Irena Sendler, a Catholic Woman of Extraordinary Valor

Sunday was Holocaust Memorial Day, and this is also a time when the good name of the Catholic Church is under a withering attack owing to criminal acts perpetrated by a small number of abusive priests upon helpless children. Although there are those in the Vatican who would blame the "New York Jewish lobby" for creating this scandal (they seem not to care that columnist Maureen Dowd was raised as a Catholic, and Arthur Sulzberger, chairman of The New York Times Company, was raised as an Episcopalian), and there are those in the Jewish community who have reacted rightfully with furor over this slander, this is exactly the time to remember Irena Sendler, a Catholic woman of extraordinary valor, who saved the lives of 2,500 Jewish children in the Warsaw Ghetto from certain death.

Irena, born in 1910, joined the Żegota resistance in Poland, and owing to her work with the Warsaw Social Welfare Department, she was able to enter the ghetto to check for signs of typhus. Irena smuggled Jewish children out of the ghetto in crates, boxes and suitcases and hid them with Polish families and Catholic convents and rectories. She made lists of the children's former and assumed names and promised that after the war they would be returned to their families.

Arrested by the Gestapo in 1943, she was tortured and left for dead in the woods with broken limbs. Irena was forced to go into hiding until the end of the war, but immediately thereafter sought to reunite the Jewish children whom she saved with those of their parents who remained alive (90% of Polish Jewry was exterminated by the Nazis).

According to the Jewish Talmud, "To save one life is as if you have saved the world." If such is the case, Irena saved an entire "universe", and in 1965 she was named by Yad Vashem, the Holocaust Martyrs' and Heroes' Remembrance Authority in Jerusalem, as a Righteous among the Nations.

In 2007, at the age of 97, she was nominated to receive the Nobel Peace Prize; however, as we all know today, following its recent award to President Obama, who has systematically ignored violations of human rights in the Congo, Iran, China, Tibet, Syria and Darfur, this prize has lost its luster.

I stand in awe of Irena, who passed away in May 2008, and pray that one day she will be declared a saint by her church. Meanwhile, she stands as a symbol of transcendent humanity, enduring faith, immeasurable courage and irrepressible love in these troubled times.

An Obsequious New York Times Lauds Nobel Award to Obama

The New York Times, in an editorial entitled "The Peace Prize", lauds the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to Obama. The Times notes:

"There cannot have been unbridled joy in the White House early Friday. Mr. Obama’s aides had to expect a barrage of churlish reaction, and they got it. The left denounced the Nobel committee for giving the prize to a wartime president. The right proclaimed that Mr. Obama sold out the United States by engaging in diplomacy."

I am curious how The Times perceives itself. The Times is certainly not right wing, but do they really delude themselves into believing that their world view and "culture" are middle-of-the-road?

My online response to this editorial, which was censored, as were my prior unrelated online comments:

I am planning an epic, 1,000-page novel, intended to be a best seller on all continents, which will address poverty, education, war, famine, global warming, racism and universal health care. I started writing two weeks ago, and my agent is voicing optimism. Would someone care to submit my nomination to the committee for the Nobel Prize for literature?

The Times has a special relationship with Obama. Although The Times initially endorsed Hillary during the Democratic primaries, when the Obama candidacy became viable, it was patently obvious whom their editorial board and many of their op-ed writers were supporting. My online comments, critical of Obama, in response to idolatry op-eds, were not infrequently censored.

The Times, not surprisingly, was quick to come to Obama's defense when his foreign policy was criticized by The Washington Post, and shortly thereafter The Times was chosen by Obama as the vehicle for the publication of an op-ed written by him or, more likely, by someone on his behalf.

Similarly, it is not at all surprising how The Times editorial board has now sought to rationalize away the award of the Nobel Peace Prize.

There needs to be a "tension" between the press and the executive branch of a democracy, and newspapers should avoid being perceived as the "official organs" of political parties. Sure, The Times has its token conservative op-ed writers, but it nevertheless should examine the umbilical cord still extending to the Obama administration, notwithstanding the fact that Obama is already president for more than the ordinary gestation period of nine months. Meanwhile, praise of Obama's Nobel Prize served to cheapen whatever remains of our world and probably amounted to another step by this newspaper in its path to self-destruction.

Hillary to Run Against Obama in 2012, But Meanwhile "Out of Sight, Out of Mind"

It is commonly said, "Out of sight, out of mind." However, one also often hears "Absence makes the heart grown fonder." Which of these two contrary truisms best characterizes Obama's attitude toward Hillary? Clearly the former: Obama prefers to keep her "Out of sight, out of mind" vis-à-vis the general electorate.

While Obama wrestles this week with his generals' demands for higher troop levels in Afghanistan, Hillary is off on a whirlwind magical mystery tour, which, inter alia, includes a visit to Kazan, Russia, to discuss interfaith cooperation, and to watch a signing ceremony in Zurich, marking the normalization of relations between Turkey and Armenia following Armenian occupation of Nagorno-Karabakh some 16 years ago. What could possibly be more important? Certainly not U.S. troop levels in Afghanistan.

Will Hillary run against Obama in 2012 if she senses that he's vulnerable? Count on it. She won't forget this trip to Kazan anytime soon.

But will Obama be vulnerable in 2012? It's still early, but Americans are getting wise to him, and Axelrod knows it. Note the recent skit on Saturday Night Live.

Note also that although his approval ratings, after plummeting, have now stabilized, it was recently reported that among U.S. Jews, who were some of his staunchest supporters, his approval ratings have fallen dramatically (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119449.html). Response: Blame Israeli incitement (http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1119819.html). Obama is still busy doing what he does best, i.e. campaigning, rather than governing.

The Nobel Peace Prize after ten months of accomplishing nothing? The award's prestige has been immeasurably cheapened. However, I am very much in favor of nominating Obama for the "Best Actor" Oscar in 2010. He hasn't yet appeared in a movie? Why should that possibly matter given his innate talent and potential?

My bet: In 2012 the U.S. electorate, after being smacked in the face by reality, will be asked to chose between two additional conflicting truisms: "Turn the other cheek", or, "Slap me once, shame on you; slap me twice, shame on me."