Obama & FDR --- Who Was in Charge of the War Department during WW2 & the Holocaust?

In the Spring of election year, a young president's fancy lightly turns to thoughts of reelection. As in 2008, Obama is sweet-talking Jews, some of whom have reportedly escaped from the Democratic Party's corral because of his anti-Israel policies since his inauguration in 2009. He sweet-talked Armenian-Americans too in 2008. Once elected of course, he violated his solemn promise to them to recognize the Armenian genocide. Armenians too have escaped from the corral.

In his efforts to hold on to Jewish and other voters, Mr Promise Breaker has compared himself and had himself compared to President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, long a hero of the Democratic Party.
But if the comparison is valid, should it be seen as a merit or demerit of Obama?

That brings us to the AIPAC Conference more than a month ago. In his speech there, Prime Minister Netanyahu brought up a historic fact not known to the general public nor even to many people who consider themselves well-informed. This was the rejection by the US War Department in 1944 of a request by a Jewish organization, the World Jewish Congress, to bomb the crematoria at Auschwitz [Oswiecim in Polish] and the railway lines leading there. Such actions would have significantly delayed the ongoing mass murder process. Here is the relevant excerpt from Netanyahu's speech:

Some commentators would have you believe that stopping Iran from getting the bomb is more dangerous than letting Iran have the bomb.

They say that a military confrontation with Iran would undermine the efforts already underway, that it would be ineffective, and that it would provoke even more vindictive action by Iran. I’ve heard these arguments before. In fact, I’ve read them before. In my desk, I have copies of an exchange of letters between the World Jewish Congress and the US War Department. The year was 1944. The World Jewish Congress implored the American government to bomb Auschwitz. The reply came five days later. I want to read it to you. Such an operation could be executed only by diverting considerable air support essential to the success of our forces elsewhere…..and in any case would be of such doubtful efficacy that it would not warrant the use of our resources….And here’s the most remarkable sentence of all. And I quote: Such an effort might provoke even more vindictive action by the Germans. Think about that – “even more vindictive action” — than the Holocaust. [full text of speech here-- texts of letters to & from War Dept here]

Now just who was in charge of the executive branch of the US Government at that time, 1944? Who was ultimately responsible for the conduct of the war and for the setting of war aims? Who was the commander-in-chief of US armed forces in WW2? Yes, it was none other than the same Franklin Delano Roosevelt to whom Obama and his flunkeys compare him in order to place him on the same pedestal of idolization on which FDR has unjustly remained since his death. If the comparison is valid, it is not to Obama's credit.

This is not meant as an endorsement of Republicans. The president at the time of the Holocaust was not a Republican, however, but a Democrat. He was indeed idolized by millions of Americans including most Jews at the time. We can't know what a Republican president would have done if there had been one at the time. We do know that representatives and senators of both the Democratic & Republican parties were sympathetic to the Jews during the Shoah. One of the notable ones being Hugh Scott, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, later a senator. Scott was instrumental in bringing news of the Holocaust to the American public through a discussion with a volunteer with the Bergson Group to whom Scott provided little known information. Yet the Dulles family, Allen, John Foster and Eleanor, who held influential offices in the US Government and were also Republicans, were not sympathetic. But clearly, Jews cannot trust Democrats, especially when their lips overflow with generalities and platitudes about stopping atrocities and genocide.

Arab Prisoner of Arabs Says No Human Rights in Arab World

The usual suspects, Amnesty International and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-Moon, have been making the expected hypocritical comparisons of Gilad Shalit's treatment to that of the 1000 Arab prisoners, including hundreds of mass murderous terrorists, who were released today in a trade for Gilad Shalit. Ban, who is supposed to be neutral as UN secretary-general, made a equivalence, just like Amnesty did. How curious!! He told Reuters today:

"I am very encouraged by the prisoner exchange today after many many years of negotiation," Secretary-General Ban told Reuters today. "The United Nations has been calling for (an end to) the unacceptable detention of Gilad Shalit and also the release of all Palestinians whose human rights have been abused all the time."[UN Watch]

Omri Ceren summarizes the Amnesty statement [here]. More pro-Hamas propaganda. That is, more propaganda that equates the mass murderers of Hamas with the civilized state of Israel:

But Amnesty’s statement on the Shalit trade, titled “Israel-Hamas prisoner swap casts harsh light on detention practices of all sides,” is a barrel-scraping embarrassment even by the organization’s notoriously low standards. The vast majority of the press release is handed over to criticizing Israeli detention policies, while a grand total of two paragraphs are spent condemning Shalit’s ordeal.

Shalit’s name does not even appear below the fifth paragraph of the 20-paragraph statement, while alleged Israeli human rights violations- relevant to the swap or not – are repeatedly noted. Israel is explicitly and twice accused of Geneva violations.

Amnesty's statement is, again, clever propaganda.

NGO Monitor explains that neither Amnesty nor the ineptly named Human Rights Watch raised its voice in over five years of Shalit's incarceration under conditions illegal by int'l law. That is, he was not allowed any visits by the Red Cross [ICRC] nor was he allowed into the sunshine nor, it seems, outdoor exercise. Apparently, he was kept underground. We know about the lack of sunshine since it has been reported that he has a Vitamin D deficiency, a result of not getting sunshine [Ayala Hasson on Israel TV Channel 1 tonight]. Other so-called "human rights groups" too failed to demand that Shalit be treated according to the international law of war regarding prisoners.

On the other hand, let's hear the testimony of an Arab --a Palestinian Arab in fact-- who was the prisoner of an Arab regime. Ashraf al-Hajouj was a physician held prisoner in Libya for 8 1/2 years by the Qaddafi regime, along with 5 Bulgarian nurses. They were all charged with deliberately inoculating 438 Libyan children with AIDS virus in the Benghazi pediatric hospital. Dr Hajouj and the nurses were released in July 2007 by the intervention of President Nicolas Sarkozy of France. Hajouj said after his release:

In the Arab world, there are no human rights. . .
En el mundo arabe no hay derechos humanos. . .
[El Pais, 26 July 2007; tambien Pagina/12]

He spoke of

the corruption that rots away at Libya and many other [Arab] countries.

Since he had been brought to Libya when he was two years old and raised there, he was bitter over how the Libyans treated him:

I always considered Libya my country. . . If [Libya and the family members of the children who got AIDS] seek the truth about the AIDS contagion, they will have to look away from us [himself and the Bulgarian nurses] because we are all innocent. [El Pais, 26 July 2007]

Al-Hajouj was apparently abandoned by the PLO/PA who did not defend him or the nurses against the silly charges of deliberately infecting the children. Nor did the Arab League defend him. So he was granted Bulgarian citizenship and went to Sofia, capital of Bulgaria, after his release. Only al-Hajouj and two of the nurses --out of five-- were well enough to talk to the press. "We have returned from hell to paradise," one of the nurses said. "Only God knows that I will show the whole world that we were always innocent," Dr al-Hajouj added. One nurse tried to commit suicide because she could not tolerate the torture she underwent, including electrical shocks. Another nurse said that their first year was the worst when the women were kept in a tiny room in a police station with one single mattress as their only furniture. In that year they were allowed four visits with diplomats from the Bulgarian embassy -- but they were not allowed to talk to the diplomats. The husband of one of the women was also living in Benghazi. He too was incarcerated but only for five years up to 2004. After that, since he was not allowed to leave the country, he stayed in the Bulgarian embassy until leaving Libya at the same time as his wife.

The five nurses and the physician were taken into the elite military hospital in Sofia for a physical and psychological check up. The director of the hospital, General Stoyan Tonev, stated that they were suffering "submarine sailors syndrome," which affects people who have lived "enclosed for a long time in small spaces under bad conditions."

So it seems that these six prisoners in Libya were held under conditions closer to those of Shalit than to those of the terrorist prisoners in Israel. But Amnesty, Ban Ki Moon and HRW want to draw a false moral equivalence between how Israel treats prisoners and how Hamas treats prisoners. Recall that Shalit was never allowed a visit by the Red Cross, as required by the international law of war.

During part of the time of the nurses' and the Arab physician's imprisonment in Libya, Libya held the chairmanship of the UN Human Rights Commission. One does not suppose that the Commission ever criticized Libya on account of how the nurses and the physician were being treated.

fake hr outfit hrw drops its mask, raising dough in saudiarabia by promising to fight israel, downplaying saudi hr cirimes

The fake "human rights" outfit, "human rights watch," has lately hit a new low. It sent a delegation to Saudi Arabia of all places to raise funds, telling the Saudis of how eagerly they had smeared Israel's good name over the Gaza war in January of this year. This fund-raising mission was written up in the Arab News published in Saudi Arabia. The Arab News report was then discovered by NGO Monitor which was shocked by the blatant hypocrisy of raising funds to fight alleged Israeli violations of human rights by seeking donors in Saudi Arabia, a land where the laws explicitly deny human rights, instead embodying traditional Islamic supremacy which has long oppressed scores of millions, indeed hundreds of millions of non-Muslims since the Muslim conquests began in the seventh century.

The controversy ensuing on the revelations of hrw's unscrupulous acts was covered by NGO Monitor, by a column in the Wall Street Journal, by Jeffrey Goldberg's blog in the Atlantic Monthly, and on many web sites including Augean Stables. It is interesting in this context to note that at least two Saudi government officials were present at one of the hrw fund-raising meetings in Riyadh, according to the admission of Kenneth Roth, HRW executive director. Note the cutesy deceit employed by hrw when referring to Saudi Arabia.

The organization recently called on the Kingdom to do more to protect the human rights of domestic workers [in the Arab News report].

As far as I know, the Wahhabi Kingdom of Saudi Arabia violates the human rights of domestic workers, particularly foreigners, rather than protecting them. Indeed, wealthy Saudis belonging to the kingdom's elite often have slaves. One Saudi couple brought a young girl as a slave with them to live in the United States, in Colorado, I think. This was discovered a few years ago and the couple had to go to jail. Seems to me that the Saudis have an awful lot of human rights improvement to do right there in the kingdom before they point their fingers at Jews whose human rights are rather explicitly rejected by Saudi law.

Here are several links on the issue which I will follow with my own comments made first on Augean Stables.
1. The Arab News report here

2. The first NGO Monitor report here.

3. The CAMERA report ici, later CAMERA report [7-28-2009]

4. Law professor David Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal.

5. Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic [qui] . Goldberg also interviewed Kenneth Roth, executive director of hrw, who revealed that two Saudi govt officials were at one of the fund-raising sessions.

We certainly weren't soliciting Saudi government funds and would never take them. As for whether any government people were there, the closest was a guy from the national human rights commission and someone from the Shura Council

Now, isn't Roth being just a bit too disingenuous? Isn't the very presence of govt officials [one from the human rights commission no less!] in a state that violates human rights regularly in accord with its own laws compromising when the emphasis of the fund-raising appeal was Israel's alleged hr violations, not those of Saudi Arabia, which I repeat rejects the very idea of human rights??

6. NGO Monitor article of May 27, 2009, report of 16 June 2009 and NGO Monitor fact sheet on hrw & fresh article by NGO Monitor director, Gerald Steinberg כאן

7. Posts and discussion threads on the Augean Stables blog on this issue.
a) here - b) aqui c) ici

Here are some of my own comments on the hrw/Saudi scandal first made on Augean Stables:

Here’s a sincerity test for whitson and roth. Whitson says the following, insinuating that she may have harshly criticized Saudi anti-human rights policies while in the kingdom. [In an interview with the Jerusalem Post,]

Whitson dismissed the impression left in the Arab News report that the organization’s sales pitch in Saudi Arabia had been based on its work slamming Israel, saying there was Saudi press censorship, and it was clear that HRW’s work in Gaza was the angle that the authorities in Riyadh would want to highlight.
Most of this sentence is true enough and I agree that the Riyadh govt would want to highlight critiques of Israel. But, if she did criticize Saudi practices and policies, and such criticism was omitted from the Arab News report, then why did she not make it forcefully clear once she had returned to the USA that she strongly disapproved of the ban on religious worship other than Muslim worship in Saudi Arabia [isn’t this an HR issue?] and she disapproved of the severe limits on women’s freedom, and cruel treatment of foreign workers, especially, but not only, non-Muslims, etc???
Since she did not make such a critical attitude towards Saudi practices clear once she had come back to the US [as far as I know], one must assume that she had little if anything to say about these matters while in the kingdom. Hence, her insinuation about omissions in the Arab News Report was meant to mislead, that is, to lie.

I would go further. Why do we hear so much about HRW “reports” and “critiques” of Israeli policy in the media but so little, if any, about “reports” and critiques of Arab regimes practices, including those of Saudi Arabia, which is near an extreme even within the Arab world?? Then, in the course of criticizing alleged Israeli violations in Gaza, has hrw ever discussed the anti-human rights implications of the Hamas charter [inc. Article 7] which now governs Gaza??

RL sarcastically remarks, “And, of course, the HRW fundraisers paid no attention to Saudi preferences.” Obviously. Further, making a funds appeal to the Saudis on the grounds of HRW’s leading role in anti-Israel propaganda or, if you like, “information” warfare or agitprop or perhaps “public spirited, disinterested, testimony to Congress based purely on principled concerns, already shows a bias on hrw’s part. That is, stressing anti-Israel efforts to Saudi donors implies that hrw has taken sides.

One of the problems here is that the US MSM are already in the pockets of the anti-Israel, pro-Arab forces in the establishment.

By the way, while we’re on the subject of HR policies by Arabs govts, what about genocide going on in the Sudan since independence in 1956?

To continue:

The Hamas charter is clearly a pro-genocide document. This is very clear in Article 7, which quotes a medieval Muslim Hadith fable foretelling the genocide of the Jews at Judgement Day, a genocide to be performed by Muslims. The loyal Muslim, reading that fable, might logically ask, Why wait till Judgement Day. Now, if HRW still considers genocide an offense against HR, if it ever did, then Hamas’s pro-genocide position ought to be taken into account in any treatment of the Gaza War of January 2009. In other words, Hamas is a political/religious body that is blatantly opposed to human rights. The Gaza War has to be seen in that light.

Since HR are supposed to be universal, then opposing Jews’ HR means opposing HR as such. Also, supporting Hamas means opposing Jews’ HR. This applies to HRW’s wealthy Saudi donors too, obviously. Now, we come to another point, which no doubt bothers many critics of HRW. Was hrw’s ostensible concern for “civilians” in Gaza merely a pretext for supporting Hamas’ war against Israel, Hamas’ genocidal war on Israel??? No doubt, this belief caused some previous hrw donors to stop funding the fake HR body. I have not closely examined hrw’s indictment of Israel regarding that war. However, if hrw accepted false claims made by Hamas and other Arab interested parties that members of the Hamas armed forces [inc. the Hamas Gaza police] were “civilians”, then hrw not only lacks credibility but is consciously supporting Hamas’ genocidal efforts. This is because various sources identified persons claimed by name by Hamas and other Arab sources as civilians as being in fact Hamas policemen or members of other Hamas armed forces. Hamas had even claimed that commanders of its armed forces that had been killed were civilians. Since such claims by Hamas were belied, then hrw is taking the Hamas side by accepting its claims.

Next, what are the human rights bona fides of hrw’s Saudi donors? Are they supporters in good faith of human rights in Saudi Arabia while living in luxury in their palaces in Riyahdh, with their servants, foreign and domestic –or slaves, dare we ask?? Do these people accept the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the UN, for example??? Or do they adhere to the Cairo Declaration of human rights in Islam, which is a clearly anti-hr manifesto??? More particularly, do these donors accept the traditional Islamic doctrine that Jews are not only kufar [unbelievers] but the worst of unbelievers?? That Jews are destined to be humiliated by Muslims, slaughtered at Judgement Day, etc?? Do they agree with the endorsement of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion in the Hamas charter??

In short, I would like to see proof in both word and deed that the Saudi donors to hrw are supporters of human rights as such, and not merely cleverly using HR against Jews and Israel. Until Whitson and Roth supply convincing indications about the hr commitment of their Saudi donors, then whitson, roth and hrw should be considered human rights fakers.

--end of my comments on Augean Stables--

To sum up about hrw's Saudi donors. Here are a few questions for hrw to answer about them:
Did or do hrw's Saudi benefactors acknowledge the humanity of Jews; are these contributors in Saudi Arabia people who believe in universal humanity? In the humanity of Jews in particular?
Or do hrw's Saudi donors believe in regime propaganda, in the Saudi school system, in the official Saudi Wahhabite creed which dehumanizes sectarian Muslims, let alone Jews and other non-believers in Islam?
Do the Saudi benefactors of hrw accept the Islamic prejudices against Jews that go back to the early days of Islam?

Or do they just see the utility and expediency in smearing Israel with the fake "human rights" brush?

As far as hrw is concerned, what has it done for violations of the human rights of Jews?? This is a big subject, but let us just ask about the human rights of Jonathan Pollard. Did hrw ever defend his rights? Pollard received a sentence that violates the 8th Amendment to the US Constitution which forbids "cruel and unusual punishments." Pollard life sentence --in practice-- is much longer than that of other persons convicted of espionage by the United States. Where was the voice of hrw to protest this miscarriage of justice?

Of course, our fake "human rights" outfit, hrw, went to Saudi Arabia in order to raise money against Israel. They did not ask for money for general human rights advocacy but for anti-Israel advocacy in particular. So the human rights of some are more equal than the hr of others.

Now, far be it from me to criticize HRW alone and neglect other phoney "human rights" outfits. Another one is Amnesty International. Here is a truly shocking example of "amnesty" deploring a film against stoning of women in Iran. This film exposed the ugly reality of that phenomenon. In short, amnesty international defends hr violations, provided that authorized human rights violators do the violating. In this case, the government of Iran and Muslim bigots there are allowed to violate the human rights of women.

"Human Rights" is very often a corrupt racket, just a political, propaganda club for beating designated targets, like Israel, while Hamas and Iranian Muslim bigots are allowed to get away with it.

So-Called "human rights" NGOs Betray Gilad Shalit

The record of so-called "human rights" NGOs in regard to the rights of Gilad Shalit is shockingly inhumane. The "NGOs" have regularly disregarded his plight, although some have issued statements from time to time in his favor while often exploiting the occasion to heap even stronger accusations on Israel for its alleged violations of rights.

Gil`ad Shalit is an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas and allied forces in Gaza in June 2006 and held incomunicado since then [if he is still alive]. Part of the reason for the neglect by these NGOs lies in the fraud contained in their name -- NGO. These initials stand for "non-governmental organization." However, the name is fraudulent. Most of these "NGOs" get funding and political direction from governments. And if governmental funding is minimal or non-existent, they still take their political direction from governments. They are not committed first and foremost to the lofty goals that they ostensibly espouse. Amnesty International for instance has its headquarters in London and seems to take political direction from the UK govt intelligence services, although certain American intelligence services may also have some input on Amnesty.

It should be borne in mind that Amnesty made a drastic change in its stated principles some 20 years ago. Originally, when founded in the 1960s, Amnesty championed "prisoners of conscience," that is, political prisoners who DID NOT advocate violence or the violent revolutionary overthrow of their governments. This principle was replaced about 20 years ago by one that approved of aiding advocates of violence.

In any case, it is obvious that governments have their interests which they pursue by various means. These means may not be in harmony with human rights or civil rights or peace. However, using an ostensible NGO may be effective as a kind of unofficial diplomacy which hides behind lofty liberal slogans in order to reach goals and serve interests that may be diametrically opposed to liberal and universal principles. The UK secret services have long been masters at these techniques of dissembling and disguise. The Arab/Muslim techniques of kasb and taqiyyah and kitman cannot begin to be compared in effectiveness to the sophisticated means and techniques developed by the UK.

NGO Monitor has helpfully documented NGO inaction, neglect, and bad faith in the Shalit Affair, while also spelling out Shalit's rights under international law. For our previous posts on the Shalit Affair see here & here & here & here & here & here.

Betrayed by Silence: NGOs ignore Gilad Shalit´s rights
NGO Monitor
March 26, 2009

The evidence plainly demonstrates that Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs, despite NGO claims to the contrary. There is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights.
Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have made only infrequent references to Shalit. These are always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."
After NGO Monitor publicized this issue, Amnesty published a report entitled "Detainees used as bargaining chips by both sides in Israel/Gaza conflict." The authors drew an absurd parallel between the Shalit family situation and Palestinian families whose visiting rights to prisoners were limited.
Most Israeli groups - PHR-I, Gisha, Yesh Din, and ACRI - have published one or two statements in support of Shalit. (As expected, Palestinian groups that claim to promote human rights have a similar record. )
B'Tselem’s minimal comments on Shalit's predicament contrast with the frequency and emphasis on allegations of Israeli "violations of international law."
Introduction:

On March 15, 2009, to mark 1000 days since his kidnapping, NGO Monitor issued a press release about Gilad Shalit, "highlight[ing] the almost total silence and inaction of human rights NGOs over his fate," in particular Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch (HRW), and B'Tselem. Shalit has been held captive in Gaza since June, 25 2006 without access for the International Committee of the Red Cross, in direct contravention of the Geneva Convention. During this period, when international and Israeli NGOs published hundreds of reports and press releases alleging Israeli "war crimes," especially regarding Gaza, only a handful of statements addressed Shalit's plight, despite the irrefutable, ongoing violation of his rights. As the evidence plainly demonstrates – though these organizations do not dispute the grave violation of his rights – Gilad Shalit is not a high priority for human rights NGOs.

Shalit's Rights:
International humanitarian law was enacted to guarantee the rights and protections of prisoners of war. The Third Geneva Convention lays out these rights unequivocally: the right to humane treatment (article 13); the right to have knowledge of a POW's location (article 23); the right to send and receive letters and cards on a monthly basis (article 71); the right to unfettered access to the Red Cross (article 126), and others.

Inadequate NGO "campaigns" on behalf of Gilad Shalit
Despite claims to the contrary, there is no evidence that NGOs have undertaken sustained campaigns in support of Shalit's rights or calling for his release. Instead, some NGOs have published occasional statements (tending to correspond to the one-year and 1000 day anniversaries of Shalit's capture), while others have ignored Shalit completely. Additionally, many NGO reports mention Shalit to condemn Israel for counterterrorism measures taken in the aftermath of his capture; Israel is accused of "war crimes," while Shalit's rights are erased.Amnesty International – Relative to HRW and Israeli NGOs, Amnesty International has taken a slightly more active interest in Gilad Shalit. Since June 2006, Amnesty has published 33 "urgent actions" relating to Israel and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. None has addressed Gilad Shalit. But according to a news report, "Amnesty International has been working with the Shalit family," and Amnesty's Philip Luther claimed that "the Shalit case... had been taken up as a campaign by group members." At the same time, Amnesty's official mechanisms for confronting rights violations, including global "appeals for action," and press releases and reports that are widely adopted by the international media, have largely been silent on Gilad Shalit. When Amnesty does call for the protection of his rights, it is always in the context of condemning Israel for "war crimes," "wanton destruction," and "collective punishment."

Read Rest of Article Here.

So why do the NGOs overlook the scandal of Hamas holding Shalit incomunicado for nearly three years? Probably this is because the major "human rights" NGOs represent --unofficially-- governments that support the Arab cause, the Hamas cause, against Israel --at least unofficially-- and therefore supporting Shalit would distract from the main message of support for Arabs against Israel, against Jews, for Arab/Muslim terrorism, etc.

What should Israel's government do in this situation? It should not negotiate over Shalit's return without seeing him. That could be photos of him taken by and with Red Cross [IRCR] personnel. In other words, first we have to know with our own eyes that he is alive. Olmert's govt betrayed us before by releasing a live criminal scum in return for the dead bodies of two Israeli soldiers, Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. If Hamas refuses to allow access, then that is a serious violation of international law and should lead to denial of humanitarian services to those in the Hamas-ruled territory. After all, reciprocity is also part of int'l law. Further, governments that have come close to recognizing Hamas [UK, EU] or have already done so [Norway], should be publicly scolded for doing so. Why not expel the Norwegian ambassador and downgrade the state of Israeli diplomatic relations with Norway, if Norway refuses to break its relations with Hamas after an open Hamas refusal of access to Shalit. Indeed, there are many reasons to consider Hamas in violation of int'l law besides holding a prisoner incomunicado. Lowering the level of ties with Norway could also mean reducing the number of Norwegian citizens allowed to operate in Israel, whose operate is to undermine Israel and boost the Arabs. We can go on about this.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: Obama's anti-peace peacemongering, dancing with the ayatollahs, adopting the Commie policy of a "Two State Final Solution," Jerusalem archeology, propaganda analysis, etc.