Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rule of Law

Where Is Obama’s Moral Clarity on North Korea?

April 3rd, 2013 - 5:54 pm

Welcome to 2013. Maybe the Mayans couldn’t add correctly. A tiny totalitarian regime is threatening the United States with nuclear attack, and the president has barely spoken on the matter since the threats were made. It isn’t hard to imagine how other presidents would have reacted differently.

First consider Bill Clinton. Forget the motivations, one thing is for sure — Clinton wasn’t afraid to speak with moral clarity in international affairs. He led NATO against a thug Serbian regime’s ethnic cleansing. Clinton labeled evil as evil.

Imagine how Ronald Reagan would have reacted to threats of nuclear attack on the United States by Kim Jong-Un.  For starters, I suspect Reagan would have begun a dialog with Kim’s victims years before a nuclear crisis erupted.

North Korea has become the world’s largest gulag. North Koreans are even two inches shorter than their South Korean counterparts. Kim Jong-Un’s hereditary totalitarianism has produced a nation of malnourished shrimps.

Reagan would not have been quiet about their circumstances.

Reagan spoke to the victims of communist totalitarianism around the world, and reassured them that freedom’s light remained lit. History tells us that the victims, even in the most controlled parts of the Soviet Union, heard Reagan. His words gave them hope, and eventually gave them courage to tear down walls.

Reagan spoke with moral clarity to the communist slave masters about the immorality of their regimes. He delegitimized communist governments by speaking directly to communism’s victims. He provided a moral contrast between America that is good and great and communist regimes that were evil and destined for the dustbin of history.

Speaking these truths directly to the victims of communism made peace more likely, even as the domestic left warned that such clarity was destabilizing.

The cheapest and most peaceful way for the crisis on the Korean peninsula to diffuse is for the slaves of Kim Jong-Un to throw off their slavemaster and join the ranks of people who have emerged from the darkness of communism to the light of freedom.

This cannot happen if the American president fails to speak with moral clarity. One wonders whether Obama is even capable of rhetorically elevating America’s status as a beacon of liberty. After all, his formative years and most of his political career were devoted to cataloging problems and grievances with America, and demanding transformative breaks from the past.

But circumstances in Korea demand that this president mature, and quick. Even if regime change isn’t in the offing, moral clarity informs American might. It’s time for Obama to abandon his silly flirtation with American nuclear disarmament. And most of all, it’s time to talk about the blessings of human liberty, and how liberty is obtainable, even to Korean slaves.

Providence gave the dull grey enslaved world Ronald Reagan’s voice of hope, and the world changed. It’s time this President learn something from a man whose legacy he has thus far rejected at every turn.

Also read Bryan Preston on what a war in North Korea would look like.

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
Indeed, we need an Eisenhower, a Reagan or even a Bush as they would give
"moral clarity" to the North Korean threats.
But basketball, golf, gun-control campaigning and White House concerts are
far more important.....aren't they?
We need a new president of these United States.....................soon.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Indeed. For Obama to address anything with "moral clarity" would mean he'd have to re-evaluate his whole life stance on just about everything.

For him, though, he's never really considered that there's a great big world out there because he's been so wrapped up in his tiny, microscopic universe of perceived "ills that white people do", asking him to have a moral view other than one that reflects that is asking the impossible.

In short, it's asking a three-year-old what they think about the process of rubber vulcanization.

Although Obama makes great sport and show out of LOOKING like a president, or, more accurately looking how he THINKS a president should look, he is neither capable nor interested in working for a stable, safe planet where freedom can reside.

Thus, he is not just incompetent but, by extrapolation, evil. The inability to understand potential consequences, the inability to recognize evil and address it directly means that he's also part of the problem because he's certainly not part of the solution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Speaking truth about the victims of communism may indeed light the candles of freedom.

But those candles are blowing in he wind at home.

We can't get the truth about the small c communism that is in our own back yard. We won't get it from Obama, or from any of his mentors. (his father, his mother, his grandfather, Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Carl Davidson, the Midwest Academy, the Socialist Scholars, Don Warden)

We won't get it from academia. (Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, Bernardine Dohrn, Bill Ayers, the Gamaliel Foundation, Race to the Top)

And, of course...in our toxic information stream. Our poisoned well, the media.

There is no way we are going to get the truth out of a propaganda machine.

So, indeed...truth will set us free. And small c communism...will do the precise opposite. I'm less worried at this moment about spreading the truth to other countries, than I am about finding it in my own.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (29)
All Comments   (29)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
Never let it be said that Obama failed to stand up to what's right.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
To compare Obama with the class dunce is an insult to the dunce. To include his presidency with that of Reagan's is an insult beyond compare to Reagan. Obama is a cancer fed by greed, ignorance and thievery. After Benghazi, expect nothing from
him but a sneaking, shirking "present" for a solution.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Moral clarity. Obama? If it's not on him teleprompter, it just ain't there.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
First, Obama would have to decide to support us and not the enemy. Since he is decision-averse, this could take way too long to work out.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
I don"t think the words moral clarity apply to oBAMA.. He is neitrher moral nor clear.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
when some one threatens this country with nukes, and there is no decisive response, we are looking for the threat to increase, and almost asking for them to carry out the threat.

This is why in the old days when a child was bad, he was spanked and shown that you don't do bad things or there are consequences.

But then obozo, thinks that Israel is fine taking daily hits by missiles lobbed into their country and shouldn't do anything about it, so maybe this is the same.

Perhaps at least we could give N.Korea the coordinates to the White House and let them know when a big party is going on and then there at least might be a positive action removing the current prez and so many of his libs/dems/low information friends.

N.Korea might even get a thank you from many in America for doing that.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Let's just say for the sake of conversation that the unthinkable actually happens -
NoKo launches a successful nuclear strike against the U.S. .. My question is this -
Would Obama retaliate ?? Would Obama launch a counter attack ?? I don't think
he would... After all, Obama believes America to be an Imperialist nation, and what better way to "level the world playing field" than to have America "leveled"..
What is it gonna take, to have this.. this Manchurian Mole removed from office ?
A major American city vaporized ? A million dead Americans ?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
In the face of EVIL, there are always warriors ready to do what it takes to fight and win against those like the current tyrannical loser in North Korea. Active Christians in Third Reich's Abwer and in the military prepared for the assassination of Hitler begging for some assurances from Great Britain. The moral support was weak, at best, and may have ended WWII sooner with motivation from Churchill. A distant transfusion of hope, freedom, and truth is more valuable, during trying times, than mountains of gold could buy.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
That wasn't a lack of moral clarity. Churchill recognized that Hitler was his own worst enemy, and his decisions reflected this. The fear was, should Hitler be assassinated, who would replace him would have been competent and so made the war that much worse.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Indeed, we need an Eisenhower, a Reagan or even a Bush as they would give
"moral clarity" to the North Korean threats.
But basketball, golf, gun-control campaigning and White House concerts are
far more important.....aren't they?
We need a new president of these United States.....................soon.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Multiculturalism, and our multicultural president, have no room for moral clarity, for clarity, or for morals. Multiculturalism is a mess and all decisions are reduced to power struggles.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All