Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
No President Has The Right To Kill by luvataciousskull No President Has The Right To Kill by luvataciousskull
"No president has the right to say he is judge, jury, and executioner."
Senator Rand Paul

I came home today incredibly depressed, and I started working on another piece. I wound up learning fast that Senator Rand Paul was filibustering an Obama appointment, and at first I kinda just skipped. Then I learned something amazing: He PERSONALLY was filibustering it!

This is, without a doubt, the single most important moment in U.S. Politics in years outside of an election. This is the type of moment you only hear about, and I dare say DREAM about. A man, a lone man, standing up for something he not only believes is right, but KNOWS is right.

That that one man stands up and fights for what's right, talking, even screaming, at his fellow Senators to do something that he knows is right!

Mr. Paul has come to Washington, and I'm glad he's here.

This is more than about if you agree with Obama or not, it is much, much bigger than that. It's about the fact that a sitting U.S. President is now allowed to kill an American Citizen without trial or charge. That the U.S. Government now can ignore the 5th Amendment and just kill anyone they please... its insane.

Even if you don't agree with Rand Paul stands for, that's fine, me, either. But, even if you don't agree with him on those other things, please agree that we need people who at least know wrong from right, that we are all Americans with rights, that if you want to do something it needs to be done right... if for nothing more than the fact that he's at least willing to spend 10 hours (as I write this) to put his money where his mouth is, please respect this moment for that.
Add a Comment:
 
:iconmissmuffintop:
MissMuffinTop Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2013   Writer
Wasn't his filibuster just obstructionism?

I mean, I agree with Senator Paul about the drones, but there's a time and a place for that discussion. 

Nice job on a Jimmy Stewart filibuster though. They really ought to get back to the old-school one that's a logorrheic rant as opposed to pushing a button to force a supermajority vote on things you don't like. 
Reply
:iconfreedoms-ramparts:
Freedoms-Ramparts Featured By Owner Dec 25, 2014
It was obstructionism, but he was obstructing some pretty evil shit though.
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Oh and another thing, Rand Paul had people helping him out by giving him bathroom breaks. 
Reply
:iconmaster-of-the-boot:
Master-of-the-Boot Featured By Owner Jul 26, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Except George Bush, and Apparently Rick Perry even though he's only a governor. 

Really, sure you can be concerned about US drone strikes, but really when it comes to Rand Paul he's the broken clock that's right twice a day
Reply
:iconbullmoose1912:
BullMoose1912 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
The one time when the reactionaries and the progressives find unity. [link]
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013
That's an interesting spectrum between 'reactionaries' and 'progressives'. Liberals and left-wingers ostentatiously label themselves as progressives, when they often forward the most regressive viewpoints of all, whereas the conservative viewpoint can be the, in reality, the most progressive. This is not always the case, but it happens enough times that carelessly interchanging the label 'liberal' and 'progressive' is intellectually dishonest.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2013
"they often forward the most regressive viewpoints of all, whereas the conservative viewpoint can be the, in reality, the most progressive."
" it happens enough times that carelessly interchanging the label 'liberal' and 'progressive' is intellectually dishonest."

I'd be generally interested in understanding why you think that
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2013
Well, for example I think socialism is a regressive ideology that concerns itself more with dividing up the wealth that's been made, instead of focusing on how to grow the private free market in a way that benefits everybody regardless of current economic status.  Many on the left defend abortion as a way to "control population growth", which is about as regressive as you can get, not to mention anti-humanitarian.  A basic tenet of conservatism is about personal responsibility and accountability, which is certainly a progressive force in somebody's life.  What I'm suggesting is that the political left-wing has called themselves "progressive" when it's really just to avoid having an honest debate by labeling everyone who disagrees as being against progress.  Everybody is in favor of positive change.  'Progress' gets confused with 'change just for the sake of change', even when that change isn't for the better.
Reply
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2013
How is socialism a regressive ideology? An economic system that ensures maximum prosperity and freedom for all is far closer to the ideal of progress than one in which 99% of the population own a fraction of the wealth, surely? How is keeping this decadent, exploitative, reactionary and dangerous system alive good for humanity? The status quo is regressive in the extreme. The reasons conservatives are called conservatives is because they have an unwarranted attachment to the present system of privilege and an irrational fear of change. If growing the free market will cause more widespread inequality than is already in place then that is certainly a regressive, anti-humanist position to take. The conservative notion of personal responsibility would make sense in an ideal world where people are able to control all the factors that govern their lives but the harsh reality is that it just isn't the case. Do you think the majority of the global population have taken responsibility for their immense poverty? Do you think Gay marriage/women's suffrage/immigrants rights/the end of racist Jim Crow laws were supported by conservatives? Fuck no! They keep things exactly the way they are. Progress is absolutely inevitable, the question is whether you try and fight it and end up on the wrong side of history or if you embrace it and look ahead to the future instead of fetishising a romantic picture of the past.

Defending abortion rights is progress for human freedom. It has nothing whatsoever to do with population growth, except with the One Child policy in China. The foetus is a parasite which lives off nutrients in the mother's body, it couldn't survive without it. As an organic part of her body she should have the right to do whatever she likes with it - to deny this right is sexist hypocrisy, since men have always been allowed to do whatever they want with their bodies. What if we banned the right for men to masturbate because it kills sperm? There'd be an outrage, because male privilege is absolutely endemic in contemporary society. 

Most of the time it's conservatives that proudly give themselves the label and attack 'progressives' - you're welcome to call them/yourself something else, but media pundits seem to love the labels. But you're very right about one thing - I find it bemusing that some people would take pride in calling themselves 'conservative' - I see it as an insult! Why would someone be afraid of the future? Would they really love to see absolutely no progress for the next million years? 
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2013
Mmkay, look dude, I'm just going for clarity, not agreement.  You're evidently not aware that liberal Democrats are the ones who opposed the abolishment of slavery and Jim Crow laws, and you're evidently unaware of what fertilization is, since you're incapable of distinguishing between abortion and masterbation.  I can only sigh at your lack of education, shrug my shoulders and move on.  You understand where I'm coming from, I think I understand where you're coming from.  If you have no further questions I'd like to drop this conversation.
Reply
:iconmissmuffintop:
MissMuffinTop Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2013   Writer
The Democratic (and Republican) parties that were around at the time were not the entities we know them as today, not even close. 

Republicans at the time were much more like classic liberals (aka libertarians) than conservatives, while Democrats were...well there's a reason for the term "Dixiecrat". Liberal Democrats didn't exist at the time. They were hardcore reactionaries; this trend changed over time. Jesse Helms changed affiliations from the Democratic Party to during his lengthy, bigoted career, for example. While yes, the Democratic party was the home of racism in the past, Republicans took in the Dixiecrats when the political climate shifted in the mid-20th century. 

Liberal Republicans freed the slaves. Conservative Republicans opposed (and still oppose in private) the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. The party isn't remotely similar to what it was a century and a half ago. 

I would have (probably) voted for Theodore Roosevelt a hundred n' ten years ago (due to the fact that he was really, really progressive and fairly liberal). However, because I have a vagina (and lack a time machine) that would have been impossible. 
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Sep 20, 2013
Your view of the current Conservative Republicans is simply and obviously untrue.  None of them want to "oppose the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act.", what they're voting against is federal encroachment on the sovereignty of states.  Each state has their own statement of civil rights and voting rights, and it's up the federalists to make those laws independent of the laws of Washington D.C.  You lie about their personal position because it helps back up your false narrative of "All the racists Democrats became Republicans."  The Democrats are still the party of racism, bigotry, and big, encroaching, all-controlling government, and Barack Obama is the amalgam of all the ideas that were thrown out by the fall of Soviet Communism.  Obama was the youngest candidate, with the oldest ideas.  He lives under the religious trinity of Race, Gender, and Class, and only sees Americans through this cold exploitation of identity politics.  True, classical liberal Republicans freed the slaves, and are still very much well alive in the current day embodiments of Ted Cruz, and Ron and Rand Paul.  You don't have to go as far back as Roosevelt.  Ted Kennedy has positions that would classify him as a fringe-right Tea Party Republican.  He was a pro-life Catholic who asked not what your country could do for you, but what you could do for your country.  Obama has nearly tripled the number of food stamp recipients.  He only asks what a country can do for people.  You're free to call yourself a liberal, but not at the same claim you voted Democrat Obama for president, twice.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2013
I am aware of that, and they were a deeply racist party for most of their history. That's completely illiberal, IDK why you think liberals would support racism :S The fact that the democrats were the party of racism until the Southern Strategy is a fact but it is not any kind of indictment of liberalism (which I don't support anyway, lol XD) If you really think I don't know about Jim Crow and the definition of fertilisation, we should stop talking probably :/
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Aug 2, 2013
You think restricting abortion is equivalent to telling people they can't masterbate.
Reply
(2 Replies)
:iconbttlrp:
bttlrp Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2013
Care to prove that?
Reply
:iconventanger:
VentAnger Featured By Owner Aug 1, 2013
I stated an educated opinion.  I'm not sure what part you need proof of.  Can you be more specific?
Reply
:iconlonelyimmortal:
LonelyImmortal Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
Rand Paul...:iconfuckyeahplz:
Reply
:iconclevella:
clevella Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional General Artist
Why is Ron Paul trying to hamstring our ability to defend ourselves? What is it he thinks drones do?
And which Al Quida terrorist would Ron Paul have let live, I wonder.
We use drones to try and keep our enemies at bay. I'm not sure why anyone who cares about the security of the country would take his position.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
When it comes to drones, keep in mind two things:

There are unarmed drones and then there are armed drones.

The first ones are actually... well, they're not fine, but they're not that bad. They fly around, observe, and overseas have the ability to find terrorists and check out situations where a traditional manned plane would be in serious trouble. In terms of domestic use, a lot of people are worried about how they can be used, myself included, since they could be used to spy on law-abiding Americans.

The second ones, the armed ones, are the main issue. They are ARMED. They could fly around YOU. When it was originally announced, it was vague as to if the President could use them against citizens and for weeks no one got an answer from the administration on it. Senator Rand Paul, much like myself, was concerned about this and filibustered to get an answer. The next day he finally got an answer: "No."

In short: The issue isn't with drones, it's about it an armed drone could be use on an American Citizen WITHOUT trial or charge. Did the President give himself the power to kill us at will? Thankfully, no.
Reply
:iconclevella:
clevella Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional General Artist
If that American Citizen, as has already happened, has sided with the enemy, and is planning to conduct operations inside the U.S., are you seriously suggesting we should not use all available resources to stop such a person?
Perhaps we should let the attack happen first, and then let justice be done? Or should we use the tools we have to prevent traitors from doing us harm? There have been instances of American citizens joining Al Qaeda.
Why doesn't Ron Paul address those concerns?
Seems Ron Paul has built a straw man argument for purely partisan reasons, and people are buying it.
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Wow, you're totally brain washed...

No, we can't stop an American Citizen from doing these dastardly plans until we bring them into court. Everything needs Order, you can't freely kill people and say you're justified for it because this guy was a terrorist.

Was the giant population of people in Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, and Pakistan ALL terrorists? NO! But that didn't seem to stop some of our nutball politicians from drone-striking them.

And lastly, we're talking about RAND Paul, not RON Paul, they're both great though.
Reply
:iconclevella:
clevella Featured By Owner Mar 21, 2013  Professional General Artist
Actually, criminals need to be stopped BEFORE they are brought into court, not after. But whatever.
And what exactly are you implying by everything needs Order, with a capital 'O'.
Like WWII Germany had Order, or are you talking about some other kind of Order?
New World Order, maybe? Or are you trying to say 'Rule of Law' in your own clumsy, Rand Paul way?
And I am not advocating (or even talking about) the murder of innocent civilians in another country. That is a different topic entirely.
The topic here is should our military be able to use a drone to stop an attacker inside the border of the United States. THAT is the question.
You and Rand seem to think that drones should not be used, and that the attack should be allowed to happen. After the attack, then we should seek 'justice'.
After citizens have lost their lives, then we are free to use drones? Sort of the way 9/11 unfolded. Let the Twin Towers fall, THEN get Bin Laden, 12 years later.
Rand Paul was grandstanding, making an issue out of an outlandish possibility to score political points. He used the drones to create a government 'bogeyman', with Obama as the villain, and nobody stops to ask if Rands reasoning is even sound. Rand is playing the 'fear' card. "Your government is out to get you"! Well guess what, Rand is part of the government he so despises. What makes HIM so trustworthy?!
And you call me 'brainwashed'.
Reply
:iconnyanpuppy:
NyanPuppy Featured By Owner Mar 22, 2013  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
First off, all Criminals face Trial.

Secondly, are you really comparing LAW, PEACE, AND ORDER TO GERMANY IN THE 1940S?

Third, okay, take the Tin-Foil hat off, I think we heard enough about "New World Order."

Fourth, HELL NO! Our Government has NO RIGHT to abuse Military Power on it's own Civilians. Have you ever heard of the fucking Constitution?

Drones SHOULD NOT be used on American Soil because that goes against our right to privacy, and that brings me to another topic, there would be less crime if more people were armed, have you ever heard of Switzerland?

Yes because King Obama was too focused on ruining economy and taking away the Second Amendment.

Obama IS A VILLIAN. A criminally insane one, he changed nothing, threatened the first, second, fifth and sixth amendment, he gave guns to Mexican Drug Cartels, he drone-striked innocent people in a foreign country, and NOW he's proposing that he should be able to drone strike Americans without Trial. IS THAT NOT CRIMINALLY INSANE?

Yeah, Ron Paul was apart of the Government too, but he's the most sensible person in it, same goes for Rand Paul.

Now go away and stop proposing to take away my rights as an American.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Re-read my post. If you can catch him, catch him and try him. If he's aiming a rocket-launcher at you, you kill him.

We JUST caught Bin-Laden's son. Isn't it a good thing we just caught him, we can now put him on trial, and do this right?
Reply
:iconclevella:
clevella Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Professional General Artist
I agree. But what Attorney General Holder was saying when he wrote his first response, is that it is conceivable for immediate action to be taken against an imminent threat inside the country. That immediate action might be a drone strike. All Holder was implying was there is a very, very small possibility this might happen, and NOT saying it WOULD happen.
Paul is taking that remote possibility and painting it as an attack against an INNOCENT citizen based purely on the whims of President Obama, and doing so purely to score political points. It it is pure propaganda. Paul's position stirs up peoples passions with no factual information to back up his claim.
The White House then had to respond specifically saying that military force, in this case a drone, will not be used to target innocent Americans. To date, all of the 'Americans' that have been killed by drone strikes had joined Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization. If you join a terrorist organization, would you be a terrorist?
The difference here is that Ron Paul is free to make up whatever scenario he wants, and then force the White House to respond. The President, on the other hand, has to take concrete steps every day to defend the country.
If Paul is so concerned about innocent Americans being killed by the government, why doesn't he speak out against the death penalty? Or address the issue of the militarization of the police?
The ACLU is taking the issue of police militarization on right now.
Paul isn't addressing any of those issues because it doesn't stir up peoples passions the same way.
All I'm saying is proceed with caution, and question what you are hearing, no matter who it comes from.
Isn't it interesting that Paul stirred up peoples fear of Obama using drones them, and then the very next day, after his filibuster performance, announced he 'might' run for President? Great marketing.
Peace.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 8, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Ron Paul had nothing to do with this; Rand Paul did. ;)

That said, I get what you're saying. Keep in mind that the Ku Klux Klan was declared a Terrorist Group in 1870: [link]

In the end, can we at least agree that its good that they just clarified this? Especially after MSNBC posted this: "Justice Department memo: It’s legal to use drone strikes against Americans"
Reply
:iconlonelyimmortal:
LonelyImmortal Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
:facepalm: :fork:
(Unless you were in Sarcasm Mode and I missed it...)
Reply
:iconsaides:
Saides Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
This is so refreshing to see. So many people now are willing to destroy their own rights and the rights of others for the notion of "safety", and it is in this that they end up destroying the very people they are trying to protect. Our rights are not up to vote, or for the government to decide. That's why they're called rights- we already have them, its when they are taken away or threatened that we must fight for them.
Reply
:iconblamethe1st:
BlameThe1st Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
He's not exactly like his father, but he's pretty darn close to it.
Reply
:iconborisfedorov:
BorisFedorov Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
Too true man
Reply
:iconrutterkin1:
rutterkin1 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
If you actually believe Rand Paul would have filibustered Romney or Bush's appointments for the same reason you are miserably mistaken. American politics is as broken as ever, a little bit of grandstanding from Paul will accomplish nothing as Brennan will be approved by a bi-partisan vote in the near future. Only an independent grass-roots movement is going to change any of this.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Yes, he would have.

Rand Paul approved all of Obama's three nominations, even though he didn't agree with them. He took a stand this time based entirely on the 5th Amendment. Keep in mind that this wasn't because he didn't think Brennan deserved an up-or-down vote; in fact, he thought he did. He did it because he couldn't get a non-binding resolution from even the Democrats to say that no U.S. President should be able to kill American's at will, without trial or charge. A NON-BINDING RESOLUTION!

Also, how do you think movements get started? Who knows, maybe this single act will inspire a new one to start to demand more, or maybe existing movements will take this as a lead and start getting involved.
Reply
:iconrutterkin1:
rutterkin1 Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
I've been involved directly with anti-war and social justice movements for close to 20 years and I dont believe that Paul is going to spark anything nor do I consider him any kind of ally. Many people have criticized and protested the drone policies for years but the government is happy to continue on knowing that a minority are aware of and dont approve of their policies. I AM glad that he took the stand he did for the obvious reason that many more people are aware of this policy and might be more skeptical about various schemes in the future. Unfortunately, at the end of the day Paul is just as much a part of the system as people like McCain or Obama, he just has a slightly different view of how executive power is to be used.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
Hopefully he can start changing things within the system.
Reply
:icondiregeist:
diregeist Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
lol last i checked the president has rights to a lot of things, considering he could get the judge, jury, or executioner fired if he wanted.
Reply
:iconabellius:
abellius Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
Fully agree.
Reply
:iconshirouzhiwu:
ShirouZhiwu Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Nations, just like people, need to have some authority to engage in self defense and kill whoever is attacking them, even if it is there own citizens. "Some" is the key word though. The country has no active declaration of war, and we are not within the first week of some new major attack, so military action of this sort on US soil is not appropriate.
Reply
:iconartistauncarton:
artistauncarton Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
Awesome work! Nothing to tell it's almost perfect above all the idea^^

Can you just look my work please? if you like take favourite or watch anf if not tell my why
[link]
Reply
:iconeruwaedhielelleth:
EruwaedhielElleth Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
It's frightening that our country has reached the point that ignoring the constitution this way can even be thought of. Our government needs to be brought to heel, they have way too much power. The checks and balances were in place for a very good reason, and I fear that there are dark times ahead for our country if people will not stand up, against this and even against the small invasions of freedom and privacy that are so often ignored. It's all the little concessions that have been made that brings us to this point.
Reply
:icontedtonkin:
TedTonkin Featured By Owner Mar 7, 2013
I really like this. Thank you for bringing to the attention of the "We the People".
Reply
:iconmechatherium:
Mechatherium Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Student Digital Artist
I do not agree with most of what Ron Paul or his son does, but I agree with this.
Reply
:iconan-archangel:
An-Archangel Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
The president has way too much power today. If the Founding Fathers saw our country's government today, they'd say "We're going to war." We became a nation to escape a powerful government, and now we've got a president who wants to recreate the same situation by giving the federal government the right to control our health care, our guns, and more.
Reply
:iconfb-phe13:
Fb-PHE13 Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Hobbyist General Artist
I stand with Paul for this!
Reply
:icongen101394:
gen101394 Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013
I just learned about this.....just this second XD but I totally agree with you. We need people who know right from wrong and be willing to stand up for what they believe is right.
Reply
:iconluvataciousskull:
luvataciousskull Featured By Owner Mar 6, 2013  Professional Digital Artist
It is just amazing to watch, and I have a tear in my eye from all of this! [link]
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×
  • Photo
  • Art Gifts




Details

Submitted on
March 6, 2013
Image Size
265 KB
Resolution
800×1035
Link
Thumb
Embed

Stats

Views
2,406
Favourites
74 (who?)
Comments
60
×