Following were my top five favorite political cartoons for the week, starting with, no surprise, the Secret Service….
by Steve Kelley at GoComics.com…
by Michael Ramirez at Townhall.com…
by Ken Catalino at Townhall.com…
by Joel Pett at GoComics.com…
by Michael Ramirez 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.
I’m gritting my teeth in anticipation of a more detailed response from Dear Leader about the Secret Service scandal. He will mention, in condescending, clipped and marble-mouthed faux-Spanish, “Car-te-hainn-ya” and “Co-lyuum-bia”, and perhaps throw in a “Ni-ca-whuayga” for good measure.
And yet they say he has 70% of the Hispanic vote. I guess you can’t fool all of the people all of the time, but if you condescendingly kiss up to you they will follow you like a dog (oops! time to get off that metaphor train).
Yet another scandal to blame George W. Bush on.
Hans,
I think you were being sarcastic but…. it is likely Obama has his people digging into the secret service visits under Bush just so they can blame him.
Truth! I’ve been looking for you…wish there was email on this board.
What did you think about the US Bishops and Ryan’s plan?
Still a supporter? Bishops just full of it?
Sure I am still a supporter. No, the bishops aren’t full of it. But we can’t run a federal government with the same financial structure as Catholic Charities. That is what Catholic Charities are for.
He will mention, in condescending, clipped and marble-mouthed faux-Spanish, “Car-te-hainn-ya” and “Co-lyuum-bia”, and perhaps throw in a “Ni-ca-whuayga” for good measure.
LOL, the way he says “Pakistan” rubs me the wrong way for the same reason, I’ve noticed.
Amateurs indeed! While the GSA spends recklessly on their parties, and Queen Michelle with her extravagant vacations, they don’t begin to match Obama’s crony capitalism pouring billions into bankrupt green energy companies and 5 trillion dollars of deficit spending.
Well, at least he isn’t playing as much golf lately (or it is not being reported). Maybe his campaign advisers are telling him the constant golf playing is not going to cut it. Personally I don’t have a problem with him playing golf because the more time he spends on the links the less time he has to ruin our economy and culture.
truthseeker,
Absolutely I was being sarcastic. The GSA spent lavishly the last few years of G.W. Bush, but it went up exponentially under Obama, just like the debt. No scandal or mistake will be laid at the feet of this president.
Kate,
And yet he’s so unaquainted with his own culture that he can’t pronounce “corps”. I’m afraid we’re being led by a “man without a country”.
Pardon the parody, but this was simply too opportune…
“EGV! I’ve been looking for you…wish there was email on this board.
What did you think about Obama and the decision to cut off health care subsidies to Texas women, simply in order to protect Planned Parenthood?
Still a supporter? Poor Texas women just full of it?”
Normally, I don’t do that… but since you never replied substantially and directly to this question in the previous thread, and since your entire mantra (aside from snark-laden, divide-and-conquer-esque inconsistency-sniffing about your opponents) is “I vote Dem because neither side does anything substantial about abortion, and at least the Dems help the poor!”, perhaps you might at least address this choice by the Obama administration to throw poor women “under the bus” in order to “do something substantial about abortion [i.e. promote it at the expense of the poor]”?
Are we never to hear anything like (at very least) “I hated the fact that Obama did that, and unless he shapes up, he’ll lose my vote” from you? Or is your desire to apologise for him, and defend Dems at all costs, outstripping your stated paradigm for your entire political outlook?
How interesting that when the USCCB outright demands that the government must help the poor, essentially telling the government what to do, there are no cries from the left about separation of church and state.
And yet when the USCCB tells the government to stop persecuting Catholics – to stop telling Catholics how they must run their own charities and hospitals – the left rises up and accuses the Catholic Church of violating the separation of church and state.
As much as I dislike Obama, this Secret Service mess is not his fault at all. Those horndogs just got caught this time.
That said, if I were their wives or girlfriends, I would KICK THEM TO THE CURB! I’m a pretty easy-going person, but as far as infidelity goes — homie don’t play that!
Hi phillymiss,
I agree with you, these Secret Servicemen are cads. Legal abortion is the golden ticket for all these men who are fooling around on their wives. Pro-choice women really need to re-assess the so-called “advantages” of easy access to elective abortion. Nothing good comes of evil.
Our current president’s policy makes him an enabler in all this mess. He needs to go bye-bye in November.
Paladin – I realized I just posted this on the old thread – I’ll post here as well:
Paladin - I apologize – I had the last reply on that thread (posted April 18th), and you had never followed up, so I thought it was sufficient. In future cases, feel free to ask followups on those threads – I think you feel like I dodged the question, and that isn’t accurate. Again, you never posted after I left the last reply.Regardless, you could easily reframe the question and say “What do you think about the showdown between the feds (Obama) and the state of Texas and their joint willingness to sacrifice health care subsidies to Texas women in the fight over Planned Parenthood”.Look, this isn’t a new thing – for years, the Fed has had all sorts of funding that is tied to general regulation. For the record, I believe it is a good thing for the feds to set certain standards that the states have to adhere to in receiving the funding.Now, Texas has said that even though federal law says that medicaid money can’t go to pay for abortions, they don’t think any money should go to those facilities for legally covered services. I understand, but don’t agree with your stance on fungibility. If you want to debate it further, that’s fine – but I think you’d be hard pressed to find a way to spend $100 in society without getting your hands dirty (heck, the GOP covered abortion in their health care plan up until a couple of years ago).If the Dems passed a similar law and said federal monies for a legal service couldn’t go to a specific organization that they had targeted, I would fully expect the feds to withhold the money in that case as well. Simply put, I believe it is a good thing for the feds to set certain standards (when it comes to health care), and the states to abide by those standards if they want the federal money. For the record, I dislike a lot of the things that Obama and the Dems have done:- I dislike that they didn’t push harder for universal coverage and a single payer system. I think they rolled over.- I dislike that a lot of the health care reform is a give away to drug companies and the insurance industry. Big business was still a big winner.- I dislike that the financial reform bill didn’t go far enough in protecting every day citizens.- I dislike that the government hasn’t come up with solutions in regards to campaign financing. The current system is a joke and needs some accountability.- I dislike that Obama has further polarized Washington – that I can’t trust politicians to even attempt to work on a solution for the common good.- I dislike that Obama has given a blank check to unemployment – I think the system needs refining.- I dislike that Obama has gone from talking about trying to decrease abortion to ignoring it all together. - I dislike that Obama hasn’t talked more about his faith and how it has shaped his lifeAre those enough dislikes for you?
…and question for you:
For the record Paladin – I struggle to find a time you’ve ever said you’ve liked a thing Obama has done, or disliked a think the GOP has done. Care to post a few?
Truth – are you saying that Bishops are out of touch with reality? I’m not sure what you are saying about them – that they don’t have a good understanding of federal budgets and they shouldn’t try to legislate their morality?
They’re certainly oblivious to federalism issues. That’s much bigger than mere concern about budgets.
EGV,
I replied to you in the other thread; my apologies for missing your reply! (I can post it here, as well, but I’d rather minimise clutter; I use enough verbiage, as it is!)
You wrote:
…and question for you: For the record Paladin – I struggle to find a time you’ve ever said you’ve liked a thing Obama has done, or disliked a think the GOP has done. Care to post a few?
I do not care to do so, in the least, dear chap… because (a) as I’ve told you interminably [is your memory so short?], I am not a “GOP, right or wrong” supporter (I support the GOP when they uphold and support the moral law, I decry them and refuse to support them when they violate the moral law, and I largely leave aside many matters which do not directly involve fundamental moral principles), and (b) my specific question to you was not “Can you please post one or more complaints about Obama?”, but rather, “Why did you not complain when Obama violated what you claimed to be one of your core political/moral tenets, and your stated basis for voting as you do?” If you could confine yourself to that, at least for the moment, I’d be grateful… since that is the very point which I believe you “dodged”.
Phillymiss, I LOVE anyone who uses the words “horndog”!
To be fair, I agree with phillymiss: this issue can’t easily be laid at the door of Obama (who has more than enough devastation attributable to him, anyway). All people are accountable for their own sins, even when working for someone who, in many ways, makes sin quite a bit easier.
Paladin -
It’s rather simple, and I’ll address it more on conversation number two we have going on (we should really streamline our little talks) – but I don’t see how the feds and Obama are to blame on this?
I’m not sure how much background is needed – but there’s all sorts of funding that flows to states based on the states adhering to certain rules. For instance, highway money has certain qualifications.
Now, if a state knows the guidelines, and says “well, we know the rules but we want are own” – how is that any different from you as a parent bring your kid to the store, and saying “if you do this, we’re leaving” – and then when the kid does the deed that you specified consequences for, you simply said “oh well, I change my mind”.
I certainly wish the dust up wasn’t going to affect health care for the poor – it has become a standoff though over politics – but if you think Obama and the feds are the only one to blame here – I think you have a short-sighted understanding of the issue.
For the record though – do you believe states should specify where individuals get their legal health care services from? After all this yelling about the feds getting between people and their doctors, it is odd to see you and others so giddy about lawmakers dictating where people can receive legal services from.
On to the other posting…
EGV wrote, in reply to my comment:
but I don’t see how the feds and Obama are to blame on this?
All right… let me (in the spirit of “hope springs eternal”) see if I can get some clarity on your ultimate position on this issue. Which of the following do you now believe?
1) that “the feds and Obama” are NOT “to blame for this”. (April 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm, par. 1)
2) that “Obama and the feds” are not “the ONLY ones to blame, here” (April 24, 2012 at 9:16 pm, par.4)
3) that Obama and the feds making whatever requirements they wish (explicitly championing an abortion provider, regardless of the loss of resources to the poor in Texas) is “a good thing” (April 23, 2012 at 9:39 pm, par.5)
I’m not sure how much background is needed – but there’s all sorts of funding that flows to states based on the states adhering to certain rules.
Right… such as mandating that one must never serve blacks, Jews, Hispanics, Irish, etc. You’re quite all right with any such discrimination, so long as the states know about those restrictions beforehand, it seems.
Now, if a state knows the guidelines, and says “well, we know the rules but we want are own” – how is that any different from you as a parent bring your kid to the store, and saying “if you do this, we’re leaving” – and then when the kid does the deed that you specified consequences for, you simply said “oh well, I change my mind”.
Er… perhaps because the original guidelines were grossly immoral and indefensible? It would be akin to the parent saying “If you refuse to stab the lady in blue with a dagger, we’re leaving”. I’d excuse the child from doing so (and the parent, for coming to his/her senses); wouldn’t you?
I certainly wish the dust up wasn’t going to affect health care for the poor – it has become a standoff though over politics –
How quickly you descend into vague, sweeping generalities, when a very concrete and specific example lies in front of you (and which you’ve dodged repeatedly), waiting patiently for your response! This sort of pablum is the stuff of sentimental platitudes (“Alas! Alack! How grievous, that the poor must suffer such an accidental, completely free-of-blame accident such as this!”), not of sane reason. We’re speaking of the deliberate choice to defend Planned Parenthood at the expense of the poor, friend; we’re not speaking of the poor being swallowed by a volcano.)
but if you think Obama and the feds are the only one to blame here – I think you have a short-sighted understanding of the issue.
See above. Are you back-pedalling, and introducing a note of blame for Obama et al., here?
For the record though – do you believe states should specify where individuals get their legal health care services from?
Not as such, no. I do think that states should FORBID the operation of certain “health care services” which involve the killing of children, just as the states should forbid the operation of any restaurant whose plates are, say, heaped with rat dung on a regular basis. Please tell me you agree with the latter intervention, at very least? (That, or else please let me choose the restaurant if we ever go out to dine?)
After all this yelling about the feds getting between people and their doctors,
Would that statement be “broad generality #23,994”, or “broad generality #23,995”?
it is odd to see you and others so giddy about lawmakers dictating where people can receive legal services from.
Perhaps you might look up “straw man fallacy”, when you have a moment. For that matter, perhaps you might purchase a compendium of all known basic fallacy types; you do seem to need a refresher. Honestly: did you pluck this gem from “liberal cliches about non-liberals, chapter 3?”
On to the other posting…
:) I can hardly wait.
I’m incredibly irritated and frustrated, but not surprised at all, that people have turned the Secret Service scandal into a political tool, rather than use it to raise awareness about the problem of the sex industries.