New cartoons
for your inbox!

Safely delivered by FeedBurner

A Word About Tebow

I can’t resist, and since this blog needs content, I’ll use my forum here to spill out my opinion on the matter.

To start, since Tebow was drafted, I have been scratching my head as to why the Broncos won’t play him.

Before last year started, I put out a facebook post that said, “I can’t see the Broncos winning more than 6 games. Why have a losing season with Orton when you can have a losing season with Tebow and start building for the future?” All across the media and those in the Broncos organization and several die hard Broncos fans gave contradictory predictions. The argument back then was, Orton gives us the best chance to get to the playoffs, we’ll probably be a 12 and 4 team.

Then I watched in horror as the Broncos were decimated and were handed the second worse record in the NFL. Not even the Lions were as bad! The result? One year later, Tim Tebow still hasn’t been allowed to get his NFL feet wet and we are one year behind on building his development. Imagine how much better he would be today, had he started last year at the beginning!

It’s like liberals saying we can’t drill for oil because it won’t solve today’s crisis. True, but what about tomorrow?! Now tomorrow is here and we are regretting having not started a year ago!

Or so I thought. I thought the reason why McDaniels was jettisoned was because we were going to try something different. I thought different looked like Tim Tebow as the starting QB.

“But Kyle Orton has such good numbers!” comes the argument from the anti-Tebow crowd. Okay, let’s take a look at that. Orton had great numbers… in certain areas. But where Orton lacked in performance is what the Broncos needed most: third down conversions and redzone conversions. In essence, on paper, Orton does not finish well.

“Well, you can’t blame Orton for the poor performance of the defense,” comes another argument. Probably not, but by not converting on third downs or in the end zone puts added and unneeded pressure on your defense. You do that all season long, and you’ll wear down even probowl players.

I don’t want to sit and bash Orton. I feel bad for the guy. That’s seriously got to suck to have fans chant your replacement all season. But he’s not the right guy for this job. Denver Broncos football is a scrappy-type football with a lot of pocket movement. It’s the nature of playing at altitude. And currently, it’s our only option with our porous offensive line. Orton is not that type of player. Tebow is. So it confounds me that they wouldn’t put the best fit in with the type of offense we currently are!

John Fox explains he’s in the process to build the type of offense that is better suited for Orton’s skill set and that it should be in place within two to three years. Really? Then why on earth are you keeping Tebow? Trade him to a place where he will excel. I’ll make another prediction. Whichever team puts Tebow as their starter will excel, for a long, long time.

And one more prediction. I don’t care what anybody says, the Broncos are going to suck this year. As last year, I pose the question, why suck with Orton when you can suck with Tebow and start building toward the future?

Now to apply logic to the argument. Here’s what doesn’t make sense to me. Tebow was a first round draft pick. It’s like going out and purchasing a brand new shiny car and immediately garaging it because it’s not “road ready” yet. In the meantime, you spend the next two years driving your old Ford Taurus. You have this great, sexy Audi Quatro sitting in your garage, yet you refuse to drive it! That’s what this whole Tebow issue looks like to me, an outside observer. It doesn’t make any sense.

The other issue that doesn’t make sense is that over 70% of Broncos fans want to see Tebow start. His was the number one jersey sold last year… IN ALL OF NFL! As a business owner, if 70% of my consumers prefer my cherry pie, why on earth would I keep making apple? You will sell more tickets with Tebow. You will sell more merchandise! You will make more money! Does that not matter to you, Mr. Bowlen?

In conclusion, Orton may be a good quarterback. He may even be a great one. But he’s not the right one forDenver. And while I would feel bad benching Orton, we need to start building for the future. Otherwise, please, for Tebow’s sake, let’s trade Tebow to a place where he can be allowed to play and grow into the quarterback he was meant to be and end this controversy, once and for all.

PS Since originally writing this, Orton and the Broncos pulled off a win against the Bengals. My position doesn’t change, however. Tebow has too much raw talent to be sitting on the sideline. If Orton is your man, then trade away Tebow. Otherwise, I’d love to see Tebow start taking the snap for the Denver Broncos.

School Choice

The word “choice” sure gets thrown around a lot in politics. Liberals accuse conservatives of being anti-choice, yet when it comes to school choice, they are the first ones to shut it down. I’ve never understood their position on this issue, especially considering their stance on abortion. If I follow their logic, it’s a fundamental right to choose to kill your child, but you don’t get the right to choose where they go to school. Huh?

The real shame is, the people who could benefit the most from a school choice program would be the underpriveleged kids, mostly comprised of minorities. The biggest argument coming from the ACLU (because school choice is a violation of civil liberties, thank goodness they are here to save us!) is that, heaven forbid, a parent might “choose” to put his or her kid into a *gasp* Christian school! Because it’s much better to let them drop out and become street thugs than to expose them to Christian education.

And perhaps there are those who believe that last statement. But shouldn’t that decision be up to the parents?



To start, I’m not an economist, so I’m sure I’m not the best to comment on the whole debt ceiling debacle. But it seems to me that the Republicans blew it big time on this one.

In the house, only 50% of the Democrats voted for it, compared to 65% of the Republicans. And 75% of the American public was against the bill that was passed. So when the fallout of this bill is finally realized in November of 2012, it’ll be the Democrats who can then take the high road and say, well, I didn’t vote for it.

What about the balanced budget amendment? Could not the Republicans have fought harder for it? And why on earth would anybody oppose such an amendment? I fail to see how my liberal buddies could object to balancing the federal budget. It’s all about accountability and power. If Congress has to be accountable to the dollars they spend, one, they’ll have less power, and two, there will be less waste. Who could be against that (except for those in power)?

I see the Republicans speak such wonderful things such as “balanced budget,” and “cutting spending,” but at the end of the day, it doesn’t get done. Sure, they were labeled terrorists and hostage takers for wanting certain provisions before raising the debt ceiling. But I didn’t see a whole lot of compromising happening on the Democrat side. And sure, they had an obstructionist Senate that wouldn’t work with them. But the Dems in the Senate would have been just as much to blame, if not more, if something didn’t happen.

In the end, it is always the same. The taxpayer gets hosed. Democrats promise handouts, Republicans promise taxcuts, we don’t really get either.

Judgmental Gossip

What is portrayed here actually took place in the speech of some teenagers I was casually listening in to, though the characters of this toon have been changed to not reflect the kids in any way. Drawing it got me thinking about my own life. It’s easy for me to point the finger and say, yes, this is funny and ironic, but just as truthful is how it applies so poignantly to my own life. How many times have I done exactly the same thing!


As our economy spins out of control, the persistent argument I hear from Obama lovers is “Obama saved us from going into Depression! Can you imagine how bad it would be if he HADN’T done the things he did?” As a rational person, I’m really trying to make sense of this statement. Not being an Obama fan, I truly wonder if these people actually believe what they are saying.

Obama takes office at 7% unemployment. It’s now close to 10%. The housing market has tanked since the passage of the stimulus bills. Commodity prices have soared. And Tim Geitner tells David Gregory that if Obama hadn’t stepped in, unemployment would easily be 15%, as if he has some sort of magic powers to know these kinds of things.

In my mind I started thinking about the logic. Suppose I had a skin rash. A doctor prescribes a cream. When I start using it, the rash worsens. As a rational person, what would I assume? That the cream is working, and that if I hadn’t used it I might be far worse? No, we would immediately get rid of that cream and find something else. So the question is, why doesn’t the same logic apply to Obama and the economy?

Thus is the thinking behind this cartoon.

Call Center

This is a bi-partisan bashing cartoon, because unfortunately, this can apply to both sides of the aisle.

Side note: There are two things I hate the most, cold calling and spiders. So when I volunteered for a campaign recently and they put me on the phones, it took me a while to become comfortable with the job. I did strike up a number of interesting conversations, however, and it was neat to hear how others in this country felt about certain issues.


Inflated Perspective

Remember when Bush was president, 4% unemployment and $3 gas was considered disastrous–a horrible, wretched economy? Yet 9% unemployment and $4 gas is considered recovery today. “Yes, but it would have been a lot worse had not Obama saved us!” comes the chorus from the left. That makes as much sense as saying the Broncos would have gone to the playoffs if only they had started Tim Tebow. We can’t possibly predict what might have happened. There is no parallel universe we can look to. Who knows, maybe it would have become a lot better had the federal government NOT gotten involved.

In the fourth grade, I remember being taught that printing money creates inflation. The example given at that time was right after the Revolutionary War, where the individual states printed their own currencies, at will, creating rampant inflation. It wasn’t until a national currency was adopted, backed by gold, did it finally settle down.

Now the feds are printing money like the printing press is some sort of toy and they have the audacity to claim there is no inflation? I know Bernanke was a Bush appointee and I didn’t like him even back then, but does he really think we are this uninformed? Any chance he’d consider early retirement?


Convenient Excuse

Speeding Tickets

A Convenient Excuse

A revisit to an old classic: Going through my toons, I came across this one, posted March, 2010, during the height of the whole Toyota debacle. I commented at the time that I was saddened by the news, having been a Toyota fan. (They aren’t paying me, by the way, although if they are listening…). Only later did we discover that the majority of the cases, when investigated, were simply ‘operator’ error, the driver mistook the gas pedal for the brake. It was one of the few times in my life my gut feelings were actually right about an issue.

(Now if only my gut could do a better job predicting baseball scores…)

Sarah Palin in Person!


Sarah Palin in person! What a night it was, celebrating and honoring our troops.

A Fool Says In His Heart

Was privileged to illustrate the article by Lee Strobel discussing the various proofs for the existance of a Creator. You can read the full article here:



This illustration accompanied the article written by William Boyken that discusses how our Bill of Rights are incompatible with Sharia Law. To read the full article, go to:

Where Smoked Ham Comes From

Okay, so once in a while we can take a break from politics just to be silly. Enjoy!

Loop Holes

I was driving home last December when the radio announcer mentioned that our US Congress had tried to pass a bill that would legislate a fairness doctrine on the web by allowing an equal number of liberal results compared to conservative ones per topic for every first page of a search engine, irrespective of how popular those pages really are. So if you typed in George Bush, page one will, by law, be required to post just as many Bush-bashing sites as it does non-Bush-bashing sites. Of course, the law would be written in a way that the “balance” they are looking for would be subject to interpretation.

Is this a good idea? Sure, if your party is the one that is in power. But when your party is no longer the one making the decision on what web pages are deemed conservative vs liberal who knows how the balance will shake out. Is that what we want? The federal government deciding for us what we can see on our search engines. Is this not everything that the founding fathers feared? Does this not fly in the face of the first amendment that states “CONGRESS shall make no law…”

I never followed this story to know if it ever did become law or not. Considering the fact that I didn’t really hear much about it from the sundry of talk radio personalities I listen to indicates that it probably went nowhere, but the fact that it was even considered should alarm us a bit.

The Daily Spin

I put this up in reaction to the blame game that immediately followed the Tucson shootings. I was mortified at how Sarah Palin received the worst of it. One caller starting going on about how Palin issued a call to arms and demanded that Tea Partiers lay to waste the Democrats and liberals. When the host pressured the caller to site his source for this outrageous libel, he stuttered and then spurted out, “Well that’s just her M.O.”

It’s sick how we are letting hate get in the way of debate and how we use tragedies to try and silence opposing opinion. And it’s sick how innocent citizens, such as Sarah Palin, can have such vile and misinformation leveled against them. Speaking of misinformation, I find it funny how many will rattle off bad information to support their view of a particular person or issue. But when that information is exposed for what it is, they rarely will issue a retraction or apology. And I guess that’s what this toon is all about.

***If you are a regular follower of this blog… my sincere apologies. Life has a way taking over and the last few months have been full and wonderful but full nonetheless. As you may be aware, I’ve committed my nonpaying hours to trying to get our cards and gifts webstore up and off the ground. This has been fun, but a challenge and can still use your help. Don’t feel obliged to purchase anything, but tell all of your friends about it and if you haven’t signed up for our “Friends of Painting for Life” ezine, I encourage you to do so now. It’s chock full of great stories, good art, and fun savings. Go to www.PaintingForLife.com for more details.

The moving discourse of political opinion

Do we allow our opinions to be swayed by other’s distortion of facts? For instance, I noticed a lot of venom against Ken Buck by many of my friends, due to the political ads leveled against him. Yet, many of those ads were wholly false and on the verge of being libelous. So are the uncalled for poisonous feelings toward Buck fueled by those ads or are they justified by them?

Having met him in person, Ken Buck is a decent man and a gentleman. He’s not afraid to speak the truth and to answer questions from his heart, perhaps his downfall as a politician. The same cannot be said of Michael Bennett, whom even my liberal friends have admitted is a bit spineless. (How he beat Andrew Romanoff in the primaries still confounds me. I guess Democrats prefer losers.)

The horrible nature of the attack ads is never justified, and it bothers me that so many place their opinions of individuals on those ads. Another example is the one against John Odom, and I have no idea whether he is a Republican or a Democrat, just that I know that the ad is a mistruth from the start. The ad states he failed to file for a renewal on his business with the Secretary of State and that his business was described as delinquent. Newsflash: Anytime you wish to cease doing business under a certain name in the state of Colorado, all you need to do is not file the following year. When this happens, the business goes into a *gasp* deliquent status, which simply means it is not currently registered. There is nothing illegal, wrong, unethical or immoral about this. In fact, it is common procedure and it can describe hundreds of no longer functioning businesses out there. Yet the ad writers are counting on the fact that the voting public does not know this and therefore would be shocked into voting against John Odom.

What cowardace! Why can’t we run on our accomplishments instead of against fake charges on our opponents? And why can’t Americans see through the falsities for what they really are? The reason attack ads are used is because they work. That’s a sad commentary for our society.

Ed Perlmutter’s ENTIRE campaign was about how Ryan Frazier shipped jobs overseas (itself a gross distortion of the truth). Never once did Perlmutter talk about the legislation he helped pass during his four years. Why not?

Say what you will about John Hickenlooper, but I respect the man and his campaign. Not one attack ad was leveled against Tom or Dan. That’s how a campaign should be run.

Right Wing Extremist

I suppose if loving freedom, believing in limited government, less regulation, lower taxes and the incandescent lightbulb makes me an extremist, then I guess I am one.

Painting for Life

I’d like to take a moment and plug my other company, Painting for Life. While I enjoy cartooning, it doesn’t really pay the bills, so I decided to supplement my income with… fine art.

Very exciting things are starting to happy with the company Painting for Life. Our new shopping cart website is starting to come together. Please, if you have a moment, I welcome you to go to www.paintingforlife.com/store. From there, feel free to browse the merchandise and place a few orders. Note, that it is still a work in progress, so be prepared for there to be missing images, funky sentences, and incomplete products, however, the cart is legit and secure. If you do notice any grammar issues or page link issues, or what have you, please let us know.

The second set of exciting news about Painting for Life is that we have always been primarily a stationery company. We are starting to branch out and offer more products, including books and CDs by local independent artists, and bath products and gifts sets.

If you run a non-profit, or you know somebody who does, ask to participate in the PFL fundraising program, in which you and your team sells Painting for Life products to raise money for your non-profit. It is an excellent program filled with exciting products that practically sell themselves.

Finally, this summer I’m going to participate in several art shows. If you want to know more about the shows and other exciting happenings, sign up to receive our ezine at PaintingforLife.com.

Chief Executor

Any similarities to Nancy Pelosi is purely incidental.

A Most Convenient Excuse

It’s tough watching the fallout with the Toyota company. I’ve been a Toyota fan for a long time. It didn’t shock me, however, to discover that there would be fraudulent malfunction claims. It’s bad enough to have to deal with the real claims. Poor Mr. Toyota.

Shrugging the Atlas

I finally finished “Atlas Shrugged.” That is one thick book to read! It was enjoyable and I do think it should be required reading on the collegiate level. While I do not agree with everything Ayn Rand put forth, I loved the concise arguments and the way the different protaganists were able to put in words the feelings I have had for a long time. Government should NOT impede with production and with the doings of business. If a certain business is failing, they should be allowed to fail and not have government level the field for them to “make it fair.”

Anyway, I can go on and on about how I agree completely with Ayn Rand’s concept of producers verses looters and the morality of working for an honest wage, and how the role of government should be to protect life and property, not to redistribute it. The only issue Rand was wrong about was the concept of original sin. We are all capable of being looters and we are all looters of some degree at different moments in our life. And I wonder where she gets her objectivity without a religious basis or background.

Outside of that, it is a great read and it forces one to think critically, something I feel we are afraid to do in today’s hypersensitive society.