Words Matter

June 15, 2009

When Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” it was considered to be a scandalous remark by so many well-heeled left wing intellectuals. Throughout America and Europe, liberals pounced on Reagan’s comments as an example of impolitic speech that was sure to enrage our Soviet adversaries (by the mid-80s the Left was no longer thinking of the Soviets as enemies). Reagan was told that it was far better to approach the Soviets with an open hand, to speak with them as an equal superpower. He was told the Soviets could be trusted. The nuclear freeze movement fretted that an arms race would only lead to a nuclear cataclysm. The nuclear disarmament crowd insisted that if America destroyed all of their nuclear weapons, the Soviet Union would be morally compelled to follow suit.

Of course, Reagan had other methods. He referred to the Soviets as an “evil empire” and stood at the Berlin Wall and challenged Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down this wall!”

Reagan’s method worked. Aided by Margaret Thatcher and Pope John Paul II, Reagan’s public and unflinching call for an end to Communism started revolutions in the Soviet states brewing. The Solidarity movement in Poland, started a few months before Reagan’s first victory in 1980 found friends in the White House, at 10 Downing Street, and in the Vatican. The moral support those three world leaders lent to Solidarity was like a cannon shot in the halls of the Kremlin. The KGB even tried to have the Pope assassinated because of his talk of freedom in his native country of Poland.

Liberation movements began to grow throughout the Soviet Empire, culminating in the dissolution of the Soviet Union itself.

Importantly, word even reached those who had no voice. Imprisoned in a Soviet gulag on trumped up espionage charges, the great dissident Natan Sharansky still got word of Reagan’s “evil empire” speech, and word spread throughout the gulag via a series of taps on walls and toilets.

I have to laugh. People who take freedom for granted, Ronald Reagan for granted, always ask such questions. Of course! It was the great brilliant moment when we learned that Ronald Reagan had proclaimed the Soviet Union an Evil Empire before the entire world. There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell’s Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union.

It was one of the most important, freedom-affirming declarations, and we all instantly knew it. For us, that was the moment that really marked the end for them, and the beginning for us. The lie had been exposed and could never, ever be untold now. This was the end of Lenin’s “Great October Bolshevik Revolution” and the beginning of a new revolution, a freedom revolution—Reagan’s Revolution.

We were all in and out of punishment cells so often—me more than most—that we developed our own tapping language to communicate with each other between the walls. A secret code. We had to develop new communication methods to pass on this great, impossible news. We even used the toilets to tap on.

The point of all this is that words matter. They are important. A simple speech or declaration by an American President can echo throughout the world and reach even the blackest depths of prison camps. In the Age of Twitter, the word can spread within hours.

As I type, Iranian dissidents are protesting an election that is almost certainly rigged and that has ensured another term for the Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The protesters are being beaten and jailed. The press has been shut down in Iran. The internet is shut down (though it seems they forgot about Twitter, which is earning its plaudits in Iran right now). The human desire for freedom is being crushed, and the cold hand of authoritarianism is wrapping itself around the throats of people who expect their elections to count and who want their voices to be heard.

WHERE IS OBAMA?

I don’t expect an Evil Empire speech, although one is deserved. It is too early for that. The White House is, apparently, “monitoring” the situation. What a profile in courage our President is!

Mr. President, a simple statement of solidarity with the protestors, a simple acknowledgement that the election appears to have been rigged, a simple quote expressing outrage at the Iranian government for the harsh treatment of protestors and the suppression of speech and the press…that’s all. Your words will be heard, Mr. President. They will resonate in the Iranian streets, in the jail cells of Tehran, and all throughout the Middle East. You will send a strong message to our sole ally in that region, Israel, that you will not be cowed by Iranian strongmen. Mr. President, you are gifted with an almost supernatural eloquence. It’s time to use it.

Update: Hot Air is providing really good coverage.


The Taxman Cometh

June 12, 2009

I think it was P.J. O’Rourke who said, “If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until you see how much it costs when it’s free.”

Well, here’s the first estimate: an additional $600 billion dollars in new taxes for all you “Hope and Change” suckers out there. Of course, we all know how well the government estimates the cost of new programs.

I’m sure it’ll all come from the pockets of “rich people,” won’t it? After all, St. Barry said he would not raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000 a year. Unless they smoke or drink.

Makes you kind of wonder when “the rich” are going to run out of money to support the rest of us.


Obama Fires Inspector General. Scandal? Don’t be silly.

June 12, 2009

Remember the brouhaha a couple of years ago about the firing of eight U.S. attorneys? The attorneys had been put in place by the Bush Administration and eight of them were subsequently fired in December, 2006.

The “scandal” was really much ado about less than nothing. The attorneys served at the pleasure of the President, and he had every right to fire them for any reason whatsoever. If he didn’t like their shoes he was within his rights to dismiss them. President Clinton had fired over 80 attorneys and replaced them with his political appointments. That was his right to do so and his reason was that he hadn’t appointed them and he didn’t want his predecessor’s choices in his Administration. All perfectly legal, all perfectly within his purview as President.

Now Barack Obama has entered the fray by firing an Inspector General. From the Associated Press:

Obama’s move follows an investigation by IG Gerald Walpin finding misuse of federal grants by a nonprofit education group led by Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson, who is an Obama supporter and former NBA basketball star.

Walpin was criticized by the acting U.S. attorney in Sacramento for the way he handled an investigation of Johnson and St. HOPE Academy, a nonprofit group that received hundreds of thousands of dollars in federal grants from the Corporation for National and Community Service. The corporation runs the AmeriCorps program.

The IG’s report, detailing a lot of waste and fraud, is here.

Is Obama within his rights to do this? Yes.

What I find remarkable though is the difference between how Bush was treated for the firing of the attorneys and the current treatment of Obama. Bush was pilloried for dismissing the attorneys. The Attorney General of the Justice Department, Alberto Gonzales, resigned because of the screams from the Left about impropriety. There were investigations, movements to impeach the Attorney General, subpoenas issued to anyone with a pulse in the White House and Attorney General’s office. The new Congressional majority in 2007 was unleashed like a rabid dog looking for anyone or anything to sink its teeth into.

There was no scandal. Bush was within his rights…he hired them, he could fire them. Anyone in any Presidential administration works at the pleasure of the President and can be fired at any time for any reason. But Bush’s refusal to stand up to Congress and tell them to cut the crap, combined with Gonzales’s ineffectual mumblings and lapses of memory in his testimony before Congress, aided and abetted by a media that was salivating for a scandal, led to the perception that a genuine wrong had been done here.

It hadn’t. The investigations that the fired attorneys were working on all continued under the leadership of new attorneys and no corruption was covered up.

So yes, Obama is within his rights to do this, but frankly the odor coming off this is a little wretched. Obama’s love of Americans doing “service” and both his and Michelle’s disdain for greedy capitalists of all types makes them far more likely to take a dim view of a harsh critical appraisal of a “service” organization like AmeriCorp that is rife with waste and squandered taxpayer dollars. For an Inspector General to announce that Emperor AmeriCorp is as naked as a jaybird is to put his career on the chopping block.

My only question now is why the Left and their media lapdogs aren’t calling for investigations into Obama’s firing of the Inspector General? It couldn’t possibly be a double standard.

Could it?

Michelle Malkin’s on the case. As usual.


The Stimulus Visualized

June 10, 2009

Political Math has a really nifty video up detailing the difference between what the Obama Administration predicted would happen with the passage of the Stimulus Bill, and what actually happened.

The biggest caveat here is that the Stimulus Bill has barely been planted in the economy. Still, the Administration did promise instant results and is currently crowing about how many jobs were “saved” because of the bill. Live by the promise, die by the promise.

H/T: The Corner and Day By Day.


Obama’s Rubber Sole

June 10, 2009

The Drudge Report is highlighting this story about some Israelis being upset with the President for having his picture taken with his feet up on the Oval Office desk while speaking with Benjamin Netanyahu.

In the Arab world, showing the soles of your shoes to someone is a grave insult (witness freed Iraqis hitting the toppled statue of Saddam Hussein with their shoes or, more recently, the guy who threw his shoes at President Bush).

I think this is much ado about nothing, bordering on ridiculous nonsense. I am certain that President Obama meant no offense to Israelis, Arabs, shoe salesmen, cobblers, or anyone else. The entire controversy says more about how Obama is perceived in Israel, where his recent Cairo speech led to posters of Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with a nuclear explosion in the background. Obama is not liked in Israel, where is policies towards the Mideast are seen as appeasement, and this kerfluffle is a reaction to the general dislike of the man.

But as I said, I don’t believe any insult was intended or should be inferred.

What does perplex me is why Obama would put his feet up on the Oval Office desk. I’m reminded of Ronald Reagan who once said that he would never even take off his suit jacket in the Oval Office because of the profound respect he had for the office. It seems to me somewhat disrespectful of his own office, just as Bill Clinton’s shenanigans with Monica Lewinsky offended me more than they normally would have if they occurred in a Days Inn instead of in the Oval Office. Again, I am certain that Obama meant no disrespect here, but the casual nature of the pose is still somewhat off putting. It’s the Oval Office of the President of the United States. Is it too much to ask you to keep your feet off the furniture, especially when speaking with foreign leaders? The desk doesn’t actually belong to you, you know.