Michael Ramirez by Michael Ramirez

Michael Ramirez

Comments (34) (Please sign in to comment)

  1. Jonathan

    Jonathan said, almost 4 years ago

    • AWESOME *

  2. John Locke

    John Locke said, almost 4 years ago

    How did we fall so far so fast? Great cartoon!

  3. ARodney

    ARodney said, almost 4 years ago

    “We the people.” “…and promote the public welfare.” It’s right there, folks.

  4. lonecat

    lonecat said, almost 4 years ago

    What’s the point of this cartoon? Yes, I’m aware that the Founders by and large were Christians, and I’m also aware that when they wrote the Constitution they built in separation of Church and State. But as Obama said, God (even if you believe in God) doesn’t do the job for us — we have to do it for ourselves.

  5. Jase99

    Jase99 GoComics PRO Member said, almost 4 years ago

    Assuming you believe in a “Creator” as the Founding Fathers did. What exactly is the point of this cartoon?

  6. Chillbilly

    Chillbilly said, almost 4 years ago

    As far as I’m concerned, there is no “Creator” but you don’t need to be superstitious to understand the point that was trying to be made. Jefferson (the wealthy, elite, adulterous, slave-owner who invoked God) was an articulate power-player in grabbing land from the English King — and later using government funds to buy land from the French.
    That’s a pretty shaky moral foundation to stand on in spite of the many truths that are self-evident.

  7. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago


    So is rights endowed by our creator. Rights were not endowed by we the people. or collective action but by God. Can’t wait for Clark Kent’s rant today.

  8. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago

    Yet you can’t explain why.

  9. DavidGBA

    DavidGBA said, almost 4 years ago

    Our creator endowed us with the right to keep and bear arms? Where’d they get that. Oh, different doc!

  10. charliekane

    charliekane said, almost 4 years ago

    The D of I. A great document of the ages!

    And yet, an ignorant cartoon. Of what legal effect is the D of I in securing any right under the Constitution?

    BTW, I don’t believe Tommy J can be classified as an adulterer. Martha Jefferson died long before any fornicating with Sally began. And to my knowledge, Sally Hemmings was not legally married to anyone.

  11. jack75287

    jack75287 said, almost 4 years ago


    And yet he and other dead white slave owners produced a system that allowed this nation to have the more freedom while having the greatest wealth. That is a good foundation. While the lefts loss of wealth is accompanied by a loss of freedom.

  12. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 4 years ago


    You do know what the definition of “promote” is, right? It does not mean “to provide something for another person.” But, like many others, you miss the point of this cartoon.

    The whole point here is that Obama and his liberal friends are intent on removing “certain inalienable rights” from the people.

    The 1st Amendment is to protect us from government censorship, like we see in China. However, despite liberals being the party of individual liberty (the root word of liberal), they censor/attack anything that doesn’t agree with them.

    The 2nd Amendment was written to protect us from people just like Obama and the current incarnation of liberalism. Unfortunately, Obama through executive fiat or through Congressional action is attempting to infringe on our right to bear arms. The Constitution doesn’t say “bear arms, except these kinds of arms.” It just says “…right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

    The 4th Amendment is protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, but Obama authorized the use of Unmanned Aerial drones to fly over US Soil. That, to me, toes the line of the 4th Amendment on violating individuals’ privacy.

    The 10th Amendment is probably Obama and today’s liberals most frequently violated Right. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, not prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” Congress has 18 specifically enumerated powers. Period. Many issues have been relegated to the federal government over time, but never before have we had such an activist group of people that are so blithely discarding the 10th Amendment in the concept of “providing” for the people.

    People forget that the US originally was set up for the states to dictate their own path, and if something didn’t work in a state, the people had a choice to move somewhere else to escape a particular program with which they disagreed. You see this in practice with the emigration of businesses and people out of California, and the immigration of businesses and people (in droves, mind you) to Texas. New York is losing people. Wisconsin is gaining businesses. That’s how this little experiment was meant to work.

    But now that we have a federal government that believes its mandate is to overstep and re-write the Constitution with what they feel is best (because 536 people apparently are so much smarter than all 330 million of us). Judges no longer are impartial interpreters of the US Constitution, they are now partisan hacks that seek to make the Constitution a “living document” that needs to change with the times. If you want the Constitution to mean something else, convene a Constitutional Convention and add an Amendment. Otherwise, we are getting what we see above: The Liberal complex is attempting to overwrite the Constitution to mean what they want it to mean. And not for the betterment of this country.

  13. charliekane

    charliekane said, almost 4 years ago


    How do you square your view of the purpose of the second amendment with:

    Congressional authority over the military in Article 1, Section 8?; and

    The President’s role as CIC, in Article 2, section 2?

    If the constitution is not a living document, and cannot be adapted to its times, why should the right to “keep and bear arms” extend beyond knives, hatchets, bayonets and muskets?

    Your view of history is so narrow. Were not many New Deal reforms far more radical than anything Obama has undertaken or proposed?

    Who is censoring yiou?

    My disagreement with you does not inhibit your ability to express your views. If anything, the true liberal relishes debate, and abhors censorship.

  14. wmconelly

    wmconelly said, almost 4 years ago

    Duh, when a group of people – who were ‘created’ at the moment of their conception by their Creator – vote majority rules to do something — anything — they are fulfilling The Constitution’s mandate. The semantics work fine, Michael; no red pencil needed.

  15. Wraithkin

    Wraithkin said, almost 4 years ago


    Kudos Charlie. I do like your factual rebuttal. My response:

    Because having a standing military is under the purview of Congress (to declare war) and the President as the CIC (to direct the military in a time of war, or while at peace). However, it does not prohibit/inhibit the ability of the people to carry arms. This isn’t about the military, or the CIC. This is about the people of the United States. And their rights are being infringed. That’s why I’m getting upset with the situation.

    And I’m not saying you specifically are censoring anyone. My comment here is more directed at the media, actually.

    How many times during the 2008 election was the term “racist” tossed around when people simply disagreed with Obama? How many times were people’s opinions discarded as racially motivated when in reality they were valid points in the dissenting column? Or, like Joe the Plumber, any time someone challenged the president their character was assassinated in the public forum.

    This is the type of censorship to which I’m referring. Imagine if this was backwards world, and Joe the Plumber was black, and he was criticizing a white guy running for president. Instead of character assassination, they would be hailing him as a hero challenging the establishment. Because if they HAD committed character assassination (like they did with the real-world Joe the Plumber), the word racist would be plastered everywhere.

    So they are censoring what we see, and crushing/quashing free expression if it opposes to their views and their motives. And it boggles my mind why the liberal establishment isn’t up in proverbial arms over this matter, because a true discourse should be about the issues, not the people.

    If I say, “Obama’s policies are stupid,” it doesn’t mean I’m calling him stupid. It means I hate his ideas. Now, if I said “that N**** Obama is a retard,” sure… that’s racism and I should be publicly flogged for that. But many times the latter was applied to the prior, when that was not what was said at all. See what I mean?

    I love intelligent and meaningful discourse. I abhor name-calling and belittling. I just don’t understand why people aren’t more bothered by the belittling and name-calling that is going on by the 536 in Washington, and why aren’t we calling them on it?

  16. Load the rest of the comments (19).