Artist Depicts obAMATEUR Trampling the Constitution

obAMATEUR Tramples the Consitution

Discuss, have at it.

Let’s see, for example …. just recently Barak Hussein Obama ignored the religious freedom and “practice thereof” (1st Amendment for you products of government schools) of millions of Americans by FORCING them to disregard their religious beliefs, through the actions of the Dept of HHS regulations by not extending an exemption, and to provide insurance which covers contraceptive medications and other procedures by Catholic business owners, Catholic hospitals, etc. etc.

Also notice that it does not take effect until after the election, since he is too much of a coward to defend his position during an election year.

Of course the usual liberal and drone reaction (especially wally’s) will be:

 Here is a little reminder for us conservatives when trying to argue with drones (like wally):

37 thoughts on “Artist Depicts obAMATEUR Trampling the Constitution

  1. dennis February 5, 2012 / 4:26 pm

    I wondered how long it would take for someone here to get around to this. It’s funny how the same folks who pumped up this blog for Bush when he was violating the Constitution and plunging the nation into unprovoked war are now popping gaskets over Barack Obama.

    To wit: it was George W. Bush who signed record numbers of executive orders, signing statements, the so-called Patriot Act, the Warner Defense Authorization Act, the Military Commissions Act – all directed against the rights and liberties guaranteed by our Constitution. In 2006 the Supreme Court ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration had violated both U.S. and international law (Article 3 of Geneva Conventions), while in Boumediene v. Bush the court said that “the laws and Constitution are designed to survive, and remain in force, in extraordinary times.”

    I would note also that it was Mr. Bush who first waged undeclared and unfunded wars on Afghanistan and Iraq. It was the Bush administration who said the American people were not being spied on by the NSA, that our phones weren’t being tapped and our actions on the Internet not monitored – when in fact all these things were happening. It was Mr. Bush who blocked an investigation into the 9/11 attacks for over 2 years, saying it would be a waste of resources needed to fight terrorism. And finally, after two unfunded wars accompanied by Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, it’s Obama who set the U.S. on the path to fiscal purgatory?

    Although Obama has too easily followed precedents set by the Bush administration, I don’t believe this conservative Supreme Court has found him guilty of breaking any laws. So logically and constitutionally what makes Obama the central villain in this artist’s rendering?

    • Cluster February 5, 2012 / 5:39 pm

      Well first of all, international law has nothing to do with the constitution, and secondly the SC is hardly conservative – you are familiar with Ginsburg, Sotomayer, Kagan, and Kennedy right? So why apply that label to a governmental body that is suppose to be apolitical?

      Other than that you are free to continue your Bush bashing. Obviously you are still consumed with the man who has not been in office for over 3 years. Weird but then again so are you.

    • tiredoflibbs February 5, 2012 / 7:15 pm

      Wow, Denny, Bush had Congressional approval for Iraq while obAMATEUR did not for Libya. ObAMATEUR bypassed Congress for that unprovoked war on a nation that was not a threat to us. His action shot down that tired and overused talking point for you there denny.

      Uh, I also believe Vietnam came before Iraq. Kindly show us the declaration of war for that one by Kennedy/Johnson.

      Also FISA was a Carter construct plus Clinton used it on Americans who worked for foreign corporations in order to gain advantage in trade agreements.

      Thanks for proving my point Denny. You reacted as I predicted.

    • Rightlane February 9, 2012 / 11:02 pm

      Dennis, your augment’s premise is based on logical fallacy. It is a red herring. Obama’s error(s) are no more justified by Bush’s error(s) than Bush would be, because of Clinton’s. Your assertions are ridicules, because your premise is trash.

      fallacy   fal•la•cy [ fal-uh-see] noun, plural -cies.
      1. a deceptive, misleading, or false notion, belief, etc.: That the world is flat was at one time a popular fallacy.
      2. a misleading or unsound argument.
      3. deceptive, misleading, or false nature; erroneousness.
      4. Logic . any of various types of erroneous reasoning that render arguments logically unsound.
      5. Obsolete . deception. (

  2. James February 5, 2012 / 5:10 pm

    obama is the worst president in american history. Remember when the hypocrytes on the left were going nuts over make believe allegations that President Bush had violated the Constitution. Now obama has shredded the constitution to push his liberal bullshit down everyones throats and now the hypocrytes are all silent. obama and holder should both be sitting in a jail cell wearing orange over fast and furious.

    • Cluster February 5, 2012 / 5:43 pm

      I agree on the fast and furious charge. It is extremely and blatantly hypocritical of the media and liberals to ignore this crime. Holder should be fired and investigated at the very least.

      And I still haven’t found the part in the constitution where it says that the federal government has the responsibility to ensure that everyone has health insurance.

  3. dennis February 5, 2012 / 8:26 pm

    Cluster, in Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have a right to habeas corpus under the Constitution, and that Bush’s Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right. I’ll give you that it wasn’t the conservative justices who made that ruling.

    The so-called Patriot Act and Warner Defense Authorization Act also adversely affect rights and liberties guaranteed under the Constitution. As did the NSA’s warrantless wiretapping under the terrorist surveillance program started by the Bush admin.There are plenty more examples of Bush’s constitutional abuse, ref – I could offer many more references if I had time.

    Obama seems content to pursue Bush’s unconstitutional policies any number of ways, which I find just as objectionable. I’m not “consumed with” either guy, as most of you definitely are. The question I asked is why Obama is the focus of the painting and so much right-wing ire, when the precedent for blatant recent breaches of the law and Constitution, some of which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court, were set by his predecessor. To whom Mark and Matt had a shrine erected right here, where many of you attended daily.

    • dbschmidt February 5, 2012 / 8:34 pm

      You did notice that GW Bush, as with his father, are both depicted as Progressives–even if the lite version. Go to the artist’s website, click on the painting and read what he believed about each President. Pretty accurate and not so good (same as me) for GW Bush.

      • dennis February 5, 2012 / 10:59 pm

        Thanks for the link db, I’ve seen McNaughton’s website, video etc a long time ago. He claims the work to be non-partisan and also dodges the question of disrespect, claiming the painting “symbolically suggests the actions of Obama as well as other presidents.” However he has Obama alone standing on the Constitution, an act clearly unprecedented in the context of the scene he depicts. His claims of objectivity or depth of meaning are, to borrow from Newt Gingrich, pious baloney.

        It’s not McNaughton’s only work in which Obama is prominently depicted as a ridiculous figure. His handling of such subjects would be less pretentious if he approached them as editorial cartoons instead of fine art. It’s all marketing of course, and I’m sure it will get him a steady flow of cash as long as Obama remains in office. But doing propaganda with a paintbrush doesn’t earn artistic props and only impresses those with crude sensibilities.

    • tiredoflibbs February 5, 2012 / 10:07 pm

      “the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have a right to habeas corpus under the Constitution”

      “breaches of the law and Constitution, some of which have been affirmed by the Supreme Court”

      Uh, denny, these means nothing…..

      ….the Supreme Court, at one time, affirmed the right to own slaves, that slaves were property and had to be returned to their owners, and other bad decisions.

      The extension of rights to non-combatant, non-citizen terrorists was wrong. The precedent set during WWII on German infiltrators in this country is proof of that. Precedents were set long before Bush was President and were used by Democrat administrations such as FISA. But of course, no one took notice until it could be used as a battering ram against a Republican.

      Still there is no precedent set for bypassing Congress for military action in Libya. You claim not to be “consumed” by obAMATEUR but you are here regularly defending him and regurgitating the dumbed down talking points.

      You say one thing, but your actions are something else, just like the obAMATEUR.

  4. dennis February 6, 2012 / 12:26 am

    Cluster: “Well first of all, international law has nothing to do with the constitution…”

    Article VI: “…all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.”

    The Supreme Court held as a matter of treaty interpretation that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to persons detained in the armed conflict with Al Qaeda. Justice Kennedy added this emphasis in his concurrence:

    “The provision is part of a treaty the United States has ratified and thus accepted as binding law. . . . By Act of Congress, moreover, violations of Common Article 3 are considered ‘war crimes,’ punishable as federal offenses, when committed by or against United States nationals and military personnel. See 18 U. S. C. § 2441. There should be no doubt, then, that Common Article 3 is part of the law of war as that term is used in §821.”

    In other words, CA3 is “binding” in and of itself, and as incorporated in the War Crimes Act, and as incorporated in 821.

    This means both that the President has a constitutional obligation to faithfully execute Common Article 3 as applied to Al Qaeda (because the treaty is the Supreme Law of the Land per Article VI of the Constitution), and that violations of CA3 are prosecutable as war crimes under 18 U.S.C. § 2441.

    • tiredoflibbs February 6, 2012 / 7:10 am

      Denny, the Geneva Convention Treaty applied to uniformed combatant soldiers. You do know that there are International Laws that the US has not ratified? Therefore in those cases, international laws and the Constitution are separate.

      However, it did not recognize infiltrators and spies out of uniform. Under the treaty, those individuals were dealt with by the laws of the individual countries. These people, if given a trial or military tribunal, were more than likely shot or hanged. The Geneva Convention recognized this.

      German infiltrators were captured on US soil and among Americans in the Battle of the Bulge. They were dealt with military tribunals acceptable to the Geneva Convention. The same Geneva Convention Treaty signed by the US. Now another Supreme Court comes along and says that this also applies to non-combatants. Well this is not the first time they got something wrong. Again, a point you so conveniently ignore, is that the Supreme Court held up slavery as legitimate ownership of an individual.

      Denny the drone, I love the way you justify obAMATEUR’s behavior by trying to pathetically cite precedents of the previous administration. But that does not excuse his behavior and you are going out of your way not to put blame on him stating “he is just doing what Bush did”.

      I am still waiting for that declaration of war I asked you to provide since you say Iraq set the precedent for obAMATEUR’s actions in Libya.

      Denny the Drone acts as I predicted.

    • Cluster February 6, 2012 / 8:22 am


      Tired beat me too it, and said it better than I could. Islamic terrorists do not fall under Geneva Convention accords. Period, end of sentence, end of argument.

      If you would like for those murderous, brainless, misogynist, religious zealot thugs to be recognized under the Geneva accords, as I am sure you do, please join them and convince them to fight in uniform, under the flag of a sovereign country and to recognize the rules of war. Godspeed.

  5. Green Mountain Boy February 6, 2012 / 1:14 pm

    I thought barky was elected because the people were tired of GWB? Yet he continued every major policy that GWB administration brought in force.

    The anti-Bush indeed

  6. dennis February 6, 2012 / 3:33 pm

    Cluster and tired, the Bush admin was remiss in not having you argue their cases before the high court. I’m sure you would have set those judges straight and prevented Bush’s record from being tainted by their flawed opinions.

    It is doubly unfortunate that now there remains the possibility, if not the likelihood, that George Bush could be indicted for war crimes in any of the countries that are signatory to the Geneva Conventions. Moral outrage will persist against him in any case. Just a year ago he canceled a trip to Switzerland due to protests planned by human rights groups over the treatment of detainees at Guantánamo Bay – see

    As an aside, it’s important to remember not all the detainees at Guantanamo and other prison sites were terrorists. Many were captured by bounty hunters and sold for cash, some were innocent civilians who were kidnapped outright.

    Tired, you’re wrong – I cut Obama no slack at all for continuing policies in violation of the Constitution and the Geneva Conventions. It’s a travesty and I have no problem saying so. However you admit of no such thing for your darling Mr. Bush, even after specific cases are cited and the Supreme Court has ruled against him. Everyone reviling Obama here has a double standard when it comes to matters of legal precedent, constitutionality and the original namesake of this blog.

    Of course so does the artist McNaughton, which brings us full circle. Those who buy prints of this painting thinking they are investing in fine art are the same kind of people who read Glenn Beck believing they’re exposing themselves to the ideas of a great thinker.

    • neocon1 February 6, 2012 / 5:08 pm

      Bush could be indicted for war crimes in any of the countries that are signatory to the Geneva Conventions

      Bwaaaaaa ha ha ha ha

      pure comedy central…..

    • neocon1 February 6, 2012 / 5:15 pm


      OOOOH the HORROR!!!!
      yeah “REAL” torture” LOL only to some pu$$ like you.

      In January 2009 President Barack Obama banned the use of waterboarding. In April 2009, the U.S. Department of Defense refused to say whether waterboarding is still used for training (e.g. SERE) purposes.[19][20] John Yoo, former Deputy Assistant Attorney General under President Bush has stated that the United States has subjected 20,000 of its troops to waterboarding as part of SERE training prior to deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan.

    • tiredoflibbs February 6, 2012 / 6:11 pm

      You cut no slack for obAMATEUR, eh, denny?


      You were quick to deflect away from the topic of the thread and state incorrectly that Bush set a precedent for engaging in a war without declaring one, even though it was the Democrats that set such a precedent with the Vietnam War.

      You refuse to defend obAMATEUR or criticize him for what has been stated so far. You were just desperate to deflect and fall back to the usual “It’s Bush’s fault”.

      Face it denny, you are a mindless drone.

    • Cluster February 6, 2012 / 8:42 pm


      Haven’t you had enough of the hate bush thing? It takes a terribly infantile mind to continue this irrational course, and this topic has been beaten to death. If you and your lefty friends want to indict and prosecute Bush then go for it, otherwise STFU. You’re like an incessant two year old. The fact that there hasn’t even been an international investigation might tell you something, but not Denny – the boy genius who thinks real Christianity is believing in higher taxes.

      I am just very grateful that people with juvenile minds like yours don’t hold real power.

      • dennis February 7, 2012 / 1:14 am

        Cluster, you err fundamentally in perceiving my point as a “hate bush thing”. I’m trying to find the base of principle these posts are coming from, but it’s all proving to be personal prejudice against Obama.

        If you had core principles that informed your political opinions you’d have no trouble seeing this, but you don’t. If concern for the Constitution or the rule of law was actually what motivated you, you’d get what I was saying and see it as a matter of principle. But you don’t get it – for you and your buddies here it’s all personal. I’m sorry I can’t help you beyond just pointing out the truth.

      • Cluster February 7, 2012 / 8:47 am


        Please stop with the sanctimonious bullshit and just try and gain some common sense. The Geneva accords were struck between nations in an effort to bring some humanity to the unfortunate event of war. The accord specifically defined those combatants as fighting for a sovereign country and recognizable in uniform – it’s only when hyper sensitive liberals like you performed mental gymnastics in an effort to cover AQ under those accords that have people like me scratching their head in disbelief. It has nothing to do with the constitution, and everything to do with your disturbing sense of values.

  7. Cluster February 6, 2012 / 8:47 pm

    Let us not overlook the fact that Denny has just argued for Geneva convention accords to be applied to those people who not only commit violent felonies here in the United States, but who also decapitate hostages and stone women to death. This is the type of person that Denny wants to protect equally as those soldiers who fought in WWII.

    Enough said.

    • dennis February 7, 2012 / 12:58 am

      Let us not overlook the fact that Cluster has just argued for the law to be applied unequally and partially, between different groups of people. Enough said.

      • neocon1 February 7, 2012 / 6:02 am


        the wolf in sheeps clothing spewing his left wing marxist poison, enough said.

      • neocon1 February 7, 2012 / 6:05 am


        the dennys of the world accept THIS?

        strangely NO calls for war crimes against these cretins and their “leaders”…….

      • Cluster February 7, 2012 / 8:52 am

        Let us not overlook the fact that Cluster has just argued for the law to be applied unequally and partially, between different groups of people. – dennis

        Let us not overlook the fact that denny has just proclaimed AQ and other radical Islamic groups as being “equal” and a part of our civilized world.

        Enough said

  8. dennis February 7, 2012 / 12:31 pm

    Cluster: “when hyper sensitive liberals like you performed mental gymnastics in an effort to cover AQ under those accords that have people like me scratching their head in disbelief. It has nothing to do with the constitution, and everything to do with your disturbing sense of values.”

    You continue to ignore it was the Supreme Court who ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that the Bush administration violated Common Article 3 of Geneva Conventions. And in Boumediene v. Bush the Supreme Court ruled that prisoners have a right to habeas corpus under the Constitution, and that Bush’s Military Commissions Act was an unconstitutional suspension of that right.

    Your problem is with the Supreme Court and the rule of law.

    • Cluster February 7, 2012 / 12:46 pm

      Is the Supreme Court infallible? I think not. The fact is is that the Supreme Court, through a liberal prism, found justification to alter the original intent of the Geneva accords, of which I and many other oppose. Much like you oppose the right of a Christian enterprise to act according to their Faith and not allow adoption to gay couples. See how that works. Maybe it’s you that has the problem.

      It’s interesting that you, and others of your ilk including SC justices, choose to include members of AQ as part of a civilized world. That doesn’t speak well for you.

      • dennis February 7, 2012 / 1:50 pm

        I don’t recall ever speaking to the issue of adoption rights for gay couples. You and I may be closer in our religious convictions than our political opinions would seem to predict.

        However your moral relativism regarding the treatment of enemies is at clear odds with both the teachings of Christ and American tradition. In the war on terror or any other conflict, we should abide by the rule of law no matter who the enemy is. George Washington established a clear precedent for this during the War of Independence. While the British systematically committed atrocities – captured Americans were tortured and starved on prison ships – Washington ordered his troops to “Treat them [captured British and Hessian mercenaries] with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of our copying the brutal example of the British Army.”

        John Adams wrote in 1777: “Blasphemy, Cruelty and Villainy have prevailed and may again. But they won’t prevail against America, in this contest, because I find the more of them are employed, the less they succeed.” Human nature is no different now than then, and our enemies’ practices should not dictate to us what our principles or code of conduct will be.

      • tiredoflibbs February 7, 2012 / 2:07 pm

        Cluster, liberals continue to do what they have done in the past. If they don’t like the law, have a sympathetic judge(s) interpret it differently and find meaning where there is none and completely omit the legislative process to overturn it.

        The Geneva accords have been on the books for more than 50 years, all of a sudden our Supreme Court changes its meaning. Perhaps we should put FDR on trial for murdering those German infiltrators that were captured in the US since they did not receive a civil trial. Or even, the German infiltrators that were captured at the Battle of the Bulge. After all, FDR violated their rights too.

      • tiredoflibbs February 7, 2012 / 2:09 pm

        Keep deflecting denny away from the obAMATEUR and the topic.

        Heaven forbid if you have to acknowledge his wrong-doing!

        Please denny, take the useful idiot test at the top of the thread – it is multiple choice.

  9. bozo February 13, 2012 / 9:08 am

    Al Qaida would be proud.

    Traitors. Giving comfort to our enemies. And in a time of war, no less.


Comments are closed.