It’s hard to avoid the impression…

…that Obama is just a good old-fashioned anti-Catholic bigot. The only Catholics he seems to like are the sort who hate the Catholic Church and want to destroy it. His treatment of Poles is consistently suffused with a winning combination of ignorance and contempt.

  • Mark R

    I don’t know…much as I dislike Obama, I think he is more of an ugly American type, ignorant of history and politics outside of the U.S. in re. to this story. That said, Walesa is no longer as popular a figure in Poland after his foray into politics.

  • I

    Obama is a vindictive sore-loser who uses immature passive aggression against any of thkse he perceives as his enemies. Slave-trading Brits were sent back their bust of Churchill by the self identifying victim son of black oppression. Walesa injured the socialist state, so comrade Obama has a felt need to return injury. Walesa should know better than to be seen in the company of a socialist tyrant, but since he seems to misunderstand what Obama is, God is protecting him (Walesa) by hardening the heart of Obama. I like His mysterious yet obvious ways. Dad is a master of paradox and irony.

  • Marion (Mael Muire)

    I think that for Obama, Walesa’s odiousness is due not so much his Catholicism but to his role in having helped to destroy the socialist state in Poland and by extension, in having played a part in the collapse of the former Soviet empire.

    Radical socialists like Obama, who loathe the principles of freedom we enjoy here in the United States, looked to the former USSR as a model for the lines along which our own country should be reformed (“Change!”). They now view the USSR as a dim and distant dream of bygone glory days; now the USSR’s model has, for them, been supplanted by that of the Peoples’ Republic of China.

    This makes Walesa, in Obama’s book, not a freedom-fighter, but a traitor, a saboteur, an Enemy of the People. He is the Mordred who destroyed the Camelot of Socialism in Europe.

    That’s why Obama won’t go near him.

    • Ted Seeber

      If that is so, then why has Obama produced so little change?

      Look at Obamacare- it took a health care system where socialist capitalists had grabbed all control- and gave the same group of socialist capitalists even MORE control. Capitalism and socialism are not opposites- they’re the same 500 lb coin that the ruling class used to beat you down with.

      • Marion (Mael Muire)

        “why has Obama produced so little change?”

        The U.S. Presidency, while a seat of extraordinary power, is neither an overlordship nor a dictatorship. The advance of the agenda which Mr. Obama and his associates advocate has, thankfully, been impeded to a certain extent by the operation of countervailing power sources: Congress, the courts, the financial system, the more moderate wings of both political parties, political lobbies, business and not-for-profit interests, and the mood of the American electorate.

        I am not using socialism in its strictly classically technical sense. Mr. Obama is an advocate of Big Government. Whether, if he were made dictator, he would continue to allow at least a semblance of private ownership of the means of production, is an open question. That, if he had the power, he would tomorrow shut down all church-based universities, schools, hospitals, and assistance programs, and replace them with Big Government-run hospitals, schools, and social service agency, is, to me, a given. And that he would, if he could, close and disperse all religious institutions whose theology did not conform to Political Correctness, is also a given.

        Luckily, he simply doesn’t have the power to do these things. Yet. I hope neither he nor his cronies ever will acquire such power.

  • Mark R

    The Solidarity in movement was not anti-socialist in it’s essence. The brain power behind the movement were mostly former Communists, but their intent was to make the Communist party in Poland have a position similar to the Queen’s in England. History unravelled faster than Solidarity intended in Russia’s reform movement under Gorbachev. He was a Communist, but we owe him a lot of thanks for loosening things up so the former satellite countries could have more wiggle room. No one in Poland at the time of Solidarity and immediately after wanted to do away with the welfare state features of socialism. Solidarity’s role was to end the economic and cultural hegemony of the Polish United Workers’ Party (the Communists) and to allow free trade unions to have a share in economic and cultural matters hitherto dominated by Communists. I don’t think most people in the United States really know what socialism is, including their president.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X