Decisive Victory versus Endless War: Where Did He Ever Learn Such a Thing as That?

Regime Change Everywhere But Iran is the Clinton/Bush/Obama/Biden Policy

It is not President Trump's.

“We win and they lose. What do you think of that?”

The Evil Empire (Spring/Summer 2008, Volume 58, Issue 4) n:61864 (americanheritage.com):

"Internally there was much dissension. Most of his senior staff second-guessed him. The State Department consistently undermined his foreign policy. Even senior people in the White House, including his wife, thought he should retire.

During this difficult period, Reagan fell back on Reagan, much like Lincoln fell back on Lincoln during the Civil War. Great willful presidents have enormous capacities to outmaneuver the bureaucracy. But they have to pay attention.

Officials from the National Security Council and State Department routinely receive advance copies of foreign policy speeches for their input. Reagan knew they would try to prevent him from describing the Soviet Union with the clarity and forcefulness he knew was necessary to establish moral dominance. So he chose a different venue.

An opportunity arose on March 8 for an address to the National Association of Evangelicals in Orlando, Florida. Few remember now that the Evil Empire speech was primarily a comprehensive discussion of domestic policy. Only at the end does Reagan being to talk about foreign policy in the context of its moral meaning.

“So, in your discussions of the nuclear freeze proposals,” said Reagan, “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride—the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.”

In one short but unequivocal statement he asserted that the core of totalitarianism was evil by definition. No other statement of moral purpose would be more important in bringing about the end of the Soviet Empire.

The Strategic Defense Initiative, or Star Wars speech, which Reagan gave to the nation from the Oval Office on March 23, 1983, also generated little enthusiasm—and even hostility—from his advisors. Every major element of his administration, except his National Security advisor, Judge William P. Clark, and the head of the Science Counsel, Jay Keyworth, who had drafted the speech at Reagan’s direction, opposed it. Secretary of State George Shultz vigorously objected.

Speaking with clarity and conviction, Reagan fundamentally dismantled the entire strategic framework of “mutually assured destruction,” the arms negotiation mindset that had defined American policy for the past two decades. That he could do this in one speech demonstrates his decisiveness and the power of the presidency.

The scale of Reagan’s courage emerged clearly in light of the responses to these two speeches. The pushback from the mainstream media was particularly strong, not unsurprising because the American news media was deeply committed to the secular left. In the tradition of H.L. Mencken, the media reacted viscerally, instinctively, and savagely to any reference that suggested religious, moral, or other kind of judgment. Anthony Lewis wrote in The New York Times that “Reagan used sectarian religiosity to sell a political program. The Evil Empire speech was primitive, a mirror-image of crude Soviet rhetoric. What is the world to think when the greatest of powers is led by a man who applies to the most difficult human problem of a simplistic theology?” The core notion of Lewis’s criticism was of moral equivalence. How could America judge the Soviets?

Tom Wicker, also at The New York Times, wrote, “The Evil Empire speech was smug and a near proclamation of Holy War.” Wicker nearly got it right: it was clearly a proclamation of intellectual, moral, and political warfare. And the Reagan administration waged that war against the Soviets with the Pope, the British Prime Minister, labor unions, and the Catholic Church in Poland as our allies.

The administration squeezed the Soviet Union on many fronts simultaneously: reducing the price of oil, passing laws that slowed or prohibited the sale of advanced technology, and accelerating the pace of science and technology.

Reagan’s grand strategy worked. He did it without a traditional war. Poland converted without firing a shot, followed by Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and then the Soviet Union. This achievement ranks as one of the most extraordinary strategic victories in recorded history: An entire empire disappeared and hundreds of millions of people were liberated.

Yet, many of the people who disagreed with Reagan in the 1980s have still not learned anything." .......

“In January 1977, I visited Ronald Reagan in Los Angeles. During our four-hour conversation, he said many memorable things, but none more significant than this: “My idea of American policy toward the Soviet Union is simple, and some would say simplistic,” he said. “It is this: We win and they lose. What do you think of that?”

One had never heard such words from the lips of a major political figure; until then, we had thought only in terms of managing the relationship with the Soviet Union.

Reagan went right to the heart of the matter. Utilizing American values, strength, and creativity, he believed we could outdistance the Soviets and cause them to withdraw from the Cold War or perhaps even to collapse. Herein lay the great difference, back in early 1977, between Reagan and every other politician: He literally believed we could win and was prepared to carry this message to the nation as the intellectual foundation of a presidency.”

–Richard V. Allen, “The Man Who Won the Cold War”

Revelation 4:7

The first living creature was like a lion, the second was like an ox, the third had a face like a man, the fourth was like a flying eagle.

Qatar -vs- Israel, The American Political Battle for Influence - The Last Refuge:

"For the past several months it has become increasingly obvious that conservative America is witnessing a battle between two external elements, Qatar and Israel.  MAGA has been stuck in the middle.

The battle has centered around political influence and seems most obvious in the framework of what are called “influencers” of public opinion.  The tug-of-war has been happening for several months, and with Israel now targeting Iran militarily, the intentionally seeded dynamic has exploded around all platforms in the information space.

Friends, families and alliances are being fractured within the battle.  In a very visible example, Tucker Carlson (team Qatar) uses his platform to target Ted Cruz (team Israel)." .......

It is war. But not all war is World War Three.

It is said that Pres. Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot. But he did fire a shot--in Grenada and elsewhere. But it wasn't WWIII.

If President Trump decides in America's interest that Iran cannot have a nuke program, he must enforce it or he's just Orange Obama drawing meaningless rhetorical lines in the sand. Or can he only use the military after we are attacked? Is that the standard?

Regime Change Everywhere But Iran is the Clinton/Bush/Obama/Biden Policy of Losers, Traitors and Globalists.

It is not President Trump's. His is America First--even if it helps Israel, which it seems is now fashionable to hate again. Yes, Israel has a Dirty Deep State like we do. And the Talmud sucks. Bibi's not perfect--but he is anointed, like our President. But they have a Perfect Messiah.

So if you find yourself on the same side as Haman, Herod, Hitler, Hamas and HusseinObama, you might want to reconsider.

You cannot disdain the Tribe of Judah and love the Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

Revelation 5:5

4-5 I wept and wept and wept that no one was found able to open the scroll, able to read it. One of the Elders said, “Don’t weep. Look—the Lion from Tribe Judah, the Root of David’s Tree, has conquered. He can open the scroll, can rip through the seven seals.”

 
Hallelujah!