Ronald Reagan Speech Wiki - User contributions [en]

76-12-B7

2026-06-21T21:38:47Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-12-B6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-12-B8|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Student Letter =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Are you worried that perhaps our sons and daughters are being led to believe that socialism offers advantage as capitalism can't match.
I'll be right back.

Economists, at least the good old fashioned kind, have written countless books and essays trying to explain that a free market economy is superior to the collectivism of Karl Marx. There really shouldn't be much of an argument with all the examples we have for comparison. Everywhere there is a socialist nation, there is a failure to meet the needs of the people of that nation, except by calling on capitalist neighbors for help. Still it is the socialist world that is expanding while ours grows smaller. Well how would you like to feel a little better about the whole thing?

I received a letter a couple of weeks ago that brightened my whole day. Paul A. Leonard, a sophomore at Mayo High School in Rochester, Minnesota wrote to tell me he had listened to some of these radio broadcasts. Then he wrote, "In view of your support of free enterprise, I thought that you might be interested in an experiment that I recently conducted in my history class." 15 volunteers were selected, with an eye to an approximate balance of athletes, non-athletes, boys and girls. The volunteers were not informed of the purpose of the experiment. The first day, a socialist-like system was set up. The subjects were informed that they had volunteered to do push-ups in return for which they would be given candy." Unquote.

Now, push-ups and candy. What do they have to do with socialism? What Paul Leonard explained to the 15 volunteers that they would do push-ups with a limit of 30 on how many anyone would have to do or could be allowed to do. For every five push-ups, they would each get a piece of candy, and here's where the political science comes in. The total number of push-ups accomplished by the volunteers would be divided by 15, the number of volunteers and each would receive a piece of candy for every five push-ups. Those who could do 30 and those who could get off the floor once, would share equally in the candy. Four managed to do the maximum and the overall average was 16.2 push-ups, so everyone received three pieces of candy.

That was half the experiment, the socialist half. The next day was capitalism's turn. The volunteers found they were going to do push-ups again, same limit, no more than 30, and same reward, one piece of candy for each five push-ups. Just one difference, they were capitalist this time, no averaging. They would each get one piece of candy for every five push-ups that each one was able to do. In other words, there was an incentive for each one to do his or her very best.

The average of 16.2 on the socialist day went up to 21.2, nearly a 1/3 increase in productivity and this time almost half the volunteers, seven not four, did the maximum of thirty. I gathered from Paul Leonard's letter that he really wasn't too surprised about that.

If i could deliver a personal message to Paul, sophomore at Mayo High it would be this: Congratulations Paul, you've demonstrated you understand the difference between the magic of the free market system and the idiocy of Karl Marx. There are some pretty eminent PH.Ds in economics who can't figure that out. End of message.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/13/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-148]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:YSEK0RmnqkE|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

A City Upon a Hill

2026-06-08T20:13:32Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]
== Audio ==
[https://catalog.archives.gov/id/169489077 Available through the National Archives] (Audio includes introductory speeches)

==Transcript==
Thank you.

Thank you very much. you please.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Please.

Thank you. Well, thank you all very much for a very heartwarming welcome and Buzz, I thank you for your very generous words. Reverend, clergy, [[wikipedia:Meldrim_Thomson_Jr.|Governor Thompson]], [[wikipedia:Dave_Treen|Congressman Treen]], our toastmaster [[wikipedia:William_A._Rusher|Bill Rusher]], the other distinguished guests here at the table. Any speaker, in these first few seconds on his feet is always questioning what should be the first thing of the opening remark, the audience catcher so to speak, but Bill Rusher and [[wikipedia:Donald_%22Buz%22_Lukens|Buzz Lukens]] have set the pace for me, I might as well get back in the act and introduce someone myself. As a matter of fact, there are two men here tonight I'm very proud to introduce. It was a year ago this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many, many years when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines bringing back men who had lived with honor for miserable years in the prison camps of Vietnam and two of those men are here tonight, [[wikipedia:John_McCain|John McCain]] and [[wikipedia:William_P._Lawrence|Bill Lawrence]].

[Applause]

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I can add another one! [[wikipedia:Edward_H._Martin|Ed Martin]], right here to join that wonderful crew.

Thank you.

Ed, I'm sorry!

Well, I might as well sit down I can't do any better than that in the remainder of the evening. Well you know to be here, this is a spot to know that I am midway in the seminars that you've been holding. the idea of what subject, knowing the audience, I would be addressing and not knowing which of those subjects you have explored thoroughly already in your seminars or which are on the schedule for your... the rest of your meetings leaves me hard put to find a subject and it isn't helped any but the fact that every once in a while I have when I needed material, cribbed from M. Stanton Evans and he's sitting here tonight, so I can't even do that.

I think the only story that would describe my situation is one that I've told as some of you, I know, before, but then you have to remember that if life begins at 40 so does lumbago, arthritis and the tendency to tell stories three or four times. It was a fellow in the picture business who aspired to an operatic career, saved his money so he could go to Italy and study for opera, and after a few years of study there he was invited to sing at [[wikipedia:La_Scala|La Scala]], the very spiritual fountainhead of opera. They were doing [[wikipedia:Pagliacci|Pagliacci]] and he sang the beautiful aria [[wikipedia:Vesti_la_giubba|Vesti la Giubba]] and the applause was so thunderous and so sustained that they couldn't continue the opera until he repeated Vesti la Giubba as an encore and again the same sustained thunderous applause and again he stepped center stage and sang the aria. This went on till finally he motioned for quiet and he tried to tell them how full his heart was and what this welcome in his first appearance in opera, in that almost sacred place meant to him. but he said, "I have sung Vesti la Giubba now nine times. My voice is gone I cannot do it again." And a voice from the balcony says, "You'll do it till you get it right."

You know, Reverend, I think I ought to tell you that when we were coming east here we ran into some weather. We were circling up there on the fog and being vectored into a landing pattern and things were getting a little hairy and a little bumpy and there was a clergyman on board and Nancy turned to him across the aisle and said, "Can't you do something about this?" and he said, "I'm with sales not management."

just a couple of nights ago, Nancy and I had the great pleasure of being up in New Hampshire in Governor Mel Thompson's state and I heard a wonderful story there about full of political philosophy and all. A quite elderly little lady left her doctor's office one day and hurried directly down the street to the registrar of voters, went in, and said, "I want to re-register democrat." This man in that little town had known her all his life said, "How can you do that? You've been a Republican all your life. Your parents were Republicans. Your Grandparents were Republicans." She said, "I know, I've just left the doctor's office and he told me my days were numbered. and if I've got to go I'd rather it was one of them than one of us."

Well it is an honor to be here tonight I'm proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company. Not too long ago Nancy and I also on the way to the governor's conference found ourselves as honored guests at the football game between Ole Miss and Tennessee. Ole Miss hadn't had that good a season, Tennessee was supposed to clobber them. Midway in the third quarter, it was pretty apparent that [https://collegefootballcrazy.com/the-jackson-massacre-1969/ Ole Miss was pulling the upset of the season] and was going to win and we heard a voice in the stands behind to say, "Man, if they'll play that way for him what would they have done if [[wikipedia:John_Wayne|John Wayne]] was here."

But seriously, there are men here tonight who through their wisdom, their foresight, and their courage have earned the right to be regarded as prophets of our philosophy. Indeed they are prophets of our time. Years past when others were silent or too blind to the facts they spoke up forcefully and fearlessly for what they believed to be right. A decade has passed since Barry Goldwater walked a lonely path across this land reminding us that even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation and causing a runaway inflation to erode the savings and reduce the standard of living for this generation. Voices have been raised trying to rekindle in our country all the great ideals and principles which set this nation apart from all the others that preceded us. But louder and more strident voices utter easily sold cliches and, oh, Congressman Dave Treen, what words of wisdom you gave us here in what our attitude must be it is so easy to fall into the trap of standing on the edge of the cliff, ready to jump off, with the flag flying and go down arguing. How much better it is if we turn persuasive and leave the strident voices to the others on the other side. We are the ones who can do the persuasive job that has to be done. Cartoonists with acid tip pen portray some of the reminders of our heritage, I know, and our destiny is old-fashioned. They say that we're trying to retreat into a past that actually never existed. Looking to the past in an effort to keep our country from repeating the errors of history is termed, by them, as taking the country back to McKinley. Which I've never found that was so bad under McKinley— under McKinley, we freed Cuba.

But on the span of history we're still thought of as a young upstart country celebrating soon only our second century as a nation, and yet we're the oldest continuing republic in the world. And so I thought that perhaps tonight, rather than talking on the subjects we're trying to find something new to say about the very things that you're discussing, it might be appropriate to reflect a bit on our heritage. Now you can call it mysticism if you want to but I've always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage. Now this was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, but it was also true and is true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic but our heritage does set us apart. Some years ago a writer, he happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story and it happened to be a story about that little day, or, that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men hard-pressed by a king who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess I've never researched or made an effort to verify it, perhaps it's only legend, but story or legend, he described the atmosphere the strain the debate and that— that grew heated as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act. The walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price, the gallows and the headsman's axe, and as the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery he was not a young man he was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>''"Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines — freedom."'' And he added, ''"If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well as I say whether story or legend the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was in itself miracle enough. 56 men, a little band so unique we've never seen their likes since, pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor. 16 gave their lives most gave their fortunes, all of them preserved their sacred honor. And what manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed revolutionary rabble, nor were they adventurers of— in the heroic mold. 24 were lawyers and jurists. 11 were merchants and tradesmen. 9 were farmers. They were men who had achieved security but who valued freedom more. And what price did they pay? [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|John Hart]] was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. After more than a year of living almost as an animal in the forest and in caves, he returned to find his wife had died and his children had vanished. He never saw them again, his property was destroyed and he died of a broken heart — but with no regret, only pride in the part he had played that day in Independence Hall. [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Carter Braxton]] of Virginia lost all his ships — they were sold to pay his debts. He died in rags. So it was with [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Ellery]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Clymer]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Hall]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Walton]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Gwinnett]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Rutledge]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Morris]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Livingston]], and [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Middleton]]. [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Nelson]], learning that Cornwallis was using his home for a headquarters, personally begged Washington to fire on him and destroy his home — he died bankrupt. It has never been reported that any of these men ever expressed bitterness or renounced their action as not worth the price. Fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens had founded a nation that grew from sea to shining sea, five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep — all done without an area re-development plan or urban renewal or a rural legal assistance program.

Now we're a nation of 211 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines from every corner of the world and we have shed that American melting pot blood in every corner of the world usually in the defense of someone's freedom. But those who remained of that remarkable band we call our founding fathers tied up some of the loose ends about a dozen years after the Revolution. It had been the first revolution in all man's history that didn't just exchange one set of rulers for another. This had been a philosophical revolution, the culmination of men's dreams for six thousand years and they formalized those dreams with the Constitution and that too was something of a miracle. Probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man. Oh, I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contains many of the same guarantees as our own constitution and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but it is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say government grants you these rights and our says you are born with these rights. They are yours by grace of god and no government on earth can take them from you.

Lord Acton of England, that same Lord Acton who said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" would say of that document— its authors, "They had solved with astonishing ease and unexampled success two problems which had heretofore baffled the capacity of the most enlightened nations. They had contrived a system of federal government which prodigiously increased national power and yet respected local liberties and authorities and they had founded it on a principle of equality without surrendering the securities of property or freedom." Never as any society had the preeminence of the individual been so firmly established and given such a priority. In less than twenty years we would go to war because of the God-given rights of American sailors as defined in the Constitution that were being violated by a foreign power. We serve notice then in the world that all of us together would act collectively to safeguard the rights of even the least among us. but still in an older cynical world they were not convinced. The great powers of Europe still had the idea that one day this great continent would be open again to colonizing and they would come over and divide us up. But in the meantime, men who yearned to breathe free were making their way to our shores. Among them was a young refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He'd been a leader in an attempt to free Hungary from Austrian rule. The attempt had failed and he had fled to escape execution. In America, this young Hungarian, [[Martin Koszta|Koszta]] by name, became an importer by trade and took out his first citizenship papers. One day business took him to a Mediterranean port, there was a large Austrian warship under the command of an admiral in the harbor. He had a manservant with him. He had described to this manservant what the flag of his new country looked like. Word was passed to the Austrian warship that this revolutionary was there and in the night he was kidnapped and taken aboard that large ship. His man servant, desperate, walking up and down the harbor suddenly spied a flag that resembled the description he'd heard. It was on a small American war sloop. He went aboard, he told Captain Ingraham of that American war sloop his story. Ingraham went to the American consul. When the American consul learned that Koszta had only taken out his first papers, he washed his hands of the incident. Captain Ingraham said, "I am the senior officer in this port. I believe under my oath of office, I owe this man the protection of our flag." He went aboard the Austrian warship he demanded to see our pris— their prisoner, our citizen. The admiral was amused, but they brought the man on deck, he was in chains, he'd been badly beaten. Captain Ingraham said, "I can hear him better without those chains." And the chains were struck. He walked over and he said to Koszta, "I will ask you one question. Consider your answer carefully. Do you ask the protection of the American flag?" and Koszta nodded dumbly, yes. And he said, "You shall have it." He went back and told the frightened consul what he had done. Later in the day, three more Austrian ships sailed into the harbor. It looked as if the four were getting ready to leave. Captain Ingraham sent a junior officer over to the Austrian flagship to tell the admiral that any attempt to leave that harbor with our citizen aboard would be resisted with appropriate force, and he said, "I will expect a satisfactory answer by four o'clock this afternoon." As the hour, neared they were looking at each other through the glasses. As it struck four, he had them roll the cannons into the ports, he had them light the tapers with which they would set off the cannons. One little sloop, and suddenly the lookout called down and said, "They're lowering a boat," and they rowed Koszta over to the little American ship and Captain Ingraham went below and wrote his letter of resignation to the United States Navy. He said, "I did what I thought my oath of office required, but if I have embarrassed my country, I resign." His resignation was refused in the United States Senate with these words, "This battle that was never fought may turn out to be the most important battle in our nation's history." Now I haven't told that story—incidentally there is to this day and I hope there always will be a [[USS Ingraham]] in the United States Navy.

I didn't tell that story out of any desire to be narrowly chauvinistic or to glorify aggressive militarism, but it is an example of government meeting its highest responsibility. In recent years we've been treated to a rash of noble sounding phrases, some of them sound good but they don't hold up under close analysis. Take for instance the slogan so frequently uttered by the young senator from Massachusetts. "The greatest good for the greatest number." Henry Taylor described that as having three things in common with an oil well: "It keeps— it keeps on producing something, it stinks unbelievably, and nobody knows that source's potential."

Certainly under that slogan, no modern day Captain Ingraham would risk even the smallest craft and crew for a single citizen. Every dictator who ever lived has justified the enslavement of his people on the theory of what was good for the majority. [[Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes]] reminded us that, "catchwords can obscure truth for countless years." We're not a warlike people nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, which might come as a shock to some of the placard painters in our modern demonstrations. We fought wars with citizen soldiers and volunteer dollar a year men. We haven't casually declared that men are expendable to improve some fancied political position. but in the last decade or two, the greatest good philosophy has prevailed far more than it should. The USS Ingraham has been riding rather low in the water. These same strident voices would have us believe that the uniform itself is the cause, not the result of war. The lesson of Vietnam, I think, should be that never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we as a nation pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible.

I realized that such a pronouncement of course would possibly belay one open to the charge of warmongering but that would be ridiculous. My generation has paid a higher price for freedom and fought harder for freedom than any generation that ever lived. We have known four wars in a single lifetime. All were horrible and all could have been avoided if at a particular moment in time, we had made it plain that we subscribed to the words of [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/679-war-is-an-ugly-thing-but-not-the-ugliest-of John Stuart Mill], when he said that, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. ... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

But widespread disaffection with things military is only a part of the philosophical division in our land today. I must say to you who have only recently or are presently still receiving an education, I am awed by your powers of resistance. I have some knowledge of the attempts that have been made in many classrooms and lecture halls to persuade you that there is little to admire in America. For the second time in this century capitalism and the free enterprise system on under assault. Privately owned business is blamed for despoiling the environment, exploiting the worker and seducing if not outright raping the customer. Those who make the charge have the solution of course, government regulation and control. They never get around to explaining how citizens who are so gullible that they can be suckered into buying breakfast cereal or soap that they don't need and it wouldn't be good for them can at the very same time be astute enough to choose representatives in government in which they would entrust the running of their lives.

Not too long ago a poll was taken on some 2500 college campuses in this country. Thousands and thousands of responses were obtained. Overwhelmingly the students in percentages of 65 and 70 and 75 percent found business responsible, as I said before, for the things that are wrong in this country. And that same number said that government was the solution, to take over the management and the control of private business and then 80 percent of the respondents said they wanted government to keep his paws out of their private lives.

We're told every day that the assembly line worker is becoming a dull-witted robot and that mass production results in standardization. well there isn't a socialist country in the world that wouldn't give its copy of [[Karl Marx]] for our standardization. Standardization means production for the masses and the assembly line means more leisure for the worker and freedom from back-breaking and mind-dulling drudgery that man had known for centuries past. Karl Marx didn't abolish child labor or free the women from working in the mines, the coal mines in England, the steam engine and modern machinery did that. Unfortunately the disciples of the new order have had a hand in determining too much policy in recent decades. And government has grown in size and power and cost through the [[New Deal]], the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the [[Great Society]]. It costs more for government today than the family pays for food, shelter and clothing combined. As an [https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/bata/bata05.htm|old rabbi] said, if all the seas were ink and all the reeds were pens and all the skies were parchment and all men could write, this would not suffice to write down all the red tape of this government. Not even...

[Applause]

Not even the Office of Management and Budget knows how many boards, commissions, bureaus and agencies there are in the federal government. But the Federal Registry listing their regulations is just a few pages short of being as big as the Encyclopedia Britannica. one of those regulations caught up with a businessman in California. He was told that he had to have separate employees men— washrooms— men's and women's washrooms. He only has one employee and she's his wife and at home they sleep in the same bed and use the same bathroom. During the Great Society we saw the greatest growth of this government. There were eight cabinet departments and twelve independent agencies to administer the federal health programs. There were thirty-five housing programs and twenty transportation projects. Public utilities had to cope with twenty-seven different agencies on just routine business. There were 192 installations in nine departments with a thousand projects having to do in the field of pollution. One congressman found the federal government was spending four billion dollars on research in its own laboratories but didn't know where they were, how many people were working in them, or what they were doing. One of the research projects was the [https://worlddatabaseofhappiness-archive.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/matlin_n_1966.pdf Demography of Happiness] and for two hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars we learned that people who make more money are happier than people who make less, young people are happier than old people, and people who are healthier are happier than people who are sick. Now for 15 cents they could have bought an almanac and read the old bromide, It's better to be rich, young and healthy than poor, old and sick.

Now, I haven't told you all of this to make you unhappy or discouraged. As a matter of fact, I feel quite the reverse. You know government extravagance is probably the only bright spot we have. Can you imagine how miserable we'd all be if we were getting all the government we're paying for?

Those who've lost faith in free enterprise frequently cite the joys of living in countries where government has assumed the ultimate control. Countries where everything that isn't prohibited is compulsory. A look at the efficiency with which one iron curtain satellite solved a holiday problem just a couple of years ago. It issued the following edict: they said because Christmas Eve falls on a Thursday, Thursday has been designated a Saturday for work purposes. Factories will close all day with stores open a half a day only. Friday, December 25th has been designated a Sunday with both factories and stores closed all day. Monday will be a Wednesday for work purposes. Wednesday will be a business Friday, Saturday will be a Sunday, and Sunday will be Monday.

But do not falter in the course that you've chosen for you are far more in tune with the hopes and aspirations of our people and are those who would sacrifice freedom for some fancied security.

Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, "We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world." Well, we have not dealt falsely with our God, even if He is temporarily suspended from the classroom.

When I was born my life expectancy was ten years less than I've already lived. that's a cause of regret to some people in California, I know. Ninety percent of Americans at that time lived beneath what is considered the poverty line today. Three-quarters lived in what is considered substandard housing. Today each of those figures is less than ten percent. We have increased our life expectancy by wiping out, almost totally, diseases that still ravage mankind in other parts of the world. For the young people who are here tonight I doubt if they know some of the names of diseases that were commonplace when we were growing up. We have more doctors per thousand people than any nation in the world. We have more hospitals than any nation in the world.

When I was your age, believe it or not, some of us didn't even know, in fact none of us knew, that we even had a racial problem. When I graduated from college and became a radio sports announcer, broadcasting major league baseball, I didn't have a Hank Aarons or a Willie Mays to talk about. The Spalding Guide said baseball was a game for Caucasian gentlemen. Some of us then began editorializing and campaigning against this. Gradually we campaigned and against all those other areas where the constitutional rights of a large segment of our citizenry were being denied. We haven't finished the job, we still have a ways to go, but we've made more progress in a few years than we've had in more than a century.

One-third of all the students in the world who are pursuing higher education are getting that higher education in the United States, and our young negro community is going to college in a percentage that is greater than the percentage of whites, in any other country in the world. One half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic, and we have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society ever known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. 95 percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients, and a part of the five percent that don't are trying to lose weight. 99 precent have gas or electric refrigeration. 92 percent have TV, an equal number have telephones, there are 120 million cars on our streets and highways and all of them are on the street at once when you try to get home at night. Ah, but isn't this just proof of our materialism, the very thing that we're charged with? Well we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras and opera companies and non-profit theaters and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together. And somehow America has bred a kindliness into our people unmatched anywhere, as has been pointed out in that best-selling record by a Canadian journalist.

We are not a sick society. A sick society could not produce the men that set foot on the moon or who now circle the earth above us in Skylab. A sick society bereft of morality and courage did not produce the men who went through that year, those years of torture in captivity in Vietnam. Where did we find such men? They are typical of this land, as the founding fathers were typical. We found them on the streets, in the offices and the shops and the working places of our country and on the farms.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall in Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and a return to the Dark Ages, Pope Pius XII said, "The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish action. Into the hands of America god has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." We are indeed and we are today the last best hope of man on earth.

Thank you.

A City Upon a Hill

2026-06-08T20:12:18Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Speeches]]
== Audio ==
[https://catalog.archives.gov/id/169489077 Available through the National Archives] (Audio includes introductory speeches)

==Transcript==
Thank you.

Thank you very much. you please.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Please.

Thank you. Well, thank you all very much for a very heartwarming welcome and Buzz, I thank you for your very generous words. Reverend, clergy, [[wikipedia:Meldrim_Thomson_Jr. Governor Thompson]], [[wikipedia:Dave_Treen|Congressman Treen]], our toastmaster [[wikipedia:William_A._Rusher|Bill Rusher]], the other distinguished guests here at the table. Any speaker, in these first few seconds on his feet is always questioning what should be the first thing of the opening remark, the audience catcher so to speak, but Bill Rusher and [[wikipedia:Donald_%22Buz%22_Lukens|Buzz Lukens]] have set the pace for me, I might as well get back in the act and introduce someone myself. As a matter of fact, there are two men here tonight I'm very proud to introduce. It was a year ago this coming February when this country had its spirits lifted as they have never been lifted in many, many years when planes began landing on American soil and in the Philippines bringing back men who had lived with honor for miserable years in the prison camps of Vietnam and two of those men are here tonight, [[wikipedia:John_McCain|John McCain]] and [[wikipedia:William_P._Lawrence|Bill Lawrence]].

[Applause]

Wait a minute! Wait a minute! Wait a minute! I can add another one! [[wikipedia:Edward_H._Martin|Ed Martin]], right here to join that wonderful crew.

Thank you.

Ed, I'm sorry!

Well, I might as well sit down I can't do any better than that in the remainder of the evening. Well you know to be here, this is a spot to know that I am midway in the seminars that you've been holding. the idea of what subject, knowing the audience, I would be addressing and not knowing which of those subjects you have explored thoroughly already in your seminars or which are on the schedule for your... the rest of your meetings leaves me hard put to find a subject and it isn't helped any but the fact that every once in a while I have when I needed material, cribbed from M. Stanton Evans and he's sitting here tonight, so I can't even do that.

I think the only story that would describe my situation is one that I've told as some of you, I know, before, but then you have to remember that if life begins at 40 so does lumbago, arthritis and the tendency to tell stories three or four times. It was a fellow in the picture business who aspired to an operatic career, saved his money so he could go to Italy and study for opera, and after a few years of study there he was invited to sing at [[wikipedia:La_Scala|La Scala]], the very spiritual fountainhead of opera. They were doing [[wikipedia:Pagliacci|Pagliacci]] and he sang the beautiful aria [[wikipedia:Vesti_la_giubba|Vesti la Giubba]] and the applause was so thunderous and so sustained that they couldn't continue the opera until he repeated Vesti la Giubba as an encore and again the same sustained thunderous applause and again he stepped center stage and sang the aria. This went on till finally he motioned for quiet and he tried to tell them how full his heart was and what this welcome in his first appearance in opera, in that almost sacred place meant to him. but he said, "I have sung Vesti la Giubba now nine times. My voice is gone I cannot do it again." And a voice from the balcony says, "You'll do it till you get it right."

You know, Reverend, I think I ought to tell you that when we were coming east here we ran into some weather. We were circling up there on the fog and being vectored into a landing pattern and things were getting a little hairy and a little bumpy and there was a clergyman on board and Nancy turned to him across the aisle and said, "Can't you do something about this?" and he said, "I'm with sales not management."

just a couple of nights ago, Nancy and I had the great pleasure of being up in New Hampshire in Governor Mel Thompson's state and I heard a wonderful story there about full of political philosophy and all. A quite elderly little lady left her doctor's office one day and hurried directly down the street to the registrar of voters, went in, and said, "I want to re-register democrat." This man in that little town had known her all his life said, "How can you do that? You've been a Republican all your life. Your parents were Republicans. Your Grandparents were Republicans." She said, "I know, I've just left the doctor's office and he told me my days were numbered. and if I've got to go I'd rather it was one of them than one of us."

Well it is an honor to be here tonight I'm proud that you asked me and I feel more than a little humble in the presence of this distinguished company. Not too long ago Nancy and I also on the way to the governor's conference found ourselves as honored guests at the football game between Ole Miss and Tennessee. Ole Miss hadn't had that good a season, Tennessee was supposed to clobber them. Midway in the third quarter, it was pretty apparent that [https://collegefootballcrazy.com/the-jackson-massacre-1969/ Ole Miss was pulling the upset of the season] and was going to win and we heard a voice in the stands behind to say, "Man, if they'll play that way for him what would they have done if [[wikipedia:John_Wayne|John Wayne]] was here."

But seriously, there are men here tonight who through their wisdom, their foresight, and their courage have earned the right to be regarded as prophets of our philosophy. Indeed they are prophets of our time. Years past when others were silent or too blind to the facts they spoke up forcefully and fearlessly for what they believed to be right. A decade has passed since Barry Goldwater walked a lonely path across this land reminding us that even a land as rich as ours can't go on forever borrowing against the future, leaving a legacy of debt for another generation and causing a runaway inflation to erode the savings and reduce the standard of living for this generation. Voices have been raised trying to rekindle in our country all the great ideals and principles which set this nation apart from all the others that preceded us. But louder and more strident voices utter easily sold cliches and, oh, Congressman Dave Treen, what words of wisdom you gave us here in what our attitude must be it is so easy to fall into the trap of standing on the edge of the cliff, ready to jump off, with the flag flying and go down arguing. How much better it is if we turn persuasive and leave the strident voices to the others on the other side. We are the ones who can do the persuasive job that has to be done. Cartoonists with acid tip pen portray some of the reminders of our heritage, I know, and our destiny is old-fashioned. They say that we're trying to retreat into a past that actually never existed. Looking to the past in an effort to keep our country from repeating the errors of history is termed, by them, as taking the country back to McKinley. Which I've never found that was so bad under McKinley— under McKinley, we freed Cuba.

But on the span of history we're still thought of as a young upstart country celebrating soon only our second century as a nation, and yet we're the oldest continuing republic in the world. And so I thought that perhaps tonight, rather than talking on the subjects we're trying to find something new to say about the very things that you're discussing, it might be appropriate to reflect a bit on our heritage. Now you can call it mysticism if you want to but I've always believed that there was some divine plan that placed this great continent between two oceans to be sought out by those who were possessed of an abiding love of freedom and a special kind of courage. Now this was true of those who pioneered the great wilderness in the beginning of this country, but it was also true and is true of those later immigrants who were willing to leave the land of their birth and come to a land where even the language was unknown to them. Call it chauvinistic but our heritage does set us apart. Some years ago a writer, he happened to be an avid student of history, told me a story and it happened to be a story about that little day, or, that day in the little hall in Philadelphia where honorable men hard-pressed by a king who was flouting the very law they were willing to obey debated whether they should take the fateful step of declaring their independence from that king. I was told by this man that the story could be found in the writings of Jefferson. I confess I've never researched or made an effort to verify it, perhaps it's only legend, but story or legend, he described the atmosphere the strain the debate and that— that grew heated as men for the first time faced the consequences of such an irretrievable act. The walls resounded with the dread word of treason and its price, the gallows and the headsman's axe, and as the day wore on the issue hung in the balance, and then according to the story, a man rose in the small gallery he was not a young man he was obviously calling on all the energy he could muster. Citing the grievances that had brought them to this moment he said,

<BLOCKQUOTE>''"Sign that parchment. They may turn every tree into a gallows, every home into a grave and yet the words of that parchment can never die. For the mechanic in his workshop, they will be words of hope, to the slave in the mines — freedom."'' And he added, ''"If my hands were freezing in death, I would sign that parchment with my last ounce of strength. Sign, sign if the next moment the noose is around your neck, sign even if the hall is ringing with the sound of headman’s axe, for that parchment will be the textbook of freedom, the bible of the rights of man forever."''</BLOCKQUOTE>

And then it is said he fell back exhausted. But 56 delegates, swept by his eloquence, signed the Declaration of Independence, a document destined to be as immortal as any work of man can be. And according to the story, when they turned to thank him for his timely oratory, he could not be found nor were there any who knew who he was or how he had come in or gone out through the locked and guarded doors.

Well as I say whether story or legend the signing of the document that day in Independence Hall was in itself miracle enough. 56 men, a little band so unique we've never seen their likes since, pledged their lives their fortunes and their sacred honor. 16 gave their lives most gave their fortunes, all of them preserved their sacred honor. And what manner of men were they? Certainly they were not an unwashed revolutionary rabble, nor were they adventurers of— in the heroic mold. 24 were lawyers and jurists. 11 were merchants and tradesmen. 9 were farmers. They were men who had achieved security but who valued freedom more. And what price did they pay? [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|John Hart]] was driven from the side of his desperately ill wife. After more than a year of living almost as an animal in the forest and in caves, he returned to find his wife had died and his children had vanished. He never saw them again, his property was destroyed and he died of a broken heart — but with no regret, only pride in the part he had played that day in Independence Hall. [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Carter Braxton]] of Virginia lost all his ships — they were sold to pay his debts. He died in rags. So it was with [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Ellery]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Clymer]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Hall]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Walton]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Gwinnett]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Rutledge]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Morris]], [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Livingston]], and [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Middleton]]. [[Founding Fathers#Named Signers|Nelson]], learning that Cornwallis was using his home for a headquarters, personally begged Washington to fire on him and destroy his home — he died bankrupt. It has never been reported that any of these men ever expressed bitterness or renounced their action as not worth the price. Fifty-six rank-and-file, ordinary citizens had founded a nation that grew from sea to shining sea, five million farms, quiet villages, cities that never sleep — all done without an area re-development plan or urban renewal or a rural legal assistance program.

Now we're a nation of 211 million people with a pedigree that includes the bloodlines from every corner of the world and we have shed that American melting pot blood in every corner of the world usually in the defense of someone's freedom. But those who remained of that remarkable band we call our founding fathers tied up some of the loose ends about a dozen years after the Revolution. It had been the first revolution in all man's history that didn't just exchange one set of rulers for another. This had been a philosophical revolution, the culmination of men's dreams for six thousand years and they formalized those dreams with the Constitution and that too was something of a miracle. Probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man. Oh, I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contains many of the same guarantees as our own constitution and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but it is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say government grants you these rights and our says you are born with these rights. They are yours by grace of god and no government on earth can take them from you.

Lord Acton of England, that same Lord Acton who said, "Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely" would say of that document— its authors, "They had solved with astonishing ease and unexampled success two problems which had heretofore baffled the capacity of the most enlightened nations. They had contrived a system of federal government which prodigiously increased national power and yet respected local liberties and authorities and they had founded it on a principle of equality without surrendering the securities of property or freedom." Never as any society had the preeminence of the individual been so firmly established and given such a priority. In less than twenty years we would go to war because of the God-given rights of American sailors as defined in the Constitution that were being violated by a foreign power. We serve notice then in the world that all of us together would act collectively to safeguard the rights of even the least among us. but still in an older cynical world they were not convinced. The great powers of Europe still had the idea that one day this great continent would be open again to colonizing and they would come over and divide us up. But in the meantime, men who yearned to breathe free were making their way to our shores. Among them was a young refugee from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He'd been a leader in an attempt to free Hungary from Austrian rule. The attempt had failed and he had fled to escape execution. In America, this young Hungarian, [[Martin Koszta|Koszta]] by name, became an importer by trade and took out his first citizenship papers. One day business took him to a Mediterranean port, there was a large Austrian warship under the command of an admiral in the harbor. He had a manservant with him. He had described to this manservant what the flag of his new country looked like. Word was passed to the Austrian warship that this revolutionary was there and in the night he was kidnapped and taken aboard that large ship. His man servant, desperate, walking up and down the harbor suddenly spied a flag that resembled the description he'd heard. It was on a small American war sloop. He went aboard, he told Captain Ingraham of that American war sloop his story. Ingraham went to the American consul. When the American consul learned that Koszta had only taken out his first papers, he washed his hands of the incident. Captain Ingraham said, "I am the senior officer in this port. I believe under my oath of office, I owe this man the protection of our flag." He went aboard the Austrian warship he demanded to see our pris— their prisoner, our citizen. The admiral was amused, but they brought the man on deck, he was in chains, he'd been badly beaten. Captain Ingraham said, "I can hear him better without those chains." And the chains were struck. He walked over and he said to Koszta, "I will ask you one question. Consider your answer carefully. Do you ask the protection of the American flag?" and Koszta nodded dumbly, yes. And he said, "You shall have it." He went back and told the frightened consul what he had done. Later in the day, three more Austrian ships sailed into the harbor. It looked as if the four were getting ready to leave. Captain Ingraham sent a junior officer over to the Austrian flagship to tell the admiral that any attempt to leave that harbor with our citizen aboard would be resisted with appropriate force, and he said, "I will expect a satisfactory answer by four o'clock this afternoon." As the hour, neared they were looking at each other through the glasses. As it struck four, he had them roll the cannons into the ports, he had them light the tapers with which they would set off the cannons. One little sloop, and suddenly the lookout called down and said, "They're lowering a boat," and they rowed Koszta over to the little American ship and Captain Ingraham went below and wrote his letter of resignation to the United States Navy. He said, "I did what I thought my oath of office required, but if I have embarrassed my country, I resign." His resignation was refused in the United States Senate with these words, "This battle that was never fought may turn out to be the most important battle in our nation's history." Now I haven't told that story—incidentally there is to this day and I hope there always will be a [[USS Ingraham]] in the United States Navy.

I didn't tell that story out of any desire to be narrowly chauvinistic or to glorify aggressive militarism, but it is an example of government meeting its highest responsibility. In recent years we've been treated to a rash of noble sounding phrases, some of them sound good but they don't hold up under close analysis. Take for instance the slogan so frequently uttered by the young senator from Massachusetts. "The greatest good for the greatest number." Henry Taylor described that as having three things in common with an oil well: "It keeps— it keeps on producing something, it stinks unbelievably, and nobody knows that source's potential."

Certainly under that slogan, no modern day Captain Ingraham would risk even the smallest craft and crew for a single citizen. Every dictator who ever lived has justified the enslavement of his people on the theory of what was good for the majority. [[Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes]] reminded us that, "catchwords can obscure truth for countless years." We're not a warlike people nor is our history filled with tales of aggressive adventures and imperialism, which might come as a shock to some of the placard painters in our modern demonstrations. We fought wars with citizen soldiers and volunteer dollar a year men. We haven't casually declared that men are expendable to improve some fancied political position. but in the last decade or two, the greatest good philosophy has prevailed far more than it should. The USS Ingraham has been riding rather low in the water. These same strident voices would have us believe that the uniform itself is the cause, not the result of war. The lesson of Vietnam, I think, should be that never again will young Americans be asked to fight and possibly die for a cause unless that cause is so meaningful that we as a nation pledge our full resources to achieve victory as quickly as possible.

I realized that such a pronouncement of course would possibly belay one open to the charge of warmongering but that would be ridiculous. My generation has paid a higher price for freedom and fought harder for freedom than any generation that ever lived. We have known four wars in a single lifetime. All were horrible and all could have been avoided if at a particular moment in time, we had made it plain that we subscribed to the words of [https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/679-war-is-an-ugly-thing-but-not-the-ugliest-of John Stuart Mill], when he said that, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse. ... A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

But widespread disaffection with things military is only a part of the philosophical division in our land today. I must say to you who have only recently or are presently still receiving an education, I am awed by your powers of resistance. I have some knowledge of the attempts that have been made in many classrooms and lecture halls to persuade you that there is little to admire in America. For the second time in this century capitalism and the free enterprise system on under assault. Privately owned business is blamed for despoiling the environment, exploiting the worker and seducing if not outright raping the customer. Those who make the charge have the solution of course, government regulation and control. They never get around to explaining how citizens who are so gullible that they can be suckered into buying breakfast cereal or soap that they don't need and it wouldn't be good for them can at the very same time be astute enough to choose representatives in government in which they would entrust the running of their lives.

Not too long ago a poll was taken on some 2500 college campuses in this country. Thousands and thousands of responses were obtained. Overwhelmingly the students in percentages of 65 and 70 and 75 percent found business responsible, as I said before, for the things that are wrong in this country. And that same number said that government was the solution, to take over the management and the control of private business and then 80 percent of the respondents said they wanted government to keep his paws out of their private lives.

We're told every day that the assembly line worker is becoming a dull-witted robot and that mass production results in standardization. well there isn't a socialist country in the world that wouldn't give its copy of [[Karl Marx]] for our standardization. Standardization means production for the masses and the assembly line means more leisure for the worker and freedom from back-breaking and mind-dulling drudgery that man had known for centuries past. Karl Marx didn't abolish child labor or free the women from working in the mines, the coal mines in England, the steam engine and modern machinery did that. Unfortunately the disciples of the new order have had a hand in determining too much policy in recent decades. And government has grown in size and power and cost through the [[New Deal]], the Fair Deal, the New Frontier and the [[Great Society]]. It costs more for government today than the family pays for food, shelter and clothing combined. As an [https://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/bata/bata05.htm|old rabbi] said, if all the seas were ink and all the reeds were pens and all the skies were parchment and all men could write, this would not suffice to write down all the red tape of this government. Not even...

[Applause]

Not even the Office of Management and Budget knows how many boards, commissions, bureaus and agencies there are in the federal government. But the Federal Registry listing their regulations is just a few pages short of being as big as the Encyclopedia Britannica. one of those regulations caught up with a businessman in California. He was told that he had to have separate employees men— washrooms— men's and women's washrooms. He only has one employee and she's his wife and at home they sleep in the same bed and use the same bathroom. During the Great Society we saw the greatest growth of this government. There were eight cabinet departments and twelve independent agencies to administer the federal health programs. There were thirty-five housing programs and twenty transportation projects. Public utilities had to cope with twenty-seven different agencies on just routine business. There were 192 installations in nine departments with a thousand projects having to do in the field of pollution. One congressman found the federal government was spending four billion dollars on research in its own laboratories but didn't know where they were, how many people were working in them, or what they were doing. One of the research projects was the [https://worlddatabaseofhappiness-archive.eur.nl/hap_bib/freetexts/matlin_n_1966.pdf Demography of Happiness] and for two hundred and forty-nine thousand dollars we learned that people who make more money are happier than people who make less, young people are happier than old people, and people who are healthier are happier than people who are sick. Now for 15 cents they could have bought an almanac and read the old bromide, It's better to be rich, young and healthy than poor, old and sick.

Now, I haven't told you all of this to make you unhappy or discouraged. As a matter of fact, I feel quite the reverse. You know government extravagance is probably the only bright spot we have. Can you imagine how miserable we'd all be if we were getting all the government we're paying for?

Those who've lost faith in free enterprise frequently cite the joys of living in countries where government has assumed the ultimate control. Countries where everything that isn't prohibited is compulsory. A look at the efficiency with which one iron curtain satellite solved a holiday problem just a couple of years ago. It issued the following edict: they said because Christmas Eve falls on a Thursday, Thursday has been designated a Saturday for work purposes. Factories will close all day with stores open a half a day only. Friday, December 25th has been designated a Sunday with both factories and stores closed all day. Monday will be a Wednesday for work purposes. Wednesday will be a business Friday, Saturday will be a Sunday, and Sunday will be Monday.

But do not falter in the course that you've chosen for you are far more in tune with the hopes and aspirations of our people and are those who would sacrifice freedom for some fancied security.

Standing on the tiny deck of the Arabella in 1630 off the Massachusetts coast, John Winthrop said, "We will be as a city upon a hill. The eyes of all people are upon us, so that if we deal falsely with our God in this work we have undertaken and so cause Him to withdraw His present help from us, we shall be made a story and a byword throughout the world." Well, we have not dealt falsely with our God, even if He is temporarily suspended from the classroom.

When I was born my life expectancy was ten years less than I've already lived. that's a cause of regret to some people in California, I know. Ninety percent of Americans at that time lived beneath what is considered the poverty line today. Three-quarters lived in what is considered substandard housing. Today each of those figures is less than ten percent. We have increased our life expectancy by wiping out, almost totally, diseases that still ravage mankind in other parts of the world. For the young people who are here tonight I doubt if they know some of the names of diseases that were commonplace when we were growing up. We have more doctors per thousand people than any nation in the world. We have more hospitals than any nation in the world.

When I was your age, believe it or not, some of us didn't even know, in fact none of us knew, that we even had a racial problem. When I graduated from college and became a radio sports announcer, broadcasting major league baseball, I didn't have a Hank Aarons or a Willie Mays to talk about. The Spalding Guide said baseball was a game for Caucasian gentlemen. Some of us then began editorializing and campaigning against this. Gradually we campaigned and against all those other areas where the constitutional rights of a large segment of our citizenry were being denied. We haven't finished the job, we still have a ways to go, but we've made more progress in a few years than we've had in more than a century.

One-third of all the students in the world who are pursuing higher education are getting that higher education in the United States, and our young negro community is going to college in a percentage that is greater than the percentage of whites, in any other country in the world. One half of all the economic activity in the entire history of man has taken place in this republic, and we have distributed our wealth more widely among our people than any society ever known to man. Americans work less hours for a higher standard of living than any other people. 95 percent of all our families have an adequate daily intake of nutrients, and a part of the five percent that don't are trying to lose weight. 99 precent have gas or electric refrigeration. 92 percent have TV, an equal number have telephones, there are 120 million cars on our streets and highways and all of them are on the street at once when you try to get home at night. Ah, but isn't this just proof of our materialism, the very thing that we're charged with? Well we also have more churches, more libraries, we support voluntarily more symphony orchestras and opera companies and non-profit theaters and publish more books than all the other nations of the world put together. And somehow America has bred a kindliness into our people unmatched anywhere, as has been pointed out in that best-selling record by a Canadian journalist.

We are not a sick society. A sick society could not produce the men that set foot on the moon or who now circle the earth above us in Skylab. A sick society bereft of morality and courage did not produce the men who went through that year, those years of torture in captivity in Vietnam. Where did we find such men? They are typical of this land, as the founding fathers were typical. We found them on the streets, in the offices and the shops and the working places of our country and on the farms.

We cannot escape our destiny, nor should we try to. The leadership of the free world was thrust upon us two centuries ago in that little hall in Philadelphia. In the days following World War II, when economic strength and power of America was all that stood between the world and a return to the Dark Ages, Pope Pius XII said, "The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish action. Into the hands of America god has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind." We are indeed and we are today the last best hope of man on earth.

Thank you.

The Resonance Differential

2026-06-08T20:07:25Z

Reagan admin:

During a [[Radio1975|1975 broadcast of Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan]] called ''Ruritania'', Reagan shares sections of this essay by [[wikipedia:James_Burnham|James Burnham]].

''Used with permission from National Review, 11/27/2018.''
<blockquote>
==The Resonance Differential==
The Protracted Conflict

====JAMES BURNHAM====

LET US suppose that a group of officers stages a successful coup and assumes control of the government in, well, let us call the nation Ruritania. They took this action, their spokesmen declare, because the old regime had fallen into the hands of Marxists, Communists, atheists, and criminal adventurers who were oppressing the population, wrecking the economy, endangering national security and independence, destroying law, order, and morality, and heading toward a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Let us further suppose that after a year of rule by this military junta the situation in Ruritania is as follows:

<OL><LI>The junta has announced that it will continue to exercise the supreme power for "at least three to five" more years—and that its governing role will not be affected by the outcome of any elections that may be held.
<LI>The Communist Party, Socialist Party, and other left-wing organizations have been outlawed.
<LI>Leftist and liberal newspapers and magazines have been suppressed. Public expression of leftist and liberal opinion is forbidden. Attempted gatherings by leftists or liberals are broken up by left-wing militants.
<LI>Several thousand citizens have been jailed without warrants or formal charges. None of these prisoners has been brought to trial.
<LI>Many thousands of citizens have taken refuge in other countries.
<LI>The rate of domestic inflation has risen to one of the highest levels in the world.
<LI>Unemployment has tripled.
<LI>A single union organization has been created, to which all workers are required to belong.
<LI>Strikes have been defined as "economic sabotage" and "counterrevolutionary."
</OL>

Assuming these as the features of the Ruritanian situation, let us now ask what sort of attitude and response there would be in other nations.

There would be thousands of meetings, conferences, demonstrations, speeches, editorials, columns, sermons, student sit-ins, petitions, pamphlets, and TV specials denouncing the Ruritanian fascist officers and their infamous violations of all human, civil, and political-rights. Eloquent addresses in the name of the suffering Ruritanian workers and peasants would thunder through UN halls. Open letters from writers, artists, professors, and clergymen would appeal to the conscience of mankind. Ad hoc committees would spring up in a dozen countries to demand sanctions against the fascist Ruritanian government, and severance of diplomatic relations. Economists would explain how Ruritania's economic disasters reconfirmed the decline of capitalism. Professorial chairs at the top universities would be offered Ruritanian escapees, and their lecture fees would triple. Amnesty International would condemn the mass torture of Ruritanian dissidents. [[wikipedia:Murray_Kempton|Murray Kempton]], [[wikipedia:Anthony_Lewis|Anthony Lewis]], [[wikipedia:Garry_Wills|Garry Wills]], [[wikipedia:Harriet_Van_Horne|Harriet Van Horne]], and [[wikipedia:Tom_Wicker|Tom Wicker]] would have a collective fit. A special issue of Time would give In Depth coverage of terror in Ruritania. [[wikipedia:Jack_Anderson_(columnist)| Jack Anderson]] would reveal that CIA had financed the Ruritanian generals.</p>

''A Turn of the Prism''

Given the Ruritanian situation as I sketched it, all this and plenty more would be as certain as the sun's rising.

It will doubtless have occurred to readers of this page that my Ruritania is not as purely fictional as the Ruritania known and loved by theater audiences. By making one small shift in the prism through which we are looking—interchanging, thereby, Left and Right—Ruritania is perceived to be, in every feature and detail I have enumerated, [[wikipedia:Carnation_Revolution|Portugal of the year just past]].

[[file:ResonanceDifferential.jpg|right|frame|link=http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://tinyurl.com/burnham060675|Click to Tweet Article]]

With this prismatic shift to Portugal, however, the attitude and response in other nations is something else again. There hasn't, in fact, been much of any attitude or response since those ecstatic early weeks when all the world hailed the advent of the Carnation Revolution. I stress that I write here with entire sobriety and literalness. Except for a minor fringe sector, the global public opinion apparatus—media plus intellectuals, preachers, professors, college students, politicians, etc.—has not been upset about what has been going on in Portugal, or even interested: the same apparatus that worked itself into a frenzy over the regime of the Greek colonels, which had many similarities, though it was milder and considerably more successful in economic matters.

''The Opinion Fulcrum''

The public opinion apparatus is in a state of resonance to the emanations of an assault (real or alleged) from the Right on liberty, democracy, civil and human rights, standard of living, etc., but out of resonance to the emanations from an otherwise identical assault from the Left. Public opinion somehow can’t tune in the latter’s wave length. It is ridiculous to keep arguing about whether the media (together with the other reverberators of public opinion) are biased. They are so organically and totally biased that they are not aware of their bias, any more than a healthy man is aware of his breathing and heart beat.

There is one way of perceiving, feeling, judging, and responding to acts of the Left; another way, to the same acts sprung from the Right. But we may narrow the beam of our searchlight. It is not just the Left and Right as large, rather vague entities that determine the response. Closer examination shows that one small, simple factor is decisive: Does the regime suppress the Communist Party? If it does, then—whatever else its conduct and characteristics—it belongs with the Bad Guys and will in due course get the standard treatment from public opinion. And it will get the treatment cubed if it is at the same time friendly to the U.S.

Specifically: If the Portuguese military regime should tomorrow—it is not quite inconceivable—suppress the Portuguese Communist Party, then the day after tomorrow a global campaign, comparable in scale and ferocity to those mounted against the Greek colonels or now in operation against the Chilean military junta, would begin.

There is something of a mystery in these interrelationships. Perhaps, though, it is not as mysterious as we might prefer to find it.</blockquote>

The Resonance Differential

2026-06-08T20:06:41Z

Reagan admin:

During a [[Radio1975|1975 broadcast of Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan]] called ''Ruritania'', Reagan shares sections of this essay by [[wikipedia:James_Burnham|James Burnham]].

''Used with permission from National Review, 11/27/2018.''
<blockquote>
==The Resonance Differential==
The Protracted Conflict

====JAMES BURNHAM====

LET US suppose that a group of officers stages a successful coup and assumes control of the government in, well, let us call the nation Ruritania. They took this action, their spokesmen declare, because the old regime had fallen into the hands of Marxists, Communists, atheists, and criminal adventurers who were oppressing the population, wrecking the economy, endangering national security and independence, destroying law, order, and morality, and heading toward a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Let us further suppose that after a year of rule by this military junta the situation in Ruritania is as follows:

<OL><LI>The junta has announced that it will continue to exercise the supreme power for "at least three to five" more years—and that its governing role will not be affected by the outcome of any elections that may be held.
<LI>The Communist Party, Socialist Party, and other left-wing organizations have been outlawed.
<LI>Leftist and liberal newspapers and magazines have been suppressed. Public expression of leftist and liberal opinion is forbidden. Attempted gatherings by leftists or liberals are broken up by left-wing militants.
<LI>Several thousand citizens have been jailed without warrants or formal charges. None of these prisoners has been brought to trial.
<LI>Many thousands of citizens have taken refuge in other countries.
<LI>The rate of domestic inflation has risen to one of the highest levels in the world.
<LI>Unemployment has tripled.
<LI>A single union organization has been created, to which all workers are required to belong.
<LI>Strikes have been defined as "economic sabotage" and "counterrevolutionary."
</OL>

Assuming these as the features of the Ruritanian situation, let us now ask what sort of attitude and response there would be in other nations.

There would be thousands of meetings, conferences, demonstrations, speeches, editorials, columns, sermons, student sit-ins, petitions, pamphlets, and TV specials denouncing the Ruritanian fascist officers and their infamous violations of all human, civil, and political-rights. Eloquent addresses in the name of the suffering Ruritanian workers and peasants would thunder through UN halls. Open letters from writers, artists, professors, and clergymen would appeal to the conscience of mankind. Ad hoc committees would spring up in a dozen countries to demand sanctions against the fascist Ruritanian government, and severance of diplomatic relations. Economists would explain how Ruritania's economic disasters reconfirmed the decline of capitalism. Professorial chairs at the top universities would be offered Ruritanian escapees, and their lecture fees would triple. Amnesty International would condemn the mass torture of Ruritanian dissidents. [[wikipedia:Murray_Kempton|Murray Kempton]], [[wikipedia:Anthony_Lewis|Anthony Lewis]], [[wikipedia:Garry_Wills|Garry Wills]], [[wikipedia:Harriet_Van_Horne|Harriet Van Horne]], and [[wikipedia:Tom_Wicker|Tom Wicker]] would have a collective fit. A special issue of Time would give In Depth coverage of terror in Ruritania. [[wikipedia:Jack_Anderson_(columnist)| Jack Anderson]] would reveal that CIA had financed the Ruritanian generals.</p>

''A Turn of the Prism''

Given the Ruritanian situation as I sketched it, all this and plenty more would be as certain as the sun's rising.

It will doubtless have occurred to readers of this page that my Ruritania is not as purely fictional as the Ruritania known and loved by theater audiences. By making one small shift in the prism through which we are looking—interchanging, thereby, Left and Right—Ruritania is perceived to be, in every feature and detail I have enumerated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution Portugal of the year just past].

[[file:ResonanceDifferential.jpg|right|frame|link=http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://tinyurl.com/burnham060675|Click to Tweet Article]]

With this prismatic shift to Portugal, however, the attitude and response in other nations is something else again. There hasn't, in fact, been much of any attitude or response since those ecstatic early weeks when all the world hailed the advent of the Carnation Revolution. I stress that I write here with entire sobriety and literalness. Except for a minor fringe sector, the global public opinion apparatus—media plus intellectuals, preachers, professors, college students, politicians, etc.—has not been upset about what has been going on in Portugal, or even interested: the same apparatus that worked itself into a frenzy over the regime of the Greek colonels, which had many similarities, though it was milder and considerably more successful in economic matters.

''The Opinion Fulcrum''

The public opinion apparatus is in a state of resonance to the emanations of an assault (real or alleged) from the Right on liberty, democracy, civil and human rights, standard of living, etc., but out of resonance to the emanations from an otherwise identical assault from the Left. Public opinion somehow can’t tune in the latter’s wave length. It is ridiculous to keep arguing about whether the media (together with the other reverberators of public opinion) are biased. They are so organically and totally biased that they are not aware of their bias, any more than a healthy man is aware of his breathing and heart beat.

There is one way of perceiving, feeling, judging, and responding to acts of the Left; another way, to the same acts sprung from the Right. But we may narrow the beam of our searchlight. It is not just the Left and Right as large, rather vague entities that determine the response. Closer examination shows that one small, simple factor is decisive: Does the regime suppress the Communist Party? If it does, then—whatever else its conduct and characteristics—it belongs with the Bad Guys and will in due course get the standard treatment from public opinion. And it will get the treatment cubed if it is at the same time friendly to the U.S.

Specifically: If the Portuguese military regime should tomorrow—it is not quite inconceivable—suppress the Portuguese Communist Party, then the day after tomorrow a global campaign, comparable in scale and ferocity to those mounted against the Greek colonels or now in operation against the Chilean military junta, would begin.

There is something of a mystery in these interrelationships. Perhaps, though, it is not as mysterious as we might prefer to find it.</blockquote>

The Resonance Differential

2026-06-08T20:06:14Z

Reagan admin:

During a [[Radio1975|1975 broadcast of Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan]] called ''Ruritania'', Reagan shares sections of this essay by [[wikipedia:James_Burnham|James Burnham]].

''Used with permission from National Review, 11/27/2018.''
<blockquote>
==The Resonance Differential==
The Protracted Conflict

====JAMES BURNHAM====

LET US suppose that a group of officers stages a successful coup and assumes control of the government in, well, let us call the nation Ruritania. They took this action, their spokesmen declare, because the old regime had fallen into the hands of Marxists, Communists, atheists, and criminal adventurers who were oppressing the population, wrecking the economy, endangering national security and independence, destroying law, order, and morality, and heading toward a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Let us further suppose that after a year of rule by this military junta the situation in Ruritania is as follows:

<OL><LI>The junta has announced that it will continue to exercise the supreme power for "at least three to five" more years—and that its governing role will not be affected by the outcome of any elections that may be held.
<LI>The Communist Party, Socialist Party, and other left-wing organizations have been outlawed.
<LI>Leftist and liberal newspapers and magazines have been suppressed. Public expression of leftist and liberal opinion is forbidden. Attempted gatherings by leftists or liberals are broken up by left-wing militants.
<LI>Several thousand citizens have been jailed without warrants or formal charges. None of these prisoners has been brought to trial.
<LI>Many thousands of citizens have taken refuge in other countries.
<LI>The rate of domestic inflation has risen to one of the highest levels in the world.
<LI>Unemployment has tripled.
<LI>A single union organization has been created, to which all workers are required to belong.
<LI>Strikes have been defined as "economic sabotage" and "counterrevolutionary."
</OL>

Assuming these as the features of the Ruritanian situation, let us now ask what sort of attitude and response there would be in other nations.

There would be thousands of meetings, conferences, demonstrations, speeches, editorials, columns, sermons, student sit-ins, petitions, pamphlets, and TV specials denouncing the Ruritanian fascist officers and their infamous violations of all human, civil, and political-rights. Eloquent addresses in the name of the suffering Ruritanian workers and peasants would thunder through UN halls. Open letters from writers, artists, professors, and clergymen would appeal to the conscience of mankind. Ad hoc committees would spring up in a dozen countries to demand sanctions against the fascist Ruritanian government, and severance of diplomatic relations. Economists would explain how Ruritania's economic disasters reconfirmed the decline of capitalism. Professorial chairs at the top universities would be offered Ruritanian escapees, and their lecture fees would triple. Amnesty International would condemn the mass torture of Ruritanian dissidents. [[wikipedia:Murray_Kempton|Murray Kempton], [[wikipedia:Anthony_Lewis|Anthony Lewis], [[wikipedia:Garry_Wills|Garry Wills], [[wikipedia:Harriet_Van_Horne|Harriet Van Horne], and [[wikipedia:Tom_Wicker|Tom Wicker] would have a collective fit. A special issue of Time would give In Depth coverage of terror in Ruritania. [[wikipedia:Jack_Anderson_(columnist)| Jack Anderson] would reveal that CIA had financed the Ruritanian generals.</p>

''A Turn of the Prism''

Given the Ruritanian situation as I sketched it, all this and plenty more would be as certain as the sun's rising.

It will doubtless have occurred to readers of this page that my Ruritania is not as purely fictional as the Ruritania known and loved by theater audiences. By making one small shift in the prism through which we are looking—interchanging, thereby, Left and Right—Ruritania is perceived to be, in every feature and detail I have enumerated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution Portugal of the year just past].

[[file:ResonanceDifferential.jpg|right|frame|link=http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://tinyurl.com/burnham060675|Click to Tweet Article]]

With this prismatic shift to Portugal, however, the attitude and response in other nations is something else again. There hasn't, in fact, been much of any attitude or response since those ecstatic early weeks when all the world hailed the advent of the Carnation Revolution. I stress that I write here with entire sobriety and literalness. Except for a minor fringe sector, the global public opinion apparatus—media plus intellectuals, preachers, professors, college students, politicians, etc.—has not been upset about what has been going on in Portugal, or even interested: the same apparatus that worked itself into a frenzy over the regime of the Greek colonels, which had many similarities, though it was milder and considerably more successful in economic matters.

''The Opinion Fulcrum''

The public opinion apparatus is in a state of resonance to the emanations of an assault (real or alleged) from the Right on liberty, democracy, civil and human rights, standard of living, etc., but out of resonance to the emanations from an otherwise identical assault from the Left. Public opinion somehow can’t tune in the latter’s wave length. It is ridiculous to keep arguing about whether the media (together with the other reverberators of public opinion) are biased. They are so organically and totally biased that they are not aware of their bias, any more than a healthy man is aware of his breathing and heart beat.

There is one way of perceiving, feeling, judging, and responding to acts of the Left; another way, to the same acts sprung from the Right. But we may narrow the beam of our searchlight. It is not just the Left and Right as large, rather vague entities that determine the response. Closer examination shows that one small, simple factor is decisive: Does the regime suppress the Communist Party? If it does, then—whatever else its conduct and characteristics—it belongs with the Bad Guys and will in due course get the standard treatment from public opinion. And it will get the treatment cubed if it is at the same time friendly to the U.S.

Specifically: If the Portuguese military regime should tomorrow—it is not quite inconceivable—suppress the Portuguese Communist Party, then the day after tomorrow a global campaign, comparable in scale and ferocity to those mounted against the Greek colonels or now in operation against the Chilean military junta, would begin.

There is something of a mystery in these interrelationships. Perhaps, though, it is not as mysterious as we might prefer to find it.</blockquote>

The Resonance Differential

2026-06-08T19:49:37Z

Reagan admin:

During a [[Radio1975|1975 broadcast of Viewpoint with Ronald Reagan]] called ''Ruritania'', Reagan shares sections of this essay by [[wikipedia|James_Burnham James Burnham]].

''Used with permission from National Review, 11/27/2018.''
<blockquote>
==The Resonance Differential==
The Protracted Conflict

====JAMES BURNHAM====

LET US suppose that a group of officers stages a successful coup and assumes control of the government in, well, let us call the nation Ruritania. They took this action, their spokesmen declare, because the old regime had fallen into the hands of Marxists, Communists, atheists, and criminal adventurers who were oppressing the population, wrecking the economy, endangering national security and independence, destroying law, order, and morality, and heading toward a Soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship.

Let us further suppose that after a year of rule by this military junta the situation in Ruritania is as follows:

<OL><LI>The junta has announced that it will continue to exercise the supreme power for "at least three to five" more years—and that its governing role will not be affected by the outcome of any elections that may be held.
<LI>The Communist Party, Socialist Party, and other left-wing organizations have been outlawed.
<LI>Leftist and liberal newspapers and magazines have been suppressed. Public expression of leftist and liberal opinion is forbidden. Attempted gatherings by leftists or liberals are broken up by left-wing militants.
<LI>Several thousand citizens have been jailed without warrants or formal charges. None of these prisoners has been brought to trial.
<LI>Many thousands of citizens have taken refuge in other countries.
<LI>The rate of domestic inflation has risen to one of the highest levels in the world.
<LI>Unemployment has tripled.
<LI>A single union organization has been created, to which all workers are required to belong.
<LI>Strikes have been defined as "economic sabotage" and "counterrevolutionary."
</OL>

Assuming these as the features of the Ruritanian situation, let us now ask what sort of attitude and response there would be in other nations.

There would be thousands of meetings, conferences, demonstrations, speeches, editorials, columns, sermons, student sit-ins, petitions, pamphlets, and TV specials denouncing the Ruritanian fascist officers and their infamous violations of all human, civil, and political-rights. Eloquent addresses in the name of the suffering Ruritanian workers and peasants would thunder through UN halls. Open letters from writers, artists, professors, and clergymen would appeal to the conscience of mankind. Ad hoc committees would spring up in a dozen countries to demand sanctions against the fascist Ruritanian government, and severance of diplomatic relations. Economists would explain how Ruritania's economic disasters reconfirmed the decline of capitalism. Professorial chairs at the top universities would be offered Ruritanian escapees, and their lecture fees would triple. Amnesty International would condemn the mass torture of Ruritanian dissidents. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Kempton Murray Kempton], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Lewis Anthony Lewis], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garry_Wills Garry Wills], [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Van_Horne Harriet Van Horne], and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Wicker Tom Wicker] would have a collective fit. A special issue of Time would give In Depth coverage of terror in Ruritania. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Anderson_(columnist) Jack Anderson] would reveal that CIA had financed the Ruritanian generals.</p>

''A Turn of the Prism''

Given the Ruritanian situation as I sketched it, all this and plenty more would be as certain as the sun's rising.

It will doubtless have occurred to readers of this page that my Ruritania is not as purely fictional as the Ruritania known and loved by theater audiences. By making one small shift in the prism through which we are looking—interchanging, thereby, Left and Right—Ruritania is perceived to be, in every feature and detail I have enumerated, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carnation_Revolution Portugal of the year just past].

[[file:ResonanceDifferential.jpg|right|frame|link=http://twitter.com/intent/tweet?text=https://tinyurl.com/burnham060675|Click to Tweet Article]]

With this prismatic shift to Portugal, however, the attitude and response in other nations is something else again. There hasn't, in fact, been much of any attitude or response since those ecstatic early weeks when all the world hailed the advent of the Carnation Revolution. I stress that I write here with entire sobriety and literalness. Except for a minor fringe sector, the global public opinion apparatus—media plus intellectuals, preachers, professors, college students, politicians, etc.—has not been upset about what has been going on in Portugal, or even interested: the same apparatus that worked itself into a frenzy over the regime of the Greek colonels, which had many similarities, though it was milder and considerably more successful in economic matters.

''The Opinion Fulcrum''

The public opinion apparatus is in a state of resonance to the emanations of an assault (real or alleged) from the Right on liberty, democracy, civil and human rights, standard of living, etc., but out of resonance to the emanations from an otherwise identical assault from the Left. Public opinion somehow can’t tune in the latter’s wave length. It is ridiculous to keep arguing about whether the media (together with the other reverberators of public opinion) are biased. They are so organically and totally biased that they are not aware of their bias, any more than a healthy man is aware of his breathing and heart beat.

There is one way of perceiving, feeling, judging, and responding to acts of the Left; another way, to the same acts sprung from the Right. But we may narrow the beam of our searchlight. It is not just the Left and Right as large, rather vague entities that determine the response. Closer examination shows that one small, simple factor is decisive: Does the regime suppress the Communist Party? If it does, then—whatever else its conduct and characteristics—it belongs with the Bad Guys and will in due course get the standard treatment from public opinion. And it will get the treatment cubed if it is at the same time friendly to the U.S.

Specifically: If the Portuguese military regime should tomorrow—it is not quite inconceivable—suppress the Portuguese Communist Party, then the day after tomorrow a global campaign, comparable in scale and ferocity to those mounted against the Greek colonels or now in operation against the Chilean military junta, would begin.

There is something of a mystery in these interrelationships. Perhaps, though, it is not as mysterious as we might prefer to find it.</blockquote>

76-11-6

2026-06-08T19:46:05Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-11-5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-11-7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= National Review =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
In my latest weekend reading, NATIONAL REVIEW told of some of the comments made by that Soviet pilot who defected and landed his MIG in Japan. He's now in the United States for debriefing. He described the enlisted men's life at the Northern Frontier Post where he was stationed. They are behind barbed wire, for all the world like prisoners, in barracks housing 50 or 60 men to a room. They go months without seeing their families. The suicide rate is high and the desertion rate higher. Penalty for desertion is not a pardon -- you are shot.

The Lieutenant is astonished by the amount and quality of food served on American bases and by the fraternizing between officers and enlisted men. He watched crews handling takeoffs and landings and expressed his astonishment as they did it, --QUOTE -- "without ever being given an order and without anyone shouting at them" --UNQUOTE. He said, -- QUOTE -- "If my regiment could see five minutes of what I saw today -- there would be a revolution". -- UNQUOTE.

In NATIONAL REVIEW I also learned of a new Russian hero. Well, he actually isn't Russian and you can make up your own mind as to whether you think he is a hero. But he has been awarded the [[wikipedia:Hero_of_the_Soviet_Union|Soviet Union Gold Star]] which is roughly equivalent to Britain's [[wikipedia:Victoria_Cross|Victoria Cross], the French [[wikipedia:Croix_de_Guerre|Croix de Guerre]], and our own Congressional [[wikipedia:Medal_of_Honor|Medal of Honor]].

You don't get that Gold Star for just being at work on time or not missing a cell meeting. Well, the new hero is a Spaniard by birth and when you start toting up his score he sounds like a pretty ordinary, run-of-the-mill Communist.

He wound up in Moscow in 1968 and from there until now has made a living doing some translating, a little editing and lecturing. Nothing there to merit the Soviet Union's highest honor.

Before 1968 he was in Prague, Czechoslovakia with a group of Spanish exiles and did nothing that would distinguish him from any of his comrades. We lose him for a few years between 1960 and his arrival in Prague, for he dropped out of sight in Cuba. Prior to that, and for 20 years, he was in a jail in Mexico -- 1940 to 1960. Surely he didn't get the Gold Star for good behavior in a Mexican jail. No, but what did he do to get the 20 years? Now we're getting warm. On August 21, 1940 -- on orders from [[Joseph Stalin]] -- he took an alpenstock (that's an ice axe used by mountain climbers) and buried it in the skull of Stalin's great enemy, Leon Trotsky, who was then a refugee in Mexico. Thirty-seven years later he is awarded the Gold Star of the Soviet Union.

I remember reading an Air Force General Order during World War II conferring our highest honor on a bomber pilot in the Eighth Air Force. His B-17 had been badly shot up by anti-aircraft fire. The ball turret beneath the belly of the plane had taken a hit. The gunner was wounded but with the turret jammed he couldn't be removed. Limping home across France and out over the channel, the plane was losing altitude at such a rate the Captain had to order the crew to bail out. The kid in the jammed turret realizing he would be left to go down with the plane, cried out in terror. The last man to leave saw the Captain sit down on the floor of the plane. Taking the boy's hand he said, -- QUOTE -- "Never mind, son, we'll ride it down together." -- UNQUOTE. Congressional Medal of Honor posthumously awarded. We give our medals on a different basis. I hope we always will.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>03/23/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-134]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD></TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>No</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Trotsky's assassin was [[wikipedia:Ramón_Mercader|Ramón Mercader]]
* I believe the defection was of [[wikipedia:Defection_of_Viktor_Belenko|Viktor Belenko]]
* The story of the B-17 ball-turret gunner seems to be incorrect. The only ball-turret gunner awarded the Medal of Honor was [[wikipedia:Maynard_Harrison_Smith|Maynard Smith]], but he survived the war.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

Joseph Stalin

2026-06-08T19:22:25Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Person]][[Category:Politician]]
Joseph Stalin was a leader within the Bolshevik Revolution at the time of the 1917 Russian Revolution and eventually rose to power after the death of [[Vladimir Lenin]] in 1924. He ran the Soviet Union until his death in 1953. Under his rule, the Soviet Union became a world superpower.

== Speech Relevance ==
Stalin is only mentioned once, in '[[A Time For Choosing]]' when Reagan shares to words of [[Al Smith]]:
<BLOCKQUOTE>''Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, [[Al Smith]], the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of [[Thomas Jefferson|Jefferson]], [[Andrew Jackson|Jackson]], and [[Grover Cleveland|Cleveland]] down the road under the banners of [[Karl Marx|Marx]], [[Vladimir Lenin|Lenin]], and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the [[Labour Party|labor socialist party]] of England.''</BLOCKQUOTE>

== Source Links ==
[[wikipedia:Joseph_Stalin|Joseph Stalin]]

World War II

2026-06-08T19:21:36Z

Reagan admin:

World War II was the most destructive war in man's history. Its timeframe differs from country-to-country, depending on their involvement. The United States entered the war on December 7, 1941 after the attack by the Japanese on the Naval station at Pearl Harbor Hawaii, but by that time, war had been raging in Europe for over 2 years (most view the invasion of Poland in 1939 as its beginning there) and fighting between the Japanese and Chinese had been underway since 1937.

The primary Axis powers were Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, Fascist Italy under Benito Mussolini and Imperial Japan under Emperor Shōwa (known as Hirohito in the west). The Allies consisted of The United States under President Franklin Roosevelt, Great Britain under Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the Soviet Union under [[Joseph Stalin]].

== Speech Relevance ==
Reagan directly mentions World War II only one time in '[[Encroaching Control]]':
<BLOCKQUOTE>''But what is being proposed in Washington, well a farm program is being lobbied which says the only answer to the farm problem is to take the 80% of free agriculture into a program of government regimentation, requiring the licensing of every farm in the United States, requiring the government establishment of production quotas and prices. And then they frankly admit this will mean the employment of thousands and thousands of new employees in the agricultural department, a permanent government subsidy and the raising of food prices between 15 and 25%. And in order to do this, they admit they will also create, artificially, a shortage of foodstuffs to the point that meat alone will be in supply about equal to what we knew under [[rationing]] in World War II.''</BLOCKQUOTE>
World War II was such a massive undertaking for all involved that certain goods or materials couldn't be produced fast enough. Rubber, nylon, steel, gas and certain kinds of food were deemed necessary for the war effort and, thus, rationed for civilians. Reagan is saying that greater government intervention into agriculture would reduce output to the point that the people would feel like they were back in the 1940s.

== Source Links ==
[[wikipedia:World_War_II|World War II]]

World War I

2026-06-08T19:18:32Z

Reagan admin:

World War I, also known as The Great War (until [[World War II]]), lasted for Europe from 1914 until November 11th, 1918. Entry into the war for the United States wasn't until April 1917. It saw the creation and implementation of some of the most horrific weapons, such as machine guns, chemical weapons, tanks and flamethrowers. The greatest repercussion of the war was [[World War II]]. The economic ruin of Germany caused by the terms of their surrender led to the Weimar Republic's hyperinflation and, eventually, the rise of Hitler and the Nazi party.

The typical face of the war is the western Europe trench battles, but one must not forget that, due to the mass European colonization in Southeast Asia and Africa, both these areas saw fighting. There was also a theater of the war in the Middle East (this was T.E. Lawrence's contribution to the war), as the [[wikipedia:Ottoman_Empire|Ottoman Empire]] had allied with the Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary). The Ottoman Empire was broken up after the war.

== Speech Relevance ==
Reagan makes two references to World War I. The first (chronologically) is in his 1957 [[Eureka College Commencement]] speech:
<BLOCKQUOTE>''Almost a century and a half after that day in Philadelphia, this nation entered a great world conflict in Europe. Volumes of cynical words have been written about that war and our part in it. Our motives have been questioned and there has been talk of ulterior motives in high places, of world markets and balance of power. But all the words of all the cynics cannot erase the fact that millions of Americans sacrificed, fought and many died in the sincere and selfless belief that they were making the world safe for democracy and advancing the cause of freedom for all men.''</BLOCKQUOTE>
The second is in '[[Encroaching Control]]':
<BLOCKQUOTE>''The committee further said they found little evidence that any agency, bureau or department created in answer to an emergency ever went out of existence even after the emergency had disappeared. Well, an example of this could be the [[Government Corporations|Spruce Products Corporation]] a government corporation which Congress ordered liquidated in 1920. 30 years later, it was still in existence. This was the corporation founded in World War I to secure spruce wood for airplane fuselages.''</BLOCKQUOTE>

== Source Links ==
[[wikipedia:World_War_I|World War I]]

78-14-A3

2026-06-07T23:47:46Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1978|1978]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[78-14-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[78-14-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Bi-Lingual =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
How far do we go in our effort to change this land from a melting pot into an all nation smorgasbord.
I'll be right back.

From the very first, this nation has been made up of a collection of minorities, forming a majority we call Americans. We hyphenated ourselves, yes, to explain the origin of family; calling ourselves German-American, Irish-American, Italian-American, whatever. And as
first-generation Americans, the success of the melting pot became evident as more and more of us began describing our heritage as French and Dutch or Irish, Scottish and English, Austrian and Italian—you name the mix we had them all.

Our ancestry traces to every corner of the world but with one common characteristic which makes us Americans. Those forefathers of ours, and yes, today's modern immigrants had and have an extra love of Liberty and an extra ounce of courage which made it possible for them to tear up roots and journey to a faraway land in search of more personal freedom and better opportunities for themselves and their children. Yes we keep our pride of origin, perpetuate the memory of ancestral song and custom, dress up in ethnic costume
for certain ceremonial days. We also carry the Stars and Stripes and sing the Star-Spangled Banner on those occasions.

Of late, however and possibly for political purposes, we seem bent on doing away with the melting pot, recreating strict ethnic divisions. A few weeks back, I commented on bilingual education and its failure to do anything toward improving the ability of students speaking a foreign tongue, to master English.

The other day a typical American drove me to the airport in a town where I'd been speaking. He decried our law which requires the printing of our ballots in two languages. Then he told me how he had come to this country from Italy when he was 10 years old. Like millions before and since he learned English without the help of special programs and he said at home in the evenings he and his brothers and sisters would help their parents learn English. He's still a fairly young man and as American as baseball.

A California news item the other day reported on the cost of printing ballots in two languages and the waste because hundreds of thousands of them were thrown away as uncalled for polling places in our neighborhoods.

Now from the National Review bulletin I gleaned the following item. The federal government has ordered three counties of North Carolina to print ballots in the language of the Lumbee Indians. There's a problem--there is no Lumbee language. There was once, but when white settlers moved into the area the Indians abandoned it in favor of English.

County officials are considering asking for a federal grant to invent a [[wikipedia:Lumbee#Language|Lumbee language]] and teach it to the Lumbees so they can carry out the law requiring dual language ballots.

Washington isn't doing well in English these days. Here's an H.E.W. working paper:

"In terms of heads who worked, as one would expect, the proportion of heads who worked is greater for total poor heads compared to poor heads eligible for welfare, greater still for non-poor heads eligible for welfare." Unquote.

Try that in Lumbee.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>10/10/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-365]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:fThiMv7BzsE|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B2

2026-06-07T23:43:56Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Tax Plan #1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Has capitalism used all of the tools available to it and its worldwide struggle with socialism? some of us don't think so. I'll be right back.

Capitalism hasn't used the best tool of all in a struggle against socialism and that's capitalism itself.

Roughly ninety four percent of the people in capitalist America make their living from wages or salaries. Only six percent are true capitalists in the sense of deriving their income from ownership of the means of production.

Both groups enjoy the highest standard of living the world as ever known, certainly far better than anything socialism has produced for its people. We can win the argument once and for all by simply making more of our people capitalists.

More than a hundred years ago, [[wikipedia:Abraham_Lincoln|Abe Lincoln]] signed the [[wikipedia:Homestead_Acts|Homestead Act]], making it possible for our people to own land. This was a revolutionary development. Ownership of land in most of the world had not been possible for the ordinary citizen. Generally land belonged to the king or emperor and through him to the favored aristocracy.

The Homestead Act set the pattern for American capitalism. Today 53 million Americans own their own homes. Now we need an industrial homestead act and that isn't impossible, as a matter of fact any number of companies and corporations in America have tried in a variety of ways to spread ownership to their employees.

In San Francisco a man named [[wikipedia:Louis_O._Kelso|Louis Kelso]] has evolved a plan which a number of corporations have already implemented. Now when a corporation needs to expand, it finances the expansion either by borrowing or by selling a new stock issue. Under the Kelso plan, an [[wikipedia:Employee_stock_ownership_plan|employee trust]] is formed. A company desiring new capital sells a new stock issue to this employee trust. The trust in turn borrows the money from a bank or lending unit using the stock as collateral. Each individual employee winds up owning stock in the company directly proportionate to his salary or wage level and he has a vested interest in the company's ability to prosper.

And to increase earnings over the next ten years there'll probably be five hundred billion dollars worth of new investment for businesses and industrial expansion it can also be five hundred billion dollars worth of corporate ownership by employees. An increasing number of citizens thus would have two sources of income. A paycheck and a share of the profits. Could there be a better answer to the stupidity of Karl Marx than millions of workers individually sharing in the ownership of the means of production?

Some years ago an executive of the [[wikipedia:Ford_Motor_Company|Ford Motor Company]] was showing the late [[wikipedia:Walter_Reuther|Walter Reuther]] head of the [[wikipedia:United_Auto_Workers|Auto Worker's Union]] through the [[wikipedia:Cleveland_Engine|Ford assembly plant in Cleveland Ohio]]. Pointing to the latest in automated machinery he said "Walter you will have a hard time collecting Union dues from those machines." and Walter replied "you'll have a harder time selling them automobiles."

The obvious answer neither of them thought of was that owners of machines can buy automobiles. Tomorrow, I'll tell you of another plan one that would give every registered voter in America an active share of ownership in the industry of America.

It's possible to have that and the plan I've just described. All it takes is a bill by Congress.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-8</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:mySTcSwENPQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-20-B5

2026-06-07T23:40:03Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-20-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-20-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= A Break for the Handicapped =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Today I have a guest with me. Julie Eisenhower, who has some interesting ideas to share with you about people who are handicapped. She'll be right with you

Five years ago, I was a guest at the opening of the Trout Pond Recreation Area in Tallahassee, Florida. At first it seemed to be a typical dedication: bright sun, friendly faces and the green of Girl Scout uniforms everywhere. It wasn't until we started on a tour that I noticed there was something different, something very special, about the park. I discovered Trout Pond is a recreation area that is designed for the entire population. The sightless can participate in a nature walk by reading the braille signs placed along the path. Those in wheelchairs can drink easily from specially constructed low fountains and move freely without the hazard of stairs because easily manageable slopes have been thoughtfully provided.

Trout Pond made a deep impression on me. It opened my eyes to barriers I didn't even know existed for some of our population. A few months later at the White House, we began special tours for the handicapped. For the first time, small groups of blind visitors could touch the wooden serpents that serve as legs for a sofa in the Red Room and run their fingers over the cold bronze of Thomas Jefferson's inkwell. In our bicentennial year, efforts are being made to respond to the needs of the handicapped across the country. The national parks and in Washington the Smithsonian and other sites which will be visited by millions are trying to provide shuttle buses, elevators with hand rails, inquiry pads for the deaf and specially created tours for the retarded.

There has never been a greater need for each of us as individuals to be aware of what it means to be handicapped. Statistics from the Perinatal Research Center at Georgetown Hospital in Washington show that an astonishing 25 percent of all births involve some kind of handicap either neurological, learning or emotional.

A few years ago, Governor Dan Evans of Washington state spent a day in a wheelchair. He said, "I found a six-inch curb looked about as impossible as a six-foot wall." Not many of us will ever experience what Governor Evans did but until we remove more of the barriers which set the handicapped apart, we will never be true to what has become the universal rallying cry of those with disabilities, namely, focus on the person not the handicap. Just last month the United States officially observed the annual 'Employ-The-Handicap Week.' I believe we need as well, a 'Handicapped Awareness Week' and that we need to start opening doors to the tremendous potential of thousands of Americans who have special needs but who also have special gifts.

This is Julie Eisenhower.

Thank you for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>10/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:tZLPx_tDLDs|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-20-B6|Welfare-Abuses]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Written and read by Julie Eisenhower-Nixon
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-16-A4

2026-06-07T23:39:14Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-16-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-16-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Ruritania =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
James Burnham has authored a column which should alert us to the fact that a great many opinion makers on the watch for any threat from the right, have a blind spot to danger from the left. I'll be right back.

Columnist James Burnham writes an interesting what-if story about an imaginary country he calls Ruritania. A group of military officers stage a coup and take over the government. They explain their action as necessary to free the people from oppression by a left-wing regime that was headed toward a soviet-style totalitarian dictatorship. A year later the military junta announces it will continue to rule for at least three to five more years, regardless of the outcome of any elections that people might hold. Naturally, they've outlawed the communist and socialist parties in all left-wing organizations. Leftist and liberal newspapers and publications have been outlawed, as have gatherings by liberals. Any attempts to hold such meetings are broken up by right-wing militants. Thousands of people have been jailed without any legal process such as serving warrants and none have been brought to trial. Many thousands of others have fled the country. Inflation has reached the highest level in the world and unemployment is tripled. Strikes, of course, have been banned as counter-revolutionary.

At this point in his story, Mr. Burnham asks, what the response would be in other nations, and here he doesn't have to deal in fancy. There are enough real examples for us to know that countless meetings would be held, speeches made, organizations formed, and demonstrators would march. Student sit-ins would follow, editorials, petitions, and TV specials denouncing the fascist military dictators. Of course, the UN would get in the act with eloquent speeches thundering through the halls, protesting the violation of human, civil, and political rights of the Ruritanian workers and peasants. The intellectual community and, yes, some segments of the clergy, would appeal to the conscience of mankind. Burnham describes the ad-hoc committees that would spring up in a dozen countries demanding sanctions and severance of diplomatic relations. Ruritanian escapees would be offered professorial chairs on the campuses and their lectures fees would triple. Then, quoting Mr. Burnham, "Murray Kempton, Anthony Lewis, Garry Wills, Harriet Van Horne, and Tom Wicker would have a collective fit. A special issue of Time would give in-depth coverage of terror in Ruritania. Jack Anderson would reveal that CIA had financed the Ruritanian generals." end quote.

He's drawn a very accurate picture substantiated by actual incidents but then he explains the reason behind his mythical kingdom story. All that he said about the military takeover, the jailing of innocent citizens, the denial of human rights, the economic tragedy of inflation and unemployment, is happening right now. All we have to do is reverse left and right. He's telling the story of Portugal today. The military dictators are left-wing, the outlawed parties are moderate or right, as are the banned publications. The fiction begins with the description of world reaction. Except for an almost unheard-of fringe, the usual protest apparatus isn't the least upset about what is happening in Portugal. As Mr. Burnham says the media together with the other reverberators of public opinion are so organically and totally biased that they are not aware of their bias.

There's one way of responding to acts of the left, another way to the same acts sprung from the right. One simple factor is decisive. Does the regime suppress the Communist Party? If it does, it belongs with the bad guys. End quote.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>08/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-130</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:vkXgAUWTibs|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[The Resonance Differential]] Full Article
* Used on the Citizen Reagan Podcast
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-13-A7

2026-06-07T23:38:36Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-13-A6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-13-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Keng Piao =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Last January, the Chinese information service in New York released a report about a commencement address in Peking that should have had our ears burning. I'll be right back.

With our own counterintelligence capability somewhat hamstrung as it has been recently, it's good to have friends. Intelligence sources in Taipei, the Free Republic of China, have made available excerpts of a speech made by Keng Piao, director of the Department for Foreign Liaison to the graduating class of the "College of Foreign Affairs" in Red China.

The college is the training institute for diplomats. Keng's speech, like the Brezhnev speech I reported on a few weeks ago, was not for public dissemination, which is a polite way of saying it was supposed to be secret. His topic was, a turning point in Sino-American relations. It might be well to note that while the name Keng Piao is not exactly a household word in America, he is very much a part of the policy-making process in the Chinese Communist Party.

In his address, he was bluntly outspoken about the two superpowers Russia and the United States. He said both were bent on aggression and therefore the spearhead of Red China's struggle would be aimed at both. The fact that, for the moment, we're not being referred to as "United States Imperialists" doesn't mean that Peking has forsaken or even softened on Marxist Leninist principles, says Keng.

According to Keng, the People's Republic of China is temporarily caught in a narrow crack between two imperialist camps. Yes, he calls the Soviet Union imperialist, as well as aggressor. According to Keng, it would be unthinkable for his country to try to deal with the two imperialists at the same time. So the strategy is to temporarily, and we should permanently keep that word in mind, put their dispute with us aside so as to have one less enemy.

He complained to the graduates that there were some revolutionary hotheads in their people's paradise who don't realize the United States, for all its vaunted power, has a soft weak side which they, the Communists, can use to their advantage. Ah, to see ourselves as other see us.

Keng explained that Peking, while recognizing our imperialism, could at the same time promote, for its own purposes, a friendly relationship with the United States. In perfect Mao Zedong language, he called this a, "policy of duality." Under this policy they can denounce us for stationing troops in some lands, Taiwan for instance, and at the same time with no self-consciousness endorse our maintaining troops in Western Europe and the Philippines. This is called tactical flexibility.

He admitted there was no hurry about taking back Taiwan, they simply accept that it belongs to them and they don't mind our taking care of it for them, for a while. But he made it plain that normal relations between the United States and Red China will not come about unless we withdraw our ambassador from Taiwan. On that point, he said we haven't lived up to their expectations but then went on to tell the students quote "Just wait for the opportune day, then we'll tell Uncle Sam to pack up and leave," unquote.

Before closing, he reaffirmed that the Soviet Union is the primary threat and detente is disturbing to Peking. More American leaders, he said, political, military, and social, would be invited to mainland China to keep us quiet and friendly until they can handle quote "Soviet revisionist social imperialism" unquote. Then it will be our turn.

That's something for us to keep in mind, while our touring officials are mastering chopsticks.

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/04/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-35]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:hpvqw3q2dLU|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[nyt:1977/01/27/archives/peking-is-said-to-stress-soviet-over-taiwan.html|Article about the speech]]
* [[wikipedia:Geng_Biao|Geng Biao]]
* [https://videttearchive.ilstu.edu/?a=d&d=vid19770127-01.2.6&e=-------en-20--1--txt-txIN------- Speech was given in August 1976??]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-07-B4

2026-06-07T23:38:34Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-07-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-07-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Welfare # 1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
It's time to write your Congressman again. I'll be right back.

Eight Democratic Congressmen and 54 Republicans have joined together in introducing a welfare reform program that could save the taxpayers almost two billion dollars. It will have passed probably save more. I learned in our own welfare reforms in California that our real savings were far greater than our estimates. Even more important, these reforms will also benefit the truly needy who must have our help. In California, in addition to saving the taxpayers a billion dollars we were able to increase the grants to the needy by an average of 43 percent.

When we reformed welfare in California and halted an increase in caseload that was adding forty thousand people a month to the rolls, we did so by changes in state regulations and administrative rules. We could not however change the multitudinous federal regulations imposed on us by the department of health education and welfare in Washington. With reform, those regulations offer an even greater potential savings.

The plan being offered to Congress is in effect an extension of the California plan but involving those federal regulations. One major change would require able-bodied mothers on the aid for dependent children program to work in return for their welfare grants at public or community work projects half-time-80 hours a month. As one Congressman put it, "They get something-they give something.

Now there'll be terrific opposition to this. Charges of slave labor and that welfare mothers should be in the home with their children. Well let me answer that ladder charge first. Forty percent of the American mothers of children under eighteen years of age are working and one-third of these have children under the age of six. As for public work projects being slave labor, we were allowed to conduct an experiment in 35 California counties wherein able-bodied welfare recipients had to report for such work. In one year we funneled 57,000 people from welfare through these work projects into private enterprise jobs. In 1969 the house ways and means committee did a study in 11 cities and came to the conclusion that an increasing number of welfare recipients were people who had been induced by social workers to quit jobs and opt for welfare instead.

It's time for welfare reform at the national level and reform is not a new idea. In 1935 Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed the Social Security Act and announced we can now see the end of public assistance in America. Well in 1962 John Fitzgerald Kennedy signed a welfare reform bill which he said would cost more to start with but which would eventually reduce the roles by training people for useful work by stressing, quote, "self-support and simplifying welfare administration." Unquote. In 1964 Lyndon Baines Johnson signed the Economic Opportunity Act, the poverty program and said, quote, "The days of the dole in our country are numbered." Unquote.

In the meantime an executive in health education and welfare was telling the professionals in the department "To think big and to plan big." And they did. While three presidents were making statements they believed were true and our national population was increasing 11 percent, aid to dependent children increased 216 percent of the overall welfare caseload more than doubled and its cost quadrupled.

Now is the time to write your Congressman in support of welfare reform. I'll tell you some more about welfare tomorrow.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-22</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:dcWfdcqSp4o|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-B1

2026-06-07T23:37:35Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Boondoggles' Foe =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A bill going through Congress may put an end to some of the silly projects your money is being wasted on. I'll be right back.

The Federal government recently spent half a million dollars to find out that when people are angry, stop smoking or hear loud noises, they clench their jaws. Yes it was one of those studies approved by the National Science Foundation. The researcher, Roland Hutchison of Kalamazoo State Hospital in Michigan spent seven years working his way through the study of wasps, boa constrictors, rats and monkeys before he got to human beings. Among his findings was that monkeys, quote, "Became angry when they were shocked and would try to get away from the shock." Unquote. He also learned, at taxpayer expense, that drunk monkeys do not usually react as quickly or as often as sober monkeys, and that hungry monkeys get angry more quickly than well-fed monkeys. When he got to people Mr. Hutchison discovered, quote, "That people get angry when they feel cheated and tend to clench their jaws or even scream and kick." Unquote. I couldn't be happier to hear that! For a while there I was beginning to think I might be a monkey.

Are you sick of hearing stories of your money being spent on projects of this stripe? Well so was Congressman Robert Bauman, a young second-termer from Maryland. When the National Science Foundation's annual budget was up for approval recently, Bob Bauman proposed an amendment requiring the Foundation to provide the Congress with a 30-day notice of proposed grants during which period either the Senate or the House would have the chance to pass a resolution vetoing any grant. Any grants not disapproved by either chamber would become effective after the 30 days. In support of his amendment Congressman Bauman cited complaints his office had received concerning such grants as, quote, six thousand dollars to study Polish bisexual frogs, seventy thousand to study the smell of perspiration given off by Australian aborigines and 2.6 million to study the sex life of crabs. Unquote.

Miracles will happen even in the 94th Congress, Bob Bauman's amendment passed the House by 212-199 the National Science Foundation was somewhat stunned by this development. It wasn't so much that they thought many of their grants would be vetoed should the amendment become law, it's just that the mere threat of a veto would have prevented many of the more absurd projects from ever being approved in the first place. So they beat a path to their friends on the Senate side hoping to stop the Bauman Amendment there. Fortunately for them the chairman of the relevant subcommittee is a friend of theirs, Senator Edward Kennedy. He called the Bauman Amendment an attempt, quote, "By members of Congress to act as censors." Unquote. Then the Senator attempted to prevent Congressman Bauman from appearing before the subcommittee, which of course wasn't censorship. Other committee members intervened in Bauman's behalf, still the amendment faces rough going in the Senate.

If you're tired of seeing your tax dollar used to invade the privacy of bisexual frogs and amorous crabs, you might write your senators urging passage of the Bauman Amendment to the National Science Foundation appropriation.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:op2xB5ywFFc|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-01-A4|Boondoggle]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-12-A2

2026-06-07T23:37:31Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-12-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-12-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Law and Order =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I once appeared in a movie called Law and Order. If it were being made today the title would probably be changed. I'll be right back.

Not too long ago, any discussion of crime and its rapid rate of increase would find the term 'Law and Order' used as a matter of course. Those who feel the courts have been too lenient and that permissiveness has played a part in crimes increase would use the term to describe what should be restored.

I played in a movie some years ago called Law and Order. It wasn't a very good movie as some of you stay up for the late show probably discovered. But it was a story of a town marshal who was dedicated to preserving law and order, hence the title.

The phrase is perfectly respectable, at least, it always has been. We're a nation of laws, proud that we place our faith in law rather than in men and, of course, civilization is built upon the ability of humans to live together in an orderly society.

In the last few years, however, the phrase has become unfashionable. Those who've made it so began looking askance at anyone who used the words. Their arched eyebrows were a reaction to what they had determined was an expression of bigotry. If pressed for an explanation they would inform you that 'Law and Order' were code words that really meant a call for racial discrimination.

By coincidence, those who made the decision to outlaw this simple phrase are usually against our penal system, against capital punishment and believe that society, not the criminal is to blame for crime.

Well I think this inference of bigotry is in itself bigoted, not only does it impugn (without proof) the character of the person who uses an appropriate phrase to describe what is all too lacking today, but it casts a slur on an entire racial group. Are they not implying that our fellow citizens who happen to be black are so given to crime that a call for 'Law and Order' is automatically a call for a curb on the black community?

The truth is blacks in America are victims of crime far out of proportion to their numbers. They are roughly 10 or 12 percent of our population but more than half of all the murder victims are black.

If 'Law and Order' is a code word for racism then explain away the survey done by American University in the nation's capital. It seems that the black residents of the District of Columbia are calling for 'Law and Order' far more than their white neighbors. 74 percent of them want sterner action against criminals. With whites it was only 61 percent. 82 percent of blacks compared to only 62 percent of whites think tougher parole policies would cut down crime. On the death penalty there was a closer ratio, it was believed to be an effective deterrent by 56 percent of the blacks and 54 percent of the whites.

Black citizens are well aware that criminals are colorblind, they practice no discrimination in plying the despicable trade. 'Law and Order' isn't a code word to blacks-it's a cry for help and we'd better join in.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-37</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:5nhT5mXaqhM|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [http://www.imdb.com/title/0045991 Law and Order]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-16-A5

2026-06-07T23:37:12Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]][[Category:Domestic Policy]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-16-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-16-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Gun Control =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
For the next few days I'll have with me a guest with some especially interesting viewpoints. He's the nationally syndicated colomnist Patrick Buchanan. He'll be right with you.

Here in the nation's capital, the Congress is busy working up alternatives to the President's new anti-crime program. Invariably the Democratic alternatives contain some version or other of a Federal law to license, control, ban or even confiscate handguns, in particular the dread Saturday Night Special. If handguns are outlawed, liberal Democrats argue, handgun crimes automatically will be reduced. "It is as simple as that," they say. These are by and large the same people who told us ten years ago that if we voted enough money for the poor we would eliminate poverty. They were wrong then, they are wrong now.

Outlaw guns and only outlaws will have guns is how the slogan runs, and there is truth as well as irony in that statement. For if handguns are declared illegal, the criminals will keep their weapons and so too will hundreds of thousands of citizens who prefer to become law breakers rather than to give up the protection they believe a handgun provides to them and their family. Federal gun control would be nothing but another failed federal enterprise like prohibition. Does anyone seriously believe that some thug who specializes in holding up liquor stores is going to surrender his weapon simply because Congress has declared he is not entitled to own a gun?

New York has the toughest anti-gun laws in the country and there are still an estimated 1 million weapons floating around in private hands within the city. Nevertheless, it is argued handgun controls will reduce the number of deaths by accident and the number of those killed in a family quarrel. But that is not the problem. Simply because several hundred people die each year in gun accidents is no reason to deny 210 million Americans the right to own them. As for a lover's quarrel resulting in a shooting, quite frankly, it is not the fear of one's wife or girlfriend taking the family cannon out of the closet and blowing someone away that is the fear that is eating at the vitals of American society. The fear that is making America an armed camp is not the fear of the armed citizen, but fear of the armed criminal: the mugger, the robber, the rapist, the killer.

This is the individual to whom state legislatures and the federal Congress should be directing their attention. Mandatory and separate sentences for anyone using a gun in the commission of a crime. Mandatory life imprisonment or the death penalty for anyone who kills during the commission of a felony. These are the kind of laws that are needed and a society which refuses to take these tough measures against criminals is not going to become more safe and secure by robbing its citizens of the right to keep and acquire arms. A doubling of the prison population is a far better answer to the fear that stalks America than cutting in half the number of guns in American society.

This is Pat Buchanan substituting for Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>08/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:3hP_i0BFXQI|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Recorded by [[wikipedia:Pat_Buchanan|Patrick Buchanan]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-B2

2026-06-07T23:37:00Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Cold Beer =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The judge said, "[[wikipedia:Beer_Barrel_Polka|Roll out the barrel!]]" and the brewer was faced with a dilemma. I'll be right back.

If you made a product that could only be shipped long distances under refrigeration, but refrigeration wasn't always available, thus risking spoilage and the disappointment or even ire of your customers, you might want to restrict the sale of your product to an area where you could be sure it would be delivered in top condition, right? Wrong, said a federal district judge recently in ruling that the [[wikipedia:Coors_Brewing_Company|Adolf Coors Company]] of Colorado could no longer limit the geographical territory in which its beer is distributed.

Now keep in mind that beer is a perishable commodity. It has a shelf life of about three months before the flavor begins to deteriorate in the bottle and its quality goes downhill. Most brewers mark the shelf life dates of their product in one way or another on six packs and on cases. Some even send their salesmen around to the stores to remove outdated beer from time to time to make sure the customers get what they're paying for, fresh beer. The Coors people told the court that they had a special problem. It seems theirs is the only beer in America that is unpasteurized, it's made by the so-called aseptic process this gives it a particular flavor. The trouble is that the unpasteurized product must be transported only under refrigeration or it'll begin to deteriorate well before the normal shelf life limit. To complicate the problem Coors has only one brewery and it's in the Rocky Mountains.

They claim that refrigerated transportation isn't always available for hauling their beer nearly 2,000 miles to the East Coast. So for many years they've restricted themselves to being a regional brand, selling only in 11 western states where they felt they could be sure of delivering their product under the proper conditions. Thirsty Easterners meanwhile were paying about four times as much as westerners for the occasional deliveries of the brewery's suds that somehow found their way eastward.

The judge was unmoved by the brewery's argument. His ruling was that the Coors firm was engaged in what were called illegal anti-competitive business practices. That's a little odd when you consider that this firm is operating in a highly competitive field in which all the competing companies clamor vigorously for the public's attention. And its favor in fact it's precisely because they have been successfully competitive that Coors has risen to become the nation's fourth largest brewer even though it's regional rather than national in scope.

Presumably the court case will be appealed so the final outcome can't be predicted. Meanwhile those thirsty Easterners may get that Rocky Mountain brew they've been wanting, but will the brewer be able to deliver it in the condition in which they'll want to drink it? You know the judge didn't offer any suggestions about that.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:qvgTQfxmmYc|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/497/1178/220636/ Supreme Court case]
* [[wikipedia:Smokey_and_the_Bandit|Smokey and the Bandit]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-07-A1

2026-06-07T23:36:37Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-06-5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-07-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Indochina # 1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Should baseball players be the only ones judged on their batting average? I'll be right back.

We're being treated to a barrage of column and commentary ridiculing those who urge aid to South Vietnam because failure to support an ally would have a domino effect on other allies. Elsewhere James Reston of the New York Times a week before Easter discounted the domino theory as having no validity; He says the two small Asian nations can have no bearing on the real international problems confronting us he says "the Domino Theory is almost as obsolete as the game of dominoes itself."

Strange that so many members of the press who insist that every statement ever made by an office holder be brought forth whenever they think he's guilty of inconsistency have never thought of making the record public where their own pontifications are concerned. These men and women write with presumed authority on any and all subjects and influence public thinking to a great degree but would their influence be so great if like ball players their updated batting averages were published with their columns and editorials.

Those familiar voices we hear telling us after a Presidential address what it was we really heard those who told us Castro was no communist, Ho Chi Minh was another George Washington and Mao Zedong and the Red Chinese were just agrarian reformers never remind us of how often their pronouncements were wrong.

For example a few years ago President Nixon made the hard decision to mine Haiphong Harbor and stop the flow of ammunition from Russia to the North Vietnamese. He made it on the very eve of the summit meeting in Moscow. All arrangements had been made for the trip and most of the better known news analysts who had accompanied him to Peking were all packed for the trip to Russia.

His announcement of the action he planned against an enemy who'd been killing American fighting men for several years stunned these analysts and brought from them a flood of criticism.

Eric Sevareid: "I would suspect that the summit will not come off."-that was the mildest although it was delivered with an arched eyebrow. Charles Collingwood: "Certainly the Moscow summit meeting from which so much had been expected is now in jeopardy." Marvin Kalb: "One casualty of the president's mining and blockade may well be his upcoming summit to Moscow. Those who began packing and dreaming of caviar are beginning to unpack and are returning to dry cereal." Well that was cuter than the bare announcements of John Chancellor: "The summit is in jeopardy today." then there was Richard Valeriani's shocked question: "How can they receive him now." Well Ted Koppel answered him: "I don't see how he can go." Edward Stevens said: "The president's announcement will be pretty hard for them to swallow. It practically killed the prospects of a summit."

So spoke the great modern day pundits most of whom then dutifully accompanied the President to Moscow a few days later to report on the very successful summit which all agreed did much to lessen world tensions. To my knowledge none has ever acknowledged the President had been right and they were wrong nor have they given credit to the mining and the bombing of Hanoi for finally bringing an end to our participation in the war and the freeing of our prisoners.

Ironically the Russians were so afraid the President wouldn't come that Henry Kissinger at their invitation was already in Moscow to calm their fears and assure them he would really be there.

Tomorrow I'll get back to the domino theory and whether it's real or imaginary.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-21</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:20esUAuXZa4|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[wikipedia:Operation_Pocket_Money|Operation Pocket Money]]: The mining of Haiphong Harbor (May 9, 1972)
* [[wikipedia:Moscow_Summit_(1972)|Moscow Summit]] (May 22-30, 1972)
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

78-02-A2

2026-06-07T23:36:30Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1978|1978]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[78-02-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[78-02-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Panama =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I'd like you to hear what one of our Panama Canal employees, a Panamanian himself, has to say about the doings of government, ours and Panamas.
I'll be right back.

On a recent visit to Panama two U.S. Senators, Paul Laxalt and Bob Dole,
met with the Panama Canal Zone Civic council. The council is made up of
representatives of the towns in the zone.

One of the council members who spoke to the senators was a fireman. He was
born in the zone to parents from the West Indies, he is by law, a Panamanian.
Yet, in his heart he is American and in his heart he is against the treaties
which would give the canal to Panama.

He spoke with a heavy West Indian accent. He's a man in his 40's, black and
concerned (as are most of the canal employees) that he will face retribution
if the treaties are ratified because of his loyalty to the United States.
He was quite emotional as he spoke:

--QUOTE-- "The employees that you see here working, the ones that come from
the United States and the ones that are employed locally, we are a breed of
people--a breed of second, some third generation, whose fathers come here and
built this place.

"They're probably turnin' over in their graves wanting to find out what's
wrong with the United States government. What's this business about givin' away
the Panama Canal? To Who? Are we working for what? We sacrifice all the time.
We give of ourselves. ... . freely. Yes, we came here and worked for 10 cents an hour.
We are going to defend it. Regardless of what anybody wants to say, we stood here
in 1964 and we defended it." --UNQUOTE-- (He was speaking of the riots)
Quote--And we dare anybody to come over and take it away from us. That's the
kind of feelin's that I have. I am tell you that.

"You are never making me an American citizen which I know that I'm entitled
to be because I was born and grow up in the Canal Zone under the American Flag.
And trained western style . I don't know anything about Communism or whatever.
I read, write english. That's the language I know. The money in my pocket
--"In God we trust"-- thats what it writes on there. It's American money. And
it's the only kind of money I care to spend.

"So what you think I'm going to do? Sit here and let some tinhorn terrorist
come over here and tell us what we should do. Uh? This is our country. We built
it. This Panama Canal was built by this people and it was paid in blood, sweat
and tears. Are you going to tell me the United States government just--just
give it away like that?--UNQUOTE. At this point he was interrupted by another
member of the Council who said, QUOTE--"This man is very dramatic but he is 100
percent right."

The fireman continued QUOTE--"I know that I'm right. That's the reason why
my kids at home--three girls and a boy--they're going to be in the United States
Navy and Army. They're not to go through this what I'm going through. Never
happen. I'm going to see to it . And any day that this treaty comes into effect
I'm going to tell you this: you'll have an exodus to the United States.
Employees- -black and white--will be going out of here." UNQUOTE--

I hope he knows how many Americans feel the same way.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>01/27/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-256]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:n7etzDJZDbg|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* ''Note from Script'': These programs are provided for airing from February 13th through March 3rd inclusive. Maintaining this schedule will enable your station to air all newly recorded programs as received.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-20-A6

2026-06-07T23:36:25Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-20-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-20-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Samizdat =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A while back I talked about the Samizdat Bulletin of smuggled writings from the Soviet Union. So many of you have written to me about it that I'd like to talk about it again today. I'll be right back.

Samizdat is a Russian word meaning self-publishers and it represents a tiny but potent voice of opposition to the Soviet Union's repression of its citizens. Modern day Soviet dissidents coined the phrase for a practice they've picked up from the days of Tsarist censorship. They use it to circumvent the efficient Soviet censorship system. It involves circulating uncensored material privately usually in the form of manuscripts. The material ranges from poetry to trial proceedings and includes memoirs, historical accounts, fiction, protest statements, and news accounts of the increasingly harsh treatment the Soviet government accords its political prisoners.

Some of this material makes its way out of the Soviet Union and thanks to the work of an energetic California woman, Olga Stacevich, it is seeing the light of day. Mrs. Stacevich and her husband edit the Samizdat Bulletin, which is a collection of smuggled samizdat material. The Soviet government which can't tolerate free speech, or any other form of dissidence for that matter, doesn't take the samizdat lightly. In his recent book "Samizdat: The Voices of the Soviet Opposition," George Saunders says quote "the struggle in the Soviet Union in recent years has been centered around samizdat to a great extent. Most of the trials have been aimed at intimidating dissidents involved in producing or circulation of uncensored literature. The most prominent figures among the oppositionists have relied on the samizdat network in their battle for free speech, freedom of the press, and basic democratic rights." Unquote.

Since 1973 Mrs. Stacevich and her husband have published 21 editions of the Samizdat Bulletin. They've worked as volunteers in the project which is non-profit and they've had to do it on a shoestring. The bulletins make fascinating, and sometimes chilling, reading. Among the writings from the Soviet Union that they've brought to light is a portion of a diary covering a month-long strike of political prisoners in a concentration camp, there's a letter from political prisoners detailing their conditions, little food, little warm clothing, no visits from relatives and no correspondence permitted. And there's an open letter to Senator Henry Jackson from Russian scientist V.P. Turchin entitled the Soviet system is in dire need of evolution. The Samizdat Bulletin is a beacon of light for those in the United Soviet States of Russia who share our love for human freedom. If you'd like to subscribe and thereby help spread the words of these gallant Soviet writers, drop me a line here at the station and I'll forward it to Mrs. Stacevich.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>10/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:JbajyIFgHMQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on the Citizen Reagan Podcast
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

78-10-B1

2026-06-07T23:36:01Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1978|1978]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[78-10-A7|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[78-10-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Wedding =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I'm going to talk about a wedding and maybe you'll feel better about life in general when you've heard about this one.
I'll be right back.

On Saturday July 15 in Chicago, Linda Fraschalla walked down the aisle and was married to Peter Saraceno. As they led the wedding party from the church the pace was a little slow, because Pete had to use a walker.

Actually the marriage itself was about two years late. Linda and Peter planned to wed in 1976 right after he was released from the Marines then Pete and a buddy crashed an automobile. Pete was critically injured and pronounced dead on arrival at Westlake Hospital, but a doctor felt for a pulse one last time and found a very faint one. Pete was alive, but in a coma.

After 12 days in a respirator and with five other life support machines attached to him. The doctors told his mother to pull the plug. She replied that if God had wanted him, he would have taken him in the accident. He would remain in the coma for three and a half months. At three months, he contracted double pneumonia and was given only a few hours to live.

Linda works in the admitting office at Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital. Every night after work, she visited Pete who never so much has moved an eyelash. Nevertheless Linda was there, decorating his room with a lighted tree for Christmas spending New Year's Eve with him. Sympathetic doctors told her to go out have fun and try to forget him. She refused.

Then one day Pete opened his eyes and his eyes began following Linda as she moved around the room. Later a finger moved, then an arm and finally he tried to speak. Linda was the only one who could understand him, even when he made no sound she could read his lips.

He spent seven months at Westlake then to the Chicago Rehabilitation Institute and finally home. Linda quit her job and used her savings to buy a 28-foot backyard pool to help him exercise his legs.

One day, his mother took him back to Westlake to meet the nurses who'd cared for him during the long months of coma. He stepped off the third floor elevator using a walker and Mrs. Saraceno says there wasn't a dry eye on the floor.

When Pete asked Linda's father for permission to marry her, Mr. Fraschalla said, "When you can walk down that aisle she's all yours." Linda has returned to her job but she spent her evenings decorating a garden type apartment in Melrose Park where they're now at home. Pete had wanted to become a Chicago policeman but still has trouble with his left arm. Linda says he can do some kind of desk work.

Pete says, "The doctors call me 'The Miracle Boy' and I guess they're right. I'm lucky to be alive and I'm lucky to have Linda." Yes he is. When the doctors told Linda that he would never make it, she told them, "I love him." and she refused to believe them. She said, "I wanted to help him, so I stayed at his side as much as I could." Pete says, "She sure taught me about love." I think she taught all of us something. Pete, congratulations, and to you and Linda, a lifetime of love and happiness.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>07/15/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-337]], [[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_Stories_in_his_Own_Hand|SihoH-12]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:bEspEF1Nvzg|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[:file:Pete-Linda_Wedding.jpg|Photo of newspaper article]]
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Luke%27s_Hospital_(Chicago,_Illinois) Presbyterian-St. Luke's Hospital]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-05-A4

2026-06-07T23:35:53Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1976|1976]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-05-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-05-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Inflation and the Property Tax II =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Higher property taxes are an inevitable result of inflation because inflation itself is simply another tax. I'll be right back.

It may seem uncharacteristic for me to sympathize even a little bit with property tax assessors. I regard all tax collectors as a necessary evil and I'm convinced they would be less evil if they were less necessary.

However, I have some sympathy with local tax assessors for these days they're almost as much victims as they are villains. When homeowners protest against outrageous increases in assessed values and when property tax assessors try to justify such increases in relation to market values, I have to admit both sides have a point. But the increases are usually both technically justified and practically outrageous and I'm astonished that neither side of the argument tries to find the reason for this paradox.

It isn't hard to find, it's called inflation and it works out of Washington D.C.

Inflation occurs when the growth of the nation's money supply outstrips the growth in the nation's productivity. The Federal government controls the nation's money supply and is therefore the primary source of inflation.

Inflation raises prices because more money is available but more goods and services and homes are not, thus property market values rise and property tax assessors are technically justified in raising assessments. But the homeowner is equally justified in thinking the raise is outrageous because he's caught in an unmerciful governmental triple squeeze. Higher assessments mean higher taxes at a time when all other prices are climbing because of inflation. Tax increases from higher assessments are often compounded by higher property tax rates imposed so that local government also can pay the inflated costs of goods and services. Higher wages don't help because the higher the income, the greater the percentage of it taken by income tax and, of course, the homeowner trying to live on a fixed retirement income is squeezed most unmercifully, since he has no defense at all against inflation.

In truth inflation is simply another tax imposed by Washington in the name of easy money -- a tax which makes the existing property tax structure unbearable.

But before we throw out the property tax, the one tax over which we can at least exercise some local control, let's try an alternative. Let's put the pressure on the bureaucrats and legislators in Washington to end the needless hidden tax of inflation. Only they can do it.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>11/02/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:JB6MVzff5gY|Listen]] (with Part 2)</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-02-B3

2026-06-07T23:35:48Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1976|1976]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-02-B2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-02-B4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Humphrey - Hawkins Bill (Jobs A) =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Sometimes in the halls of Congress it seems as if "old bills" unlike old soldiers neither die nor fade away. They just live on under different titles. I'll be right back.

Congress has before it Senate Bill 50 House Resolution 50 entitled, "The Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act." We first knew of this as the Humphrey-Javits bill. Fortunately it didn't get far under that title but now unfortunately it's back renamed the Humphrey-Hawkins bill.

It is as persuasive and grandiloquent in its promise as the label on a bottle of patent medicine. It declares that every adult American has the right to, quote, "opportunities for useful paid employment at fair rates of compensation." Unquote. Surely no one wants to quarrel with that. But it sets a goal of 3 percent adult unemployment to be reached by 1980 which is better than full employment.

During times of peak employment the percentage of workers temporarily and voluntarily between jobs and those looking for a first job total more than three percent.

Humphrey-Hawkins as it's called requires the president to submit a complete plan every year for achieving full employment and balance growth. Now that too sounds all right. He's supposed to use fiscal and monetary policy, tax revision and other tools. Here there seems to be some fuzziness, because Washington estimates the cost of the bill at anywhere from 16 billion a year to 44 billion.

But that phrase "other tools" is the one we should watch out for. To begin with Congress has to approve the president's plan or presumably come up with one of its own. Then if joblessness isn't reduced to the magic figure all sorts of employment and grant programs go into effect including public service employment and job training. We already have about 50 government agencies charged with training and assisting the unemployed. Make that 51. The bill calls for a new "Full Employment Office" in the Labor Department to administer a reservoir of last resort federal jobs.

The bill makes sure that these make work jobs pay equivalent to wage scales in private industry. Now this means a built in inducement for some to quit their present jobs for the guaranteed public job because it would mean a raise in pay.

In our experience so far with these emergency public job programs we've learned that they actually decrease employment because in many instances government entities only use the program to hire those they already intended to hire.

But there's much much more to fear in Humphrey-Hawkins. Actually it follows a pattern once used in Italy by a fellow named Mussolini and then it was called fascism.

The annual plan would involve the government allocating resources including labor. It creates government machinery for planning virtually every aspect of American life, projecting national goals for production, purchasing power and so forth.

These words may not sound frightening but think of their meaning and application. Government not the customers would decide how much of what should be produced. You may think you want a new car but if government decided refrigerators were more important steel and other materials would be denied the automaker. That of course would mean layoffs which also means government would begin telling free Americans where they would work and what kind of work they do. Maybe it's a full employment program-but so was slavery.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>09/21/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-71</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:bSMzF8AmdRo|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B1

2026-06-07T23:35:35Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-A6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Farm Facts =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Some of the biggest gamblers in America wouldn't know the difference between a roulette table and spin the bottle, but they're gamblers nevertheless. I'll be right back.

Not too long ago I was a guest speaker in [[wikipedia:Las_Vegas|Las Vegas]] to a national agriculture group. Some of the regular patrons of Las Vegas must have thought the farm visitors were a little out of place, but I have news for them. A farmer of any kind is in a business that makes a crap table or a roulette wheel look like a guaranteed annual income.

Year in and year out the farmer bets his whole role against weather insects plant and animal diseases and a supply and demand system in which he's flying blind. He has no way of knowing whether everyone else is raising the same crop he decided to plant or if he'll have the market to himself.

It can rain too early, or too late, or too much, or too little and any one of these can make him a loser. Some years back a [[wikipedia:Ezra_Taft_Benson|Secretary of Agriculture]] was getting around the country hearing at first hand the farmer's views one of them was giving him a rough time with his complaints. The secretary sneaked a hasty look at his briefing papers and said, "Well, now, wait a minute you didn't have it all that bad last year you got 29 inches of rain." The farmer says, "Yeah I remember the night it happened."

A [[wikipedia:1973_meat_boycott|couple of years back when beef prices shot up]], the cattle growers took a lot of abuse they didn't deserve. For one thing there'd been virtually no increase in beef prices at the grower level for more than a decade. There had been a sizable hike in the price of feed, the grain that puts on that finishing growth in the feedlot, and it takes about four and a half pounds of grain to make one pound of meat. Arithmetic is a very exact science and when the grain price per pound is higher than beef per pound, how do you come out in that four and a half to one ratio of feed to meat? And just to top things off in that year of high priced meat we had winter storms in the western plains that killed thousands of animals. In one storm alone the toll was a hundred million dollars worth. That was also the year the workers in the packing houses struck for higher pay. The housewife was angry about the high price of meat but was she angry at the right people.

March 24th has been named [https://www.agday.org/ Agriculture Day] in recognition, not only of the farmer's responsibilities, but of what agriculture means to all of us.

It's true that almost everything starts on a farm. The things we eat and wear, but also chemicals, pharmaceuticals, cosmetics, soap and even ink. Less than five percent of our people provide for ninety five percent and have enough left over to export to other countries.

You've probably read about the disappearing family farm replaced by the huge corporation farm. Yet less than one tenth of one percent of our 2.9 million farms are corporate. In the last few decades the American farmer has led America and the world in a technological revolution. His increase in productivity is a miracle of the 20th century. In just the last 10 years, his production has gone up 20 percent while acreage farmed has gone down six percent. The harvest from one out of every four acres is exported without that our balance of trade would be in a sorry state. One farmer grows food and fiber for fifty one of his fellow citizens and 4 out of 10 non-farm jobs are dependent on agriculture.

Maybe on March 24th we should all decide, at least for the day, not to blame the farmer for the high price of food.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-6</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:5p24QRoJac0|Listen]] (with [[75-04-B3|Price of Beef]])</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-02-B4

2026-06-07T23:35:15Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1976|1976]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-02-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-02-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Humphery - Hawkins Bill (Jobs B) =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
No one who grew up in the Great Depression can be indifferent to the suffering that goes with wanting to work and not being able to find a job. I'll be right back.

Yesterday when I was talking about the threat to freedom inherent in the Humphrey-Hawkins bill I was aware of the danger that I might appear callous to the plight of the unemployed. This is not so. I don't question the intentions of Senator Humphrey or Representative Hawkins. They mean well and are sincere in their concern for the plight of the jobless.

I hope they and you will credit me with the same sincerity in the same measure of sympathy for the unemployed. I say this because I'm going to ask some questions about the present unemployment rate and whether in our desire to eliminate suffering we haven't in truth added to the problem.

During the recent primary campaign an article appeared in the press quoting a man who was reported to be president of the nation's largest employment agency. His firm has more than 500 offices nationwide. He claims that three million jobs are going begging. His agency had openings listed for unskilled workers secretaries medical personnel file clerks salesmen and even marketing specialists and management trainees.

Maybe a story caught my eye because for some time now I've been keeping count of the number of full pages in the classified section of the Los Angeles Sunday Times wherein employers advertise for workers to fill job vacancies. Los Angeles has an official unemployment rate of around 10 percent but every Sunday there are 30 full pages of help wanted ads. Take a look at your own metropolitan paper.

The Long Beach office of the California State Labor Department was seeking applicants for secretarial jobs at $870 a month, cooks at $1000, security guards had better than $3 an hour and craftsman at $6.50 an hour. And the unemployment rate was 10.3 percent.

To get back to the article, the president of the employment agency said that politicians who sound off about unemployment figures tend to scare job seekers out of looking for a job. He also said that we had gone so far in unemployment benefits that we've made it too easy not to work. He gave examples.

In Plainfield, New Jersey a man unemployed for five months came to their office. They found him a job at $20 a week better than the job he'd lost-same kind of work. In 90 days his pay would go up another $30 a week. He turned it down. Hhe and his wife were receiving $9880 a year in unemployment insurance, were moonlighting for another $5200 and were eligible for food stamps. At better than $15,000 a year plus food stamps he couldn't afford to take the job they'd found for him. In another case a secretary turned down a job saying, "I'm going to take a 26-week vacation on ninety dollar a week unemployment benefits tax-free."

Now let me ask a question. I'm not making this as a statement just asking. Why shouldn't anyone unemployed have to take a job which he or she is capable of performing? Why shouldn't the unemployment check be reduced by the amount of the paycheck? In the meantime let the state employment office be assigned to find as quickly as possible the right kind of job. Was unemployment insurance ever intended to fund 26-week vacations?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>09/21/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-265</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:bSMzF8AmdRo|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-08-A4

2026-06-07T23:34:49Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-08-A3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-08-A5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Regulations / New Wave # 1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A new kind of federal regulation is increasing prices to the consumer and destroying small business. I'll be right back.

Murray Wiedenbaum is a former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, now Director of the Center for the Study of American Business at Washington University of Saint Louis. In a recent speech in our nation's capital Dr. Wiedenbaum had bad news for all Americans: a new wave of American regulation threatens to raise prices indiscriminately and drive small businesses into the ground.

This new wave of regulation includes such agencies as the Environmental Protection Agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. All of these agencies were set up to accomplish laudable goals. Who among us would object to protecting the environment, preventing discrimination or improving safety conditions for our workers? Indeed who among us is not in support of such goals?

Unfortunately however these agencies are so devoted to these particular goals they pay little heed to what they do to the efficiency of business or to keeping prices low. The forest of a healthy economy, high employment and low prices, is lost for the tree of, say, worker safety. Now of course we want safe working conditions, but an agency like O.S.H.A., Occupational Safety and Health Administration, is thus all too likely to pursue its mandate to the ultimate. You can make a worker completely safe by taking away his job and the safest factory or mill is one that's closed down. I'm really not exaggerating.

There are now 5,146 different types of approved government forms. Last year businesses and individuals spent a hundred thirty million man hours filling them out, and this adds some fifty billion dollars to the cost of doing business, which means to the prices we pay.

Consider instead a small businessman who must provide an O.S.H.A. approved exit in his office or plant. What is an exit? The dictionary says it is, quote, "A passage or way out." Unquote. Now you have to admit those five words describe it for anyone who understands English. But the language of bureaucracy is not that precise. Here is the way the O.S.H.A. manual defines an exit. Quote, "That portion of a means of egress which is separated from all other spaces of the building or structure by construction or equipment as required in this subpart to provide a protected way of travel to the exit discharge." Unquote. Now that's 39 words but O.S.H.A. says to grasp that definition you have to know the definition of a means of egress and so their glossary supplies the answer. Quote, "A continuous and unobstructed way of exit travel from any point in a building or structure to a public way and consists of three separate and distinct parts: the way of exit, access the exit, and the way of exit discharge. A means of egress comprises the vertical and horizontal ways of travel and should include intervening room, spaces, doorways, hallways, corridors, passageways, balconies, ramps, stairs, enclosures, exits, escalators, horizontal exits, courts and yards." Unquote. And after all that the small businessman realizes that he still doesn't know what an exit is because as Dr. Wiedenbaum points out O.S.H.A. has been unable to supply a definition of exit that doesn't contain the word exit. Webster uses five words, O.S.H.A. uses 39 and then another 74 trying to tell you what the 39 said.

I'll be back tomorrow with more on the new wave of regulation.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:J8QBy4WJn-8|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used in the Citizen Reagan Podcast
* The basis may be [https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/mlw_papers/40/ this paper].
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-03-B4

2026-06-07T23:34:18Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-03-B3|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-B5|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Tax Plan #3 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
We can all own a piece of the action. It only takes an act of Congress. I'll be right back.

This is the third day I've been talking about capitalism and a couple of ideas that could make all of us capitalists.

When my old friend Congressman [http://uipress.lib.uiowa.edu/bdi/DetailsPage.aspx?id=147 H.R. Charlie Gross] of Iowa retired last year, he gave his [https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/GPO-CRECB-1974-pt30/pdf/GPO-CRECB-1974-pt30-3-3.pdf colleagues a farewell address] that challenged every one of them to start thinking about the next generation instead of the next election. For a quarter of a century he's been the conscience of the Congress, pleading constantly for statesmanship and responsibility. Very seldom did they support him in overwhelming numbers but in their hearts every one of them knew he was dead right and they were dead wrong.

In that final address he presented a simple idea that could resolve most of our problems and make this nation once again the golden hope of all mankind. The idea he presented was not his. It was the work of many distinguished scholars and men successful in industrial America. It's known as N.D.P., the National Dividend Plan.

As I told you yesterday, it's a plan whereby government, which is collecting in taxes about half the profits of all U.S. corporations, would give that money back directly to the people, with each registered voters sharing the benefits of free enterprise. I'm sure yesterday's broadcast must have left you with a few questions. Well let me see if I can give you some additional facts and answer some of those questions.

First of all, N.D.P. will not cause great disruption or damage to the necessary functions of the federal government. It would be phased into operation over a five-year period, twenty percent a year.

The present corporation tax accounts for about fifteen percent of total federal revenue. So each year for five years, the reduction would be one-fifth of that or about three percent. Now normally federal revenues grow by about nine percent a year, just from the growth of the economy. So even though the government would be giving to all the people the corporation tax, government would still have an increase in revenue each year.

In addition to this normal growth rate in revenue, there would be an additional stimulant because of the money freed for investment and spending. This not only stimulates more economic activity in the private sector, it also generates even more tax revenues for government. At the same time, many government programs could be reduced and some completely eliminated. Every family would be receiving tax-free funds based on the number of registered voters in the family. This would eliminate the need for many supplemental aid programs and the bureaucracies that supervise them.

The wealth of a nation is measured by the industry it creates and the goods it produces, for the most part government spending does neither. On the other hand increased activity in the private sector does. It has a multiplier effect. The National Dividend Plan would involve distribution of earned dollars. Dollars the government is taking in taxes from private industry and theoretically already spending on our behalf. The new plan calls instead for letting each American spend his share of those dollars the way he chooses.

Our Congressmen know of the plan, Thanks to former Congressman Gross. Now it's up to us to see that Congress knows that we know it. Our job is not so much to make Congress see the light, as to make them feel the heat.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/14/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV]]-11</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:mySTcSwENPQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used on The Citizen Reagan Podcast
* [https://www.congress.gov/bill/102nd-congress/house-bill/430/text?r=78&s=1 HR 430, National Dividend Act of 1991]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-08-A6

2026-06-07T23:34:17Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-08-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-08-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Farm Workers Union =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Have you quit eating grapes because you think you're helping persecuted migrant farm workers. I'll be right back.

The United Farm Workers Union under the leadership of Cesar Chavez is urging Americans across the nation to boycott California grapes and particularly one California winery. This company, one of the first to sign up with the Union, found the relationship an unhappy one so didn't renew when the contract expired. Hence the boycott and the national propaganda assault. For 25 years, I was an officer and six times president of a union in the motion picture industry. In fact I led the first strike our union was ever forced to call. I figured I'd better give this biographical note so there'd be no question about my belief in the right of workers to organize and to strike if necessary.

The entire history of the effort to organize farm workers has been so distorted in recent years and emotions have reached such a pitch it just seems like a good time to recite some facts. In the first place I've always believed that organized labor begins with the workers in an industry choosing to organize or to affiliate or not affiliate with a union and making that choice by secret ballot, thus eliminating any possibility of coercion or undue influence. During my time as governor I propose such a solution to the farm worker problem in California, offering full state aid and even suggesting the ministerial association to ensure honesty in the balloting. All parties to the dispute said yes except Mr Chavez's union. No reason was given for the refusal except that one of his staff did say something about farm workers not being informed enough to make such a decision for themselves.

At the moment the attack centers on the Gallo Company. There's no point in reciting all the charges of slave labor conditions and worker exploitation, however one example is a widely heralded photostat of a paycheck to a Mr. Gonzalez for a dollar and 10 cents. Mr. Gonzalez did receive such a check... for three days work, but he and his family had been occupying a Gallo house prior to his starting work. His gross pay for the three days was seventy-five dollars and sixty two cents. The check was for a dollar and ten cents because of deductions for rent, utilities, social security, state disability, a returnable cleanup deposit and union dues. Mr. Gonzalez next two weekly checks were $159.80 and $125.79 plus a 13-cent refund he received because of an error in the utility bill deductions in that first check.

The Gallo Company employs 199 year-round workers plus 300 extras hired for the harvest season. The full-time employees averaged eight thousand dollars a year in 1974 and they've had a raise for 1975. The part-time harvest workers earn as much as nine dollars an hour. The package of fringe benefits is unusual, in fact higher than for any other farm workers and it applies to both permanent and temporary employees. The package includes a paid pension plan, paid vacation, paid holidays, premium paid overtime, paid life insurance, paid unemployment insurance and health insurance including major medical insurance for the entire family with the doctor of their choice. Any worker qualifies for all of this after only eighty hours work in any one month. This entire package is more than the United Farm Workers Union negotiates for its members. So enjoy, have a grape.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:KheeuOiPLIM|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-10-B2|Radical Chic Revisited]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[wikipedia:E_%26_J_Gallo_Winery|Gallo Company]]
* [[wikipedia:United_Farm_Workers|United Farm Workers]]
* [[wikipedia:Cesar_Chavez|Cesar Chavez]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-A6

2026-06-07T23:34:06Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-B1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Panama Canal =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Is a diplomatic version of Let's Make A Deal in the best interest of the United States when it comes to the Panama Canal? I'll be right back.

Panama became a republic in 1903 following its secession from Colombia. We recognized the fledgling state and later that year entered into a treaty with it in which we were allowed to lease, in perpetuity, the narrow strip of land in which the Panama Canal was to be built and operated. An American engineering achievement, the canal opened in 1914 and the United States has been operating it ever since. In 1921, we paid Colombia 25 million dollars for her loss of Panama and in 1939 we stepped up our annual lease payments to the Republic of Panama making the increase retroactive to 1934.

In more recent years the Panamanian government has been demanding revisions in the original treaty and some of our leaders insist on an outright handover of the Canal Zone from us to them. Though he hasn't said anything about it publicly Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is rumored to be seriously considering plans to make a deal with the Panamanians in order to mollify them. According to Senator Jesse Helms, quote, "I have received reliable information that Dr. Kissinger has approved plans to turn over effective control of police and fire protection and postal services in the Canal Zone to the Republic of Panama." Unquote. According to Senator Helms there is a new theory in circulation at the State Department to the effect that there's nothing illegal about transferring day-to-day control to the Panamanian government, following the signing of a mere treaty draft and prior to and without any ratification by the U.S. Senate.

The transfer of police, fire and postal services to the Panamanian government may seem like a mild move at a glance, it has very serious implications for the future operation of the canal itself. Police and fire protection for the canal workers and other U.S. citizens would be essential in the case of civil disturbances, always a possibility in this volatile part of Central America. In the case of postal services, U.S. citizens could be subjected to having all their mail monitored by the head of Panama's G2 section, Lieutenant-Colonel Manuel Noriega, a man not unfriendly to the Cuban Communists and one who's very influential in the current Panamanian regime. Not a pretty prospect if you're an American in Panama is it?

If Dr. Kissinger were to arraign such a deal, according to Senator Helms there, quote, "Would be a rapid outflow of U.S. citizens from the Canal Zone. Operating the canal is a difficult, exacting task where a few simple mistakes could close the canal for months. Any actions which encourage the out-migration of U.S. personnel is tantamount to abdication of the U.S. presence there." Unquote. That the maintenance of the Canal, open and in good order, is a necessity to the security of the United States should be obvious to every school child, let alone all the adults. If the rumors about this diplomatic version of Let's Make A Deal over some of the workaday activities in the Canal Zone are true, one can and is forced to ask, why.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[MekTMzViky0|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-07-B5

2026-06-07T23:34:05Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-07-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-07-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Welfare # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Welfare reform at the federal level is overdue and we can learn something from over hundred years of English history on the subject. I'll be right back.

Yesterday I spoke with the sixty-two Congressmen Democrats and Republicans who were sponsoring federal welfare reform legislation I suggested that they need our help. No right thinking person questions our responsibility to lend less fortunate neighbors a hand but we can't ignore any longer the harm we're doing to the very people we're trying to help.

We can look to history for what might happen if we don't recognize what we're doing and where we're going. England embarked on its first welfare program in 1547. By the end of the 17th century nearly a fifth of the English nation was receiving aid at least part of the time. (The mayor of San Francisco has just announced that one out of four in that city is on welfare.) In England the dole was often three times as much as the laborer could afford for himself and his family. By the end of the 18th century at a place called Speenhamland they decided that wages below a certain level should be supplemented according to the price of bread and the number of children in the family. (Sound familiar?) In the next 20 years the cost of the program doubled and re-doubled until it was one-sixth of the total national expenditure. Some local governments went bankrupt (that's what our mayors are trying about). Now labor was demoralized riots and fires swept the countryside.

In 1832, a Royal Commission was appointed to study the problem. At the end of two years the commission reported-"the worker need not bestir himself to work." So they recommended that relief should not be made more attractive than the pay for the most menial of jobs. They said, "We do not believe that a country in which every man whatever his conduct or character is insured a comfortable living can retain its prosperity or even its civilization." In commenting on the social workers they said, "Their feelings are all on one side their pity for the pauper excludes any for the taxpayer." They saw the problem as, quote, "How to afford the people relief without injury to their diligence or their providence." Unquote.

History does repeat itself. In 1969 the House Ways and Means Committee discovered the highest factor determining the size of the caseload was the size of the grant. When grant levels are too high there is no incentive to work. Not only have we accepted the questionable premise that welfare is a right, we've carried that to the extreme of believing certain types of jobs are more disgraceful and welfare it's time to disabuse ourselves of the idea that any job is somehow disgraceful or dishonorable.

Sometime back a Rutgers Uuniversity professor discovered what that English Royal commission learned 150 years ago. He said "The billions of dollars that are being spent on the urban poor by all levels of government go mainly to support a growing welfare bureaucracy, youth workers, clerks, supervisors, key punchers, and people's lawyers. The bureaucracy is sustained by the plight of the poor, the threat of the poor, the misery of the poor, but it yields little in the way of loaves and fishes to the poor. When the old programs demonstrably fail they are re-baptized and refunded." Unquote.

62 Congressmen are proposing a way to change this they need your help and your letters.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH]]-389</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:dcWfdcqSp4o|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-12-A5

2026-06-07T23:34:05Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-12-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-12-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Brezhnev =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
There was another part to Mr. Brezhnev's recent speech on human rights that deserves more coverage than it received from our press.
I'll be right back.

On March 21st, Leonid Brezhnev made a speech warning the President of the United States to lower his voice on the subject of human rights. He, of course, received worldwide coverage, indeed we could all be excused if we thought that's all he talked about. It wasn't. He had things to say about the Middle East and, frankly if a man biting a dog is more newsworthy than a dog biting a man, then the world press missed the real news in his speech.

In introducing the subject of the Middle East, Brezhnev sounded as if a reconvening of the Geneva Conference on the Arab-Israeli stalemate might be in order. Then, speaking for the Soviet Union, which co-chairs the Geneva Conference, he outlined what his country considers essential to a peaceful settlement between Arabs and Israelis.

He said, quote, "We hold in particular that the final document should be based on the principle of," now hear this, "the impermissibility of acquisition of territory by war." Unquote. He then went on to say that Israel should withdraw her military forces from all the territory
she took in the 6-Day War back in 1967, and, of course, return that territory to the Arabs. This to be sure is one of the bones of contention in the present stalemate and could raise among us Americans a question of "Why not?" After all, we fought two world wars, were victorious in both and never asked for or took so much as a square inch of anyone else's territory. But we'd be pretty naive if we applied that yardstick to Israel in the present situation. The real issue in the Middle East had to do with the Arab refusal to recognize that Israel has a right to exist as a nation. To give up the buffer zones Israel took in the Six-day War could be to put cannon on her front walk aimed at her front door by those who said she must be destroyed.

But let's take a look at those other words of Mr. Brezhnev. He's telling us the Soviet Union does not believe any nation has the right to hold territory seized by force of arms. Well let's play "What if?" What if the United States said to Israel, "You give back that territory to your Arab neighbors and we'll enter into a treaty with you. A mutual aid pact, that says if you're attacked we come to your aid. Don't go away. There's more to come if we're playing "What if?" Then we say to the Soviet Union by way of Mr. Brezhnev, quote, "You, of course, must get out of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, which you seized by force of arms." Unquote. And come to think of it, that means turning loose Finland, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, East Germany and Romania. As a matter of fact there are some islands north of Japan and some territory in Mongolia you occupy only because you joined the fight against Japan 20 minutes before the end of the war. I don't think they heard a single shot fired in anger. And up till then Korea was one nation. It only became a North and South Korea because the Soviets came in like a squatter and homesteaded the north half. Unfortunately, that was during a time when we were in that 'Good, Old Uncle Joe' mood thinking Stalin was going to turn out to be the gruff, old codger with a heart of gold.

How about that? One sentence by Brezhnev in a speech on March 21st 1977, and if everybody, especially him, did what he said, peace would come to the world.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/13/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-212]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:KhUy_PB1pL4|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[nyt:1977/03/22/archives/excerpts-from-brezhnevs-speech-at-labor-congress.html|Excerpts From Brezhnev's Speech at Labor Congress]]
* [[wikipedia:Six-Day_War|6-Day War]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-12-B7

2026-06-07T23:34:05Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-12-B6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-12-B8|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Student Letter =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Are you worried that perhaps our sons and daughters are being led to believe that socialism offers advantage as capitalism can't match.
I'll be right back.

Economists, at least the good old fashioned kind, have written countless books and essays trying to explain that a free market economy is superior to the collectivism of Karl Marx. There really shouldn't be much of an argument with all the examples we have for comparison. Everywhere there is a socialist nation, there is a failure to meet the needs of the people of that nation, except by calling on capitalist neighbors for help. Still it is the socialist world that is expanding while ours grows smaller. Well how would you like to feel a little better about the whole thing?

I received a letter a couple of weeks ago that brightened my whole day. Paul A. Leonard, a sophomore at Mayo High School in Rochester, Minnesota wrote to tell me he had listened to some of these radio broadcasts. Then he wrote, "In view of your support of free enterprise, I thought that you might be interested in an experiment that I recently conducted in my history class." 15 volunteers were selected, with an eye to an approximate balance of athletes, non-athletes, boys and girls. The volunteers were not informed of the purpose of the experiment. The first day, a socialist-like system was set up. The subjects were informed that they had volunteered to do push-ups in return for which they would be given candy." Unquote.

Now, push-ups and candy. What do they have to do with socialism? What Paul Leonard explained to the 15 volunteers that they would do push-ups with a limit of 30 on how many anyone would have to do or could be allowed to do. For every five push-ups, they would each get a piece of candy, and here's where the political science comes in. The total number of push-ups accomplished by the volunteers would be divided by 15, the number of volunteers and each would receive a piece of candy for every five push-ups. Those who could do 30 and those who could get off the floor once, would share equally in the candy. Four managed to do the maximum and the overall average was 16.2 push-ups, so everyone received three pieces of candy.

That was half the experiment, the socialist half. The next day was capitalism's turn. The volunteers found they were going to do push-ups again, same limit, no more than 30, and same reward, one piece of candy for each five push-ups. Just one difference, they were capitalist this time, no averaging. They would each get one piece of candy for every five push-ups that each one was able to do. In other words, there was an incentive for each one to do his or her very best.

The average of 16.2 on the socialist day went up to 21.2, nearly a 1/3 increase in productivity and this time almost half the volunteers, seven not four, did the maximum of thirty. I gathered from Paul Leonard's letter that he really wasn't too surprised about that.

If i could deliver a personal message to Paul, sophomore at Mayo High it would be this: Congratulations Paul, you've demonstrated you understand the difference between the magic of the free market system and the idiocy of Karl Marx. There are some pretty eminent PH.Ds in economics who can't figure that out. End of message.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>04/13/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-148]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[YSEK0RmnqkE|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

78-11-B6

2026-06-07T23:34:03Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1978|1978]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[78-11-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[78-11-B7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Alternative Energy and Uncle Sam =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Across the country, inventors are coming up with new ways to harness renewable energy sources and some of the most influential of them want Uncle Sam to stay out.
I'll be right back.

The Arab oil embargo of 1973 produced a lot of effects on America and one of the beneficial ones was a great upsurge in creative research and development of alternative energy sources. Chief among these have been, of course, solar and wind energy. Naturally there have been voices raised in Congress for Uncle Sam to spend more and more money on developing these new energy sources. But now some of the most respected voices in the alternative energy field are discrediting the arguments for ever increasing government subsidies.

Tom Bender is one such person. He was a leader in the creation of the National Center for Appropriate Technology, funded by the Federal Community Services Agency, but he has become a sharp critic of that organization and the federal funding approach in general. Bender says that "government funding for alternative technology is probably not necessary, mainly because so much progress is being made without it. There's a growing awareness," he says, "that our problems must largely be resolved by local responsibility in action and that government money is not free dollars but only our own hard work and taxes diluted five to one with bureaucratic red tape and control. We always get the best results with our own money," he adds, "because we're more careful with it. Local money is second best and federal money the most dangerous."

Another leading figure in solar energy development, Steve Baer, is even more critical. Baer says that, "President Carter is silly to hand out so much rhetoric about a national energy policy." Baer says, "There shouldn't be any national energy policy because no one has the wisdom to make one. We do not need a Department of Energy." he declares, "We do not need laws governing everything from the car you drive to the windows in your house. Foolish people will waste their money on inefficient cars and badly built houses. Isn't that their business?"

"Leave people alone with enough wealth after they pay their taxes and they will invent, develop, trade with each other and do a good job of solving their own problems." says Baer. "It's a great shame that the so-called energy crisis is being used by politicians to increase taxes and laws thereby taking away liberties Americans have previously enjoyed. Behind every gentleman working on government research stand the police. I don't think the founders of our country had this relationship in mind." Unquote from solar energy leader Steve Baer.

These solar pioneers are right on target. After we've heard so much romantic rhetoric about alternative energy sources this kind of realism is refreshing, isn't it?

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>07/31/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[BIQVkTNwdas|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Baer Steve Baer]'s company [http://www.zomeworks.com Zomeworks]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-02-A1

2026-06-07T23:34:02Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-01-B8|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-02-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Inflation Fighting =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
You wouldn't expect to find gold in a garbage can but that's pretty much what happened in Tucson, Arizona.
I'll be right back.

They say that money talks. Lately you can't hang on to it long enough to hear what it's saying, and given the state of affairs in Washington it's likely that Congress will wrangle for weeks over the president's economic proposals before it accomplishes anything. Meanwhile, it's harder than ever to hang on to that money, but the American people are a resourceful lot and many of them are finding their own ways to fight inflation, cut down on energy use and save money in the bargain.

Lately I've been collecting some of these ideas for fighting inflation it adds up to quite a checklist. Some of the ideas are simple, even obvious, others are unusual and inventive. Many of them have come in the mail in recent weeks from all parts of the country. Others I've gleaned from the news. I'd like to share some of them with you.

A Los Angeles businessman who supplies restaurants, hotels, schools and hospitals with refrigeration, air conditioning, and food service equipment has a simple idea that could save billions of dollars. He advocates restaurants and institutions cutting down on meal portions by about 10 percent. In the case of the restaurants, he proposes passing the dollar savings right onto the customers in the form of lowered menu prices. He also thinks housewives should adopt the reduced meal portion formula. He has a point. [[wikipedia:Tucson_Garbage_Project|For the last two years, a University of Arizona professor and his students have been analyzing the garbage of a representative sampling of Tucson homes]]. They discovered that Tucson families throw out nearly 10,000 tons of good food every year. It was like finding gold, for this amounts to a waste of something between nine and eleven million dollars worth of meat, vegetables, and other edibles. In fact the survey concludes that the typical Tucson housewife throws out at least 10 percent of all the groceries she brings home from the market. Despite inflated prices in 1974, she wasted more food that year than the year before.

It's hard to imagine the Tucson housewives are much different in their habits than those in Buffalo, Tampa, or Milwaukee. If every homemaker in the nation cut down on meal portions by 10 percent, waste would be reduced, she'd save money and we'd have more food to provide those parts of the world where shortages and even starvation are chronic. While she's at it, Mrs. Typical Homemaker might also reinstitute the clean plate club, that for years was a tradition in thrift-minded American homes with youngsters.

There are a lot more suggestions on the list I've been compiling, many of them result in small savings, like the proposal of the California lady who recycles the tag ends of soap bars and makes new ones from them. She figures she saves five dollars a year this way. I can see from the list that it wouldn't take many of the small items to add up to a healthy percentage of the average household budget widely adopted the checklist would produce significant energy conservation, too.

I'd like to share it with you if you drop me a line care of the station, I'll send you a copy of the inflation fighting checklist.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for list-ning.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:-JKd51r69O0|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-11-A3

2026-06-07T23:33:55Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-11-A2|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-11-A4|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Seen Your Doctor Lately? =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Malpractice insurance is an issue which can affect everyone. Today my daughter Maureen Reagan is back with her viewpoint. She'll be right with you.

All across the country doctors are faced with prohibitive increases in malpractice insurance premiums and patients are faced with a lack of medical service while hospitals stare at imminent bankruptcy. The doctors blame the insurance companies for increasing the cost of their coverage by thousands of dollars a year. The insurance companies blame the legal profession for gigantic court awards in malpractice litigation. To complete the circle, the attorneys insist they shouldn't even be included in this discussion. The real villain they say is the medical profession for failing to police its own members.

Those who should be complaining are too confused to know where to place the blame, the patients, all of us who depend upon medical expertise for our various ailments and when necessary to save our lives. In trying to see the whole picture it seems to me there are areas in which all of the principles could be more responsive to each other and the public's needs. So while legislatures in every state debate legislation and watch the example of the plan just passed in Indiana, I have a few suggestions to put forth for consideration.

Why can't there be a medical review board in each state which could establish guidelines for the keeping of medical records and patient consent forms, thus providing better protection for the patients and the doctors? Such a board could be empowered to discipline doctors who have displayed a degree of negligence detrimental to their public trust. And my second thought is that only a handful of insurance companies deal in malpractice insurance. What if state governments were to offer a series of tax credits to other insurance companies as an incentive to share the burden of this type of policy which is so vital to the public welfare?

In the Indiana plan, one of the important provisions is a ceiling on legal contingency fees at 15 percent in malpractice litigation. Contingency fees are necessary because most of us could not afford thousands of dollars in legal fees in advance of a lawsuit, so we get the necessary legal assistance by paying a percentage of the award by a court. However we now see most attorneys charging 50 percent contingency fees plus court costs and this leaves the victim with the short end of the awarded amount of money. Indiana's proposed 15 percent fee seems a little low, how about 25 percent plus costs? And perhaps the legal profession could volunteer such standards.

The Indiana plan also provides for a commission which hears claims to decide if they should go to court. I would suggest enlarging that to a voluntary arbitration board as an alternative for cases involving small claims or where settlement is more desirable than court delays. The important aspect of my thinking is the hope that government action can be averted. The Indiana plan provides for minimum and maximum malpractice coverage with the taxpayer assuming any award over that amount. If the professions can find ways to handle their problems then most legislation wouldn't be necessary and the government wouldn't have to become more involved in health care.

Abraham Lincoln said that, "Government should do for the people only those things they cannot do so well for themselves." Perhaps the specter of government action will induce the necessary reforms which we need to assure the health and safety of all our citizens.

I'm Maureen Reagan and thank you for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:hh_KQsdCMAc|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Recorded by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maureen_Reagan Maureen Reagan] (''Wikipedia'')
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-10-B5

2026-06-07T23:33:55Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-10-B4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-10-B6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Census =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
We need to know a great deal more than we do about government, but how much does government really need to know about us?
I'll be right back.

The Constitution Article I Section II provides that the government shall conduct a head count of all of us at least once every 10 years. The purpose is sound, to make proper allocation of seats in the House of Representatives. This should be underscored, the ONLY purpose of the census is to ensure the proper distribution of Congressional representatives. The first census was taken in 1790 and the only questions asked were name of the family head and the number of males and females in the household over and under 16 years of age.

The last census was taken in 1970 and it had grown extensively in size and complexity. That simple head count had become a sociological survey. Free American citizens are now asked how many marriages, the number of children born to the woman of the house, including miscarriages, value of property, how many bathrooms and on and on. There can be no real reason for these questions other than curiosity and possibly the need to justify an ongoing bureau whose only functions takes place at 10-year intervals.

The 94th Congress, just prior to its adjournment last summer, passed a bill giving the government the power to take a mid-term census, which means the snoops will be out every five years instead of every ten. If it's any consolation thanks to the efforts of Representative John Ashbrook of Ohio Congress did eliminate government's right to put you in jail if you refuse to answer all the questions. They can though still fine you up to five hundred dollars. Institutions, businesses and religious organizations can be fined as much as ten thousand dollars. For some time now, there's been an agricultural census every five years and it's an even longer more complicated set of questions than they inflicted on the city folk. Farmers are independent people on the last go-round almost one-third of them threw the questionnaires away. This of course led to an exercise of government's coercive power. There were follow-up inquiries and threats of prosecution. But even so at last count about half a million farmers are still holding out.

When government stops respecting the people the people stop respecting government. What is happening to all of us is really too bad. We want to respect our government but bureaus and agencies carried away with their own purposes are making that extremely difficult. I'm sure the Census bureau with its warehouses full of files takes a pride in knowing how much information, how many facts, including trivia, the bureau has on all of us. Those employed there probably get a sense of satisfaction in knowing their capability to answer virtually any question about us. But government isn't a glorified quiz show. What purpose can it serve for government to know how many families have more than one bathtub? Does knowing such a thing make government any better able to serve its citizens? The answer, of course, is no.

Government has to know how many of us there are for purposes of Congressional representation. I'll even include knowing our ages and the breakdown on how many are male and female. But beyond that, they are invading our privacy under threat of punishment if we say it's none of their business, and it is none of their business.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>03/02/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-239]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:VKRfDYpsB7Y|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

78-02-A2

2026-06-07T23:33:21Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1978|1978]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[78-02-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[78-02-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Panama =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
I'd like you to hear what one of our Panama Canal employees, a Panamanian himself, has to say about the doings of government, ours and Panamas.
I'll be right back.

On a recent visit to Panama two U.S. Senators, Paul Laxalt and Bob Dole,
met with the Panama Canal Zone Civic council. The council is made up of
representatives of the towns in the zone.

One of the council members who spoke to the senators was a fireman. He was
born in the zone to parents from the West Indies, he is by law, a Panamanian.
Yet, in his heart he is American and in his heart he is against the treaties
which would give the canal to Panama.

He spoke with a heavy West Indian accent. He's a man in his 40's, black and
concerned (as are most of the canal employees) that he will face retribution
if the treaties are ratified because of his loyalty to the United States.
He was quite emotional as he spoke:

--QUOTE-- "The employees that you see here working, the ones that come from
the United States and the ones that are employed locally, we are a breed of
people--a breed of second, some third generation, whose fathers come here and
built this place.

"They're probably turnin' over in their graves wanting to find out what's
wrong with the United States government. What's this business about givin' away
the Panama Canal? To Who? Are we working for what? We sacrifice all the time.
We give of ourselves. ... . freely. Yes, we came here and worked for 10 cents an hour.
We are going to defend it. Regardless of what anybody wants to say, we stood here
in 1964 and we defended it." --UNQUOTE-- (He was speaking of the riots)
Quote--And we dare anybody to come over and take it away from us. That's the
kind of feelin's that I have. I am tell you that.

"You are never making me an American citizen which I know that I'm entitled
to be because I was born and grow up in the Canal Zone under the American Flag.
And trained western style . I don't know anything about Communism or whatever.
I read, write english. That's the language I know. The money in my pocket
--"In God we trust"-- thats what it writes on there. It's American money. And
it's the only kind of money I care to spend.

"So what you think I'm going to do? Sit here and let some tinhorn terrorist
come over here and tell us what we should do. Uh? This is our country. We built
it. This Panama Canal was built by this people and it was paid in blood, sweat
and tears. Are you going to tell me the United States government just--just
give it away like that?--UNQUOTE. At this point he was interrupted by another
member of the Council who said, QUOTE--"This man is very dramatic but he is 100
percent right."

The fireman continued QUOTE--"I know that I'm right. That's the reason why
my kids at home--three girls and a boy--they're going to be in the United States
Navy and Army. They're not to go through this what I'm going through. Never
happen. I'm going to see to it . And any day that this treaty comes into effect
I'm going to tell you this: you'll have an exodus to the United States.
Employees- -black and white--will be going out of here." UNQUOTE--

I hope he knows how many Americans feel the same way.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>01/27/[[Radio1978|1978]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan.27s_Path_to_Victory|RPtV-256]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[n7etzDJZDbg|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* ''Note from Script'': These programs are provided for airing from February 13th through March 3rd inclusive. Maintaining this schedule will enable your station to air all newly recorded programs as received.
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-10-B2

2026-06-07T23:33:21Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-10-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-10-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Radical Chic Revisited =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Radical chic is back and the United Farm Workers are once again reaping the rewards. I'll be right back.

A few years ago, in 1970, the conductor Leonard Bernstein gave a party for the Black Panthers and much of New York's fashionable society was there. This was a mistake by most people's standards but Bernstein made an even bigger one that night. He permitted a brilliant young writer with a photographic memory and a nimble pen to enter his apartment. When Tom Wolf published his article called "Radical Chic" the English language had a new phrase and New York's beautiful people went underground for quite a while, at least so far as radical politics is concerned.

Now they appear to be coming out again. Those lovely young ladies who said things such as, quote, "I've never met a Panther before, this is a first for me and I know it's terrible to drink champagne and eat caviar for the poor but what are you going to do?" Unquote. They're with us once more, showing us that there's no limit to what the beautiful people will do for laughs when the social scene is a little slow. One of the chief beneficiaries of the early wave of radical chic was the United Farm Workers of Cesar Chavez, a group that I've discussed before. For the purpose of these few minutes, all you need to know is that the U.F.W. has so limited a following in California, its home state, that it would not exist were it not for this phenomenon of radical chic, that is, fashionable people of means interfering at a long distance in a controversy of which they know little or nothing.

Does all this sound like exaggeration? Well not if you read an article that recently ran in the Washington Post concerning the latest gathering of Manhattan's beautiful people on behalf of Mr. Chavez. When the Post reporter asked the organizer of the fundraising party, 'why thrown it?' these were his words, quote, "I don't know why I'm involved in this, it's a very personal thing, very emotional, well I hate to be cynical but there isn't really that much else going on." Unquote. A wealthy lady asked why she was attending offered this explanation, quote, "Darling, this is the time we New Yorkers come out for causes. Then we can just carry them out to the Hamptons with us. Last week was the Attica benefit, you know." Unquote. The Post reporter found that quite a few attendees were less than dedicated to the U.F.W. cause, like the celebrity lawyer who said, quote, "I'm here because it's a scene. Farm workers? I'm too selfish to care about them." Unquote. Then there was the elegantly dressed, young socialite from the Caribbean who said, quote, "I'm really in support of anybody who loves the Earth. I love the Earth." Unquote. But I don't want to leave the impression that everyone at the party was unfamiliar with the U.F.W. program. There is, for example, the anonymous luminary who said, quote, "I can support the lettuce boycott because iceberg lettuce is tacky. But I'm afraid I'm going to have to break down on the grapes. I can't go much longer without fillet of soul veronique." Unquote.

Tom Wolf, call your office. Radical Chic is with us once again.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:KheeuOiPLIM|Listen]]<BR>with [[75-08-A6|Farmer Workers Union]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [http://nymag.com/news/features/46170/ Tom Wolf's ''Radical Chic'']
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

79-09-A1

2026-06-07T23:33:09Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1979|1979]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[79-08-B8|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[79-09-A2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= John Wayne =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
This commentary will be a few minutes of remembering a friend, you probably think of him as a friend,
too.
I'll be right back.

It's still difficult for me to realize that John Wayne is no longer here. If you don't mind I'd like to share some memories with you. Many people in these last few weeks, have asked what was he really like. Well, he was just about what you saw on the screen. He stood up for what he believed was right, he placed a high premium on honor and he had a rare sensitivity. Nancy and I can bear witness to that.

There are two other men in Nancy's life, both alike in many ways and yet different: John Wayne and Jimmy Cagney. I'd better explain this, although I don't think any of you had any wrong ideas. Some years ago before either of us knew Duke really well, there was a time of labor trouble in Hollywood. As President of the Screen Actor's Guild, I was up to my neck in it. I'd leave the house in the morning on my way to another of the meetings that filled my day. Nancy would be left with the trade papers and the movie columns in the newspapers. Emotions ran high, and very often I'd come in for a pretty rough going over. Nancy hadn't developed, as she did later in Sacramento, the ability to read such attacks without getting upset.

On one particularly bad day, she received a phone call right after she read the papers. It was John Wayne. He told her he just thought she might like to hear a friendly voice and then proceeded to tell her why she shouldn't let these stories get her down. A few minutes later, she had another call, this one from Jimmy Cagney, who said about the same things Duke had said. From then on, every morning when the press was bad she'd get those two calls.

Then there came a time when a mass meeting had been called at which I'd have to preside. Nancy dreaded the thought of being there, but wouldn't stay home. This time she received a call in the afternoon. It was Duke. He asked her if she'd feel better if he were there. The answer was yes of course. When it came time for me to go to the podium she was escorted to a place in the audience by Duke, dressed in a dinner jacket. He'd left a dinner party to be there.

A few years ago, several of us were talking about a friend who was terminally ill. The question arose, would you rather know or not know if you were about to die. Duke said with no hesitation he'd want to know, and in typical Wayne fashion, added, "So you could throw your Sunday punch." Weveral weeks before he left us, he threw his Sunday punch.

He told the doctors to use him in any way they could, to learn, if they could, anything that might one day help someone else. And then in the last hours of his pain, he refused sedatives so he could be with his children and grandchildren.

Goodbye and God bless you Duke.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/29/[[Radio1979|1979]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-412]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:BoeBbFXRk-M|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-13-B2

2026-06-07T23:33:02Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1977|1977]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-13-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-13-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Drugs and the FDA =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
A bill to curb some of the bureaucratic fumbling in the federal drug administration defeated in the 94th Congress has another chance in the 95th. I'll be right back.

Congressman Steve Symms of Idaho has 87 co-sponsors of the House of Representatives on a bill quote "to expand the medical freedom of choice of consumers by amending the federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act to provide that drugs will be regulated under that act solely to assure their safety." unquote.

Now, how many of us thought that safety was the only concern of the Federal Drug Administration the FDA. We have so many laws and we add so many more each year it's understandable if we fail to note or to remember that in 1962 the Federal Drug Act was amended to say that drugs and medicine should not only be safe, they must also be effective.

The late senator Estes Kefauver chaired the antitrust and monopoly subcommittee, which was investigating prices of new drugs. About that time the tragic thalidomide disaster hit West Germany. It had not been licensed in America. It could not have been licensed under our laws as they were then, but tragedy was used to push through, in emergency fashion, a bill granting additional power to the FDA.

The result of that hasty panic inspired amendment has hardly benefited the American people. In the first place, deciding a medicine is safe to take is one thing, but trying to establish its effectiveness is something else again. Doctors over the years have displayed a great ability to sort out medicines which aren't very effective. If aspirin hadn't been approved prior to the 1962 amendment, it might not be on the market today.

Prior to the amendment, United States drug companies added an average of 43 new medicines each year. Now we're down to 13. It used to take one or two years to get a medicine licensed and at a cost of about 1 million dollars. Now it takes 8 to 10 years, at a cost sometimes as high as 20 million dollars. The average is about 12 million.

With all of government's concern about eliminating monopoly, the 1962 amendment encouraged monopoly. Only the very biggest drug firms can afford to develop new medicines now. Our government almost automatically accepts foreign studies showing that a drug is not good. It does not, however, accept such studies if they find the drug is good. Many American discoveries are denied to the American people but are licensed and used effectively in the rest of the world. 3/4 of new drugs developed in the United States are barred to us but sold overseas.

Take the case of an American arthritis discovery. It's been given extensive tests in 15 countries, is sold in more than 40, and there have been about a hundred and twenty million patient hours of use. It is not available in the United States. What price have we paid in suffering and death because of the arrogance of officialdom. One FDA official boasted that he had held up for 9 and 1/2 years any drug for angina pectoris and hypertension because in his opinion these are symptoms and not diseases.

The doctor who prescribes the medication is best able to judge his effectiveness. Congressman Steve Symms says quote "The health of Americans should never be subjected to the whims of Congress. The only long-term solution is to take away from FDA, the power to make the terribly subjective determinations about drug effectiveness" unquote. Steve Symms has offered a pro-consumer, anti-monopoly bill. It is known as House Resolution 54. He could use our help.

This is Ronald Reagan. Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>05/04/[[Radio1977|1977]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>[[Radio_Commentary_Books#Reagan:_In_His_Own_Hand|RihoH-297]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:KVljhEjHLlQ|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide Thalidomide] (''Wikipedia'')

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-11-B2

2026-06-07T23:32:58Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-11-B1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-11-B3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Gun Control # 2 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
What's a better way to control crime? Take guns away from law abiding citizens or impose mandatory sentences on criminals who use guns? I'll be right back.

Yesterday I talked about the odd proposal by President Ford's new Attorney General Edward Levy to put strict federal controls on the use of guns in urban areas which have high or rising crime rates. Mr. Levy's proposal would limit even more the already limited protection law abiding citizens have in those parts of the country where they need it most. I believe the proposal would also be a clear and unconstitutional infringement on the rights of the states to govern their own internal affairs. Mr, Levy in his eagerness seems to have overlooked this. Let's hope he has second thoughts.

Let us hope also that he gives serious thought to how we can control crime, violent crimes, without infringing on the hereditary and constitutional rights of a free people. There are two ways to do this: steps can be taken at all levels of government, local, state and federal, that are aimed at the law breaker not the law abider. They aren't new steps; they involve swift and sure punishment for those who are convicted of using deadly weapons, guns, knives, clubs and so forth, in the commission of crimes. In 17th century England highwaymen using loaded guns were executed. Nobody suggests that we go that far today but I believe it's imperative that every government, state and the federal, set mandatory prison sentences for persons using guns in the commission of crimes. Any person using a gun for criminal purposes should have the most stringent conditions attached to any possible parole too. I believe that criminals using guns should be barred from ever owning or using guns again. It should be made very difficult for such persons to incur any new debts to society.

Many judges, many government officials and many citizens need to revise their thinking about the reason for laws and about the need for prisons. It seems to me the main purpose for prisons is to protect the law-abiding members of society from those who would prey upon them. A secondary purpose is to punish criminals with the idea that punishment is a deterrent to future crime. A third reason is to rehabilitate, but the fact is that rehabilitation is largely a myth. Some persons can be trained so they can earn honest livings, perhaps a few will even come to know the error of their ways, but let's not kid ourselves about the overall effectiveness of rehabilitation and let's not lose sight of the main purpose for putting people in prison. The right of society to protect itself from those who would disobey its laws.

It's likely there would be less crime in America if more tough judges were appointed, if sure and swift justice were meted out and if more violent criminals were jailed. I for one would be grateful if the Attorney General would concentrate more on getting criminals behind bars and worry less about ways to take guns away from law abiding citizens.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:JtkSUtXcaZc|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-11-B1

2026-06-07T23:32:34Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-11-A6|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-11-B2|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Gun Control # 1 =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
The Attorney General's come up with a new twist in the ongoing effort to take away the guns American's use for self-defense, hunting and recreational purposes. I'll be right back.

Edward Levy the new Attorney General of the United States proposes that strict federal controls be placed on handguns in urban areas with high or rising crime rates. In those areas, he'd make it illegal to sell, transfer or bring in handguns or ammunition. His theory presumably is that people bent on murder, robbery and other violent crimes would suddenly be deterred because it would be illegal for them to carry or use guns. Now that's funny, it seems to me that the best way to deter murderers and thieves is to arm law-abiding folk, not disarm them.

Before we disarm the average American, we should ask ourselves, "What is it that deters a criminal?" I think there are three answers: fear of punishment, fear of getting caught and fear of being hurt or wounded during the commission of the crime. You can't punish the criminal unless you catch him so his first real fears are of capture and of being hurt. These come at the hands of either the police or the intended victims. When you come right down to it there aren't many police out there in comparison to the number of potential victims. As a result many criminals go uncaught and easy bail, easy judges and soft laws quickly put back on the street too many of those who are caught. This leaves the intended victim pretty much in the position of having to fend for himself, though the average victim doesn't actually fend very well. He or she is usually a peaceful person who isn't well versed in any art of self-defense whether it be with gun, fist or karate chop.

Nevertheless as news story after story shows, if the victim is armed he has a chance, a better chance by far, than if he isn't armed. Nobody knows in fact how many crimes are not committed because criminals know that a certain store owner has a gun and will use it. And nobody knows how many crimes are committed only because a store or home looks like an easy touch. It seems to me that Mr. Levy has things backward. Rather than take away guns of the law abiding in areas where criminals and crimes are rampant, he should encourage homeowners and business people to purchase them and learn how to use them properly.

If Mr. Levy succeeds in outlawing guns in high crime areas he'll only have made sure that the law-abiding citizens in those areas are sitting ducks for any gun-wielding criminal who comes along. Americans should always be alert to proposals that would lessen their ability to defend themselves, their homes, their families and their businesses, and this includes the proposals to take away their firearms. After all guns don't make criminals it's criminals who make use of guns. They're the ones who should be punished not the law-abiding citizen who seeks only to protect himself.

I'm going to be talking about this for the next couple of days.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>06/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:JtkSUtXcaZc|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

76-02-A2

2026-06-07T23:32:33Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1976|1976]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[76-02-A1|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[76-02-A3|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Panama's Press =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
You can't judge a book by its cover, and in some countries you can't judge what's going on with the press coverage. I'll be right back.

Every few days, an English language summary of the press of the Republic of Panama crosses my desk, often with some actual clippings of stories in Spanish for further reference. If you read this with no knowledge of the situation you'd believe that all Panamanians think as one, that they are solidly behind military strong man Omar Torrijos, that every man, woman and child considers the American presence in the Canal Zone an imperialist intrusion and that it's high time the United States gave back the Canal to Panama, though this would be impossible semantically since the Canal never did belong to Panama. You come away from these press reports convinced that the entire republic of some one and a half million persons is obsessed with the idea of taking control of the canal. Reviews of plays, movies and books all seem to revolve around the theme. Engineering conferences are called to insist that Panama is capable of running the Canal complex tomorrow morning, if necessary.

Visitors from other countries extol Torrijos' virtues and what is usually referred to as "the struggle to oust the so-called colonial power." Torrijos scoots off to international conferences in distant lands to drum up support. The most recent was a convocation of third world countries in Sri Lanka. As I said, if you knew nothing else about the subject you'd come away from a stack of these clippings thinking that Torrijos was universally loved by his people and his positions were wildly popular, but there's a clinker. The press of Panama isn't free to print what it wants. It's controlled by the government, both the English and Spanish language newspapers. It's been that way for eight years since Torrijos and the National Guard overthrew the elected government.

It's probably just as well for Torrijos that he censors the press for if he didn't some bold writer might start demanding that free elections be held in Panama. Torrijos hasn't allowed any election since he came to power. Despite his control of the press however Torrijos is finding that all is not well in his propaganda paradise. Torrijos, who until recently talked coily of not being able to keep Panama's ardent students from invading the canal zone unless we turned it over, is now finding that quite a few of the students have something else in mind.

Beginning with high school students on September 10th, demonstrations have been mounted in protest of increased food prices. A few days later, university students joined them, throwing rocks at National Guardsmen who fired tear gas at them and hit some with rubber truncheons. Though U.S. press reports of the ongoing demonstrations have been brief, visitors back from Panama say that dictator Torrijos has some real trouble on his hands and that the picture there is far different from what the press of Panama portrays.

Another reason to read between the lines.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>09/21/[[Radio1976|1976]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[vwTe56PzG0Q|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===

</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-16-A6

2026-06-07T23:32:29Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]][[Category:Domestic Policy]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-16-A5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-16-A7|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Mr. Nader's Great Treasury Raid =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Newspaper columnist Pat Buchanan is back with me today with his viewpoint on a subject I think will interest you. He'll be right with you.

Nearing final passage in the Congress today is a rather innocuous sounding bill calling for creation of a, quote, "Agency for Consumer Advocacy." The new agency is being promoted and portrayed as a vigorous new champion of consumer interests in the councils of government. It is nothing of the kind. What this new consumer protection agency is, is first and foremost, a political payoff to Ralph Nader. A 60 million dollar slice of federal pork being voted in gratitude by Mr. Nader's friends and debtors in the 94th Congress. Like all such federal agencies, the first beneficiaries will be the men who staff it and run it. These new GS-17s and 18s will be drawn from the friends and allies of Mr. Nader. They will exchange their current frugal existence in some tax-exempt haven for the power, perquisites, security and comforts of life on the federal payroll as 36,000 dollar a year bureaucrats, and it is the American taxpayer, the American consumer, who will be paying out of his pocket the cost of supporting these super bureaucrats in the style to which they are anxious to become accustomed.

You are wrong, the consumer protection people say, this new agency unlike the established agencies will be free of influence by the so-called special interests. The claim is ludicrous. The new agency has already sold out to the special interests even before it was established. In order to get big labor support for the bill, Mr. Nader's allies in Congress cut a deal with the AFL-CIO, whereby all labor disputes are exempted from review by the new agency. But if labor settlements do not affect consumer interests, what in the world does?

In the last analysis however, the new agency is a consumer fraud, because no single agency, no single individual, can possibly represent the interests of 210 million diverse Americans. When Americans go out to buy a car for example, they look for different things. Some look first at the mileage, others check it out for safety features and for weight for long distance driving, others are interested in styling and comfort, others want the cheapest possible transportation for the lowest possible cost, some want the prestige of a foreign model, others wouldn't buy anything that wasn't made in the United States. How in the world can any single agency, any single individual, possibly represent these conflicting interests? The answer of course, is that the new consumer protection agency would not be representing what the consumers of America want, it would represent what Mr. Nader and his friends think they should want.

There's one common consumer interest however on which most Americans do agree. That is, that we already have too much government and too much bureaucracy. The last thing this country needs now in 1975 is new taxes to hire new bureaucrats in a new agency to make sure that the other bureaucrats in the older agencies are doing their job.

If the 94th Congress wants to pay off its political debts to Mr. Nader, let it find some less expensive way.

This is Pat Buchanan, substituting for Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.
</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>08/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:3hP_i0BFXQI|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Recorded by Patrick Buchanan
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-02-B6

2026-06-07T23:31:58Z

Reagan admin: Text replacement - "Posted by Me" to "Listen"

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-02-B5|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-03-A1|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= Red China =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Should the United States recognize [[wikipedia:China|Red China]]? If so what's in it for us and what's in it for the Chinese. I'll be right back.

Too often in our pursuit of detente, we act as if a concession on our side is automatically helpful to the process as a whole. But if you think about it, nothing could make detente less meaningful, either to the United States or to the populations of the communist nations, than an unending series of one-sided American concessions. If our adversaries can get what they want, formal recognition, liberalized trade, technical help, what have you, without making any modifications in their foreign domestic policies, then the basis for true friendship is erased. It's only by a change in the nature of communism, a movement away from the policies of aggression abroad and repression at home, that communism and the west will be able to live together in harmony. If the communists get the prestige and material aid they want without having to change any of their own policies, the seeds of future conflict will be continually nourished, ready to sprout anew with little or no warning.

It seems to me that before making new concessions, our policymakers need to nail down, not just on paper, but in their own minds exactly what it is we're getting in return. This applies in particular to the recognition of Red China, a move which would involve the downgrading of our relations with the [[wikipedia:Taiwan|Republic of China on Taiwan]], which is a major trading partner and one of the most stable prosperous Asian countries. Despite its severe political setbacks of the past two years in the United Nations and elsewhere, the Republic of China has emerged from a difficult period in robust economic health and with renewed political vigor.

In the Far East, the concept of face is important. Recognition of the communist regime in [[wikipedia:Beijing|Peking]] and downgrading of relations with [[wikipedia:Taipei|Taipei]] is therefore a matter of great importance to the nations involved, and thus to us. We should not make such a move in the absence of concrete concessions from Peking. In the long run, no concession is more important than a relaxation of China's brutal policy toward its own people with the victory of Premier [[wikipedia:Zhou_Enlai|Chou En-lai]] and his so-called moderate allies in the recent communist party conference, promises have been made to the Chinese people.

Along these lines, under a [[wikipedia:1975_Constitution_of_China|newly adopted constitution]], the people for the first time since the revolution have been given the right to work for themselves and for their families benefit. Industrial workers can moonlight. Peasants can cultivate private plots. In the political realm there's to be less emphasis on strict conformity the party line and more freedom to speak out. These moves come in the heels of warnings by the Chou faction that a continuation of the cruel repression favored by party chairman [[wikipedia:Mao_Zedong|Mao Zedoung]] could lead to overthrow of the government, thus the present relaxation may be more a matter of political survival than increased benevolence.

Whatever the motives we should welcome these steps and wait a considerable time to see whether they're implemented. This is especially important when we consider the advanced age and in some cases illness of China's current leadership and the chronic instability of China's politics in recent years. And we should be exacting a much tougher price in China's external policies. It's easy to talk a friendship with the United States when at the same time you're free to threaten war with Taiwan and to fund terrorist liberation movements in South Vietnam, Cambodia, and elsewhere. Before we even think about recognition of the Peking government we should make sure their deeds match their words.

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>02/01/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:32IX4zkZ43o|Listen]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* Used in the [[CitizenReaganPod|Citizen Reagan Podcast]]
* [https://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/35855.htm Taiwan was de-recognized in 1979].
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>

75-05-A5

2026-06-07T23:31:54Z

Reagan admin:

[[Category:Radio Episodes]]
- [[Main Page]] \ [[Reagan Radio Commentaries]] \ [[Radio1975|1975]]

<TABLE WIDTH="80%"><TR><TD>[[75-05-A4|<< Previous Broadcast]]</TD><TD ALIGN="RIGHT">[[75-05-A6|Next Broadcast >>]]</TD></TR></TABLE>

= The Superintendent's Dilemma =

<TABLE BORDER="0"><TR><TD WIDTH="60%" ROWSPAN="2">
=== Transcript ===
Sometimes the best way to get your idea across is to put it in a poem. I'll be right back.

The other day, a listener in Idaho Falls, Mr. Willis Nelson, a school superintendent sent me his poem: The Superintendent's Dilemma. Here it is:

Sometimes I sit and ponder long<BR />
&emsp;About my work and life.<BR />
And wonder why in school nowdays<BR />
&emsp;There's so much stress and strife.<BR />

And then I realize the job<BR />
&emsp;Is not like yesterdays-<BR />
I'm simply flunky now for guys<BR />
&emsp;With the "innovation" craze.<BR />

There's Federal projects, grants and gifts.<BR />
&emsp;And piece-meal funding, too.<BR />
It leaves no time to teach the kids<BR />
&emsp;And things that I should do.<BR />

I try to walk the tightrope<BR />
&emsp;Betwixt the courts of law<BR />
And not get tangled up with rights<BR />
&emsp;Of Junior, Pa and Ma.<BR />

Some will tell you this will work.<BR />
&emsp;And others say It won't;<BR />
Truth is, you'll get h—— If you do.<BR />
&emsp;And twice h—— if you don't.<BR />

Operations in the schools<BR />
&emsp;Must pass the acid test<BR />
Of [[wikipedia:Occupational_Safety_and_Health_Administration|OSHA]], [[wikipedia:United_States_Department_of_Health,_Education,_and_Welfare|HEW]] and [[wikipedia:American_Civil_Liberties_Union|C.L.U.]]<BR />
&emsp;And all the pesky rest.<BR />

There's Civil Rights and Human Rights,<BR />
&emsp;And Women's Rights galore;<BR />
I wonder what uncertainties<BR />
&emsp;The future holds in store?<BR />

Boys and girls dress alike.<BR />
&emsp;You can't tell one from t'other.<BR />
If you should need to know the sex<BR />
&emsp;You'd have to ask its mother.<BR />

In clothes and jobs and hair and such.<BR />
&emsp;You can't discriminate.<BR />
It makes you wonder how a boy<BR />
&emsp;Knows just which one to date.<BR />

The high court Judges see no "diff"<BR />
&emsp;Between a her and him.<BR />
Methinks their years are catching up-<BR />
&emsp;Their sight has grown too dim.<BR />

Give me the good old-fashioned days<BR />
&emsp;When gals were gals-not men.<BR />
For all that femininity<BR />
&emsp;I kinda get a yen.<BR />

The liberals say, "Don't frustrate the child<BR />
&emsp;With disciplined control.<BR />
Just let him loose to do his thing<BR />
&emsp;And play his chosen role."<BR />

But he'll waste time and life and limb<BR />
&emsp;And ruin others' lot.<BR />
And think he's having lots of fun<BR />
&emsp;On drugs and "grass" and "pot".<BR />

His right to freedom, speech and work<BR />
&emsp;He'll take or leave at will.<BR />
And little care for public folks<BR />
&emsp;Who have to pay the bill.<BR />

The federal "help" I get from Unc(le)—<BR />
&emsp;I Just can't stand much more.<BR />
With tax, red tape and interest rates.<BR />
&emsp;I'm getting too dang poor.<BR />

If you should try the federal way<BR />
&emsp;Of deficits and debt.<BR />
You'd find an I.R.S. man<BR />
&emsp;A looking down your neck.<BR />

I'm somewhat like the school Supt.<BR />
&emsp;Who tried without success<BR />
To stem the tide of "Fed" control,<BR />
&emsp;And all that meddling mess.<BR />

They'd told him how to cook the lunch.<BR />
&emsp;And how to run the school.<BR />
And threatened to withhold his funds<BR />
&emsp;If he should break the rule.<BR />

He finally threw his hands up<BR />
&emsp;And said. "I'm sick and tired<BR />
Of all this ruckus, do's and don'ts—<BR />
&emsp;I'll quit before I'm fired."<BR />

And so he got a HUD house<BR />
&emsp;With little rent to pay,<BR />
And lived on welfare's "easy street"<BR />
&emsp;The Socialistic way.<BR />

The moral of this story is:<BR />
&emsp;If you can't buck the tide<BR />
Crawl on the craft of "easy life"<BR />
&emsp;And take a leisure ride.<BR />

When the public folks have had enough<BR />
&emsp;Of all this liberal rot,<BR />
They'll start to call a spade a spade<BR />
&emsp;And things will really "pop".<BR />

This is Ronald Reagan.

Thanks for listening.

</TD>
<TD WIDTH="10%" ROWSPAN="2"> </TD>
<TD VALIGN="TOP" HEIGHT="250">
=== Details ===
<TABLE BORDER="0" WIDTH="80%">
<TR><TD WIDTH="150">Batch Number</TD><TD WIDTH="150">{{PAGENAME}}</TD></TR>
<TD>Production Date</TD><TD>03/12/[[Radio1975|1975]]</TD></TR>
<TD>Book/Page</TD><TD>N/A</TD></TR>
<TD>Audio</TD><TD>Yes</TD></TR>
<TD>Youtube?</TD><TD>[[yt:wmwrC0pfm_4|Listen]]<BR>With [[75-02-B5|The Incredible Bread Machine]]</TD></TR>
</TABLE>
</TD></TR>
<TR><TD VALIGN="TOP">
===Added Notes===
* [[The Superintendent's Dilemma]]
* Repeated [[75-20-B3|later in 1975]]
</TD></TR>
</TABLE>