Archive for the ‘political commentary’ category

Hey Ralphie!

March 12, 2008

I’m standing in the toothpaste aisle of the grocery store.  There is probably fifty types of toothpaste to choose from.  There’s even lemon flavored toothpaste!   The United States is full of choices, and we love choices.  Somebody is out there rubbing lemon flavoring all over the inside of their mouth.   

So in the land of choices, why don’t we expect the same thing in our political elections?  Let’s face it candidates are products and are marketed as so.  John McCain is the tough, durable truck.  Barack Obama is the fabric softener that will make your clothes feel good against your skin.  Hillary Clinton is the cereal that is good for you, but you aren’t sure what’s really in it.   

George Bush was sold to us as a guy you want to have a beer with.  Of course he’s an alcoholic, so how’d that work out?  Personally I don’t want to have a beer with a president – I want someone who will save our country from corporatists, will uphold the Constitution, and show the world what a great country this is.   

Ralph Nader announced recently that he’ll run for the third time.  The reason for his candidacy is always the same.  Republicans and democrats have lost their focus and favor corporations over the people.  These two parties have lead us into a war full of lies, destroyed the educational system to a point where most U.S. citizens believe the bible should be a text book, stripped away freedoms and rights,  taken apart regulatory agencies, destroyed the middle class in order to beef up corporations, and on and on.   

Ralph Nader is a viable candidate.  Ralph Nader did not cause Al Gore or John Kerry to lose the elections.  Gore and Kerry caused their losses.  In 2000 Nader’s percentage was 2.7 and in 2004 he received half of one percent.  Al Gore is a brilliant man, who should have had a greater voting percentage than George Bush, but of course U.S. citizens would rather have a beer with their alcoholic president than a talk with a president that might inspired them or bring this country back to the state of a world power – not just an oil greedy military power.  

These coming elections will be the same as the last two.  The television debates or commercials between the republican and the democratic candidate will be made up of two bland sour cream dips, and they will leave out the spicier dip just like in the past.

– Jake Drew

 Come become a trial-member at and receive a full membership!  


The Altered State of the Union

February 11, 2008

I learned during the Reagan years to never watch a televised speech given by him.  He truly was the greatest actor of our time.  Forget Marlon Brando or the Fonda family – no one compared to Ronald Reagan!  He could make launching missiles toward Russia sound and seem like the right thing to do.  Oh yeah!  He did do that once – he was just joking around though.     

So I read President Bush’s last State of the Union address.  The body of the speech was a muddled mess of blurbs about housing, trade/jobs, terrorism, medicare, education, and more about there are people that don’t like our freedoms.  He did start out making an interesting point about the position of our politician’s responsibility to the country.  He opened with:

“…,All of us were sent to Washington to carry out the people’s business.  That is the purpose of this body.  It is the meaning of our oath. And it remains our charge to keep,….  So in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free people to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives and their futures,….” 

And the President ended the speech on this note about “We, the people”,….:  

“…,Governor Morris was asked to draft the preamble to our new Constitution, he offered an important revision and opened with words that changed the course of our Nation and the history of the world: “We the people.” …,As we continue to trust the people, our Nation will prosper, our liberty will be secure, and the State of our Union will remain strong.  So tonight, with confidence in freedom’s power, and trust in the people, let us set forth to do their business.”

I think about the approval ratings of the President and Congress, which hovers around twenty percent.  He can’t honestly believe he’s carrying out what the people want.  We are being held hostage by this administration.  Maybe the only thing that can save us over the next year would be a hostage negotiator.  

Jake Drew

For All the News Fit to Cartoon – Come Visit us at

Here’s a FISH!

January 27, 2008

Out walking one night I came upon an alley, and when I looked down it I saw a bunch of thugs beating the hell out of my Uncle Sam.  The thugs saw me and came toward me.  I was way too much in shock and awe to run.  One of the thugs reached into his pocket and handled me $600 and told me to get lost.  I took the money and ran.

That’s what the Bush administration and congress did on Thursday to the people of the United States.  The president thinks that borrowing an estimated 150 billion dollars and throwing it at the people will solve the economic problems of this country.  How?   

Well we’ll find out on January 28th with his final State of the Union address.  Now like presidential candidate John McCain I can tell you I don’t understand economics, but I think I have some common sense.   

Some of the details of the speech seem to involve households receiving tax rebates of between $300- $1,200 and $300 for each child that they have.   Another part of the package involves tax cuts for businesses, giving firms incentives to invest in new facilities, development, upgrades, employment,….

Small companies will see lenient laws on expense write offs, and companies in financial difficulties will get rebates for taxes already paid.  

If the expectation is that the average citizen will go out and buy more “toys” manufactured in China, who probably will finance the borrowed $150 billion, I truly hope they are wrong.  The best thing anyone could do with this “one-time rebate” is pay off bills or sock it away.

If we are in so much trouble as a nation, then throwing more borrowed money at it won’t work.   If we all go out and spend this “one-time” rebate on more consumer goods, who benefits?  It’s not the person buying this stuff – it’s the corporations and stock holders!  Unless you plan on going into a Wal-Mart or Target and buying products manufactured in the USA — well, first off good luck finding something made in the United States.

That’s the point!  That rebate money won’t even go back into your community!  If there’s unemployment, housing, and infra-structure problems going on, the money should be put into programs to solve these issues, so people will have financial security to purchase more toys.

No wait – that’s a Franklin Roosevelt concept.  This is an administration and congress that prefers Herbert Hoover.  They prefer to sell off everything like a yard sale.   Maybe looking at it from a religious perspective would be better because our government loves that; you can give a person a fish to eat or teach him to fish.      

Jake Drew

For All the News Fit to Cartoon – Come Visit us at

Pull Over and Stop!

January 20, 2008

President Bush looked like a guy walking along the highway with an empty gas can as he returned from Saudi Arabia this week.  Dana Perino, the mile a minute voice for the White House stated, “The president said there’s a hope that as a result of these conversations that OPEC would be encouraged to authorize an increase in production,….”.  

There’s no hope!  George went begging, telling the Saudis, “Paying more for gasoline hurts some of the American families.  High energy prices can damage consuming economies,…, it could cause our economy to slow down, and if the economy slows down, there will be less barrels of oil purchased.” 

How could King Abdullah not laugh at such a threat?!  Then the best part George sees that his threats are useless, so he offers King Abdullah twenty billion dollars in weaponry, such as hummers and 900 satellite guided bombs.   Eisenhower is probably rolling an Edsel in Heaven right now.

Wasn’t it George Bush that told the United States that we were addicted to oil, and that we have to get away from relying on foreign oil?  Well that observation whizzed by us like the Indy 500.

In the last week I’ve noticed all these articles coming out about the new automobiles on the market.   

General Motors’ message has two themes: Get younger and greener. They are coming out with a big, tough Hummer HX Concept with a 304-horsepower 3.6-liter V6 engine and 6-speed automatic transmission, but will be able to consume E85.  

Ford Motors is moving in the right direction by parking their product lines like Freestar minivan, the monster-sized Excursion SUV, the Lincoln Aviator mid-sized SUV and LS sport sedan.

Ford plans to inch along into 2010 with the arrival of a sub-compact car, the Verve.  Also they have an advanced engine in the works, “EcoBoost”, which uses twenty percent less fuel.  The technology debuts as a 340-horsepower 3.5-liter V-6 in the Lincoln MKS luxury sedan in 2009. 

Pickup trucks are sliding out of control like a truck on an icy road,  Ford and Chrysler hopes to lure sales back by painting the trucks in red, white and blue, better-performance, packed full of luxury trimmings, like softer fabrics with richer colors, and the latest automotive gadgets.  Yee-ha, Toby Keith! 

But get this!  France’s MDI Group headed by Guy Negre has come up with an engine that could revolutionize the auto industry.  The engine could be the biggest technology advancement of the century.   Compressed Air Technology (CAT) automobiles would leave all other cars along the roadside with it’s significant economical and environmental advantages.

India’s Tata Motors has signed on to produce the car.   The air car/mini-CAT refuels in minutes from a special air compressor, can run about 125 miles on a tank of air, reaching top speeds of 70 miles per hour.  The cost of the car – around $7000.  The car has a fiber glass body, which will freak out U.S. drivers, but it is powered by the expansion of compressed air, using no combustion at all, and the exhaust — well, that would be air, which is clean and cool enough for use in the internal air conditioning system.

While the rest of the world is on the move, The United States seems to be that guy you run into on the street, who hits you up for five bucks because he ran out of gas.   

 Jake Drew

Come Visit us at

Say What?!

December 31, 2007

The tragic assassination of Benazir Bhutto, former prime minister and the principal contender in Pakistan’s elections in the next few weeks, leaves a lot of questions to be answered or may never to be answered.

So far her death is in question as to whether she was shot or hit her head on the sun roof of the vehicle.  Was al-Qaeda responsible?   The Bush Administration comes out claiming that her assassination was a tragedy and they were supporting her in the elections, but their support has always been behind President Pervez Musharraf.  Heck!  The USA has given him an estimated $10 billion to fight terrorism. 

One question that I think ties into all this is what did Bhutto mean that Osama bin Laden was killed?   

Not long ago, November second, she made this comment on David Frost’s show, “Frost Over the World”, which is broadcast on Al Jazeera English television.  Sir David Frost asked her about the previous threats of assassination against her.  Bhutto responded that she had contacted Musharraf.  She felt that rather than focus on the organizations that it would be more important to go after three people who supported, financed, and organized these groups. 

Sir David pushed further in getting her to mention who these three were, and Bhutto pretty much named them on the television.

Bhutto answered with no hesitation, “Yes, well one of them is a very key figure in security. He’s a former military officer. He’s someone who’s had dealings… and he also had dealings with Omar Sheikh (Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh), the man who murdered Osama bin Laden.” 

Say what?  The man who murdered bin Laden?

Now maybe Sir David Frost isn’t the interviewer he used to be before the “Sir” part was added to his name because he never questioned what she had just said.

And then another vague message by bin Laden in a video shows up days after Bhutto’s death.  Her accusation opens up a whole bunch of questions into her assassination.   

You can see the video on YouTube.  The questioning starts about 4:30 into the interview, but it are worth watching the whole interview.

While you are at it – Come join us at  

Jake Drew 

NASA in Denial

July 2, 2007

NASA in Denial

Albanian Love Child

June 26, 2007

Albanian Love Child