As Heard on The Stephanie Miller Show

SodaStream USA No Batteries Banner 4

Monday, July 31, 2006

Malibu Apocalypto

For those who love to see the migty fall face foward into a pile of thier own leavings, this has been a glorious weekend.

First, poor Lindsey Lohan gets her ass handed to her by her studion for constant worl cancellations for things like heat exhaustion (read: too many parties)....

Then there's Mel Gibson.

Lindsay's problems can be solved simply....stay sober and show up on time.

Mel, on the other hand....

Unless you have been under a rock, this weekend, Mr. Gibson was stopped for speeding down LA's Pacific Coast Highway. When the breathalyser ranked him, he was beyond drunk.....closer to embalmed.

Nothing unusual....that would have gotten a two-liner and a couple of jokes. But like many drunks, Melsy had to open his big mouth.

And in a police report that would have been silenced if it wasn't for Harvey Levin (yeah, that guy on People's Court) and his blog, who got the original report before it was remodeled.

Proctor & Gamble and Amway, working together on 24-hour shifts, for three weeks straight, could not come with enough soap needed to clean out the mouth of Mr. Braveheart.

Lets see, we start with calling a female officer "Sugar Tits." Then a few words threatening the officers.

Oh, but the anti-semetic stuff!

All of it lovingly detailed on Levin's site. If you notice, I will not repeat what was said by Mel at the station.

But this is what he said in a carefully written apology, with......I'm sure......his legal team looking over:

"I acted like a person completely out of control when I was arrested and said
things that I do not believe to be true and which are despicable.

"The arresting officer was just doing his job and I feel fortunate that I
was apprehended before I caused injury to any other person.

"I disgraced myself and my family with my behaviour and for that I am
truly sorry.

"I have battled with the disease of alcoholism for all of my adult life
and profoundly regret my horrific relapse.",15384,1374420_movies,00.html


The reaction has been swift, and not kind. One producer who wants to remail nameless has said he doubted Gibson could ever get over the anti-Semitism taint.

"The drunk-driving stuff, you can get over that if you've got box-office clout," the producer said. "But you can't get over the fact this is a Jewish town. Frankly, I don't know how he can walk into a meeting in this town ever again. (Source: The Austrailian)

So far, he has had TV deal gone sour, and his studio is wondering what to do with Apocalypto, the Mayan-language adventure planned for Xmas release.

The bigger problem is who want to work with the guy again.

If you remember when Mel was plugging Passion of the Christ, the movie was seen as having an anti-Jew taint. Mel's dad did not help much. A passionate denier of the Holacaust, Hutton Gibson has said "Go and ask an undertaker or the guy who operates the crematorium what it takes to get rid of a dead body," to the New York Times in 2003. "It takes one liter of petrol and 20 minutes. Now, 6 million?"

For his part, Mel never said he disagreed with Dad, although he had plenty of times to do it.

However, Mel said that Passion was not an anti-semetic work and that he was not one either.

You lying scheming stinking nasty sack of liquid crap. Mr. Gibson.

May we now add hypocrite as well.

The question now is, who want to work with a man who has said such horrid things. He may be in alcohol rehab, but what of rehab of the heart. Would a trip through the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles change it. Or talking with holacaust survivors?

I used to like Mel. I still think that Lethal Weapon 2 was, frame for frame, the best action movie ever made. I think he is a highly talented filmmaker and storyteller. But this trumps it all.

If you want my business, it's simple. Renounce your dad on this one thing. Hutton Gibson is wrong. His hatred is wrong. And your accepting it is extremely wrong.

Renouce the hatred. Otherwise, from here on, personally, you are no one to me.

Wednesday, July 19, 2006

What frightens you?

Does sex frighten you? Does the thought of a sexual act give you the heenie-geebies? Does even the thought of an orgasm, or cum, or a cock or a pussy send you over the edge.

You are a typical American, then.

Another friend has met the wrath of a mainstream website's TOS patrol. It is now becoming quite apparent that sex is something that is allowable as long as you (A) do not get real about it, (B) do not travel away from the set norms of "polite" society, or (C) do not show shame and regret for even thinking such things.....even if you do enjoy them.

I told you when I started this blog that I am a sexual heretic. That does not mean that I have an orgy every day. In fact I probably get less sex than you because I am so honest about sex, sexuality, and the like. I'm sorry, but I do not think that it is wrong to be sexual. It IS wrong to be coerced into any age. Past that, if it is consentual, I have no problem with anything.


And for the longest time, people like myself, who want to express their sexuality, either through prose, song, poetry, or just plain fucking, have been turned into pariahs in society. The ones they get the torches out for.

And I am not the only one.

People like Holly Hughes, Annie Sprinkle, Dr. Susan Block, Nina Hartley, Robert Maplethorpe, Jock Struges, Larry Flynt....the list goes on and on. People whose images, either intentional or not, have sexual meanings and connotations are those who are targeted by those who want to sanitize the planet it. To, effectively, neuter it.

These cretins, in the guise of Christian activists and stealth do-gooders who permeate the web, are on a mission to eradicate sex as a pleasurable enity around the globe. As I have said before, "fat chance."

You see, the final sexual revolution IS at hand. Once it take hold, all will be accepted as normal. The taboos will be lifted, and people will have the freedom to truly be who they want to be, love who they want to love in the style that they want, free to never have to live with the artificial shame that the Prude Patrol wants to invoke.

That is why the pressure has been steppned up. On networks like Yahoo/360, MySpace, and others, roaming bands of PP goosesteppers are using subterfuge and infiltration to find those sexual heretics, smoke'em out, and get them banned. At the same time, subversive organizations like the American Family ASSociation threaten boycotts of sponsors if they continue to allow sex to permiate thier sites.

So it is time for those who are sexual to stand up. Demand that companies declare once and for all who they stand on Amendment One. Find the companies targeted by the Prude Patrol and support them. Elect pro-sex people into office. Blog, network....socially, finacially, and politically, as well as sexually.

And be proud, feircely proud, of your sexuality, no matter who you are. Stop being ashamed about who you fuck, when you fuck, why you fuck, when you started or with whom or what, for as long as you are not hurting anyone, youare not evil. Let me are NOT evil.

Nor am I.

Find me at or

Monday, July 17, 2006

The Xenophobian Rinse-Out

Here are the latest salvos in the effort to bleach America:

Ohio sweep nets 154
Federal authorities track down immigrants from 30 countries living illegally in the state
Saturday, July 15, 2006
Kevin Mayhood


Walter Perez was among 154 undocumented immigrants arrested by federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents this week. Perez, of El Salvador, was wanted on a 10-year-old deportation order.

Homeland Security agents took to Ohio streets the past week, arresting 154 undocumented immigrants.

The agents from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement offices in Boston, Philadelphia, Buffalo and Detroit came heavily armed and loaded with files and warrants for deportation.
They took in immigrants from 30 countries and every continent save Antarctica. Among those arrested, 82 were from Mexico, followed by 19 from El Salvador and seven from Mauritania.
The men and women had been caught entering the country illegally and were ordered to court but never showed or had been ordered deported but never left, authorities said. Twenty had been charged with crimes. One was a reputed member of the Mexican street gang MS13.
No recent event spurred the sweep, government officials said.

"Sept. 11 showed us that, to have security, we have to have an immigration system with integrity," said Marc A. Raimondi, national spokesman for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Most of the Sept. 11 terrorists had taken advantage of lax enforcement, he said.
"You can have integrity if there is no consequence for abusing the laws or ignoring a court order."
Among those taken were immigrants who had been in the U.S. for a decade or more. They must leave homes, jobs and maybe children born here who are U.S. citizens.
"If they had complied and left 10 or 15 years ago, that wouldn't be the case," said Rob Baker, field office director in charge of detention and removal for Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Ohio and Michigan.

He noted that, by the end of September, seven agents will be based permanently in Cleveland to cover such operations throughout Ohio.
James E. Brown Jr., a deportation officer for the Immigration Fugitives Operation Unit in Boston, said agents received leads from other law-enforcement agencies and by running database searches against immigration court files.

Once in Ohio, the agents tapped local police and sheriffs to help confirm identities and homes of the immigrants.

Agents looking for a Mexican man found he had a barbershop in his basement. There they arrested several waiting men who had no proper documents. More came through the door, were questioned and taken in as well.

The agents can check names against an immigration database that lists who is in the country legally, who has overstayed a visa and more, Baker said.
In all, the agents arrested 68 they sought and 86 they came across.
The arrested were taken to the Seneca County jail; 72 Mexicans have already been flown home. Agents escorted them and handed them over to authorities in their homelands.
The agents were within their legal rights, said Baldemar Velasquez, president of the Farm Labor Organizing Committee and a founder of the Network of Immigrant Organizations in Ohio.

"People who enter the country illegally have committed a misdemeanor.

"The effectiveness of how we use the resources of this country is another matter."

A policy that would allow those seeking work to register and obtain a permit and the ability to travel would go a long way toward solving the perceived immigration problem, he said.
The vast majority of those who come here would register, allowing the border patrols and inland agents to concentrate on criminals, Velasquez said.

The government and immigrant study centers estimate that 9 million to 12 million undocumented immigrants are in the United States.

If the goal is to remove them all, "it will take some time," Raimondi said.
Velasquez said, "As many years it takes to find them all, more will come over the border."

Saturday, July 15, 2006

The Perv File #1

We are such a high-toned, asexual people, aren't we Americans? We always take the moral high ground and we never stand for taboo, right.

Well, all I can say is that the following are actual stories (with links), and leave it at that.

Except to add........the lies we tell ourselves.........!

Man sentenced to 70 years for incest: Cabrera will serve 30 in prison

Christopher Lee Cabrera, former Lula resident who videotaped sex acts, will serve 40 years probation as part of his sentence.
A former Lula resident who videotaped sex acts he took part in with a 15-year-old relative pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 70 years of prison and probation, Northeastern Judicial Circuit District Attorney Lee Darragh said.

Christopher Lee Cabrera, 36, of Decatur was ordered Wednesday to serve 30 years in prison and the balance of the sentence on probation by Superior Court Judge Jason Deal, Darragh said.
Cabrera refused to agree to a deal and entered an open-ended plea in court Wednesday to avoid a trial.

"He basically put himself on the mercy of the court," Darragh said.

Cabrera's defense attorney, Hall County public defender Larry Duttweiler, said there were no immediate plans to file an appeal.

"(Cabrera) deserves to spend every single day of his 30-year sentence incarcerated because of his molestation of this young lady," Darragh said.
Cabrera was convicted of incest, aggravated child molestation, child molestation, sodomy, sexual battery, sexual exploitation of a child, contributing to the delinquency of a minor and allowing a juvenile to view pornography.

Cabrera committed the sex crimes with the girl between Dec. 1 and Jan. 15, Darragh said. Cabrera committed the acts at his previous home on Harris Road in Lula, and again after moving to DeKalb County, where he worked as a mechanic, authorities said.

Darragh said Cabrera's younger relative had not been in his life until she began living with him last year.

Court records show Cabrera gave drugs and alcohol to the girl, videotaped himself having sex with her and also subjected her to pornographic films.

He voluntarily came to the Hall County Sheriff's Office in April and was arrested after being interviewed.

Ex-Teacher Sent Back to Jail for Sexy Messages
Former Gym Teacher Pamela Rogers Violated Her Probation

July 15, 2006 — - Former gym teacher Pamela Rogers tearfully apologized in court Friday, but that didn't stop a judge from sending her right back to prison, giving her a seven-year sentence on charges that she sent explicit photos to a young teenager while on probation for having sex with him.

"I am so sorry to all the people that I affected and hurt," sobbed Rogers, a 29-year-old former beauty queen.

In February 2005, Rogers, 28, was arrested and charged with 15 counts of sexual battery by an authority figure and 13 counts of statutory rape for her relationship with a student at Centertown Elementary in McMinnville, Tenn., where she taught physical education. A judge sentenced Rogers to serve nine months of an eight-year prison sentence and ordered her never to contact the boy again.

After serving about seven months, Rogers was released in February for good behavior. However, Rogers was then arrested twice for violating the terms of her probation by trying to get in touch with her victim -- the first time through her home page on and the second by sending him a graphic cell phone video of herself dancing suggestively.

So why would Rogers keep in touch with her former student instead of just letting go?

"I think that was the question that the court struggled with," Peter Strianse, Rogers' defense attorney, told "Good Morning America Weekend Edition." "As you know, we had reached a very favorable plea agreement with the state in this case. She faced a pretty big sentence if she had gone to trial and been convicted, and [we] were able to keep a lot of control by the plea agreement. But obviously, because of the issues that she has, she was unable to live up to the terms and conditions of the agreement."

Joan Schleicher, a clinical psychologist testifying for the defense, said of Rogers's behavior, "I think the best diagnosis for her for the result we see in why we are here today is sexual addiction."

But the judge did not buy it, and neither did the victim's family.

"You have done everything except show this court that you wanted to rehabilitate yourself," said Warren County, Tenn., Circuit Court Judge Bart Stanley.
"All I want to do," said the victim's father, "is [have Rogers] leave my son and my daughter alone, and never have contact with them ever again."
Pamela Rogers is hardly the first female teacher to have a sexual affair with a student. Perhaps the most infamous case is Seattle teacher Mary Kay Letourneau, who became pregnant with the child of her 13-year-old student and later married him.

Rogers insists she wants to change.

"I'm willing to do anything to rehab myself. I figure if I am sent to the state prison I will not get the help that I need," she said.

But that's exactly where she will be for the next several years, and her defense attorney agrees that's not the right place for her. Strianse suggested "six months of intensive inpatient treatment, followed by intensive outpatient therapy." He said he was "not looking for the judge to send her home."

"I think she really needs help," he said. "She wasn't out of jail a few days before she contacted [the victim] again. We felt that the judge had some options yesterday at the sentencing hearing, other than just to send her to the Tennessee prison for women."

Despite Rogers's emotional display, Strianse insists she's "a very strong individual" who "handled this incarceration with great grace and dignity throughout."

"There is no suggestion that she is a pedophile," Strianse said. "There is no suggestion that she is a danger to the community at large, or children at large. Frankly, the unvarnished truth of this situation is that she has this pathetic obsession about this one individual."

Copyright © 2006 ABC News Internet Ventures

Ex-teacher admits sex with 6 students
Boys' parents agreed to plea deal, prosecutors say
SAGINAW, Michigan (AP) -- A former middle school band teacher admitted she had sexual contact with six male students and entered a guilty plea one day before her trial was scheduled to start.
Laura L. Findlay, 32, pleaded guilty Thursday in Saginaw County Circuit Court to 22 counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a person younger than 16.
Under an agreement with prosecutors, she faces at least seven years in prison at sentencing August 17, though the judge could sentence her to up to life in prison.
Defense lawyer James F. Piazza said his client might withdraw her plea if the sentence exceeds seven years.

Prosecutors say Findlay had sexual contact with male students from Ricker Middle School in Buena Vista Township over five months in 2004-2005. She had taught at the school for seven years.

Assistant prosecutor James T. Borchard said the students and their parents agreed with the plea deal.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Find this article at:

...and on and on it goes.

Democrats pull ad with flag-draped coffins

By SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press WriterFri Jul 14, 8:45 PM ET

Democrats pulled an Internet ad that showed flag-draped coffins Friday after Republicans and at least two Democrats demanded it be taken down on grounds the image was insensitive and not fit for a political commercial.

The ad by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee called for a "new direction" and displayed a staccato of images, including war scenes, pollution and breached levees as well as a photograph of former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay doctored to look like a police mug shot.

The campaign committee replaced the ad with a radio commercial that targets Rep. John Hostetler, R-Ind., for opposing an increase in the minimum wage. Democrats have made a minimum wage increase a central theme of this year's election.

Democrats had featured the video ad for nearly two weeks on the DCCC Web site where it had gone largely unnoticed until Republicans began objecting to it this week. On Thursday, more than a dozen Republicans, many with military backgrounds, called on DCCC Chairman Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., to apologize. Democratic Reps. John Spratt of South Carolina and Chet Edwards of Texas asked Emanuel to pull or alter the ad.

"We're moving to another major effort that we're highlighting on our Web site," DCCC spokesman Bill Burton said.

In South Carolina, Spratt's Republican challenger, state Rep. Ralph Norman, commended the removal. It was "the right thing to do for the state, country and especially the brave men and women who serve in our military," said Norman's spokesman, Nathan Hollifield.

Media Matters: Righties-With-Head-Up-Arse Syndrome

Olbermann crowned Bozell "Worst Person" runner-up for claiming NY Times is "rooting for the homosexual revolution"

On the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown, host Keith Olbermann awarded Media Research Center president and nationally syndicated columnist L. Brent Bozell III the second-place spot in his nightly "Worst Person in the World" segment for Bozell's July 12 column attacking The New York Times' sponsorship of the 2006 Gay Games. According to Bozell, the Times, in its articles and sponsorship of events such as the Gay Games, is "rooting for the homosexual revolution" and "actively spread[ing] the gay gospel."

From the July 13 edition of MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann:

OLBERMANN: Our runner-up, the humorist Brent Bozell, ripping The New York Times
for being a corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, just like Absolut Vodka is a
corporate sponsor of the Gay Games, and Walgreens, and American Airlines. Bozell
says this means the Times is, quote, "rooting for the homosexual revolution."
Brent, have you checked lately to see if your trolley is still on its
— S.S.M.

Interviewed yet again on MSNBC/NBC, Coulter attacked 9-11 widows for purported acts of "cruel[ty]"

Summary: In her fifth appearance on NBC or MSNBC since the release of her latest book, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were cruel, claiming that the widows' actions "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows."

On the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, guest host Norah O'Donnell interviewed right-wing pundit Ann Coulter. Based on a Media Matters for America review* of the Nexis database, this was at least the fifth time Coulter has been interviewed on MSNBC or its parent network, NBC, since the June 6 release of her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism (Crown Forum, June 2006). As she has in her book and in her previous television appearances, Coulter unleashed a stream of attacks on the widows of 9-11 victims.

During the interview, Coulter denied that her previous remarks disparaging the 9-11 widows were, in O'Donnell's words, "cruel." Rather, she asserted that it is the 9-11 widows themselves who are "cruel," citing the following purported actions by the widows, which she said "put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows" due to terrorism:

"[F]oisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee."

"[E]ndorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it."

"[G]oing around claiming the president of the United States is responsible for these women's husbands' deaths."
Further, as she has done before, Coulter hid behind certain unnamed 9-11 widows to defend her accusation that liberals have used other 9-11 widows as "human shields" to blunt criticism of their views: "[T]here are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them who think I wasn't harsh enough."
Coulter previously appeared on the following MSNBC and NBC programs:

The June 6 broadcast of NBC's Today;
The June 6 edition of MSNBC's The Situation with Tucker Carlson;
The June 14 broadcast of NBC's The Tonight Show with Jay Leno; and
The June 26 edition of MSNBC's Scarborough Country.

From the July 14 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:

O'DONNELL: Well, Ann, some would argue that your soulmate, Bill O'Reilly on
Fox --

COULTER: OK, now you're just insulting me, Norah.

O'DONNELL: Oh. So you don't like Bill O'Reilly.

COULTER: I love Bill O'Reilly, but he's been viciously attacking

O'DONNELL: He has, and you know -- and so we -- we've got those made up
into full-screens for you. He says what you said about the 9-11 widows was
brutal, to say something like that, he says it sounds awful, and in order to say
that to specific people you're going to have to prove it. And that's only
--[Rep.] Peter King [R-NY]: Coulter's comments about the widows went beyond the
pale of limits about decency --

COULTER: OK, yeah, yeah, yeah, I've heard it all. On -- on O'Reilly,
he's just bitter because he kept saying "I end this issue. I did it. I did it
first." Well, OK. Congratulations to you.

O'DONNELL: But you -- Ann, you admit that it was cruel, and you don't
want to be cruel.

COULTER: No, I don't. No, I don't at all. I don't think it's at all
cruel. I think it's -- I think it's cruel to be --

O'DONNELL: Do you ever admit you're wrong?

COULTER: Yeah. When I'm wrong, I admit I'm wrong. I think it's cruel to
be foisting a 9-11 Commission on the nation, making terrorist attacks more
likely by turning it into a Clinton whitewash committee. I think it's cruel to
be endorsing John Kerry for president in the middle of a war on terrorism, the
guy who voted for funding the troops before voting against it. I think it's
cruel to be going around claiming the president of the United States is
responsible for these women's husbands' deaths. I think that's cruel because
it's going to put a lot of other women at risk for becoming widows. And there
are a lot of 9-11 widows out there, Norah, and I'm hearing from a lot of them
who think I wasn't harsh enough.

*Search of Nexis MSNBC and NBC News transcript databases: ann coulter and allcaps (coulter) and date(geq (6/6/06) and leq (7/14/06))
— J.B.
Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 8:07 PM EST

Coulter again called for NY Times staff to be "executed"

Summary: Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed" over the paper's reports on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity.

On the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show on Denver radio station KOA, right-wing pundit Ann Coulter again suggested that New York Times staff members should be "executed." Referring to the Times' decision to report on the National Security Agency's warrantless domestic eavesdropping program and a Treasury Department program designed to track international financial transactions for terrorist activity, Coulter declared that the Times had done "something that could have gotten them executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed." As Media Matters for America noted, Coulter agreed with radio host Melanie Morgan's assertion that if New York Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason she "would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," writing in her nationally syndicated July 12 column that if Times executive editor Bill Keller were convicted of treason, "I prefer a firing squad, but I'm open to a debate on the method of execution."

Noting that The Wall Street Journal and Los Angeles Times each also printed a story about the bank monitoring program on the same day as the Times, Coulter added "I have no problem with prosecuting them for treason either." Further blasting the Times for publishing the story, Coulter said on the newspaper's purported mindset: "[A]s with all insane liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect Manhattanites when the nuke hits." Coulter also defended McCarthyism, stating: "[L]iberals always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were sheltering Soviet spies."

From the July 12 edition of The Jon Caldara Show:

COULTER: I mean, for one thing, as I've mentioned here and there in a
column, what is going to happen to The New York Times? As I wrote in this week's
column, Ronald Reagan called Nixon after December 1972; Nixon was president
then, Reagan [California] governor. After Reagan had seen Walter Cronkite's
report on CBS News on the Vietnam War, Reagan called Nixon to say that if this
were World War II circumstances, CBS News would be prosecuted for treason. This
quote is also in my book Treason, by the way. Can you imagine --

CALDARA: Do you have a book for sale? I didn't know that.

COULTER: No, this is one that isn't for sale, but it's a magnificent
book. Well, it is for sale --

CALDARA: It is for sale.

COULTER: -- all my books are for sale. But it's not the book that I'm
supposed to be hawking right now --

CALDARA: Currently pimping, yes.

COULTER: -- I'm just mentioning it because it's relevant to the topic
at hand, The New York Times' treason. Thus, the aptly titled of my book -- title
of my book is Treason. And do you think there is any possibility any action will
be taken against The New York Times for something that could have gotten them
executed, certainly did get the Rosenbergs executed?

CALDARA: Of course not.

COULTER: Well, OK. That's why I'm saying I don't think Bush has

CALDARA: Bring it back to 1985 for me. There was a Times columnist who
went after Reagan. It was Tony Lewis.

COULTER: Ah, yes, whom I quote in this week's column.

CALDARA: You do indeed. And in fact, that's why I brought it up. See,
that's what is known as a subtle plug. Just jump right in there.

COULTER: Part of the theme of this week's column, in addition to
continuing the drumbeat for a treason trial against the Times, is how liberals
always do this. When they're committing treason, they always scream about how
they're being persecuted. They did it with Joe McCarthy while they were
sheltering Soviet spies: "Oh, we're being persecuted! McCarthyism! If you
mention that you like Russian vodka, you'll be investigated in this country!"
That was said by a Soviet spy, now proved by Venona papers, also in my book
Treason. Nixon and Anthony Lewis, in his column back in the 80s, complained that
-- oh, sorry, this was Reagan.

COULTER: Of course, Nixon was supposed to be so brutal to the press, so
horribly, horribly brutal. And yet, he didn't prosecute Jane Fonda for treason.
And then Ronald Reagan, and Anthony Lewis complaining about "Oh, Nixon, he is
trying to intimidate us, trying to intimidate us." You know, I read the Times
back then, and I don't recall noticing any intimidation on the part of the
press. And now we're getting it again with the New York Times -- you know,
having a drop-off box at the New York Times building for, you know, for
classified top-secret programs.

CALDARA: For those people who might not be following this all that
closely, it's not that you're hacked off at the Times because they spin every
story; that's not it. You're not going after them because they make up stories.
You're not going after them for treason because their editorial page is written
in Cuba. You're going at them very specifically because they're giving out,
shall we say it, trade secrets.

COULTER: Right. They're revealing classified programs that will
unquestionably help Al Qaeda, help terrorists launch another attack on New York
or on America someplace. The irony of this is that New York is certainly one of
the very likely targets. And they are in New York. But as with all insane
liberals' ideas, they seem to think they can keep the consequences of their
insanity limited to the outer boroughs of New York. It won't affect
Manhattanites when the nuke hits. And this latest one, I mean, they've done it
before. They did it with the NSA spying program, but this latest one is
particularly outrageous. There's no -- there's no news value in how we are
tracking terrorists in this particular case. This is a top-secret program. When
you have 9-11 commissioners -- I mean, forget the president and the Bush
administration pleading with the Times not to run this. How about both 9-11
commissioners, who are not exactly ferocious hawks, and even Jack Murtha, who
wants to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of a war -- even Murtha asked the
Times not to print this, and yet the Times goes right ahead.
Times is doing something very, very smart, by the way. The first couple of
stories, they went out all on their own, so it was very easy to beat up just the
Times. Now they realize that there is safety in numbers, and that they are
sharing stories with other newspapers, including, of all newspapers, The Wall
Street Journal. I mean, explain this one to me.
COULTER: And by the way, I
don't know the details of who printed what when, but I've heard liberals, you
know, their big talking point seems to be, "Well, what about the LA Times? And
what about The Wall Street Journal?" I have no problem with prosecuting them for
treason either. Right? Whatever the facts are, fine, but I'll let the
prosecutors and the jury and the judge deal with that. The point is, we know
what the Times is up to because they have a pattern of conduct here. And it's
especially -- I mean, as I said in last week's column, what if the Rosenbergs,
Julius and Ethel, instead of passing secrets about our nuclear program at Los
Alamos, instead of passing it secretly to Soviet agents, instead of that, they
just, you know, printed up a newsletter and published it in their newsletter?
Would that have immunized them from a treason prosecution?
— R.D.

Posted to the web on Friday July 14, 2006 at 6:07 PM EST

Sometimes that make it soooooooooooooo easy for me!