File this under "Fool me twice and I am the fool . . ." Obama's Holocaust Speech reviewed by a Washington Post contributor.

We are all asking, "Don't American Jews care about their homeland?"  The question remains open and unanswered. This review, by an American Jew who does care,  frames the concerns thinking people have regarding Barack Hussein and his stance with regard to human rights,  the world over.

A conservative Jewish blogger,  Jennifer Rubin, addressed some thoughts concerning Obama's self-serving Holocaust Speech (Monday, April 23). You can read her full article at the Washington Post.  I have included her most salient points,  in the comments below.  Obviously,  Obama's speech was little more than a campaign gimmick.  We all know of Obama's angst with Israel, but, on this occasion (yesterday),  Obama waxed eloquent, building on the theme that he is the most "pro-Israel" president of all time.

Rubin includes Obama's word:   

Last year, in the first-ever presidential directive on this challenge, I made it clear that “preventing mass atrocities and genocide is a core national security interest and a core moral responsibility of the United States of America.”

 and follows up these strikingly critical comments  (highlights are mine):

He goes on to list actions in Sudan, Ivory Coast, Libya and Central Africa. But what about the big stuff, you know, in Russia (he congratulated Vladimir Putin after he stole an election and is fighting legislation to bar entry to human-rights abusers), China (where human rights have gone from horrible to atrocious), Egypt (where we refuse to cut off aid), Iran (where we snubbed the Green Revolution), North Korea (which we were prepared to ply with aid) and Syria? On the last, Obama proclaimed that “it tears at our conscience. Elie alluded to what we feel as we see the Syrian people subjected to unspeakable violence, simply for demanding their universal rights. And we have to do everything we can.” But we don’t. We don’t take military action. We don’t insist Syria be kicked out of international bodies. And we cheer Kofi Annan, who goes to Damascus to work out a “cease-fire” that leaves the mass murderer Bashar al-Assad [the Syrian president] in power.

Obama has now (after three-plus years) come up with another fig leaf: “We’re making sure that the United States government has the structures, the mechanisms to better prevent and respond to mass atrocities. So I created the first-ever White House position dedicated to this task. It’s why I created a new Atrocities Prevention Board, to bring together senior officials from across our government to focus on this critical mission. This is not an afterthought.” That’s it — another committee! But it’s not an afterthought, mind you. And another report! (“The intelligence community will prepare, for example, the first-ever National Intelligence Estimate on the risk of mass atrocities and genocide.” To those in the national intelligence community: The risk of mass atrocities is going up under this president.)

The gap between Obama’s words and actions in the realm of democracy promotion and human rights is so vast it is a wonder those in attendance did not burst into laughter — or tears. If there is a failing on his part of greater moral significance than his dismal performance on human rights, I’m at a loss to recall it. For Obama, “never again” has all too often become “never lead” and “never stop engaging tyrants.”

More editorial notes:  
We agree with the author.  Obama, apparently, believes that he can create or appoint any number of committee entities,  none of which have ever made a headline or held a single meeting,  and put them forward as proof that he cares about the politically imprisoned, persecuted and abused, the world over.  His refusal to offer any kind of help to those trapped in the Green Revolution (2009 - Iran) comes to mind.  We add those murdered and imprisoned by Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez to his Iranian failure. And, what of the killing off of the  Christian community in Muslim nations throughout the Middle East?  Surely "Christians" are deserving of the same  protections given [supposedly] the Libyan revolutionaries and Egyptian freedom fighters.  More than all this,  domestically,  he has done nothing to turn down the hate rhetoric coming from the militant black community, appearing to prefer the trash talk of Farrakhan and Al Sharpton to any sort of national campaign that would bring us all together.  Many describe Obama as the most partisan president in modern times.  I prefer the word "raciest"  or "anti-colonialist,"  believing his angst is shared by those blacks who continue to tout ancient social injuries.  

Understand that Obama is half white, raised in a white home by grandparents who feared the black man (or so Obama says in campaign speeches in 2008),  having a polygamous father who deserted him and a white tradition he did not condone.  His social theory was framed by Jeremiah Wright.  His politic was defined by radical Marxist reformers living in his Chicago neighborhood and the Leftist at his Harvard Law School.  

And now,  in 2012,  he wants to convince us that he is what we all know he is not.  Can he fool enough people to win re-election?  Only if those he "fools" do not really care about this wonder country.