|
Date: October, 1975 Subject: Selling Wheat to U.S.S.R. My Comment: Reagan knows what the word "is" means. There no doubletalk policy here. He had the courage to call them the "evil empire" and act accordingly when he became president. Commentary: How many sides are there to the Russian Wheat Deal and which side should we be taking? I'll be right back. The Russians want to buy American wheat and American farmers want to sell their wheat. Anti - communist waterfront workers don't want to load the wheat on foreign ships to carry it to Russia. American consumers with the experience of the previous wheat sale and high food prices in mind are alarmed and the Secretary of Agriculture says this sale shouldn't have that effect. With all these points and counterpoints maybe we still aren't getting to the heart of the problem. Please don't think I'm leading up to a pat answer to all these questions It just isn't that easy. If we believe in a free market shouldn't our farmers be allowed to sell their produce anywhere in the world for the best price they can get. To not allow this is to subsidize and make available to our own consumers low priced food at the expense of our own farmers. Not inconsistent with that philosophy however is our own interest in the matter of national security. If we believe the Soviet Union is hostile to the free world and we must or we wouldn't be maintaining a nuclear defense and continuing in NATO then are we not adding to our own danger by helping the troubled Soviet economy? But isn't there a moral issue? Are we not helping a Godless tyranny maintain its hold on millions of helpless people? Wouldn't those helpless victims have a better chance of becoming free if their slave master regime collapsed economically? One thing is certain, the threat of hunger to the Russian people is due to the Soviet obsession with military power. Nothing proves the failure of Marxism more than the Soviet Unions inability to produce weapons for its military ambitions and at the same time provide for their people's everyday needs. It only takes about 4% of our labor force to grow food for 211 million Americans and provide 80% of all the food shipped to the worlds underdeveloped nations. A full 1/3 of Russia's workers are in agriculture and still they'd starve without our wheat. And the failure is not Russian it is communist, for every other country that collectivized it's agriculture has gone downhill in farm productions The moral question then is can America alone force the change to peaceful pursuits on Russia by refusing to sell or would we have to persuade the other free nations to do the same. Following such a course what would we do then about our farmers and the surplus they'd have on their hands The wheat deal is beneficial to us economically. Right now in our time of economic dislocation and imbalance of trade maybe it benefits us enough to outweigh the strategic factor. In other words, it strengthens us more than we'd be benefited by weakening them. But the moral question in the long run wont go away. The Soviet Union is an aggressor and a threat to world peace. It can remain so only by denying its people freedom and the basic commodities that make life worth living which we take for granted. The Russians have told us over and over again their goal is to impose their incompetent and ridiculous system on the world. We invest in armaments to hold them off, but what do we envision as the eventual outcome? Either that they will see the fallacy of their way and give up their goal or their system will collapse or - (and we don't let ourselves think of this) we'll have to use our weapons one day. Maybe there is an answer. We simply do what's morally right. Stop doing business with them. Let their system collapse but in the meantime buy our farmers wheat ourselves and have it on hand to feed the Russians when they finally become free. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: April, 1978 Subject: China My Comment: And Clinton gave these guys technology to build ICBMS. Absolutely treasonous. Commentary: 'Twas Bobby Burns the poet who said something to the effect of having the gift to see ourselves as others see us. I'll be right back. In this time of doubt and mistrust in the land when we are curbing the ability of our own intelligence machinery to keep us informed , it is especially interesting to note how effective by contrast are the Chinese in the Free Republic of Taiwan. Their record of making public top secret material from the Red Chinese on the mainland is fantastic and I might add very helpful to us. For example, we now have the complete text of a 42,000 word several hour speech by Red China's foreign ministry Huang Hua delivered July 30 to all the top level government and party functionaries meeting in Peking. It was a complete report on the entire world situation and definitely not for public consumption. Repeatedly, throughout the address Huang cautioned his audience against talking about anything they were hearing. Now you know of course I'm not going to give you all 42,000 words. But I thought you might be interested in how we look to the Chinese communists who want to "normalize relations" with us - providing we'll forget our friendship with Taiwan. Huang referred to the Shanghai Communiqu� jointly signed by our two countries as "like other treaties and agreements - merely something on paper" He then went on to say "The U.S does not have the strength to deter the resolution of the Chinese people to liberate Taiwan." We will simply regard their treaty with Taiwan as "as a scrap of paper". He suggested that it was nothing more than that to us and asked if the American people have the will to share the fate of Taiwan if and when the mainland government sets out to conquer the free Republic of China. Answering his own question he said "Go read American history, we have not seen such an instance in which the U.S has had such a resolve and courage to sacrifice for others. That is why we dare to conclude that the U.S. is a paper tiger. It can be said that we have the deepest insight into the U.S. and, after having dealt with it for such a long time, we can paint not only it's skin, but also it's bones." Now that isn't the picture we have of ourselves and history (overall) does not support Huang's image of us. But we should note the examples from recent history he used to support his view; the firing of McArthur in Korea because he wanted to win the war and our failure to be decisive in Vietnam. He spoke of, "the frailty of the paper tiger that could not withstand a beating." And described us as standing absolutely alone without "a single dedicated fellow traveler". There is a great danger to us in this false image making. It is more often than not the road to war. The Kaiser didn't think we'd fight no matter how great the provocation and Hitler had the same idea. Then there was Pearl Harbor. Huang said in effect China would be patient until it had the relationship it wanted with us and then it would liberate Taiwan and we wouldn't lift a finger. If we really want peace we'd better remind the world of the America it seems to have forgotten. - We'd better remind ourselves that "paper tigers" are easily torn up. This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: November 1976 Subject: United Nations My Comment: Some things just don't every change. This organization is a bunch of pathetic social engineers who use U.S. funding to promote their global agenda. Commentary: If you thought the United Nations was debating society more or less dedicated to peace keeping chores (at which it isn't very successful) brace yourself. I'll be right back. Last June in Vancouver, British Columbia, (which is very nice in June - which is why they met their, no doubt) the United Nations held a conference - title: "Habitat: United Nations Conference on Human Settlements" They'll sell you a copy of the report through their sales section in N.Y. for $10. Before you send off a check give a listen - maybe you'll save $10. The gist of their findings is a call for complete planning of all land, nation by nation. By a coincidence no doubt, the program the recommended is virtual a restatement of point 9 in the Communist Manifesto as written by Karl Marx in 1848. Before they get down to the specific program the report expresses concern with unequal incomes, pollution and a number of other social ills as the perceive them. But then they get down to the business of the aforementioned Point 9, "the gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country by a more equitable distribution of population over the county." I thought that was what some of our environmentalists were objecting to and calling urban sprawl. Well the conference took note of that last and warned against "uncontrolled urbanization." It also was concerned with "rural backwardness" and "rural dispersion," They want to use land planning to encourage "massive shifts in population into specially designed habitats." Here is the principle as the announced it. "Every state" (that means nation) has the right to take the necessary steps to maintain under public control the use , possession, disposal and reservation of land. Every state has the right to plan and regulate use of land, which is one of its most important resources in such a way that the growth of population centers both urban and rural are based on a comprehensive land use plan." They use terms that may not frighten them, but they sure scare me. For example they describe federal land use planning as a basic step in setting up "the New International Economic Order." Now this was a U.N. conference, it's true, but somehow bureaucracy has a kinship and a communications grapevine that crosses all borders. We already have a "new town program sponsored by our own Department of Housing and Urban Development. There are some 15 cities involved, lured no doubt by Federal funds. HUD as the department is called also has it's own "habitat" division I know we don't pay much attention to votes in the U.N. General Assembly but remember that grapevine communications system. When the jungle drums pounded by one set of bureaucrats - another set is listening. Congress will return in January and there will be land planning legislation introduced - re-introduced is the proper word because it was unfinished business when they went home. This time the various permanent employees of HUD and other agencies will appear before the Congressional committees with that U.N. report fresh in mind. Who was it said, "no mans life, liberty or property are safe when the legislature is in session"? This is Ronald Reagan Thanks for listening. |
|
Date: April 1978 Subject: Panama Canal My Comment: Those libs have always wanted to make "you feel" guilty about anything and everything in order to get their way. Currently, China is moving their influence into the Canal area. Thank the peanut farmer for the upcoming confrontation! Commentary: In all the long Panama Canal debate nothing angered me more than the falsehood continuously perpetuated by treaty proponents that we have sinned against Panama. I'll be right back. It's possible that by the time your hear this the long debate in the Senate will have ended and the decision made regarding the Panama Canal. Regardless, here are some things I jotted down out of sheer frustration while listening to the debates on radio. In spite of the fact that Panama could never have become a nation without the canal; that we gave a disease ridden, jungle swamp a lower death rate than our own and provided the only solid economic base Panama can count on treaty proponents droned on and on about how we'd taken advantage of this country of 1,700,000 people. No mention was made of the fact that over the decades we patiently negotiated changes in the 1904 treaty in response to Panamanian complaints. Always the changes benefited Panama. Well whether this is after the fact or not, here are some facts the treaty proponents never acknowledged. In 1935 we handed Panama the housing enclave: 25-2 bedroom homes in a walled area with paved streets and all facilities - cost $300,000. Note that all the cash figures I use are not today's inflated prices but actual construction cost. In 1953 they were given a seaside hotel built for 5 million. In 1955 there was a treaty readjustment that resulted in the following gifts to Panama; the 300 bed George Washington Hospital, full equipped, with all surgical equipment and a one year supply of all hospital needs - cost 15 million. The railroad stations, yards yard houses, cargo trucks plus track -$50,000,000. One half of the town of Ancon including the P.O. building and commissary, consisting of 20, two story units - 2.5 million. And the railroad annuity which had been almost doubled in 1936 was more that quadrupled in 1955. That alone has amounted to 33 million over these past 22 years. This was done by us even though the 1955 treaty said there was no obligation to alter the annuity. We also built the Boyd Roosevelt Highway - 50 million. In 1963 we made a gift of a Shrimp Fleet - 50 trawlers with full equipment - 30 million. In 1970 the Thatcher Ferry International Bridge across the canal - 227 million and we've been maintaining and painting it every year since at a cost of $700,000. In 1975 our State department without Congressional Authorization, gave the use of Old France Field (in the canal zone) to the Free Port Authority of the Panamanian government for 15 years, free of charge with an option for another 15 years at the same price. A value of $3,000,000 could be put on this. On top of these particular items and I don't pretend this is a complete list, these just happen to be the ones I know about, there have been grants in aid and A.I.D. funds totaling about 550 million. Adding it all up the donations I've listed come to almost a billion dollars, actually 966,500,000. And as I said there isn't replacement cost that is in those real dollars we used to have. You know, giving up the canal itself might be a better deal if we could throw in the state department. This is Ronald Reagan Thanks for listening. |