Coulter again called for NY Times staff to be "executed"
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 she would prefer Keller face " 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.
CALDARA: Right.
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.
CALDARA: The 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?
Media Matters: The right-wing media's election analysis just ain't that good
The Friday Rush: For conservatives, $400 million buys defeat at the ballot box
The myth of Fox News' ratings spike
Long-time reader, first-time poster, KOA is the "news" station out here and is owned by Clear Channel. There is not a single talk show on KOA that is not far, far right. Along with Caldara, we "enjoy" Rush, Mike Rosen, and some jerk who calls himself "Gunny Bob." To top it off, the national news breaks at the top of the hour are from Fox "News". I defy anyone, anywhere to show me an example of the largest news radio station in their state which has a liberal bias that even half matches the right-wing bias as we have in Colorado. Please, all you "liberal-media" conspiracists, prove me wrong.
Ann Coulter threatens and someone does it. Ann Coulter is a danger to all the people she targets:
[link to news.yahoo.com]
Good catch. Coulter spews death wishes against the NY Times and the public acts. Fox, MSNBC, CNN and other media management are as responsible as Coulter because they continue to provide her a forum for Coulter's rantings.
This was the exact point I was getting at in some other thread about Coulter. She is able to spew her nonsense, even death threats against officials (Supreme Court Justices and elected members of Congress), without any condemnation from the Right wing. Obviously Conservatives feel that if you don't agree with them, you should die. Fascists. Every last one of them.
When are people going to stand up and say "Enough is enough" from this woman? Even though she is using her first amendment rights to spew this hatred, it is getting to the point that people are possibly taking her "satire" to heart. People's words are taken seriously. People need to choose their words carefully. Those who incite violence, such as Coulter, should be jailed. Use your free speech for positive reasons, not to advocate the murder of members of our government.
By the way, did Cavuto spend four minutes covering the NY Times white powder (fake anthrax) threat story, like Cavuto did with the NY Times protestors?
I just watched ann coulter on Hardball. Noron was the guest host. She questioned her on the Jersey Girls comments, but neglected to take her to task on the plagerisim issue. Actually she giggled along with her. Ann was her usual vicious, lying sack of crap self and was sooooo happy to be on MSNBC and they appeared happy to give her a platform. I emailed MSNBC and I really am done with the station. I asked why Ann was not questioned about her calling for the death of anyone who opposes the administration. I can only assume that they agree with her.
And also wondered why O'Donnell did not ask her about plagarism. Its a disgrace.
The host did get into it with Ann in regards to the Plame issue. Ann seems to make a distinction between classified and covert. The "interview" started a little softballish but ended more combative. I'm thinking/hoping Ann is at about 13 or 14 of her 15 minutes of fame.
We know we shouldn't look, but it's just so tempting.
How is this woman allowed to make threats of violence against anyone? Why is this allowed? This is how morons joke to one another --- "heh, heh... I'm onna kill that guy!" Yeah, that's funny.
All this slimy talk about 'libel' etc with anonymous posters on the web and this broad gets a stage to say these things? It's just plain wrong.
Crazy Annie has, over the past few months, called for:
the murder of a sitting Supreme Court Justice
the deaths of NYT staff {twice}
the beating of a Yale student
Bull O'Really has called for:
an Al Qaeda attack on a major west coast US city
a mob hit on Jerry Springer
Pat Robertson has called for:
the assisination of a democratically elected, South American head of state {twice}
Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you - THE "FAMILY VALUES, RIGHT-TO-LIFE" CROWD!!!
"Kill. Kill, kill. KILL!! Kill. Killkillkillkillkillkill. Kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill kill.
I'm a Christian."
Just cut and paste, Pumpkin.
Insert "Clinton was a rapist" after every five "kill"s . . .
This makes you a fellow ghostwriter. When Ann's check arrives, we'll split it, okay?
Perhaps you should end with a rhetorical question: Is there anything for which Clinton was NOT responsible?
Disbar Ann Coulter (David Whorowitz in drag).
Please die in a fiery car crash with your entire family.
Ha ha, just joking.
*rolls eyes*
The Blonde Beast, Ann Coulter, wants to bring back McCarthyism. Oh boy, a true conservative devil. She'll be a best seller in Dixie and Hell.
Otherwise she wouldn't be so adept at keeping herself out of trouble whilst walking the very thin lines she does. I'm not fretting though, because as her predessesor's have proven countless times in recent decades, with enough rope they all hang themselves.
On another note...I can't believe that people with left-leaning stances are actaully falling for into the game of emailing networks when they disagree with someone. If your signature line doesn't carry any weight, you're just fueling the fire. Media companies live under the same cliche as most wannabe celebrities: "Good press; bad press. As long as it's in the press, it's all good press". Ignore it and use your VOTE as your instrument.
I agree. We give those nutworks our attention that anyone is paying attention to this diabolical wench and they'll continue to have her on.
And, like I've argued for a long time about bill o'lielly, if people would simply refuse to be on his circus, it would be off the air in a month. (If they're right wing farts, he can't hack at them and make himself look like he has gonads...which he doesn't!)
Simply, the face of American Fascism!
When a lap-dog corporate press lies with a homophobic Christian evangelical to sort out all those that threaten them, which eventually is everyone whom is not them.
Welcome to the consequence of voting for a Republican Party highjacked by the American Fascists.
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
It's just a matter of time before some crackpot takes a swipe at whoever Coulter wishes dead. One only needs to remember this Duran character from Colorado Springs that drove to Washington DC to shoot at the White House when Bubba was Pres. The crackpot was a fan of Lush Rimbaugh.
so she says:
"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.
Help me out here, i'm not old enough but wouldn't that have been somewhere around 1972 or 1973? If Frau Koulter were then 11? 12? years old...and she was reading the New York Times and having opinions about bias? Shouldn't she have been busy learning about eye makeup or hair care products? Or reading Tiger Beat to get up to date on the new The Sweet album? Or at least doing some other normal 12 year old girl thing? Maybe a lack of a normal childhood is where the root of her problem is.
Either that, or she is full of beans.
Will somebody please send this thing some Viagra?
So she can get a bulge on the front of her skirt?
C'mon. It'd be harder to market herself along K street then!
It would be poetic justice to get her onto one of those "fear" shows, and have her chased and caught by a phony lynch mob, just to scare her. She'd foul herself when she realized the noose they were tossing over that tree branch was for her. A little taste of her own medicine.
I hate to say this, but Coulter is actually desperate for a man. All her negative attention seeking and public appearances. You can see it in her eyes. She doesn't hate liberals, she loves them, it's all she talks about. She hopes deep down that one day she meets a dominant liberal man who can rip her ideology to shreads and unleash the perversions that lurk inside her dark soul. I've met her type in other places. Let me tell you about Texas radio and the Big Beat.....let me tell you about the maiden with wrought iron soul.
Ann Coulter is a joke! In keeping with that spirit, lets see how many funny ways we can come up with to execute her. Remember, this is all for fun and just a big ongoing joke, just like everything Ann Coulter says!
Here's my funny way of executing Ann Coulter:
First hang her upsidedown, completely naked of course, by her baby toes over an open pit just high enough so wild, hungry wolves can jump up and grab a hold of her hair and pull it out of her head.
Then drip honey all over her.
Next release a swarm of sweet loving ants down the ropes holding her up by her baby toes, or is it claws?
Next, watch her squirm and squeal... until her baby toes break off and she falls into the pit of doom.
the NY Times editors are traitors.
She's just obnoxious.
The info was already public. You DO get your brain stuck on the propaganda parrot talking points dont you. SKWAAAK NYTimes editors are traitors. SKWAAAAAK. Its sad really
----"... the NY Times editors are traitors."----
When will federal authorities arrest these editors, if they're "traitors" and all that?
So they are not traitors.
However, those in the White House who outed Valerie Plame are traitors.
And that "outing" is a capital offense. Do you read me, Freulein Koulter?
Silly little dimwit.
Why won't the media just ignore her like they are doing with Valerie Plame's lawsuit? Oh and my suggestion: Ann please wear a turtleneck.
Isn't the media responsible enough to fully answer for the questions over Ms Coulters plagerism before calling her an author? Isn't this, after all, the media's balliwick to verify the authenticity of there own? The title author gives her credibility, does she or does she not have credibility, this is my question.
Since Coulter is so pro-murder, why doesn't she do the murdering herself?
I mean, beating journalists in the streets and bombing newsrooms has worked so well to destroy freedom of the press in Zimbabwe, it should work out well here too.
I have a friend who calls this person Julia Streicher, referring to the notorious Julius Streicher.
I really do not know what to say when the public forum of this country clamors to be transformed into a killing field.
We and the Media watch it play out, transfixed as deer in oncoming headlights.
Did she just suggest building a bridge to the past and a return to the good old days when there were men of integrity like Nixon and McCarthy? Is she suggesting in her dream world that they would not have to be hassled by the annoying press?
Why does she stop there? Why not return to the days before evil liberal regulators slapped the invisible hand of Christian capitalism on the wrist and denied children the right to work in coalmines, back to time when there was real job security before organized labor broke up sweatshops and company towns. We could return to the good old days when women could concentrate on the family without the burden of voting. It would be possible to go back farther and restore even more horrific circumstances, but I wanted to stop with only a few that could be easily spun into conservative talking points. The good thing is that these thoughts were so absurd they had to be her own. I don’t think you can find anyone waxing nostalgic about McCarthy even on Free Republic.
I need to credit my wife with this theory, because it was her observation not mine, but I think she might be on to something. Maybe Ann Coulter is in character acting, sort of like Howard Stern or Andrew Dice Clay. If you watch her eyes as she makes her most outrageous statements, you will see a real gleam in there like an entertainer thinking, “Now watch how my adoring troglodyte audience laps this up as if I was being serious.”
I too think she's an attention junkie...and a sociopath.
Despite their calls for the execution of "traitors" and the extermination or deportation of Mexicans, Muslims, gays, liberals, Hollywood types, etc., etc., these yahoos are incapable of causing any real harm. Because if they were as tough and brave and strong as they like to portray themselves, then they would put on a uniform and go fight for the country they proclaim to love so much.
But no. All they can do is type and make their TV appearances demonizing those who seek to hold power accountable. Short of that, they are nothing but a bunch of cowards willing to send other mothers' kids to fight. And as soon as one of those soldiers questions the reasons he/she is fighting, these hate-mongers will accuse them of treason. It's the wingnut way.