Saturday, June 23, 2012

Global Warming Hysteria


By Lorrie Goldstein ,Toronto Sun

Saturday, June 23, 2012

Two months ago, James Lovelock, the godfather of global warming, gave a startling interview to in which he acknowledged he had been unduly “alarmist” about climate change.

The implications were extraordinary.

Lovelock is a world-renowned scientist and environmentalist whose Gaia theory — that the Earth operates as a single, living organism — has had a profound impact on the development of global warming theory.

Unlike many “environmentalists,” who have degrees in political science, Lovelock, until his recent retirement at age 92, was a much-honoured working scientist and academic.

His inventions have been used by NASA, among many other scientific organizations.

Lovelock’s invention of the electron capture detector in 1957 first enabled scientists to measure CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons) and other pollutants in the atmosphere, leading, in many ways, to the birth of the modern environmental movement.

Having observed that global temperatures since the turn of the millennium have not gone up in the way computer-based climate models predicted, Lovelock acknowledged, “the problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago.” Now, Lovelock has given a follow-up interview to the UK’s Guardian newspaper in which he delivers more bombshells sure to anger the global green movement, which for years worshipped his Gaia theory and apocalyptic predictions that billions would die from man-made climate change by the end of this century.

Lovelock still believes anthropogenic global warming is occurring and that mankind must lower its greenhouse gas emissions, but says it’s now clear the doomsday predictions, including his own (and Al Gore’s) were incorrect.

He responds to attacks on his revised views by noting that, unlike many climate scientists who fear a loss of government funding if they admit error, as a freelance scientist, he’s never been afraid to revise his theories in the face of new evidence. Indeed, that’s how science advances.

Among his observations to the Guardian:

(1) A long-time supporter of nuclear power as a way to lower greenhouse gas emissions, which has made him unpopular with environmentalists, Lovelock has now come out in favour of natural gas fracking (which environmentalists also oppose), as a low-polluting alternative to coal.

As Lovelock observes, “Gas is almost a give-away in the U.S. at the moment. They’ve gone for fracking in a big way. This is what makes me very cross with the greens for trying to knock it … Let’s be pragmatic and sensible and get Britain to switch everything to methane. We should be going mad on it.” (Kandeh Yumkella, co-head of a major United Nations program on sustainable energy, made similar arguments last week at a UN environmental conference in Rio de Janeiro, advocating the development of conventional and unconventional natural gas resources as a way to reduce deforestation and save millions of lives in the Third World.)

(2) Lovelock blasted greens for treating global warming like a religion.

“It just so happens that the green religion is now taking over from the Christian religion,” Lovelock observed. “I don’t think people have noticed that, but it’s got all the sort of terms that religions use … The greens use guilt. That just shows how religious greens are. You can’t win people round by saying they are guilty for putting (carbon dioxide) in the air.”

(3) Lovelock mocks the idea modern economies can be powered by wind turbines.

As he puts it, “so-called ‘sustainable development’ … is meaningless drivel … We rushed into renewable energy without any thought. The schemes are largely hopelessly inefficient and unpleasant. I personally can’t stand windmills at any price.”

(4) Finally, about claims “the science is settled” on global warming: “One thing that being a scientist has taught me is that you can never be certain about anything. You never know the truth. You can only approach it and hope to get a bit nearer to it each time. You iterate towards the truth. You don’t know it.”

global warming

Thursday, June 21, 2012

Pelosi: And she says it with a straight face.

June 21, 2012
Joel Gehrke
The Washington Examiner

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., declared that House Republicans are charging Attorney General Eric Holder with contempt of Congress not as part of an investigation into Operation Fast and Furious, but in order to weaken his ability to prevent voter suppression.

"They're going after Eric Holder because he is supporting measures to overturn these voter suppression initiatives in the states," Pelosi told reporters during her press briefing today. "This is no accident, it is no coincidence. It is a plan on the part of Republicans.

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted yesterday to recommend that the full U.S. House of Representatives find Holder in contempt of Congress for defying a subpoena that he hand over thousands of documents pertaining to Operation Fast and Furious -- specifically, documents pertaining to the Justice Department's false claim that law enforcement never allowed guns to be smuggled into Mexico to drug cartels.

President Obama asserted executive privilege yesterday over the documents subpoenaed, minutes before the committee contempt hearing began. Holder had previously offered to provide some of the documents to congressional investigators if they agreed to end the investigation.

"The only thing extraordinary about his offer is that he is asking the committee to close its investigation before it even receives the documents," committee chairman Darrell Issa, R-Calif., said during the contempt vote hearing. "I can't accept that deal."

Pelosi denied that Operation Fast and Furious is the real cause of the investigation and contempt charge. "These very same people who are holding him in contempt are part of a nationwide scheme to suppress the vote," she said of her congressional colleagues. "It is connected. It's clear as can be. It's not only to monopolize his time, it's to undermine his name."

"These folks want a plutocracy where instead of the choice of the many the checks of the very very few determine the outcomes of elections," she said.


Billions for Green Jobs and No Jobs

June 20, 2012

 ( – The Obama administration distributed $9 billion in economic “stimulus” funds to solar and wind projects in 2009-11 that created, as the end result, 910 “direct” jobs -- annual operation and maintenance positions -- meaning that it cost about $9.8 million to establish each of those long-term jobs.

At the same time, those green energy projects also created, in the end, about 4,600 “indirect” jobs – positions indirectly supported by the annual operation and maintenance jobs -- which means they cost about $1.9 million each ($9 billion divided by 4,600).

Combined (910 + 4,600 = 5,510), the direct and indirect jobs cost, on average, about $1.63 million each to produce.

As explained in a report by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, which is part of the U.S. Department of Energy, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (“economic stimulus”) of 2009 included Section 1603, a grant program run through the Treasury Department.

The 1603 program offered “renewable energy project developers a one-time cash payment” to reduce the need for green energy companies “to secure tax equity partners” and also help them to achieve “ ‘the near term goal of creating and retaining jobs’ in the renewable energy sector.”

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (EREL) tracked the grant program from its inception in 2009 through Nov. 10, 2011. Its report is entitled, Preliminary Analysis of the Jobs and Economic Impacts of Renewable Energy Projects Supported by the 1603 Treasury Grant Program.

The report explains that the program provided “approximately $9.0 billion in funds to over 23,000 PV and large wind projects.” PV stands for photovoltaic, which is the method by which solar power is turned into electricity, usually with solar panels or solar cells. There were specifically 197 large wind projects and 23,692 PV projects that received funds, according to the EREL report.

For calculating the number of green jobs created, the EREL did not actually count the people working at the facilities but instead relied upon Jobs and Economic Development Impact, or JEDI, computer models.

In its summary, the EREL report states that for the 2009-11 timeframe there were an average 52,000-75,000 “direct and indirect jobs per year” created for the construction, installation, and related work on the wind and solar projects.

These were temporary jobs, construction and installation work at the facilities, not long-term positions at the green energy sites.

The number of these “indirect,” temporary construction jobs averaged between 43,000 and 66,000, according to the EREL, and the “direct” jobs “supporting the design, development, and construction/installation of systems” averaged out to about 9,400 per year.

For the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the photovoltaic and large wind systems, however, the report states there are “between 5,100 and 5,500 direct and indirect jobs per year on an ongoing basis over the 20- to 30-year estimated life of the systems.”

The report further clarifies that from that number there are 910 direct jobs and 4,200-4,600 indirect jobs per year.

The 910 jobs are “directly supporting the O&M of the systems” and that number “is significantly less than the number of [indirect] jobs supporting manufacturing and associated supply chains.”

Through the grant program, $9 billion was spent to, in the end, establish 910 jobs that will last upwards of 30 years. That means those jobs cost, in the end, about $9.8 million to create.

Add in the indirect jobs -- high estimate of 4,600 -- and there are 5,510 total jobs (direct and indirect). Starting with the $9 billion in grants, the end result to establish 5,510 jobs averages out to $1.63 million per job.


Monday, June 18, 2012

Egyptian Hope?

18-20 months ago, the world media proclaimed a new dawn in Egypt, the end of Mubarek, the end of a regime, the end of tyranny, the start of democracy.  El Baredi was even going to run, students and women marched in the streets.  Democracy was at hand.  Peace and hope.  Hope for the future, change to a better way of living.  All sorts of pro-democratic groups were on the televisions, all manner of commentary poured from the mouths of US and European commentators when discussing the support of El Baredi and other democratic candidates.  Often they would mention the brotherhood as being in the background, and in the first days and weeks, the brotherhood said it had no interest in elections or being in the political process, that was instead for the people.

All along I knew that what was pushing the entire process was the muslim brotherhood.  Democratic movements are not organized.  There is no basis for democracy in Egypt and never has been.  Brotherhood knew this.  They are the killers of Anwar Sadat.  They are the link between Libya and Tunisia and Algeria and Egypt … the brotherhood links them all, and intended from day 1 to take control and it slowly began the process.  Soon enough El Barredi dropped out and has disappeared.  All the pro Democratic candidates dropped out leaving only the military to save Egypt and the Middle East.  Ironic given their past association with ‘peace’. 

Now, the Muslim Brotherhood makes it clear … especially the last sentence of the quote:

"Over the past 18 months we were very keen to avoid any clashes or confrontations with other components of Egypt's political system because we felt that it would have negative consequences for the democratic system and for society as a whole," said Fatema AbouZeid, a senior policy researcher for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice party and a media coordinator for the Morsi campaign. "But now it's very clear that Scaf and other institutions of the state are determined to stand in the way of what we're trying to achieve, and we won't accept this any more. Egypt will not go back to the old regime through any means, legal or illegal.”


Friday, June 8, 2012

Egypt and the Naivete of Women in Revolution

Silly women - you were not in the forefront of a revolution, you were duped by Islamists who let you march to achieve their ends and now that they have reached the point they sought - you are expendable.  WHy are you surprised?  The men in your country are unworthy to be called men.  Those who stand up to the Islamists live elsewhere, and those who fail to stand up to them do not deserve to be called men, while the rest subjugate women.

Around 50 women participated in Cairo march

The Associated Press
Jun 8, 2012 3:37 PM ET

A mob of hundreds of men assaulted women holding a march demanding an end to sexual harassment Friday, with the attackers overwhelming the male guardians and groping and molesting several of the female marchers in Cairo's Tahrir Square.

From the ferocity of the assault, some of the victims said it appeared to have been an organized attempt to drive women out of demonstrations and trample on the pro-democracy protest movement.

The attack follows smaller scale assaults on women this week in Tahrir, the epicentre of the uprising that forced Hosni Mubarak to step down last year. Thousands have been gathering in the square this week in protests over a variety of issues -- mainly over worries that presidential elections this month will secure the continued rule by elements of Mubarak's regime backed by the ruling military.

Earlier in the week, an Associated Press reporter witnessed around 200 men assault a woman who eventually fainted before men trying to help could reach her.

Friday's march was called to demand an end to sexual assaults. Around 50 women participated, surrounded by a larger group of male supporters who joined to hands to form a protective ring around them. The protesters carried posters saying, "The people want to cut the hand of the sexual harasser," and chanted, "The Egyptian girl says it loudly, harassment is barbaric."

After the marchers entered a crowded corner of the square, a group of men waded into the women, heckling them and groping them. The male supporters tried to fend them off, and it turned into a melee involving a mob of hundreds.

Marchers tried to flee

The marchers tried to flee while the attackers chased them and male supporters tried to protect them. But the attackers persisted, cornering several women against a metal sidewalk railing, including an Associated Press reporter, shoving their hands down their clothes and trying to grab their bags. The male supporters fought back, swinging belts and fists and throwing water.

'I am here to take a position and to object to this obscene act in society,'—Ahmed Mansour, 22-year-old male medical student

Eventually, the women were able to reach refuge in a nearby building with the mob still outside until they finally got out to safety.

"After what I saw and heard today. I am furious at so many things. Why beat a girl and strip her off? Why?" wrote Sally Zohney, one of the organizers of the event on Twitter.

The persistence of the attack raised the belief of many that it was intentional, though who orchestrated it was unclear.

Mariam Abdel-Shahid, a 25 year-old cinema student who took part in the march, said "sexual harassment will only take us backward."

"This is pressure on the woman to return home," she said.

Ahmed Mansour, a 22 year-old male medical student who took part in the march, said there are "people here trying to abuse the large number of women protesters who feel safe and secure. Some people think it is targeted to make women hate coming here."

"I am here to take a position and to object to this obscene act in society," he said.

Assaults on women Tahrir have been a demoralizing turn for Egypt's protest movement.

During the 18-day uprising against Mubarak last year, women say they briefly experienced a "new Egypt," with none of the harassment that is common in Cairo's streets taking place in Tahrir.

Women participated in the anti-Mubarak uprising as leading activists, protesters, medics and even fighters to ward off attacks by security agents or affiliated thugs. They have continued the role during the frequent protests over the past 15 months against the military, which took power after Mubarak's fall on Feb. 11, 2011.

But women have also been targeted, both by mobs and by military and security forces in crackdowns, a practice commonly used by Mubarak security against protesters. Lara Logan, a U.S. correspondent for CBS television, was sexually assaulted by a frenzied mob in Tahrir on the day Mubarak stepped down, when hundreds of thousands of Egyptians came to the square to celebrate.

In a defining image of the post-Mubarak state violence against women, troops dispersing a December protest in Tahrir were captured on video stripping a woman's top off down to her blue bra and stomping with their boots on her chest, as other troops pulled her by the arms across the ground.

That incident prompted an unprecedented march by some 10,000 women through central Cairo in December demanding Egypt's ruling military step down in a show of outrage

Small crowd

In contrast, the small size of Friday's march could reflect the vulnerability and insecurity many feel in the square, which was packed with thousands of mostly young men by nightfall Friday. Twenty rights groups signed on to support the stand and hundreds more vowed to take part, according to the Facebook page where organizers publicized the event, but only around 50 women participated.

Sexual harassment of women, including against those who wear the Islamic headscarf or even cover their face, is common in the streets of Cairo. A 2008 report by the Egyptian Center for Women's Rights says two-thirds of women in Egypt experienced sexual harassment on a daily basis. A string of mass assaults on women in 2006 during the Muslim feast following the holy month of Ramadan prompted police to increase the number of patrols to combat it but legislation providing punishment was never passed.

After Friday's attack, many were already calling for another, much larger stand in the square against such assaults.

Another participant in Friday's march, Ahmed Hawary, said a close female friend of his was attacked by a mob of men in Tahrir Square in January. She was rushed off in an ambulance, which was the only way to get her out, he said. After suffering from a nervous breakdown, she left Cairo altogether to work elsewhere in Egypt.

"Women activists are at the core of the revolution," Hawary said. "They are the courage of this movement. If you break them, you break the spirit of the revolution."

It was NEVER a revolution you twit.  It was an Islamic uprising and you aided them.  End of story.


Thursday, June 7, 2012

Mexico: Ongoing Mayhem and Death

It just doesn't stop.

The vehicle was parked outside the mayor's office in Ciudad Mante, in Tamaulipas state.

Reports say gang-related messages were found on the blankets covering 11 men and three women.

About 50,000 people have died in drug-related violence in Mexico since 2006, when President Felipe Calderon deployed the army to combat the cartels.

A man was reported to have abandoned the vehicle with the bodies, but very few details of the gruesome case are known, the authorities say.

There are no clear indications as to which of the powerful criminal groups in Tamaulipas was responsible for the killings, and none of the victims have been identified.

There are two main cartels operating in this region of Mexico - the vast criminal network known as los Zetas, and their main rivals, the Gulf Cartel.

The incident was first reported via Twitter and other social networking sites, which are increasingly becoming the first place via which such information reaches the public domain, the BBC's Will Grant in Tamaulipas reports.

The bodies were discovered just a day after the frontrunner in Mexico's presidential election, Enrique Pena Nieto, visited the state, promising to reduce the murder rate if elected, our correspondent says.

Last month, 49 beheaded and mutilated corpses were found dumped in the northern city of Monterrey.


Tuesday, June 5, 2012

Obama and the Reset Button (LOL)

Another reason why American leadership is important and why Obama has failed the United States.  By excluding the US from world affairs and leaving the world to deal with affairs without direct US input, we have set this mess up.  We created what is now happening.  Or rather, Obama has sown what we now reap.
June 5, 2012

Having snubbed President Obama’s NATO Summit in Chicago last month—along with the nearby G7 meeting (which would have been the G8 if Russia had bothered to attend), President Vladimir Putin put his cards on the table at a summit meeting that did warrant his attention: the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit in Beijing.

At Monday’s opening session, he jumped in enthusiastically to denounce the West, seconding a motion by Iran’s foreign minister about the “arrogant world powers” of the U.S.-led NATO alliance. If anyone expected a serious discussion of the tragedy in Syria, the SCO made short work of such hopes.

The founding meeting of what was then called the Shanghai Five drew little notice in 1996 amid an American presidential election (Clinton vs. Dole), the Olympics in Atlanta, and the dispatch of 40,000 American-led peacekeepers to end the violence in Bosnia-Herzegovina. To those in the West who even knew of its existence, the SCO, which linked China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, seemed more like a support group for ailing former communists than a serious global player.

“The Scared Commie Organization,” a senior U.S. diplomat in London quipped to me at the time, back when I was the U.S. affairs analyst at the BBC. “It can’t be easy to have spent your whole life preaching central planning, only to find out that capitalism is what people really wanted all along.”

But the SCO persisted in spite of such views, holding annual summits that regularly complained about America’s high-handedness, adding Uzbekistan as a member in 2001 and talking about cross-border cooperation in combating terrorism and drug trafficking and improving infrastructure. In 2006, however, the SCO invited Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia to attend the annual event as observers, and suddenly eyebrows rose in Washington.

Since then, the group has held joint military exercises, joined together to condemn a planned U.S. anti-missile shield in Eastern Europe, demanded a new voice for the world’s emerging economies in the IMF, preached a phasing out of the U.S. dollar as the world’s reserve currency, and is currently considering Iran’s application for full membership.

For India, granted SCO “observer” status in 2006, attending these summits has provided a useful opportunity for high-level talks with China and, in private settings, its rival, Pakistan. Unlike the constrained media commentary from other member states, India’s media provides decent coverage of these summits, even if India itself does not always agree with the tone of the proceedings.

“If the historic purpose of NATO was to ‘keep the Germans down, the Americans in and the Russians out’, then SCO is at least minimally united around the motto of ‘keeping the Americans out,’ ” writes professor Sreeram Chaulia, a security expert at the Jindal School of International Affairs in India.

Comparisons with NATO are not perfect: In many ways, the SCO’s members fear each other as much as the outside world. Certainly, in the long run, China poses a much greater threat to Russia than rapidly ossifying Western Europeans, though whether the Kremlin may choose to grasp the fact is another matter.

Still, summitry is often more about symbols than reality, and in that, Putin’s choice of friends speaks volumes. No doubt he'll be at the G20 summit in Mexico in two weeks. But just in case anyone thought the Chicago snubs were just a matter of tight diplomatic scheduling, he also made a point last week to tell the British that, no, he won’t be attending the London Olympics, either.


Sunday, June 3, 2012

The Thing About Liberals ...

Wherever they may live - liberals want change, now, immediate, and without hesitation.  They want good things - end of dictators and tyrants, the right of people to speak and scream, the rights of women and children, pro choice on all issues (except in the US where pro choice does not include the right to choose life based upon Biblical traditions).

Liberals want good things, there is no doubt.  They want it now and some, a few, will even march in protests and risk their very lives in cities like New York and Washington.  Set aside how asinine that image is, those same few would not march in protests against Mubarek or Khadafi.  Yet some liberal minded people did march in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iran.  Some did and some risked everything to march for freedom.  The world media caught them on video, and showed us their heroic efforts to end the rule of tyrants and dictators - sadly, they were not the real protesters.

Sadly the world was mistaken.  But that's another thing about liberals, a slip here and there, a few mistakes along the way, and things are still fine, no apologies.  Like the t-shirt company in the 90's - No Fear.  This one for liberals - No Apologies.  Could be something George Clooney sets up, maybe even Kofi Annan. 

It's alright, they care, and that is all that matters whereas the heartless greedy conservatives hate everyone - unlike Kofi who presided over two genocides (or attempted), and Clooney who is a clueless as Anna, but he cares.

Yet back to the 'liberal protestors' shown on TV in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt, and Syria ... the face of a revolution.  Behind the face are very dark shadows that have seized control in Tunisia and Libya, and are on the edge of control in Egypt.  The liberal protesters sit back and wonder what happened - they are slightly dazed and certainly confused, wondering aloud what happened to all their candidates who promised them a yellow brick road and sunshine. 

"Young liberal and left-wing revolutionaries who led last year's uprising were dismayed when their own candidates lost the first round of the presidential election last month."

Dismayed?  Ha.  Anyone with half a wit, which discounts Obama, understood the 'revolution' was not the Arab Spring of Democracy Obama was touting, as were so many other quagga's in the media.  As if every quean on earth got in line to drink that cool-aid, and boy did they.  The jubilant support for the 'liberal' protesters in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt ... heck, we even put the liberal protesters in power in Libya, and are on the verge of doing the same in Syria.

What havoc we wreak in doing good, promoting good.  And they condemned Bush for Iraq.  Ha. 

Mubarek sentenced to life in prison for the few deaths in Tahir Square a little more than a year ago.  The funny part, 10X that many have died since, hundreds more have disappeared.  Thousands have been beaten and arrested and tried for crimes against the state.    Who now will be held responsible or is that ok with liberals - bloodshed to cleanse the palate.  The French believed that was the way to do it, until they ate their own and the blood ran freely for years.  Insanity.

But never apologize - not for any of your actions, a sure sign of sincerity and caring.

Quagga and quean are words.  They are not pulled out of my ass as some people are prone to doing!
Kofi is mentioned in regard to his passionate
work on behalf of ton he Tutsi and Bosnians.


Friday, June 1, 2012

What a shame he was elected. We have lost so much.

Lech Walesa was once a trade-union activist. He was often arrested for speaking his mind against Communist oppression behind the Iron Curtain in Poland and for defying the Soviet Union. He was an electrician who, with no higher education, led one of the most profound freedom movements of the 20th century — Solidarity. He became president of Poland and swept in reforms, pushing the Soviet Union out of his homeland and moving the country toward a free-market economy and individual liberty. And President Obama doesn’t want him to set foot in the White House.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Polish officials requested that Walesa accept the Medal of Freedom on behalf of Jan Karski, a member of the Polish Underground during World War II who was being honored posthumously this week. The request makes sense. Walesa and Karski shared a burning desire to rid Poland of tyrannical subjugation. But President Obama said no.
Administration officials told the Journal that Walesa is too “political.” A man who was arrested by Soviet officials for dissenting against the government for being “political” is being shunned by the United States of America for the same reason 30 years later.
Meanwhile, one of the recipients of the Medal was Dolores Huerta, the honorary chair of the Democratic Socialists of America. So socialist politics are acceptable, but not the politics of a man who stood up and fought socialism.
This revelation follows an eruption of outrage in Poland after President Obama referred in his remarks at the Medal of Freedom ceremony to “Polish death camps,” a phrase that Poles have battled since the end of the Cold War. The phrase suggests that Poles were complicit in Nazi concentration camps, which of course is not the case. In fact, Poles were exterminated in the camps.
The White House’s flippant response to the uproar caused the Polish president and prime minister to demand more thoughtful and personal reactions. But White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said Wednesday that the president has no plans to reach out to his Polish counterparts and has shrugged off the outrage in Poland.
Few observers are suggesting that President Obama’s written remarks noting “Polish death camps” were intentionally malicious. The comment was more likely a result of historical ignorance and careless inattention. This is the same ignorance and carelessness that would cause a president to turn away Lech Walesa and label him as “too political.”
Ironically, Lech Walesa shares a distinction with President Obama: They both won Nobel Peace Prizes. Walesa earned his in 1983 after years of fighting for peace and freedom, and being monitored, harassed, and jailed for it. President Obama received his award in 2009. Some may think that this would be enough of a bond for President Obama to set aside political differences for the greater good. But instead, President Obama treated Walesa the same way he treated the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize winner, His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama, who was ushered out the White House kitchen past piles of garbage in 2010.
The likelihood is that President Obama didn’t want Walesa in the White House because Walesa has made critical remarks toward the president’s policies and in 2010 warned that the United States was slipping toward socialism. But rather than taking the mature and diplomatic path and respecting Walesa’s right to have a differing perspective, Obama chose to shun his lifetime of achievements.
Congratulating Walesa on his Nobel Prize in 1983, President Ronald Reagan said: “For too long, the Polish government has tried to make Lech Walesa a non-person and destroy the free trade-union movement that he helped to create in Poland. But no government can destroy the hopes that burn in the hearts of a people. The people of Poland have shown in their support of Solidarity, just as they showed in their support of His Holiness Pope John Paul II during his visit to Poland, that the government of that nation cannot make Lech Walesa a non-person, and they can’t turn his ideas into non-ideas.”
The White House should not treat President Walesa as a non-person, and they cannot turn his ideas into non-ideas.

Make Mine Freedom - 1948

American Form of Government

Who's on First? Certainly isn't the Euro.