politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for _Editorial – Page 2

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Random thoughts generated after talking to a few liberals

Liberals extol the virtues of communism and flock to its promise of the redistribution of wealth. But if it really worked, then how come all of the gold in Russia still resides in the Kremlin? Why wasn’t it redistributed? Just a thought.

I’m sick and tired of liberals painting conservatives as racist. It is intellectually lazy. There are racist liberals and racist conservatives, but to paint all with a broad brush is unfair, especially considering conservative Christians were among the first to fight against slavery and then later fight to end the Jim Crow laws in the South. JFK broke from many of his own party when he fought for equal rights.

Some liberals’ trump card this election is to accuse those against Obama as being racist. No, actually, I heed to the words of the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. I judge a man on the conduct of his character, not the color of his skin. Obama’s character leaves much to be desired.

I actually had a person tell me that this is the darkest time ever in American history, which is why a Democrat needs to be elected. The darkest time ever? Really? Worse than the Great Depression? (As she sat there in her Gucci sunglasses and designer jeans, holding her Starbucks coffee) Worse than the Civil War? What universe are they living in? Fact: our unemployment rate is still the best in the world, our gas prices are among the lowest in the world (and would be lower if Democrats would stop blocking the extraction of our own oil), low home prices have helped first time home buyers, the stock market remains (unfortunately for the template) steady. How are these the darkest times in US history?

And then I must ask these people, have they even been to third world countries, where freedoms have been stripped by ruthless dictators? Have they lived with people in grass huts, drinking from the same pond that bathing and other duties are performed? Have they ever lived in a way where the only way they could eat is if they grew the food themselves (and pray the drought waits another year). What an insult to those people who are not blessed to live in the US! Don’t tell me about bad times as you drive your Jetta to your tennis match!

The war in Iraq. One may desire peace at all costs and I appreciate that opinion. But I don’t appreciate the conspiracy theorists who claim Bush’s intent was dubious. I believe Bush truly did want to liberate the people, and the fact is, they have been liberated. For the first time, art is allowed back into the country. Free speech is allowed. And don’t forget, when the US forces ousted Saddam, the news reported how all across America, Iraqis took to the streets in celebration. Americans may not be for the war. I’m not for war. But many Iraqis are grateful for the good we have brought to their country.

Phew. Thank God for blogs. Now that this is off my chest, I can get back to work.

Guest Editorial by Tommy Hummel

Whose Official Language?

“Speak English! This is America.” And so is Mexico, and Brazil, and Canada. They are all part of North America. We are the United States, and we are of America. And we are comprised of immigrants from many nations, many of whom did not speak English as their first language, and the only natives to this land certainly did not speak English either.

To anyone who is actually willing to study the issue, consider this: in all of language history, languages have not ever been able to change because of a government mandate. In World War II, Mussolini banned the use of the second-person plural distinction. As a result, people used it more. And today, despite the extreme efforts of a Fascist dictator, Italian retains the tu/vous distinction. During the Norman Conquest, French was the primary language, the language of the upper classes, but English continued to be used by everyone else, despite the insistence that French was the standard language, and English was considered a poor-man’s language. If we promote an English-only nation, the result will be that people will cling to their languages even more.

Will the English language change as a result of all of these blendings of languages? Of course. It will do so whether a law is in place or not. Language change is not only natural, it’s inevitable. In fact, the English language owes over eighty percent of its lexicon and grammar to the blending and merging of other languages.

So rather than support such a doctrine, I’d prefer to support the open exchange of ideas, languages, customs, and cultures. Such exchange is a remedy for ignorance and intolerance.

Cat Obedience School

I have concluded, after much observation, that my cat must be a liberal. The campaign sticker she totes around that says “Obama is Purrrrrrfect” was probably a dead give away, but long before that she showed other ominous signs.

To start, no matter how hard I try, I cannot get her to do her chores. We all live under the same roof, yet the laundry doesn’t get done and the dishes remain unwashed. The least she can do is clean her own box, for crying out loud! I’ve spoken to her at length of the importance of hard work, but she looks at me with those sad eyes and begs for more food. That’s what she wants. Handouts. Never mind I did the work. Never mind I pay for the food. She is content to mooch off of my successes to her benefit. Equal distribution is her model. She sleeps all the time and expects to be rewarded for it.

I won’t even mention health care. If she gets sick, who foots the bill? Me. She won’t get a job to pull her own weight, so in our household, her socialized medicine is subsidized by my paycheck.

If my cat cannot get her way, she takes to the hallways and riots. She vandalizes my property with her claws in attempt to make her views known. She will not engage me in debate over these issues.

I can’t toss her out on the streets, that would not be “compassionate.” And so our system remains broken as she benefits and I pay.

It is frustrating, for I feel there is a communication gap lying therein. I don’t understand it. She has lived with us for three years now, yet she refuses to learn the language. She won’t even attempt. She is living under my roof taking benefit of my handouts, but she won’t assimilate. If only there was a class I could send her to, English as a Second Language. Perhaps once her English is mastered, I can begin to indoctrinate her in the principles of Reagan Conservatism.

Guest Editorial by Tommy Hummel

Green Lands

We are all familiar with the term “Green” as in “to go green,” the current push toward environmental preservation. The use of the word “green” has now taken on many different connotations. It is a word used to evoke images of nature and wildlife, specifically, green wildlife. It is ironic that the word seems to ignore the many other environments on this planet that are not green at all and that would actually be polluted or grossly changed were they to become so (e.g. deserts, the ocean, and the arctic). Still, when people think about environments that they want to visit, they picture lush tropical islands or deciduous forests and so, naturally, this image would create a more emotional draw than had environmentalists created the slogan, “Go Brown!” (though the deserts would benefit).

Guest Editorial, by Tommy Hummel

The Dependent Independents

In one of my honor’s classes in high school, my classmates had the bright idea to get out of doing a menial homework assignment: we decided that we would tell the teacher that our substitute had never assigned the homework. It was a collective lie and we all knew it would work only if everyone went along with it. Of course, the plan failed when one of the girls developed a conscience the next day. It was an important lesson and I find there is a similarity between what happened that day and what happens every four years during election season. If a formal survey were conducted, I would wager that a good portion of the general American public is dissatisfied with the current process of electing a president. Every four years two people are chosen from within the two ruling classes of government, the Democrats and Republicans, and the lament for the remainder of the election season is that we the people must choose between the “lesser of two evils.” The problem lies in the fact that there are voters who may believe that other candidates are more worthy, but since these candidates are running on an independent ticket the voters do not cast their votes in these directions, because they know that then their vote will count for nothing. So, to feel a part of the process, they also vote along the party lines. The blocks of people voting down the party lines prevent the stragglers from ever tasting glory. It is the repeated problem of democracy: it only works if everyone goes in on it. So as a call to action, I’m inviting people to break the party lines this voting season, to look into each of the candidates, and to vote for the one you want, not against the one you don’t want. It is a risk sure, and it is likely the vote won’t count for anything, but in the larger scheme isn’t that the whole point of voting? It is one person throwing his penny into the tray of over 300 million coins and hoping that enough people like himself are doing the same thing to tip the scales. This election season, realize there are more than just two people running for the presidency. Research the rest and vote for the one you actually would like to see in office. And hey, if your first choice isn’t elected, at least you can complain about it.