politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for _caricatures – Page 2

Obama Follows FDR Down the Path to Economic Stagnation

This was a fun illustration to do for Centennial Review. I nailed Obama’s likeness. I wish I could say the same for FDR’s, but I was trying to get him to smirk a little, which threw off the illustration a bit. I also had fun recreating the Presidential Desk. Initially, I rendered all the detail on the side of the desk as well, but it ended up making the entire piece cluttered and busy. I went back in and made it all solid black. This helps anchor the piece visually and redirect your attention back to Obama. Yes, I lost all that beautiful pen and ink work, but sometimes ya gotta do it for the integrity of the composition.

The truths of this article are overwhelming. Keynesian policies have proven not to work. How long did Roosevelt preside over a flat, sunken economy? No matter what he tried to do on a federal level, he could not get it to turn around. But he kept getting re-elected, assuring the American people that big o’ daddy government is here to get them through this, and (haven’t heard this one repeated over and over) imagine how bad it would be if we WEREN’T doing anything.

Liberals still see FDR bringing us out of the depression through high taxation and government policies. The robust economy did not finally occur until after WW2, during the 1950s, as a result of Harry Truman, the forgotten Democrat, who lowered tax rates dramatically.

Read more from this excellent article by By Burton Folsom, Jr.

http://www.ccu.edu/centennial/review/sept12/

Happy Halloween

Yeah, yeah, I know. Many of you liberal folk out there would be saying the same thing if Obama doesn’t win the election. It just depends on perspective, I guess.

Wait For It

 

Wow. It didn’t take any time, did it? Very shortly after the announcement that Paul Ryan is to be Romney’s vice president, the attacks starting rolling in. I have seen some fascinating vitriol and some amazing charges against Ryan, including the idea that he doesn’t believe in the first amendment, to the idea that he will destroy women’s rights, and of course, the big one, he must hate grandma and grandpa, because he wants to take away their medicare.

Some of these groups launching these attacks tell us that they are more informed than us backwards conservative hicks, as they bring whatever dirt they can find on Ryan to light. So a full time smear machine staff found dirt on their political opponent, that makes them more informed? I suppose if I had a full time smear machine staff, I could bring out all the dirt I wanted about Obama.

But I don’t want to go there. I don’t want this campaign to be about the gutter. There is so much more at stake here. Let’s talk about the issues and truth, and not about trumped up rhetoric. Kudos to Obama, who quieted a booing croud when he congratulated Paul Ryan and commended him on being a decent man. And Obama couldn’t have been more right when he said that this election comes down to two choices. However, Obama was dead wrong when he claimed “their way” has proven to not work. Our way is freedom. Freedom has always worked. American prosperity over the last 200 years proves it.

I could go on forever debunking all of the lies that have come forth from these smear campaigns. But it will detract from the point of this cartoon. I hope for the sake of Ryan’s family that the media and the liberal extremists do not destroy Ryan personally like they did Sarah Palin. But I won’t hold my breath.

Michael Bloomberg, aka Super Nanny

Okay, wait, what is this? You might find yourself asking, as you look at my most recent offering. Yes, it’s not pen and ink and it’s not digital. It’s totally old school, a layering technique involving pastels, colored pencils and oils. And it just also happens to be a recent class demo.

While his identity is obscured by his superhero attire, that is indeed a caricature of Michael Bloomberg, who has made it his mission to ensure that nobody in New York City makes a mistake, according to his standards of right and wrong. Large sodas? Really? You’re going to ban large sodas? What does that say about how he thinks about us? Obviously he thinks were too stupid to make our own informed decisions, therefore, we need big government to intervene.

So let me ask you, forgot your political allegiances for one moment, is it really the role of government to make sure its citizens eat correctly? Why is that any of their business? So what if certain people are obese and diabetic? Why should the government care? Isn’t that the result of freedom? Isn’t that far more important.

Don’t get me wrong, I think our bad health habits are a problem. And you’ll probably never catch me drinking a super sized big gulp of soda (although, once in a while I would like to have the freedom to enjoy one occasionally). However, I do think that our poor health habits stem from a much deeper problem from a lack of self control in this country. The issue isn’t that we eat too much or drink too much. The issue is that we have lousy self control, and I think is a direct result of the breakdown of the family, due to policies and moral shifts brought about by the liberal agenda (to tie that altogether is a whole other essay, and since I’m not an essay writer, but a cartoonist, I’ll defer a more detailed explanation about all this to more educated writers like Thomas Sowell and Ben DeGrow.)

I also believe that a lack of exercise is more to blame than anything we eat. With schools cutting recess and gym, is it any wonder our kids are getting fat? Poor exercise as a youth leads to poorer habits as an adult.

I’m not a libertarian on this issue. On any of the ills that we indulge in, whether smoking (tobacco or pot), alcohol, overeating, lack of exercise, I’m all for education, TV commercials, national awareness. But freedom demands that we still be given the choice. And let us be the ones to suffer the consequences of our actions, good or bad. It’s not the government’s role!

The Bain of the Political Season

It is absolutely frustrating having to listen to the droning back and forth between the Romney camp and the Obama camp about his time at Bain Capital. Really?  Have politics denigrated to the point where we are arguing over stupid dates of when somebody left their job ten years ago? I am really trying hard to figure out how this is relevant to saving our country.

I understand the arguments. The Obama camp has accused Romney of a felony for saying he left the company at one date, but then kept working. Typical leftist smear, and even after Romney has come out on CNN to disprove all of Obama’s accusations, the media is continuing to run with the story.

Shame on Obama for this kind of smear politics! But double shame on Romney for getting himself dragged into it. I get it, at some point you have to stand up and say, look, I’m being completely misrepresented here. But come on, this argument has been going on for far too long, can we start talking about issues again? If I were Romney, there are so many other positives about his record that I would parade instead.

The biggest argument Democrats are propping is that Bain shipped jobs overseas while Romney ran Bain. Conservatives countered by saying this occurred after he left in 1999. But aren’t they both missing the point? What about all of the American jobs that Bain DID create? This record is overwhelmingly positive.

And so what if jobs got shipped overseas? Is that not a reflection of just how difficult it has become to hire American help? Between the overinflated union salaries, the herculean hoops and regulations, and the heavy tax burden, it’s becoming harder and harder to keep jobs in America. Certain city governments in America promise to audit all business owners and make their lives an accounting nightmare. And that’s just at the city level. Keeping track of all the different stupid taxes at all the different levels has become a headache. You’ve got property taxes (which are much higher for commercial than residential space), usage taxes (if you don’t know what usage taxes are, look it up, it is one of the most cumbersome and burdensome taxes out there), sales tax, income tax, taxes for hiring an employee, taxes for making certain products, taxes for using certain products, taxes for small animals that live in the area, and on and on it goes!

Then we have all of the regulations, for some industries, so many, that failure to adhere is a certainty. And we are surrounded by people more than willing to enforce these burdens through litigation, penalties and fines. As a result, most businesses simply will cease to exist if they DIDN’T outsource, at least at some level.

It amazes me on how completely ignorant of business most of these Democrat talking heads are. If they’d ever been in charge of a large and successful organization, they would know that the head does not make a lot of the intermediary decisions. These belong to the managers underneath him, and even smaller decisions belong to the managers underneath them. If the head were to micromanage every decision, he would never sleep, eventually burn out and the company would collapse. Thus, chances are high that if in fact overseas hiring did occur during Romney’s tenure at Bain, he probably was not even aware it.

And even if he was, it says to me, more than anything, that he’s a good business person. It shows me that he is willing to take whatever steps are necessary to keep his businesses alive. I would question his judgment if he chose NOT to send certain jobs overseas, ESPECIALLY if the end result was the loss of a business. Which provides jobs for the American people: A business that has had to outsource some of its labor, or a business that no longer exists? It also says to me that Romney must personally know of all of the legal headaches to keeping a job in America, and thus he would know exactly how to fix those issues in order to attract businesses back to America! Right now, I’d much rather have a shrewd manager in our oval office than the economics ignoramus we currently have.

I don’t remember where I saw this, perhaps it was an Obama ad, but basically somebody mentioned that while Romney was at Bain, he made a 15 million dollar profit, therefore, he is not fit to serve as president. I was floored when I heard this. Are you serious? That’s exactly why he SHOULD be president! This demonstrates success. Do we not want success leading us? It demonstrates an understanding of how to manage money. In our financial crisis we are in, doesn’t it make sense that the most perfect person to get us out of this mess is somebody who knows how to do it?

But what angered me more than the fact that they were saying this is that they are gambling on Americans finding the ability to make a profit to somehow be repulsive. Have we really gotten to this point in America, where success is vilified and making a profit is immoral, perhaps even felonious? We have an entire political party that thinks that this is how to get elected, and to me, that is a sad, sad thing.

I don’t normally leave such long blog entries, but this election cycle has me unnerved. While we keep on focusing on stupid minutia such as when Romney left Bain, the real issues that are at the heart of our American existence continue to be ignored.

Green Energy

So let’s see if I have this straight. The green energy company Solyndra receives tons of money from the stimulus as part of the green jobs initiative. A few months later they go bankrupt. Where did the money go? Not sure, but we find out later that Solyndra contributed to Obama’s election campaign. Something’s not right with this picture, but the complacent media seems all too eager to sweep it under the rug.

Imagine if this was reversed. Suppose Bush earmarked through tax payer dollars a ton of money to some oil company who then gave it back to his election campaign before going bankrupt. The American media would go nuts, the American people would be outraged, and both would be right in doing so. Yet, in the case of Solyndra, we barely get a yawn.

What’s the difference? Is it because Obama is a Democrat, and therefore untouchable? Is it because Solyndra is a Green Energy company, so somehow their actions are divine and holy?

I’m all for standards. But double standards I can’t stand.

Upgrade

#denverbroncos

I titled this cartoon “Upgrade” because I think that is the big question. If Peyton Manning signs with the Broncos, will it be an upgrade for him? Will it be an upgrade for Denver?

I love this whole saga. Listening to both sides hash it out has become quite entertaining, and the storyline is leaving us at the edge of our seats. Can’t get enough. Personally, I really don’t have a strong opinion one way or another. Twitter has several tweeting heads who are convinced that Manning is a has been, a bag of bones. Perhaps he is. But why are there so many teams clammering to get him then? Others question why you would trade the media darling Tim Tebow for Peyton Manning. Well, for one, Manning does bring his own media clout with him.

I am a huge Tebow fan, but I’m also a Broncos fan. I recognize that should Manning pick Denver, Tebow is probably heading to Jacksonville. Good for him. I know that’s his hometown and I hope he does well, wherever he ends up. Elway thinks that Manning is our ticket to the Superbowl. Who knows? I guess that’s the big question mark. What is the better upgrade?

Recant

I debated on whether or not I wanted to go through with this cartoon. I know it’s going to cause controversy, and believe it or not, despite being a political cartoonist, I really don’t like controversy. What pushed me over the edge were the multiple cartoons out there equating Santorum as being the leader of the Crusades, here to chop off your head if you don’t accept his religion. What a bunch of inflammatory nonsense! And while the Catholic church does have the stain of the Crusades as part of their history, many, many more Christians and Catholics lost their lives from Roman times to present day, due only to their faith.

These recent attacks on Santorum are not really aimed at him, but at Christianity in general. They are quite telling. According to a number of Liberals I’ve talked with, if you proclaim your faith, it’s ramming it down people’s throats. Therefore, equating Christians to all kinds of horrible activities is justified. Yet, they wouldn’t dare say those kinds of things against the Muslim faith, even though some jihadists will kill you if you don’t accept their faith.

But the most frustrating thing of all is the legislation Obama passed that would force Catholic organizations to provide abortion and contraceptive services to their employees, despite their moral objections. What’s frustrating is not that Obama did this, for he has shown his true colors by now, but that many of my friends are saying this is an issue of freedom. By not forcing the organization to provide contraceptives is denying the employees their freedom, thus this legislation was necessary. Huh?

The choice of what the organization provides as compensation, paid or in benefits, to its employees, should be up to that organization. That’s freedom folks! Freedom is allowing everybody their choice, including the so-called big guy. It’s the employers company, the employer’s money, the employer’s risk and the employee freely chooses to work there. Nobody is forcing that employee to work there. If they don’t agree with the company’s moral standards, then find another job. Santorum had it right. By forcing Catholic organizations to provide contraceptive services, it’s the government forcing its belief system on the church! Liberals get so worked up about the imaginary “Wall of Separation,” yet if they want to have this wall, then they need to be willing to keep their liberal government out of the church as well.

I’m not a Catholic, and I rarely get offended, but this past week has been very instructive about how people really view the church. And let me tell you, some of the talk has been scary. Religious freedom in America is on attack, and that’s really what this cartoon is about.

Tiny Tim

Usually this time of year, I’ll do a cartoon about how we are losing our right to celebrate publically the spiritual meaning of Christmas. But this year, I simply could not pass up the glaringly obvious play on words with Tim Tebow and Tiny Tim.

While it may appear so at first glance, I’m not knocking Tebow. If you have followed previous columns, I’m actually an unabashed fan of Tebow’s and I’m very thankful that the Broncos organization finally gave Tebow his chance. Sure, he looks shaky in the passing game, but I think that’s something that will improve with time and game practice.

What’s really fascinating to watch is the national response to Tebow. He is a man of conviction. He’s somebody who is not ashamed of his beliefs nor is he afraid to espouse them, something that’s rare in today’s politically correct age. And because of this, he has raving fans on one side and haters on the other. Outspoken people, like Tebow, do not elicit nonresponses. You either love him or hate him.

I listened to some of the rhetoric being said about Tebow. One lady called in the radio station and lambasted Tebow for using the public airways to proclaim Christianity. She said that the public airways needs to be guarded against religious speech as it has no place on television or the radio. Soooo… according to her, free speech only applies to inside your home. Or perhaps religious speech doesn’t fall under the banner of free speech. Not quite sure, never really understood that logic.

Another crazy item to observe is the disparity between how Republicans verses Democrats respond to Tebow. According to a Public Policy Poll, Tebow is viewed favorably by 68% of Republicans but only 39% of Democrats. (source: http://www.denverpost.com/sports/ci_19610585) Sarah Palin even came out with her own endorsement of Tebow. I’m trying to figure out why that many Democrats don’t like Tebow. Do they not like faith? Miracles? Work ethic? Buzz cuts?

Certainly, many of the wins have been nothing short of miraculous. I really don’t think God cares who wins football games. And I don’t think that it is a measure of who has more praying fans. But I do know that God honors those who give Him the glory. And if Tebow winning accomplishes that feat, watch out America.

I’m hoping that the Broncos, my preferred team, starts winning with a little dominance here soon. A playoff run would be nice. Although, since I didn’t predict they would win more than four games this year, what they have already accomplished is more than beyond my expectations. This has been a fabulous ride.

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?

 

Chief Executor

Any similarities to Nancy Pelosi is purely incidental.

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.

Secretary of the Treasury?

Bailout Claus

Economic Bailout Plan


I don’t know. Seems to me, from my casual, non-scientific observation, that neither liberals nor conservatives are all that crazy about all these bailout bills. So then, what is congress doing?

What about the 1st Amendment?


Ah, yes, the so called, “Fairness Doctrine.” I don’t understand why this is even up for debate. This shouldn’t be a liberal or conservative issue, Democrat or Republican. The point is, the Fairness Doctrine is a complete violation of our First Amendment rights, no matter how you look at it. (The First Amendment states that Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech. What is the Fairness Doctrine other than a law that Congress is making to control speech! What is the Fairness Doctrine? Oh! Well on that, I’ll explain).

The Fairness Doctrine is a proposal that would regulate media so that each point of view be given equal time. It would mostly apply to radio, and in that sense, talk radio. It would mean a Christian radio station would have to play equal time for the other side. (As if there is one other side.) It would mean talk radio would have to balance people like Rush Limbaugh with his opposite. It would leave tort lawyers and the courts to decide “equal” and “other side.” Most radio stations simply would stop broadcasting anything remotely controversial, just to avoid the hassle.

But Ben, the Fairness Doctrine would mean equality for all sides of an issue. Isn’t that a good thing? Not when government regulates it. I’m all for the free market deciding what should be played and what shouldn’t. If liberals want to purchase some bandwidth and broadcast their own talk radio (which they’ve done, by the way), no one’s stopping them.

But Ben, isn’t talk radio a monopoly of conservative thought? Isn’t up to the government to break monopolies? While I do support the government breaking up monopoly of BUSINESS to a degree, the government should have no right to interfere with the transfer of ideas and thought, regardless of how one sided it may appear. Look, I don’t deny that radio leans conservative. Radio leans conservative to the degree that network TV news leans liberal. In that regard there is no monopoly. Conservatives listen to the radio, liberals watch TV. And we haven’t even touched all the other forms of media, magazines, newspapers, and the mother of them all, the internet. There simply is not a monopoly of thought in this country.

Regardless of what side you are on, I hope I’ve persuaded you with this article. Free speech needs to be protected, no matter who it is that is speaking. Those in congress who are pushing the Fairness Doctrine are in direct violation of the First Amendment.

Text 1 for McCain

Barack O’Vision


A stinky fish and a pig with lipstick? These were Obama’s recent utterances at a rally in Virginia. Conservatives have cried foul, declaring his remarks were targeted directly at Palin and McCain. Obama denies the charges, claiming he was referencing their policy. The whole thing is hilarious to observe. I take Obama’s defense with maybe a bit more than a grain of salt, considering his earlier comments on gun and Bible clinging middle Americans.

The point is, this is politics as usual and verbal sparring is nothing new. What grates me is how Obama continues to say he is “above” politics and “above” the tactics of partisanship, while he is in the middle of playing their game! I don’t care if you engage in name calling tactics, whether it is in reference to the person or their policies, but don’t sit and pretend you are above it all! McCain may be involved with negative campaigning (which has proven most effective among the general electorate) but at least he owns up to it. There’s no change in Obama’s campaign.

As always, we’ll put up with this for two more months and then the election. Anybody who thinks we will ever remove the attacks out of politics is grossly naïve.