politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Liberalism in 3D

Liberalism in 3D

Almost everybody I know who has seen this movie, liberal or conservative, has told me it is nothing more than a tired, recycled plot, pumped up on special effects. Yet, because it carries an anti-capitalist world view, it has been lauded by the Academy and up for Best Picture.

The Academy Award goes to the film that best carries our message and slaps it upside your head.

I’ve noticed that over the past five years, I have hated 99% of all Academy Award nominated film. I now use today’s nominations as a guide. Has it been nominated? Well then, I’ll skip it.

To Tell the Future

psychic readings

I find it interesting how many of the psychic houses I pass as I drive through Denver make it very clear that you are to set up an appointment. I suppose if you were psychic you could call me ahead of time and tell me not to arrive at 3pm on Tuesday, because that’s when Susan is supposed to drop in.

What makes fortune telling so effective is that they cater to our over inflated egos. Think of the last horoscope or fortune cookie you read. They always read to the effect of, “Everybody ever born between these dates have these exact same traits: you are kind and thoughtful, thinking of others before yourself, generous. Your hard working attitude and your attention to detail is what will allow you to be successful this year. You are the perfect lover, a charmer.” Well, shoot, these psychic people must know what they are talking about, I guess I am hot stuff.

Imagine for a second if the horoscopes actually told the truth. “You are a stuck-up, mean-spirited jerk– oh, and your breath stinks, too.” Well…, you know those horoscopes, can’t really trust them to be accurate.

Of course, the moment today’s seers started telling it like it is becomes the moment they lose business. Which makes me wonder why they charge money in the first place. With abilities like that, you’d think they’d do pretty well in Vegas.

The High Cost of it All

high cost of it all

When you allow government to funnel your money to in order to “take care” of you, the costs far outweigh whatever perceived benefit in the long run. Thank you Mary D for this great idea!

The Illusion of Security at the Expense of Freedom

When the TSA demanded we put our liquids into plastic baggies, I immediately said on my blog and several other places (http://www.politixcartoons.com/cartoon/51) that this move only inconveniences passengers and does nothing to enhance public safety.

Christmas day proved me right. Now with the TSA’s overreaction from the thwarted attack, I am livid. Let’s examine some of the irony with the new rules.

First, the guy who saved the day got out of his seat to do so. In response, the TSA now says you can’t leave your seat.

You are not allowed to keep anything in your lap 1 hour prior to the plane landing, including paperback books. Serious? You guys at the TSA think banning paperback books is going to stop terrorism?!? The terrorists stated goal is to, what, kill our freedoms, is it not? They no longer need to be successful with their terrorist attacks anymore–the overreaction of our government will automatically take away our freedoms for them.

So we are expected to sit strapped to our seats for hours on end without even the relief of a book to pass the time the next time we want to take a flight. We can’t cover ourselves if we are cold, we can’t get up to use the bathroom if we have to. Prison inmates have more freedoms than this! The detainees at Guantanemo have more freedoms than this! The terrorists have effectively put 1 million flyers into prison every day!

(But Ben, we’ve got to do SOMETHING!) Yes, but we have to do the right thing and the right thing was not done on Christmas day. The so-called “panty-bomber” was on a terrorist watch list, had an Islamic name, bought a one-way ticket to America with cash and NOBODY raised a red flag. Similar things happened with the Ft. Hood incident.

Screw political correctness. We are at war with radical Muslims, they should be suspect and scrutinized. Until the war is over, that’s just the reality of it. Granted, maybe not every jihadist who says “Death to America” on his website will actually carry out plans to do so, but let’s double check him, just in case.

Here’s my solution, it’s a good one, who can I talk to? One: Give us our books, blankets, shampoos and knitting needles back. Let us roam the cabin if we need to. I mean this. The ban on these items will not make us a lick safer. All it does is give the illusion of security at the expense of freedom. Several foreign airlines operate just fine without these restrictions.

Obama has promised more full body screeners. Good. I can live with that. It’s an invasion of privacy, yes, but not of freedom. But let’s use them the right way. If you have an Yemenese passport, Islamic name and you are buying a one way ticket with cash, buddy, you’re going through it.

Let’s spend our money on getting some chemically trained dogs to roam the security lines. People aren’t moving anyway, they might as well be subject to a “sniff” search.

Allow flight attendants who qualify with training and a thorough background check to be allowed to carry if they want to. Assign more undercover air marshals as well. There is no greater defense than a good offense.

Finally, make a BIG deal out of the everyday heroes who risk their lives to save the day. They should be given some sort of financial reward for their efforts, so as to encourage more people to take safety into their own hands.

Between you and me, I am so upset about the new rules, that if I’m to ever get on a plane again, I swear I’m tempted to engage in civil disobedience, just the make a point. I WILL NOT put away that paperback. Let them fuss over me. Let them arrest me. My cause will be vindicated and hopefully enough people will see how stupid it is that they waste all their efforts over some chronically ill white guy because he refuses to put down his book “Common Sense” by Thomas Paine, instead of focusing that time and money on the real perpetrators. I just pray these restrictions are lifted by the time I take the next flight or else, you might be seeing me on the news… :-)

Silly Joke

Last night I couldn’t sleep because of chronic pain. It’s interesting what I come up with dead tired, writhing in pain at three in the morning. I still don’t know if this is any good or not, but I thought I’d share it.

Question: If you were to walk down the halls of congress and trip, who would catch you? The Republicans or the Democrats?

Answer: Neither. The Democrats would form a government agency designed to catch people who happen to trip in the halls of congress. It will span several bureaucracies, cost millions and will not be completed for several years. Of course, you’ll be long recovered from your fall by then, but they’ll keep the agency in place, “just in case” you happen to fall again.

The Republicans will simply tell you to catch yourself.

NOTHING BUT HOT AIR

nothing but hot airThe UK Telegraph, by no means a conservative paper, reports on how the insistence of using private limos and jets by all these dignitaries attending the Copenhagen Summit has contributed more CO2 emissions than a mid-sized city. The excesses don’t stop there, as they have been dining on expensive fish and cavier (despite being told we’ve got to stop eating fish because we’re overfishing the oceans.) And I won’t even touch on the other scandalous excesses that have been reported, as this is a family-friendly blog. You can read the entire story here: http://tinyurl.com/yzfvhe2

The whole ordeal is comical, but the policy issues they want to pass as a result of all of this are frightening. CO2 is NOT a toxin, not anymore than oxygen is. You follow that logic for very long, and you end up in the camp that says we need to eliminate life to sustain it, because there are too many humans exhaling. Once you end up there, you’ll find yourself in a bad place. Since you’ll be hard pressed to find volunteers to leave the planet, government will have to make that choice for you.

We’ve got to stop eating beef because cows fart. We’ve got to stop eating fish because we might overfish. We’ve got to stop eating plants because they’ve got feelings too. Let’s ban incandescent bulbs because they run hot. But why stop there. Let’s just ban manmade light altogether, as today’s Blackout Friday attempted to do. Forget the fact that we’ve spent CENTURIES to develop the technology to improve and lengthen our lives, technology is the new evil, let’s deny it and go back to the Dark Ages (has anybody studied the history of Rome, by the way?)

I’ll restate my position on environmentalism. God commanded man to be a steward of the land, nothing more. Man cannot save the earth. That is God’s job and in the end, we are promised, it will be destroyed. The problem is not with conservation or recycling or being litter free. It’s when government uses “environmentalism” based on shoddy science as an excuse to pass laws to control and dictate our lives.

Holiday Rules

holiday rules

Sometimes the far left just makes my job so easy. This cartoon is based off of the news story that came out a few days ago regarding the elementary school in Mass. that has banned ANY Christmas reference whatsoever for their “Winter Holiday,” including Santa Claus and candy canes! What really got me rolling, however, is when the administration, in defense of the decision, came out and said that they wanted to have a religiously neutral holiday*, and that it was enacted so that they could teach tolerance to the kids. Huh? Yeah, maybe in high school, this might have been appropriate (okay, so it’s never appropriate), but in elementary school? You’re going to confuse the poor tikes.

“Teacher, what’s tol-tolrr-torllrrance?”

“Well, Johnny, that’s when you ban everything and don’t let certain religious people express their faith during holiday celebrations.”

“Oh…”

Talk about doublespeak. Gotta love it. When it gets this extreme, all I can do is sit back and laugh. And create a cartoon to invite you to laugh with me.

–oh, and in case I forget… Merry Christmas!

*um…, doesn’t the word “holiday” itself come from “holy day?”… more on that in a later cartoon.

Update.

I just wanted to drop in and say, that while I do not have a cartoon ready for your viewing enjoyment, I did want to give a little update and to keep my site current. Between hospital stays and my current work with Painting for Life (www.paintingforlife.com), I have been SWAMPED! When my plate begins to clear a bit, I’ll do a new cartoon. I have not even had the time to keep up with current events, nor have I wanted to. I am horrified by what I see on the news, and I watch helpless as I see our elected officials make decisions that will destroy freedom and democracy while granting them more power.

Just a few thoughts I have been burdened with…

What really saddens me is how ignorant many people are on how the real world operates. Ran into a guy, is in favor of school vouchers, is opposed to unions, is pro-life, and yet votes Democrat. And nothing I could say could convince him he had the wrong party. Another friend of mine, atheist by choice, did not know about America’s Christian heritage. History is boring, he always says, but then makes his decisions based upon his misconceptions of a history he does not know!

I’d like to give a lesson in economics to every graduating senior. Perhaps instead, requiring them to read Atlas Shrugged might be an easier way to get the point across. Call it balanced perspective.

I find it funny how some of those who are the first to say, “The Bible says don’t judge!” when it comes to their sexual lifestyle are the same to sit and judge the earnings of top execs and CEOs. I’m not saying that there aren’t corrupt CEOs and executives, but since when did God task us with deciding what they should earn, when and how. The last time I looked, I read, “Do not covet.”

And well meaning Christian friends tell me how socialism is God’s government of choice, because the government needs to take care of the poor, because isn’t that what Christ commanded us? Yes, when we read in Acts, we see how Peter and the church set up a communal society, from each according to his ability to each according to his need. The difference, however, was that it was a voluntary system, and even the example of Ananias and Sapphira demonstrated its failure. Socialism requires the perfectibility of mankind, and since Scripture clearly states man is fallen, it will never work without His Spirit. Capitalism works not on what man can ideally be, but on what man is now, and derives its success from there.

What is the best form of government to take care of the poor? Capitalism. Which country has the richest poor? America. There is not a country in the world that does not have poverty, however, there are so many opportunities for America’s poor that do not exist in other parts of the globe. Only out of our blessings can we bless others, how can it be otherwise? Which country has given more money, dollar for dollar, to private charity than any other nation? America. Yes, God calls us to care for the poor. But He calls us to actively participate, not to pawn it off on some government program so that we don’t have to think about it.

Don’t get me wrong. There is a always a place for government programs, but they can’t hold a candle to the effectiveness of private charity. Shouldn’t we be focusing our dollar on what works?

Final thought, just something I’ve noticed. Democrats promise big, but rarely deliver. Republicans simply don’t promise.

Nationalized Healthcare

Nationalized HealthcareAs one who used to be on Medicaid, I know a little about the bureaucratic nightmare that it is. Obama says he’ll pay for his healthcare plan by eliminating waste in Medicaid and Medicare? One, looks like he’s admitting these government programs don’t work. Two, I’m scratching my head trying to figure out when government ever was successful in eliminating waste.

My opposition to the health care bill is not because I don’t want insurance companies to treat those with pre-existing conditions, as was aluded by a friend of mine. If you know my past health history, you know this isn’t the case. In my view, to deny pre-existing conditions (and I know this will break from some of my libertarian friends) is paramount to discrimination. Some changes are necessary in our healthcare system. However, the public option should not be among them.

According to a recent Washington Times editorial, here are 8 practical alternative ways to reform healthcare. Interesting that none of these seem to be on the table.

1)Various lawsuit reforms to keep down medical malpractice premiums, whose costs are passed on to consumers.
2) Allowing health insurance to be bought and sold across state lines.
3) Allowing the tax break for health insurance to be claimed by individuals as well as by businesses.
4) Increased use of health savings accounts.
5) Creation of “health stamps” for low-income people who otherwise wouldn’t qualify for tax credits.
6) Allowing doctors who provide pro bono care to treat the value of their time spent doing so as a charitable deduction from their income taxes.
7) Allowing states to band together in regional insurance-pooling arrangements.
8) Various measures to make it easier for patients to figure out the costs of various services and doctors’ fees so they can comparison-shop.

The entire article can be read here:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/09/better-ways-to-reform-health-care/

Moore Madness

Moore Madness

A common saying goes, “Never argue with an idiot, for after a moment, no one can tell the difference.” Michael Moore is an idiot, so at the risk of sounding like one myself, here I go.

My biggest beef with Michael Moore is that he is a hypocrite. His latest movie sets out to make the point that capitalism is evil. While I have not seen the movie (my health is too fragile for that kind of abuse), I’ve read enough glowing reviews (from the “unbiased” media) about it to know the points Moore makes to try to support is lame assertion. What befuddles me is how Michael Moore can sit making windfall profits on his movies and then point his fingers at anybody else who dares to make a profit and call them evil.

According the reviewer, Michael Moore asserts Wall Street executives gamble with innocent people’s money, and since gambling is illegal, they should be thrown into jail. The other argument he makes is that under capitalism the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and that the middle class disappears.

These points are so easily debatable that it is not even worth my time going into them, however, I know so many people who gobble up his line of thinking, that I’m afraid I have to.

To begin, where the heck does Michael Moore think our middle class came from?!? How can capitalism be shrinking our middle class, when the very fact that we have a middle class proves that 200 years of capitalism does in fact work? Seriously, can anybody with a straight face tell me that Cuba has a more robust middle class than America? Let’s go down the line: North Korea, anybody? Aha, China has a growing middle class!… for about a couple of decades now… since American industry began injecting capitalism into their society. Moore is clever in the way he uses selective anecdotes to craft his argument, but it simply does not hold up when compared to the whole of human history.

Finally, Moore’s premise is flawed, in thinking that Wall Street is somehow stealing the people’s money and then gambling with it. People have CHOOSEN to invest their money into Wall Street, knowing the risks and possible benefits. They were never forced to hand over their money. (On the other hand, people ARE forced to give their money to government, via high taxes and fees, for government to put into programs that have PROVEN not to work. So the question remains, Who’s the real thief here?)

I don’t deny that there is a ton of corporate greed in capitalism. But there is greed in government as well. The problem isn’t the system, the problem is people! Greed is evil, yes, however, hard work is noble. Unfortunately, the two are so intricately tied that to try and destroy one will inevitably lead to the destruction of the other. To preserve hard work, ingenuity, creativity, we must preserve capitalism.

Civilty

Civility

Funny how so many urge for a coming together and bipartisanship, yet when push comes to shove, they refuse to compromise their own values and simply expect the other side to cave.

That’s fine, in fact, I prefer people with opinions, even if they are in direct opposition to mine, over those who prefer to remain wishy-washy over issues and choose to remain ignorant on the hot topics that are affecting our nation today.

Health Care Promises

sworn enemies 05-01-08

“You lie!” were the shocking words uttered by South Carolina’s Joe Wilson. It reminded one a little of England’s parliamentary debates (and if you have never witnessed them, they are great entertainment.) What bothers me about the whole ordeal is not that Wilson had the gumption to speak out like that, but the response from the media and the left as a result. There is not a shortage of weblogs that are calling for Wilson’s immediate removal. Many are vocally feigning horror at the seemingly sudden so-called “loss of civility.”

All I keep thinking to myself is, really? Soooo… let me get this straight, it’s okay if Democrats vociferously boo George Bush during his State of the Union, but not okay for Republicans to voice opposition to one of Obama’s proposals? It’s okay for Harry Reid to call George Bush a liar, but not for Joe Wilson to call Obama a liar? It’s okay for Obama to use his bully pulpit to call those in opposition to his health care plan liars, and to threaten them by mentioning he will go after them, but somehow Republicans must remain silent? And when Obama says “Wee-weed up,” it’s passed off as rational speech, but when Wilson says, “you lie!” suddenly there’s no decorum? Am I the only one who sees this contradiction?

It’s politics as usual in Washington, which is something I think too many people are losing sight of. Republicans didn’t start this, nor will they finish it. My point is, let’s be rational in our response, and please, can we hold the same standards for both parties?

Wee-weed up

sworn enemies 05-01-08

The whole incident was funny.  Barry left it WIDE open.

Don’t Touch Charity

sworn enemies 05-01-08In a recent teleconference, Barack Obama said that he would greatly reduce the amount of charitable tax deductions individuals and businesses who make over $250K can make on their tax returns in order to help pay for his health care plan. What a horribly conceived idea. This move will cripple many nonprofits across the nation.

Let’s examine why. Yes, the Bible does say give so that your left hand doesn’t know what your right hand is doing, but the truth of the matter is, that’s not how most individuals or corporations choose to operate. When you remove the tax incentive from them, they simply will stop giving. This is unfortunate, because, as one who worked for a nonprofit for three years knows, most charities subsist on the large corporate donations. While the small $25 widow’s mites are genuinely appreciated and coveted, they do not add up enough to cover the overwhelming costs of BOTH running a small corporation as well as doling out resources like food, medicine and education, to those who need it. Most nonprofits work on skeleton budgets as it is already, with much of the staff accepting lower pay than their for-profit counterparts might receive. A lot of the fundraising efforts are spent to find the big donors who are looking for a nice tax write off. While this motivation may not be “ideal,” there is nothing government can or should do to change that.

Barack Obama must know this (or be grossly naive), so why would he propose such an idea? I have my theories.

First, charitable writeoffs take away tax dollars from what otherwise could be used by the government agencies that perform the same services. In essence, private charity is in competition with government for the same dollar, to be used, in theory, for the same purpose. If Obama removes the incentive to give to charity, that money gets funneled into the government instead, so that the government programs end up having a competitive edge over the charities. I find it interesting that when given a choice, most donors would prefer private charities to handle the problems of homelessness, sickness, feeding the hungry, providing after school programs for troubled youth. By removing the writeoffs, government puts restrictions on that choice, meaning if one wants to give to the private charity, they have to do so in addition to giving to the government programs.

The problem with government programs is the lack of competition. We all have heard of corruption occurring within various private charities through the years. The advantage, however, is that if you find an issue with one private charity, simply pull your funds and give to another that does the same job. There are countless of watchdog agencies that do their best to investigate all the various nonprofits, so that one can be an informed giver. Corruption exists because humans exist.

Government lacks that kind of oversight. When corruption occurs, one cannot choose to stop paying taxes. Even when corruption is exposed by various media groups, change is very slow to take place.

The other possible motivation for this (and I’m not saying this is Obama’s motivation, although I’m sure it certainly belongs to a few who support this legislation) is that the greatest source of nonprofits are Christian agencies. I know that there has been a concentrated effort to extinguish Christianity by lobbyists and some in congress. What is the best way to shut down any organization? Remove their source of revenue. This proposal will do just that, forcing many Christian agencies to close their doors.

Thus, I vehemently oppose this idea.

Do Not Feed the Animals

sworn enemies 05-01-08

Just… don’t do it. It’s as simple as that.

What’s good for the Country…


According to page 114 of the current Kennedy Health Care bill that Obama is pushing and is being debated right now, it exempts Congress from having to participate in it. Huh? Why would they write a provision like that if this thing is such a good idea? Oh, maybe the same reason why they don’t contribute or participate in Social Security, and why they send their kids to private schools (while denying vouchers to innercity kids.) What’s good enough for the country is not good enough for them, apparently.

Socialism 101 for college students

Author Unknown

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, “OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Could not be any simpler than that.

Saving America


While not entirely political, this has got to be one of the funniest cartoons (in my mind) I’ve done recently. Enjoy!

Sweeping Conservative Victories in Europe


When Democrats won sweeping victories in 2006 and 2008, constantly we were bombarded with stories in the media asking, “is this the end of conservatism? Is this the end of the Reagan era?” “The Republican party is now an endangered species, conservatism is dead!” was the conclusion made by some.

I find it interesting, now that the European elections indicate a swing to the right, there is scant coverage of it in our presses. I haven’t found a single story questioning whether Democratic Socialism is now dead in Europe. In fact, I had to dig deep just to find the election results themselves!

For conservatives, the results are a promising sign. America is usually a few years behind the European trend (I’m still waiting for European style jeans to show up at my local Kohl’s). What is boggling my mind now is why on earth is the Republican party shifting left? Polls indicate that America is still a center-right nation, and some Democrats have won victories by campaigning to the right of their Republican counterparts. With Europe moving right and America remaining to the right, the Republican party must either love losing, or they are power hungry, sacrificing principle for what they believe will be the quick vote.

My hope is that true conservatives will run solid campaigns on what conservatives hold dear: limited government, more individual freedom and responsibility (like the freedom to choose which kind of lightbulb I want to use) and fiscal responsibility. My next hope is that they keep their promises once in office.

Politicians that keep their promises? Now that would be news.

Copland’s Rodeo