Gestapo Microcosm Right Here Today In America © 2018 Phillip Evans

I was just following orders was the defense many Nazis used after WWII to try and save their own necks.

From a PBS article:

"In a 1962 letter, as a last-ditch effort for clemency, Holocaust organizer Adolf Eichmann wrote that he and other low-level officers were 'forced to serve as mere instruments,' shifting the responsibility for the deaths of millions of Jews to his superiors. The 'just following orders' defense, made famous in the post-WWII Nuremberg trials, featured heavily in Eichmann’s court hearings."

Creative Commons Licensed Photo by Ray D’Addario

As recently as 2016, right here in America, in Texas, an act occurred in a courtroom which should wake us all up.

Texas State District Judge George Gallagher ordered the bailiff to activate a defendant's shock-vest multiple times for not properly answering questions, with no violence or threat of violence from the defendant at all. In order words, physical torture was used in an American courtroom as punishment for non-violent disobedience from the “Would you hit him again?” authority in charge.

We see horrific things done by the Nazis and dismiss them as "being in the past" by "those other people", as if the same could not happen here. Well, it should be obvious that anything that happens will one day be in the past at some point, and done by someone. That is neither an excuse for it, nor is it a buttress against something like it ever happening again.

I'd wager the bailiff had in mind the same excuse that he was "just following orders". Perhaps the bailiff had the same fear of being executed for not following orders like the Nazis had? Or maybe it was just fear of getting a reprimand.

Speaking of execution, an electric shock from a stun device can kill a person by stopping their heart. So Judge Gallagher was willing to risk killing a man who dared to defy his authority by either refusing to answer his questions, or by giving an unacceptable answer.

Folks, this was not as rare an aberration as you might think. The proof:

Here was not just one person, the judge, acting immorally. There was also an all too willing accomplice at the same time in the same room ready to carry out such orders. An aberration would have been only one person in one room meant to uphold justice who metes out such evil against another human being, not two people acting in concert. What are the odds of that, right?

Look at all the cases in the news of abuse of power, up to and including getting shot in the back while running away from a traffic stop, with the executing officer manipulating evidence and lying about what happened if you are not convinced that evil permeates society and grips even those who are supposed to have our best interests at heart.

It is short-sighted to look at government brutality as a racist issue. While racism is part of some cases of abuse of power, it is far larger than that, and naive to believe otherwise. It is simply that power corrupts, and only the morally fortified can resist the dark side when endowed with the power to control others by force. And just when you think you are one of the good ones, that's when there is the greatest danger of falling.

Judge Gallagher's courtroom that day was an example of the "utopia" that "progressives" long for and rally for.

In that courtroom the only ones with weapons were approved government agents. Citizens were not permitted arms, and were therefore helpless to stop potentially death dealing electric shocks to a man who did nothing it in the courtroom to deserve it. Without weapons, the only thing the victim's family members could do was to merely be witnesses.

Had a family member been able to somehow be armed with a pistol and shot the bailiff to stop the torture, I would have voted "Not Guilty" had I been on their jury.

Citizens being armed is the only thing that can counter tyranny, yet "progressives" want us all disarmed, except for governments of course, which are responsible for mass genocide around the world. But our people are different, it couldn't happen here; we are not Nazis, goes the argument. Notwithstanding, Hitler disarmed his own citizens before crushing them underfoot. So why should we be so quick to follow with our own disarmament?

On college campuses all over this nation, people with a different viewpoint on issues are either uninvited and not permitted to speak, or must be protected with armed guards if they do manage to get to speak.

The same ones who despise the protections of the Second Amendment likewise show they have little regard for the First Amendment. 

And why not? If you can destroy one amendment because you don't like it, what's there to stop the others from being destroyed. Certainly not the "good will" of "progressives" who are in truth, regressives. And what's to stop even greater abuses of power once everyone is helpless to use force against such abuses?

You can follow one discussion on this incident here at Georgiapacking.org.