Following are my top five six favorite political cartoons for the week, beginning with a great one by Glenn McCoy at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Lisa Benson at Townhall.com…
by Nate Beeler at Townhall.com…
a twofer by Eric Allie at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Gordon Peterson, Host: What are the policitical ramifications [of the concocted ‘republican war on women”]?
Is this reflected at the polling place?
Charles Krauthammer: It isn’t, and that is why all of your talk about the ‘war on women’ is a classic example of the liberal echo chamber elite cocooning.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2012/03/17/krauthammer-medias-claim-gop-war-women-liberal-echo-chamber-elite-coc
I feel like a mosquito in a nudist colony.
Also known as a ‘target rich environment’.
How many more suicide bombers do the the progresive mullahs have stuck up their arsenal?
There should be a cartoon of Bill Mahr sporting an invective laden vest shouting ‘Death To The Faithful’.
Or Ed Schultz as a jihadist pushing his Prius car bomb [please excuse the redundancy] plastered with ‘COEXISTt’ bumper stickers into the st. peter’s square while shouting in paroxysmic ectstacy, o’Bomba Akhbar.
Surprise, surprise – a day after getting mad about comic strips filled with half truths, we have a bunch of comics filled with half truths.
One though is complete BS – comic number 3 was written by somebody who doesn’t understand math. It is a complete fabrication, and a little disappointing to see on a site like this.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/03/15/anti-obamacare-forces-introduce-their-latest-effort-to-mislead-the-public/
In bowling terms, these were six ten-strikes.
Who are the most concerning victims in “The War On Women”? Those who are killed, or those who are inconvenienced?
I know which side I’m on. How about you?
Some pretty funny cartoons this week. I like number five the most though. I guess that’s probably because I happen to enjoy Mad Men. Anyway, surprisingly little interest in the cartoons this week, I mean really only three commenters preceded me.
Ex-RINO,
Who are the true one percenters leading America into decline?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/government-employees-true-1-percent/
Truth – The 1% threshold is somewhere around $340K or so – so the folks that they cite aren’t in the 1%.
Truth – The 1% threshold is somewhere around $340K or so – so the folks that they cite aren’t in the 1%.
The hilarity is non-stop here at Jill Stanek’s place. The author of “Truthseeker’s” deep thinking is none other than Wayne Allyn Root, bookie extraordinaire, whose pyramid scheme has already been outlawed by at least one government.
Ex-RINO and mp,
If you bothered to read the article you would see that the exorbitance isn’t their annual income (though they scam higher pensions by working overtime their final year of employment) it is the 5-10 million dollar parachutes they retire on. What percent of privately employed people have 5- 10 million dollar parachutes to retire on at 50. All I have is a 150k in a 401k account.
A far more honest Democrat than the insane moonbat at Forbes who is commonly cited here for some reason explains that ObamaCare was indeed projected to cost $1.76 trillion, nearly twice the initial projection. Hilariously, he calls the number a Republican lie before admitting that it is correct.
http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-cohn/101741/cbo-obamacare-cost-deficit-lie-double-price-fox
As for the cartoons, the one of Pelosi nuking millions of people is the only one that comes close to being as nasty as Trudeau’s.
And truth – the numbers are based on what, a conversation with a New York toll operator?
What sort of long term obligations do you see that is leading America into decline?
John – it is apples and oranges – did you read the column? The 1.76 trillion is a correct figure – but not in the context of saying the price tag doubled. First off, it is two different time frames being talked about. Secondly, the price tag must take into accounts the total picture – and you can’t ignore the revenue side of things.
The cartoon suggests it is a price tag – but that isn’t the price tag – a price tag is typically what is paid – and that figure is not what the final bottom line is.
John – you seem like one of the smarter folks on this board…come on.
A far more honest Democrat than the insane moonbat at Forbes who is commonly cited here for some reason explains that ObamaCare was indeed projected to cost $1.76 trillion, nearly twice the initial projection. Hilariously, he calls the number a Republican lie before admitting that it is correct.
You could read the actual Congressional Budget Office report, which is linked below, and learn what the facts are but, no, folks like you are not interested in the facts because they don’t fit your narrative.
In fact, the estimated 10-year cost of the healthcare program is $50 billion less than originally estimated.
Ex-GOP is absolutely correct. The $1.76 trillion figure is an absolute lie, a misrepresentation of the facts.
Look, I didn’t vote for Obama and don’t like Obama, but I’m certainly not going to validate outright lies.
http://cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/03-13-Coverage%20Estimates.pdf
Secondly, the price tag must take into accounts the total picture – and you can’t ignore the revenue side of things.
They used the gross cost number for their propaganda, not the net cost.
They’re going to be called on it. They’ll probably say it was an honest mistake and I’ll say they’ve got no business serving the people if they can’t read a budget report.
Jonathan Cohn, a Democrat, but not an insane one, says: “In the this latest estimate, CBO extends its projection out one more year, to capture the expenses from 2012 to 2022, in order to capture a full decade. In 2022, CBO says, the gross cost of coverage expansion will be $265 billion. Add that to the $1.496 and you get (with rounding) the $1.76 trillion—the one in the press releases and the Fox story.”
Thus the only difference here from last year’s projection of about $1.5 trillion is that the new estimate projects out one more year, giving us the $1.76 trillion number.
It’s not $50 billion less than initially projected. One aspect of it is $50 billion less than projected last year.
But there is no need to worry. The so-called Affordable Healthcare Act, the centerpiece of the Obama presidency, will eventually be struck down as unbelievably unconstitutional. Four “Justices” on the Supreme Court are really just Obama supporters, so they will make up some phony reason why ObamaCare is constitutional. Four others are real judges who take their job seriously, and fortunately even “swing vote” Justice Kennedy can see reality here.
And then Obama’s legacy will be gays in the military and a failed war on the Catholic Church.
Jonathan Cohn, a Democrat …
Douglas Elmendorf, who signed the CBO report, is the same guy who produced the cost analysis that drove an oak stake through the heart of the Clinton healthcare proposal.
So, as I said, you’re going to use whatever fits your narrative, regardless of the CBO estimate.
John – yes or no – have you read the CBO report?
On your second point – I am partially rooting for appeal – I think appeal will bring in a single payer system much, much faster, and then everyone is covered (and we can get rid of the profit aspect of insurance). As more people don’t have insurance, more people get emergency care they never pay for, which leads to higher costs, which leads to more people without insurance. Health care reform tries to combat that by putting in an aspect of personal responsibility – for some reason, the right wingers would rather have a nation where we don’t have everyone contribute into a system that allows us to better prevent illness, but instead, wait until it becomes a big deal – and then let those with insurance pay their bill.
And by the way, Scalia will be the key – if he somebody reverses his thinking from the California drug case, then it might be repealed – but in doing so, he’ll become less of a great consistant legal mind, and more of a politician.
Have a good evening.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuGAYm3VGEw&feature=BFa&list=UUqVUtCjOrnDXrnFl6yMrAZA&lf=plpp_video
Can you name one federal social program that costs less than the initial projection of it’s proponents?
Can you name one federal social program that has shrunk in size?
Can you name one federal social program that has actually decreased the problem it was created to solve?
The b o excusers and apologists strain out the gnat and attempt to shove the camel down our throats.
The estimated 1.7 trillion dollar cost of obomba healthscare is probably less than what it will cost the tax payers.
People who use their creativity to argue otherwise are being deliberately dishonest or are so infatuated with their long legged mac daddy they have surrendered the abililty for independent thinking.
Ex-RINO,
The pensions that begin at age 50. I don’t blame them for taking it when they could but it is unsustainable and needs to be cut/brought under control. Maybe like making them work till 65 to collect full pensions and/or make them contribute some of their salary towards retirement. Right now the federal government is talking about raising private citizens eligibility for retirement payments up from 65 to 68 so for public employess to get golden parachutes at 50 is not fair or sustainable.
Truth – do you feel that way about military personnel as well?
One could make a case that military service is deserving of unique considerations. I certainly disagree with Obama’s administration going to the military first for government employee benefit cuts without at least first addressing the problems with other public employee unions FIRST. I understand he is doing it for political reasons and cause his Democratic party has a history of getting support from the public employee unions in exchange for protecting their golden retirement pensions. It needs to end.
mp: “The hilarity is non-stop here at Jill Stanek’s place. The author of ‘Truthseeker’s’ deep thinking is none other than Wayne Allyn Root, bookie extraordinaire, whose pyramid scheme has already been outlawed by at least one government.”
Wait, no, let’s say he’s a perverted scum-sucking rapist who eats toads and throws little old ladies into wood chippers.
OK, now — having dispensed with who he is and how vile his lunatic ass may be, — what about what he said? Is it true?
Pro-choicers in these parts seem to want pro-lifers to deem them credible, despite the probability that those viewed as baby-slaughtering morons are not likely to be deemed credible by pro-lifers. So it would be weird for people who apparently wish to be deemed credible despite being so far gone in the eyes of their readers, would deem others in-credible who are certainly no less far gone. ;-)
ken is absolutely right. All those who have faith that Obamacare will come under budget will be in for a surprise. But hopefully it won’t have to get to that point.
More importantly. back to the actual subject of these cartoons. I have to disagree with John. Depicting Obama and Pelosi as complicit in the nuking of about 25 million estremely young females is not comparable to Trudeau’s ultrasound / rape accusation.
We know that those girls were killed in a hands-on, bloody way. Not in an instantaneous nuking. You can argue that murder is murder. But the fact remains that they did not go gentle into that good night.
Any pro-choicers out there who think it is ok to test for sex like they do in India and China and abort if the baby is female? That sounds to me like a real war on women and the only ones who support it are pro-choicers.
truth – it won’t end as long as we have decisions like citizen’s united that allows unions and companies to be “people”. What a mess…tons more money in the system.
On Obama “going after” the military – I think gates is the one who’s been proposing changes to the system based on projected cuts that will be needed to try to get to a balanced budget – no?
Hans – I’m fine with it coming over budget and raising taxes to fund it. Are you not?
Are you fine denying health care to those with pre-existing conditions?
Fine with paying more and more because people who don’t have health care wait and go in at the last minute when it could have been prevented? Fine with those people continuing to skate by?
Ex-RINO, going after the military pensions and health insurance started in force on Panetta’s watch and after Gate’s retirement; so you are mistaken there. But irregadless of who is the Secretary of Defense it is wrong for the Commander and Chief to appoint people who do these kinds of things without first at least going after all the other public employee golden parachutes.
Don’t think so Truth – it started with Gates:
http://hamptonroads.com/2011/06/gates-seeks-big-changes-military-pay-pensions
All of these areas have separate budgets – since the debt committee couldn’t agree on cuts, everyone gets cuts, and the military looks at their own budget and makes their own decisions. Get used to it – if we’re ever going to have a balanced budget without raising taxes, the military will need to get hacked by quite a bit.
Like I said…. the pension cuts were implemented under Panetta….But irregadless of who is the Secretary of Defense at the time the blame lies squarely on the president. It is wrong for the Commander and Chief to appoint people who do these kinds of things without first at least going after all the other public employee golden parachutes.”
Also Ex-RINO, maybe tou could answer this question for your pro-choice friends. SHould it be legal to test for sex in-utero like they do in India and China and abort if the baby is female? That sounds to me like a real war on women.
Should ‘govevernement’ require physicians to provide free treatment to people who are already ill or can they only bill healthy people?
TS,
A feminista has even coined a term to describe this ‘war on women’: gendercide.
She also referred to it as ‘un-natural selection’.
It is a pre-emptive auto-misogynism in that most of the adults making the decision to perfer male over female are women.
That was the conclusion the feminista author drew based on the results of her own research, but she was also anxious that her conclusions might result in the erosion of womens reproductive freedom.
The upside for feministas is this will assist them in attaining one of their primary goals: The unattractives access to the mainstream.
Another derivative for the ascetically challenged feminazi will be an enhanced probabililty of encountering a male who is so desperate to find a life partner he will compromise his standard of just who is ‘acceptable’.
The war on baby girls
Gendercide
Killed, aborted or neglected, at least 100m girls have disappeared—and the number is rising
Mar 4th 2010
http://www.economist.com/node/15606229
truth…and like I said, the across the board cuts that triggered when the debt committee failed – that means all areas look at budget cuts, including the military. It isn’t a pecking order things. Across the board means across the board.
Truth – You’d probably want to ask a pro-choicer, but it seems to me that if they don’t see humanity in pre-born baby, they wouldn’t care about the gender either.
Now, I think the interesting test will be if a ‘gay’ gene is ever discovered – at that point, if we could identify that a pre-born baby was predisposed to being gay, I think there would be a lot of soul searching on the parts of pro-choicers. Some wouldn’t change regardless – but I’m thinking some would start to realize that eventually you have a person out of the deal, and killing that pre-born baby because of what they were to become – I think that would really cause some wrestling.
Ex-RINO,
It is astonishing that you think most pro-choicers would be ok with gendercide…really unbelievable. That is the real deal when you talk war on women. Excuse my insult but what a bunch of pigs these pro-choicers must be to be ok with gendercide.
Across the board means across the board.
Ex-RINO, I challenge you to name any public employee groups other than the military who are having their health care and pensions cut so dramatically in these across-the-board cuts.
Truth -
I don’t know if most pro-choicers would be okay – you asked me to speculate, and I did. You’d probably want to ask one of them.
On the across the board – military folks aren’t having them cut – it is just proposed at this point, an option on the table.
Truthseeker: Who are the true one percenters leading America into decline?
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/03/02/government-employees-true-1-percent/
You’re right, TS – it’s too much, and the country cannot afford it.
Does anybody really think the federal budget will be balanced?
Doug,
Not sure it will be balanced under Repulican control but under the current Democratic regime it is quite impossible since they openly proclaim that they see no need to even pass a budget at all.
Truthseeker, looking back over the past 30 or 40 years, it’s just as impossible under Republican Presidents.
I think the time to do it was 30 years ago with Reagan. The numbers, while huge even then, were quite “manageable” compared to what we now have. I have nothing good to say about the situation, just cynicism. “Interesting times,” I guess.
In my opinion the more pertinent question is what do we do now, as individuals, to try and protect ourselves against the fallout of the gov’t debt.
Doug, you glimpse some light. But I would argue it’s still much more likely for a Republican administration to make inroads on the budget. They now have the Tea Party to hold them accountable.
The Democrats as a party have no shame in their deficit spending.
Truth – the Dems have no shame in paying for what is spent though – you know the reason for the deficit spending is that we’re still recovering economically, so taxes have been held down. The Dems would raise taxes at the first opportunity, which is why we’ve seen balanced budgets in the past with Clinton.
The Republicans won’t be able to balance a budget because they won’t raise taxes. If one of you want to throw out the cuts that could do it, I’m all ears…but you’d pretty much have to gut social security, military spending, or medicare (or a part of all of them) to balance the budget without raising taxes. It just isn’t going to happen. Even Ryan’s crazy plan doesn’t balance the budget for a LONG time.
Hans: Doug, you glimpse some light. But I would argue it’s still much more likely for a Republican administration to make inroads on the budget. They now have the Tea Party to hold them accountable.
Maybe so, Hans. But aren’t the Tea Partiers against cuts to Social Security and/or Medicare? If it’s Romney, then I hope the Tea Party or whoever holds his feet to the fire, and the same for Obama – he said he’d cut the deficit in half – then, hey, do it, no matter what it takes – at least that’s a start.
“Inroads on the budget” – hasn’t happened for Republicans in quite a few decades now, i.e. their spending only went up a lot over the prior Democratic administrations. I remain cynical – and think that rather than making it a political deal, one’s energy is best devoted to protecting oneself from the gov’t actions.
Truthseeker: The Democrats as a party have no shame in their deficit spending.
And neither do the Republicans. Hey – I’m firmly in the camp that says gov’t deficits and debt really suck, but one generalization that can be made is that at least with the Democrats, more people benefit from the red ink, while the Republican policies are skewed toward favoring the very richest people.
Doug: Which is to say that Democrats create dependent constituencies. The wealthy benefit no less, Doug. They end up with political support for continued cronyist, corporatist winner/loser chosing. The only difference in this regard is that the Dems get a lock on the dependency class’s votes to sustain the power of their own ruling class.
Until power is relocated in the states (no utopia either), the federal dystopia will grow worse, liberties will shrivel, and so on.
Good points, Rasqual. I don’t really disagree. Once a gov’t bureaucracy has attained such size, and I’m taking it as a premise that it wants to maintain its own position and power, what are the chances that things will really reverse course?
I see that as a long-term consideration. In the shorter-term, I feel the debt and deficits are overhanging us – we’re extremely vulnerable to rising interest rates – heck, I think it’s financial insanity that they’re not here already.
Doug: Timely!
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/293985/federalist-solution-jonah-goldberg
Then read Gerken’s original piece.
Now if we could just add Distributism to the mix, we’d have a non-partisan answer to Washington’s escalating power-madness.
The link didn’t work for me, but I’ll check Jonah later. If you’re referring to David Gergen, I like how Laura Ingraham points out his uncanny resemblance to The Cat In The Hat.
Argh.
http://goo.gl/lfeU9
No, not David.
It’s a pity federalism has become a dirty word to so many. It’s the genius of our nation’s founding.
Now if we could just add Distributism to the mix, we’d have a non-partisan answer to Washington’s escalating power-madness.
Rasqual, good thoughts there. I’d say that other than by outright revolution, the status quo will be maintained, however. There are so many “lifers” in the federal gov’t – who, regardless of what political party is in power or in the White House at a given time, are first and foremost concerned with maintaining their own position, as is – to generalize – the whole gov’t bureaucracy itself.