Skip to comments.Controversial Artist Depicts Obama Trampling The Constitution (Very fitting painting)
Posted on 02/04/2012 12:46:55 PM PST by GR_Jr.
Provo, Utah (CBS Las Vegas) - In front of the White House a man is sitting on a park bench in the throes of depression. He is surrounded by all 43 presidents. In the forefront, purposefully ignoring the depressed man is President Obama, whose right foot is stepping on the Constitution. James Madison is next to Obama, pleading with him to stop.
This tableau is called The Forgotten Man, a painting by Jon McNaughton, an artist who is known for his politically-charged work.
The painting, which uses objects such as discarded dollar bills as symbols and scraps of paper with individual constitutional amendments scrawled onto them, has been making the rounds across the Internet.
The responses have ranged from sarcastic Well trade you this peasant for that constitution. Well even throw in the bench. to Photoshop works of art.
McNaughton released an accompanying YouTube video for his painting. The video shows McNaughton painting the piece with a soundtrack that emulates a movie trailer.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegas.cbslocal.com ...
So whats the controversy, it’s true. But it could be true for Hillery, Nancy, Barney, or many other donks as well. They are all in on this and they are getting bolder all the time.
Think you’ll want to see this painting.
Why would he object?
He’s stated he wants Supreme Court Justices “unencumbered” by the Constitution.....!!!
Here is a link to a larger copy ogf the painting:
If obama stepped on it, then bush threw it on the ground so he could do so.
So what’s the controversial part? Thanks GR_Jr.
After closer look, I like this painting. Not so much because it shows obama stepping on the constitution, but because it shows all the past presidents NOT standing together. There is an obvious split and some of them are applauding. Notice GW is portrayed on the obama side of the “split”.
I don’t see that as particularly controversial.
Controversial would be with Lincoln, no respecter of the Constitution himself, pointing a derringer behind The One’s ear.
Sorta like all those unremarked words, images and film calling for the demise of W...
The controversial part is that the libs don’t like it when you tell the truth about them.
Only a liberal considers the truth to be ‘controversial’.
Only in the minds of the liberal lap dog media.
keep in mind:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. "
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED
do you consent to working the majority of your life to support others via taxation? besides the whippings, how is that any different from slavery?
Looks like Clinton clapping. Carter should be in there too.
Is that LBJ clapping too? And Roosevelt??????
That's an understatement. Our form of government, once a voluntary union, has completely changed because of him.
Are you blind? That’s teddy roosevelt!
Actually, very well done. I think I’d have put LBJ over there smiling with FDR. And I don’t see Jimmuh. But it’s fascinating to look around at the various presidents, who are extremely well portrayed.
Actually, I think Bush is pointing at the poor guy out of work who is sitting on the bench, suggesting that he feels sympathy for him—which none of the libtards do. And certainly not Obama, who scorns them all.
Very fitting that FDR and Clinton are applauding.
Not completely, but I was also commenting while looking at the smaller picture.
The larger image makes it easier to see. Jimmah is in there, behind Clinton.
I like the painting. I’m not sure why the artist chose to place LBJ on the side with reagan and washington. He should be over to the right with the bushes, if not out in front applauding next to slick wilie.
Woodrow Wilson is giving an approving look, as well he should.
Yeah, bush is looking that direction but he stands with the scoundrels. I’d say that is an accurate depiction of him...and his daddy is right behind him. Perfect.
Just exercising his First Amendment right. If he bought the flag he can do with it as he pleases. /S
I would guess that if he bought the flag, he did so with taxpayer dollars. And probably he got one of his special Secret Service agents, brought with him from Chicago, to lay it on the ground for him to trample on.
So this guy is called a “controversial artist”.....got it.
Bush is gone dude, get over it........
This painting has been around for awhile. It’s good (I like the way they have Bush on the left, pointing to the right!) but I’ve really wanted one of its brother paintings, One Nation Under God.
I think what was holding me back is that the artist is a strong Mormon, and a little uncertain if I want to support that.
All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihis Decision that Putative President Obama Is a Natural Born Citizen
A long but fascinating and well-reasoned discussion of the many flaws in Malihi’s decision.
Let’s pray the OTHER courts examining this matter are either more objective or refuse to be intimidated by Obozo and his malicious minions.
Either we have a Constitution or we do not. If we do, it needs to be enforced.
If we DO NOT, you and/or your children and grandchildren are not going to like what comes next!
Here’s a significant paragraph from the analysis at the link: (Discussing an earlier case and subsequent decision)
“It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II natural born Citizen is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders and Framers intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the natural born Citizen clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders and Framers intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a natural born Citizen is has no historical or legal support.”
This is an important issue and I commend the entire analysis to you.
Why don’t you go find something to jump off of?
It's too late Abe!
Where has everyone been? We all discussed this artist in depth back in 2010.
I like that part of the painting too. GW, showing his “compassionate conservatism” is obviously concerned for the man, but he’s standing with the left unable to realize that his policies contributed to getting the man to his down and out point.
I remember this being posted back then too, but it’s just coming up again because of something Rachel Maddow said or did regarding the painting. I’m not interested in her blathering so I only read the headline at Druge.
Who are those two guys standing behind Ford? I cannot figure those two out. are supposed to be Hoover and coolidge? If so, it is not a very good likeness.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.