Sunday funnies 5-16-10

Several political cartoons this week touched on or around our issue. Here are my Top 5 picks...

by Brian Farrington at

brian farrington larger.jpg

by Gary Varvel at

varvel mini me larger.jpg

Liberal Joel Pett at took the opportunity of the Pill's 50th anniversary to perpetuate the myth of world overpopulation. (And speaking of the Pill, Eric Scheidler at Pro-Life Action League wrote a great post this week noting in his email intro, "Surprisingly, many commentators in the mainstream media are taking the opportunity to ATTACK the pill.")...

pett larger.gif

by Glenn Foden at

foden larger.jpg

by Gary Varvel at

varvel larger.jpg


I think Laura Bush is out of touch as she thinks Kagan would be a good choice to represent women in unmarried, reprobate Lesbian activist? Wow, that is truly disgusting.

We are in the Last Days...if not for the world...then for America which is hell bent on destroying herself via political correctness run amok.

Shame on you Laura Bush for betraying all of us Conservatives.

Posted by: Phil Schembri is HisMan at May 16, 2010 10:17 AM

Indeed, Kagan is a "mini-me" to Obama. Fits his elitist narcicist community organizer socialist agenda moral relativist Saul Alinsky philosophy to a "T".

Laura Bush, for all of her admirable qualities and her contributions as first lady to restore a sense of graciousness and dignity to the White House, we are thankful. But she seems to have lost her mind. Thankfully, she was not our president and obviously did not prevail upon George on his court picks.

Posted by: Jerry at May 16, 2010 12:20 PM

And expecting those who can afford to pay for health care coverage will decrease the deficit. And best of all all Americans will have access to quality health care. I'm just assuming but I think hospitals have lobbyists that will make sure governments oversight is fair and balanced. Maybe the real problem is that government has done something that will bring health care equity to the American taxpayer. And don't pharmaceutical companies receive tax payers money to do research if so why aren't they expected to show some restraint in the pricing of their products? Democracy is taxation with representation so if this is what citizens want hopefully democracy will work well enough that it works well for the hospitals and the patient consumer. There are a lot of people who faithfully go to work and pay their taxes after paying the rent or mortgages, pay their car payments and put food on the table that might not have enough to pay health insurance premiums. Maybe if pharmauceutical companies and insurance companies would have shown some restraint this type of government action would not have been necessary.

Posted by: myrtle miller at May 16, 2010 1:04 PM

Phil you are correct

Posted by: Rose at May 16, 2010 1:06 PM

"We are in the Last Days...if not for the world...then for America which is hell bent on destroying herself via political correctness run amok."

Unfortunately, I'm sorry to say that I agree too Phil.

Posted by: Praxedes at May 16, 2010 1:54 PM

Eric Scheidler's post is excellent. He writes:

A personal account of the libido-killing effects of the pill is offered by Glamour editor Geraldine Sealey in a piece at entitled “Why I hate the pill: The birth control revolution brought freedom to countless women. It brought misery to me.”

When the editor of GLAMOUR MAGAZINE, a magazine that has glorified the sexual revolution for decades influencing millions of young women writes that she HATES THE PILL, it's time for Americans to take note!

Posted by: Janet at May 16, 2010 3:01 PM

The caricature of Kagan is not only stupid but offensive. It's a total misrepresentation of a distinguished and highly respected jurist and law professor.
Even many conservative jurists respect her.
So what if she's unmarried and childless? Is that a crime? Does this prove anything negative about her? Of course not.
And there are plenty of unmarried,childless single women,including conservatives,such as Harriet Miers, whom Bush unsuccessfully appointed to a supremem court position, and who barely had the tiniest fraction of Kagan's impressive credentials.
And it's disgusting the way this asinine cartoon makes it look as though Kagan were a man-hating radical feminist and some one out to increase abortion as much as possible.
There's not a shred of evidence that she is anything like this. There have also been accusations that she is a lesbian,which have been denied.
And who cares if the is one anyway?
This is typical of conservative hypocrisy.

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 16, 2010 3:41 PM

"This is typical of conservative hypocrisy."

Wow, Robert. You really need to take a breath. The cartoon is simply pointing out that Kagan has not lead the life of a "typical american woman" as Obama has claimed. She is well out side the norm, as have been all of the women nominated to the SC, sadly.

It's not a reflection on her merit or her lifestyle, just a comment that Obama has falsely promoted her. That criticism is more than fair.

Posted by: Lauren at May 16, 2010 3:47 PM

Posted by: Jerry at May 16, 2010 12:20 PM

"Thankfully, she was not our president and obviously did not prevail upon George on his court picks."



It would almost be a relief if Laura Bush claimed the Harriet Miers nominations was her idea. It was not one of W's better presidential moments.

Neither Miers or Kagan fit into the category of 'best and brightest' when it comes to being a nominee for the SCOTUS.

The difference is conservatives resisted Bush's nomination of Miers.

The democRATS will fall into lock step behind b.o., Pilousy and 'weak kneed Reid'.

Not even a blue democRAT dog will dare to bark at Elena Kagan.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:01 PM

In the movie 'The Gods Must Be Crazy' I learned that rhinos have an instinctive urge to stamp out 'grassfires'.

In political jungle RINO's have an instinctive compulsion to stamp out grass roots movements that threatens their careers.

Glenn Fodden should have also included democRAT jackasses attempting to blend in with the zebras.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:07 PM

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 16, 2010 3:46 PM

It's a total misrepresentation of a distinguished and highly respected jurist and law professor.

So what if she's unmarried and childless?

And it's disgusting the way this asinine cartoon makes it look as though Kagan were a man-hating radical feminist and some one out to increase abortion as much as possible.

There's not a shred of evidence that she is anything like this. There have also been accusations that she is a lesbian,which have been denied.

And who cares if she is one anyway?


Elena Kagan is not representitive of the average american and has no idea what our lives are like experientially, academically or legally.

Her entire life has been spent in enclaves of insulated liberalism.

Jurist- one having a thorough knowledge of law; especially : judge

Kagan's knowledge of the law is NOT thorough. At best she is legal theoretician.

Her legal experience is almost entirely academic. Until she served as solicitor general she never argued a case, never defended a client and never served as a judge.

I have no problem with her being unmarried and even less with her being childless. At least it shows she is careful in her sexlife or hides her mistakes discreetly.

But again it demonstrates she is not representative of most american women.

The cartoon is 'caricature'. Caricatures accentuate both physical and political characteristics. It is called satire.

The only quesitionable part about the cartoon is the 'boys are icky' button. All the rest are accurate representations.

If the cartoonist had drawn her in Che Quevara tee shirt and left off that 'boys are icky' button he would have nailed it.

Bill Clinton denied having sex with 'that woman'.
John Edwards denied having sex with 'that woman'.
Larry Craig denied wanting to have sex with 'that man' in the adjacent toilet booth.

Denials in politics mean nothing exept the more vehment the denial, the more likely the allegation is based in fact.

b.o. and the gang are working overtime to squash anyone who would suggest Kagan is a homosexual, which seems odd coming from the tolerant egalitarian left.

If there is nothing wrong with two women pleasuring one anohter, then why all the fuss?

But as you so eloquently point out, if Kagan is a female homosexual, "So what?"

The 'what' is that most american women are not homosexuals and as such most would view a female homosexual as representative of them.

The 'so what' is the typical progressive/liberal/humanist response to any allegation or proof that one of their fellow travelers has a gender identity dysfunction.

It is about as an effective defense as the 'liar,liar, pants on fire'.

missy Kagan has a paper trail and we will get a fuller understanding how leftist she is in the days and weeks ahead.

If she is feminista and a homosexual that will come out as well.

I will not be shocked or even surprised at all if the caricature is INaccurate only in that it understates how radical Elena Kagan really is.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:44 PM

Just one other observation while the munchkin nominee to the SCOTUS is traipsing thru the halls of Congress sucking up the political air, attention is diverted away from two man made disasters that reveal how ineffective and incompetent b.o. and his administration are.

The oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico is presenting b.o. with a dilemma. If focuses too much attention on it he necessarily assumes more responsibility for it.

And it is not going to just convienently disappear
leaving no trace it was never here.

When b.o. took office the misery index was 7.6

The 'misery index' is now 12.01

November cannot arrive soon enough.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:58 PM

"gender identity dysfunction"

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:44 PM

How appropriate that "yor bro ken" has a moniker that is the belief of the Christian religious right that homosexuals are "broken." FYI, Ken, the luminaries of psychology (right, they're just Ivy elitists smarty pants) dropped the gay as dysfunction years ago. But you believe in the bible as the ultimate arbiter of all things social and political so whatever. Thing is, Ken, you do care if Kagan is gay because you believe that gay is disordered. But you can't have it both ways, Ken, because if you get yor way and abortion is criminalized, it might result in more gay babies. Be careful what you wish for. But wait - gays can be changed - just ask Rev. Ted Haggerd. And how bout that Rekkers guy who was a guiding light for a family values group - love those "rent boys." But back to Kagan and her not being part of the "norm." At this point, the "norm," is a hetero who has been divorced at least once. Love those family values. Right, Ken!

Posted by: Sammi at May 16, 2010 5:25 PM

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 16, 2010 4:58 PM

So when the Republicans take over - and that is an outside shot for the House - then what? I don't know what kind of polysci that yor taught in whatever right wing enclave you reside in; but the reality is that even if the GOPigs take over the House, legislation can't be moved without the Senate. And if both houses vote in favor of something, it still can be vetoed by the President. So what do you hope to accomplish if yor side wins the House. BTW, both Paul Kirk and Mike Castle are moderate Dem's. so if they join the Senate it's not going to be tea time.

Posted by: Sammi at May 16, 2010 5:42 PM

Correction - Kirk and Castle are moderate Republicans - like Snowe, Collins, and yes, the tea party's hope, Scott Brown from the most educated and least divorced state, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts - where gay marriage hasn't ended the world as we know it!!!!

Posted by: Sammi at May 16, 2010 5:53 PM

What do you mean not in touch. She likes to smoke cigars and chased chicks with Bill Clinton.

Posted by: xppc at May 16, 2010 9:28 PM

Sammi, that is NOT what Ken's moniker means,and if you had spent any significant amount of time here, you'd KNOW that!

Furthermore, homosexuality was removed from the APA's list of psychological illnesses after much campaigning against the APA and threats against them. Read more here.

Also, being homosexual is NOT inate/immutable.

It's not that those of us who are Christian are against homosexuality, it's that we're against people claiming how "normal" it is in order to sue religious institutions and further sexualize our culture by saying such things as "marriage is a social contract and a right, not a religious sacrament", "anti-gays are the violent ones", "sex in public should be allowed", and other campaigns the homosexual culture has tried to further. We feel sorry for them, we don't hate them. For more info on the whole controversy, complete with footnotes quoting books written by leaders of homosexual groups, see this essay.

Posted by: Amy at May 16, 2010 10:28 PM

Leave my bro ken alone! (Get the meaning now Sammi?)

Posted by: Gerard Nadal at May 16, 2010 11:38 PM

How about some regular people on the court?

How about someone who didn't go to Harvard, Yale or Columbia?

How about someone born, raised and educated in flyover land?

I am little tired of our new aristocrats.

Posted by: hippie at May 17, 2010 8:39 AM

I agree, Hippie.

Posted by: Phillymiss at May 17, 2010 10:27 AM

If Elena Kagan is a lesbian, that doesn't translate into "boys are icky" by any stretch of the imagination.

I do agree, though, that she seems to be out of touch with the average American. And yeah, can we move away from all the Harvard and Yale graduates? If EK ends up on the Supreme Court, every single one of them will have attended either Harvard of Yale.

Posted by: Marauder at May 17, 2010 11:49 AM


You are entitled to your opinions. I am entitled to mine.

As to my chosen handle, 'yor bro ken'. It is a reminder to all that 'normal' is just a setting on the washing machine and we, ME included prominently, are all 'broken' in many ways.

In christiandom, we affectionately refer to one another as brother or sister to acknowledge that we are all sons of Abraham thru faith in Jesus the Christ and as such we are all members of the same family.

If that offends you, then it is you that has the problem.

If you are NOT a member of the body of Christ, then I am not addressing you as brother or sister.

If you are a member of the family of man, then I am addressing you as one who is 'broken' in some way or ways.

We are all 'broken'. One of the ways we are broken is gender identity confusion.

I am what I am. I am male not proud or ashamed of that fact either.

I am a Texan. I have confess I do take some delight in that though I had no more voice in it than any of the other things I am.

I am a natural born American citizen. I am very delighted about that but I cannot take pride in the fact because I did not have a voice in where I was born.

If I were a 'naturalized' Ameican citizen then I could, and many do, take pride because it was something I consciously set my mind and will to accomplish through my own efforts.

Only a few people who have ever become 'naturalized' American citizens are 'ashamed' of the fact.

I am a flaming heterosexual. I not proud of it, not ashamed of it though these days the coals are banked and it takes a little more effort to stoke them.

If I were a homosexual then I could take some 'gay pride' in the fact because it would be a choice that I make everyday.

You are entitled to your opinions about sexuality and I am just as entitled to mine.

I have just as much right to be offended by your acceptance of homosexuality as you have to be offended by my rejection of homosexuality.

It's a free country.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 17, 2010 6:34 PM

Posted by: Sammi at May 16, 2010 5:42 PM

"So what do you hope to accomplish if yor side wins the House."


While you are correct in your observation that it will be difficult or impossible to immdeiately repeal any of the 'bills' that congress passed and b.o. signed into law because it will be even more difficult to garner enough votes to override an almost guaranteed presidential veto of such repeals.

But if your ship's hull has a hole in it the first thing you do is to try to stem the leak enough to prevent your boat from sinking and then you go about making permanent repairs to the hull and next you determine what led to the breach.

For the purposes of this analogy you would do all you could to ensure that you do not ever again allow another incompetent and even malignant captain and officers to gain control of the ship.

These fiends are not merely guilty of dereliction of duty, but of sabotage.

Those who were responsible for deliberately running the ship into a known reef would be held accountable and 'figuratively' speaking you would keel haul them or make them walk the plank.

This would NOT be mutiny because we as citizens own the ship and we are just not sailors who as matter of law are required to follow the orders of the captain or risk being court martialed.

The captain and his officers have taken oathes to preserver and protect the ship and they have willfully disregarded that solemn responsibility.

Posted by: yor bro ken at May 17, 2010 7:45 PM

"If I were a homosexual then I could take some 'gay pride' in the fact because it would be a choice that I make everyday."

ha. Like you make the choice every day to be heterosexual?

Posted by: Hal at May 18, 2010 3:31 PM

Homosexuality is a choice? If it's a choice,why do gay people "choose" to live a lifestyle where they are constantly at risk of being either taunted,harassed,discriminated against and even being the victims of violence?
Do gay people in Iran, who are at risk of being executed if caught,"choose" to be gay?
And the notion that you can "cure" some one of being homosexual is just plain stupid.That's a ridiculous myth which conservatives endlessly rehash.
Being gay is no more reprehensible than being left-handed. I'm a southpaw,but heterosexual.
Did I choose to be a leftie? Of course not.That's just the way I am. It's awfully difficult for me to write with my right hand.
Yet in many countries, left-handedness has been frowned upon. In muslim countries,superstition holds that those who are left-handed are cursed by Allah. The Ayatollah Khomeini said that the late Shah of Iran was cursed by Allah because his eldest son was left-handed.
In Japanese schools,it was common to try to force left-handed children to write with their right hands,and elsewhere,too.
It's the same with homosexuality. Being "opposed" to homosexuality is stupid.just like being "opposed" to homosexuality.
You can no more"stop" homosexuality than you can stop heterosexuality. When will conservatives
get it?

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 19, 2010 2:47 PM

Excuse me.That should read"Being opposed to homosexuality is like being opposed to left-handedness".

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 19, 2010 2:50 PM

Agreed Robert, but I thought you were going in a different direction when you called yourself a "leftie."

Posted by: Hal at May 19, 2010 2:54 PM

I would say I'm moderately liberal, but I don't like to be described as a "left-winger",because this loaded term implies that you believe in Marxism and communism,which has never been the case with me.
Being a liberal does not necessarily mean that you approve of Marxism and communism.I certainly don't,and never have.
I've never had any illusions about the former Soviet Union or China today being wonderful places to live in and being a "worker's paradise".
They were are are hell to live in for so many people.Although I'm pro-choice, I'm appalled by all the forced abortions in China.
Being pro-choice also means you don't want to force women to have abortions,either.
As well as the horrible oppression of the Tibetans and the Muslim ethnic Turks in Xinjiang province in the far west of China,the Uygurs.
But right-wing governments can be just as oppressive as communist ones, although in different ways.
And yes,if right-wing extremists in America,allied with the religious right, got the power they want, this nation could be transformed
virtually overnight into a theocratic tyranny little better than Iran,Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan when it was under the Taliban.
And yes, the religious right in this country is a kind of American Taliban.
Don't think this is impossible.If you think Obama is bad, he's a pussycat by comparison.
Homosexuals could be fired from their jobs,denied employment when seeking jobs,not be allowed to teach in schools,and even sent to"re-education camps" where they would be subject to attempts to"cure" them of their homosexuality.
Abortion would be illegal,even in the case of rape or incest,or if a woman's life were in danger.Women who had miscarriages would be required to report this to the government and be investigated for possible attempts to self-abort.
There would be a massive force of anti-abortion agents scouring every corner of the nation, and this would be a grievous invasion of our privacy.
Contraceptives would be illegal, only INCREASING the number of abortions, and there would be a black market in contraceptives.
Students in school would be required to participate in Christian prayer and hear Bible readings no matter what their parent's religious affiliation.
Television,films,books,magazines,the internet etc would be ruthlessly censored for any content deemed "indecent" by the government.
And conservatives have the nerve to demand that
our"freedom" be preserved !
But America would be more like Orwell's 1984 than the "free" America they claim to want.

Posted by: Robert Berger at May 19, 2010 5:48 PM

Wow, Robert.

Posted by: carla Author Profile Page at May 19, 2010 7:50 PM

Post a comment:

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "n" in the field below: