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   (50)
All Comments   (50)
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
it's actualy my favourite-job I've ever done. Earn 10 to 50$/hr working from home with Google! I've made $64,000 so far this year working online and I'm a full time student. I've made such great money. It's really user friendly and I'm just so happy that I found out about it. Here is what I do, Fox78.com
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
The Left doesn't believe that the United States is in a position to judge anyone else.

On liberal blogs like Krugman's column, you see bald statements like "The U.S. has no moral superiority over anyone else". Those kinds of statements get a lot of "up" votes--and not a single American liberal dares to defend the track record of his own country.

And that's the problem from Obama on down. When some anti-American fanatic howls "Death to America!", the Left always wondered if maybe that guy has a point.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
sinz -- What would be your suggestion of why the U.S. has systemically become disliked around the world post 1950s?

Peace, prosperity and the UNIVERSAL values of democracy and freedom.

Our nation's challenge and our responsibility is, to sustain that role (NATION-BUILDING) by harnessing the forces of GLOBAL INTEGRATION for the benefit of our own people and -- people around the world.

Now consider the U.S. successfully created a GLOBAL dominate monetary system around the USD.

The U.S. successfully created a GLOBAL dominate economic structure. A global structure thats come back to bite us in more than one way!

Its true, our nation building strategies no longer followed the old strategies of UK and French imperialism by militarily defeating and 'occupying' nations for control of resources and economic dominance. However, the new nation building strategies provided the very same affect -- in principle!

Who did give the U.S. the predominate power and control to globalize the world under UNIVERSAL values of democracy and freedom.?

The constant attempts both on large and small scale to expand global dominance of control and economies muchless, a particular ideology of values and freedoms by a single nation, has never worked since the time of recorded history any place around the world! Rights of Religion and individual national sovereignty begin to collide and...... Coexisting with all nations, recognizing national differences and sovereignty rights to govern their own affairs so long as they don't try to invade and deny others the same rights, may have well been the better strategy for the U.S. long ago.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Did these twits manage to sneak a pod under your bed?

You seem to misunderstand Krugman's blog. The context averse far right likes to claim that American exceptionalism is roughly analagous to having been personally chosen by the big sky god, similar to the jews of the old testament, wherein the success of the USA is due to superior morals and so on.

Everyone BUT the far right seems to understand that the US is the dominant global superpower due as much to an accident of geography as anything else, hence statements like "the US has no moral superiority" have to be viewed in a reasonable context. It's more of a slap at the nonsense of the far right than a 'belief' in and of itself.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Europeans colonized North and South America around the same time.
What difference in geography made the US the dominant global superpower?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
When was the last time the US was militarily invaded and occupied? How'd that turn out for the occupiers? European countries are all bunched up and they invaded each other regularly while the US stayed untouched. Each invasion loses smart people, business, and capital which takes time/energy to rebuild. The US is tough to invade. Invading the US and living to tell ahout it would make Normandy look trivially simple (which was only the largest and most complex military operation the planet has ever seen.)

Seriously, dude?
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
"When was the last time the US was militarily invaded and occupied?"

The War of 1812.

"How'd that turn out for the occupiers?"

It depends on whose history book you're reading. Some accounts have the US and Britain/Canada roughly tied. American accounts typically describe an unconditional victory for America.

These days such military invasions/occupations are less common. Some would describe the steady influx across the US/Mexican border as an invasion, although others would describe those individuals as economic refugees.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Random schizophrenically hates Christians; Random is hyper critic of America; Random still chooses to live in America.

The cowardice, disconnect from reality and hypocrisy continue to amuse. You're gutless Random - someone I simply can't take seriously, more sissified neopagan than brave soldier.

You need to stay in your little cocoon. Out here, we'd eat you alive.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
You couldn't possibly be more out to lunch. Knowing that America reigns due to superior economic policy and geography rather than piety is hardly criticism of America. It's criticism of partisan, ideological myopia.

Although writrten by an unapologetic leftist, Jared Diamond, his book 'Guns Germs and Steel' is (when you get past some of his erroneous politically motivated conclusions) accurate enough to get a big picture view of the sort of thing of which I speak. This book is popular and written in a layman's style that even someone from bumfiddle OK can grasp. This recommendation assumes you have the courage to read something written by someone not drinking your brand of koolaid, which you don't, although I'm sure you will continue to lecture on the subject.

Cheers.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
So, the better thing to do is not be honest that Americas economic might has been waining for some time indicating failed policies. A better thing to do is not be honest the Americas containment nation-building stategies for nearly 70 years has failed to produce the desired results. The better thing to do is not be honest that Americas freedom has not sustained the religious morality some expected and or demand. The better thing to do is not be honest that wealth in America is accumulating at the top 20% leaving the middle and poor classes with less and less wealth share and increasing the poverty class. Do I need to go on?

To be honest, objective and realistic is to you, it seems, cowardice, disconnected from reality and hypocrisy. I would argue the reverse! America is not in good economic shape and it hasn't been for a few decades! The people of America being responsible for their freedoms and their nations wellbeing are not in good shape and haven't been for a few decades! Time to put your hand-fed political partisn radicalism aside Tex!

You know what a UT graduate says to an OU graduate?
"Welcome to McDonalds - may I take your order?"
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
America has been changing due to societal and global economic pressures pretty much as described in 'Future Shock' by A. Toffler in the early 1970's (among others.) Essentially, after WWII the US exported technology and know-how in order to rebuild the postwar world, which increased foreign competition. For example, by the 1970's you could hardly buy US made consumer electronics; the exporting of jobs started in the postwar years and has continued apace.

The invention of the pill in the same time period was coincidental, but the more myopic religious types herein conflate global geopolitics and societal change wrought by the pill and adduce cause and effect when nonesuch exists.

This business of 'moral this' and 'moral that' is a reflection of this error. Although *most* people of faith seem to be able to get things straight, the far right "conservatives" seem to be dominated by the inwardly turned. I tend to doubt most of them have read Future Shock or other similar tomes (or for that matter anything written by what they reckon to be leftist) meaniing that they have a POV that is consistently and increasingly out if step with the rest of the population.

I would argue that America's economic might is actually treading water or even increasing, as witnessed by the sheer count of copyrights and patents and other indicators of technological dominance. We are some 40+ years ahead of the Chinese in *deployable and working* military tech alone, 50+ years ahead in biomedical tech, etc.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Agree with most you point to!

As to your latter para -- wish this was a good forum to really disect economic data but its not. But let me just thow out this tidbit. Our private sector economies from large to small are partnershipped with the government and had been since WWII. On the one hand it was a good thing that allowed for the U.S. to flourish and become the global dominate economy and thus the USD a dominate global currency and monetary system. On the other hand, global economic development under pretty much the same partnership model has come back to bite us and most of the world. Our 'cost of doing business' is now non competitive with those new major 'economic' developing countries and it gets in the academic weeds from this point. We 'cannot' sustain with a consumer and services core economy! We cannot sustain with more long term trade imbalance as represented over the past decades much of that imbalance being used and represented/used in our 'domestic' GDP.

Anyway, all things considered, I don't quite share your economic optimism going forward. Its all wound up in a very convoluted global web of economic problems as well as servere domestic economic problems.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
If this "geography" had been managed all along by socialist mockers, we'd have become part of third or fourth world by now.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
The US is a capitalist system, and economic systems aren't contingent on superior morals. I rather like capitalism. I have no idea what you think you mean by "socialist." Elaborate.
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
1 2 3 Next View All