All the Presidents of the past gather around a man sitting on a park bench. That man, with his head bowed appears distraught and hopeless as he contemplates his future. Some of the past Presidents try to console him and look in the direction of the modern Presidents as they exclaim, “What have you done?” Many of the modern Presidents behind Barack Obama seem to congratulate each other on their great success oblivious to the man on the bench. In front of the man, paper trash is blowing in the dust. Crumpled dollar bills, Amendments of the Bill of Rights and like a whisper—the U S Constitution beneath the foot of Barack Obama
presidents - history

You might be interested


Reply Attach
  • 12

    Sad Keanu

    • Ertrov
    • December 7, 2011, 1:33 pm
  • 4

    It's a cool piece of artwork, but you can't forget that it's fiction. He's not stepping on the constitution, even metaphorically. And don't go running your mouth about passing the HealthCare Law, that only every democrat has tried to pass when their in office, all the way back to John F. Kennedy. It only requires everyone have insurance and if they can't afford it, they get it free. It's just like Car Insurance or Having a Driver's License, you have to have it in order to drive, so who's to say that's unconstitutional? Nobody. Nobody fights it or anything to that effect, and that actually costs you money.

    Edit: Also, nobody says you have to drive just like nobody says you have to live here.

    Hate to be the political a**hole here, but this picture is just simply untrue.

    I, however, do disagree with any gun control laws.

    Trying to control guns is like trying to control drugs, you can pass all the laws you want but the more you restrict it the worse the epidemic (violence or drugs) will get.
    - CTUDirector December 7, 2011, 9:59 am

    1.) take a look at this.

    2.) it's not just about the presidents it's about the government in general. the president shouldn't be blamed for this but the government as a whole is represented by the president in the picture. in the beginning the Gov. was for the people (represented in the picture by the founding fathers and presidents on the left (notice how there are more people on the left side) the new government and modern day thinkers who seem to look more for power are represented on the left side. notice the gap between the two sides directly behind obama. the guy who drew this had specific presidents whom he believed were the ones most in favor of power to the government and began this shift away from the American people (hence them clapping). Obama not facing the man shows him not facing the people who he is there to protect (dont get me wrong i believe he really is doing what he thinks is best for us but in the words of allen grant "Some of the worst things imaginable have been done with the best intentions.")
    - 24paperwings December 7, 2011, 11:03 am
    i have to say now i didn't write that i got it from the same place i got the picture from
    - drakenguard December 7, 2011, 1:25 pm
    good to know
    - CTUDirector December 7, 2011, 1:41 pm
    the difference between the car and health insurance is the one is state law and the other is fed and the fed gov should not require nothing out of the people.
    - gw2250 December 7, 2011, 7:07 pm
    woah, woah, where's the a-hole bit fit in? you're just voicing a generally socialist view that more conservative americans have been suppressing for the last half century, because of the idea of universal healthcare being a socialist policy. Quite frankly, the conservative side opposes such socialist policies, even though the country needs them right now.
    - Bekenel December 7, 2011, 7:37 pm
    Driver's License however is required by federal law and you do have to pay for it.
    - CTUDirector December 7, 2011, 10:33 pm
    actually, Obama saught to get free healthcare for people who cant afford it. instead of trying to reduce the cost of healthcare universally so more people can afford it, he instead forced companies to accept people with prior conditions. Yes i believe people with prior conditions should be allowed healthcare, but all this does is increase the cost of healthcare, in turn making things worse.
    - bufus101 December 7, 2011, 10:41 pm
    He also made government healthcare stronger. Those corporations that do healthcare don't have to take them. They can turn them away towards the government.
    - CTUDirector December 8, 2011, 1:11 am
    Drivers license are required by state gov unless you are a truck driver or hailing haz-mat. When I look at my license it dose not say Fed licenses it says state of Minnesota. I dont have to have it if I don't want to drive.
    - gw2250 December 8, 2011, 5:56 pm
    But under federal law, you must have a drivers license from your residential state. (home state).
    - CTUDirector December 8, 2011, 10:07 pm
    no when i moved i was turn in my old license and was ishued a new license. Lets just agree to disagree and call it that thier is no reason to fight about this you will never see it my way and i will never see it yours.
    - gw2250 December 8, 2011, 10:42 pm
    well you are both technicly right, if you want to drive you need a license, this is a law of the US, but the US doesnt give out driver licenses only states do and you need one from the state you are from, but that license is good for driving in any state
    - drakenguard December 9, 2011, 2:59 am
    but the federal government dose not require us to and that is point.
    - gw2250 December 9, 2011, 3:12 am
    Yes it does. In order to drive, ANYWHERE, in the United States, you must have a drivers' license. Regardless of if the licenses are issued from states, it is an interstate license to drive. It's federal law that it is up to the states to issue licenses but it is up to the federal government to keep them regulated and in order.
    - CTUDirector December 9, 2011, 9:20 am
    NO! If I do not want a drive I do need a licenses i am not required to have if i choose not to drive. So why should i be forced to have health insurance.
    - gw2250 December 9, 2011, 11:59 pm
    If it's free, why wouldn't you want it?
    - CTUDirector December 10, 2011, 1:10 am
    but you do not have to drive.. DH
    - CHIEF July 17, 2012, 12:32 am
    How many people do you think are actually ambitious enough to walk in america anymore?
    - CTUDirector July 18, 2012, 10:09 pm
    we walk all the time but we don't walk to work or the store. on average we must drive due the the greater distances we must travel for live. so far this week I have ridden my mountain bike 90 miles. how many miles has your ambition taken you this week?
    - johnecash July 19, 2012, 11:20 am
    There is nothing in life that is free. Some one some where has to pay for it. Thats a common misconception by liberals.
    Yes you must have insurance to drive, but you don't have to drive. I don't want a tax on life.
    - johnecash July 19, 2012, 11:22 am
    If you want to drive on a PUBLIC road then yes you need a license but not on private roads. So no you don't need it to drive ANYWHERE in the US.
    - johnecash July 19, 2012, 11:24 am
    no matter what they say I am right behind you. Many rednecks are like "they cant make me pay for stuff". They just dont know the benefits. I lived with this my whole life and it is good. I can go to the doctor anytime and just have to pay a little for my medicine. 5 euro for medicine I would have to pay 25.
    It is like with a car. If you never experinced an electric window in your car you will never miss it.
    They dont see the whole. You can do any kind of sport without paying alot for insurance. Most people probably think that it costs as much as normal insurance, no that is what it is for. The state and/or your employer pays one half and you pay the other. So it costs just half of what a normal insurance costs.
    I had many discussions with people. They were all like "I dont want the state to make me pay for stuff" and saying you have to pay taxes and so on didnt help. But most of them also said "I dont want the state to make me buckle up, it is my safety and I decide what to do with it" seriously, that is what they said. It is like saying the government cant tell me not to kill people it is my decision if I want to kill someone. It is just senseless, they want to help and benefit you, and all the people act like they only want to do you harm.
    Sick people makes a sick nation, that is why leaders of nation always try to do the best for their people, they also live in this country. And you can see what happens to leaders that dont want to do it, they get overthrown at some point.
    - Vans July 19, 2012, 6:18 pm
    Its a sad day when you think the state can take better care of you than you can.
    I see you are for the state mandated seat belt law that keeps people safe. Yet I have never seen a motorcycle policeman wearing a seat belt. Well should there also be a law that says you must wash your hands after each trip to the bathroom, or a law that says no swimming 30 min after you eat. People who believe in a nanny state like you speak of remind me of a movie I saw where natural selection is no longer with apart of life.
    - johnecash July 20, 2012, 9:47 am
    Look at the edit.
    - CTUDirector July 21, 2012, 1:30 am
    The no swimming thing for 30 minutes after eating is bull. Proved to be bull on mythbusters.
    - CTUDirector July 21, 2012, 1:34 am
    Thank you for the update but I hope the point was not lost
    - johnecash July 21, 2012, 10:31 am
  • 2

    that's deep! +3

  • 1

    Pretty cool man

  • 1

    i will also add theres a website for this picture that puts everything the artist thought when paining this picture and what each document means, but i havnt been able to refind the link for it

  • 1

    I would hang this in my house

  • 0

    So this guy on the bench is all sad because Obama got his health care plan (the individual mandate) passed into law? And the health care plan is trampling on the constitution? That's what this is about? The health care law does not require someone to have health insurance, it makes you decide between buying health insurance (which would cost you money) or paying a tax (as Roberts put it) which would also cost you money. Except that the provision in the law that would make you pay that tax for not buying health insurance doesn't have an enforcement clause in it. So the gov't doesn't have a way to collect that tax from you. Ooooh, the big bad gov't! The law is certainly not perfect, but as a person that does buy health insurance already, I am inclined to like it: people with pre-existing conditions must be covered-good, kids staying on their parents health insurance plans longer-good, millions of more people getting health insurance-good. And to the people who think it's unconstitutional-get over it-supreme court says it is. And if you think it's unfair-fine. I think it's unfair that people without health insurance can still get health care! How about you take your supposed 'constitutional freedom' and decline health insurance-just understand that you won't receive any health care when you get sick, or break a bone, or something else? What the hell good is all your chest-thumping going to do you then? But that is not the way we treat people in this country, so even if you don't buy health insurance you still receive health care--and that fact is what makes health insurance so expensive, and in turn why so many people don't have it. And health care is something that everyone, without exception, will need at some point in their lives, so why the hell shouldn't everyone pay a little something for health care? I personally think the gov't should provide free health care for everyone, and we just pay a higher consumption tax. But apparently too many people in the gov't think that's 'unamerican' or some shit.
    But if Obama's health care law is some terrible unconstitutional over-reach, why not look at other president's unconstitutional over-reaches? Like say his predecessor? That administration began designating anyone they deemed suitable an 'enemy combatant' a designation that effectively stripped people of their rights under US law, even US citizens. Take the case of a guy named Jose Pedia (sp?), an american citizen, dubbed an 'enemy combatant', was arrested inside the US for no other cause. He was held for almost four years in jail without being charged, without access to an attorney or given any other constitutional protection due an american citizen (which is supposed to be defended by the govt!). And yes, he was eventually charged and convicted of something, but only after four years and several groups threatened to sue the govt. That is f*ing unconstitutional, and if it can happen to one US citizen, it can happen to any of us. His only problem was not being white, so most people didn't give a shit or even take notice in the first place.
    For whatever my 2 cents is worth on a 7 month old post is....
    But if you're still reading this I'm betting your real question is what the hell am I doing posting this kind of rambling nonsense at 11:30 on a friday night? Yeaaaaah, I can't really answer that either;)

Related Posts