The American Spectator : Heck of a Ride

Text Size

Heck of a Ride

By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 6.10.10 @ 6:08AM

Helen Thomas now knows what a difference a single word can make.

WASHINGTON — That did not take long. Helen Thomas says Israelis should “get the hell out of Palestine” and should return to Germany, Poland, and the USA, and poof she is gone. She does not even leave a trace. Was it the rough language or was it the offense to our ally, Israel? I think it was the rough language. The remarks toward Israel were to be expected. If she had only said heck she might have stayed.

Her present employer, Hearst News Service, announced her retirement. She has made a valiant effort to stay. She said on her personal website three days before that her words “do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.” Yet the damage had been done the day before, and so she was no more. Let that be a lesson to all young reporters. Say heck.

The speakers agency that handled her, Nine Speakers, had dropped her during the weekend. The high school that had her scheduled to speak, Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, canceled her. Even the White House chimed in calling her remarks “offensive and reprehensible.”

The Israelis should not feel badly. Helen pops off lines like this all the time. I recall a dinner with her back in 1994. Former President George H.W. Bush was our host. She was her ingratiating self. Then she looked me in the eye, and said: “You’ve got to admit. He is a very dear man.” “Who Helen,” I enquired. “Bill Clinton. He is a very dear man.” Well, yes, I guess that is true if you don’t get too close.

There was a very suggestive interview with Helen Thomas by the late Tim Russert back in 2007, that suggests her pull on official Washington and tells you much about her politics. After all, it was ten or so minutes on CNBC.

Asked about Ronald Reagan, she was deceptive. “Well it was interesting,” she observed. She found him “very, very, likeable,” but “He definitely had an agenda, and was a social Darwinist, ‘If you can’t make it, tough.’ Was, you know, survival of the fittest, this is the whole approach.”

As to why she said that Bush II was the worst president, she replied, “Well, at that time, I could see that we were going into a war, an unprovoked war, a pre-emptive war with Iraq, and I was very upset with that because I thought it was the wrong move. And just all of you, you know, the lack of understanding about what was really going on in the Middle East and everywhere else.”

But there was still Clinton to keep the home fires burning: “Well, I think there was a lot of excitement. But I think the Clintons had suffered a lot on the campaign trail and they had a lot of chips on their shoulders about the press. So I think there was a lot of excitement, but I think that the President and Mrs. Clinton didn’t feel that the press was exactly with them.” Syntax was never Helen Thomas’s greatest strength, but you get her drift. Republicans are bad; Democrats good.

At the very end Russert turns to the Middle East. She is asked if her Middle Eastern background affected her thoughts on the area. “Of course,” she says. “I mean, how would I know as much as I do now about the Middle East, and how would by that interested? [Syntax again?] But that doesn’t mean I’m unfair. I do think it’s wrong to take somebody else’s land and displace them.”

So it was not anything about Israel that got her canned. It was that dread word hell. Journalists had best use heck. They can say what they want about Israel.

About the Author

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (161) | Leave a comment Leave a comment

Kelly Staples| 6.10.10 @ 6:27AM

To heck with her.

Dan Frano| 6.10.10 @ 5:40PM

Thomas is not Jewish, she is Lebanese (as in Danny Thomas) , and sooner or later all repressed hate must vent.

I only wish this had happened 30 yrs. ago.

Ralph Averill| 6.10.10 @ 5:59PM

How is it hatred, repressed or otherwise, to point out the injustice of forcibly removing an entire people from their homeland, upon which they had lived for thousands of years, to atone for the sins of others? How many Jews did the Palestinians burn in the ovens of Dachau and Buchenwald and Auschwitz? How many Jews were killied or dispossessed by Palestinians in the Russian pogroms?
There were no concentration camps in Palestine, until 1948. Then, they were filled with Palestinians.

DebateRight| 6.10.10 @ 6:48PM

Ralph, it would be good if you actually study history, then perhaps you wouldn't fall fall for this 'forcibly removing an entire people from their homeland" crap.

befitz| 6.10.10 @ 10:41PM

jeeze, you sound like a disenfranchised american indian. How many Celts and Norse did your ancestry destroy to inhabit that little rock you call home? And what about the destruction of my people (I'm Irish) that your people haven't owned up to? Quit pissing in the past and get over yourself. Darwin is right.

Anne| 6.10.10 @ 11:46PM

Yes, Ralph those camps were filled with Palestinians built by their brother Arabs.

Yechielshlipshon| 6.11.10 @ 8:57PM

Dear friends of Israel,and of our Democracy;

Thank you. It is not often that a distant nation/people have so much impact, in we hope,a positive way, as Israel has and still does. This people survived one of the most vicious attacks on a nation, and upon all the moral and ethical standards we know of, and then proceeded to build a nation. What I am so proud of, is that a great deal of common since is still in the thinking, and they are trying to find a decent way to deal and live with their neighbors. I being Jewish may have something to do with my pride in them, but I am also proud of the Demorcracy in other nations which have a tuff way to go, as India.

As I read your posts, I am aware that many of our citizens want to work with too make the world a better place, and this for everyone. I personally, get disturb when I see fingure pointing at any race, faith, or nation. G-d put us all here, as He is our Father in Heaven, so are you and everyone in this world my (in a spiritual way) siblings. So, my brother and my sister, let us work togather to make it harder for those who want power, not success for all.

Shalom;

Yechiel

California70| 6.12.10 @ 2:08AM

Mr. Averill,
When Israel was given to the Jews, we also wanted to grant a homeland to the Palestinians. They REFUSED it!!

If you know your history, then you will know that Palestine WAS Israel before it was Palestine. Do you know how Palestine got it's name? From Hadrian! Hadrian hated the Jews so much that the refused to call Israel, Israel. Therefore, he decided to call it Palestine! That how!

So let's hear it that the land doesn't belong to the Jews. Mr. Averill, God gave that land to the Jews.. Argue with him.

Baseballguy2001| 6.12.10 @ 10:10PM

Ralph -- It seems to me, that wars used to be about real estate. If you won, you get to keep the land you just fought for. That is, until someone else comes along and takes the territory you just took. Warfare sucks, especially if your side loses.

Ralph Averill| 6.13.10 @ 10:47AM

Anybody care to respond to the three questions in my original post?

Don| 6.13.10 @ 7:58PM

Ralph, you've proven yourself a uninformed fool. Perhaps you should do a little unbiased reading before posting here again.

charles pembroke | 6.11.10 @ 7:30AM

Holy Crap!!!I don't need no stinking website

drudge ette obama| 6.10.10 @ 6:33AM

Somewhere, there is a parallel between health care for the elderly and digging Helen Thomas from the WH press room's front row.

So she thinks that Reagan was a Social Darwinist? Well, that explains why the Israelis control Israel, why the Palestinians are where they are, and why Helen Thomas is spending her days at Home Depot buying 6-packs of daisies.

The real gain here is that now we won't have to suffer through some WH dinner in her honor or read that she got some stinking award for her journalism skills.

Brian Mc| 6.10.10 @ 7:14AM

The dinners and awards are yet to come, and to a nauseous level.

Thomas, a dementedly spiteful and hateful woman on par with Pelosi.

Roman melnyk| 6.10.10 @ 8:03PM

Guess who's coming to( her) dinner? no one!

Anne| 6.10.10 @ 11:52PM

Perhaps she can join her Palestinian sisters and don that black slave shroud termed a burqa. She could have her choice of eye slit or full screen. Do us a favor....chose the screen version.

Bruce Scott| 6.10.10 @ 7:15AM

She' an inexplicably-liked curmudgeon whose appearance made her pitied because her writing is forgettable.

Howard| 6.10.10 @ 8:03AM

Helen Thomas is a miserable human being. If she keeps it up, she is heading straight to heck.

Stephanie| 6.10.10 @ 8:15AM

Enough about this old krone already!
I just wanna know who's gonna take her seat up front in the WH briefing room?

Ret. Marine| 6.10.10 @ 8:30AM

Hear, hear. If anything, I'll lay bets it will be another heck hacker. It's just this admin.'s style don't you think?

Roscoe| 6.10.10 @ 10:07AM

How about like for like? Maureen Dowd?

daddio| 6.10.10 @ 11:08AM

[shudder]

Hockeybik| 6.11.10 @ 8:29AM

Major Garrett

joan| 6.10.10 @ 9:00AM

I think that Helen felt free to speak her truth based on how the Obama administration has acted towards Israel...I'm sure she didn't expect the backlash, especially as this administration has been so anti-israel...good riddance I say - she's been a doddering anti-semite for years...

ojo grande| 6.10.10 @ 9:17AM

The best way to get even with Thomas is to give her White House newsroom's coveted first row seat to a FOX reporter. Oh please...please...please

Tom in Michigan| 6.10.10 @ 11:28AM

It could happen if the other correspondents respect de facto seniority as Fox did vis-à-vis CNN last time a front-row seat was vacated. But, the likelihood of that happening is extremely small. Remember, this Administration has already given a front-row seat to goofy Ed Schultz proving yet again that journalism takes a back seat to ideology with this bunch (Ed Schultz is no more a journalist than I am - actually, even I have more journalism credentials than he does having taken one course in high school).

dd| 6.10.10 @ 4:44PM

The heck you say! We do that and we're all going to heck in a handbasket. My heck! What the heck are you thinking?

Anthony| 6.10.10 @ 9:41AM

Oh Bob, you sure do know how to tickle the ole funny bone. A picture of the lying king and the anti-semite queen. What a pair. The serial liar and the serial apologizer.
Poor Helen, the only Life Time Achievement Award that she seeks is one that will never come. Nope, not even the sexual predator- in- chief harbored the thought of ole Helen snapping her thong for wee Willie.
Clinton may (still?) have been an undisciplined pig, but there are certain mud holes even pigs won't venture in.

Bill| 6.10.10 @ 9:43AM

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

KyMouse| 6.10.10 @ 9:57AM

"She said on her personal website three days before that her words 'do not reflect my heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.'"

Hah! Either her attorney or her publicist said it. Doesn't sound one bit like H.T.

And as for H.T. and Clinton, she was never in any danger of a grope, or rape, from him.

Crawl off onto the ashheap of history, H.

Sheila| 6.10.10 @ 10:20AM

Whatever happened to "I will defend to the death your right to say" something I disagree with ? I guess I'm the only one that sees a first amendment case here. Although I feel the old crone was stupid and senile and should have been put out to pasture decades ago, I do not feel she should have been forced to resign for speaking her opinion, as disgusting as many may find it. It's just another example of PC posturing on the right - like a particular website I shall not name which goes on and on and on about Muslims (for whom I have no love and who I do not believe belong in the United States - uh oh, hate crime alert!!) and freedom of speech, but then calls for rallies to shut down anyone she believes to be antisemitic. Either you believe in free speech, especially speech which may offend someone, or you label it "hate speech" and try to ban it (or get someone canned from their job). It's no different from all these "conservative" websites including American Spectator which oh-s0-carefully monitor comments for anything with even a whiff of "racism" or any other dreaded "ism." Please specify for me where, in the Constitution, it expressly forbids speech which may offend some individual or a particular ethnic, racial, or religious group. I fully expect to be pilloried for this view, particularly by those who will not read (or comprehend) my rational argument but rather seek to tar me with the same brush (you hateful antisemite, you). Thomas is entitled to her opinion, however vile you may believe it to be, and I'm tired of people being drummed out of the public square because of their opinion - this includes racists, sexists, homophobes, and evil all-around-haters like me. Decline and fall.

Bilwick| 6.10.10 @ 12:25PM

Where would the First Amendment come into this, Sheila? I'm unaware she's that she's being prosecuted or fined for what she said.

John Mc| 6.10.10 @ 2:44PM

Let's review the 1st Amendment, shall we?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

The only possible application it has to this situation involves the phrase "Congress shall make no law [...] abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

In this case, that woman was released by a news agency, which the government had no hand in. She can still say whatever she wants, even if noone listens, and she can write (and attempt to get published) whatever she wants, even if noone reads it. Termination of employment IS permitted by public and private institutions when you break their rules, or embarass them. Are you saying that companies have to retain employees no matter what they say or think, however unpopular? You're going to have to get a rewrite on the Constitution for that to happen.

Eric| 6.10.10 @ 4:50PM

Which government doesn't have a hand in a news agency? That's naievity. Helen did more than embarrass them, she outed them. It isn't as if they had her on the payroll for any other reason than her views despite the fact she at long last refused to be vague and deceptive with her language. Her fellow travelers sure understood her all these years.

As far as the first amendment, those last ten words will get you nothing. The courts have denied that right which is why we have a government able to legislate as it sees fit. I count fourteen violations of the constitution and fourteen well authored petitions which will go unheard until we get a congress made up of dutiful citizens instead of cocky narcissists

deejay| 6.11.10 @ 12:21PM

Thank you for your well phrased comments. You hit the nail[s] on the head[s].

Anthony| 6.10.10 @ 8:12PM

Excellent analysis John Mc. Bravo!!

JC| 6.10.10 @ 3:01PM

The whole thing started in 1917 with Great Britain, the League of Nations, and the Rothschild s called the Balfour Declaration. The Jews wanted and got their own state by dividing Palestine without their permission in 1947 with consent of the UN. The very next day Palestine went to war with the now designate State of Israel and they have been fighting since. Food for thought although it can not be changed now; tomorrow the UN will divide your state and declare the part it deems the new home for terrorists; just saying. Ms. Thomas was "fired" for speaking her belief because her belief does not agree with the majority. While I don't agree with her, she has every right to speak her beliefs and I think in her convoluted way she understands more history that most at 90 years old!

David in MA| 6.10.10 @ 3:18PM

Good words, it is nice to see someone in here has & deals with the facts.

Bilwick1| 6.10.10 @ 4:37PM

Not suere what the Balfour Declaration has to do with the non-violation of Ms. Thomas First Amendment rights, but thanks for stopping by.

JC| 6.10.10 @ 4:52PM

We equate Israel with WW II and in actuality the process started long before WW II because the Jewish people AKA: the Rothschild, wanted to be under one roof. It might be well to look at the League of Nations for further info.

Ms. Jones| 6.10.10 @ 3:11PM

I agree 100% with HT's right to express her opinion. However, everyone who has criticized her ALSO has a right to express their opinions in opposition. Journalists are supposed to be unbiased (yeah, I know that's a laugh), or at least appear to be so. HT's remarks revealed her anti-semitic bias, which, in my opinion, is the reason Hearst "retired" her.

JC| 6.10.10 @ 5:01PM

Ms. Thomas is Arabic and believes taking land from Palestine & giving it to Israel is the whole problem. Does she think they can "go home"; not really I don't believe. If you read history, the war started the very next day, you will find many at the time thought the same as Ms. Thomas. Why when someone disagrees with Jews is it anti-semitic? Because people do not agree with our Pope I don't think they hate Catholics! There is no doubt taking the land away from Palestinians caused the war but it can not be undone and we can't seem to find peace.

Charles| 6.10.10 @ 3:34PM

The first amendment applies to the government not employers

JoeJazz2000| 6.10.10 @ 3:36PM

How was she prevented from speaking freely? How did the state persecute her, and under what law? Heln is entitled to her opinion, and she gave it. It seems to me the First Amendment is alive and well.

JF| 6.10.10 @ 4:10PM

The issue with HT expressing her opinion is that she is supposed to be a JOURNALIST - i.e., objective, stick-to-the-facts, etc. I realize that is not reality, but there are a few in the media (Jake Tapper, for instance) who make an effort to keep their opinions and agendas out of the public eye. Had Helen been an editorialist, she would have been free to spew whatever random dreck crossed her feeble mind. However, in the role of "journalist" she needs to button it up and get the story. It was obvious that the quality of her reporting was at issue, and Hearst News saw her as a liability to their news agency. There are consequences to employees when they fail to live up to corporate standards; Helen was just a visible example of reaping what you sow.

JC| 6.10.10 @ 10:29PM

JF - I am not sure if she was on assignment or not? However, since her employer has a record of allowing her actions previously and there is little doubt to that, I believe she could have a wrongful discharge lawsuit which I am fairly certain she will not entertain. I also believe Hearst talked to their attorneys prior to agreeing to any actions and may have requested she sign an agreement not worth the paper it is printed on!

JmsA| 6.10.10 @ 5:56PM

My, my, aren't you the self-righteous one?

Jeremy Stevens| 6.10.10 @ 10:20AM

Dennis Miller had a great line last night on The O'Reilly Factor:

"I think it's a safe bet to say that Helen Thomas did NOT sleep her way to the top!"

Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 6.10.10 @ 10:22AM

Just the other day the editor at TAS was telling us not to rejoice in the death of liberal newspapers.

Now's he telling us why we should.

The press is full of liars, anti-Semites and Helen Thomas is just the tip of the iceberg.

And further proof we should rejoice that this ship of losers is going down.

Joe Katzman | 6.10.10 @ 10:27AM

So, let me get this straight. Helen Thomas, born in 1920, says that Jews should be driven into the sea, and return to the scene of Treblinka and Auschwitz. The Spectator calls this "criticism of Israel," sees it as legitimate, and can't understand why she might be asked to retire.

I think this tells me all I need to know about The American Spectator. Had started reading you guys, but... thanks for freeing up that time.

Ron| 6.10.10 @ 2:48PM

Reread the article numbnuts. Nowhere was TAS condoning anti-Isreal views. The point was that the leftist media has never once showed any concern for anti-Semitic statements Helen had made in the past because most liberal journalists share her opinions on the topic. The article is using sarcasm to point out that they had excused Helen's previous statements that were just as bad. Had she not been so rash she would probably still have her press corps seat among the other like-minded journalists.

Mr. Tyrrell was not supporting Helen, he was reminding readers that the press has tolerated her views for years and Helen is not an extreme outlyer.

If you have actually been reading TAS for any amount of time, you wouldn't question their support of Isreal.

Occam's Tool| 6.10.10 @ 3:51PM

The Spectator does not see the criticism as legitimate; it is very pro-Israel, as is the great Tyrrell. He was using "sarcasm" and "irony." Jesus.

american from birth| 6.10.10 @ 9:21PM

Tyrell isn't great. He just has a forum. Like the rest of the media scum, he only is interested in
his bag of coins. He'll be brought before the citizens too, after a while. Vive la revolution!

Chalkdust| 6.10.10 @ 10:58AM

I'll tell you what the Helen Thomas "affair" (ugh) tells me:
*Who welds the greater power in Wash., DC.
*free speech is an illusion.
*The loonies liberals will even shoot (some of) their mascots.
*Even TAS is not immured to spinning a lie.
* HT would still have her "job" if she had stuck with the program IE: "The hillbilly bastards in the Tea Party movement should get the hell out of American politic."

Frieslander| 6.10.10 @ 5:01PM

"HILLBILLY BASTARDS"? What rock did you crawl out from under.My parents were married as
the "TEA PARTY"members are you city slicker
piece of rectal discharge!HOO-RAY for the tea partiers.They are as close to the constitution as
is possible.THIS IS WHERE WE BELONG!!!!
Politics has ruined this country with the permission of all sleeping AMERICANS.
GO SARAH PALIN!!

Jake| 6.10.10 @ 5:52PM

Wow, did you really not see what he did there?

Roy| 6.10.10 @ 9:11PM

Who the hell knows? Due to TAS' failure to implement any type of authentication, any time somebody does something that looks stupid, I always wonder if they are a leftist troll pretending to be the poster who usually uses the name. A good percentage of the time they are. My name has been falsely used plenty of times and I'm nowhere near the worst victim.

Jake| 6.11.10 @ 10:10AM

Maybe... I [at least thought I] recognized it immediately as sarcasm, however. Just my $0.015.

daniel| 6.10.10 @ 5:54PM

I think you're missing something...

daddio| 6.10.10 @ 11:12AM

The point that I have not seen made is that the Jews were in "Palestine" all along, since biblical days. Even though many of them left, not all of them did. So why should they be forced to leave their ancestral homeland? Why do they not have as much right to it as the "Palestinians"?

canuckistani| 6.10.10 @ 11:54AM

There are still Mayans in Mexico.....hmmm.
There may be a few non-Hebrew Judeans hanging around as well looking for their deeds buried somewhere.
Perhaps a few frenchmen as well.
The irony is Israel was an immigrant nation from the beginning and a nation of converts over the millenia.
The UN created the state of Israel and why can they not also take it away?

Occam's Tool| 6.10.10 @ 3:58PM

Canuckistani---molon labe, baby. I doubt you could.

California70| 6.12.10 @ 2:35AM

When the UN created Israel, they also wanted to create a State for Palestinians. The Palestinians said and unequivacal NO! That is why they have no State! The United States Presidents have been trying to give Palestine a State. They still say NO.

What is it about the word NO, that nobody understands except the Palestinians?

RCV| 6.10.10 @ 5:36PM

You are so right. In fact, Jews were a majority of Jerusalem by at least 1880, according to British embassy records. Also, not sure why it was OK for Arabs to pour into Palestine, as they did after the Balfour days, to secure employment in the bustling Jewish areas, but not OK for Jewish refugees, many from surrounding Arab countries, to enter Palestine.

JC| 6.10.10 @ 10:44PM

http://www.mideastweb.org/briefhistory.htm

This may interest some; brief may be a little miss leading but there are maps etc.

Northern Rebel| 6.10.10 @ 11:50AM

Well, I suppose when Helen Thomas flees the mortal coil, Rosa DeLauro will officilally assume the mantle of the ugliest woman in politics.

However there may be some evidence that a youthful Helen may have been a bit more attractive.

There is no evidence that DeLauro was ever less than butt-ugly.

loulou| 6.10.10 @ 11:55AM

Bingo! DeLauro is a skinny version of Thomas. There is no way in heck that Thomas was ever less than hideous.

I'm wracking by brain and thought of another hideous one: Betty Friedan.

Linda Rich| 6.10.10 @ 2:47PM

That is great, loulou-really easy to take shots at women who may not be as attractive as you'd like. I'd love to know what you look like.
I also think where is free speech in this country. I lost half of my family to the camps, but that is what the US is about-we are allowed to say what is unpopular and insulting. I think it is unbelievable that anyone should lose their job for stating a personal belief, no matter how horrendous.

Ron| 6.10.10 @ 3:07PM

Linda,
Where was Thomas's right to free speech violated? She isn't being arrested for her statements. You are free to say whatever nonsense you want but nothing says you don't have to face consequences. Go into your boss's office and tell him to go f himself and let me know if you get to keep your job. Or go on television as a representative of the company you work for and use ethnic slurs then let me know how long you remain employed.

We do have a right to say whatever we want but the First Amendment doesn't protect us from other peoples' rights to choose not to freely associate with us.

JoeJazz2000| 6.10.10 @ 3:41PM

Oh, so it's consequences you're concerned with. No sorry, the First Amendment doesn't cover that. Helen is still free to speak, and has violated no law.

fultzy| 6.10.10 @ 4:18PM

Linda, Linda, Linda....you schmuck. (are you mad yet?). I think you are a sl*t. (how about now?) gawd you look fat in that outfit (ready to invite me to dinner?) Thanks for being such a stand up guy and protecting free speech. Now how about equality of outcome? ready to take that on?

Anthony| 6.10.10 @ 8:22PM

Great satire fultzy, I hope it penetrated Ms. Rich's brain. Good God, it is frightening how little some people understand how the Constitution works.
More and more, America is becoming like that movie "Idiocracy". Just the way the leftists want it.

Johnny| 6.10.10 @ 3:19PM

Yeah! THAT is the name I was trying to recall!

California70| 6.12.10 @ 2:48AM

I say a picture of HT when she was young. She had a big face with a big nose. She was a young-homely. Now she is just an old 90 year old woman we should all feel sorry for. She should have stopped working a long time ago.

It's not nice to treat the aged so badly by saying such hateful things. She did a terrible thing, I personally, was appalled but God will punish her. The Jews are is chosen people. It's too bad, but the Arabs just don't seem to "get it".

loulou| 6.10.10 @ 11:53AM

daddio: Furthermore, Jews were forced to flee Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Ethiopia and Iran and went to their ancestral homeland: Israel.
Not all Israelis are from Europe.

Helen Thomas wants a world that is free of Jews is what she's saying.

Northern Rebel| 6.10.10 @ 11:56AM

Joe Katzman:

I think what was being expressed was the the right to state your opinion, no matter how offensive, in the land of the free.

If you can't grasp that philosophy, perhaps AmSpec isn't for you.

Try a North Korean newspaper. Maybe that's more to your taste, sir.

Old Joe| 6.10.10 @ 12:49PM

Nothern Rebel,

Yes, in America you have a right to speak your mind no matter how offensive. And Herst Publications has a right to terminate an employee who brings shame on the company even on her personal time just as my employer does with me.

It wasn't illegal but it was offensive. Actions have consequences.

JC| 6.11.10 @ 8:04AM

Not exactly correct; Herst does not have the right to terminate for several reasons. In fact I would bet it would be hard to prove that prior to Herst coming out, the vast majority knew who Ms. Thomas worked for. No shame on the company until Herst wanted recognition for taking action. Secondly, they have accepted her verbal/written opinions previously, thus a precedent was set by them. I believe she would have a case but she won't pursue it. Unfortunate way to turn 90.

coal carrier| 6.10.10 @ 12:50PM

I’m for giving Helen’s seat to Keith Olbermann . He may not ask any hardball questions now, but wait until 2012 when the communists are all thrown out.

cuban pete| 6.10.10 @ 2:42PM

Coal:
Not a bad idea but based on KO's ratings the number of viewers of press conferences would drop in to the low three digits.
All the Best

Dave Williams| 6.10.10 @ 1:22PM

At least she spared us the tired old bromide about "wanting to spend more time with her family"...which would be who, the other two ladies in the first scene of "Macbeth"?

Anthony| 6.10.10 @ 8:30PM

Not only are we conservatives witty, we are well read as well.
Might I suggest Helen Thomas once shared a home with her twin sister, the manipulative krone from "Great Expectations". She's about the right age, too.

Jim| 6.10.10 @ 2:00PM

In regard to the first amendment, our free speech rights are intended to protect us from government censorship. t is a constraint upon government. It does not guarantee you an audience for your speech, nor does it guarantee that others, i.e., your employer, must tolerate your speech. this is a wonderful example of what the kind of thinking that has turned the constitution on its head. The constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, were never intended to regulate or control the interactions of private persons or businesses between one another, but rather, to place limits on the governmental usurpation of authority.

In that regard, Rand Paul was exactly right regarding the Civil Rights act, though he may have been stupid for saying it. The government has no place telling a private business who they must serve. There is a right of free association. If someone chooses not to serve blacks, he should be free to do so. And I should be free to bring my business elsewhere, and encourage everyone else i know to do the same, until that person goes out of business. But it's not the role of the federal government to coerce private individuals or businesses, one way or another.

DL| 6.10.10 @ 2:40PM

Can one refuse to serve Jews or is your interpretation of the right of free association limited only to racist tactics against blacks?

Jim| 6.10.10 @ 3:07PM

Jews, gays, Christians, whites, Chinese, whatever. Who are you, and who is the government, to coerce someone into associations he does not desire? Do I believe such an act to be racist and wrong? Certainly. Hence, as i said, in such a situation I would seek to bring the pressure of the community and the marketplace to bear. But it is not the place of the government to coerce free men to do that which they do not wish. It would be just as wrong for the government to prevent someone from serving those he desires to serve.

I understand that we live in a time when the freedom of the individual takes a back seat to the changing more's and preferences of the majority. But the end of that road is tyranny. Freedom consists of the ability to think and to act in a manner out of step with the majority, and those who are, at the moment, in power.

Ms. Jones| 6.10.10 @ 3:23PM

Walter E. Williams defended Rand Paul's statements, largely for the reasons Jim outlines here. He also made the interesting point that, prior to the Jim Crow laws, someone must have been serving Blacks at Southern business establishments. There is no need to outlaw activity which isn't taking place. He posited that Joe was serving everyone at his diner. Jane, a racist, does not, and sees Joe raking in the $$ while she is about to go out of business. So she pursuades the local authorities to make it illegal to serve Blacks. Now Jane can compete with Joe. By the way, in case you don't recognize the name, Walter E. Williams is a prominent Black eonomics professor and syndicated columnist.

DL| 6.10.10 @ 4:27PM

So, is it not morally wrong to refuse service to a particular group simply because you dislike them? I get it that market forces might drive that person out of business. Or, other like minded individuals and racists may increase their patronage of that business. It is intolerance of others that breeds fear, then hate and then oppression. You sound reasonable in that you "...would seek to bring the pressure of the community and the marketplace to bear." But what if you fail and you find yourself ostracized as a result of your good efforts to correct the wrong? Is it not better to have the force of law to prevent (or adjudicate) such unjust actions?

Jim| 6.10.10 @ 5:03PM

First, to answer your initial questions is also to lay the foundation of my reply to your final question. "is it not morally wrong to refuse service to a particular group simply because you dislike them?" Of course it is. The question is whether or not the government should coerce free men to act or to refrain from acting according to what that government has decreed to be moral or immoral.
To repeat your own words, "You sound reasonable in that you" would have the force of law to prevent (or adjudicate) such unjust actions. That does indeed sound reasonable. Until, that is, one considers that the government will not always agree with that which you or I consider to be moral. Let us not forget that this discussion stems from the larger discussion of Israel. Would you desire something akin to the Nazi gov't. to determine what is or is not moral?

DL| 6.10.10 @ 11:04PM

No, not at all. But the Nazi government was not a democratic government reflecting the will of the people it governs. It was a vulgar extreme; effectively a government ruled by one individual. I do want a government that guides society in a manner so that all individuals treat each other with decency. That comes by way of laws (it's a bit sad that we need laws to make this happen). Does it mean that I think the governement should force you to take a black neighbor out to lunch? No. But if you own the restaurant and a black person comes in willing and able to pay for a meal, I don't think you should be able to turn them away simply because they are black. If that's governement coercion, then I plead guilty. I think of it as a reasonable rule of law. It is indeed true that my government and I will not always agree on what is moral. But I do not think it wise to toss the system we have - that is toss government rule all together - becasue I disagree with some of its judgements.

Jim| 6.11.10 @ 8:14AM

Actually, Hitler was originally elected to office, and although no one knew how far he was going to take things, the direction which he intended to lead the country was well known. Many Jews did all they could to get out of Germany as soon as Hitler came to power. Mein Kampf wasn't exactly a secret. Hitler's views were known, and the people placed him in authority. Likewise, apartheid was not a matter of individual behavior, but of governmental policy. There is your "rule of law".
You use the example of a restaurant, and say that if you own the restaurant, the government should be able to coerce you into serving anyone who desires to eat at your restaurant. But if the government can so coerce you, the restaurant can no longer be said to be "yours". And that, at root, is the larger problem. Is it an evil for the owner of a restaurant to choose not to serve someone on the basis of their race? Yes, it is. It is a greater evil for the government to effectively steal one's restaurant by placing it under it's control so as to force that business to be conducted in ways that the government, rather than the ostensible owner, sees fit. When someone walks into a McDonald's, they've already decided that the number of calories they are about to ingest is not really a concern. And yet, the government is now forcing restaurants to spend who knows how much money putting putting calorie totals on menus and signs. How many people really care? Was a great majority of people going out to eat clamoring for that information? Of course not. But the government decided, and those who own restaurants once again had the freedom to run their restaurant ripped from them. Granted, in most cases, that's not a huge deal, although there are situations in which businesses have been hurt, as a result. But the loss of freedom is often incremental.
You are admirably concerned about those individuals who might be turned away from a restaurant. I understand that. I'm more concerned with the millions of lives lost to governments which have taken to themselves authority over the lives of their people.
What paved the way for the Nazi regime? A mindset that accepted government control over every area that the government chose to exert control. Likewise, the USSR, China, etc.
As for disagreeing with "some" of the governments judgments...I would much prefer people be permitted to make their own judgments. Let me serve who I wish to serve, and let me patronize who I wish to patronize.
Here in NY there's currently a huge controversy over free tickets to Shakespeare in the park. Some people have been paying others to stand in line for the free tickets. The attorney general is up in arms about this. Why? Why is it the governments concern if I choose to freely enter into an agreement with another person, effectively hiring them, or being hired by them, to stand in a line? The only reason I can come up with is, "not everyone can afford to hire someone." So? I can. The person I'm hiring is not being forced to do what I ask. We talk. We come to an agreement on the price. I get my tickets without waiting on line. He gets whatever wage we agreed on, and its no one else's business. Least of all the state.
Freedom is a very fragile thing. Very much like frog in a kettle.

DL| 6.11.10 @ 7:59PM

Agree with you on the ticket. That's a waste of resources that would be better spent elsewhere. It's probably stimulating the economy in some small fashion. I put it in the category of governement waste - it's stupid. It would be interesting to compare this to conscription during the Civil War when rich draftees were allowed to hire someone else to fight for them. Another discussion.
However, I think it is a very different thing when one's freedom to choose whom to serve or not serve results in bigotry. The NY example does not harm anyone. Bigotry harms the individual being turned away and society in general.
Once Hitler was in power, there was no peacful way to remove him - either at a next election or by way of impeachment and trial. That is not the case here. (Admittedly, I am fuzzy on the intircate details of Hitler's rise to and retention of power, but I think that's right). Fortunately our checks and balances, diverse population and democracy that has, thus far, not been usurped by a nut case, puts me in a position where I do not fear our government. I do not think that America will find itself a vicitm of a group think that brought on the likes of Hitler, Lenin or Milosovec.
Good discussion. We seem to agree on a fair amount even though we are on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Don't know how much more I can discuss. Hard to find time for this with three kids and their activities. Regards.

Jim| 6.12.10 @ 4:43PM

"I do not think that America will find itself a vicitm of a group think that brought on the likes of Hitler, Lenin or Milosovec."
I dare say that when those nations were at peace and prosperous, they did not imagine what later proved to become reality. I fear that i do not have the confidence in humanity that you seem to possess...American or not. It is precisely the history of man's descent into totalitarianism and barbarism that causes me to rebel against any encroachment upon individual liberty.
That being said, enjoy your family. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Jake| 6.10.10 @ 5:57PM

A random commenter at Reason's Hit & Run blog made this statement last week:

"I wish people could make the distinction between what government has the authority to legislate and what they personally believe."

Venus| 6.12.10 @ 4:27PM

Jim

I applaud you sir!

Jim| 6.12.10 @ 4:43PM

Nice to know! Thanks.

JC| 6.11.10 @ 8:10AM

Well, maybe but actually the government does have the right to protect all its citizens and discrimination is a protection settled by the Supreme Court. Secondly, we sometimes forget laws today that primarily protect employees, are they really Constitutional, that is why we have a Supreme Court but probably not completely.

California70| 6.12.10 @ 3:01AM

Jim,
So right you are!
However, the Unions are now doing the government bidding, i.e., the organized marxist marching in the street against anything the Obama marxist government doesn't like. Think the Arizona law 1070 for openers!

"But it's not the role of the federal government to coerce private individuals or businesses, one way or another." But they are doing it aren't they?

Jim| 6.12.10 @ 4:51PM

""But it's not the role of the federal government to coerce private individuals or businesses, one way or another." But they are doing it aren't they? "

Of course they are. The truth is that virtually as soon as the nation was formed, it began it's slide in the direction of governmental power and the reduction of individual liberty. In fact, if one were to go back and read the anti-federalists, they predicted that this is exactly what would happen once the current constitution, with its strong centralized, federal governement, was ratified.
What do you think the odds are of going back to the Articles of Confederation? lol

Harrison | 6.10.10 @ 2:27PM

"Hell" didn't help but I think it was the suggestion to return to Germany and Poland where Jews were clearly not wanted that did her in.

If she had said blacks should get the hell out of America and go to Africa the result would have been the same but the reaction would have been worse. Now what if she said whites should get the hell out of America and go back to Europe? Would the result have been the same?

Wally| 6.10.10 @ 2:28PM

At least she apologized. As opposed to Kristol and others who urge that Palestinians be evicted, deported, denied citizenship in the land they have been living in for 2000 years.
Hey Jim, No wonder you like Israel. Apartheid is alive and well there and it sounds like you wish it was back in the U.S. What a neanderthal.

Jim| 6.10.10 @ 3:17PM

Hi Wally. It seems that you need a refresher course in basic reading comprehension, not to mention political history. I realize that a great many people do not wish to actually think, but it would help everyone if critical distinctions were made rather than knee jerk responses. For example, you raise the issue of apartheid. You do understand, don't you, that apartheid is government enforced segregation, as opposed to what I was describing, which is the decision of an individual to associate or not to associate. I have just made the point, in response to DL. that government enforced segregation (apartheid) is just as offensive to freedom as government enforced association.
Alas, it seems that the ability to have a rational discussion of principles without the use of words like "nazi" or "apartheid" is a virtual impossibility these days. So sad.

Gary| 6.10.10 @ 5:30PM

There are several medical and scientific persons interested in meeting those 2,000 year old Palestinians you mentioned. In point of fact, they started a war, which they lost. When you lose, the victor gets to dictate what happens to you.
They're lucky the Jews didn't bring plans for gas-emitting showers and human-sized ovens with them from Germany.

If you still are in doubt, start a war with someone who can beat the crap out of you and see what happens. Any time we can stop feeling sorry for people who sew dynamite into their children's underpants before sending them out to play, murder nuns over cartoons, and behead reporters for video fame will be none too soon. Blowing up your neighbors because you're jealous of their accomplishments is juvenile AND stupid.

Stuart (Austin, TX)| 6.10.10 @ 2:29PM

Helen Thomas is a stinky pig.

DL| 6.10.10 @ 2:36PM

So Helen Thomas' "drift" is that Republicans are bad and Democrats are good. And your "drift" is that Democrats are bad and Republicans are good. Is one view better than the other? Or is your bias simply a polar opposite of Thomas'?

By the way, it is the substance of her comment that are reprehensible, not whether she said "heck" or "hell." Her departure for this remark is appropriate.

Finally, applying Jim's logic and refernce to Rand Paul on the Civil Rights Act, one would have the freedom to not serve Jewish people. Maybe Ms. Thomas was exercising her right of free association that you trumpet.

John Mc| 6.10.10 @ 2:51PM

Changing the model slightly, if Helen Thomas worked in a store and refused to serve Jewish customers, her employer would have every right to fire her. This is basically what happened. She would be free to associate or not with them, but not while she was working for someone else.

Jim| 6.10.10 @ 3:23PM

Of course. And Jewish people would have the freedom not to serve Christians. And everyone would have the right not to patronize anyone who makes such choices.

As for Ms. Thomas exercising her right of free association, I'm not sure exactly what you mean by that. She certainly was exercising her right of free speech, and her employer, upon hearing her speech, exercised its right not to associate with her. And guess what? The government didn't need to step in and do anything.

Ken Roberts | 6.10.10 @ 2:44PM

Ed and Helen in the same area is enough to make me click the magic twanger and go elsewhere, good bye all; it just got to swarmy in here ! what ever swarmy means?

My Girl Friday| 6.10.10 @ 2:56PM

"Obama loosing Jewish support" google it. This is why the Madame presser was thrown under the bus by the Obama Administration. I'm sure her paid sponsors will get her a front row seat with AL JAZEERA. One sophomoric leftist down, and several hundred more to go!

GW| 6.10.10 @ 3:58PM

It's not just you, but it seems no one on the internet can spell the word "lose" or "losing" correctly. The word "loose" means 'not bound together', or 'free from attatchment'.

I don't know why, but it is really bothers me.

DebateRight| 6.10.10 @ 7:15PM

I'm hoping "it is" is sophisticated irony.

RichardC| 6.10.10 @ 3:08PM

I don't agree with the premiss that it was "h*ll" that got her canned. It was the combination of the event she was speaking immediately following, the person she made the remark to, the glee she showed in making it, and the distortion of historical fact that it expressed. Each of these components offended some segment of those who called for her dismissal far more than "h*ll" would. In aggregate, the assorted offenses given, intentionally or not, to so many different groups and individuals, was enough to turn what might have been an outcry into a cacophony.

gene| 6.10.10 @ 3:08PM

who will replace Helen as the face of liberalism?

Bydand76| 6.10.10 @ 4:26PM

Another stinky pig!

Rosie O'Donnell, of course.

Pro Libertate!

denialator | 6.10.10 @ 3:08PM

Regarding 1st Amendment comments, I think Mark Twain's words put it into proper perspective..."It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things:
Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."
--- Mark Twain (1835 - 1910)

David in MA.| 6.10.10 @ 3:14PM

She's gone because obama is afread of her, she speaks her mind and asks the tough questions, old school and not easely intimidated. obama & gibbs want "new" reporters they can lead and BS!

Margie| 6.10.10 @ 3:16PM

Yes, well in reading all about the tactics of the Communists from Richard Wurmbrand's books, he who spent 14 years being tortured in Communist prisons~ the Communists betray their own strongest supporters when they no longer serve a convenient purpose for them. Rev. Wurmbrand, a Jew who converted to Christianity and devoted the rest of his life to Jesus Christ, and who led many, many Communists guards who were thrown into the same jail cell that he was, to Christ, gives many an account of this type of behavior. There will be many more Helen Thomases to come. No surprise there.

Read his book, "Tortured for Christ." Or "Christ on the Jewish Road." Or "Marx and Satan." Those are just a few. He has gone to be with His Maker but he began what is known today as the underground Church which began decades ago, and is strong today. They smuggle Bibles to every Communist country, and help the families of persecuted Christians the world over.
VOM.com

ncatty| 6.10.10 @ 5:31PM

I met him. He had a plan to mail small parts of the Bible to those beyond the iron curtain. He was convinced that even small portions of scripture were powerful and would sustain others, as it did him.

Margie| 6.10.10 @ 7:43PM

He and his wife, Sabina used to come regularly to our fellowship, back in the 80's. He would sit in the midst of us and talk about his experiences during his imprisonment. Sabina wrote a wonderful book, too called "The Pastor's Wife." She was also in some of those concentration camps, including Treblinka. I learned everything I know about the Satanistic spirit of Communism, and would never have been able to understand exactly how evil it is if it weren't for him.

If only everyone here could read just one of his books, "Tortured for Christ", they would come to the realization that the present occupant of the people's House is in league with with evil, and would be a lot more serious about which party they'd choose to vote for, no question about it.

I'm pretty sure he's the one who said, "Marxism=Communism=Satanism". He should know!

Brian| 6.10.10 @ 3:21PM

"They should go home". A very interesting remark indeed from yet another liberal with zero understanding of history. Does Helen think the Jews should re-trace their steps back across the Sinai back to Egypt, to the land of the pharaohs? I am not sure it confusing or amusing the degree of exclusion the people who embrace inclusion preach.

daniel| 6.10.10 @ 6:09PM

Following your lead, they'd eventually end up back at Ur of the Chaldees (Aabram's native home), right? Well...where in heck is Ur of the Chaldees?

Carole| 6.10.10 @ 9:55PM

Ur of the Chaldees was a city in the southern part of Iraq, supposedly the home of Abraham. Ruins of the old city were discovered a number of decades ago but excavation of the area was stopped because of the Iraq-Iran war.

dan| 6.10.10 @ 3:27PM

Look, large numbers of Jews migrated to what is now Israel starting in the 19th century when it was not a country just an outpost of the Ottoman Empire. They paid good money for their land. They had permission from the Turkish authorities to settle there. They were allowed because not many others wanted to settle in that then ruined, malaria-infested land. The population of so-called "Palestine" was down to a few hundred thousands. Jews had just as much right to buy that land and settle there as anyone else. Wait a moment, as they had always had a presence in their ancestral homeland, they had more right than other peoples. Now, when the neighbors started a war to displace the Jews, they should have known that wars are sometimes lost with serious consequences. They would have been wise to be tolerant and live side-by-side as they hugely benefited economically from the Jewish development of the wasted land. Alternatively, they could have accepted a international partition plan and pushed all the Jews onto a small fraction of that small land.

Dawn In Eastern Washington| 6.14.10 @ 7:58PM

Dan, thank you for a beautiful, succinctly stated history lesson for the masses. Simply put, you have my deepest admiration for, not only your knowledge, but your ability to share it in such a blazingly, blindingly Shaft from Heaven format! Consider yourself hugged, Big Guy! :)

Paul in Colorado| 6.10.10 @ 3:32PM

Its just sad. I'm not for mandatory retirement - far from it - people should be able to continue their careers as long as they wish. But Helen was clearly losing it. Just a few weeks ago she was asking Gibbs why the Islamists hate America so much; it wasn't a rhetorical question and she seemed genuinely puzzled. Gibbs was visibly shaken by the question, and stumbled out half an answer, but I suspect her employer and colleagues were forced to conclude that she had become an embarrassment, and it was time for her to go.

Margie| 6.10.10 @ 3:41PM

Oh my, you have just hit the nail on the head, Paul. The Jew haters and terrorist sympathizers really DO ask that question. Except they really already know the answer. That what the Islamists hate is our freedom. In their mind altered Leftist brains they refuse to or cannot face that reality, and must blame America for this, instead. Thus you have the statement of Leftist loonies such as Ron Paul and his believers, that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" This madness is carried out by far too many people and we actually elect these people nowadays. Helen Thomas is just another example of the warped thinking on the Left.

They think we ought to "listen" to what the poor, poor terrorists have to say. And after all, WE "are the aggressors", not them. Delusional, but this is what these people think, and how they behave, and it is dangerous that we elect these people. H.T. is just a sideshow of this despicable mindset.
So glad she's gone, but there are lots more like her around!

ron| 6.10.10 @ 3:35PM

I'm really amazed at the comments here.

Do none of you get it? Emmet is not happy about that old biddy getting canned for being an antisemitic freak. He's trying to say the Jewish/Zionist/Illuminati/UFO/Rothchild/Rastafarian/(insert nutcase conspiracy here)/ media cabal got Helen Thomas canned the moment she said a bad word about Israel. And that in his whacked out mind Israel controls the universe.

No Emmet, the old hag got canned because she dropped the mask for a moment and let all those nice deluded Jews out there realize that there are a lot of people like her who want them dead. As a result everyone who has something to lose by being associated with a known racist, and everyone with an axe to grind encouraged her and everyone around her to get her to retire.

Emmet to heck with you.

Occam's Tool| 6.10.10 @ 3:55PM

ron, try reading Tyrrell for closing on 30 years, like I have. He is pro-Israel. His point is that the Left is not upset about the CONTENT of what she said as much as the VEHEMENCE with which they said it----they prefer to be "a scrooch owl."

Jeez, Louise---does no one get irony and sarcasm anymore?

Problem solved| 6.10.10 @ 3:57PM

I think the UN should "Give" Somalia to Israel. End of mid east problem, and Israel sure as heck would end the Somalia problem as well as giving it an over water air route to Iran.

K. Barboo| 6.10.10 @ 5:11PM

This disgusting pile of putrid garbage won't be missed by anyone in the civilized world. Go to HELL thomas. Or in the words of your lord god Obama's favorite "rev" wright, the racist negro America hater...."Goddam Thomas."

alcstein| 6.10.10 @ 6:12PM

Maybe Helen deserves the Mel Gibson Award for stupidity.

dw| 6.10.10 @ 7:06PM

I can not help wondering what her thoughts were when Hitler was committing genocide on the Jews. She would have been about 20 or so. Maybe that was the base for her anti semitic rant. What was her opinion in 1948 when the U.N. returned the Jews to their home land after 6 million of them had been left in Poland and Germany. She would have been about 28 or so then. More than likely her bigotry has been a life long passion.
The real racist and xenophobes are on the left.

Mike M| 6.10.10 @ 7:11PM

Thomas will soon become host of the "View."

Bohred| 6.10.10 @ 7:41PM

The woman's just bone deep butt ugly.

Christopher Holland| 6.10.10 @ 7:59PM

All you need to know about Helen Thomas is that hezbollah congratulated her. The icon of the liberal media establishment for 40 years is the unrepentent cat's paw of an antisemitic, fascist terrorist organisation. And there are plenty of her ilk around. Scratch a liberal and there is a good chance you will find the ugly mug of Helen Thomas looking back at you.

Khan| 6.10.10 @ 9:16PM

This is a warning to all American journalists that you will be"Heck" to retire or fire if you "dare" insulting Israel. So much for American "free media". I wonder when American medial will be free again.

Gene Fowler| 6.10.10 @ 9:35PM

What I heard her say was "all you Jews, get back into the ovens". Totally unacceptable.

Richard Wicks| 6.10.10 @ 10:37PM

Not a single Israeli prime minster has been born in Israel. That's just a fact - and when you state facts about Israel, you get in lots of trouble.

Dale| 6.10.10 @ 10:52PM

I love how she seems to think that Poland, Germany and the U.S. are the Israelis original
homeland. She must have thought that Toto and
Dorothy's original home was New Jersey...just
before she started melting.

amberdru| 6.10.10 @ 11:38PM

I wonder where she thinks Americans should go?

http://www.aztlan.net/razajews.htm

...The Jews of California, about 3% of the state's population, have an overwhelming and disproportionate share of the state's wealth which they utilize effectively to wield immense influence on the state's political apparatus principally through dominance of the Democratic Party. Both U.S Senators of the state are ladies of Jewish descent and there is no sector of California society, either private or public, in which Jews are not significant policy makers. The sectors that they can not control directly, they will do it indirectly through the purchase of influence as well as the cunning manipulation of ethnic and other minorities.

....

Our increasing population and voting strength will, in the near future, collide with the interests of the Jews in Alta California, and for that matter, in the other regions of Aztlan. Our increasing ties with our brothers and sisters in Mexico will also present a challenge for the American Jewish community. The Mexican Dual Nationality Program means that we now have the same status with Mexico that American Jews have with Israel. We are now in the position to question the over eight billion dollars of our tax money that are sent to Israel each year, much of it which is used for military weaponry to strike out against the Palestinians, and soon we will be in the position to remind the American Jews of their shoddy treatment of Mexico when the nation's UN Ambassador voted to equate Zionism with Racism.

La Raza has been intimidated, over the years, from bringing the above issues into discussion. La Voz de Aztlan has been the victim of censorship on the Internet because we have dared to dialogue on these matters. Hate e-mail we have received from Jews has demonstrated to us that they can be as bigoted as some white supremacists and their treatment of the Palestinians in Israel shows us that they can be as racist.

California70| 6.12.10 @ 3:38AM

La Raza Intimidated? You must be kidding?

They think the American People owe them a living!

vuitton | 6.11.10 @ 1:32AM

I only wish this had happened 30 yrs. ago.

Nathan Bickel | 6.11.10 @ 2:32AM

Nobody should feel bad for Helen, as, even in retirement, she will be very popular -- and, still, make lots of money.

Ms. Thomas, will, no doubt, be besieged with correspondent offers from Hezbolla , Al Qaeda, or even Ahmadinejad. Should she decline those offers and decide to remain here in the US, Helen could have her pick of Halloween factory offers.

I wouldn't doubt that with one face mold, her image would sell like hotcakes. I can still remember back in the 50's my brothers and I would fight over the ever so popular witch's mask........

Robert Founder | 6.11.10 @ 2:36AM

Helen Thomas Affair et al

Note: Helen Thomas is not Jewish, she is a Catholic (sort of) a Lebanese like Danny Thomas. You know; St Jude’s hospital for children.

She comes from a very long and voluminous line of anti-Israel, anti-Semites, of which there is not just the Nazi version, but the Jewish, Catholic and other versions as well.

For example, at least half the Jews of the world opposed the Zionist movement and the establishment of Israel, and many continue to feel the same way today. These anti-Zionist Jews verbally, and at times even violently, confronted Zionist Jews throughout the world, particularly during the 1930s.

Thus the repressed hate for Jews, Zionism, and Israel that Helen Thomas carried around in her mind has been a widespread relatively common currency for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. Sooner or later repressed hate must vent. One can only wish she had been honest 30, or even 70 years ago. But honesty is not a strong suite of the human kind.

It is just as much hatred, repressed or otherwise, to advocate the removal of one people as another, but one group removing another has been, and still is, the standard operating procedure of life on this planet, and is universal even in animal and plant life. Yes, it can be argued that it is “unjust,” but it can be argued it is just as unjust to not do it. Either way one group is inconvenienced or worse by another group. Who is going to say objectively, that one group is better than another. All justice, and all of everything else, is substantially subjective. Therefore it is specious to point out the injustice of forcibly removing a people from their homeland, in which they have “lived for thousands of years.” The crying on the part of the Palestinians and their advocates is a Special Interest whine. They lost more than 6 wars, and it should be news to no-one that losing wars have consequences.

This historical tapestry of Jews and their allies against the opponents of Jews and their allies is an old story going back thousands of years, and just or not, everyone has to pay for the actions of their antecedents in various ways. If you study history, you know all this, and if you don’t study history, you know little of which you speak.

Now you can call all this Social Darwinism, which is what Helen called it, but that is a reductive cliché for the larger truth, but it helps to explain why the Israelis control Israel, and why the Palestinians are where they are, and why Helen Thomas is now where she is.

The real gain here is that now we won't have to suffer through some Obama White House dinner in her honor, or read that she got some laughable award for her “journalism skills.”

Thomas was a demented, ignorant, spiteful and hateful woman of a pair with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Helen was enticed to speak her “truth” based on how the Obama administration has acted towards Israel. Clearly, she didn't expect the backlash based on the fact that this administration has been so anti-Israel. The Democrat party has been a hotbed of covert anti-Semitism since its beginnings. It is seeded with anti-Semite, anti Israel Jews, and non-Jews. Does anyone remember Jesse Jackson’s Hymie Town references to Jews in New York?

Notice it is the Liberals who are riding Helen Thomas out of town on a rail, not Conservatives. The Left’s totalitarian addiction to PC speech is so strong they will not hesitate to throw their own under the bus when it violates the hypocrisy of their long term goals.

All the famed First Amendment says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

In this case, she was released by a news agency, which the government had no hand in. She can still say whatever she wants, and she can write (and attempt to get published) whatever she wants. Termination of employment is allowed by public and private institutions when you break their rules, or embarrass them. The shame is her Democrat fellow travelers surely understood her all these years.

A recent chapter in this whole thing started in 1917 with Great Britain, the League of Nations, and the Rothschild s called the Balfour Declaration. The Jews wanted and got their own state by dividing Palestine without Moslem permission in 1947 with consent of the UN. The very next day Palestine went to war with the State of Israel, and the two have been fighting ever since. By any reasonable standard justice is on the side of the formerly homeless Jews. Thomas understands all this, but is just on the other side of the issue, for a whole flock of reasons.

We equate Israel with WW II and the UN, when in actuality the process started long before WW II because the Jewish people, ably represented by the Rothschild’s, wanted to have a homeland, like everyone else. The League of Nations also had a hand in this.

The first amendment applies to the government not employers. Plus, also at issue is that Helen is supposed to be a “Journalist” whatever that is supposed to be. As such she is supposed to stick-to-the-facts, etc. That is not reality, but the media supposedly believe it. Therefore, they are supposed to keep their opinions and agendas out of the public eye. Had Helen been a columnist she would have been free to spew whatever random dreck crossed her enfeebled mind. However, in the role of "journalist" she needs to button it up and get the story. It was obvious that the quality of her reporting was at issue, and Hearst News saw her as a liability to their news agency. There are consequences to employees when they fail to live up to corporate standards; Helen was just a visible example of reaping what you sow.

The press is full of liars, anti-Semites and Helen Thomas is just the tip of the iceberg, and further proof we should rejoice anytime that this ship of losers is going down. The point is that the leftist media has never once showed any concern for anti-Semitic statements Helen had made in the past because most liberal journalists share her opinions on the topic. They had excused Helen's previous statements that were just as bad. Had she not been so rash she would probably still have her press corps seat among the other like-minded journalists.

Helen’s tirade against the Jews is of a piece with the other Liberal shibboleth, that "The hillbilly bastards in the Tea Party movement should get the hell out of American politics." Go Sarah Palin!

Fact is, the Jews were in "Palestine" all along, since biblical days. Even though many of them left, not all of them ever did. So why should they be forced to leave their ancestral homeland? Why do they not have as much right to it as the "Palestinians"?

The irony is Israel, due to many factors has been an immigrant nation from the beginning, and a nation of converts over the millennia. The UN didn’t “create” the state of Israel and they, and no one else has any intrinsic right to take it away.

In fact, Jews were a majority of Jerusalem by at least 1880, according to British embassy records. Also, not sure why it was OK for Arabs to pour into Palestine, as they did after the Balfour days, to secure employment in the bustling Jewish areas, but not OK for Jewish refugees, many from surrounding Arab countries, to enter Palestine to find a safe haven from extermination.

While it is true we do have a right to say whatever we want, but the First Amendment no way protects us from other peoples' right to freely choose not to associate with us. It is frightening how little some people understand how the Constitution works. More and more, America is becoming like that movie "Idiocracy". Just the way the leftists want it.

Furthermore, Jews were forced to flee Iraq, Yemen, Morocco, Tunisia, Syria, Ethiopia and Iran to their ancestral homeland: Israel. Not all Israelis are from Europe, or Poland and Germany, by far. What she is really saying is she wants a world free of Jews. That is what she's really saying.

In regard to the first amendment, our free speech rights are intended only to protect us from government. It is a constraint upon government, but it no way guarantees you an audience for your speech, nor does it guarantee that others, particularly your employer, must tolerate your speech. This “free speech flap” is a perfect example of the kind of thinking that has turned the Constitution on its head. The Constitution, and specifically the Bill of Rights, was never intended to regulate or control the interactions of private persons or businesses, but rather, to place limits on the governmental censorship, usurpation of authority and tyranny over the people.

In that regard, Rand Paul was exactly right regarding the Civil Rights act, though he may have been impolitic for saying it. The government has no place telling a private business who they must serve. It violates the right of free association. Segregated eating was decreed by state governmental laws, and it is an overreach to replace that with governmental laws requiring Integration. If someone chooses to serve, or not to serve blacks, he should be free to do so free from governmental compulsion. And customers on their part should be free to take their business elsewhere, and encourage everyone else to do the same. But under no circumstances is it the role of government at any level in America to coerce private individuals or businesses, one way or the other.

This should apply to Jews, gays, Christians, whites, Chinese, whatever. Who is the government, to coerce someone into associations he does not desire? Acts of discrimination are reprehensible, but the cure is not government in any case. The private community can bring the pressure of the community and the pressure of the marketplace to bear, but it is not the place of the government to coerce free men to do that which they do not wish except within the provisions of the Constitution. It would be just as wrong for the government to prevent someone from serving those he desires to serve as it would be to force him to serve those he does not want to serve. The end of that road is tyranny. Freedom consists of the ability to think and to act in a manner out of step with the majority, and those who are, at the moment, in power, or it consists of nothing.

For these reasons Walter E. Williams defended Rand Paul's statements. He made the interesting point that, prior to the enactment of Jim Crow laws, there must have been widespread serving of Blacks in Southern business establishments. For, there is no need to outlaw activity which isn't taking place.

He posited that while one business was serving everyone at his diner, the other one, ran by a racist, was practicing discrimination. The racist diner sees the integrated diner raking in good money while he is about to go out of business. So the racist businessman persuades the local authorities, and the state, to make it illegal to serve Blacks in “White” diners. Now the racist gains the advantage over the non racist business because he has the police power of government on his side. This is how Segregation happened. It was totally a creature of Democrat big government interference in the private sector.

Note: Walter E. Williams is a prominent Black Economics professor at George Mason University in Virginia, and a widely read syndicated columnist.

The danger of government interference is, while it may help one group for a time, it can, and does, just as easily, shift its overwhelming power to favor the opposite group. The same government power that once favored the Whites, and now favors the Blacks, can just as easily shift back to favoring the Whites over the Blacks and so forth as it applies to every group. No one is safe with too much power in the hands of government no matter how it promises not to abuse it.

Would that people could make the distinction between what government should have the authority to legislate and their own personal beliefs. Government enforced segregation (apartheid) is just as offensive to freedom as government enforced association.

Helen said, “Jews should get the Hell out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland.” But, if she had said, “Blacks should get the hell out of America and go back to Africa, or that Whites should get the hell out of America and go back to Europe, the logic would have been the same, but the reaction of hypocrite Democrats and Liberals would have been far different.

In point of fact, the Arabs and Moslems started the war with the Jewish people, which they then lost 6 separate times. When you lose a war of aggression, (six times) it is only reasonable, the victor gets to dictate what happens to you. The Arabs and “Palestinians are lucky the Israelites didn't bring the plans for gas-emitting showers and human-sized ovens with them from Germany and Poland. The record of Israel’s treatment of their defeated foes is one of the most tolerant and humane in history. To this day, millions of Moslem Arabs live inside Israel and are elected to office and share power. This is an amazing record of kindness to a former foe.

If anyone is still are in doubt, just start a war with someone who can beat you, and see what happens. We need to stop feeling sorry for these anti-Semites who sew explosives into their children's underpants before sending them out to murder nuns over cartoons, behead reporters, and blow up civilian women and children. Blowing up your neighbors because you're jealous of their accomplishments is a hate crime, AND stupid.

Jewish people would also have the freedom not to serve Christians, but everyone would have the right not to patronize anyone who makes such choices.

Now who will replace Helen as the face of liberalism, Rosie O'Donnell?

Regarding 1st Amendment, Mark Twain's words put it into a different perspective: "It is by the goodness of God that in our country we have those three unspeakably precious things: Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Conscience, and the prudence never to practice either of them."

In reading about the tactics of the Communists from Richard Wurmbrand's books, he who spent 14 years being tortured in Communist prisons, we see that the Communists betray their own strongest supporters when they no longer serve a convenient purpose for them. Read his books, Tortured for Christ or Christ on the Jewish Road or Marx and Satan. Wurmbrand, a Jew who converted to Christianity and devoted the rest of his life to Jesus Christ, and who led many, many Communists guards who were thrown into the same jail cell that he was, to Christ, gives a detailed account of the type of behavior that Liberals have just shown in regard to their former darling, Helen Thomas. He had a project to mail small parts of the Bible to those beyond the iron curtain. He was convinced that even small portions of scripture were powerful and would sustain others, as it did him.

He taught about the Satanist spirit of Communism, to people that would never have been able to understand exactly how evil Communism, and all it kissing cousins are, if it weren't for him. Clearly, the present occupant of the White House is in league with evil, and people would be a lot more serious about which party they choose to vote for, if they understood this thoroughly. He said, "Marxism=Communism=Satanism". He should know!

It is amazing the degree of exclusion the people practice who allegedly embraces inclusion. Hers is a very interesting remark indeed coming from yet another liberal with zero understanding of history. Do Helen and her Democrats think that Jews should re-trace their steps back across the Sinai to Egypt, to the land of the Pharaohs? Does she think that she also should “Get the hell out of America and go back to Lebanon where she came from?

Look, large numbers of Jews migrated, to what is now Israel, starting in the 19th century when it was not even a country of any sort, just an outpost of the Ottoman Empire. They paid good money for their land, and they had the permission of the Turkish authorities to settle there. They were allowed to settle because not many others wanted to settle in that then a desolate ruined, malaria-infested land. The population of so-called "Palestine" was down to only a few hundred thousand.

Jews had just as much right to buy that land and settle there as anyone else. But, wait a moment, as they had always had a presence in their ancestral homeland, they had even more right than other peoples to settle there. Now, when the neighboring countries, such as Egypt and Syria, started an aggressive war to displace the growing Jewish population, they should have known that wars are sometimes lost with serious consequences. They would have been wise to be tolerant and live side-by-side, especially as they greatly benefited economically from the Jewish development of the wasted and abused land. Alternatively, they could have accepted the international UN partition plan that would have pushed all the Jews onto a small fraction of that small land. But, no, in their arrogance and false pride, they went to war, and the strong vibrant state of Israel is the result. They need to get over it, and get to work taking care of their own horribly poor and downtrodden people.

What the Islamist Fascists hate is the freedom the people of Israel of all religions enjoy, and the freedom that Americans enjoy. In their mind altered Leftist brains they refuse to, or cannot, face that reality, and must blame Israel and America for this, instead. Thus you have the statement of Leftist loonies that "The terrorists are terrorists because of us!" This madness is parroted by far too many people, and we are actually foolish enough to elect these kinds of people nowadays. Helen Thomas is just another example of the warped thinking of the Left.

They think we ought to "listen" to what the poor terrorists have to say. And understand that after all, WE are the aggressors, not them. Delusional, but this is what these people think, and how they behave, and it is dangerous that we elect these people. Helen Thomas is just a sideshow of this despicable mindset. There are lots more like her around!

The old hag got read out of the Leftist pantheon because she dropped the mask for a moment and let all those nice deluded Liberal Jews out there realize that there are an awful lot of people like her who want them dead. As a result everyone who has something to lose by being associated with a racist Democrat party encouraged her, and everyone around her, to get her to retire. They, indeed, are less concerned about the CONTENT of what she said, than they are about the VEHEMENCE with which she said it.

Maybe America and the UN should "give" Somalia to Israel. End of another festering Mid East problem. Israel sure would quickly end the Somalia problem, as well as providing itself with an over water air route to Iran.

Just wondering what her thoughts were when Hitler was committing genocide on the Jews? She would have been about 20. Maybe that was the base for her anti Semitic rant? What was her opinion in 1948 when the U.N. returned the Jews to their home land after 6 million of them had been left dead in Poland and Germany? She would have been about 28 then. More than likely her bigotry has been a life-long passion. It just proves once again, that the real racist xenophobes are on the left.

Rumor has it that Helen Thomas will soon become host of the "View."

All you need to know about Helen Thomas is that Hezbollah congratulated her. The icon of the liberal media establishment for 40 years is the unrepentant cat's paw of an anti-Semitic, fascist terrorist organization. And there are plenty more of her type around Liberal circles. Scratch a liberal and there is a good chance you will find the ugly mug of Helen Thomas looking back at you.

What I heard her say was "all you Jews, get back into the ovens."

RobertFounder@Gmail.Com

Jim| 6.11.10 @ 12:52PM

Robert, why are you wasting everyone's time cutting and pasting other people's posts?

Nathan Bickel | 6.11.10 @ 1:47PM

Jim:

If Robert was a preacher, I sure wouldn't want to sit in on one of his sermons.

If people can't limit their comments to a small portion of the web page, then, they aren't worth reading.......

Robert Founder| 6.16.10 @ 3:06PM

I cleaned up a bunch of junk and made it into some thing worthwhile of real educational value, which the tiny minded incapables would never understand. You little people can't do any sustained writing of any sort, but think your opinions are so great. I used scraps of what some of the better of you said, and all you want to do is backbite. You should complement your betters.

Robert Founder| 6.16.10 @ 3:10PM

All great writers use snips and tags of other people writing to make something of enduring value. But, some lack the vision to understand the creative process, having never created anything to start with. I'm written more than 100,000 pages. What have you ever written?

Mark| 6.11.10 @ 3:43PM

It’s rather late in the day so I guess JC won’t see this – perhaps no one will. This morning, he said, “Hearst does not have the right to terminate for several reasons.” That is insane. An employer can fire anyone at any time and never give a reason, or an accurate one. As employer, I hire at will and fire at will. I pay well and give great benefits to my employees, but it’s a two-way loyalty street: slavery was eliminated and an employee can leave at any time. Guess what? I can stop paying them beyond their earned time and benefits...and I have on occasion. JC doesn’t know that? There must be another legalistic, nuanced, cushioned world that such folks live in.

Achilles Toejam| 6.11.10 @ 4:48PM

How in the heck did an opinion writer like Thomas ever get credentialed as a real journalist let alone become so entrenched in the White House press corps? Good riddance, maybe someone will catch a glimpse of her now and then wandering the aisles of the Dollar General store looking for bargains on Depends adult diapers.

Gary Thomas| 6.11.10 @ 8:14PM

I'll state up front that Helen and I are not related to at least the 6th degree of consanguinity. Isreal is in a nearly impossible position. But it is not an entirely impossible position. Isreal needs to make public overtures of generosity and goodwill (and fight back if attacked) and to establish links at all levels from childrens soccer tournaments to scholarships to to joint research on agriculture in the desert. The present CULTURE OF HOSTILITY CAN BE CHANGED BUT NOT BY HOSTILITY.

Yechiel| 6.11.10 @ 10:27PM

All in favor of outlawing hatred, cretisism, buyers alerts and teaching history, as it was, say walk immediatly to the nearest cliff. You will be gurenteed a thrill. All others, remember, when you point a finger at someone, there are three more pointing back. Ms. Thomas got them choped off, and now, there has to be something more useful we can talk about; like getting along.
The critisism of the government overreaching its credible limits in anti-segartism laws is legally valid. So is the argument that any demarcracy has the responsibility to protect all of it's citizens from undue largess in abusive behavior. Let the Eagal see that all have the same rioghts, then we can iron out the rough spots; or shall we permit violance on someone, because we do not like their faith, politics, nasional decent or skine color.
Politics and Law aside, I am for a society where all are free do do their best-legally, morally and ethically. I am also in favor of restrint on the Federal government to tell "me" how I can have my share of this "Great Societ.
Shalom, and may all beifet from it;
Yechiel

Northern Rebel| 6.12.10 @ 4:56AM

Old Joe:

I don't disagree with you, and I certainly don't support what H. Thomas said, I was merely suggesting that she has a right to her repugnant opinions in America.

If the people paying her choose to discontinue doing so, that is also a right in this country.

Unless, it seems, you are a union schoolteacher who sucks at your job!

fdk| 7.1.10 @ 4:56AM

shanghai massage

Latest Headlines

From the Obama Ministry of Truth

Ben Stein|51 comments

Despite the WaPost, Benghazi Is a Major Scandal

Quin Hillyer|45 comments

IRS Union Chief Stonewalls

Jeffrey Lord|56 comments

McCain-Feingold Gave Us the IRS Scandal

Ross Kaminsky|105 comments

Anyone Still Believe Me?

Aaron Goldstein|34 comments

The Book We Still Can’t Spare

Lars Walker|48 comments

Delivering Serbs to the Wolves

Doug Bandow|25 comments

Wincing at Cumberbatch

James Bowman|9 comments

The Spectacle Blog

Carney Goes Birther on Major Garrett

Aaron Goldstein | 12:10AM

UPDATED: More on Lerner Pleading the Fifth

Kaylin Bugos | 5.21.13

Did Virginia Republicans Just Elect Terry McAuliffe?

Ross Kaminsky | 5.21.13

Lois Lerner Will Take the Fifth