Type to search

This Week In Crazy: Obama Tried To Nuke Charleston!

Memo Pad This Week In Crazy

This Week In Crazy: Obama Tried To Nuke Charleston!

Former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania speaking at the 2015 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in National Harbor, Maryland. (Gage Skidmore/Flickr)

Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,” The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Sean Duffy and Andrea Tantaros
As all Americans on the East Coast know, this winter has been brutally cold and unusually snowy; in fact, schools in Easton, Massachusetts had so many snow days that the town moved to eliminate three religious holidays next year to avoid having to extend the school year well into the summer, as they’re doing in 2015.

Or at least that’s what they want you to think.

Fortunately for This Week In Crazy readers, the “one lucky guy” on the Monday edition of the Fox News trollfest Outnumbered — U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy (R-WI) — is here to expose the horrible truth about the liberal snow plot otherwise known as winter.

“That makes too much sense,” the Tea Party congressman and former Real World star said of the Easton school committee’s explanation for shortening the schedule. “Don’t let any good crisis go to waste, and if you want to take religion out of the public square, look at Boston and look at all the snow and say, ‘What a great reason now, we can take these religious holidays out of our school system.'”

Co-host Andrea Tantaros heartily agreed.

“I think the congressman hit the nail on the head,” she said. “This is what happens when liberal academic Boston meets ethnic Boston.”

Perhaps Duffy and Tantaros should look to the shining example of Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), who recently demonstrated how snow can be turned against the liberal aggressors.

4. Bryan Fischer
When discredited right-wing author Ed Klein wrote an anonymously sourced column claiming that White House advisor Valerie Jarrett leaked Hillary Clinton’s email controversy to the press, it was only a matter of time until the fringe sank its teeth into the conspiracy theory.

As usual, Bryan Fischer led the charge. On the Tuesday edition of his show, Fischer took Klein’s “report” one step further, by explaining why President Obama would want to disqualify Clinton: To destroy America!

“I’ve got a theory about why President Obama is trying to sabotage Hillary Clinton’s candidacy,” Fischer said. “If his agenda is to weaken this country; if his agenda is to transform this country into something that you and I don’t recognize, I believe he thinks he can do that better if Hillary Clinton loses than if Hillary Clinton wins. I think this is all about President Obama wanting to preserve his ability to continue to be a community agitator.”

It’s slightly surprising to hear Fischer — who believes that the president was too lazy to even find out about the Osama bin Laden raid — suggest that Obama will continue the hard work of dismantling the Republic after he leaves office. But in any case, he makes a pretty good case for why Republicans should vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

3. Peter Kinder

Screenshot via Buzzfeed

Screenshot: BuzzFeed

The recent Justice Department report on the Ferguson criminal justice system has exposed the crooked practices and deep-seated racism of a rotten institution. Not the Ferguson police department and courts! No, you see, as Missouri lieutenant governor Peter Kinder explains, the Department of Justice has in fact revealed its own racism!

Per Kinder: “There is more racism in the Justice Department […] than anywhere I see in the St. Louis area. […] It is the left. It is the Eric Holder and Obama left, and their minions who are obsessed with race, while the rest of us are moving on beyond it.”

Now, despite the fact that the investigation revealed that for years, Ferguson officials abused their authority by turning the city’s black citizens into a revenue stream through a system of meritless citations, it appears that the actual injustice has been perpetrated on the good state of Missouri by the DoJ’s cadre of “radical, hard left radical leftist lawyers” (try saying that 10 times fast).

Bottom line: Leave Missouri alone, you racist radicals! They have the situation in hand.

You can view the video via BuzzFeed here.

2. Kevin Swanson

Kevin Swanson, the severely warped radio host, has slinked back on to the list! Swanson, you may recall, is the host of Generationsa Colorado Springs-based program whose goal is to “present life from the perspective of a Biblical worldview.” A worldview that apparently causes one to hear a hellish, corrupting influence in the anodyne lyrics of pop idols like Taylor Swift.

Swift’s single “Welcome to New York,” an ode to the city where, as the singer tells it, “you can want who you want / Boys and boys and girls and girls,” is an anthem of depravity, inducing us into national apostasy through our children’s precious, impressionable ears. Mothers, lock up your daughters’ iPods. Better yet, just lock up your daughters. Because to hear Swanson tell it, nowhere — not churches, not public school classrooms — is safe from the corrupting influence of pop culture and its “demon songs.”

Although when you listen to Swanson recite Swift’s lyrics, with a kind of slippery staccato rhythm and creepy sibilant hiss, not to mention the ghoulish, prurient way he elongates these pop singers’ names (“Miiiley Cyruuuus, Taaaaylor Swift taking their little fan club allllll the waaaay, allll the waaaay…”), um, yeah it kind of does sound demonic.

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/196336896″ params=”color=ff5500″ width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

(Incidentally, the godless city that is the subject of the song was not fond of the tune either. Swift’s really getting it from all sides here.)

1. Rick Santorum & Friends
At far-right campaign events, there’s often a crazy person in a crowd who creates an awkward moment for the politicians in attendance. But few have ever delivered like the InfoWars-style paranoiac who took over last week’s South Carolina National Security Action Summit.

During the event, this week’s “winner,” former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum, took a question from the audience — and it was a real doozy.

“Why is the Congress rolling over and letting this communist dictator destroy my country?” a woman shouted at Santorum. “Y’all know what he is and I know what he is. I want him out of the White House! He’s not a citizen. He could’ve been removed a long time ago.”

After name dropping This Week In Crazy favorite Larry Klayman, the woman got to her main point — and her rant completely skipped the rails.

“Where do we go from here? Ted [Cruz] told me I’ve got to wait now ’til the next election. I don’t think the country will be around for the next election,” she lamented. “Obama tried to blow up a nuke in Charleston a few months ago…he has fired all the generals and all the admirals who said they wouldn’t fire on the American people if you asked them to do so if he wanted to take the guns away from them!”

Santorum, who looked deeply uncomfortable throughout the entire diatribe, finally got an opportunity to answer.

“First off, I take somewhat offense,” Santorum began. Well, that sounds promising!

“Because I’m not a sitting member of the Senate, so I’m not taking blame for any of that stuff.” Oh.

Good luck with that plan to avoid another circus primary in 2016.

Photo: Gage Skidmore via Flickr.

Check out previous editions of This Week In Crazy here. Think we missed something? Let us know in the comments!



  1. charleo1 March 20, 2015

    I think Santorum’s answer was very lame to that lady’s very important questions. This
    was, after all, the S.Carolina National Security Action Summit! The Granddaddy of all SC. Security Summits, and he really should have anticipated this one. Where did he think he was coming? To a Liberal ‘Kumbaya’ sing around the campfire!? Obama tries to explode a nuclear bomb in Charleston, SC. Home of Joe, “You Lie,” Wilson. Who couldn’t have predicted that? Then he fires all of the top brass unwilling to fire on Americans unwilling to hand over their guns, or freedom. (Same thing.) And Santorum acts like he’s never heard of any of it. Talk about being out of touch with your people!

    1. bobnstuff March 20, 2015

      I was very impressed with Santorum’s answer. He could have said something really stupid.

      1. dtgraham March 20, 2015

        I hear you, but that’s where that party is at any more. Just as long as a Republican doesn’t say something outlandishly stupid, we’re pleasantly surprised and impressed. That bar is pretty low. Maybe low expectations are the secret to their success. After all, how do they disappoint anyone?

      2. charleo1 March 20, 2015

        True. But not taking the opportunity to say something extremely stupid, is exactly the kind of mistake that gets you clobbered in the GOP primaries. As McCain learned the hard way, even when you’re the GOP nominee, and actually go out of your way to correct one of these NJs. You may as well just tattoo a big L on your forehead that says, “Don’t vote for me!” There’s may be a little PC correct liberal in there, who might have a bit too much integrity, or personal pride, or interest in the truth, to say what will be necessary to win. Otherwise known as being, “Not Conservative Enough.”

  2. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

    What should concern us all is not the political rhetoric, which is neither new nor limited to one party, but the beliefs and claims made routinely by so many fellow Americans.

    1. bobnstuff March 20, 2015

      They get it from the media, each political shock jock tries to out do the others with crazy ideas. The crazier the idea the more traction it gets. Add into the mix the
      internet and Google and it gets even worse. I tried to fact check something about the President and had to go through 60 anti Obama sights to get to one reliable source and then it just listed all the crazy ones as crazy but gave no information. I understand free speech but the right to lie is hard to take some times.

      1. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

        Our so-called “liberal” media is owned and ran by financial moguls. They do what their masters want, and since their existence depends on sensationalism, bizarre statements often trump the boring realities of every day life. Another factor that should not be ignored is that most conservatives are more engaged and motivated than Democrats. It could be that Democrats are too busy working and making money, while too many Republicans spend their time blogging and playing video games. Whatever the reason, Republicans, especially religious zealots and the far right, dominate the airwaves, the paper media, and social networks.

        1. Jambi March 20, 2015

          I think the ghosts of William Randolph Hearst and Joseph Pulitzer continue to haunt the offices of the “media moguls”….

          1. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            Interesting commentary. Especially about the architect of the Spanish-American war…

        2. Independent1 March 20, 2015

          I think conservatives are more engaged than Democrats because of the Tea Party movement constantly bombarding their lives with anti-Obama, anti-Government propaganda. Sometime back, I received a set of charts and graphs from friends who are not really active in the TP but who have friends that are; and all the charts and graphs had been constructed to show things like: Bush didn’t really add much to our debt, it all skyrocketed under Obama; and Bush wasn’t really a big spender until Nancy Pelosi took over as Speaker of the House; and on and on.

        3. mike March 20, 2015

          The left has MSNBC and look what is happening to it, it is failing!!! Can you blame the right??? NO!!!

        4. charleo1 March 20, 2015

          Perhaps Democrats/Liberals, are too busy wasting their time, raising their families, with their heads up their rears, and so forth to pay attention, and vote regularly. Because they’re not hearing about the upcoming Apocalypse? That Obama tried to set off a nuclear bomb in Charleston, and is plotting to kill Americans that refuse to give up their guns. See the Right Wing luckily has Fox, and Red State, Info-Wars, Limbaugh, and a host of other patriotic organizations to give them the truth! While the Left, their press, in total cahoots with the lying foreign dictator. Are blissfully unaware of Obama’s Communist conspiracy to tax Americans into oblivion, to finance the takeover of the Country by illegal aliens. Or Eric Holder’s secret plans to force a Gay agenda down the throats of America’s Christians, and impose the strict Shira Law the Godless/Muslim, Obama Regime in the White House, demands. So you know, I’m going to bet if the Liberals only knew what the Right, “knows.” Why, they’d be out there voting in every election, like their very lives depended on it! Just like the Right does.

          1. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            Some of the stuff these bozos say would be funny, if their opinions were not so dangerous.

    2. dtgraham March 20, 2015

      I don’t know Dom. It sort of looks to me like it is limited to one party. I never hear this stuff from Democratic politicians and their town hall supporters. I’ve heard the very odd lame/loopy comment from the center-left, but nowhere close to this extent or this often.

      1. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

        We don’t miss an opportunity to blame the GOP when they do or say stupid things. Unfortunately, we are not as successful as they are in making their claims stick, or in holding their feet to the fire on issues such as betraying our country. The indifference shown by the Democratic party to the letter sent to the Ayatollahs by 47 Republican Senators, after calling them a hub of terrorism, says as much about the political ineptitude of our party, as the extent the GOP is willing to go to deflect attention from their record and lack of vision, and to make it impossible for President Obama to pursue his agenda.

        1. dtgraham March 20, 2015

          Well said.

        2. mike March 20, 2015

          When you live in a glass house you shouldn’t throw stones. You on the left try and make something out of the 47 when we know the democrats have also done their share against a Republican President.
          Again explain to the world why all of a sudden the WORLD WIDE TERROR ASSESSMENT BY US INTELLIGENCE suddenly no longer lists Iran or Hezbollah as a terrorists group or state sponsor of terrorism. Is this one of the concession to Iran to get a deal??

          1. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            I wish that was true. The sad part is that when Reagan and W were in office Democrats rolled over and supported their policies and decisions. Reagan had his Reagan Democrats, and W enjoyed the support of even Hillary Clinton, something I am not too impressed with.
            U.S. Intelligence no longer consider Iran a terrorist threat because there is no evidence to support that claim. In Hezbollah’s case it may be because they have not participated in any terrorist actions in two decades or so.
            The focus now is on ISIS, which in many ways is much more dangerous than Al Qaeda. AQ attracted radicals by focusing on victim-hood and the need to carry out terrorist attacks to avenge wrongdoings. ISIS is much more sophisticated and ambitious. They are pursuing a Caliphate ruled according to Islamic principles. They have formed a government, have a well armed and disciplined military, have government institutions and officials, as well as professionals. Their focus is not about revenge, but about the preservation of their culture and punishing the infidels that try to destroy it. In that sense, they are much more dangerous than Al Qaeda or anything else we have dealt with, especially when we consider that many of its Sunni leaders were educated and trained in U.S. military academies.

          2. mike March 20, 2015

            Dom, when you claim that Iran is not dealing in terrorism just shows just how out of touch you are. Tell that to their neighbors.
            They are off the list for one and only one reason and that is to make whatever deal that is made more palatable to the world.
            Iran has been on the list for years and now gone from the list because they are not a threat. baloney.
            Keep dreaming old boy!!

          3. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            The Iranian Ayatollahs the GOP loves so much, could care less what we think and what list they are on. The “deal” involve lifting the sanctions that have brought their economy to its knees.

          4. mike March 20, 2015

            Still trying to be the comedian again, I see.
            Now who was the one to bow to the Saudi King a few years back???
            Both Democrats and Republicans want to add more sanctions, it is the weak-kneed Obama who doesn’t. Obama lifted some sanctions to start the negotiation and lord knows what he will do to get a deal.
            What is clear, he has made sure Congress will not have a chance to approve the deal or know what is in it.

          5. johninPCFL March 20, 2015

            The kisser-in-chief was GWB a few years back.

          6. mike March 20, 2015

            I see you are trying to emulate Dom as a comedian, neither one of aren’t cutting it.

          7. dtgraham March 21, 2015

            The Saudi king is royalty and not just another world leader. Why does this bow matter so much? What’s the importance of it to you, if you don’t mind me asking?

          8. mike March 21, 2015

            Dom, said the GOP love the Ayatollahs, which is totally asinine and I was just expressing what I see is Obama love for the Saudi King/ Islam but more importantly his desire to Elevate Islam at the expense of Christianity. I see Obama having a better relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood than Israel.
            What’s the definition of a bow? To incline the body, head, knee, to express greeting, consent, courtesy, acknowledgement, submission, veneration.
            Obama went way beyond the normal acknowledgement, etc. by any President in our history. The upper body was almost parallel with the floor. It was more of a reverence. And when I see and hear his refusal to acknowledge RADICAL ISLAMIC TERRORIST, and not acknowledging the slaughter of Christians by ISIS I question his beliefs and motives even more.
            Just my thought.

          9. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            W attended the Olympic Games in Beijing, hat in hand begging for alms, while the Chinese were slaughtering the Tibetan people. The worst example of kisser in chief involved W’s decision to ignore the fact that OBL was born in Saudi Arabia, that the AQ financiers were Saudi Wahabbist princes, and that 16 of the 19 terrorists that attacked us on 9/11/01 were all Saudis. He rewarded his beloved King of Saudi Arabia by declaring that country a Most Favored Nation for trade purposes, and invaded Iraq instead.

          10. dtgraham March 21, 2015

            As George W. always said: 16 of the 19 terrorists who attacked America on 9/11 were Saudi nationals, living in Germany at the time and trained in Afghanistan. That can only mean of course, that the attack came from….Iraq.

          11. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            I guess geography and speech were not part of the curriculum at his Alma Mater…

          12. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            A bow when meeting a foreign dignitary is common courtesy and used by all world leaders.
            The sanctions that have brought the Iranian economy to its knees have not be lifted. In fact, that is one of the sticking points that has delayed the signing of an agreement.

          13. mike March 21, 2015

            Really!!! This all you got!!!

          14. mike March 21, 2015

            What a silly old man you are!!!
            You want to compare a very slight movement of the upper body to Obama’s to Saudi King where his upper body is almost parallel with ground. What a joke.

            That is pathetic.

          15. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            Are you suggesting obedience to a foreign dignitary is measured by the inclination of the body? You sound desperate!

          16. mike March 21, 2015

            Keep trying with your lame comments and sites.
            Far from desperate, but for you to use the asinine sites shows who really is delusional.

          17. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            Are you saying that you have an exclusive on asinine sites, and ridiculous claims or allegations?

          18. mike March 21, 2015

            Keep trying old boy!!
            I am having another chuckle on another stupid and inane post from you.

          19. mike March 21, 2015

            You twerp, Bush is receiving a medal from the Saudi. Take a closer look, what a ridiculous attempt to try and prove a point.
            Thanks for the morning laugh.

          20. mike March 21, 2015

            I see you are still acting stupidly!!

          21. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            Looks like desperation is taking over your ability to think. Kissing and holding hands with a Saudi King is fine, but bowing is tantamount to a crime because of the level of inclination? You are pathetic!
            I have to admit, however, that your efforts to deflect attention from betrayal to country are consistent with traditional GOP strategy. Congratulations!

          22. mike March 21, 2015

            Betrayal of country!!! Now that’s a laugh.
            The real betrayal will be seen when the American people see what’s really in the Iran deal.

            As I have said before, when you live in a glass house you shouldn’t throw stones. Betrayal doesn’t fall far from the democratic tree.

            Can’t wait to see after Obama is gone and all the books about the real story of this administration and its corruption.

            I just read the “most transparent administration in all mankind” as Obama likes to say, is responding to 55% fewer FOIA requests.

            Obama is a joke and you defending him makes your credibility even more laughable.
            This mornings posts from you were stupid, but that’s not new.

          23. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            Are you comparing negotiations to ensure Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon, with 47 Senators declaring the Iran is a hub of terrorism, and then sending a letter to the Ayatollahs and Mullahs telling them that they should not trust a U.S. President?

          24. mike March 21, 2015

            Same old stupid question!
            We will see if the negotiations ENSURE that Iran doesn’t develop a nuclear weapon. Even you, the maven of NM, can’t even answer
            Up until this month Obama’s intelligence community listed Iran and Hezbollah terrorist and sponsoring terrorism, so there goes your position that the 47 is declaring Iran a hub of terrorism. As to letter to Ayatollahs, the content of the letter was right on, the delivery should have been addressed to Obama with copies to Media and Ayatollah.
            Keep trying old boy.

          25. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            If I had the ability to determine what is going to happen in the future, I would be a billionaire. One thing I know, however, is that the status quo the GOP and Israel are desperately trying to preserve only guarantees instability and chaos.
            The issue is not why the intelligence community listed Iran as a hub of terrorism, and they are no longer considered to be one, but the fact that 47 GOP Senators declared it a hub of terrorism, and then turned around and aided and abetted the alleged terrorists. You can do all the tap dancing you want, nothing will change the evidence of betrayal their decision represents.

          26. mike March 21, 2015

            More of your malarkey!! “Instability and chaos”, horses manure from you.
            I see a letter with 350 signatures from the House was sent to Obama with concerns he can not bypass the Congress. So all those are wrong also?

          27. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            Nope. Congress has the right, indeed, the duty for voice concerns to the Administration. Their concerns focused, mostly, on the need to have international inspections to verify that Iran did not resume the development of nuclear weapons. Their concerns were addressed, and Iran agreed to allow the inspections.
            There is a huge difference between a branch of government conveying concerns to another branch of government, and a group of 47 Republican Senators encouraging the leaders of a country that they declared a hub of terrorism not to trust an incumbent U.S. President. Your heroes betrayed the USA, they betrayed their own convictions, and they deserve to be treated as traitors. The only positive thing I can think of is that all the Republican Senators that signed that letter disqualified themselves from running. I guess that paved the way for Jeb Bush, and a couple of governors, to be the only viable Republican candidates.

          28. mike March 22, 2015

            Same old broken record, Dom.
            The 47 did not commit treason, did not betrayed the country, are not traitors, I find it interesting you continue to ignore Kennedy, Pelosi, Wright, Bonior and McDermott and their antics against Republican Presidents. What the 47 did do is present the facts of could happen in the future. Sending to Iran was wrong but the content was correct.
            Explain why Iran has been slowing down inspections of the IAEA who have major concerns about certain areas. Why would the March 2 2015 report state such concerns if Iran is so agreeable.
            They are not to be trusted.
            I bet you think “Hands up” really happened in Ferguson. BTW, you would be wrong again, it never happened. Source: Eric Holder.

          29. Dominick Vila March 23, 2015

            Sending a letter to the Iranian leaders, after declaring them supporters of terrorism, is not a big deal because the content of the letter they sent is correct? Having a negative opinion of an incumbent President of the United States is not unprecedented, and it does not constitute treason or anything even close to it. Sending a letter to our, alleged, enemies encouraging them not to trust an incumbent President, and reminding them that if he does sign an international agreement with them, Congress will not ratify it, as a close to betrayal as the signatories can get. Please remind us when did Kennedy, Pelosi, or anyone else – Democrat or Republican – did anything even close to what these idiots. did.

          30. mike March 23, 2015

            Same old broken record, again!!! They did not commit treason, betrayal, etc., that you keep trying to pitch. It was a bonehead move but not illegal.
            What was in the letter was correct.The letter written by Cotton said that if Obama strikes a nuclear deal with Iran, “the next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.”
            All this gobbly goop you are trying to add is all fluff.
            As I would expect you either don’t know or trying again to deflect or ignore the numerous times Democrats have played their games.
            I gave you earlier the different Democrats and their actions against a sitting republican president.

          31. Marilyn March 20, 2015

            Iran is one of the chief opponents of ISIS now and this may be why they are not topping the terrorist list.

          32. mike March 20, 2015

            Not likely!!! Their fighting ISIS is for their own protection and more control of the Iraqi govt.. Nothing would change their status unless concession made by Obama/Kerry.
            Why after years on the terrorist list, the loss of Yemen to the Iran-backed Houthi, the support of Hezbollah, Hamas, Palestine Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the liberation of Palestine, shite militants in Bahrain and Iraq, to disappear so quickly is just to much of a coincidence, as the nuclear talks get closer to dead line. Anything for a deal.

          33. highpckts March 21, 2015

            So what you are saying is they can have a nuclear weapon because we are all powerful and using diplomacy will do no good. We should just blow all of them off the map with any means possible? Nentanyahu would totally agree with you and, by any means possible, get us to do the dirty work!

          34. mike March 21, 2015

            What I am saying is simply the fact they are 6th in oil reserves, first in natural gas and need nuclear energy like you need a another hole in your head.
            This production is for weapons only, wake up.
            The stopping of 16,000 centrifuges will go along way. Negotiations began at zero centrifuges then it moved to 1,000 and latest now from last report stands at 6,000 over the next 10 years. What happened to ZERO???
            They at this moment are slowing down inspections by UN, what stops them from being clandestine as in the past when it comes production.
            They can’t be trusted.

          35. highpckts March 21, 2015

            And I say that we and Israel cannot be trusted (47 Senators going behing the President’s back)! We have nuclear warheads also and if anyone has a reason to use them it is the mid east! We throw our weight around like we are all powerful and only a chosen few are allowed to have these weapons! Well join the real world! We are NOT all powerful and if we can’t use diplomacy to form unions and put peace treaties in place with these countries then I fear for this world! War is NOT the answer!!!

          36. mike March 21, 2015

            Now I see even more holes in your head.

            We can’t be trusted, what a load of crap.
            We have had nuclear weapons for a how long?? How many times have we used one?? Twice and for good cause.

            The fewer countries that have them the better off the world is.

            It seems you have missed the reaction from the rest of the middle east countries, If Iran get it they too will move forward on their own programs.

            What you just can’t get through your vacuous head is that the Ayatollahs and their Constitution says one of their goals is the destruction of Israel. They have said they wish to raise their flag over the White House because we are an evil They are evil and can not be trusted.
            This week a letter was sent to Obama with 350 signatures saying no sanctions can be lifted with out Congress legislature approval. This is becoming more bi-partisan each day that Obama ignores the Congress with any deal made.

          37. highpckts March 21, 2015

            I know! Why don’t you go peddle your paranoia and conspiracy theories somewhere else? I am tired of all this faux “patriotic” nonsense from people who have no intention of going over there personally to fight! You just lap up all the fear that Fox “news” dishes out! If you have all the Goddamned solutions, then why don’t you go to Washington and give them an earful! I’m sure you would be welcomed by Boehner and his ilk!

          38. mike March 21, 2015

            Thanks, I always like a good chuckle.

          39. Steve Thomas March 21, 2015

            Would you be willing to settle for 160 acres of burnable wood, but
            be unable to buy electricity or fuel? You can burn that wood for heat
            and for cooking, but it’s hard to buy a TV, a refrigerator or a car that
            runs on wood!

            Petroleum primarily is used for transportation, because it’s easy to cart around, but the oil companies are trying to get away from petro because electric vehicle tech is growing.

            They need nuclear energy, for steel mills, for industry, for desalinization, for lighting, for water heaters, for computers and cell phones, and they need to get it NOW because oil prices are dropping and they soon won’t have anything to sell in order to buy it.

          40. mike March 21, 2015

            Petroleum is not used primarily for transportation, but it does play a major role, it has many other purposes.
            You keep forgetting that they have tried to enrich far more than for peaceful means.
            They have an extensive ICBM program for just one reason, nuclear weapons.
            Clapper has stated in WORLD WIDE TREAT ASSESSMENT IN March: Iran’s overarching strategic goal (are) to build missile deliverable nuclear weapons, if it so desired. That is the Obama administration talking.

          41. Steve Thomas March 21, 2015

            “Petroleum is not used primarily for transportation” According to EIA, 46% goes into gasoline, 20% into diesel, 8% into jet fuel. That’s 3/4 of it. And as you’ve noticed at the pump, prices are dropping.

            If someone were holding a shotgun on you, keeping YOU from caring for your family, your STRATEGIC goal would be to obtain a shotgun of your own. So Clapper may well be right.

            But that doesn’t mean they don’t need nuclear power. How many water purification plants can you name that run on petroleum? How long would your livestock, your crops, and your children live without water?

            On 9/11, there were four under the age of 18 to die. In the first 3 months of Dubya’s war, 70,000 babies died because our bombing polluted their water holes. For them to give up nuclear power plants is to agree to their own genocide.

          42. mike March 21, 2015

            Who in the heck is holding a shotgun to Iran’s head. What you haven’t thought through is if Iran gets nuclear weapons how many Middle East countries will think they have a “shotgun” to their head. And as you said “their strategic goal will be to obtain one for themselves”. Leaders in the Middle East have already said they will start their own programs if Iran gets to continue. Nuclear Proliferation begins.
            How many purification plants could be run with the gas or petroleum that doesn’t cost Iran almost nil, but pumping from the earth.
            What you also ignore is in 2009 Obama had negotiated that some their uranium produced, not enough left to produce a weapon, would be sent out of the country, but was nixed by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Also, 1995 Russia and Iran signed a 10 year agreement with Russia supplying fuel, stipulating for the life of the nuclear plant Bushehr reactor, so why the need for their own centrifuges? Russia again offered in November 2014 to again supply, which doesn’t seem to going anywhere at this time.
            I know you can produce all this data on the polluted water holes.
            The pursuit of Nuclear energy is all about having their own Nuclear Weapons. What they need for a power program is over 100k centrifuges but what they do have is enough and more for a weapon. At the level they are now(around 3.5%) they are 2/3 the way for a weapon and the last 1/3 less difficult.
            What you seem to have ignored in my earlier post is the growing development of ICBM’s reported earlier this year. Why ICBM’s?? To load nuclear warheads on.

          43. Steve Thomas March 21, 2015

            It is Israel that has the shotgun of nuclear weaponry, and it’s Israel’s religious intolerance that is scaring all their neighbors. They don’t even allow Jews of the wrong flavor of Judaism to get marriage licenses, and they are downright aggressive when it comes to territorial expansion.

            Who needs ICBMs? It’s fairly simple and fairly inexpensive to build a nuke in a house. You simply run a big pipe from the attic to the cellar, evacuate it, and send enough fissionable mass down that pipe with conventional explosives to slam into the rest of the critical mass. To put a nuke on a rocket requires much more critical engineering, to keep from reaching critical mass before you reach the target. VERY difficult to do.

            As you point out, we’re not denying them nuclear weapons. We’re denying them clean air, enough safe water for drinking, food production and hygiene, and industry.

            You don’t achieve peace by denying the opposition weapons; that didn’t stop WWII from happening. You achieve peace by making enemies highly prosperous trade partners that don’t want to piss off their customers.

          44. mike March 22, 2015

            What a load of dung about Israel scaring their neighbors. The only country under constant attack is Israel.
            Just for the record when has Israel used nuclear weapons as a threat to their neighbors?? Where is the record of Israel saying that it wants to wipe Iran off the face of the earth. Iran Constitution states it’s goal is to destroy Israel.

            We are not denying anyone clean air, safe water, etc.. They have great resources for industry and a viable economy without the need for nuclear reactors. This desire for nuclear energy/nuclear weapons is to take control of the middle east, nothing more nothing less. Other than Pakistan who else is has a nuclear reactor producing their own supply of energy in the Middle East.

            Iran is Theocratic Govt. that hates the US and Israel has denied access to their facilities to UN inspectors. past actions have proven they are untrustworthy. The March 2nd 2015 IAEA report states that Iran has slowed down inspections to areas of major concerns.

            Your post is nothing more than a liberal, spouting emotional Mumbo Jumbo.

          45. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “The only country under constant attack is Israel” The only country constantly expanding its borders is Israel. If two kids are fighting, and Joey has Timmy’s lunch money in his pocket, who is the aggressor.

            “Where is the record of Israel saying that it wants to wipe Iran off the
            face of the earth.” Same place as your question mark. Israel was offered land in the US Southwest after WWII, but demanded land in Palestine be taken by force.

            “Iran Constitution states it’s goal is to destroy Israel.” No, it doesn’t. Section 152, in fact forbids domination of other countries, and Israel isn’t mentioned at all in its constitution,

            Of course, Iran has refused to surrender sovereignty to inspectors. If a foreign country demanded to inspect our military bases, we’d refuse. Hell, we won’t even allow our own journalists full access to Area 51.

            Israel *lost* a nuke in the Six Days war when a plane crashed. I suppose you’d consider it no threat if 100 men with AR5s, who had a history of squatting on and claiming land, gathered at your front door?

            Liberal? Bill Buckley and Barry Goldwater argued in favor of nukes for peace – and they didn’t invent lies like yours to do it.

          46. mike March 23, 2015

            You haven’t answered the question. When did Israel say it wanted to remove Iran from the face of the earth?? As has been expressed in the Constitution and by the Ayatollah Sayyed Ali Khamenei, who stated the destruction of Israel. Article 100 stipulates the Supreme Leader sets the general policies of the country. Khamenei states the destruction of Israel is necessary for the human rights of the Palestinians.
            In 2012, Khamenei said
            We have intervened in the anti-Israel struggle, and the results have been the victories in the 33 days war [the 2006 war with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon] and the 22 days war [Israel’s attacks on the Gaza strip in December 2008]. From now on we will also support any nation, any group that confronts the Zionist regime, we will help them, and we are not shy about doing so. Israel will go, it must not survive, and it will not.
            What you conveniently ignore is the Preamble with its many references. Global-Worldwide extension of Jihad, continuation of Revolution at home and abroad. “Establish of universal holy govt. and downfall of all others”. “the return of Mahdi is that the last Jew killed”. Article 3,foreign polices based on Islam criteria. Article 11: cites from the Koran, this community is a single community, and I am your lord. so worship me, (21:92) that govt. must constatly strive to bring about political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.

            As to lies, where is the indisputable data on the 70,000 deaths from poisoning of water by Bush? You sure ignored your claims for proof.

          47. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “When did Israel say it wanted to remove Iran from the face of the earth??” You’re aware that a *country* has no vocal chords, and can only act, not speak? A couple of the more prominent aggressions by Israel were:
            May 14, 1948.
            June 7, 1981

          48. mike March 23, 2015

            Israel never said it. You said they had the “shotgun” and are scaring their neighbors, and I asked you to tell me when they have threatened iran with Nuclear weapons or elimination. They never have!!!
            Keep up that Anti-Semite rhetoric.

          49. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “Article 100 stipulates the Supreme Leader sets the general policies of the country.” More of your lies. Article 100 does the OPPOSITE, establishing decentralized councils, one for for each village, division, city, municipality,
            and province. It says NOTHING about foreign relations. If your Persian is rusty, an English translation is available.

          50. mike March 23, 2015

            Go look at 110, it states his power and duties.

            Following are the duties and powers of the Leadership:

            1. Delineation of the general policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran after consultation with the Nation’s Exigency Council.

            2. Supervision over the proper execution of the general policies of the system.

            3. Issuing decrees for national referenda.

            4. Assuming supreme command of the armed forces.

            5. Declaration of war and peace, and the mobilization of the armed forces.

            6. Appointment, dismissal, and acceptance of resignation of:

            1. the fuqaha’ on the Guardian Council.

            2. the supreme judicial authority of the country.

            3. the head of the radio and television network of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

            4. the chief of the joint staff.

            5. the chief commander of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

            6. the supreme commanders of the armed forces.

            7. Resolving differences between the three wings of the armed forces and regulation of their relations.

            8. Resolving the problems, which cannot be solved by conventional methods, through the Nation’s Exigency Council.

            9. Signing the decree formalizing the election of the President of the Republic by the people. The suitability of candidates for the Presidency of the Republic, with respect to the qualifications specified in the Constitution, must be confirmed before elections take place by the Guardian Council; and, in the case of the first term [of the Presidency], by the Leadership;

            10. Dismissal of the’ President of the Republic, with due regard for the interests of the country, after the Supreme Court holds him guilty of the violation of his constitutional duties, or after a vote of the Islamic Consultative Assembly testifying to his incompetence on the basis of Article 89 of the Constitution.

          51. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “What you conveniently ignore is the Preamble with its many references.
            Global-Worldwide extension of Jihad, continuation of Revolution at home
            and abroad. “Establish of universal holy govt. and downfall of all
            others”. “the return of Mahdi is that the last Jew killed”.”

            Again, what you assert is the opposite of what it says. Your quotes are NOT in the Iranian Constitution; instead, what it demands of the government is “he elimination of all forms of despotism and autocracy and all attempts
            to monopolize power”

            So why are you in favor of monopolized power?

          52. mike March 24, 2015

            The plan of the Islamic government as proposed by Imam Khumayni at the height of the period of repression and strangulation practiced by the despotic regime, produced a new specific, and streamline motive for the Muslim people, opening up before them the true path of Islamic ideological struggle, and giving greater intensity to the struggle of militant and committed Muslims both within the country and abroad

            With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse “This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me” [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.
            There is more find them your self.

          53. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “Article 11: cites from the Koran, this community is a single community,
            and I am your lord. so worship me, (21:92) that govt. must constatly
            strive to bring about political, economic, and cultural unity of the
            Islamic world.”

            You’re lying by omission now. The government of the Islamic Republic
            of Iran is charged with formulating its general policies with a view to
            cultivating the friendship and unity of all Muslim peoples. Notice the lack of malice towards the non-Islamic world.

            The US Constitution charges the federal government with protecting the states. Not one word there suggests tax dollars should be used to deprive Semitic people of clean energy.

          54. mike March 24, 2015

            With due attention to the Islamic content of the Iranian Revolution, the Constitution provides the necessary basis for ensuring the continuation of the Revolution at home and abroad. In particular, in the development of international relations, the Constitution will strive with other Islamic and popular movements to prepare the way for the formation of a single world community (in accordance with the Koranic verse “This your community is a single community, and I am your Lord, so worship Me” [21:92]), and to assure the continuation of the struggle for the liberation of all deprived and oppressed peoples in the world.

          55. Steve Thomas March 23, 2015

            “As to lies, where is the indisputable data on the 70,000 deaths from
            poisoning of water by Bush? You sure ignored your claims for proof.”

            It’s not like anyone is disputing the fact that bombing polluted water holes, that children were dying as a result, and the only dispute about the number came from charity groups who claiming many more were affected.

            The World Health Organization came up with the stats in 2005 on babies dying because of war-polluted water holes. The CIA says Afghanistan is 10th highest in birth rate, but is 39th highest in population. UNICEF says 1 of every 4 babies die before reaching the age of five, mostly from diarrhea. Only 22% of the families have access to safe drinking water.

          56. mike March 24, 2015

            As I suspected no documentation.
            Thanks for the chuckle.

          57. idamag March 22, 2015

            And, if we attacked Iran, it would be just like Iraq. After we attacked Iraq, the terrorist groups went in. We are the cause of more terrorists rising.

          58. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Old boy? How condescending of you! Typical!

          59. mike March 21, 2015

            Really?? Condescending??

            Any person who claims that Iran is not or has not been a sponsor of terrorism because of lack of evidence or Hezbollah hasn’t attacked Israel in decades, deserves what I said.


          60. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Yes, condescending! Old guy? You must be one of those know it all twerps so secure in their knowledge that call other people names to make a point! More power to you but at this rate you won’t have many friends!

          61. mike March 21, 2015

            I see you now have another whole in your head with such a stupid post.

          62. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Stupid according to who? You? ROFL! I’m crushed!

          63. mike March 21, 2015

            Look at your stupid and inane comments, then ask the question. Your statements lacking content, pretty much sums it up.

          64. highpckts March 21, 2015

            And your are so full of wisdom???

          65. mike March 21, 2015

            Far more and better informed than you.

          66. highpckts March 22, 2015

            Really? All you do is quote “facts” from Fox “news” and think you are so enlightened! Try a little common sense and reasoning for something different!

          67. mike March 22, 2015

            The lack of common sense and reasoning is all yours.
            Seldom if ever used Fox.
            Many good sources out there to prove you wrong as usual.

          68. idamag March 22, 2015

            If Mike wants a fight, he can join the mercenaries.

          69. highpckts March 22, 2015

            He wouldn’t do that! He might get hurt! It’s much better to armchair events than participate!

          70. Wedge Shot March 20, 2015

            I don’t agree that ISIS has or operates an organized government .
            It appears that they are just terrorizing the population and are in no way trying to help the population as is done in a civilized society.
            I have read that they really have no idea how to run a government but instead are focused on controlling the people through brutality, intimidation and killing.
            They are not civilized so how could they possibly run a country?

          71. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

            ISIS does use terror as a tool to control people. They exploit people, and they take girls as young as 10 or 12 as brides, which put them in the pedophile category. They, however, do have a government organization in place, and they have plans to establish a medieval Caliphate, modeled on their interpretation of Islamic values. Don’t forget that people like Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge, Idi Amin, and other monsters had a country and a functioning government. The fact that those governments were evil and used terror to control the masses is another story.

          72. Wedge Shot March 20, 2015

            Sorry Dom but I don’t agree. You can force people to do certain things for a certain time but it is impossible to take a country back to a medieval time. The world is much more open, the internet exists and it is impossible to rule using the tactics of the fifth century. A country can not even feed itself without modern technology and ISIS can not control every aspect of a society and still have a functioning country. Furthermore, if ISIS is not curtailed and eliminated withing the next two years the United States and many other countries will have boots on the ground to make sure this barbarian group is eliminated.
            It may come down to a large war involving the whole middle east and parts of Africa but ISIS can not be allowed to survive.

          73. Dominick Vila March 21, 2015

            The attraction of extreme violence, probably better described as fanatical brutality, is perplexing. Particularly when many of the “recruits” and young brides are from Western countries, but considering the number of people joining their Jihaddist movement, it is apparent that their message appeal to a lot of people.
            I agree, a coalition, preferably with regional support, must eliminate this threat as soon as possible, before it expands to other parts of the Muslim world.

          74. Wedge Shot March 23, 2015

            When some of the recruits from other countries see death first hand the romance of fighting and of being involved with a barbaric group will quickly fade. I have read that anyone that wants to leave is confined and perhaps even killed. It will not take long for new recruits will be hard to find.
            With the fall of Tikrit the Islamic State and those that support it will find that fighting a war against superior weapons is not a great idea.

          75. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Impossible to take a country back to a medieval time? Really? Tell that to the Republicans!

          76. angelsinca March 21, 2015

            Dude. Really.

          77. highpckts March 22, 2015

            Really!!! If it were up to the GOP there would be boots on the ground everytime someone crossed the line with the US! The GOP wants to go backward in time in the face of every known fact. We are the only ones allowed to have weapons of war because we are #1 in the world. Truth be known, we are no longer #1 because we are mainly deniers of progress and other countries are passing us up in almost everry way! If it were up to them we would be living in the “Gilded Age” where money ruled and the people took it in the rear, which is just what they are trying to do! No voting rights for blacks and women, you pay taxes because the rich, according to Helmsly, don’t pay taxes, ignoring science telling us that we are on a collision course with Nature because of our blatant disregard for the planet, and the list goes on!

          78. idamag March 22, 2015

            As long as it wasn’t their boots.

          79. highpckts March 22, 2015

            Amen to that!!

          80. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Oh on the contrary! Many horrible people have run a government very well using terror, threats, and murder! I go back in history to Medievil England, China and even the Vatican! Check history and what ISIS is doing is not so out of place. They all considered themselves “civilized”!

          81. Sand_Cat April 9, 2015

            Specifically, what did the dems do?
            Even if they did, does that make it right?

          82. mike April 9, 2015

            Really!! 20 days ago!! You’re working to hard.
            There is a litany of dems going against a republican president. This what I wrote Dom, “The 47 did not commit treason, did not betray the country, are not
            traitors, I find it interesting you continue to ignore Kennedy, Pelosi,
            Wright, Bonior and McDermott and their antics against Republican
            Presidents. What the 47 did do is present the facts of could happen in
            the future. Sending to Iran was wrong but the content was correct”

            As to your last question, No!!!

            On different topic: i just watched a video of the Iranian President saying that if all Sanctions aren’t lifted at signing the deal is off.

            Hope all is well with you!! My Dukies won so all is well for now.

          83. Sand_Cat April 10, 2015

            Well, to start, I’m not big on the “treason” charge, and have said so repeatedly. I may find their actions despicable, but the abuse of the word “treason” and its synonyms (much if not most of it from the GOP) have long since made it as meaningless as “natural,” “liberty,” and “freedom,” and this merely piles on. But to the facts:
            Did the people you cite go to foreign countries or write them in a deliberate effort to undermine negotiations ongoing? Is it clear they preferred war to the success of those negotiations as the 47 do? Did they promise to reverse any agreements made? I doubt it; I’m sure there’s plenty of right-wing crap inflating their actions beyond the pale, but I’m talking reality, something on which these guys seem to me to have a somewhat tenuous grip at best.
            Thanks (and back at you) for your well-wishes; I haven’t always deserved them. I’ve just been the “beneficiary” of a “business decision” and would love to retire from all the crap, but don’t think I can afford it, my favored retirement plan having been a massive heart attack and stroke resulting in instant death while sitting at my desk contemplating the latest idiot and non-productive demand from my employer (I have to wonder how many of those who complain about time-wasting in government jobs have ever seriously thought about all the crap going on in corporations today).

          84. mike April 10, 2015


            Even the New York Times editorial page, by then constant critics of Bush’s foreign policy, wrote: “there is at least one point on which we and the critics of Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Damascus can agree: It is the White House, not the speaker of the House, that should be taking the diplomatic lead.” They added: “Her job is to spur the Bush administration to pursue active diplomacy, not to attempt to conduct that diplomacy herself.”

            Secretly asked Russian Andropov to ‘intervene on behalf of the democratic party to defeat Reagan 1984.

            According to Soviet documents unearthed in the early 1990’s, Kennedy literally asked the Soviets, avowed enemies of the U.S., to intervene on behalf of the Democratic party in the 1984 elections. Kennedy’s communist communique was so secret that it was not discovered until 1991, eight years after Kennedy had initiated his Soviet gambit:

            Kennedy would make certain the networks gave Andropov air time–and that they rigged the arrangement to look like honest journalism.

            The rest you can look up.

            This holier-than-thou the dems try and portrait is just bogus.
            Again, take care. Life is too short so try and keep the anxiety level down as much as possible.

          85. Sand_Cat April 10, 2015

            The charge against Kennedy is certainly serious and in the ballpark. Sorry, but the Pelosi thing doesn’t even come close. Remember the NY Times was trumpeting the bogus WMD stuff. I know the right considers them “liberal,” but I would say the right at this time has a distorted, often hysterical (don’t mean funny, though sometimes it is), picture of what a “liberal” is.
            Again, thanks for the good wishes.

          86. mike April 10, 2015

            NYT is very much to the left, if they could have proven there were none they would have. Many countries and govt. believed they existed.
            Take care and stay well!!

    3. idamag March 20, 2015

      I think this nation is experiencing devolution.

      1. Independent1 March 20, 2015

        Well, the GOP is certainly working hard to bring that about!!

        1. idamag March 22, 2015

          It does seem to favor one party – devolution – doesn’t it?

    4. Independent1 March 20, 2015

      What’s really disturbing to me, is I doubt the woman who spouted all those fantasies to Santorum about how Obama is destroying the country; and also tried to set off a nuke in Charleston, was making all that stuff up in her own head. There clearly is an underground within the GOP that is disseminating all these negative ideas about Obama to millions of Americans.

      My sense is that that underground has the initials TP; whose members have apparently gone into high gear in working to trash Obama among more Americans as the influence of the TP on elections seems to have faded somewhat in the past couple elections: given that in 2014, without gerrymandering and voter suppression, Republicans may well have lost a number of senate seats in red states (they didn’t win one seat in a blue state and even in losing seats, the Dems pulled 20 million more votes; and they also lost ever ballot issue even in red states; their personhood ballot issues were all defeated).

      1. charleo1 March 20, 2015

        And why wouldn’t these groups say anything to smear Obama? There has been absolutely no downside to anything they’ve claimed so far. Regardless of how, untrue, or outrageous it has been. So, if it sticks with a 1 out of 100, or 1 out of 10,000 it’s a win. There’s never anyone to call them out and say, that was proven a lie. And so, if you were lying then, how do we know you’re not lying now? It just never happens at any level. This is what we’ve seen happen on the Right, from the top down. When a President can, leaning on 200 years of good faith, and high esteem in which Americans have held the office. Deliberately, and bald faced lie the Country into war, get caught, and get away with it, both legally, and politically. Then, the wheels on the truth, and the consequences for lying, come off. And the door swings wide open, and all bets are off. Which is exactly what we’re witnessing.

        1. Independent1 March 20, 2015

          Right! And because right-wingers also know, that when the spew lives, even if progressives counter the lies with the truth, not all those who bought into the lie, will hear or see the truth published; or maybe even believe the truth when they hear or see it. So gradually, even if the lies are rebutted, more and more Americans are walking around with an increasing number of lies staying in their memory. It’s clearl a diabolic plot to in their efforts to subvert the country.

          1. angelsinca March 20, 2015

            There clearly is an underground within the GOP that is disseminating all these negative ideas about Obama to millions of Americans.

            There is no underground. Any negative ideas about Obama are only a result of the White House briefings or State Dept briefings or Obama announcements. They all peg the built in BS meters.

          2. highpckts March 21, 2015

            Yep there is one of them on this board that is fully invested in spreading anything and everything that is a flat out lie! To Hell with facts because those facts would destroy their ingrained belief that ALL Republicans are good people looking out for the welfare of the people! ROFL!!

          3. angelsinca March 21, 2015

            I appreciate your sarcasm and recognize your intolerance. I am registered as Independent but usually vote Republican. For this, I am insulted, rejected and accused of lying, of abusing the homeless, of hating on minorities and gays, and even eating my own children by the progressives and liberals among us. This only reminds me to continue my same voting practice. If you need to call me a liar too, help yourself. I believe I’ve already heard it all. Cheers.

          4. highpckts March 22, 2015

            As have I so you aren’t any different! I have intorance for stupidity and denial of facts such as “trickle down economics”, climate change, womens rights, voter suppression, etc.! If you face the “facts” and look at the GOP’s voting record they will not fund anything that the President is for! How childish! I long for a time where each party does what is good for the country and not just for the “party” and their big money backers!

          5. Sand_Cat April 9, 2015

            Well, you vote for people who do all of those things. How do you figure you somehow escape responsibility? I believe you claim to be a Christian. The man you call god said you’re guilty for even thinking of things; how innocent can you be if you actually put people who promise to do those things or already do them in a position to do so?

          6. angelsinca April 9, 2015

            “Well, you vote for people who do all of those things. How do you figure you somehow escape responsibility?”

            Well, considering how many people voted for the same candidate as I did, I would have to fairly accept a full 1/60,533,800th of the responsibility for all the things they did, good or bad. That happens to be the exact same fraction of concern I have for being blamed for the crazy things other people say or don’t do.

          7. Sand_Cat April 10, 2015

            You know damn well it doesn’t work that way

          8. idamag March 22, 2015

            Just like the person, on these blogs, who claimed there were WMDs.

        2. dpaano April 8, 2015

          The problem is that the American public has been lied to by the GOP so much that they don’t know WHAT to believe…..unfortunately, the GOP uses, as I’ve said repeatedly, lies and scare tactics to motivate their base and it seems to work on the mostly uninformed of the GOP base!!! They will believe anything they’re told even if it’s a bold-faced lie!! They don’t know the difference, and if the GOP says that President Obama is a liar….they believe it without question!!! It’s pretty sad to see how low a particular political party can get, and the GOP is at their lowest!!!

      2. Dominick Vila March 20, 2015

        I would not be surprised if what you suspect is true.

      3. plc97477 March 20, 2015

        Why? He can’t be reelected.

        1. Independent1 March 20, 2015

          Because that underground with the initials TP, is already shifting gears to take their hate mongering tactics they’ve been using against Obama, that I described above, and focusing them on Hillary (or whichever other progressive candidate materializes). The TP hate machine is already starting to exploit as many fake scandals and conspiracy theories as they can come up with against Hillary (her email situation which was no different than any previous SOS; the fact that she and Bill run a foundation that receives money from foreign countries, etc. etc.).

        2. idamag March 22, 2015

          He is still Black. He has two more years to be trashed by trash. He is a Democrat and in order for Republicans to elect a Republican president, it must look like the Democrat President failed.

  3. dtgraham March 20, 2015

    I saw that. That was hysterical. Santorum looked like he was thinking, “where’s a nuclear explosion when you need one?” He looked like he wanted to crawl into the crater left over to get away from this. For a while there, I thought he had lost the will to live. He was probably cursing Obama that his nuke didn’t go off.

    The crazy thing is, keep in mind that this is Rick Santorum we’re talking about. Now if that woman had only said, “Obama wants to turn all of our sons gay by forcing them to bowl with pink bowling balls”, Santorum would have replied…”oh lady, I am so there!” “Do you have an hour?”

    When you’re actually embarrassing the pink bowling ball candidate from the 2012 election, you may want to think about dialing it back a bit.

  4. Grannysmovin March 20, 2015

    5. Sean Duffy and Andrea Tantaros: FYI when Senator Inofe throws a snowball, you
    are supposed to duck not let it hit you in the head.
    4. Bryan Fischer: The only community agitator is you Fischer and your tin foil hat is getting tight, because this conspiracy theory is even out there for you.
    3. Peter Kinder: Denial ain’t just a river in Egypt. Your attitude and denial
    is why there is no healing or moving forward. Next photo op, wear you going to a
    meeting garb.
    2. Kevin Swanson: Why are you listening to demon songs Swanson????
    1. Rick Santorum & Friends – Give up your Presidential ambitions, you cannot run a town hall meeting, how the hell can you run this country

    1. stcroixcarp March 20, 2015

      Sean Dufus, what a numbnuts.

  5. idamag March 20, 2015

    Turn everything political. Great job. I found out last week you can’t even discuss issues or you are accused of talking politics. Leave it to the women showing their a-s on faux news. Santorum, you don;t have one iota of the class John McCain showed when a wild-eyed racists spouted off to him. If it hadn’t been for the grandstanding queen of hate he chose for a running mate, I would have voted for him. Now, I am disappointed in him.

  6. Steve Thomas March 20, 2015

    I used to be embarrassed to live in Pennsylvania because of Rick Santorum, but he moved his family out of state even while he was in the Senate, and never moved back. Penn State, however, has been even more of an embarassment. JoePa admitted his culpability when it all came out, and since then, others have been trying to whitewash things, only to find that Sandusky wasn’t by any means the only predator on that campus. I’m glad to have moved back out of that state. It’s beautiful country, but the citizenry has lived with so much corruption for so long that they’ve come to accept it.

  7. terry b March 20, 2015

    I voted for Santorum in the 2012 primary. Why would I do such a stupid thing? The people in Pennsylvania told the country that he is unelectable. He took the worst beating in the history of the senate after one term. They recognized crazy back then as does any intelligent person does. He always reminds me of the mullahs that run Iran. He is truly a religious nutcase. The kind that now seem to permeate the republican party.

  8. edwardw69 March 20, 2015

    What’s so bad about nuking South Carolina?

    1. charleo1 March 20, 2015

      If the nuke was large enough it might carry over to Georgia. Oh, you ask what was so bad about nuking S. Carolina. Sorry, I misread your question.

    2. stcroixcarp March 20, 2015

      Because that would be jumping in line. When the nuking starts it should be Texas first, then Florida, etc.

    3. Elliot J. Stamler March 20, 2015

      I LOVE IT!!!!! Right on Edward!!!

    4. ThomasXxs March 20, 2015

      Only simpletons propose to judge an entire state based on nothing more than the election day political leanings of the voting majority in that state. Even if +65% of South Carolina voters go for the most conservative GOP candidate available in a given election, that still leaves 35% (or more than one-third) of the voters in SC pulling the lever as “liberals”, or at least left-leaning voters.
      By the same token, there are plenty (let’s say one-third again) of hard-core Fox News[or worse]-powered ultra-conservatives even in such presumed liberal strongholds as Massachusetts and California. I’ve even known a few over the years, and if anything some of them are even more obnoxious than those conservatives from SC.

      1. edwardw69 March 20, 2015

        I meant it as a joke. I have no desire to see anyone subjected to a nuclear attack. No one.

        1. idamag March 22, 2015

          I enjoyed your joke.

      2. Steve Thomas March 20, 2015

        “Only simpletons propose to judge an entire state based on nothing more
        than the election day political leanings of the voting majority in that

        Who among us judge an entire state solely on that criteria? Most of us have DECADES of accumulated experience, based on travel, friends who have moved from there, dealings with companies there, etc. We know that Jeb Bush advocated ab “Alamo strategy” for his father to win the nomination in 1980, we know that LBJ waged war in Nam and Dubya did the same in Iraq and Afghanistan; obviously, Texans don’t know that the Alamo was a great loss, not a victory. We know of Chili from Luckenbach, Lubbock in the rear view mirror, Dell computers, Ross Perot, and Jack Ruby. God almost wiped out Galveston in 1905, and SS Grandcamp did a number on Texas City in 1947, so it’s unlikely anything less than a nuke will get them to mend their ways.

        Meanwhile, what we know about South Carolina is that their public TV had to go to NORTH Carolina to produce “Chef’s Life” because the only culture in South Carolina seems to grow in a petri dish. They don’t have Andy and Opie, or Research Triangle Park in South Carolina, either.

        So the proper response to “what’s so bad with nuking Charleston” is that Texas has earned its place at the head of that line.

        Not based on a single election, but a pervasive stench.

        1. edwardw69 March 20, 2015

          As long as you are speaking in the abstract, I agree.
          I went through military training in the ’70s in Georgia, among other states. I served with Southerners in the military, including in a war zone. They are the result of having the best breeding stock killed-off in the Civil War. Only the garbage that couldn’t or wouldn’t serve was left to breed. That’s today’s South.

          1. Steve Thomas March 20, 2015

            “Only the garbage that couldn’t or wouldn’t serve was left to breed. That’s today’s South.”

            Thar’s part of the story. There were many who weren’t allowed to serve, and those with initiative went North when the unions got Congress to limit immigration about 1900.

            It takes about 25 years for immigrants to get established, and build businesses that create most new jobs; long-established businesses either fail or they “right-size” jobs away, and ship them overseas. If not for war refugees, our low rates of legal immigration would have us all unemployed.

        2. idamag March 22, 2015

          Yes. As Dr. Phil says, “The way to predict future behavior is by past behavior.”

    5. dpaano April 8, 2015

      I’d go for nuking Texas first….then maybe South Carolina

  9. FT66 March 20, 2015

    Santorum is a sore loser. He doesn’t understand once you start losing and continue losing again and again, you will never make it. I am wondering why can’t he learn from Romney. They are both good losers. Romney has decided to back off though still making little noise which doesn’t benefit/help anyone. Why can’t Santorum let it go as well? He has no luck in dealig with politics.

  10. Julieann Wozniak March 20, 2015

    I rather enjoyed the crazy lady outshining Rick at his own gig! And I think we would have felt the tremors if a nuke had really gone off in Charleston (I saw that movie, which aired in the 80s). The teacher crazy lady is quite ignorant of how tech works!

    1. Allan Richardson March 20, 2015

      There was a bomb dropped off Tybee Island near Savannah in the 1950s and it has not yet been found. Experts do not know if it is leaking radioactive material yet or not; it was buried so deeply in the mud that the natural background radiation is still masking the radiation from the bomb.

      What happened was that an Air Force plane carrying the bomb on a training mission (thank goodness it was not armed) had engine trouble and had to land at a base near Savannah. Since A-bombs were much heavier back then, it had to release the bomb as safely as possible in order to land safely, and the deep mud under that water was judged to be the safest. For seventy some years, the US military has kept anyone without a permit from getting into the possible drop zone to try to salvage it; originally because it had secrets we didn’t want the Soviets to get (which are now obsolete), and more recently because, if it is even halfway able to detonate, terrorists might want to deliver it somewhere else.

      The last I heard, an authorized private company tried for a few weeks and had to give up for the time being.

      1. plc97477 March 20, 2015

        Someone needs to explain to the racist bitch that Obama wasn’t born until after the 1950s.

        1. idamag March 22, 2015

          Have you ever tried to explain anything to a maniac?

      2. Julieann Wozniak March 20, 2015

        Excellent book: “Broken Arrow – The Declassified History of U.S. Nuclear Weapons Accidents.” It’s volume 1 of a two volume set and contains loads of reproduced technical documents and photos from the 1950s. General LeMay pushed his planes and pilots to the breaking points, sometimes with disastrous results.

  11. CrankyToo March 20, 2015

    An open message to Congressman Sean Duffy:

    Dear Misrepresentative,

    What’s all this nonsense about Boston liberals “taking religion out of the public square”? Religion doesn’t belong in the public square, you Turd Party dipstick. It belongs in the church, the synagogue, the mosque, and in other temples of worship. The public square, as the term implies, is for the public (a far more inclusive group, I might add).

    The fact that you’ve been elected to office in Wisconsin’s 7th District speaks volumes about the rubes who live there and where their heads are at (apparently up their a$$es). But be that as it may, while you’re in our House, how about getting up off
    your fat, corrupt, political a$$ and doing something positive, instead of just taking
    up space, wasting our money and fomenting hatred and discontent here and around
    the world?

    Your Pal,


    PS God bless liberal Boston.

    1. Irishgrammy March 20, 2015

      Priceless comment!!! Love it and Liberal Boston!!!!

      1. CrankyToo March 20, 2015

        Cheers, Lassie.

    2. idamag March 22, 2015

      If we let the religious nuts take over the country, how many years will pass before they are holding inquisitions?

  12. Michael Ross March 20, 2015

    Swanson’s problem is not just that Swift is singing about depravity. It’s that she’s singing PERIOD. Every time a girl indicates that she envisions a future for herself that involves something besides getting married at 16 and being a dutiful trophy wife, he starts ranting about demons and corruption again.

  13. Elliot J. Stamler March 20, 2015

    To me the most notable point of all of the story featuring Santorum is that he did not disagree with, scold or otherwise contradict the fascist harridan whose statements hint at sedition and violence. This shows you to what low the conservatives (so-called) have sunk. At least Sen. McCain in 2008 had the decency and courage to contradict and scold another female hag who publicly said stuff like this to him during the campaign. As I have written before, the ultimate stakes in next year’s election is whether we are in fact going to preserve a political democracy and a constitutional system of law in this country. The Republican Party is now a de facto quasi-fascist organization.

  14. S.J. Jolly March 20, 2015

    Santorum: Maybe it’s time to worry more about who’s supporting you than who you’re opposing?

  15. Frank KIng March 20, 2015

    The only nuke exploding is the mushroom cloud in Santorum’s head. As a proslytizing politcian, he should refrain from commenting on foreign affairs and domestic issues and stick to telling us how he can interpret God’s plans that he alone can assimilate and deliver. PA was glad to rid itself of Santorum. It appears he has found SC a match his warped views

  16. MichelleRose3 March 20, 2015

    We seem to be overlooking the fact that a certifiable lunatic ranted and raved in public, making insane accusations and acting out in a truly scary fashion. We are also overlooking the fact that this woman is NOT alone and there are hundreds of thousands like her: insane, crazed with fear, obsessed with Fox News-driven conspiracies to explain a world she is no longer capable of living in, much less comprehending.

    We have an epidemic of insanity sweeping this country, driven by a small handful of cynical, manipulative men (and not a few women) who are using people with fragile, easily deranged minds for their own despicable purposes. They are fragile and easily deranged because they have neither the necessary wiring nor the training to understand and survive change. If y’all would like to think of these people as “defective,” I’m not going to disagree, but I remind you of your moral duty to be charitable and your ethical duty to attempt understanding.

    There is very little difference between that insane woman and the neo-Nazi who recently went on a killing spree in Arizona. Do you think that’s an exaggeration? Ask yourself what might be the result if that woman was armed and attending a rally for Democrats. Once you are done flinching in horror, start thinking about what we might might do to neutralize or reverse this trend. And, like our adversaries, I would advise that y’all think about fighting dirty and not naively, like some Marquis of Queensbury boxer up against a Hong Kong street fighter. Our adversaries have no compunctions about using street tactics and dirty tricks. Taking the moral high ground may feel good in the short term, but in the long run, we’re going to get beaten to a pulp.

  17. highpckts March 21, 2015

    I would have thought that if the President tried to set off a nuclear bomb in SC and fired all the Generals, the right wing media would have been all over it! So what alternate universe does this woman and many like her live in? Too scary to contemplate!

  18. fortunev March 21, 2015

    One just has to keep the crazy relative islolated in the basement. Saintoreum must know that. Unless he also belongs in the basement with his base.

  19. Rod Dainjer March 28, 2015

    If today’s liberals will callously murder the unborn, who won’t they attack?

    1. Steve Thomas March 28, 2015

      They won’t attack *people*. When the tax law says that “unborn” get an exemption, when family law says that “unborn” can be adopted, when minimum wage law says that woman with “unborn” should get paid once for herself and once for the “unborn”, you can argue that the “unborn” is a human being. Until then, forbidding abortion is like making it a crime to kill a tapeworm.

      The Roman Catholic church prohibits birth control because eggs are not to be killed by preventing them from being fertilized. The Methodists fought to legalize abortion because women were dying from illegal abortions. When the largest and third-largest churches in the country argue that fertilization is not a demarcation point, and civil law agrees, one has to conclude that the leaders of the anri-abortion movement have ulterior motives.

      If you want to actually *do* something to save “the unborn”, you’d fund research into safely transplanting fetuses into the wombs of willing women. Until then, you’re trying to punish women for having sex. If sex were a sin, God wouldn’t have made it so pleasurable.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.