Ronald Reagan on Foreign Policy

Pretty words. But if I recall correctly, wasn’t taking shelter across the sea, and rushing to respond after freedom was lost exactly what we did in WWII, and we won that one? Seems the lesson we can take is that responding ONLY when necessary is the prudent course. Of course, one’s man’s optional is another man’s necessity.

I also recall another great statesman warning that we should not go about the world searching for monsters to slay. His name currently escapes me.

Sounds like a walk softly but carry a big stick president. What countries did Ronald Reagan create more perpetual occupation? How about W? I rest my case.

Indeed, we hurt for another Gipper to appear; our present political landscape is sadly bereft of anything larger than the occasional bump in the plain.

He was absolutely right. The Soviet Union (and its puppets) was our enemy and it had an overt and stated goal of World Communism. Our backs were against the wall and 15 years of Liberal Democrat appeasement had cost us a war, 52,000 needless deaths and brought us to near desperation. Thank God – literally – that RWR, Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II were where they were. We would not be here had they not been there.

But that threat in that form is gone today, for the same reason. Strategies wrought in the Cold War dichotomy aren’t needed today. So, read his words carefully: “We’ve learned that isolationism never was and never will be an acceptable response to tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent.”

To obviate: “tyrannical governments with an expansionist intent”

Which government best fits that description today?

Again, which government – including the one that attacks religious liberty at home, exports $70 billion a year to Mexican criminals as well as millions in taxpayer funded weapons, supports its cronyist supporters through whole-cloth fiat bailouts, abandons freedom fighter abroad, appoints “czars” and wages intrusive wars while ignoring Congress, supports Social Fascist protestors who occupy and destroy private property, puts its own ideology before Constitutional process and perpetuates generations of poverty and ignorance through redistributionist programs, just to name a handful of egregious crimes – which government best fits that description today?

Ironic, no?

“We have met the enemy, and he is us!”

“Which government best fits that description today?”

“Iran. Next question?”

Perhaps a better question would be “which governments [plural] fit that description”

In addition to Iran, you can add China and Russia and a few others to that list, all of whom are dictatorships that have Obama’s lips surgically implanted on their backside.

What isolationalists/non-intervetionist like to throw around the “The U.S. cannot be the world’s policeman” fail and/or refuse to understand is that is we are not, these tyrannical regimes would be more than happy to step into that breach. In fact, they are trying to do just that. I shudder to think of what the world would be like if they are ever successful in that endeavor. A United States willing and able to unapologetically defend its own vital interests is the only thing that stands in their way. Reagan understood this very well.

In his “Shining City on a Hill” speech, Reagan quotes Pope Pius XII:

“The American people have a great genius for splendid and unselfish actions. Into the hands of America God has placed the destinies of an afflicted mankind.”