... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WK4I--mPatw

Soviet Union & Foreign Affairs ⚔️ Q&A 25th Press Conference (Excerpt) #RonaldReagan 1984 * #PITD June 14, 1984 Q. Mr. President, you've said tonight that you're ready and willing to talk to the Soviets. But Mr. Chernenko has proposed negotiating a ban on antisatellite weapons and other space weapons. Can you tell us why, beyond the fact that you believe there can't be verification, as you said last weekend, why can't verification be negotiated once you sit down with the Soviets to discuss those weapons? The President. Well, there are a number of things, and we are studying that. We don't have a flat ``no'' on that yet. We're studying that whole situation. The Soviets are way ahead of us in that field. They've been at this for about 10 years or more. And we are just in the field of beginning research. And I think we've got some definite reasons there for wanting to know our way before we talk. But we haven't slammed the door on that at all. Q. Well, can you also confirm reports about the verification issue, that there has been significant Soviet violations of all of the treaties going back to 1958? The President. We turned over a 200-page report to the Congress that was classified. We made public a summary of that, declassified in a summary. The other lengthy report is still classified because of the risk of exposing sources. But it was a report on outright violations of many of the treaties in the past, and also some ambiguities in which -- maybe based on language differences or not -- they claim a different interpretation of the treaty and that, therefore, they're not violating it. They have this -- they're doing what they think the treaty prescribes. But between those two things, yes, there have been those violations. Q. Mr. President, before you came along, in recent years, the talk had been between the two governments of Parity in Force between the United States and the #SovietUnion. Your supporters who wrote the 1980 Republican platform called for military superiority over the Soviet Union. It's been a little bit fuzzy since, although you, in a couple of speeches, I think, starting with the #StarWars speech, have gone back to using the parlance of parity. How do you feel the Republican platform this year would handle that issue? And between those two key words, ``superiority'' and "parity,'' where should that platform go and your administration go? The President. My own view is that we should maintain the strength and deterrent that is necessary to assure, as much as you can have such assurance, that there won't be a confrontation, because the price would be too high, but, at the same time, emphasizing that we want more than anything else to join with them in reducing the number of weapons. We've had #ArmsLimitation dealings and treaties and so forth, even such as the #SALTTreaties. All of those simply legalized an #ArmsRace. They were limitations or rules and regulations as to how many more weapons you could have. As a matter of fact, the Soviet Union added almost 4,000 warheads after the two sides had signed the #SALTIIAgreement. That's not my idea of what we really need if we're to reduce the tensions in the world. What we need is to reduce, and, hopefully, to eliminate, the #StrategicNuclearWeapons. Q. If I may follow up, you're on record, and I think at least twice, of saying that we do not seek anything more than parity in the long run. Would not a platform that goes further than that and repeats the call for superiority give a wrong signal to the Soviet Union? The President. I would prefer that we not ask for superiority now that we've entered into and started this whole area. We are negotiating with them with other countries in two negotiations that are going on that they did not leave or walk away from. And, yes, I believe that it could be counterproductive now to ask for that. ** Full Transcript: https://www.reaganlibrary.gov/archives/speech/presidents-news-conference-36 If you have any suggestions, questions or concerns please leave them below. Thanks for watching and make it an outstanding day! *** I am a proud American, blessed father, a staunch 2A activist and a Marine Corps Veteran that just happens to be 100% blind. This is a look at the Second Amendment, firearms, self Defense, Constitutionally protected rights, Liberty and Freedom from the perspective of a Visually Impaired, Blind American. #PatriotInTheDark PatriotInTheDark@gmail.com Disclaimer: No purchase necessary, must abide by all state and federal laws. Void where prohibited. No Puppies or sighted people were hurt during the filming of these videos. Reagan Presidential Library: www.reaganlibrary.gov President Reagan's Foundation: http://www.reaganfoundation.org ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTs4kWoIWY4

Peace, National Security and Defense Budget — Truth Part 1 — #RonaldReagan 1983 * PITD Address to the Nation on Defense and National Security March 23, 1983 At the beginning of this year, I submitted to the Congress a #DefenseBudget which reflects my best judgment of the best understanding of the experts and specialists who advise me about what we and our allies must do to protect our people in the years ahead. That budget is much more than a long list of numbers, for behind all the numbers lies America's ability to prevent the greatest of human tragedies and preserve our free way of life in a sometimes dangerous world. It is part of a careful, long-term plan to make America strong again after too many years of neglect and mistakes. Our efforts to rebuild America's defenses and strengthen the peace began 2 years ago when we requested a major increase in the defense program. Since then, the amount of those increases we first proposed has been reduced by half, through improvements in management and procurement and other savings. The budget request that is now before the Congress has been trimmed to the limits of safety. Further deep cuts cannot be made without seriously endangering the security of the Nation. The choice is up to the men and women you've elected to the Congress, and that means the choice is up to you. Tonight, I want to explain to you what this defense debate is all about and why I'm convinced that the budget now before the Congress is necessary, responsible, and deserving of your support. And I want to offer hope for the future. But first, let me say what the defense debate is not about. It is not about spending arithmetic. I know that in the last few weeks you've been bombarded with numbers and percentages. Some say we need only a 5-percent increase in defense spending. The so-called alternate budget backed by liberals in the House of Representatives would lower the figure to 2 to 3 percent, cutting our defense spending by $163 billion over the next 5 years. The trouble with all these numbers is that they tell us little about the kind of defense program America needs or the benefits and security and freedom that our defense effort buys for us. What seems to have been lost in all this debate is the simple truth of how a defense budget is arrived at. It isn't done by deciding to spend a certain number of dollars. Those loud voices that are occasionally heard charging that the Government is trying to solve a security problem by throwing money at it are nothing more than noise based on ignorance. We start by considering what must be done to maintain peace and review all the possible threats against our security. Then a strategy for strengthening peace and defending against those threats must be agreed upon. And, finally, our defense establishment must be evaluated to see what is necessary to protect against any or all of the potential threats. The cost of achieving these ends is totaled up, and the result is the budget for national defense. There is no logical way that you can say, let's spend x billion dollars less. You can only say, which part of our defense measures do we believe we can do without and still have security against all contingencies? Anyone in the Congress who advocates a percentage or a specific dollar cut in defense spending should be made to say what part of our defenses he would eliminate, and he should be candid enough to acknowledge that his cuts mean cutting our commitments to allies or inviting greater risk or both. The defense policy of the United States is based on a simple premise: The United States does not start fights. We will never be an aggressor. We maintain our strength in order to deter and defend against aggression -- to preserve freedom and peace. If you have any suggestions, questions or concerns please leave them below. Thanks for watching and make it an outstanding day! *** I am a proud American, blessed father, a staunch 2A activist and a Marine Corps Veteran that just happens to be 100% blind. This is a look at the Second Amendment, firearms, self Defense, Constitutionally protected rights, Liberty and Freedom from the perspective of a Visually Impaired, Blind American. #PatriotInTheDark If you like what you have seen here, please consider showing your support on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/PatriotInTheDark https://www.paypal.me/PatriotInTheDark Also check out our Spreadshirt Shop for Swag: https://shop.spreadshirt.com/patriot-in-the-dark Also find us here: https://odysee.com/$/invite/@PatriotInTheDark:0 https://gunstreamer.com/PatriotInTheDark https://twitter.com/patriot_itd https://www.instagram.com/patriot_in_the_dark/ PatriotInTheDark@gmail.com Disclaimer: No purchase necessary, must abide by all state and federal laws. Void where prohibited. No Puppies or sighted people were hurt during the filming of these videos. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMZ4_u2nEDI

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umWVOWMvY6U