Why the Rooster in WAKE UP AMERICA?

Yesterday I asked the question regarding my new painting, "Wake Up America":  Why did I place the rooster in the painting and what is the symbol I am using?  I promised a free print to the first person who could correctly answer.

I read through all the comments and most all of you were on the right track, but didn't quite take it far enough.  Yes, it is a reference to the New Testament story of how Peter, on the eve of Christ's crucifixion, denied Jesus three times.  When the cock crowed, Peter went and wept bitterly.  The rooster has many symbols and is usually tied with the rise of a new day, waking up, or protection.  In my mind, Americans need to "wake up" to what is happening in our country.  We are in a state of denial and like Peter will go and weep bitterly as we come to realize our mistake.

Gina Burnett was the first of only two that hit the nail on the head...

The rooster is symbolic of the fact that almost all of the people are denying that they are slaves of the government. The "forgotten man" understands that and is trying to break free of government slavery. There are some people that are noticing that, but not yet acting on it. The rooster is a warning of impending disaster. 

I will give her my first print off the press!  Thank you for entering our little contest.  I will do more like this as we roll out the painting.  Remember, let's WAKE UP AMERICA!!


  1. Congratulations Gina!

    I am looking forward to the whole unveiling of 'Wake Up America'

  2. You want a deregulated Government with no taxes?
    Try Pakistan.
    It's working so well for them.
    How can it be slavery when we get to vote on how it is run?

  3. Troy,
    Americans are enslaved to our debt. It's called self inflicted slavery and we are not even discussing regulation and taxes.

  4. Jon:
    Thank you! I just now looked today to see who won. I am thrilled!

  5. I always find this weird from Republicans.
    Carter lowered the debt by 3.3%, Reagan raised it by 20.6%, Bush Sr. raised it by 13%, Clinton lowered it by 9.7%, Bush Jr. raised it by 27.8%. Yet us Liberal Democrats are the bad guys. If you are a slave don't blame the Democrats.

  6. Jon, I would be interested to hear your response to Troy's comment. Also, I'd like to know what you think we, as Americans, should "wake up" and do? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that you think the answer is to cut government spending, though most economists agree that would have disastrous consequences. I remember the fear and anguish regarding the massive debt the country was in during the 80s. Then, as the 90s brought forth a period of prosperity, tax revenues increased and the debt ceased to be a worry. This is an easy topic about which to rile people, but I predict as the economic cycles run their course, this will once again cease to be the major problem you suggest it is. I think the fear you stir up with these paintings is unhelpful. Again, I ask, assuming we, wake up and recognize this problem, what do you suggest we as individuals then do to make the situation better?

  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

  8. This comment has been removed by the author.

  9. @Jon - Excellent artwork. As most of us know, the message is that we are slaves to the debt created across multiple administrations and congresses.

    What can we do to help support your work and talent?

    @Troy - I always find it weird when people reference numbers incorrectly. Carter and Clinton lowered the debt as a percentage of GDP. That's a big difference.

    The key here is looking at the total US debt, which has skyrocketed since the D's took control of Congress in 2006. Obama has kicked in the afterburners.

    To see a chart and more information, you can check out an article I wrote:

    Obama's Inheritance

  10. @Rex

    'As a percent of GDP' is all that matters. Our GDP now is 15 trillion with 300 million people. Our total debt now is 14.8 trillion - almost 100% of GDP.

    But at the end of WW2 our GDP was 0.223 trillion with 140 million people. Our total debt was 0.268 trillion - nearly 120% of GDP.

    So you can see that talking about 14.8 trillion vs. .268 trillion isn't an effective discussion. .268 trillion sounds better than 14.8 trillion, but it was a much bigger debt than our current debt. We must discuss this in percentages or it is comparing apples to oranges.

    Otherwise my $200,000 house would be just as big a burden on Bill Gates as it is on me.

  11. @Rex 2

    Let's do hard numbers. :)

    Carter raised our national debt by 0.288 trillion.
    Reagan raised our national debt by 1.873 trillion.
    Bush Sr. raised our national debt by 1.483 trillion.
    Clinton raised our national debt by 1.419 trillion.
    Bush Jr. raised our national debt by 6.106 trillion.

    So the average amount raised per year by Republicans 0.456 trillion.
    Democrats 0.249 trillion.

    It's ridiculous that the Republican candidates are the ones shouting about our debt, when the hard numbers (and the percentages) show that the Republicans are the ones who've raised it the most.

  12. I would agree with Troy in regards to Republicans being part of the problem with the National Debt. However, I disagree that debt as a percentage of GDP is the only thing that counts. Why? Any increase in the real debt is problematic due to the compounding nature of the debt. Therefore, any growth in real debt becomes very troubelsome whenever the economy hits a snag and GDP slows, stops or decreases. In terms of our ability to manage the debt, it is true that debt as a percentage of GDP is hugely important. But due to the cyclical nature of the business cycle we can always expect economic downturns. Therefore, reducing real debt should be our goal, not just playing with numbers and hoping the GPD growth outpaces debt growth.

    Yes Bush II was a huge problem. However, Obama's actions have been like Bush on steroids. Both parties have a problem. Neither wears a halo.

  13. @Fretjock

    I agree with everything in your post but I disagree with the idea that Obama's spending is like Bush on Steroids.

    If you look at the Fed budgets for the past years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Us_budget) you will find Bush on average increased spending by 150 billion a year.

    Obama only has two fiscal years to look at so far. 2010 was an increase of 450 billion and 2011 of 280 billion. Hence the steroid comment looks true.

    But unemployment/welfare costs (due to our unemployment problem) jumped 211 billion in 2010 and 127 billion in 2011 - the most it ever increased on Bush was 36 billion.

    So Obama's average increase per year is 365 billion - more than double that of Bush's. But when you minus the massive increase in cost of the unemployed, Obama's increase is only 196 billion compared to Bush's 150. So 46 billion more is not an increase that I would describe as "on steroids."

    The 2012 budget with the improving economy reducing our welfare costs (not to mention reduced war costs) looks to actually decrease total federal spending by 100 billion. (From 3.83 trillion in 2011 to 3.73 trillion in 2012.)

  14. congrads Gina.........I would loved to have this print!

    1. History has shown us that no super power can last for ever.They all end basically the same way in debt and morally corrupt.History ignore it and it will come back to remind you.

  15. I don't see any fine art here. So I guess I'm in the category of 'simply don't understand'.