Deviant Login Shop  Join deviantART for FREE Take the Tour
×
  • Photo
  • Art Gifts



Details

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

Stats

Views
1,985 (1 today)
Favourites
72 (who?)
Comments
59
×
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
: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
Add a Comment: