The FDA Has Gone Nuts

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Diamond Foods of Stockton, California made the claim on the packaging of its walnuts that “the omega-3 fatty acids in walnuts have been shown to reduce the risk of heart disease and some types of cancer.” This claim is anything but fringe. At least 35 published medical papers have concluded that “eating walnuts improves vascular health and may reduce risk of heart attacks.”

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) took exception to Diamond Foods’ claims about walnuts, demanding that the company either remove its claims concerning the health benefits of walnuts from its packaging or make a new drug application with the FDA. Yes, the FDA appears to be claiming that walnuts are a drug. The FDA accused Diamond Foods of “misbranding” its walnuts because its health claims were not authorized by the FDA.

The FDA in its original form was created during the administration of Progressive President Theodore Roosevelt in 1906 following the passage of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906.  The FDA is responsiblefor “protecting the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products, medical devices, our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, and products that give off radiation” and “regulating tobacco products.” As with most federal agencies, the FDA grew in size and power over the decades.

Many things can be said about the FDA. Most importantly, it is unconstitutional. There is nothing in Article I of the Constitution which grants Congress the power to create a regulatory body such as the FDA and there is nothing in Article II of the Constitution which grants the Executive Branch any such regulatory powers. From a practical perspective, the FDA puts a barrier in between patients and their doctors. It prevents autonomous adults from making important decisions concerning their medical treatment as well as their usage of other related products and services. The FDA is a Collectivist bureaucratic organization which infantilizes adults by subjecting them to Nanny State regulations as if they were children. In many instances, the FDA also leads to suffering and death by preventing sick individuals from utilizing products and services which might have health benefits. In the case of terminally ill patients, the FDA often prevents them from using experimental treatments. Protecting the terminally ill from such danger when they have little hope and nothing left to lose is simply sadistic.

The Diamond Foods walnut case adds a new level of absurdity and a new level of tyranny to the FDA. The FDA is essentially claiming that it establishes truth. While common sense would dictate that 35 published medical papers concerning the health benefits of walnuts would be enough to justify the claims that Diamond Foods has made about the food, the FDA holds itself out as the metaphysical creator of truth. As appalling as this is, it is relatively unsurprising given the positivistic conception that the federal government increasingly takes concerning rights. While rights are natural and exist in virtue of being human, the federal government seems to believe that it alone can bestow or take away rights. This Collectivist approach to rights leads to tyranny. When things such as rights and truth no longer exist objectively and independently of the dictates of government, then it will not be long before the government can claim in an Orwellian fashion that 2 + 2 = 5.

(For a much more detailed discussion of the unconstitutional nature of the FDA and the importance of natural rights, read my new book The Real Culture War: Individualism vs. Collectivism & How Bill O’Reilly Got It All Wrong. Available now on Amazon in both print and Kindle.)

Elizabeth Warren and the Future of Neo-Progressivism

by Dr. Gerard Emershaw

Washington pundits and talking heads all seem to agree that former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is a shoo in as the Democrat presidential candidate in 2016. Of course, the political junkyard is littered with the careers of politicians that the experts claimed were inevitable Democratic presidential nominees—Gary Hart, Mario Cuomo, Howard Dean, and the 2008 version of Hillary Clinton. Either way, Hillary Clinton is much like her husband. The Clintons are noted for their cynical and Machiavellian use of “triangulation” in order to avoid appearing too extreme. Thus, Hillary Clinton is unlikely to ever truly say what she believes while campaigning. Democratic Massachusetts Senator and possible future presidential hopeful Elizabeth Warren is the anti-Clinton in terms of her willingness to clearly state her neo-progressive beliefs. Therefore, even if Hillary Clinton does become the 2016 nominee of the Democrats, it is still more useful to examine what Senator Warren states if one wants to have his or her finger on the pulse of the Democrat Party.

Speaking recently at Netroots Nation, Senator Warren outlined the “11 Commandments of Progressivism.” In many ways, these are far more likely to explain what a Hillary Clinton presidency might be like than anything Hillary Clinton will ever say on the campaign trail.

1. “We believe that Wall Street needs stronger rules and tougher enforcement, and we're willing to fight for it.”

This kind of populist tough talk has always been a trademark of progressives such as Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Herbert Hoover, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. While the 2007–2008 financial meltdown caused extreme damage to the global economy, scapegoating Wall Street is disingenuous. The proximate cause of the meltdown was the bubble caused by the Federal Reserve. However, progressives have been in bed with the rogue private central bank from the beginning, so it is unlikely that Hillary Clinton, Elizabeth Warren, or any other Neo-Progressive Democrat will rein in the Federal Reserve. Furthermore, any regulations on Wall Street will likely be lobbied for and perhaps even written by large Wall Street firms. The dirty corporatist secret of progressives—which is so blatant it should hardly be considered a secret—is that they collaborate with large corporations. The cost of regulations can easily be absorbed by large corporations, but they can be detrimental to smaller businesses. Therefore, this regulation will only serve to limit competition on Wall Street. It is also unlikely to prevent further economic meltdowns. Why should one expect a regulator to notice a potential problem when his or her money is not at stake if actual financial professionals with their own money at stake could not? Finally, even if the heads of a few token greedy Wall Street miscreants are chopped off, these scapegoats will likely be middle-management flunkies. The top Wall Street movers and shakers are politically protected by both political parties due to the campaign funds that they can provide. After the any scapegoats get carted off to federal prison after the next meltdown caused by the machinations of the Federal Reserve, the big firms that get wiped out will likely have their losses socialized with another bailout. Even if one subscribes to Keynesian insanity, there is nothing involving stimulus deficit spending that entails bailing out private entities that have gone belly up. Stimulus funds could have been provided to Wall Street firms and corporations that had been fiscally prudent or simply pumped into the economy by the government. It was the Democrats who had no problem with the bailout.

2. “We believe in science, and that means that we have a responsibility to protect this Earth.”

In other words, Al Gore, Goldman Sachs, and other crony capitalists will make billions of dollars in carbon tax money. Despite the claims of neo-progressives, the science on climate change is anything but settled. What is happening with the climate and what—if anything can or should be done about it by the government—is no more settled now than it was in the 1970s when environmentalists warned about “global cooling” and suggested putting soot over the Arctic in order to melt the polar ice. However, most importantly, there is nothing in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution or in Article II of the Constitution which grants Congress or the President any authority to “protect the Earth.” Other than promoting science and useful arts through the protection of patents and copyrights, there is nothing about science in the Constitution. Perhaps politicians should leave science to the scientists and not to the crony capitalists.

3. “We believe that the Internet shouldn't be rigged to benefit big corporations, and that means real net neutrality.”

Net neutrality. This is yet another populist progressivist charade. Net neutrality means giving the federal government the power to regulate the Internet. Government control is antithetical to freedom. Robert Wenzel expresses the truth about net neutrality:

Government should keep its hands off ISPs and allow them to operate any way they want. The ISPs, using their own equipment, are providing a service and should be allowed to use their equipment and provide their service in any fashion they choose without interference from the government.

If ISPs block content that users want, then the free market is likely to punish those ISPs in the long run. If ISPs do not provide the speed that users desire, then the free market is also likely to punish those ISPs. The best regulator is always free market competition. With the current corporatist system in place in the United States, government regulation of the Internet is simply regulation by the large corporations wealthy enough to buy the government.

4. “We believe that no one should work full-time and still live in poverty, and that means raising the minimum wage.”

The “raise the minimum wage” and “living wage” arguments. Why will the fallacy that raising the minimum wage will benefit the economy and help the poor not go away? Raising the minimum wage will benefit a small group of workers at the expense of a large group of workers. Yes, some will see their purchasing power increase. But many businesses will simply not hire new workers. Others will lay off workers. Young unskilled workers will have no chance of being hired. Poor minorities will be greatly affected. What is the best way to raise the minimum wage? Create jobs. Supply and demand. When the number of jobs increases relative to the number of workers, wages will increase. How can the government create jobs? It cannot. But what it can do is allow the private sector to create jobs by cutting taxes and regulations. The neo-progressive idea of raising the minimum wage will simply lead to more individuals becoming dependent on government assistance. Perhaps that is their true motive.

5. “We believe that fast-food workers deserve a livable wage, and that means that when they take to the picket line, we are proud to fight alongside them.”

Is it any surprise that unions have long been major supporters of progressive political candidates? While Americans have a First Amendment right to unionize, the federal government has long since stopped being an impartial referee when it comes to unionized labor. The federal government has been an advocate for unions since the New Deal. Ultimately, the federal government should remain neutral regarding unions. There is nothing in the Constitution which grants Congress or the President the power to force business management to accept unionization. Unionization also typically benefits a small group of union members at the expense of all other workers. In the case of the fast food industry, unionization will increase the costs. This will be passed onto the working class families who often depend on inexpensive fast food. In essence, fat cat union bosses and their allies in organized crime will benefit while the majority of workers and fast food consumers will suffer.

6. “We believe that students are entitled to get an education without being crushed by debt.”

Then perhaps the federal government should get out of the student loan business. Guaranteeing student loans simply makes the cost of a college education more expensive. Perhaps Congress should amend bankruptcy laws so that student debt would be dischargeable in bankruptcy. Despite all the government meddling in higher education, the United States has one of the finest post-secondary educational systems in the world. More progressive meddling with universities and colleges is likely to have the same affect on higher education as “Obamacare” is having on health care.

7. “We believe that after a lifetime of work, people are entitled to retire with dignity, and that means protecting Social Security, Medicare, and pensions.”

What does retirement with dignity have to do with protecting government Ponzi schemes? The Social Security System is unsustainable and despite the insane holding in Helvering v. Davis (1937)—which was likely the result of extortion on the part of FDR—it is unconstitutional. Social Security needs to be privatized in a manner similar to the Chilean system. The current system is unfair to the poor because it prevents them from building wealth over generations. It is also racist due to the fact black workers tend to begin working at an earlier age than white workers and tend to die at an earlier age. Social Security and Medicare do nothing but keep Americans dependent on the government. The last thing any neo-progressive wants is any citizen freed from the shackles of the federal government.

8. “We believe—I can't believe I have to say this in 2014—we believe in equal pay for equal work.”

Progressives and neo-progressives have long fomented gender war by making dubious claims about the “gender gap” in pay. Rachel Greszler and James Sherk of the Heritage Foundation succinctly summarize the truth about gender-based wage differences:

This gender gap is not the result of rampant discrimination. Rather, it exists because men and women often work in different jobs, work different hours, and have different qualifications. When work experience, education, occupation, and hours of work are taken into account, the average woman makes 98 cents for every dollar earned by a man.

Is there sexism in the world of business? Certainly. There is always likely to be some. However, the free market will punish those businesses that do not treat female workers fairly and pay them what they are worth. Businesses which seek to hire the best employees will always thrive. What is keeping the wages of all workers—women included—down is corporatism. Government regulation, high taxes, and the Federal Reserve’s “inflation tax” is the greatest enemy in the War on Women (and also on Men).

9. “We believe that equal means equal, and that's true in marriage, it's true in the workplace, it's true in all of America.”

Gay rights. The funny thing about gay rights is that neo-progressives only champion them fully when it is politically expedient to do so. When public opinion was against gays openly serving in the military, the neo-progressives championed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” Later, when the American public became more tolerant, neo-progressives finally championed lifting the prohibition against openly gay men and women serving in the military. When public opinion was still against gay marriage, neo-progressives championed “civil unions” for gay couples. As a majority of Americans is now beginning to favor gay marriage, the neo-progressives are finally openly supporting gay marriage. Neo-progressives have always been nothing but cynical pragmatists. They never have and never will care about the natural rights of gays or anyone else.

10. “We believe that immigration has made this country strong and vibrant, and that means reform.”

‘Immigration Reform’ has become a meaningless phrase. Ultimately, neither Democrats nor Republicans want to change the law. And usually neither party wants to enforce immigration law. Each party may complain about it when they are not in power, but when they are in power, they never do anything about immigration. Blah blah blah.

11. “And we believe that corporations are not people, that women have a right to their bodies. We will overturn Hobby Lobby and we will fight for it. We will fight for it!”

The Hobby Lobby case should have never arisen because “Obamacare” is and always has been unconstitutional despite what Justice Roberts said in his incoherent majority opinion. Whether corporations are persons is an important question. However, the Constitution does not give Congress the power to force Americans to buy a product from a private company. If neo-progressives wish to protect Americans from unscrupulous businesses, then why are they collaborating with insurance companies with “Obamacare?” That is more like fascism than freedom. If neo-progressives want women to be able to afford contraceptives, why not allow them to be available over the counter? Do they believe that women are not intelligent enough to make their own decisions regarding their health without a paternalistic doctor?

Why Are There So Few Black Libertarians?

by Gerard Emershaw

In the 2012 presidential election, 93% of black voters cast ballots for President Barack Obama. Part of this could be that after so many decades of being underrepresented politically, they had a chance to cast a vote for a black presidential candidate. While such a collectivist racist attitude is typically unacceptable, over two centuries of institutionalized racism on the part of the federal government makes it understandable. Given that both parties are nothing but two wings of the same corrupt welfare/warfare state party, perhaps if one is going to vote for one of the mainstream parties at all, it is as good a reason as any to cast a vote. However, why should blacks choose either the neo-progressive donkey or the neo-progressive elephant? Why are there so few black libertarians?

Libertarianism should be a natural fit for blacks. Black Americans were so long denied their freedom—and at times their very personhood—by the federal government that one would think that blacks would naturally support a political philosophy which so zealously guards personal freedom. A group of individuals whose ancestors had been enslaved and who have been systematically disenfranchised both economically and politically by both statist parties for so long should not rationally support either party.

The role models of the black community are not individuals who succeeded because of government handouts or political favors. These role models are entrepreneurs, athletes, and entertainers who have succeeded through their own genius, hard work, and excellence. Sean Combs, Jay Z, Tyler Perry, Oprah Winfrey, LeBron James, Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, etc. have all risen to the top on their own. Freedom has allowed such individuals to succeed, and more freedom would allow even more individuals like them to succeed. Black rap stars and others in the entertainment industry have become successful thanks to freedom of speech. Black athletes have become successful thanks to freedom of contract. Black entrepreneurs have become successful thanks to the free market. If it was freedom which allowed such success stories to unfold, why are the protagonists of such success stories not libertarian? Why do they oppose the philosophy which promoted their success while supporting the corrupt welfare/warfare state which attempted to hold them back and which will attempt to do the same with future generations?   

Even if the libertarian philosophy does not appeal to blacks, by default it is the only rational position for them to hold. Here are four reasons why blacks should not support statism in any way, shape, or form:

1. Slavery

The evil institution of slavery, which violated the American credo that all human beings are born equal in terms of natural rights, led to millions of individuals of African descent being deprived of their freedom and forced to labor against their will. Slavery was only possible because the government endorsed and defended the institution. The Three-Fifths Clause of the Constitution will forever remain as racist scar tissue in an otherwise enlightened document. From the Fugitive Slave Act to the infamous Dred Scott decision, the federal government was continually the key player in the enslavement of Africans in the United States. So why should Blacks be supportive of a government which allowed Americans much like themselves to be enslaved for nearly a century?

2. Jim Crow

Even after the Civil War when the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified, the federal government still did little or nothing to ensure that the natural rights of Blacks were defended. Reconstruction ultimately proved to be at best a noble failure and at worst a tyrannical exercise which set back the cause of racial equality. The federal government embraced and defended segregationist policies and turned a blind eye to Jim Crow laws in many southern states. The racial caste system that Jim Crow created disenfranchised many Blacks and allowed them to be victimized by continued institutionalized racism. It was not until nearly two centuries after the founding of the nation that the civil rights movement ultimately began to change things. For two hundred years the federal government either actively oppressed blacks in the United States or allowed state and local governments to violate their natural rights. Why should blacks trust this government now?

3. Welfare State Racism

The conventional wisdom is that blacks should favor the American welfare state. According to this line of thought, progressive social programs such as welfare, Medicaid, Headstart, etc. are most beneficial to blacks. Justification for this view typically begins with the recitation of disturbing statistics. In 2012, 28.1% of blacks were living in poverty, including 39.6% of blacks under the age of 18. The rate of black unemployment is twice as high as that of whites. Therefore, welfare programs are needed and are needed most by blacks. In the eyes of progressives, blacks should be grateful to the government. Many progressives hold racist views which they perversely consider to be enlightened and politically correct. They view blacks as dependent upon the government. They view blacks as unable to compete on a level playing field. Through their destructive Nanny State programs, progressives create a self-fulfilling policy when it comes to the economic and social well being of the black community.

The truth is that blacks should be grateful to the federal government. About as grateful as one would be to a thug who stabs him or her in the stomach and then offers a free Band-Aid. Why are blacks in such dire straits economically? Many reasons. Two centuries of institutionalized racism spearheaded by the federal government. Progressive economic policies such as the Federal Reserve, the income tax, deficit spending, stifling business regulations, etc. which erode the economy and destroy wealth, jobs, and other economic opportunities. The welfare state which infantilizes blacks and fosters dependency. The war on drugs—which will be discussed below. The federal government has created the disease, infected the black community with it, and has offered the “cure” in the form of the welfare system. The only thing is that the welfare system has done nothing to help blacks in the lower socioeconomic classes rise economically. It has been roughly 50 years since LBJ instituted the social programs of his Great Society. For the past 50 years, the ratio between black and white unemployment has remained roughly 2:1. For the past 50 years, the gap between black and white household incomes has remained the same. The wealth disparity between blacks and whites has been growing since the beginning of the Great Recession, and the already appalling black poverty rates are again increasing. So why should blacks favor and support the statist system which offers them nothing but financial methadone? The black community remains sick and dependent upon the welfare state, and it will never be healthy as long as the perverse racism of progressivism continues. Unfortunately, the black community does not seem to be learning its lesson about the Welfare State Emperor having no clothes. Black Americans are three times more likely than whites to support Obamacare.

4. War on Drugs

According to a recent report, 1 in 3 black males will go to prison during their lives. It is difficult for individuals to succeed economically when they are in prison or are stigmatized and disenfranchised ex-convicts. By 2011, there were more blacks in prison or “under watch” than were enslaved in 1850. One of the reasons for this is the economic carnage wreaked by the progressive welfare state. Another reason is the War on Drugs. The idea of the War on Drugs seems to be that drugs ruin lives; therefore, if we catch you using or selling drugs, we will ruin your lives by putting you in prison. Actually, the hidden racist reasoning might be that drugs ruin the lives of white children; therefore, if we catch blacks using or selling drugs, we will ruin their lives by putting them in prison.

Drug crimes are victimless crimes. Ergo, they should not be crimes at all. Even if drug offenses were genuine and deserving of punishment, blacks are incarcerated for them at shockingly unjust rates. According to the Sentencing Project, blacks “make up 12% of the nation’s drug users, but represent 34% of those arrested for drug offenses, and 45% of those in state prison for such offense as of 2005.” This has devastated the black community, destroying families and creating more out of wedlock births.

Leftwing statists attempt to re-enslave blacks by fostering and perpetuating economic dependency while rightwing statists attempt to re-enslave them by unjustly imprisoning them for bogus victimless drug crimes and forcing them to work at slave labor in prison. So how can blacks support statism? How can blacks vote for either the neo-progressive donkey or the neoconservative elephant? Only a libertarian philosophy of free markets and free expression can held heal the wounds of over two centuries of institutionalized racism perpetrated by the federal government in the hands of the mainstream political parties.

Who Is the Evil Empire?

by Gerard Emershaw

I am a child of the Cold War. I was born during the late stages of the Vietnam War. During the month of my birth Nixon was visiting China—most likely in an attempt to prevent a robust Sino-Russian Communist Alliance against the West. My generation shivered in fear at the possibility of nuclear war as presented in films like The Day After and Threads. We hoped that Sting was correct in believing that nuclear war would not occur because the Russians loved their children, too. Despite dangerously close calls, NATO and the Warsaw Pact never engaged in global thermonuclear war.

Days after my high school graduation, the remnants of the Berlin Wall was demolished. By the end of my first sophomore semester at university, the Soviet Union officially ceased operation. The End of the Cold War brought with it so much possibility. With no more fear of World War III breaking out between the East and West, swords would be beaten into ploughshares. The American people would receive the “peace dividend” that they had earned. With war no longer a likely possibility, money would be spent for peaceful purposes instead of feeding the hunger of the greedy Military-Industrial Complex. The national debt would be tamed. Taxes would be reduced. But a funny thing happened on the way to the peace dividend. After a short period of “New World Order” where “humanitarian” military action was carried out in places such as the former Yugoslavia, the neoconservative War on Terror began after 9/11.

On March 8, 1983, President Ronald Reagan delivered his famous “Evil Empire” speech before an audience of Evangelical Christians in Orlando, Florida. While the speech was at times fascistic with its eerie theocratic flourishes, when the President spoke of the evil of the Soviet collectivist state, there was a power that can only emanate from truth:

Yes, let us pray for the salvation of all of those who live in that totalitarian darkness—pray they will discover the joy of knowing God. But until they do, let us be aware that while they preach the supremacy of the state, declare its omnipotence over individual man, and predict its eventual domination of all peoples on the Earth, they are the focus of evil in the modern world.

Make no mistake, the Soviet Union was an Evil Empire. It starved its people and tyrannized them by locking them in a police state behind the Iron Curtain. The Soviet leaders denied their people the most basic natural rights including freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Those who attempted to exercise such rights often found themselves tossed in Gulags in places such as Siberia.

Over twenty years after the Fall of the Berlin Wall, Russia is still essentially an evil collectivist nation. Vlad Putin is the head of corrupt and totalitarian government in a one-party state. Freedom House rates Russia as “not free.” While Russia has gradually moved from communism to fascism, its economy is still largely controlled. Heritage has ranked Russia's economy as the 139^th freest in the world and rated its economy as “mostly unfree.”

The United States still possesses more economic and social freedom than Russia ever has or likely ever will. However, that is not the point. The optimistic youth of my generation assumed that the end of the Cold War would mean that the United States would remain a beacon of freedom and the former Soviet Union and her former satellites would become more free. Perhaps Russia would never be as free as the United States, but it would be free.

Unfortunately, the opposite occurred. Despite having “won” the Cold War, the United States has become more totalitarian. The United States is looking more and more like the Soviet Union or Stasi East Germany during the Cold War. If the United States won the Cold War, then how did the American people begin to lose their freedom?

During the Cold War when the Soviets had countless nuclear missiles aimed at the United States—and posed a genuine existential threat to the nation—Americans were free. Constitutional rights were largely respected by the government. Today there is no similar existential threat to the United States. As bad as foreign terrorism is, it is a relatively minor threat. Increased vigilance since 9/11 also make such attacks less likely to succeed—even without totalitarian measures such as the PATRIOT Act in place.

The Soviet Union could have destroyed the United States within hours, yet the administrations of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Clinton mostly respected the natural rights of Americans. Of course, the surveillance state of the NSA, FBI, CIA, and other federal spy agencies were already getting dangerous—as the Church Committee Report detailed—but there was no true sense that totalitarianism in the United States was just around the corner. There was no claim by the federal government that it could indefinitely detain American citizens or simply assassinate them without due process. Back in the 1980s if someone would have laid out a case in which a whistleblower—who revealed details of clandestine spying programs against the citizens of his own nation—had fled his country just ahead of criminal charges being filed against him and had been granted temporary asylum in another nation, just about everyone would have assumed that the whistleblower was Soviet and that the nation offering asylum was the United States. Strange how different the truth is in the Snowden case.

Every day it seems that the United States moves closer to totalitarianism. It feels like Americans are frogs being boiled slowly in one big oppressive soup. While many complain about this, nobody seems to be doing anything about it. As long as there are ample “bread and circuses”—pop culture, television, the cinema, social networks, the internet, professional sports, etc.—there will be no European-style demonstrations or violence in the streets. The sheeple will just continue to allow themselves to be herded by the collectivist wolves.

Aside from the occasional political champion of liberty—whether it be a Ron Paul, Rand Paul, Justin Amash, Ron Wyden, etc.—nobody in the political establishment dares speak out against the status quo of the single American welfare/warfare surveillance state party. And those who dare do so are labelled “whacko birds” or “unAmerican” or “isolationist.” They are accused of having a “pre-9/11”mentality that is no longer appropriate. In this “Post-Constitutional” World, the Constitution is viewed by the powers that be as an archaic curiosity at best and as a suicide pact at worst.

The brave and bold Americans who won independence from the British Crown, tamed the West, stormed the beaches at Normandy and at Iwo Jima to defeat fascism, and endured the long Cold War to prevail over communism were now nothing but trembling cowards. Wimps who needed to be protected from nameless, faceless, “Islamo-fascists” in caves in Pakistan. “Live free or die” and “better dead than red” became “whatever it takes” to protect us. Americans would give up any and all freedom to be protected from terrorists who probably did not even exist. Even if there were as many terrorists as the government claimed, the chances of being killed in a terrorist attack were so remote as to not even be worth thinking about.

The strongest and deepest roots of the new American “Evil Empire” are the progressive ideas of President Woodrow Wilson. Wilson was essentially a fascist before the fascists were. Many media sources have rightly compared the neo-progressive President Barack Obama to Woodrow Wilson. The neoconservatives themselves have compared their outlook to that of Woodrow Wilson. Neocon Max Boot has characterized the Neo-Trotskyite position of neoconservatism as “HardWilsonianism.”

As a result of essentially only having two wings of the same political war and police state party—who differ only on “wedge” issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc.—the United States has gotten continuous war abroad and a growing Orwellian police state at home.

As long as the American people continue to be more Milquetoast than manly and more Dorris Day than John Wayne, they will live under the new American Evil Empire. As long as they are such wimps that they believe that martial law in a major formerly red blooded American city—one of the birth places of the American revolution—and house to house police searches are the proper response to find a single criminal suspect who had just barely passed puberty, then tyranny will prevail.

Allowing the United States to become totalitarian is to dishonor every American who fought bravely to keep Americans free and to preserve the Constitution. Not only accepting but demanding a police state as so many Americans have done is to spit in the faces of the Founders, the “doughboys,” the “dogfaces,” the “GI Joes,” etc. It is to do a grave disservice to Washington, Jefferson, Martin Luther King, Jr., and every other American who risked his or her life for freedom.

Perhaps in the end, freedom is only for the brave. Cowards are more likely to sit comfortably and ignore the growth of totalitarianism as long as they can update their Facebook profiles, watch reality television, drink beer, eat chicken wings, and cheer on their favorite sports teams without having to worry about being inconvenienced with another terrorist attack.

Nietzsche has famously warned:

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster... for when you gaze long into the abyss. The abyss gazes also into you.

 

 In fighting and defeating so many monsters, the United States government has itself become a monster. It has become an Evil Empire nearly as bad as many that it has fought. However, an Evil Empire is only possible in the United States as long as Americans allow it. Will we look up from our Twitter timelines, NFL games, “Real Housewives” episodes, or whatever else is stealing away our attention and do something about it? Or did so many patriots for so long act in vain? Is totalitarianism just the natural order of things?