And Then
They Came For Us
Topic: Out of Flyover Land
Those who study History are doomed to see it repeated by those who don't.

We never learn.

First they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out - because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for the communists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out - because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for me - and there was no one left to speak for me.

New and updated version

When they came for the Fourth Amendment, I did not say anything - because I had nothing to hide.

When they came for the Second Amendment, I did not say anything - because I did not own a gun.

When they came for the Fifth and Sixth amendments, I did not say anything - because I had committed no crimes.

When they came for the first Amendment - I could not say anything.


On Protein Wisdom there is thread about the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of John Roberts for Chief Justice.

Bobbing Roberts

For me the most important, the most dangerous concepts which have arisen during this confirmation hearing were--

On the final day of the Roberts hearings, Sen. Richard J. Durbin of Illinois tried one last time: “If you’ve made one point many times over . . . the course of the last three days,” he told the judge, “it is that as a judge you will be loyal and faithful to the process of law, to the rule of law.” But “beyond loyalty to the process of law,” he asked Roberts, “how do you view [the] law when it comes to expanding our personal freedom? . . . That’s what I’ve been asking.”

And so, in various ways, had Durbin’s Democratic colleagues been asking about such matters--ones “beyond loyalty” to the rule of law. In response to Durbin, Roberts stuck to the point he had indeed made “many times over.” Reframing the senator’s question so as to reach the core issue, Roberts said, “Somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer. But as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that ‘I’ll look out for particular interests.’ . . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that’s what I would do.

Good intentions can be the most dangerous thing. Actions for the Greater Good can be as dangerous.

The LAW is never supposed to be FOR someone, never biased nor adversarial, lawyers can and must be, but the Law and Judges should never be.

When we cross that line we are no longer governed by Law and the Constitution, but by fiat. I do not care how well intentioned a persons motives are this opens the gate for and oppression because there is NO guarantee that once the Law is perverted to be biased towards one element of Society it cannot be biased towards others. In the end it will be biased towards those who can muster the most power and the FUNDAMENTAL principle of our Nation that ALL rights are the Inalienable attribute of the Individual has been sacrificed to whatever the current political desire is. There can be no other outcome.

In Kelo versus New London the protections of the V Amendment were shattered.

"nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Public use become to "benefit" the Public, there for Eminent Domain may now be used to take one person's property, NOT for the use of the Public, but to turn it over to other private individuals to develop and the increased Tax Revenue will be for the Greater Good of all, but the RIGHTS of an individual are now gone.

But their intentions were caring so I guess that makes this sundering of the rights of the individual all OK.

When McCain-Feingold first reared its ugly head few cared because it only effected the "Rich", not that it seems to have hindered George Soros much, but the public perception was we needed to be protected by undue influence by the "Rich" for the Greater Good as usual.

But what is the reality, what does all this mean? The ACLU and Court Action has decreed that burning the American Flag is protected speech, freedom of expression.

Has anyone ever heard the phrase, "Put your money, where your mouth is."? How can there be any more important speech or expression in a Democracy than supporting a Political Platform or Politician that you believe in?

But you say but=== No, you either BELIEVE in the Constitution and the Rights enumerated or you DON'T.

For me it is that simple. Can there be abuses? Yes there can and they, the abuses will be illegal.

But as Benjamin Franklin stated.

"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security


Most of the Nation was willing to give up part of our basic rights of Freedom of Speech, because HEY it was only going to effect the "Rich" not any of us regular people. Right?

Then they came for us

The FEC started thinking that the same statutes should be applied to bloggers. That could even include someone on minimum wage who blogs from a free computer in a library.

But don't worry we are told, they are not going to apply the new interpretations to the "little guy" we are going to have TWO sets of Law in this country?

When they came after us it was different wasn't it?

We NEED men like Judge Roberts on the Supreme Court.

We NEED men who are willing to uphold the Constitution from US.

I tried to illustrate how Kelo versus New London and
McCain-Feingold are perversions of our Basic Rights and the Principles this Nation were founded upon.

I doubt there are many who will disagree with me about Kelo versus New London.

For those who still labour under the illusion that McCain-Feingold is still just as long as it is only applied to the "Rich"

I ask this one simple question.

Whatever makes you think that if the Rights of Speech, Assembly and Association of those deemed "Rich" can be sundered so easily and willingly,
that YOURS are still intact?

And then they came for us and there was no one left to say anything.

|