated incidents and making assumptions one can justify just about anything. But in the end you only make an ass of yourself in revealing how little you actually know. It is ashame that you could not support an argument of your own, and instead had to rely upon the work of others.

dmk