politixcartoons:

New cartoons
for your inbox!


Safely delivered by FeedBurner

Archive for Barack Obama

IRS Scandal

In case you live under a rock, or in case you get your news from MSNBC, the big scandal of the day is that the IRS is targeting conservative and Tea Party groups.

Yawn. This is news? I mean, I guess it is in the fact that it’s finally being reported, but no doubt this has been suspected for a long time.

My biggest frustration with all of this is the Democrats. When are you going to start cleaning house? What boggles my mind is that honest, hard working, freedom loving Americans are so loyal to their own party, that they are unwilling to rid it of corruption as it has taken over. I’m sorry, using the IRS as bullies to shut down political opposition (aka speech) during two election cycles is tyranny. There is nothing else you can call it. Sure it’s your guys doing it, so you’ll look the other way, but you same people screamed foul at W for barely even sneezing!

The Republicans have NOOOO problem jettisoning politicians the moment they are accused of wrong doing, whether or not such accusations are even true. Remember Tom Foley? Tom Delay? Dan Maes? Why can’t you Democrats do the same?

Of course, these attacks by the IRS are justified according to Democrat Harry Reid. According to him, because these conservative non-profit groups are sometimes fronted by rich (gasp!) people, they shouldn’t be allowed to qualify like the liberal non-profit groups (fronted by rich people). So, let me get this straight, rich people shouldn’t have free speech protection? Actually, yes, I’ve had some liberals tell me, and with all sincerity, they say money should be removed from speech so that it becomes fair. Then they pat themselves on the back for being so freedom minded.

Money does make speech easier, but guess what, it exists on both sides. Need I remind you that Democrats have outspent Republicans on every major national election since 2006? Money is speech and there shall be NO law restricting it!

Other prominent liberals have justified these IRS attacks by saying violent and racist groups like the TEA party should have extra scrutiny placed on them. WHAT?!? I’m confused. Do these liberals really believe that the TEA party is racist and violent, or are they just saying this as a convenient way to quickly demonize and dismiss their opposition? Every time a liberal tries to pin the TEA party as violent, I ask them, based on what? Can you name for me an actual violent incident involving a TEA party member? I can tell you how many times TEA party members have been falsely accused after any number of terrorist attacks, only to be quietly exonerated later. (Gabby Giffords, Aurora shootings, Boston bombings.) Perhaps they only remember the first media accusations and not the later correction?

And the charges of racism? Sooooo… let me get this straight. Smaller government and fiscal responsibility are racist?

This is a tactic often used by dictators. Falsely accuse your political opponent of the worst possible immorality you can think of. (In America, right now, that’s the charge of racism.) Then because they are so immoral, you can justify perpetrating whatever injustices against them you want, you know, like IRS harassment. It’s how Hitler got an entire German country to turn against the Jews.

What are your values? Forget party allegiance. Take the time to investigate the people on your side and those from the other side. When anyone, Republican or Democrat, engages in unethical activities in order to gain political power, the entire nation should be holding them accountable, not just the opposing party.

Side Note: Phew! Sorry this is so long. But it’s like the adage, a lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can even put on its shoes. Lies are easy to spread as one liners on Facebook, Twitter and anywhere else. “The TEA party is racist.” Once it’s out there and people start believing it, just saying “no they’re not” will not suffice. Unfortunately, it requires long documentation and rational explanation in order to set the record straight and even then, people are slow to believe. That’s the beauty of cartoons sometimes. They can hammer home a truth much quicker and more poignantly than words.
Post Script:  Even I was subjected to harassment by the Obama campaign. Back in 2008, I posted Obama’s position on Orphan Works based upon a Newsweek article. A week later, I received a phone call (area code New York City) from a lady claiming to be on the Obama election campaign, telling me they were going to sue me for libel if I didn’t take down that post, citing a Time article in which Obama was quoted as taking the opposite position. Of course, I took it down, but does that mean Obama might have read some of my cartoons? Cool.

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.

Depression’s Lessons

AMERICA’S GREAT DEPRESSION: A PREVENTABLE TRAGEDY IN FOUR ACTS
By Lawrence W. Reed

Editor: Amid a recession that some are calling the worst since the 1930s, on the heels of a Democratic presidential victory that recalled 1932 and a Republican congressional comeback echoing 1938, we called on our favorite economic historian to sort out the facts from the myths about that stormy decade. He did not spell out the political parallels between then and now,as there was no need. They speak for themselves.

How bad was the Great Depression? Over the four years from 1929 to 1933, production at the nation’s factories, mines, and utilities fell by more than half. People’s real disposable incomes dropped 28 percent. Stock prices collapsed to one-tenth of the pre-crash height. The number of unemployed Americans rose from 1.6million in 1929 to 12.8 million in 1933.

to read more…

GOOOOooooo…. BAMA!

This is an illustration I just finished recently for Centennial Review. It was one of my favorites to work on. It’s coupled with the article that can be found here:

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

Some additional thoughts on my end. The media fawning of Obama is hilarious to observe, which made this cartoon so fun to work on. What blows my mind is how they pretend to be impartial, even balanced. Please! There is no such thing. At least back during the 1700s and 1800s, newspapers took sides and you knew which side they were on and you chose your paper accordingly. Credit Fox for their honesty in that regard. The Media was supposed to be the watchdogs of our Republic. Perhaps now we need watchdogs of the media?

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.

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.

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.

2009 Spending Bill


Barack Obama promises to cut back on earmarks while he signs a spending bill laden with earmarks. That alone makes for great comedy. Don’t need to say much more after that.

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.

Dream Ticket

The best thing Barack Obama did for us is choose Joe Biden for his running mate. I am fairly convinced that if he had chosen Hillary, as many Democrats wanted him to, the so-called “Dream Ticket” may have been more than the Republicans could have overcome. Instead, Barack went with the safe choice. This left the door wide open for McCain, who ended up creating a “Dream Ticket” of his own.

Self Love Tour

Conjuring Charlton Heston’s Ghost

Change

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...