Patience is a Virtue Lost

Derke Hunter: There’s a reason liberals have been so successful in advancing their agenda in the past few decades. It’s not just electoral victories – they’ve played a part, and it’s easier to make things happen if you win elections. But the main factor in their victories is one thing we conservatives are losing sight of: patience. 

ObamaCare took 90 years and they still want more but are patient.

Political Correctness took 2 generations to condition stupid people to be even stupider.

Socialism is good took generations of indoctrination.

Global Warming has been going on for nearly 100 years.

Liberals are very patient for the long game.

In the time of Twitter breaking news, Tinder, microwaves, On Demand, etc., patience is as dead as detectives wearing Fedoras and calling people “Mac.” But it’s key in politics, and conservatives have forgotten that.

Ronald Reagan – the real man, not the myth created with his name – understood the importance of patience. He almost won the GOP nomination in 1976 but lost to President Gerald Ford. 

Although Ford was no conservative, Reagan didn’t turn on him. He supported him. When Ford lost, that opened the door to Reagan’s victory four years later. Had Reagan refused to support Ford, or actively criticized Ford and hurt him in the 1976 election, there’s a chance 1980 would’ve turned out differently. 

Even as president, Reagan understood the importance of patience. His victories in dealing with Congress and the Soviet Union (not much of a difference there, in many respects) didn’t come immediately. Incrementalism was a key weapon – you take what you can get and keep fighting for the rest. What Reagan didn’t do was throw up his hands when he didn’t get all he wanted, leaving small victories on the table because total victory wasn’t, at that moment, obtainable. 

 

Far too many conservatives have forgotten that political victories take time, even if the loss they’re trying to reverse is still fresh. 

Libertarians are famously inpatient. It’s why, outside of a few court victories, they are mostly irrelevant. I take no pleasure in saying this; the country would be much better off if we were significantly more libertarian. But when there’s a political fight to be had, they sit on the sidelines criticizing both sides rather than putting their weight behind the side moving the ball in the direction they want to go.

The purity of libertarians is to be admired, at least in the sense of ideals. The practical implementation of purity as a guide for conducting politics is not. Far too many oppose actions which would move the country in the direction they want because it doesn’t go far enough. They want it all, and they want it now – and anything short of that is a sell-out. 

Many conservatives have adopted this attitude. 

Liberals have been successful because they’ve adopted the opposite stance. For generations, liberals have sought to seize control over health care in the United States. They haven’t yet, but every move they’re made on health care has pushed them closer to that goal. 

Medicare covers the elderly and disabled; Medicaid covers the poor. Liberals have been fighting to lower the age of Medicare eligibility for decades, but they’ve, thankfully, been blocked. They’ve also been fighting to raise the income eligibility for Medicaid for decades, and they’ve been winning. This left a shrinking middle uncovered by government insurance. Obamacare is changing that.

For all the problems with Obamacare, it’s serving its purpose of crowding out private coverage. It was never designed to be the endgame; it’s an increment. It moves the country closer to a government takeover of health care. That was its purpose; that is their plan. And they waited decades for it.

Conservatives, on the other hand, don’t have that kind of patience. With every new electoral victory, they expect some massive shift in the country immediately, if not sooner.

Sadly, much of liberalism is engrained in our laws, our courts and our culture, so it will take time to uncouple it. 

 

Real conservatives are a small percentage of the Republican Party and Republicans in Congress. Yet many conservatives, particularly in media, think each electoral victory immediately should bring about massive conservative change. When that doesn’t happen, they attack with a ferocity they don’t reserve even for liberals. 

No single election is going to turn the tide back toward constitutionally limited government; no one person elected to office will be as pure as the wind-driven snow in their conservatism. It’s going to be a long slog; there are going to be losses. Losing a battle does not constitute losing a war. But quitting does.

There never will be a “silver bullet” election or candidate; that’s impossible. Many times you have to stop getting worse before you start getting better.

In addition to electoral victories, the courts have to change – that will take time. The culture of dependency has to change – that will take time. 

For all their shunning of Christianity, Democrats have the patience of Job when it comes to their agenda. Republicans, on the other hand, are Veruca Salt. They want a Golden Goose and they want it NOW! 

Veruca ended up going down the garbage chute. If conservatives don’t regain some strategic patience, they’ll suffer the same fate. And the country won’t be far behind…

Snatching Defeat

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Senate Democrats plan to debate and vote on a broad resolution authorizing military strikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) after the election, dodging the danger of angering liberal voters this fall.

CLUCK-CLUCK!

Above: Democratic senators emerge from the caucus room and announce their decision to postpone a vote on military action until after the election.

***

Senate Democrats succeeded in blocking a vote on President Obama’s promised post-election executive orders providing administrative amnesty to illegal immigrants — but only by the barest of margins.

Senator Jeff Sessions (R., Ala.) wanted to offer an amendment opposing the orders, but Senate Democrats thwarted the attempt.

“I am going to make a motion that would allow this Senate to block the President’s planned executive amnesty,” Sessions said Thursday afternoon. “This is a common Senate action. If you believe we are sovereign nation, with the right to control our own borders, then you must vote ‘yes.’ If you believe America is an oligarchy, run by a group of special interests meeting in the White House to rewrite our immigration laws, then vote ‘no.’”

Fifty senators voted for Sessions’ motion and fifty voted against, so the proposal failed.

Four embattled Democratic lawmakers — North Carolina senator Kay Hagan, Louisiana senator Mary Landrieu, New Hampshire senator Jeanne Shaheen, and Arkansas senator Mark Pryor — voted with Sessions after opposing the same motion earlier this year. Senator Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) voted with Sessions both times.

“Begich saved the day for Ds,” Politico’s Manu Raju tweeted, referring to Senator Mark Begich (D., Alaska), a vulnerable Democrat who voted with Democratic leadership.

***

The latest polls suggest the GOP now has only a 50­/50 chance of retaking the Senate. “autopsy.”

There needs to be a mass layoff — of highly paid GOP consultants. Otherwise we risk a repeat of 2012, when overconfident Republicans in the middle of the worst economy since the 1970s became convinced that all they had to do to win was not be Obama. And they lost.

Romney’s strategy was simple. On the social issues, avoid, downplay, mute. On the economic issues, sound vague, promise to help job creators, and wait for the other team to self-destruct.

The RNC’s “autopsy” of the 2012 election reinforced the idea that doing more of what didn’t work would be the pathway to victory. If only we add more women and more diverse ethnicities to the GOP ticket while avoiding Akin-esque gaffes, we can win. “Don’t do stupid stuff,” while always good advice, is no more a winning strategy for the GOP than it is a foreign policy for a great nation.

It didn’t work then, and it is not working now.

In the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove acknowledged that despite the horrible environment for Democrats “a GOP senate majority is still in doubt.” Why? The Architect is convinced that his model is sound — donors just need to open their wallets to the consultants to script more TV ads.

While Democrats are out-spending Republicans, and GOP donors should take notice and correct this, the relatively narrow spending gap would not make the difference in a wave election.

The Romney strategy failed in 2012. And regardless of whether or not Republicans narrowly retake the Senate this November, the neo-Romney strategy is in danger of failing massively to deliver what America really needs in 2014: a “wave election” in which the country definitively rejects the Obamanomics that are[can be plural in construction, per Webster’s] strangling average Americans’ economic prospects while producing a Wall Street boomlet. Wall Street, with its downside subsidized by taxpayers, is getting richer and donating money to the Democrats. The great middle class feels our dream dying, and most people aren’t sure why.

And too many GOP candidates, listening to consultants who get paid whether or not the candidates lose, and listening to the donors who foolishly continue to believe the consultants, are reenacting a failing strategy before our eyes. (NRO)

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Lisa BensonPolitical Cartoons by Bob Gorrell

Just Shut The Hell Up!

Before you snatch defeat YET AGAIN from the jaws of obvious victory!

Principle: ObamaCare is failing and more unchecked immigration would ensure Republicans’ demise, yet GOP leaders are surrendering on both issues. Poised to win big in November, their best strategy may be to shut up.

Sometimes it seems as if top congressional Republicans have seen the movie “Animal House” one too many times, specifically the hazing scene with Kevin Bacon repeatedly saying, “Thank you, sir. May I have another?” each time he gets paddled on his rear.

Rep. Cathy McMorris Rodgers of Washington, chairwoman of the House Republican Conference, sees a very dubious stat claiming that more than 600,000 residents of her state got new insurance through the state exchange, and she proceeds to declare that ObamaCare is a permanent fixture of American life.

“We need to look at reforming the exchanges” instead of repealing ObamaCare, said the fourth-ranking House GOP leader, whose election to that post a year and a half ago was described by TheHill.com as “a victory for party leaders over insurgent conservatives.”

Wow, the Exchange Reform Party. That’s really what Ronald Reagan had in mind when he emphasized that ideas have consequences, so Republicans must raise “a banner of no pale pastels, but bold colors.”

What would Rodgers’ “reforming the exchanges” slogan be for the GOP congressional campaigns this year? “Fine-Tuning We Can Believe In”?

She — and, frankly, other GOP leaders, too — are allowing President Obama to set the political narrative.

Earlier this month, the president sneered that Republicans were going “through the stages of grief” over losing on ObamaCare. In other words, this is Social Security or Medicare all over again, with the GOP complaining and vowing to repeal a new entitlement, but eventually coming to accept and embrace it as irreversible.

With its skyrocketing costs, botched bureaucracy and numerous promises betrayed, ObamaCare is one of the least popular government schemes in history, yet “leaders” such as Rodgers are keen to follow whatever socialist unknown it leads to.

Pale pastel indeed. And not content with only flagellating themselves on ObamaCare, House Speaker John Boehner and other GOP leaders continue their needless, self-destructive push for immigration “reform.”

As pointed out in the Washington Post over the weekend, registering a multitude of Hispanics through amnesty could quickly enhance their voting clout in now-solid red states such as Texas and Arizona, possibly “reducing Republicans’ already weak standing with the Hispanic voters (and future voters)” — an unthinkable shot in the foot for the party to inflict on itself.

When Democrats accuse the Tea Party of holding a gun to the heads of the GOP, they have it mixed up. Republicans are holding a gun to their own heads. Why? Certain big business interests insist they do this so they can employ the cheap, unskilled labor that our Democrat-friendly immigration policies produce — and that an amnesty-based “reform” would only perpetuate.

If Republicans wish to win — a big if — it’s time to stop the self-loathing, demand ObamaCare’s repeal and refuse to legalize millions of new Democrats.

But they have “Jar Jar” Boehner as a Leader!

And Jar Jar was the deciding vote for the Empire.

Coincidence? I hope not.

 

The Obama Decision-Making Pipeline

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Walker, Wisconsin Ranger

“Tonight, we tell Wisconsin, we tell our country and we tell people all across the globe that voters really do want leaders who stand up and make the tough decisions,” Governor Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

The Union Thugs and greedy self-absorbed bullies lost. I could not be happier.

The Concession speech: “We are a state that has been deeply divided and it is up to all of us, our side and their side, to listen. To listen to each other and to try to do what is right for everyone in this state,” Barrett told incredulous backers gathered in Milwaukee. “The state remains divided and it is my hope that while we have lively debates, a lively discourse which is healthy in any democracy, that those who are victorious tonight, as well as those of us who are not victorious tonight, can at the end of the day do what is right for Wisconsin families.”

I bet the Union thugs were going “F*ck you!” and throwing things at the screen. Since when do Liberals actually do something for all the people and not just themselves. They don’t.

Besides, exit polls still show Obama ahead of Romney in Wisconsin so the Democrats aren’t going to learn a damn thing from this defeat. Not a damn thing.

And now the punch line: Richard Trumka, the president of the AFL-CIO. “We hope Scott Walker heard Wisconsin: Nobody wants divisive policies.” 🙂 (NBC)

ED Schultz, MSNBC: “Certainly it is not the end and it’s going to be an opportunity for the progressive movement to regroup nationally and understand exactly what they are up against,” a teary-eyed Schultz lamented.

“And this sets the template for the Republicans and tells the right-wing in this country that if they can outfund their opponent they have a real good shot as winning,” Schultz, an enthusiastic supporter of President Barack Obama in 2008 said toward the end of the segment.

Ed Schultz concluded the segment by making a wild assertion. “Scott Walker could very well be indicted in the coming days,” the MSNBC host said.

“So it’s going to be really a fight for the Democrats here in November, no question about it,” Schultz said.

“We’re not just disappointed, this is the end of democracy. We just got outspent $34 million to $4 million. This was the biggest election in America and I hope he keep me on tonight because this hurts us all. Every single one of you out there in the nation, if you’re watching, democracy died tonight,” an emotional proponent of Scott Walker’s recall told a CNN correspondent in Wisconsin on Tuesday night.

Here is a classic Liberal Doublethink. The Unions are the ones who spent the $34 Million Dollars! and Lost!

And this mindless drone doesn’t know it and his brain would probably exploded if it was shown to him.

And doesn’t that demonstrate everything about the Left.

P.s. (from townhall)

Liberal talk radio host Bill Press has a bone to pick…with the Star Spangled Banner. Press said recently on his radio show that his main goal is to get rid of it. At first, Press tries to play off his issue with the National Anthem as being because the song is difficult to sing, but quickly expresses his true feelings about the song:

“It’s an abomination.”

“Are we the only ones who are brave on the planet? I mean all the brave people live here. I mean it’s just stupid I think.”

“I’m embarrassed, I’m embarrassed every time I hear it.”

That’s all Folks, for today…

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

Political Cartoons by Steve Kelley

 Political Cartoons by Chuck Asay

Happy, Happy, Joy Joy…

So they are going to give Obama $2 Trillion Dollars more to spend. Yippee….

So by the end of his 4 years he’ll have spent more than everyone in the first 225 years of the country but don’t worry, it’s not his fault. It’s Bush’s fault. It’s the Republican’s fault.

<<barf bag overload>>

The Congress is addicted to spending. In the last 30 years the debt has risen from $1 trillion now to $16 Trillion by 2013.

But at least they don’t have to have a another battle until after the 2012 re-coronation ceremony for King Obama. That is unless the King decides to just blow the whole thing off and just summarily declare it raised.

Big cuts in government spending would be phased in over a decade. Thousands of programs _ the Park Service, Internal Revenue Service and Labor Department accounts among them _ could be trimmed to levels last seen years ago.

No benefit cuts were envisioned for the Social Security pension system or Medicare, the federal program that provides health care payments to the elderly. But other programs would be scoured for savings. Taxes would be unlikely to rise.

The phasing in of cuts, means they will suddenly phase out and never appear. No cuts in entitlements means they will crash in a few years.

But at least the Political infighting is largely over until the next time. 🙂

The emerging deal could mark a classic compromise, a triumph of divided government that would let both Obama and Republicans claim they had achieved their objectives. 🙂

The first step would take place immediately, raising the debt limit by nearly $1 trillion and cutting spending by a slightly larger amount over a decade.

That would be followed by creation of a new congressional committee that would have until the end of November to recommend $1.8 trillion or more in deficit cuts, targeting benefit programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, or overhauling the tax code. Those deficit cuts would allow a second increase in the debt limit, which would be needed by early next year.

OH GOD! NOT ANOTHER COMMITTEE!!! NO!!!!!!!!

The last one did a lot of good when Obama, who set it up, didn’t like the answers so he ignored it.

If the committee failed to reach its $1.8 trillion target, or Congress failed to approve its recommendations by the end of 2011, lawmakers would then have to vote on a proposed balanced-budget constitutional amendment.

Which would be voted down so no consequence there.

If that failed to pass, automatic spending cuts totaling $1.2 trillion would automatically take effect, and the debt limit would rise by an identical amount.

So more spending.

Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps would be exempt from the automatic cuts, but payments to doctors, nursing homes and other Medicare providers could be trimmed, as could subsidies to insurance companies that offer an alternative to government-run Medicare.

You mean alternatives to  ObamaCare? 🙂

As the president demanded, the deal would allow the debt limit to rise by enough to tide the Treasury over until after the 2012 elections.

Yeah, don’t get in the way of his re-coronation.

But remember that Obama’s target constituency in 2012 is not his base but rather independent and moderate voters. And those fence-sitters love compromise in almost any form. (WP)

I’m an independent, but I don’t sit on no fence!

Losers

Congress: Coming into this debt-ceiling showdown, Congress was about as popular as poison ivy. One can only imagine just how much further that discontent has spread after this high-profile demonstration of brinkmanship and intransigence. Lawmakers — bless their hearts — seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity.

And the Liberal Media will ignore any bits that don’t fit with the mantra or with Campaign Obama.

But maybe we can form a Commission to study it. 🙂

“All you want to do is spend money, buy votes, and say you’re spreading the wealth around.”–Sen. Jeff Session to the Democrats.

Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives in 2006 and gained the White House in 2008. For the past five years, Democrats have controlled the legislative process and for almost three years, Dems have controlled the Executive agencies. Democrat bungling and demagoguery have become the order of the day. The outright lies told to fellow members of congress and to the American people would make Pinocchio blush.

Is it any wonder that Republicans in congress find it hard to trust Democrats?

Consider, for example, the president’s promise that the $787 billion stimulus would create between 3 to 4 million new jobs. Didn’t happen. In fact, with unemployment at 9.2% and even government employment declining, the past thirty months have shown that Obama clearly overpromised and has under-delivered.

Speaker Pelosi promised that Obamacare would create an additional 4 million jobs. Didn’t happen. Furthermore, Democrats promised that under Obamacare, there would be no additional cost to the American taxpayer and they promised that insurance costs would not increase. Instead, Americans find that Obamacare will cost, at a minimum, $400 billion more than Democrats in congress claimed. Insurance companies have increased their rates by almost 25%. Furthermore, the promise that “everyone could keep the insurance they currently have” has all been forgotten. Much to their credit, Republicans argue that the promises of Obama, Reid, Durbin and Pelosi were hollow and would be broken. But, Democrats cling to their myths and distortions like a drowning man to a piece of wood.

When caught telling a whopper, the current crop of Democrat leaders show not a hint of remorse or shame. Democrat leaders see no problem promising Americans that they can expand benefits and coverage to all without ever raising taxes. Democrats figure that once the bill passes, and the inevitable constitutional challenges appear, they can quickly shift gears and rebrand the individual mandate as a tax, no doubt depending upon the fact that few Americans will remember, much less hold them accountable for their earlier promises.

Whether it is Obama, chastising Supreme Court justices at the 2010 State of the Union Address or chastising Republicans for inflammatory comments and demanding an end to patently partisan language and behavior, Obama has proved that he is part of the problem when he could not resist demagoguing Paul Ryan for his courage in putting forth a deficit management-budget cutting plan.

Democrat leadership has espoused a do-as-I-say-not-as-I-do approach to government, resorting to calumny and demagoguery as their tools. Is it any wonder that, in congress, comity and civility are dead?

Then there’s the special case of Tim Geithner, the boy who cried wolf, and his sky-is-falling approach to fear-mongering. Americans were told that May 16 was the deadline to resolve the debt ceiling issue. But, it seems it really wasn’t. Then Americans were told that August 2nd was the deadline to resolve the debt ceiling issue. But, it seems it really wasn’t. Geithner, mouthing some mumbo-jumbo about Asian markets opening, claimed the deadline was really 4pm on July 24th—but, it seems it really wasn’t. Again. And now, it seems as if the debt ceiling window can be extended until August 10th. Sure. Why not?

For an Administration that claims it will have “unprecedented” transparency, Republicans in congress are finding it difficult to get anything in writing on the President’s approach to managing the debt ceiling and cutting the federal budget. Democrats in the Senate claim they are eager to get resolution on the debt ceiling, but Reid won’t even call for cloture on his own proposal, or put it to a vote.

Anyone who isn’t clear on why Republicans in congress are skeptical of Democrat promises has only to look at the Democrat track record. In the past, when children caught a schoolmate in a lie, they used to cry out “liar, liar, pants on fire”. Republicans, acting cautiously when confronted with Democrat lies, are simply too civil to admit the Democrats in congress and the White House have POFUS. Pants On Fire Syndrome.

Republicans don’t trust Democrat promises—not because there are so many new Republican members of congress and not because they are still strangers to one another, but because, sadly, they know and understand each other too well. Familiarity may not always breed contempt, but in the case of the Democrat leadership and the years of broken promises, familiarity might be a good explanation. (Laura Doan)

And if there is one thing Democrats do better than anyone else on the planet, it’s Contempt.

 

Peace, Love and Hope & Change

Let the Orwellian re-write begin (to suit the Left).

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

Charles Krauthammer: Two months and a day before 9/11, terrorism expert Larry C. Johnson published “The Declining Terrorist Threat,” a New York Times op-ed decrying the fact that “Americans are bedeviled by fantasies about terrorism,” when, in reality, “the decade beginning in 2000 will continue the downward trend” in lethal terrorism.

A decade later, Osama bin Laden is dead and the old chorus of pre-9/11 complacency has returned. The war on terror is over — yet again, it seems. Bin Laden was but “a distraction,” writes Peter Beinart, and the war on terror “a mistake from the start.” 9/11 was nothing more than “an isolated case,” argues Ross Douthat. And “bin Laden was always the weak horse.”

The new post-bin Laden dispensation is that the entire decade-long war on terror was an overreaction — as shown by the bin Laden operation itself, which, noted one critic, looks a lot like police work, the kind of law enforcement John Kerry insisted in 2004 was the proper prism through which to address the terror threat.

On the contrary. The bin Laden operation is the perfect vindication of the war on terror. It was made possible precisely by the vast, warlike infrastructure that the Bush administration created post-9/11, a fierce regime of capture and interrogation, of dropped bombs and commando strikes. That regime, of course, followed the more conventional war that brought down the Taliban, scattered and decimated al-Qaeda and made bin Laden a fugitive.

Without all of this, the bin Laden operation could never have happened. Whence came the intelligence that led to Abbottabad? Many places, including from secret prisons in Romania and Poland; from terrorists seized and kidnapped, then subjected to interrogations, sometimes “harsh” or “enhanced”; from Gitmo detainees; from a huge bureaucratic apparatus of surveillance and eavesdropping. In other words, from a Global War on Terror infrastructure that critics, including Barack Obama himself, deplored as a tragic detour from American rectitude.

It was all not just un-American, now say the revisionists, but also unnecessary.

Really? We could never have pulled off the bin Laden raid without a major military presence in Afghanistan. The choppers came from our massive base at Bagram. The jump-off point was Jalalabad. The intelligence-gathering drones fly over Pakistan by grace of an alliance (unreliable but indispensable) forged with the United States to fight the war in Afghanistan.

Even the war in Iraq played an (unintended) role. After its rout from Afghanistan, al-Qaeda chose the troubled waters of Iraq as the central front in its war on America — and suffered a stunning defeat, made particularly humiliating when its fellow Sunni Arabs rose up to join the infidel Americans in subduing it.

Bin Laden declared war on us in 1998. But it was not until 9/11 that we took him seriously. At which point we answered with a declaration of war of our own, offering the brutal, unrelenting and ferocious response that war demands and that police work prohibits.

Including bin Laden’s execution. It’s clear there was no intention of capturing him. And for good reason. Doing so would have been insane, gratuitously granting him a second life of immense publicity on a worldwide stage from which to propagandize.

We came to kill. That is what you do in war. Do that in police work and you’ve committed murder. The Navy SEAL(s) who pulled the fateful trigger would be facing charges, not receiving medals.

You want to say we’ve now won the war? Fine. It’s at least an arguable proposition. After all, the war on terror will end one day, and we will return to policing the odd terrorist nut case. I would argue, however, that while bin Laden’s death marks an extremely important inflection point in the fight against jihadism, it’s far too early to declare victory.

Now, it is one thing to have an argument about whether it’s over. It’s quite another to claim that our reaching this happy day — during which we can even be debating whether victory has been achieved — has nothing to do with the war on terror of the previous decade. Al-Qaeda is not subsiding on its own. It is not retiring from the field, having seen the error of its ways. It is not disappearing because of some inexorable law of history or nature. It is in retreat because of the terrible defeats it suffered once America decided to take up arms against it, a campaign (once) known as the war on terror.
And Just remember it was the LEFT that was screaming about a New Ice Age in 1975, by 1980 it was “Global Warming” and now it’s “Global Climate Change” and some on the Left want to go back to Ice Age but their PR won’t allow it.

After all, it’s all about THEM! 🙂

Political Cartoons by Jerry Holbert

Political Cartoons by Chip Bok

Cartoon