Obama Says Oil Spill Is Like 9-11… But Sends Only 20 of 2,000 US Oil Skimmer Boats to Florida Coast
by Jim Hoft
Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse…

Last week Barack Obama told Politico that the BP oil spill was like 9-11–
But, it’s been over 60 days since the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion and he’s only sent 20 of 2,000 US oil skimmer boats to the coast of Florida.

Senator George LeMieux of Florida told the Shark Tank that there are only 20 skimmer boats off the coast of Florida out of 2,000 available skimmer boats in the United States. Lemieux says that Obama is afraid to move them to Florida because there won’t be any in place in case there is an oil leak somewhere else.


more have been requested and those requests have been ignored.

Jim Dandy: True and no matter one's politics, it's not a good thing to undermine the character of an acting President. When talking to journalists, nothing is ever off the record.

Jim Dandy: Lol. But what's on MSNs floor?

June 22, 2010
Gen. McChrystal criticized Obama war management in magazine interview
Thomas Lifson
General Stanley McChrystal's career is hanging by a thread in the wake of revelations contained in a forthcoming article in Rolling Stone, quoting the General criticizing President Obama and some of his team members. Gordon Lubold of Politico writes:

The article, titled "The Runaway General," appears in the magazine later this week. It contains a number of jabs by McChrystal and his staff aimed not only at the President but at Vice President Biden, special envoy Richard Holbrooke, Karl Eikenberry, the ambassador to Afghanistan, and others.

McChrystal described his first meeting with Obama as disappointing and said that Obama was unprepared for the meeting.

National Security Advisor Jim Jones is described by a McChrystal aide as a "clown" stuck in 1985.

Others aides joked about Biden's last name as sounding like "Bite me" since Biden opposed the surge.
McChrystal has already apologized publicly:

"It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and should never have happened," McChrystal said. "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity. What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard. I have enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team, and for the civilian leaders and troops fighting this war and I remain committed to ensuring its successful outcome."
The White House flacks at MSNBC's "Morning Joe," where they yesterday confessed to "working with the White House" on talking points, focused on the outrage of criticizing the commander-in-chief, not on the substance of the remarks:

"This general has to be fired, he has to be gone by the end of the day," said Joe Scarborough, on "Morning Joe" on MSNBC.

"Gates and Petraeus have to come out and fire McChrystal." They should have already done it - Petreaus and Gates should have already fired McChrystal."

But firing McChrystal could be a problem for Obama. First is the question of a replacement. Is there anyone as qualified as this widely-respected expert on counter-terror? The war is going badly, and a sudden change in command could make matters worse.

Then there is the awkward question of the substance of the General's remarks, especially about a commander-in-chief who doesn't do his homework. Afghanistan is Obama's war, the one he said we must win. His management of the war may be consistent with his inept, lazy management of the Gulf oil spill. The American people will not be reassured by the appointment of a replacement for McChrystal whose principal qualification is keeping his mouth shut about the incompetence he sees around him in the conduct of war.

I suspect the General assumed some of his remarks, and conversations with others, were off-the-record. The "Morning Joe" crew acknowledged that other senior military figures privately criticize Obama. McChrystal's error appaerently was in trusting a free lance journalist working with Rolling Stone, or perhaps in not clarifying what was off the record.

The article isn't yet publicly available. All we know about it comes from other media sources who have seen advance copies.

Gen. McChrystal is on his way to the White House from the Afghanistan theatre. There will be more news soon.

Thirteen countries offered Obama help. He couldn't get his act together to accept. And things just keep getting worse.

Obama is making a huge mistake taking Arizona to court. We clearly have a problem with illegals in this country. Most Americans support the law. Obama once again goes against public opinion. Now 51% don't want him reelected. Does he NOT understand politics? He's not doing the Dems any favors.

As I understand it, the Arizona law simply mirrors an already existing Federal law. So it will be on to the Supreme Court for this one. I predict Arizona wins. Obama loses either way.

Jim Dandy:

Jim Dandy: That's very true. As for the subject line above, I totally agree. If an election were held today Obama would still win, that's clear from polls. He'll be hard to beat in the next election but the Dems won't be in power most likely.

I think both the Dems and the Repubs have totally lost their way. Repubs especially. Many have turned on the party values one held firm.

McCain would have been a worse choice than Obama. Palin alone would have been better perhaps.

We need term limits and a Constitutional amendment for balanced budgets. And congress has to be on the public health care and retirement plans.

GKChesterton: He's a huge disappointment to his base. Not a good place to be for sure. His experience is clearly lacking and he will go down in history as a failed experiment. The sooner the better in my view.

Jim Dandy:

Jim Dandy: and he's calmed down a bit. I haven't heard him say "shutup" in a long time.

Jim Dandy: See? Bill is fair and balanced.

Jim Dandy: Well I agree that they need to take care not to give that perception. Barton should have chosen his words more carefully. Two Republicans have called for him to step down from his committee.

I don't see anything wrong with Bachman's comments. She wasn't supporting BP at all. Her comments were directed at the Constitutional powers of the President. Nothing wrong with that.

(V): Accepting needed help when offered is not like walking on water. Approving the requests of the governor of Louisiana in a timely manner is not like walking on water. Acting immediately in a crisis and showing leadership is not like walking on water. What is expected of Obama is to protect the US and use the power of his office to do all he can to contain this spill. He had the resources and he squandered every opportunity. He failed completely.

Which is why even the LEFT is highly critical of his leadership.

Jim Dandy: I like Bachman and I'd have to see exactly what she said. But I believe she said that the actions the Obama administration took (and is taking) are outside their constitutional powers. Barton, I believed, was misunderstood. He isn't saying that BP isn't at fault nor shouldn't be held responsible. He is saying that the President and lawmakers are vilifying BP and forcing them to set up a fund and this before a full investigation. It's political grandstanding on the part of Obama IMO.

For the record, I believe that BP hurried the drilling and KNOWINGLY put the operation at risk. And I also believe that when confronted with a potential problem, BP management IGNORED the warnings and soon after all hell broke loose (and 11 people died etc). Is BP at fault? I think it's clear from preliminaries that they are 100% at fault. Should they be held accountable for the LEAK? Yes. 100%. Should they be 100% accountable for the cleanup?

no

It's also the job of the US government to protect our shores. Obama totally blew the cleanup. Obama ignored the problem initially. Why did Obama REFUSE foreign help? Why did Obama wait nearly TWO MONTHS before there was any meaningful response? Why did Obama put a 6 month moratorium on further drilling? How many people did he put out of a job with that stupid decision? And because of Obama's failure to handle the cleanup effectively (his Job -yes BP's job too but the cleanup falls in his lap - that's where the buck stops) many more people will be out of jobs - all thanks to Obama's incompetence. Time will show all these things to be the case. Obama is now back-peddling and trying to shift blame and deflect. It's transparent.

BTW, NONE of that 20 Billion can be caimed by people who's income is affected by the lack of cleanup. The man in charge of the 20 Billion just said that on the tube. Why? Because you can't penalize BP for the government's failure to act. And it's completely clear that Obama failed to act in a timely and efficient way. Other countries, who offered help, have expertise and needed equipment for such cleanups. Obama will have to answer as to why he turned them all away. That's just ONE example of how Obama screwed up big time with regard to this cleanup.

(V): The leak = BPs problem

The cleanup = US government responsibility + BP. But the US government is mandated to protect our shores. The fault for the lack of cleanup falls directly on Obama.

Jim Dandy:  Not all of the right wing did.  But too many.  And yes, <span>Olberman and Maddow and others do get props for this one.  

(V):  You think Obama has handled this oil spill in the right way?

Jim Dandy: I fully agree with that.

(V): Perhaps not a conspiracy but then it's a show of complete incompetence.

Is the Obama administration intentionally scaling back clean-up efforts in the Gulf in an attempt to maximize the damage so Democrats in Congress will have an excuse to take effective control over yet another major sector of our economy and impose crippling and draconian new taxes on the American people?

Sher Zieve who wrote in the Canada Free Press: "Obama is doing the bare minimum so that destruction will be at an all-time maximum -- in order to shove his Cap and Trade bill (which will complete our destruction) down our throats."

"The BP oil disaster was custom-made for The Obama. The effective oil-skimmer systems utilized by the Saudis and others would work to greatly minimize the damage being caused to the US Gulf Coast. But, The Obama continues to drag his heels as States and lives are destroyed."

When the Dutch government offered to help us clean up the oil spewing from the leaking BP oil rig, Obama initially turned them down cold. Norwegian and Dutch firms offered to help us too, but Obama said no.

This much is certain -- in spite of what Obama told the American people during his Oval Office address to the nation, he did not adequately respond to this crisis. The administration has clearly failed in terms of organization and the use of resources available to the federal government.

Moreover, it's now indisputable that statists on Capitol Hill are attempting to exploit this disaster to push so-called cap and trade legislation. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell recently revealed: "At the same time as Americans wonder when this gusher will ever be plugged, we hear word that the administration and my good friend the majority leader want to piggy back their controversial new national energy tax -- also known as cap and trade -- to an oil spill response bill that could and should be an opportunity for true bipartisan cooperation. So here again, we see the administration using a crisis, in this case the disaster in the gulf, as an opportunity to muscle through Congress another deeply unpopular bill that has profound implications for small business and struggling households."

(playing politics with a tragedy)

Obama declared a moratorium on off-shore drilling and to make matters worse, Obama wants to institute a massive new energy tax, masquerading as sound energy policy (so-called cap and trade), that will dramatically raise the cost of just about everything you produce or consume, deprive you of income, control your behavior and repress your liberties.

Obama's Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, once said that you should never let a good crisis go to waste and Barack Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill aren't about to let this crisis go to waste. He may pontificate about holding BP to account but Obama and his leftist cronies fully intend to exploit this crisis to sneak liberty-stealing cap and trade legislation past the American people.

On June 9, President Obama announced a $400 million aid package to the West Bank and Gaza, which are currently two separate entities; the West Bank under the control of Mahmoud Abbas, a moderate by radical Islamic standards, and Gaza, which is run by the democratically-elected Islamic Resistance Movement, better known as the terrorist group Hamas.

Whatever else you can say about Obama, at least he never forgets his friends. Thanks to the investigative work of Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs, we know that in 2007, Obama’s campaign received over $30 Thousand in illegal donations from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

he United States has, since 2001, listed Hamas as a “Specifically Designated Global Terrorist.” In the world community – or what passes for it – this is supposed to mean that the penalties for providing support to a SDGT are harsh.

Even the New York Times, which is, as a rule, sympathetic to terrorists, declared that, “the details of how the aid would be used in Gaza remained unclear. Nor was it immediately clear how Mr. Abbas, who has authority in the West Bank but not in Gaza, a would be able to administer it.”

Obama and his liberal pals here always tell us the most evil crime in the world is racial discrimination. And yet, they take our money and give it to people whose sole objective for their existence is to exterminate a race of people. Welcome to Obama’s world.

I reported before the 2008 election that Obama had been endorsed by Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef, who himself had been a Hamas operative inside the United States for years. He used several aliases, until I confronted him and informed him that I knew who he was. He denied that he worked for Hamas, and then promptly fled the country. Two years later, he turned up in Damascus, Syria as a senior Hamas leader.

President Obama is either completely ignorant of the war Islamic terrorists such as Hamas are waging against us, or worse. Until we know more, I have the unfortunate task of reporting to you that we are now, officially, a state sponsor of terrorism.

Buckley Carlson is a Washington-based political consultant.

Hell has frozen over! The far-left in America is turning on their guy Barack Obama. After his speech on the oil disaster a few days ago, the crazy left Greek chorus on MSNBC hammered the president. He wasn't specific enough, he was too weak, I don't sense "executive command," they wailed.

On the oil spill, a clear sign that Obama is not fit for the job:

Why did he not waive the Jones Act (he still hasn't) to allow foreign vessels to ply our waters to clean up the spill? Not because he was against it. He couldn't have been against so obvious a course as waiving it. It was likely because nobody told him about it, and he never knew to ask.

Incompetence

Why did he let the bureaucracy use only U.S. contractors to dredge the Gulf and build the berms that Lousiana wanted? Why did he spurn the offer of Dutch assistance (half the country has been dredged from the sea and is below sea level)? Not because he wanted the jobs to go to Americans. That would have been an insane consideration in the face of this crisis. It is probably because he never realized that our capacity for dredging needed augmentation. Because he never asked.

in competence

June 18, 2010
The liberal blinders lift on Obama
Tony Gallardo
There is a lot moaning, groaning, and gnashing of teeth coming from the lefties these days. They are battering Barack Obama like a piñata; but just a few months ago they proclaimed him to be the Messiah, a Savior, a combination of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Martin Luther King, a sort of god, and even, according to Chris Matthews, "...the last Kennedy brother." (Why Matthews thinks this is a compliment is mystery to me, but there you have it.)

This is mostly just about the oil spill, but at least the scales seem to be falling from their adoring eyes.

They are stunned to learn that the man they told us would heal the world, end all wars, restore America's image in the world, unify us as a kind of Disneyland where the meerkats, hyenas, lions, monkeys, and crocodiles would all live side by side in harmony singing "It's a small world after all" is in reality just another average, run of the mill political hack who doesn't know his "you know what" from a hole in the ground.

Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Howard Fineman, James Carville, and Maureen Dowd simply cannot believe the incompetence of the man they once deified.

I have a question for you people. There are those of us who questioned and criticized Obama in the past, and we were routinely characterized as Nazis, racists, rednecks, and worse; now that you enlightened people are joining the chorus, does that make you Nazis, racists, rednecks, etc? If not, why not? Please defend yourselves, preferably in writing, and be specific in your answers.

I also have a suggestion; buck up and brace your selves. He has two and a half years left to screw more things up to a royal fare thee well.

Things are likely to get a whole lot worse.

June 18, 2010
BO poison
Thomas Lifson
Barack Obama now has negative coattails for candidates: an endorsement by him causes more voters to reject the candidate endorsed than support the endorsee. Variety, the showbiz newspaper, refers to unpopular actors as "BO [Box Office] Poison." The President with the same initials is voting booth poison. Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling notes:

PPP's most recent national survey found that while Obama had a positive approval rating at 48/47, only 33% of voters were more likely to vote for a candidate endorsed by him while 48% said support from Obama would make them less likely to vote for someone. That's because only 64% of voters who approve of the President say his endorsement would make them more inclined to vote for a candidate, but 91% who disapprove say Obama's support makes it less likely they would vote for one of his preferred candidates.

To put into perspective the perils of having Obama out on the campaign trail, consider the numbers in his home state of Illinois. Even there just 26% of voters say they'd be more inclined to back an Obama endorsed candidate while 40% say his support would be more likely to turn them against a candidate.

As the realization sinks in among Democrats that their president is leading them off a cliff, those interested in political survival may seek to rehabilitate their voter appeal by turning on his policies and voicing criticisms more openly. This also heightens the chances of an internal challenge to him for re-nomination. Perhaps the announcement of such a challenge will take place on Ecuadorian TV.

Jim Dandy: I think you're spot on. I'm guessing the cold shoulder has several factors. For one, I don't really think Obama tried very hard to include the ideas of the Right in his policies. I think more he tried to convince them to accept his ideas and support them. The other factor is the arrogance of some on the left (Pelosi for one) and how they simply excluded the Right from participating in meaningful ways. Then there is always the loyalty factor. Loyalty to the party line (not necessarily a bad thing but certainly doesn't promote bipartisanship). When you hold the majority, you don't always have to give and take and in this case, the Dems held the majority and the Right was powerless. There goes our checks and balances.

Jim Dandy: nonsense. It ALL has to do with the oil spill. Either directly or indirectly.

My last response was to your general comments post. Since you didn't address the oil spill, I simply responded to your general comments.

When Rachel maddox criticizes obama, you know he's in trouble.

Jim Dandy: People want solutions not speeches. Where was he at the beginning of this oil spill? He was not dealing with it. His administration was basically ignoring it. It took Obama 2 months to approve Jindal's requests. That's playing politics.

Obama is the first President to use foul language when addressing the public. Not very Presidential.

And why are many on the left talking about buyers remorse? Clearly, Obama's honeymoon is over. More and more people are disappointed with his policies and lack of leadership.

Wait until they see their taxes go up. Another promise broken. We will all see that. No, Obama didn't "raise" our taxes. He authored policies that will increase taxes through new regulations/laws and changes.

When the Bush tax cuts expire, we will all see an increase. Obama could extend the cuts but he won't. As we head into November we will see more and more voting against the Democrats. Thanks to Obama.

Obama is receiving bipartisan criticism for using this oil spill for political means. He's attempting to use the spill as a way to revive his energy regulation bill. That bill has been tabled since last year. Clearly the "cap-and-trade" package does absolutely nothing in stopping the leak or aiding in the cleanup. But Obama never met a crisis that he's not willing to exploit politically.

From his speech:

We've approved the construction of new barrier islands in Louisiana to try and stop the oil before it reaches the shore."

Of course Louisiana's governor has been asking for those islands and berms for two months not and FINALLY Obama approves. Now that's quick. Keep in mind, they've not been built yet but they are approved.

What was Obama waiting for? Oh yeah, for things to get worse.

Real leadership gets things done. Obama is over his head. We are seeing the Peter Principle at work here.

Jim Dandy: The Obama administration's response to the oil spill was slow. Even when he did begin to get involved, the efforts of the feds has been disorganized and inefficient. The politics he's playing has to do with the clean up and NOT the spill. It's OUR shores and OUR fishing waters and OUR recreational waters that are affected. So it's up the US (as in the Federal Government) to be sure things are being done aggressively to contain this disaster.

Obama and company did NOT do that. They are just now taking aggressive action. And at every opportunity, Obama is vilifying BP. That is not to say BP isn't at fault here. I think they clearly are. But grandstanding and making promises to kick someone's ass is a political move and not a move of a leader trying to offer viable solutions.

Obama is moving toward passage of some of his energy policies and he's doing so on the back of this oil spill. There is speculation that he and his administration have deliberately allowed the spill to get worse so that it would yield more political advantage. I think this is true. The evidence of this is Obama's current pressure on legislators to pass some of his more controversial legislation.

Obama has never been a fan of huge oil companies. And clearly he's using this crisis to his political advantage. I'm not saying Republicans don't do the same. They do. But Obama is president now and he's the man in charge so ultimately he's the only one that matters at the moment.

(V): It's a step but as I correctly pointed out, we're not there yet. We've a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG way to go. A very long way.

(V): I'm not ignoring that fact. I've know BP caused the accident through negligence from the start. But Obama did nothing in the first 60 days.

(V): There was PLENTY Obama could have done AFTER the spill but he did NOTHING. I'll list them later. I'll also get specific on Jim's question.

Jim Dandy: Obama shirked his responsibility early on in this whole mess. There were things he could do but his administration sat on their hands. That part is clear. Now he's acting (playing politics) all though. Even Chris Matthews is critical of him.

Bernice: Obama sat on his hands for nearly 60 days. I think he let this disaster get as bad as it could get so he could play the tough guy and then pass some of his controversial ideas.

June 17, 2010
Charity begins at home
Moshe Dann
President Obama has announced that he intends to give $400 million more to the Palestinian Authority and Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip without conditions, or oversight.

This is in addition to $900 million America pledged for Gaza and the PA in March, 2009.

President Obama said: "...the United States -- which is already the biggest humanitarian aid donor in Gaza -- is going to be announcing an additional $400 million in assistance for housing, school construction, business development -- not only in Gaza, but also in the West Bank ... the status quo with respect to Gaza [is] unsustainable, the status quo with respect to the Middle East is unsustainable. It is time for us to go ahead and move forward on a two-state solution..."

Yet, Israeli soldier, Gilad Shalit, has been held in Gaza for four years without even minimal human rights, even a visit from the Red Cross. And Hamas terrorists, who are in control of Gaza, continue to attack Israel.

And a few days ago, terrorists connected to Fatah, the ruling party in the PA, murdered a policeman and wounded two others. PA policemen have been involved in other murders of Jews traveling on roads in Judea and Samaria.

(V): Of course I never said it was "just a theory." That part you made up. I said the technology isn't adequate. It can't produce the needed energy to complete with fossil fuels. And I said that we've a long way to go before we get to that place.

You see, I read the news and what I've said is what has been in the news. It's not that green energy doesn't offer promises. Perhaps it does. But at this moment in time, the technology IS NOT THERE. It's like a battery vrs nuclear energy. Sure the battery can run small things. But it cannot even begin to address the huge energy needs of a single city. A house? Yeah. People had tons of equiptment and get their energy from the sun. But they live in Arizona. Try that here. In many parts of the world the sunshine is not sufficient to power much of anything.

Jim Dandy: I agree that we should get the jump on green energy. But it's only a promise at this moment in time and it may turn out to just be a pipe dream.

(V): This is not true. It can potentially stop it but that's theory. In practice, it can't because as I said, we don't currently have the adequate technology.

(V):   The US may have the resources for "Green Energy" but the technology just isn't there.  There is likely potential, but the actual technology to produce the vast quantities of energy needed just isn't possible technologically at this point.  One oil well can supply far more than a multitude of green energy sources.  It's not my opinion on the matter, it's just the facts we are currently facing.  There is no possible way to replace fossel fuels with green energy.  We are still in the very early stages of discovery.  Yes we have found green energy sources, but the output is limited.  And in the meanwhile, other countries around the world will continue to produce oil based products and unless the US does too, it will be at the mercy of others.  Exploring green energy sources is one thing.  But we cannot talk ahead of the game.  We are not at a point where green energy can sustain people's energy needs on larger scales.  In theory perhaps, but in practice, no.

Make room under the bus for Eric Holder
Clarice Feldman
One of my favorite national security mavens, Gabriel Schoenfeld, says in the Weekly Standard that Attorney General Eric Holder's likely to be thrown under the Obama bus. I can't find a thing wrong with that prediction:

Eric Holder has been a disastrous attorney general. "Classic 101 Boobery" was how one Democratic operative memorably called his decision, now on hold, to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court in lower Manhattan. Other blunders have piled up and the White House has been repeatedly embarrassed by his string of ill-considered decisions and gaffes. With the midterm elections approaching, it would not be surprising if Holder soon finds himself under the Obama bus, lying next to former Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair.

That would answer the question as to why the administration waited so long and why they held back on needed efforts to stop the disaster before it got worse.

June 14, 2010
Obama will use Oval Office speech to politicize the Gulf oil disaster
Bill Weckesser
Has the Obama administration willfully been scuttling clean up efforts in the Gulf so that the oil could make its way to shore and onto the beaches and birds for maximum political leverage? Now Politico is reporting that the President will use his oval office address for a full court, no hold-bars, assault on the oil and energy industries. Mike Allen writes in http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0610/38488.html

June 13, 2010
Obama's alternate history musings on the oil spill
Rick Moran
What do you do if you're president and the American people think you're handling of an environmental disaster is incompetent?

If you're Obama, you make up an alternate history scenario where you place the blame on what your opponents would have done if you had tried to prevent it:

In an interview with POLITICO, the president said: "I think it's fair to say, if six months ago, before this spill had happened, I had gone up to Congress and I had said we need to crack down a lot harder on oil companies and we need to spend more money on technology to respond in case of a catastrophic spill, there are folks up there, who will not be named, who would have said this is classic, big-government overregulation and wasteful spending."

The president also implied that anti-big government types such as tea party activists were being hypocritical on the issue.

"Some of the same folks who have been hollering and saying ‘do something' are the same folks who, just two or three months ago, were suggesting that government needs to stop doing so much," Obama said. "Some of the same people who are saying the president needs to show leadership and solve this problem are some of the same folks who, just a few months ago, were saying this guy is trying to engineer a takeover of our society through the federal government that is going to restrict our freedoms."

The excuse here has the benefit that it is absolutely unsupported by the facts, while creating an alternate universe where the president was prevented from doing something when he had 60 sitting Democratic senators and a huge majority in the House.

And the canard that the tea party folks are "anti-government" is a nice touch, don't you think? There is a huge difference between being "anti-statist" and "anti-government" and Obama knows it. He just finds it convenient to raise a straw man argument as he desperately tries to spread the blame for his administration's towering incompetence on the oil spill.

Jim Dandy: That sums it up well.

Jim Dandy: Doesn't matter. Clearly a huge majority of people on your forums consider Thomas to be a hero. That doesn't speak well of them.

Jim Dandy: I'm sure you do. But it doesn't sound fairly represented. After all, 90% think Helen Thomas is a hero. I don't know of any conservatives that would think that way. And that 90% of the posters in your forums think a Jew hater is a "hero" is hardly something to celebrate. That's a statistic you ought to try to camouflage, not parade for all to see. It's not the first time Helen Thomas showed her hatred for the Jews. But hey, it's the Jews. It's not like she hates blacks! That would be different. In your world it must be ok to hate Jews. I wonder if Helen Thomas was aware that many Jews still have their tattoos from the concentration camps? And many have family members that were murdered (by the millions) in both Poland and Germany. News Flash for you and others who admire racist Helen Thomas: The Jews ARE home.

I wonder if Helen Thomas favors sending all the Blacks back to Africa? For that matter, what's her position on Mexicans living illegally in the US?