Letters From Nam

Letters From Nam www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george10.html by Chuck George October 16, 2007 These were found among my mother’s effects after she died. She had saved them from 1970–1971. I was known at home by my first name. This is presented -exactly as my hand penned it out back then, as close as digital transcription allows. I did allow the lines to wrap herein because the originals were on small paper. 2 Sep 70 – Dear Mom & Dad – Time does fly by and I have no real excuse for my delinquency in writing – We are busy on the job, and my extra chores as Chairman of the Dept. of Surgery are a constant little thorn catching me just as I try to tie up loose ends on the ward or elsewhere. But the big deter[r]ent to letter writing is the constant need for company – it’s damn near impossible to sit alone in the trailer for any activity – studying, reading or letter writing – ________________________________________ The workload is smoothing out since we added a third orthopedist and a 4th man who has had one year of general surg. training. Even so it seems there’s very little spare time. This type of surgery is not very challenging and not very gratifying. When the kids are "dusted off" from some aid station, to us, we just check them over, stabilize them with blood transfusions and fluids then run them into the OR where we scrub them up & debride (cut away the debris) the wounds to get out all the dirt and dead tissue. The wounds are usually multiple fragments (MFW’s) from rockets, mortars or mines, occas. rifle fire. My corpsmen came to me after changing dressings on one fellow and said they had counted 37 wounds. The damage comes when the fragments, or the transmitted force of the frags or the explosion, fracture bones, lacerate arteries or, especially, cut nerves. We leave the wounds open so they can drain and then close them at 7-10 days, unless we have shipped the pt. up to Japan or back to the CONUS via air evac. It’s reassuring to know we have learned the surgical principles and can apply them to these miserable problems, but it is not very gratifying when the cause of it all is just a bunch of cavemen out throwing sophisticated rocks at each other – I’m not talking of the politics of this war because that just confuses me; I’m referring to Mankind’s stupid habit, over the eons, of warring. We operate a lot on Vietnamese – civilians, ARVN and the mercenaries – The first two categories we ship out rapidly to provincial and ARVN hospitals but the CIDG (Civilian Irregular Defense Group) we can follow-up because nobody else will – they are U.S employees, I guess, and make pretty good money by local standards. ________________________________________ I’ll bet the countertops at the Lake look great! The sailboat ramp sounds like a great idea. Glad it’s working out – also glad J – is enjoying the sailboat. There are 3 sunfish-type sailboats on the [Cam Ranh] Bay side of the AB [airbase] here for rent, and there are a Lightening, a Star and 3 small catamarans down at Market Time naval station – I haven’t been out on any yet – just can’t seem to get to it. I am enrolled in the Scuba course – have only made it to about ½ of the classes and just the 1st of the 2 Sunday all-day swim-ins we’ve had. Terribly anxious to get on with it. I’m juggling like mad to switch my call from this Sunday. Mom mentioned I might be bored with her ramblings in her letters. Altho’ it may seem otherwise from my poor response, I really appreciate the letters and relish every detail of your activities – so please keep them coming. I’ll try to do better now that we have some relief in the work-force. ________________________________________ I’m riding a thin edge on my quarters – I’m in a nice Port-A-Camper trailer type, rooms 9½ x 11½ at each end with a jon in between… but I’m not authorized by grade, etc., to be here. When I arrived the fellow who was here TDY filling my slot just moved me in and he moved out. I never checked at billeting… LtCol’s and Majors on flying status are authorized these quarters – the next step down is a big one – Billeting has caught up with me but we are sitting tight until some anticipated crowding develops – I am sweating out my flying status orders, which is another story – I should make L/C sometime between 1 Jan & 9 Jan – and my boss is going to make a pitch for me as a "Key Personnel" in the Hospital. So my chances of keeping this room are pretty good… but I’m worried & skeptical. The flying status is another story… the big factor right now is policy rumblings from way up that all clinicians will be taken off flying status. This seems quite certain, but no dates are set for implementation. But I don’t figure it will be any help to me in my application to get on flying status. The application is another story…we sent it forward from here 31 Jul, 7th AF in Saigon sent it forward to PACAF (Hickam) 10 Aug, PACAF bounced it 18 Aug and 7th returned it to us dated 25 Aug – we got it the 28th, and had it en route back up the line the 29th. Very frustrating… and the med. exam has to be sent all the way to Hq USAF (Personnel) at Randolph AFB, Tx – so I doubt I’ll even get on status. Even if I do it’ll only be for a short time until this other thing is implemented. So I’m a bit bitter – $230.00/mo. bitter ! and probably my nice quarters. Sorry I’ve gotten into this nice little harangue – Weather here is quite consistently damn warm – day and night – variably humid to very humid – but sometimes the evenings are quite pleasant – probably down to 75o – and there is a constant breeze. There is usually a pleasant breeze – we are on a narrow peninsula between the ocean and a bay. Our clinic, wards and OR are all air-conditioned. The outdoor corridors are covered and I’ve never been really uncomfortable. We wear rubber/leather/nylon-topped boots and OD fatigues, cut something like a bush jacket. All insignia & name tags are embroidered in black. They look heavy and hot but really aren’t. And they are comfortable with lots of pockets – 10 I believe – all very loose fitting. My walk to work is concrete – but these boots are quite adequate for it – the boots also have some kind of a flexible metal inner sole to protect against spikes (none here). The alternative to paving here is a deep soft sand. The way I figure the time difference is this – It takes the sun 11 hrs to get from overhead there to overhead here – so when it does get here, and it is noon here, eleven hrs have gone by there, so it is 11 p.m. (standard time) there ! Somewhere they had to have an [sic] sharp cut-off for the day difference and it happens to be out in the mid-Pac which is just ½ way around the world from Greenwich, England, where all this business started. So, the Date Line is just an arbitrary place where the day changes – so, true time is 11 hrs later in Rochester than here, but, date time is the day before – when it is 12 noon here it is 11 pm the day before in Rochester. The other way to figure it is to figure westward from here – the sun hasn’t gotten there yet so it is earlier in the day eastward [sic – westward] from here, one hour for each time zone – and it is 13 time zones to Rochester – in 13 hrs the sun will reach Rochester (overhead) and it will be noon there – going back to 13 hrs earlier, when the sun was overhead here, it was 11 pm the previous evening in Rochester ! No date line, just a midnight. ________________________________________ I don’t mind a letter full of questions – Sometimes provides some good ideas for letter writing. 12 of the 14 boxes I shipped arrived 2-3 weeks ago. There hasn’t been another boat mail since, so I expect the remainder to arrive then. If you send anything send it PAL or SAM – it’s 2½ mos since I mailed those 14 boxes. ________________________________________ This hospital is staffed for 400 beds & has 400 beds, but runs about 280 pt’s – it is, I believe, the AF’s 3rd largest in capacity – If we ran 400 pt’s we’d be totally swamped – Our type requires fair amount of attention and lots of paperwork getting them admitted then manifested for air evac… and the paperwork takes time – our load runs to surgical patients – altho’ Medicine keeps busy with malaria and dysentery – I will have a tape recorder in a couple months – I’m going to go the whole route in amplifier, tape deck & FM tuner and big speakers, etc. My little recorder S---- has. before then it would be a little awkward using someone else’s. But will get on with it later. Now 8 Sep – ________________________________________ Food is o.k. – strictly institutional but adequate. There are a few clubs, with very limited menus. Of course, it’s not uncommon for a case of steak to fall off a truck and find its way into our refrigerators – always keeps frozen thru its journey. We eat here at the trailer. Once had chick-a-bab [sic] which was outstanding. Trailer is very adequate; patio is nice; roommate is great – LtCol dentist. There are several native town [sic] nearby – I’ve never been to any of them. I haven’t been off this peninsula – but I’ve been over most of it. On 24 & 25 Sept I’m going up to Nha Trang to operate for 2 days in a civilian Provincial Hospital. Must close and see if I can get this into an evening pick-up. Much love – I’ll write sooner next Harold ________________________________________ 2 Nov 70 Dear Mom & Dad – Things seem to be slowing down here a bit – This is the first afternoon that I’ve really had free in weeks – I’m at the hospital because I have some studying and filing and personal paperwork I want to do – will write a couple pages then finish this in my room where I’ll review some of your recent letters. I wrote you a long letter that should have arrived in Rochester while you were at San F. – can’t recall you mentioned it – will check back letters tonight. I had the crud last week – bad diarrhea and cramping Wed. night – heaved my lunch & most of my innards it seemed – Worst damn cramps I’ve had since I was a kid – Just today feel I’m really clear of it. Roommate in same condition. I’m finally on flying status ! – Got the orders just a couple weeks ago and they were back-dated to 14 Sep – still feel I was cheated out of 6 weeks, and may yet write it up for the Inspector General – I’m out of my job as Chairman of Surg. Dept. ! Thank God ! The guy who was 7 days senior to me came in and took the job. I’ve never been so happy to shed a burden ! No word yet on the promotion deal – I interpret the rule as written reported in the AF Times that I am long overdue (Aug ’69) for L/C; and I recall that Randolph AFB people told me I wouldn’t make it until the next board meets after the rules become effective – Dec ’70 board considers promotions for Cal. Yr. 1971 – so I may make it 1 Jan 71 – there is so much of that 3rd hand I’m prepared for any disappointment – but I will be disappointed. ________________________________________ I’ll probably then take R & R in March – the big birthday month – maybe April – Everybody advises leave & R & R be taken late in the tour because the time afterward is the hardest to take. Also, often is tough to get R & R travel slots – and the closer to DEROS (Date of Return from Over Sea) the higher your priority. The weather right here right now is surprisingly cool & breezy. about 70o which is cooler than it has been any time since I’ve been here except an occasional 0600 hours. Really is quite refreshing. Last Wed. when I was so sick we had our typhoon – it had been down graded to a tropical storm but did blow off a few f roofs and cut off water & electricity. Fortunately my roommate & I managed to contain ourselves during the worst water cut-off periods. Could have been bad! Will mail this now & try to write again soon regarding review of your letters to answer questions. Love Harold 27 Mar 71 !! Dear Mom & Dad ________________________________________ So far I know only that I’m going either to Vandenberg AFB in southern Calif. or to Wright-Patterson AFB in Ohio. I called Washington a couple days ago and that’s all the guy could tell me – I’m not sure whether he couldn’t remember which or whether the decision just hadn’t been made. ________________________________________ I’m en route to the annual War Surgery meeting, this year in Tokyo. Will be there a week. My "other" orthopaedist left for the States 2 Feb and it took them until 10 Ap Mar to get me temporary duty help from the Philippines – he’s covering me until I get my man in permanently about 5 Apr. That’s one reason I’ve been so busy We did have a mass casualty with 31 Cambodian trainees hit in a rocket attack. I had had 11 admissions on the day before (a Saturday) then ate blintzes & crêpes & wine until 1am and they arrived at 3am I was in the O.R. until noon – tho’t I’d poop out – but there is a lot of adrenalin flowing at a time like that. Biggest work load is with the backaches & knee pains which seem more numerous now that the war is winding down. They requires so much more time-consuming evaluation and paper work. One thing I’d really appreciate is a couple big cans of Bond Street [pipe] tobacco. I’ve gotten to the point where I really don’t like any other brands, and the selection is so very poor in Viet Nam. Send it Parcel Post & label it "SAM". Surely glad Aunty Vi made it out to Hawaii – I’ll bet she really enjoyed it. Hope all is well with you-all back there in the thaw – I’ll close and shoot off a note to C------. Love Harold October 16, 2007 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

Ron Paul's Philosophy

The LRC Blog www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/13534.html June 14, 2007 Ron Paul's Philosophy Posted by Lew Rockwell on June 14, 2007 04:35 PM "Give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry "I'd rather be free – and alive!" -- Ron Paul (Thanks to Chuck George)

Whither the Casualties?

Whither the Casualties? www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george9.html by Chuck George April 25, 2007 How many American Iraq/Afghanistan casualties has Faux News announced lately? None that I have seen. Today, Fox did mention the Army amputees 10 mile run. But no mention of G.I. deaths, September casualty counts, total Iraq war casualty count. Are we way over 3,800, or just a little bit over? How often, lately, do you see any mention of American casualties on CNN? None, that I have seen. HNN doesn’t talk about casualties any more. There has been no mention on our local stations, Fox News 10 or NBC News 15, Mobile, Alabama. I can’t comment on print media much because I don’t read it except for NYT headlines in email and references from LRC and other blogs. Now, these observations are my own and I don’t watch a whole bunch; but the contrast from a few months back is stunning. There is immense coverage of scandalous, shocking, outrageous, attention-getting behavior. It seems designed at generating rage, disgust, sympathy, and other intense, distracting emotions. We hear about mutiny and murder, law-breaking and flashing by femmes fatales, law-breaking famous athletes, missing young beauties, often found dead and raped, missing youngsters, usually found dead and raped, child-abuse – colorful, outraged non-descriptions of the video, with nationwide search for the suspect; we hear about the distraught lady seeking help who panics when denied airplane boarding then dies in custody within fifteen minutes; Princess Di is getting lots of coverage on 10th anniversary of her sensational death. Today, a shoot-out in Crandon, Wisconsin, five dead; police are no longer looking for the suspect. Much seems aimed at dulling our sensitivities to such crassness and immorality – but that’s another subject that has been covered elsewhere and needs to be explored further. And there is lots of feel-good stuff about the current military activities. Praise, and some criticism, for the Petraeus report. A headline reads Surge Has Reduced Violence, Petraeus Tells Fox News. Bush reports there may be troop cuts of 30,000 by next summer. Presidential primary campaigning, at least as for the top three candidates in each party, is getting lots of attention. But the neglect of Ron Paul seems most studied and intentional; same phenomenon on a different subject from this article. But I see a clear affinity in motivation between the driver(s) of these two phenomena. O.K., we’ll look at some origins of this kind of news. First and most logical place is the Department of Defense [sic]. They have a section called the American Forces Press Service which publishes finished articles pertinent to activities of the DoD. They have 55 articles listed from the 1st of October current through the afternoon of the 6th. No mention of casualties. From the 1st of August through the 30th of September this year there are no articles that mention casualties. All I checked was title and their two-line summary. But looking back I selected February 2007 and in those twenty-eight days there were 78 deaths reported in the articles from the American Forces Press Services. One of those deaths occurred in the attempted bombing of VP Cheney at Bagram AB in Afghanistan. That certainly is a change in substance regarding casualties reported and strongly suggests a change in policy on the subject. Has anyone heard of such a change in policy? Most of those articles in August and September were good news or feel-good news. Here are a few examples: 09/23/2007 – Violent Incidents Down; Al Qaeda "Off Balance" in Iraq 09/21/2007 – Iraqi Police Surge Dramatically Reduces Baghdad Violence 09/19/2007 – Iraqi Citizens Crucial in Locating Terror Mastermind, Securing Country 09/19/2007 – Iraqi, Coalition Forces Net Suspects, Kill Insurgents, Seize Weapons 09/16/2007 – Troop Surge Turns Momentum Against Terrorists, Official Says 09/13/2007 – Iranian-Made Mortar Likely Used in Recent Attack, General Says 09/06/2007 – Combat Lifesaver Course Trains Soldiers to Save Lives on Battlefield 09/05/2007 – Iraq Violence Drops as Economy Revives, Officials Say 08/16/2007 – Iraqi Officials Lead Recovery Efforts After Car-Bomb Attacks 08/16/2007 – Army Releases Suicide Data, Promotes Prevention Programs On the Faux News web site there is a section headed War on Terror. On the 1st of October there were ninety titles under seven sub-headings, none on casualties in either Iraq or Afghanistan. At CNN a site search for "Iraq" yielded eleven articles, for "terror" yielded ten articles; none of those mentioned casualties. HNN’s site is a subset of CNN’s. In Mobile, Fox News 10 turned up no casualties, just the item with Bush’s 30,000 troop reduction by next summer. NBC News 15 did have a report on its web site last 10th of September that seven U.S. soldiers died, all combat related. A Google search for "terror-Iraq-casualties" turned up a report in the Boston Globe on the 30th of September of 15 G.I.s killed and gave their names. On the 1st of October the Houston Chronicle reported one died and the Baltimore Sun reported that the AP had calculated 3,083 soldiers had died in the Iraq war of combat related causes; they identified three. The Washington Post had run an item on the 29th of September that two thirds of the 3,100 combat deaths in Iraq had been caused by IEDs. Same day the Houston Chronicle had reported that, since the 29th of March, 2003, until now there had been more than 81,000 IED attacks in Iraq, including 25,000 in 2007. There are sources available of the mortality occurrence reportage. The DoD has a section called News Releases. This reports the identity of the soldiers killed with rank, age, home town, date and location of demise, circumstances in the setting, organization, and a media contact number. It seems to become available after next of kin have been notified so there is a day or a few lag in that report. Then, there is a site called icasualties.org which reports casualties, apparently taken in part from DoD but from other sources as well and presents the data in many permutations. And Antiwar.com has a page that lists the death casualties in various commutations. The Washington Post has an interesting site that lists all of the same information but also has a picture of the fallen and for a garnish throws in a google map locating his home community. CNN has the same, listed alphabetically or by date, less the map. But these have to be sought out. The American public was quite interested in the casualty figures and particulars. But, so far, there hasn’t been a hue and cry from the lack of such information appearing in the MSM. What we don’t see or have at hand we often don’t notice or think of. This, of course, brings us to some consideration as to the why of this phenomenon, the immense reduction in the coverage of American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. It’s fairly self-evident that such news isn’t favorable to the producers of this disastrous, ostensible exercise in nation-building. With 70% of the U.S. population disapproving of the continuing combat and the Administration’s desire for hegemony in the Middle East that’s probably all we have to suppose. How is this brought about? Is there a conspiracy? Is it just an inherent prejudice of the leading media providers (MSM)? …that came over them all about the same time – this late spring or summer? We’ll never know, because if you postulate a conspiracy, you’re considered a nut case. But I guess we can postulate a bit without being carted off to an insane asylum…, or to Gitmo. Perhaps it is as simple as a policy change in the DoD, not wanting to wash their dirty linen in public any more they discontinued mention of the death toll in the American Forces Press Service Articles. If most of the MSM got much of their information from the American Forces Press Service then their source had dried up and they didn’t notice, didn’t care, or just chose not to say anything about it. But that seems too simplistic. Perhaps somebody in DoD or the Administration…, maybe the Office of the Vice President, or some such agency just gently suggested to the MSM that it would look better if they quit reporting so much grim detail so regularly, you know, follow the lead of the AFPS. I mean, the MSM do like to cooperate, especially with the Administration they most love to hate. Or could it be a little more sinister? Does somebody or some agency have some ability to coerce the MSM when they feel it is important enough – such as a propaganda war to minimize the bad impression the populace gets when exposed to all of the news all of the time. Down over the years there have been lots of tales and books of intrigue by the OSS and the CIA in the realm of exerting influence (or here, or here) on the various organs of the media. There are allegations of bribes, threats, blackmail and other forms of wooing and coercing key members of the information industries. Who knows, maybe it continues, maybe the CIA and fellows do have tentacles that reach that far. It’s a terrible thought but not so terrible as to be unthinkable. There I go, sounding like a conspiracy theorist. That, of course, leads to the final question. Who are the fellows alluded to three lines up? The obvious candidates that come to mind are the world government cabal, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderburgers, EU, NAU, WTO, etc., etc. Or are they just the guys we see as the big government bad guys in the U.S., the neoconservatives, the insider top fellows of U.S. governmental branches of whatever party? And, whoever of those it may be, how do they control our CIA or whatever agency may be implementing this scheme? Well, I don’t have answers to those questions, nor do I want to. April 25, 2007 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

What If…?

What If…? www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george8.html by Chuck George April 25, 2007 What if… three or four students/faculty on the second floor of Norris Hall at Virginia Tech had had weapons concealed on their persons? Well, perhaps there would be two or three or several people dead in the first classroom Cho entered; or perhaps not. If one of the students carrying that day was in that first room that day, and if she were well trained, perhaps the only casualty in that building would have been the professor, who apparently was the first victim, victim of the first shot except for the earlier episode in the dormitory. What if… it were well known, even advertised, that carry was allowed, even encouraged, on that campus? Well, it seems that Cho was pretty disturbed, so maybe he would have started out just as he did. Perhaps he would have been more circumspect and would have given up the idea or never would have had the idea in the first place. Or perhaps he would have used a bomb (?suicide bomber) or poison gas or self-immolation in front of Burris Hall (administration). But Virginia Polytechnic Institute had reduced the possibility of anyone defending himself in kind from firearm assault. With a decades old rule against gun carrying on campus, which had been recently been enforced against an unnamed student who was otherwise in compliance with the law…, permit, concealed, etc. The policy has been questioned as possibly illegal because the University is a State of Virginia institution and the policy modifies and restricts the State carry law. Also, the policy has recently been under fire in the legislature with a couple attempts to pass legislation specifically to allow carry on campuses. What if… this sign were displayed prominently about the campus? SIGN: Weapons carried by persons of ill-intent: NOT ALLOWED GUNS carried legally WELCOME Well, the nay-sayers, the gun-control crowd, the pessimists, would be saying that there would be gun-fights on the Drill Field every day…; just as in the old westerns, about which such behavior has been disproven (and here), and as in downtown Blacksburg or Roanoke or D.C. or New York. The only difference being that the gunfights in the cities are mostly carried out by people without permits, with illegally acquired weapons, by people who probably couldn’t get a permit because of their records, and are drive-by shootings with only one intended victim and often one or two collateral damage victims. Granted, Cho had a permit, but its legality is questionable and had all the processes been in place he wouldn’t have had that permit nor would he have been sold the guns. If he hadn’t had the permit and couldn’t have bought the guns legally it’s fairly clear he could have obtained them illegally. So, why not give the victims a chance? What if… Ryan "Stack" Clark, the student resident assistant in Ambler Johnson Hall, probably the second victim had had, had been required to have, and had been trained in the use of an effective handgun? Well, he might have been able to subdue Cho, probably by killing him, as he (Stack) rushed to the aid of Emily Jane Hischer, presumably the first victim. He might not have been able to subdue him; he might have lost and have been killed. He wouldn’t be any worse off than he is. And he would have had some chance, better than bare hands, maybe 50-50 or better, to save himself and 30 other people. What if… Emily Jane Hischer had had her permitted hand gun, and good training in self-defense, in her hand when she went to her door? She might have been able to get the drop on Cho. She might have been able to save her own life and Stack’s life, and the lives of 30 other people. She might not have been able to. What if… Kevin Granata, professor in bioengineering, had paused briefly to snatch up his (nonexistent) legally permitted handgun concealed in his desk in compliance with VTech’s (nonexistent) non-restrictive rules before he ran down to the second floor from his third floor office in Norris Hall in response to the shooting on the second floor? He might be alive today. He might have been able to save many, or a few, or even just one, of Cho’s victims plus himself. But he didn’t have a legally permitted handgun concealed in his desk, nor in his hand, as he ran down those steps. He died. Twenty-nine others, and Cho, died with him. April 25, 2007 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2007 LewRockwell.com

TITLE

This one really was intended to be a letter to Lew Rockwell; it made it into the publication queue. I’ll probably never know whether that was by intent or by oversight, but I was pleased; my effort was published; but I never did get the direction requested. Title www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george7.html by Chuck George February 8, 2006 Dear Lew, Gary North is some kind of a giant. I got into his Institutional Corpse article yesterday and followed the link to Freebooks. Previously having followed a few of his other links this one blew me away. As I read on and installed DjVu and read on further I began to evolve an idea that had probably been gestating in the back of my mind for a long time. I’m not sure how it came about. (Free association is a feature of schizophrenia.) But it did. I’m writing to ask if you think this is a reasonable and feasible course for me to pursue. Would it be worthwhile to explore the idea that to get "the message" out to a greater number of people one avenue is to emphasize – by examples, logic, repetition, etc., the inevitability of graft and corruption in central planning…, at least in the implementation of central planning. I mean, something I would concentrate upon, article after article. People are attracted to sordidness; piling it on in descriptions of corruption might attract many who would then be receptive to the concept of the relationship between such corruption and the concentration of power. We might be able to get their attention and disapproval of the connection between graft and corruption and their tax dollar, their contract-in-good-faith with their representatives. There are many flaws in the results of central planning, which is one of the continuing themes of true conservative and economic libertarian, Austrian, punditry. These include but are not limited to: inefficiency, inevitable loss of freedom, lack of true security, loss of diversity, unfairness, inevitable graft and corruption, and ultimately the ultimate impossibility of central planning. All of these themes need to be developed continuously as they currently are. I’m thinking I may pursue and concentrate on the theme of corruption… pleasant thought…. It is "in your face," a feature of my personality; it doesn’t require a depth of knowledge of economics, Austrian or otherwise (is there any otherwise?); there is a wealth of material out there, historical and ongoing. It wouldn’t keep me from popping out the occasionally diverse piece as has marked my first six. But it would give me some depth in a specific area which I could turn to benefit, for personal satisfaction, for personal advantage (?recognition), and for furtherance of reaching more of the population (mass-man) and influencing them away from the central state. There are lots of good people out there even if they are not part of the remnant (am I, are you?) who might be offended by this one specific negative, corruption, who might otherwise just accept the ups and downs of the current scene as presented by the various forms of the media, as going with the territory. Maybe they could be reached by getting more of this type stuff into more popular media. There certainly is lots of corruption in the news currently, as there usually is, but the point is never made, that it is just inevitably a part of welfare, redistribution, central planning, etc., albeit a typical part of human nature(??), and would be much less able to permeate in decentralized systems. Special interests are often mentioned, and usually with a pejorative sense, but not with the explication and vitriol of pointing out their inevitability in our current system. This is part and parcel, Chuck George’s fantastical extension, of the stated principle that the ultimate route to a cleaner, more honest, libertarian society is through education, the mission of the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Helping students to discover the economics of freedom, and inspiring them to go on to teach at the university level, is perhaps the Institute's most important program. The idea I’m stewing on here might evolve as a non-academic’s supplement to that mission. I’m thinking not as an investigative operative – I’m not a net-worker – but as a consolidator and analyst to put the material into a digestible form with the underlying theme that corruption is inevitable in central planning. That’s something students of libertarianism and laissez faire economics understand. More of the population needs to be exposed to the concept. Maybe I can help. Please excuse me if asking this is too presumptuous but it would be most helpful to know whether you think this might be a profitable theme to develop further, or whether I should continue with my random subject selection. Sincerely, Chuck February 8, 2006 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

In Your Wildest Dreams

It Should Be So or…, Pie in the Sky or…, In Your Wildest Dreams www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george6.html by Chuck George January 28, 2006 STATE OF THE UNION ( SATIRE ! ) For Immediate Release Office of the Press Secretary ( SATIRE ! ) January 31, 2006 State of the Union Address Chamber of the U.S. House of Representatives The United States Capitol Washington, D.C. President's Remarks; corrected copy, 8:55 P.M. EST, January 31, 2006 An Epiphany; Restoration of the Constitution: State of the Union 2006 9:10 P.M. EST THE PRESIDENT: Mr. Speaker, Vice President Cheney, members of Congress, fellow citizens: First: a brief announcement: The text from which I am reading is a vast departure from that which was distributed this morning. The United States of America will radically alter direction in its policy profile in both the international arena and on the domestic scene, effective as I speak. We will no longer seek empire or hegemony on the world scene; we will strive to realize the vision of the Founders here at home. I apologize to the Democratic Congresspeople, and many of the Republican, because they have not been given a chance to study this edition of tonight’s address. I would urge that they not say too much until they read it, study it, discuss it, and read the book referred to below, and think it all over. I’m sure the media will give them lots of time to express their ideas, especially the objections. Several months ago arrangements were made for me to meet and confer at some length with an intellectual person of renown in his field of socio-politico-economics. He and the small group gathered got my attention. We met several times, sort of a seminar, and we expanded our attendance from meeting to meeting. I read a book [pause for laughter]. All of this was carried on in utmost secrecy, not State secrecy, but the secrecy of a group dedicated to ideas which, if broadcast, would excite variable responses that would doom it from the outset but which ideas are correct, noble, practical, workable and necessary and will be effected. Effectively, I have enjoyed an epiphany; I have been introduced to a school of thought that I am now convinced is correct and the only course for this great Republic to take. Those convictions carry with them the realization that the course we have followed since 2001 has been terribly, terribly wrong. The course that we have followed since 1933 has been terribly wrong. The course that we have followed since 1913 has been terribly wrong. And there were some pretty glaring wrongs before then. We are reversing course in the interest of the people of the United States, in the interest of their God-given, Natural and Constitutionally guaranteed rights as citizens, in the interest of their material welfare in a new (to our generations) economy that will perceptibly enhance the life style of the typical household within weeks, while, at the same time, allowing each individual to pursue his happiness as he chooses. There will be some rough spots in the adjustments to our new profile – mostly in the form of problems from people who don’t see the light. But the beneficial effects will begin to show within days and will shine dramatically within weeks. We will remain the leading power in the world, we will leap ahead (not like Mao) and will shine, we will become a beacon that the rest of the world may follow or not, but will ignore to their own disadvantage. It will be leadership by example. That’s big talk. Just wait. We’ll start tonight with the international scene. In Iraq I was convinced that there was evil out there that we had the power and obligation to destroy. I was wrong: some of the evil existed and we have eliminated the obvious but we uncovered a hornets’ nest of other evils that we didn’t foresee. I’ve become acquainted with the law of unforeseen consequences through my own example. We have neither the right nor the power to overcome the forces extant. We will withdraw our forces from Iraq and Afghanistan immediately. We are not forgetting nor ignoring 9/11/2001; the war on terror..., that is written with lower case letters, will continue in an entirely different form. It is already underway but, for obvious reasons, the new course for combating terror will remain a State secret for now. I’ve been assured by senior military and intelligence staff that the withdrawals can be accomplished reasonably quickly and safely. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan can be assured that we won’t be bombing their children and grandparents any more, effective now..., immediately. Around the world we have hundreds of military bases of all sizes and character that intrude in the sovereignty of nations and people. These are resented mightily by people of all stripes around the world. They are the basis of much of the hatred manifested toward These United States. Most of these installations will be closed immediately and the thousands of GIs scattered out there will be coming home. We will further develop our human intelligence and our various electronic (not to include unwarranted wire-tapping of Americans) and satellite intelligence capabilities to replace the intrusive stations. Our intelligence henceforth will literally be directed at defense..., DEFENSE. Our Defense Department will be postured for defense..., DEFENSE. We will retain two massive and expensive functions of the military for some unforeseen period in the future. We will assume, unilaterally, an active Mutually Assured Destruction stance toward all of the nuclear powers. We will destroy any force, and its sources, which uses nuclear weapons or is on the verge of doing so, if it can be unequivocally confirmed. We will use big sticks. Curtis LeMay, where are you? To supplement that we will continue to work on Ballistic Missile Defense. It is feasible; it will be expensive. BMD and MAD will be the big-ticket items. They will always be considered temporary, defensive necessities under continuous review, to modify, decrease or eliminate as soon as it is found safe to do so. Defense of North America will be the sole function of the Defense Department. We will not announce our defensive perimeter but will be talking with our immediate neighbors as soon as they are ready to talk. Foreign aid has been one of the darkest chapters in our modern history. Most of such aid has gone to dictators who were "in our pockets." Literally, the money has gone to the dictators and their cronies, not to the people of these horribly disadvantaged countries. The people have been disadvantaged by the oppression of their tyrannical dictators made affordable by the bribery we have supplied. This also is a basis for much of the hatred toward These United States expressed around the world. Henceforth there will be no foreign aid. Not only is foreign aid counterproductive and immoral, it is unconstitutional. We will cease meddling in the affairs of other states. We will discontinue foreign aid. We will stop interfering with small powers seeking nuclear weapons, but we will remind them emphatically and frequently of our MAD policy. They will appreciate that "Mutual" is a euphemism and they will be far more "mutualed" than we or France or England will be. We will withdraw from the United Nations immediately. The documents effecting this step are arriving at the United Nations buildings as I speak, awaiting arrival of the UN officials to accept them, tonight. We shall invite the United Nations to find a new home on other shores within two years. Delegates to the United Nations will no longer be accorded diplomatic privileges while on American soil, effective immediately, tonight; the New York Police Department is being appraised of this right now. We shall withdraw from all our defense treaties as soon as the process can be concluded; the process has been started. There will no longer be favored nation status for some of our trading partners. All trading partners and potential trading partners will be on an equal basis in the eyes of the United States government. Our industries and commerce will be free to trade and negotiate on whatever terms they can find. We will eliminate all protective tariffs, import and export, immediately. We shall eliminate import and export quotas immediately. We shall eliminate internal subsidies immediately, industrial, farm and all the others. (We shall be watching our trading partners for reciprocity and will be considering retaliatory, focused tariffs or quotas where we find trade practices unequivocally deemed unfair.) That will be the essence of our foreign policy. There will be cries of isolationism but I’m not so sure Lindbergh and Taft and Jefferson and Washington were so far off base. We will, henceforth, mind our own business, promote commerce and friendship, and avoid entanglements. With regard to domestic issues we have mentioned some above and will elaborate on them further on. But, we’re starting with the big issues. Some of these are just recommendations at this moment but we have been gratified at the response of the few leaders we have approached in utmost confidence. The executive department has initiated most of the plans that we can effect unilaterally. We are prepared to proceed to have these proposals passed and are confident we can do so. We will pull out all the big guns. I and my allies, a small but rapidly growing group, will not hesitate to use the big "S" word, SOCIALIST, and its close cousin WELFARIST in describing those whose so-called liberal bent earns them such a label. Socialism and welfarism have been proven, on the world stage, and pretty well here in America to be absolute losers. There was no place for such stuff in the view of the Founders; there is no place for such stuff today. The great American middle, of all ethnic and racial origins, does not like the concepts of socialism and welfarism and centralism. Another word of pejorative tone which we will toss about liberally is, CENTRIST, referring to the tendency ever since 1789 to concentrate power in a central government. Those persons thus labeled will be dismayed to find what a large part of the media we have discretely found to be sympathetic with our efforts. And there is the internet which will be of interest to peruse, effectively now. We have been gratified at the discretion we have been able to maintain to date. This confirms the validity of the cause and the loyalty of the participants. Several Amendments to the Constitution of These United States will be offered immediately for Congress’s consideration. I expect them to be passed by the requisite super majorities of both houses and be sent to the States before the really big legislative packages are sent up ten days from now. More amendments will be proposed soon thereafter, as the dust settles. The legislators may be subjected to some persuaders to which they are not accustomed in the next few hours, days and weeks. Amendments to the Constitution: not a common subject for State of the Union addresses; I presume they’ll start numbering with amendment XXVIII - twenty-eight…, as they are ratified. First, I’ll present the repeals of and deletions from the Constitution as it stands. These pertain almost entirely to the Amendments. Some clarifying Amendments to the body of the Constitution will be offered. Many of these proposals aim to restore the relationship between the States and the federated government which was intended by most of the Founders and by most or all of the attendees at the ratifying conventions of the various States. Specifically: they are offered in recognition that the States are sovereign entities which did join together and are joined together to form a federated government for the purpose of furthering some few common interests of those States, and for nothing more. The references in the Second Amendment to "Militia" and to "security" will be deleted, by way of clarification. Those who would quibble in claiming that, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," has a diluting effect on the principal sentence will have no quibble left. The 2nd Amendment shall read, only: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." A new amendment to clarify and strengthen the guarantee of the inviolability of the individual or corporate right to possess private property will replace the concluding provision of the Fifth Amendment. This new amendment will be considered a part of the Bill of Rights and will be included in the package imposed upon the States to be described later. Eminent Domain will have some very stiff tests. A non-amendment will be a Super-Act that will require the Congress to give full faith and credit to the extant guarantees of the rights of the States and of the people explicit in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. In this Super-Act the Congress will require itself to confirm these rights by passing a new resolution at the beginning of each legislative session so stating, and that there will be a phrase or sentence so stating in each and every act of legislation passed henceforth. Just a reminder. The Fourteenth Amendment: Section 1: all after the 20th and 21st words, the "United States," referring to the relationship between each of the sovereign States and its citizens shall be repealed. In Section 2 the phrases pertaining to the election of State officials shall be deleted. Section 3 shall be repealed. Section 4 shall be repealed. The Sixteenth Amendment providing for the imposition of income taxes shall be repealed. The Seventeenth Amendment providing for the popular election of senators shall be repealed. The original wording of Section 3 of Article I will be restored. Senators will be chosen by the legislatures of their respective States, as originally intended…, and with good reason. Next, we’ll offer term limits. This is a draconian step but it is seen as necessary to return the concept of representation to the healthier view of it being representation by citizen politicians. Hopefully we will begin to see our representatives at all levels as honorable, decent citizens rather than the nasty reputation they have earned to date. The presidency will be extended to five years and will be limited to one term. The senatorial term will remain as it is, six years, but Senators will be limited to one term. Representatives will continue to serve for two years but will be limited to one term, with the provision for a second and final term after at least six years have intervened between the end of their first term and the beginning of their second. A new amendment will clarify that there is a right for individual or groups of States to secede from the federation. That is already apparent to many but the concept was set back badly in the 1860s. It needs to be restored. The amendment will be kept simple but will provide for legislation to consider terms of secession and future relations between the States and the Union. A new amendment will formally define and expand the original Bill of Rights and will list the Amendments which will be included. They will be the original ten, the Thirteenth, the amended Fourteenth and Fifteenth, the Nineteenth, the Twenty-fourth, the Twenty-sixth and the new amendment assuring the right to property. This amendment then will contain a provision requiring that each of the States shall incorporate the newly defined Bill of Rights within its Constitution. Policing and enforcement of that group of amendments will be the responsibilities of the individual States, but they must have them in their constitution. Failure to do so will result in consequences to be defined, but finally, if it comes to it, to expulsion from the Union. In Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, the Commerce clause shall be amended to clarify that it will be interpreted in the very narrow sense of regulating the trade between the States, as originally intended, or will be deleted. The recommendation for that will be finalized within the next few days. We need an amendment establishing that this country, henceforth, will enjoy the immense advantage of dealing entirely with commodity-based money. The gold standard will be returned, established and affirmed with the strength of a Constitutional Amendment. Now, on to entitlements. The whole concept is wrong. No one is entitled to a piece of anyone else’s property. On the other hand, the United States has made many promises to most of its citizens. These can be considered contractual or they can be regarded as empty political promises. The contractual aspect must be acknowledged, at least to some extent. Where there is a contractual element involved, as in Social Security, Medicare, military and other pensions, VA disabilities, etc., the programs will be closed out by formulation as fairly as possible. Funding will come from various sources, but sale of federal lands and other properties will provide much of it. This is very complex and will take a few months to implement – but I expect it all to be authorized within the month. Subsidies, grants and loans will cease immediately. The private sector will expand its present capabilities in these functions, without direction from the nanny State, and provide without missing a beat. And do a better job. Where there is no genuine need the funds won’t be available. Some people will hurt. But this is the time for politicians to quit buying votes with financial redistribution. Look at it this way: you are all in your last term and there won’t be any bye-bye boondoggles. The executive departments are going, except for the classical four as established in President Washington’s Cabinet. State will continue to exist; it will continue to perform many of the functions it does now. Many of the programs it now administers will be shut down, thrown out. We will talk with our brethren nations about the world but the subject material is going to be limited to friendship and trade and consular activities. Treasury will continue to exist. As with all other departments it has an immense responsibility in the next several months overseeing its own shrinkage but also in advising and assisting the other departments in the financial and bookkeeping aspects of their demise. After the dust settles its mission statement will change, eliminating the hubris of its claim "to promote the conditions for prosperity and stability in the United States." Treasury will be the financial manager and bookkeeper for the government. Most of its offices and bureaus will be eliminated. The Department of Justice will continue to be the advisor to the government for legal matters, but not much else. The most visible change will be the complete dissolution of the Drug Enforcement Agency which will become redundant with the repeal of all drug prohibition laws. We are, in no way, endorsing or encouraging the use and abuse of recreational drugs. We will use the bully pulpit of my station to discourage such use, on the basis of health, practical concerns and of ethical and moral objections to such use. But, as a nation, we will enjoy the huge reduction in crime, petty and large, that will ensue as it did in 1933 with the repeal of alcohol prohibition. Some of the massive cost of prohibition can be used (at the local level) for prevention and rehabilitation of abuse. The War Department was succeeded in 1949 by the Department of Defense and now, after these fifty-seven years, will finally be assigned as its primary responsibility, the defense of the United States. Heretofore the word Defense was pretty much euphemistic, considering our strategic and strike capabilities and practices over all these years. Unfortunately, we do feel obliged to maintain the MAD posture for a few more years at least. With all the big spending programs – and all the little spending programs – gone and with billions and billions and billions not being wantonly thrown about, we have no further need for all those other departments that have had the burden of throwing all those billions around. Those departments will be closing down soon, thereby saving the billions it takes to operate them. I’ll list them; it’s a long list; listen quickly for your favorite. • First: Education • Energy • Housing & Urban Development • Did I mention: Education? • Labor • Veterans Affairs • Agriculture • Commerce • Health and Human Services • Homeland Security • Transportation • Interior • And, finally, Education. Some of these departments will fold down fairly easily; some will require a lot of coordination, sale of materials and properties, accounting and accountability. The people at Interior probably still have a few years tenure because they are being tasked with overseeing the sale of all the government properties and lands that won’t be needed to operate the government henceforth. The secretaries of those departments are invited to remain in office if they find themselves sympathetic with these objectives and pledge themselves to exert themselves to the fullest to fulfill these ends. Otherwise, I shall look for their resignations on my desk by 8:00 a.m. tomorrow. I urge them to consider helping us with this effort because I am sure the leaders of this revolutionary activity will go down in history as the saviors of the American Dream. The civil service people who lose their government employment won’t be out of work long. Overall, the economy will improve so much and so rapidly that work will appear. You people generally are well trained and capable; for the free-loaders and sycophants there may be some rough times, but you’ll survive. Government has provided and does provide many essential or highly desirable functions; it has done and does so inefficiently and many disastrous unforeseen consequences have been created. The desirable functions that have market value will be bought out, otherwise privatized or created anew in the private sector. The entrepreneurs will weed out the inefficiencies. That gives lots of ex-civil servants plenty of employment, even, in many cases in the entrepreneurial role. The vital functions without market value will find life in local non-profits (which term will take on much less significance) of all stripes. True needs will be much more evident and much more solvable on the local level. Again, many ex-civil servants will find work in their prior field; probably many will be leaders in these endeavors. Funding will come from charitable and other interested groups. This country does remarkably well with charity – an honorable word – even in the presence of punitive taxation. With little or no taxation draining the earned wealth of the population, charity will blossom where needed. Many of the functions of the government have been and are redundant boondoggles feeding the demands of various special interests. These won’t and shouldn’t survive in the free market milieu. Hooray. This great realignment will demonstrate that it is truly the route to compassionate conservatism. Compassionate conservatism does not mean outspending your predecessor or the other side of the aisle. Those in need will be much better cared for. Those aspiring will be much less burdened in their efforts to improve themselves. That’s true conservatism. That’s true compassion. In 1946 a book was published that should be compulsory reading for every high school student. Understand me…, their parents should compel them to read it. It is a concise and clear, easy to understand, explication of how the world works economically. I promise you it is easy reading and clearly understandable – as I said, I read it and I understood it and I believe its premises. That’s what tonight and the next several months are all about. Not that this one book and this one author are the basis for all of our actions. Henry Hazlitt was a self-educated journalist, literary critic, economist and philosopher who realized the American dream in the classical manner: persistence, hard work, self-improvement (in the classical manner – education, persistence and hard work). He was a voluminous writer. He was very disturbed by the socialistic course this great country was taking after World War II and wrote Economics in One Lesson to point out the fallacies of that course and to offer a better way. He was right, Right and ignored. This book was and is widely read and respected but was ignored or deprecated by the ruling elite. They went on their way, costing us great social and cultural deterioration and wealth and eroding our freedoms (read Rights) at an increasingly rapid rate. I was until recently in the vanguard of that warfare, welfare mode. My new counselors have now convinced me there is a better way, and we are launched on it. Social law, by which I mean the Blue Laws of days past, will no longer originate from the federal level. There is no place for such in political governing. I encourage the States to take a long hard look at the logic we have used, but their course is in their own hands. One very important change will take place in the White House. We will become known as the "transparent executive." Secrecy is out. Truly "vital to national security" matters will be scrutinized critically and periodically to assure they need to be kept secret. When challenged for freedom of information access a judicial commission with true representation for all viewpoints will review and decide. State secrecy will not be used any further to cover up dumb or mistaken plans or actions nor to hide plans that are obviously adverse to the interests of the United States. This is a revolutionary construct. It will be difficult for many to accept on its face until they are convinced by the literature, which will be available tomorrow across the country, but much more so, when they are convinced by the great improvements in all our conditions of life, socially, culturally, civilly and economically, which will be detectable within weeks. This whole thing is an affirmation of the Constitution, albeit with a few changes. It is an affirmation of that great 18th Century Revolution, which would better be called a war of secession. It will be an affirmation of the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and George Mason can rest a little easier tonight and henceforth. Our new course is an affirmation of the American dream. I’ve been asked to announce that much of this change of course has been inspired by the works of and the memory of the leader – in the second half of last century – of the discipline upon which these moves are based, Murray N. Rothbard. Our little endeavor is dedicated to Dr. Rothbard who had the vision to structure this in the abstract, had the vision to foresee that it would come eventually, but died prematurely, thus is unable to participate in this creation of it. I am told that Dr. Rothbard would defer totally to his teacher and mentor, dean of the Austrian School of Economics, Professor Ludwig von Mises, so that point is hereby made. Murray, where are you when we need you ?! A call goes out herewith to all academics, intellectuals, jurists, businessmen, and others, who understand the premises of this massive proposal, and are sympathetic with it, to contact my office to accept positions to assist in this project. One final thought: the only politically incorrect language in this (appropriately) brave new world will be: There oughtta be a law! Mr. Secretary Rumsfeld: you are being handed a letter from me as I speak asking for your resignation, to be accepted by a nod of the head...; (pause) ...thank you, and to be effective immediately. All your personal goods from your office will be at your home when you get there tonight. Your protective detail has changed from those who brought you here. The same pertains to several of your senior staff, who have been designated and are being notified. They can probably figure out fairly well who they are. Mr. Vice-President: you may notice as you leave this hall that your Secret Service detail has changed faces. The men assigned are equally skilled as any other of the presidential protection detail and be assured, they have your best interests at heart. Just do as they direct. Thank you, and may God bless America. (Applause.) January 28, 2006 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Natural Law for Kids

Natural Law for Kids www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george5.html by Chuck George January 18, 2006 This effort was prompted by a conversation with the Kid, who is fifteen. Not quite sure how it got started, because it wasn’t games or girls or rap, but it was on the way to school and that, thank heavens, is only about a six-minute drive. I felt like I was foundering but he saved the moment by interjecting that he thought laws were written by The Man. He explained that The Man is his little group’s name for the government..., and that they hate the government. I mumbled something about that being commendable and then tried to explain that Natural Law comes from the very nature of man and codifies the way things ought to be. I still felt like I was foundering but it came time for him to debark and he was off to his day at school and with his group. I beat a quick retreat to my computer and books, to organize this for him, and any other kids whose parents will let them read it. Natural Law. Rules to live by. Don’t like rules? O.K. Think of it as guides to living, acting, treating others and being treated by others. Think of it as a way for people to get along, to do what they want, except for those sensible few limitations we call Natural Law; to prosper, get ahead, or just get along. To be happy and to have happy people around us. To avoid troubles and being troubled. To have harmony! Think of Natural Law as assuring that we all may enjoy our Natural Rights. We’ll go into the Rights thing in another article but, in the meantime, believe me, we wouldn’t be a happy or even a successful people if we didn’t enjoy most of those Natural Rights (see the Bill of Rights.) Natural Law is directed at freedom; and Natural Law is summed up in one phrase: the pursuit of goodness. Natural Law has come to us from the great thinkers of the world, philosophers and religious theorists. Believers in divine guidance believe that Natural Law comes to us from The Supreme Being, The Ultimate Entity..., God. Doubters, skeptics, or pragmatists or non-believers in divine origin believe that Natural Law comes to us from man’s nature, through life’s experiences, but not just our own life’s experiences; it comes to us through the experiences and thinking and writing of those great thinkers who have recorded their ideas down through history. Those people did not agree on what all the rules in Natural Law should be; people today do not agree on what all the rules should be. But that is only at the margins. The central rules are basic and largely common sense. The common sense generally is not common enough and has to be informed by some education and training and reflection on what Natural Law means to you as an individual and to your groups: family, friends, organizations, church, neighborhood, town, county, and state. That means you have to read or listen enough to absorb those ideas and to think about the lessons that you learn from your groups: family, friends, organizations, church, neighborhood, town, county, and state. The most important aspect is that these rules be recognized as very much to your benefit, not just selfishly to you as an individual, but of benefit to you as a member of your groups: family, friends, organizations, church, neighborhood, town, county, and state. Natural Law defines the difference between good and bad, which is a good clue to sensing the rules. So, what are the rules? Natural Laws are pretty basic and sensible, and you’ll recognize most of them even if you didn’t know that’s what they were called. Of course, it’s not possible to list them all, partly because of the disagreements out at the margins, partly because no one person can know what they all are, and almost certainly there are some tucked away that haven’t even been thought of yet. But, here we go: You should not kill a person. You should not steal. You should not lie. You should honor your mother and father. You should not covet or envy what isn’t yours. You should not commit adultery. Now, those tend to be pretty negative, except for honoring your parents, which is and should be a very positive sentiment. Negative is okay; it leaves positive activities and Rights unrestricted. Also, you probably recognize those as being part of the Ten Commandments. There is no apology for that; the Ten Commandments are the best guide to a short list of Natural Laws, whether you are a believer or not. For those who believe in the Judeo-Christian heritage the other Commandments pertain: You should have no other gods than the Lord your God. You should not take the name of the Lord your God in vain. You should keep holy the Sabbath day. Well, that last one is a good idea for everyone, whether you are a believer or not. Taking off one day in seven is good for emotional and physical health as well as for spiritual health. If you notice that there are only nine "commandments" above you can see how I arrived at that by checking your favorite bible, Exodus 20, 1–17, and Deuteronomy 5, 6–21, unless you can do it by memory from your good training. Chalk up 1.0 credit if you did that. Most of the innumerable specific laws that come to mind seem to fit, ultimately, under one of the six above. Fraud in commerce, small scale or large scale, is covered by both the lying and stealing rules. Murder doesn’t need much explanation. Respect for family and community is implied in the command to honor your parents. Coveting and envying are very basic restrictions because they are the failings that lead to lying, stealing, adultery and murder. And they are the toughest to avoid; just think about it. Somebody always brings up all the exceptions; to murder: self-defense, just war, etc.; to stealing: starving children, rightful ownership, etc. Natural Law sometimes provides for such considerations, but those are part of the stuff that lies at the margins and are the basis for legitimate controversy. Not everyone even believes in the validity of Natural Law. Some skeptics believe that rights are not inherent, are not natural freedoms; they believe that rights are the "property" of government and are granted by passing laws. That just doesn’t deserve much comment. So much for The Man. Natural Law skeptics just haven’t looked at the lessons of history. They haven’t paid any attention to the grim record of The Man’s dominance over and cruelty toward "his" fellow man. The skeptics haven’t heeded the lessons and warnings of and the reasonable solutions offered by the religious and lay philosophers. Natural Law exists. We can’t define it precisely, we can’t list it completely, but we can’t get along without it. Natural Law just says: Do to others as you would want them to do to you, if they’re agreeable to it; otherwise, leave them alone. Well, it might be a bit more complicated than that, but that’s the general idea. January 18, 2006 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Libertarian Does Not Equal Libertine

Libertarian Does Not Equal Libertine www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george4.html by Chuck George January 2, 2006 Exercising my God-given right to squander my meager wealth as I choose, I went to buy the Kid one of those camera-equipped cell phones. Capitalists effectively advertise these things and the teen set feel they are deprived if they don’t have one. They understand prestige. The buyer must function within very narrow specifications. The clean-cut, well-dressed young man with whom I had dealt before is personable and very knowledgeable about his job, the equipment and the contracts. Hah! The contracts! Another capitalist gimmick; the price of the unit isn’t dirt cheap, although surprisingly inexpensive for all you get and for the quality of the image, the quality of the sound, the saturation of signal in this area. The hook is in the requirement to sign a two-year contract for service with this company…; they can’t fool me; that’s where the profit is. I signed and I paid. The clean-cut, well-dressed, personable young man and I had chatted throughout the dealing and the equipment preparation; the sim card had been installed, the number checked (no change), the check signed, the rebate instructions explained (another capitalist gimmick: how many people lose the proof-of-purchase, wait until too late, forget or just don’t get around to sending in that rebate offer application?). It was time for me to take my leave. But, LewRockwell.com has recently run three articles I wrote and I’m eager to get the word out to clean-cut, well-dressed, personable and intelligent young men…, or young ladies as the circumstances dictate, about my thoughts thusly recorded and about the LewRockwell.com site. I leaned over his desk/work station and asked, "Do you have any, uh…, Libertarian, uh…, leanings?" I really haven’t perfected that opener – and I wasn’t particularly clean-cut or well dressed at the moment. The flash of disbelief, tinged with an instant of terror, that passed over his face and settled into a deeply suspicious, even contemptuous visage told me I needed to work on that opener. With a quick explanation that libertarianism is a socio-politico-economic school of philosophy that espouses freedom I lamely ended with a protest that it was not the same as libertinism, nor was I a libertine. He seemed to accept that and seemed to relax a bit. I hurriedly explained my mission, beyond buying the new, slim, camera-phone, and signing the two-year contract, wrote down the links for him and beat my retreat. I wasn’t optimistic about having made a convert but he did say he’d check out the links. It was obvious to me that this young fellow had heard the word "libertarian." It was quite apparent that he had a considerably different, probably incomplete, understanding of the meaning of that word than I do. He will receive a copy of this article whether or not it is ever published. From the panicky, contemptuous expression I deduced that his understanding was in the sense of "libertine." That, I think, is a common miss-sense of much of the public, who pay any attention at all, regarding the logical, workable, even noble ideas of libertarianism. It’s a concern I’ve felt for a long time; I even had some notes jotted down that I dug out to put these thoughts together. A concise definition of the two words, in comparison, is found at The Columbia Guide to Standard American English from which it is copied as follows: "A libertarian is a believer in free will or, more frequently, a supporter of absolute freedom of thought, word, and deed [provided the action does not infringe on the freedom of thought, word and deed of others]. A libertine was once a freed slave in Rome, but today a libertine is morally unrestrained, a profligate, dissolute person, and the word as both noun and adjective is a pejorative." It bears repeating: Libertarianism embodies the idea that every individual is free to think, speak and act as he chooses provided that those expressions and acts don’t materially infringe upon the freedom of others to think, speak and act as they choose. Libertinism is simply nasty behavior…, in my opinion. This is based on the concept that each and every person owns himself (generic "him"), that each and every one is personally and individually sovereign. Libertarianism is most pertinent in three realms of our existence: political, social and economic. Based on the tenets of libertarianism these are three distinctly separate realms, as they should be. In our present system there is tremendous overlap of the political over the social and the economic at great cost to all three. In the political realm libertarianism stands for the most minimum of government, government to exist only for the protection of life, liberty and property, and in the furtherance of those rights, perhaps, protection of the borders and shores. This includes a minimum of taxation, and that minimum not to include taxation on income. The Constitution of the United States of America, as it was intended, is nearly a libertarian construct, especially when the first ten amendments are considered. The Founders were very much libertarians, those most overtly so being Patrick Henry, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. The Constitution was created to strengthen but also to limit the central governance of the federated States and to guarantee rights to the people. Leanings toward further centralization, leading to partisan divisions among the Founders, were led by Alexander Hamilton and John Adams and, implicitly, by George Washington. The word "libertarian" seems to have arisen about that time but was not used by the Founders and apparently was first used as indicative of free will in the metaphysical sense. "Libertarian" apparently didn’t take on its current meaning of freedom of thought, word and action in political, social and economic usage until the mid-twentieth century. There is an American national Libertarian Party and there are state Libertarian Parties. There are many libertarians elected to lower offices but none to Congress. There have been Libertarian presidential candidates for many years. The Party has been adversely affected in the past by fringe elements that have attached themselves and have garnered much attention for their social issues. They tend not to be supportive of general libertarian principles. These have been rather flamboyant libertines who espouse and flaunt their life style…, which doesn’t attract many from the heartland. Socially there isn’t much dispute among the convinced: libertarianism proscribes any governmental restraints on action that doesn’t infringe demonstrably on others’ well-being. This means the hedonists are supported in their right to freedom from governmentally coerced proscription of their behavior. They need not be considered conventionally correct or morally correct or socially approved for such behavior. This means there should be no governmental regulation of alcohol, drugs, gambling, prostitution or other activity between consenting adults. I don’t apologize for repeated use of the "G" word because libertarianism doesn’t object to the restriction of activities by and within voluntary associations such as churches, social or fraternal organizations, or any other groups that do not use coercion. Libertarians do not support any sense of encouragement for the use of alcohol, drugs, pornography, gambling, prostitution, etc., by or among consenting adults. Libertarians decry the abuse of alcohol, drugs, pornography, prostitution, etc. Libertarians absolutely oppose the use of coercion in the practices of alcohol or drug use, pornography, prostitution, etc. Libertarians encourage aid for habitués of alcohol use, drug use, prostitution, etc., from foundations, corporations, societies, associations, churches, families, individuals, etc., but believe strongly that there is no role for government in this endeavor. There is no role for government in any welfare schemes; non-coercive sources of funds for relief of all sorts of misfortune flow fairly freely even in our current over-taxed circumstance; the private organizations do a much better job than the government. If taxes were a much, much smaller percentage of our gross domestic output the funds available privately for relief of misfortune would be much, much more. Misguided government funding of welfare schemes weaken family; there would be less need for governmental or organizational funding if families were less stressed by such misguided funding and by tax drainage on the family budget. Finally, libertarianism allows for no governmental constraints on, aid to, taxing or regulation of business. Aside from some flagrant incursions from time to time this was the state of American business and commerce from colonial times until World War I. The progression of interference that blossomed with wartime regulations in WWI actually started in the 1860s, in another war, but they were limited enough, mostly to the railroad and banking industry, that they didn’t hold back prosperity too significantly before WWI. Those were the golden years that built the foundation of American wealth that allows the continued building of the economy today despite the restraints of government. Libertarian principles hold that with a laissez faire (non)management of the economy, with money stable by being based on gold and with lack of welfare disincentives, individual and cumulative wealth of the country would be immensely greater than it is. This is considered, reasonably enough, to be a societal good. Libertarian economic principles are best articulated in the Austrian School of economics, so-called because its early formulation was by Viennese economic philosophers, Carl Menger and Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk in the 19th century. It was then developed further down through the 20th century by Ludwig von Mises and by Friedrich von Hayek, who were both Austrians and who both came to the United States. Murray Rothbard was the intellectual heir of the Austrian School and carried it much further until his untimely death in 1995. Today there are many teachers, researchers and students of the Austrian school scattered widely over the U.S. and the world. Located here in Alabama, across Magnolia Street from the Auburn University campus, the Ludwig von Mises Institute is the research and educational center of classical liberalism, libertarian political theory, and the Austrian School of economics. Working in the intellectual tradition of Ludwig von Mises (1881–1973) and Murray N. Rothbard (1926–1995), with a vast array of publications, programs, and fellowships, the Mises Institute seeks a radical shift in the intellectual climate as the foundation for a renewal of the free and prosperous commonwealth. Lew Rockwell is the founder and president of the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and vice president of the Center for Libertarian Studies in Burlingame, California. He is an opponent of the central state, its wars and its socialism. Lew also is editor-in-chief of this web site, LewRockwell.com. LRC highlights the news and commentary that he finds important, or simply interesting. He describes this immense task as his "hobby." Libertinism gets short shrift as a closer. In religion the libertine is a freethinker or a non-thinker; the libertarian may be of any faith. The libertine is a dissolute, unrestrained by convention or morality; the thinking, principled libertarian does live by convention and morality, albeit there may be a wide range of convention in the libertarian community. The important distinction is that the true libertarian lives by his principles which include, above all, that all people own their own self and that no coercive agency may dictate their behavior, while the libertine either has no principles or his principles do not interfere with a hedonistic, dissolute life. The 25th was the Kid’s fifteenth birthday, too. The camera-phone was a great success. He says this was the greatest Christmas/birthday ever. He says he loves us. Now I have to find the "proof-of-purchase" and send off for the rebate. January 2, 2006 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2006 LewRockwell.com

Big Fuss 'Happy Holidays'

What's the Big Fuss about 'Happy Holidays'? www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george3.html by Chuck George by Chuck George Bill Barnwell’s piece on the 13th about this same subject was clever and fun and rang very well. Throughout reading it I kept thinking that he had picked up and developed an etymological origin which I really like…, and came upon well into my adult life; I was disappointed that I hadn’t brought it to mind earlier in this ridiculous rhubarb about Christmas greeting terminology. I thought I had missed my chance to present it, but Barnwell never slid over into the construct of my interest so I’ll present it forthwith. He didn’t; I shall. Barnwell’s article developed the theme of the offensiveness of burdening unreceptive people with the greeting of, "Happy…," or, for that matter, "Merry…," when those people might find such cheery sentiments offensive. All well taken. Light fun poked at people overly serious about others’ condition. The best part of the whole deal is that the secularists who are disparaging "Merry Christmas" and promoting "Happy Holidays" are using a word with decidedly ecclesiastical origins. Holiday, in Merriam-Webster’s 10th Edition, first listed definition, is: "HOLY DAY," and is derived from the Middle English from the Old English for "holy" and "day." That definition has stuck with me through the years, especially when I hear the English or Canadians speak of being "on holidays." But I hadn’t thought of it as a subject for a learned treatise on current events and attitudes until Barnwell explored that other avenue. So, the secularists are blocking the use of the specific word "Christmas," and substituting the less specific, but no less religiously implicit ( ? explicit) word "holiday." I love it! Substituting "holiday" for "Christmas" is a public good because it eliminates the perceived religiosity of "Christmas," but we’ve just demonstrated that "holiday" has just as much religiousness in its origin and primary definition. Realization of that should really hurt the atheists and the ACLU. In the civil arena the ACLU is going to have to get busy and proscribe the use of such a holy word as "holiday" on the sign on City Hall’s front lawn. How about "Happy Winter Time-Off." Boy, that’s smooth. But, we have to protect the unsuspecting citizenry from the establishment of religion, even at the cost of casting a pall over the free exercise thereof. In the politically correct arena of commerce they are just going to have to get used to the idea of foregoing what they thought was an artful dodge by using "Happy Holidays" in place of "Merry Christmas" because it is just as religiously loaded as the latter. Now, it can readily be said that "holiday" in general usage has been assigned a much less pious meaning. That is acknowledged and is the second definition in Merriam-Webster but the first definition is "holy day" and is indicated to be synonymous by being written all in small caps, as above. Further, "holiday" might be defended by some as being more generally non-sectarian than "Merry Christmas" albeit of considerable religious impact. Two problems with that: it certainly wouldn’t satisfy the hard case atheist activists because it still represents a holy, faith-based concept; second, it would reveal the ploy of the PC crowd as being primarily and specifically anti-Christian. It cannot be denied: holiday is a religious word. Going back one more definition we find that "holy" has five definitions in Merriam-Webster. The first one doesn’t specify religion, but try to interpret this as anything other: 1 : exalted or worthy of complete devotion as one perfect in goodness and righteousness !! Definitions two through 4-b use the words "DIVINE," "deity," and "sacred." The fifth definition refers to the use of "holy" as an intensive: holy mess, holy terror. It goes on to the use of "holy" as a "mild oath" – holy smoke. Sounds downright profane. The dictionary left out holy cow – perhaps in deference to the Hindu; also, they left out a couple other holies that are in common usage…, but so will we. Holiday is not only a religious word; it is a Christian word. Its derivation is from the Old English through the Middle English. Holy might somewhat predate Christian England from the Angles and Saxons, but in its persistence down through Middle English holy very much has brought down its Christian associations, both Roman Catholic, then Church of England. The reader doesn’t have to believe, just acknowledge. "Merry Christmas; have a Holy Day." December 15, 2005 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

The Ultimate Kindness

The Ultimate Kindness www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george2.html :: November 14, 2005 by Chuck George In medical school in the late 50s, early 60s, consideration of management of terminal patients, their suffering, their imminence of demise, wasn’t formally presented but was a frequent focus of discussion among students. It was an expression of genuine concern, of how we would handle that unwelcome aspect of medical practice. I’m sure that’s been the case in every class of every medical school down through history. It got down to the nitty-gritty of mechanisms, medications that might be used to ease the passage, of settings in which it would be appropriate. It got down to the morality of even considering such things. There was agreement that the doctor had a role in such a matter, but the detailed definition of that role was never reached, despite heroic efforts…, in bull sessions, sober and otherwise. Every class had its component of idealists; matters of this sort loomed large. Now the Supreme Court, with its exalted new Chief Justice, is considering the problem. The premise of this comment is that it is a real transgression of true justice, of genuine morality, of natural law…! I’m not referring to the potential outcomes, the potential findings of the SCOTUS. I mean that it is a transgression of reasonable human interrelationships for this concern to be under the surveillance of the American justice system. This is not a subject to be defined and regulated by a central authority, not even by Oregon. That’s still too damn central. There is one little glimmer of hope in the present development across the street from the Capitol Building: It’s a mixed bag. It is not appropriate for the feds (SCOTUS or any other federal court or regulating or legislating body) to be active in matters of local concern. Not just inappropriate, but downright unconstitutional. There’s nothing in the constitution that gives the federal government any interest in who "pulls the plug" or dispenses a slight overdose. But then, it’s reported that Chief Justice Roberts was somewhat disapproving of the Oregon law which codifies the circumstances in which doctors may dispense an easy passage. That’s a commendable attitude in terms of the appropriateness of such a law in the big picture, in terms of the morality of it. But, it is inappropriate in terms of the confederate relationship between the central government of the unified states and (any) one of the States. It’s not up to the U.S. Supreme Court to dictate to a State whether or how the State should address the subject of mercy killing. But federalism is not the point of this article. Codification of the management of the last minutes of the dying and the attendant suffering is the point. Codification should not exist, shouldn’t even be considered. The parties legitimately concerned with the goings-on at the end of a terminal illness are the patient, the family, the doctor and, if in hospital, the nursing staff. There is no place for the district attorney, the sheriff, the marshal or the judge. The state should stay out of it: federal; state; county; city. It also excludes hospital administration, medical staff, ethics committee. There is a myriad of ways in which one may die. Most of them aren’t pertinent to this discussion, the DOAs, the codes, the easy, smooth progressive comatose patient who just fades away. But a lot of people suffer greatly in the count-down. In the debilitating, painful deaths of most cancers and of chronic pulmonary obstructive disease, emphysema, and a few others, the enfeebling progresses to such a point that the vital energies are sapped and the drive to breath weakens until the lack of oxygen won’t support life…, and the heart, starved of oxygen, stops. Usually coma intervenes to give some relief from the conscious suffering, but it may only be in the final few minutes. Throughout the painful weeks or months, while treatment medications and procedures are provided, analgesics are prescribed. As the disease progresses the pain increases, tolerance of it, in many cases, decreases and the attending doctor increases the potency of the analgesics available to the patient. During this time the patient generally is able to communicate with friends and relatives, to appreciate some diversionary activities; not a "normal" life but one from which some satisfaction…, quality, can be derived. Then, as the patient weakens and finality is imminent, but unpredictable in duration and form, the pain often seems to increase, the distress of the weakness increases, the only communication may be in the form of a hand squeeze, occasional eye-to-eye contact with a loved one, or with an attendant, the occasional wan smile. Narcotic analgesics, with morphine as the prototype, are the most potent pain killers. Along with their analgesic effects they provide a great euphoria, the basis for their street abuse. A usually adverse side effect is their tendency to depress respiratory effort, often the cause of the abuse deaths. None of these effects is precisely predictable in its manifestation in any given case. The patient has been receiving increasing doses of narcotics to maintain some quality of life. Tolerance of the effects and side effects develops requiring larger doses. As the disease progresses there comes a time when death becomes inevitable and then imminent. As death approaches, but unpredictably so, often a corner is turned. Nothing is said, but there may be a silent pleading in the eyes of the patient when the nurse or doctor visits. Or the professional, having seen so many of these previously, just knows. The next dose of morphine will be "a little" larger, may be given intra-venously where it will have more of an impact, rather than intra-muscularly. There may be a fleeting euphoria and pain relief, but breathing slows, coma, however brief, occurs and then death. Codify that if you can! In a healthy person who has developed some tolerance of the dosage used, whether through long-term pain management or through abuse, the dose used in the example above wouldn’t faze the subject. In our weakened patient it is enough to depress breathing below a life-sustaining level. The precise dosage selected can’t be known, only estimated. Now, is that mercy killing or over-zealous or over-compassionate pain management…? There certainly is room to question the morality and appropriateness of the action described and I won’t get into that herein. I’m just describing, as best I can, a phenomenon that exists. A wide temporal separation of implementing expeditious death from the imminence described in my opinion surely is immoral. This, in one form or another has been going on for millennia. It is an unspoken, even unwitting, contract between patient and doctor, between family and doctor, between doctors (medical students can debate it, practicing doctors don’t). It needs to remain unspoken. Even this article may say too much, but it seems appropriate in light of the legislation and litigation surrounding physician-assisted suicide and when the antics of such as Kevorkian are observed. This practice shouldn’t be called physician-assisted suicide. It is best not called anything. Euphemistically it can be thought of as terminal (extreme) pain relief or terminal compassion measures or easing the exit; as the coup de grâce or mercy killing or simply as relieving suffering. I think of it as the ultimate kindness in the art of practicing medicine. It shouldn’t be called murder. There is concern for abuse, and it most probably has been abused in an unknown, finite percentage of cases. It is certainly even more abused in omission, when the suffering is inadequately treated. On the other hand, we’ve all heard of the "angels of mercy," the sickos who go around on the graveyard [sic] shift injecting old gomers without really knowing anything about the individual or the case. They are murderers; that is absolutely not the same. Abuse will out; there are plenty of whistleblowers around who will pick up on indiscriminant practice. But, if the silent practice is somewhat abused it is as nothing compared with the potential for abuse in the codified physician-assisted death scenario. Once the state has its fingers intertwined into that aspect of medical practice it will progress in all sorts of bizarre ways. There would be inevitable incremental creep such as committee selection of candidates to the expansion of criteria – how about cost analysis of various illnesses plotted against age? If your illness is going to cost the state health plan too much (how much?) and the odds of survival (what odds?) are too low, then let the state assert that ultimate kindness in the art of practicing medicine before the first painful, hopeful…, expensive… surgery. That’s ultra-ultimate kindness: the patient is saved the pain and false hopes (except, the odds, however poor, might have rewarded that hope!), the family the lost time and drawn out grief, the medical personnel the preoccupation with the poor-odds case, and the state, a bunch of money!! Nobody loses. The committee retires to the lounge for a round of cocktails. The doctor downs two or three stiff ones in the locker room. It’s a brave new world. November 14, 2005 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com

Let Us Be Patriots

Let Us Be Patriots www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/george1.html by Chuck George In the great War of the Colonies’/States’ Secession from the mother country those loyal to King George III were known as Loyalists. Those supporting the cause of independence and liberty were known as Patriots. A grande dame of my acquaintance was born and raised in a part of Canada where those Loyalists are held in the highest regard. That’s down in eastern Ontario which was known in (U.S.) revolutionary times, or immediately thereafter, as Upper Canada, to distinguish it from French Canada, further down east. The Crown granted land on the north shores of Lake Erie and Lake Ontario and the St Lawrence River to the tide of migrants seeking relief from the enmity and (potential and actual) persecution of the patriotic populace of the new country. They became known as United Empire Loyalists and were bestowed with a title or, more correctly, a suffix: U.E., a hereditary construct. Thus Loyalist was a complementary term and a label of pride. The lady, who lived her entire life in her birth town, and aspired to social status, always felt great chagrin that she couldn’t join with many of her friends in the United Empire Loyalist Society because she was not descended from any of those first Anglo settlers and was descended, in part, from Irish immigrants who arrived sometime after the immigration of the Loyalists from the "States." I wonder if she ever realized that those Irish immigrants were refugees of English oppression as opposed to the Loyalists who abandoned or fled from the new nation to the south out of loyalty to the Crown…, one might even say, "Patriotism for England." Of course, to the U.S. secessionists, the rebels, the Patriots, the term "Loyalist" was pejorative. Today the word "patriot" is getting more exposure and use in these United States than it has since the War of Colonial Secession. There is a problem in that it seems to have a different meaning now than in those thoughty and exciting days. First, it has currently been made entirely clear that the patriot is one who is loyal to the administration and its doings and to (US) "King George III." This seems a flip-flop of the traditional, even revered, sense of the Patriot as one who is dedicated to the classically liberal concepts of liberty, limited government and human rights…, and the Loyalist as one dedicated to the establishment. The media and the (other) voices of the establishment have shamelessly drummed into us the idea that any expressed disagreements with the ideas, policies and actions of the administration are unpatriotic, anti-patriotic, even treasonous. Thank God the first Sedition Act expired in 1800 and its successors were short lived. We do have to be on guard against something of that stripe rearing its ugly head any day now as the current administration gains confidence, on the one hand or, on the other, becomes more desperate. The former seems to be less likely as war and Katrina and subsequent developments reflect poorly on the regime, so we should be more on our guard against stopgap moves. In the mid-seventies I recall some anxious days worrying that Nixon, in desperation, might try a palace coup. Just a thought! Second, the establishment had the chutzpah to name its legislation infringing on our liberty and rights the USA Patriot Act. This act, currently being resurrected in the Congress, is the most egregious and overt suppression of the stated rights of the first ten Amendments that we have experienced in modern times. The bluecoats would have been sorely offended. Henry and Mason and Jefferson must be spinning in their graves. Back in 10th and 11th grades a couple of my buddies and I used to have fun creating crazy acronyms. We never came up with one as tortured, albeit elegant, as this one: (a) SHORT TITLE- This Act may be cited as the "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT ACT) Act of 2001." In its original form the Patriot Act was presented to the Congress to be enacted as permanent, standing law without "sunset" provisions. Even in those panicky days just weeks after 9/11, there were those with the presence of mind to impose sunset limitations on key provisions of the law, especially the more intrusive aspects. Renewal or extension of many provisions of the Patriot Act is what is being considered now, as the sun sets, in Conference Committee to settle differences between the House version, retaining most of the most egregiously intrusive stipulations and specifying ridiculously long ten year sunsets, and the Senate version which does provide a few protections, mainly in the area of requiring judicial approval of the more intrusive requests and periodical judicial review of some of them. The Senate version requires specific evidence of likely involvement in terrorist activities for judicial approval of seizure of records and with regard to the covert searches it requires the subject to be notified within seven days after the search (with extensions available). The House version requires the FBI to state to the court only that the search is "relevant" to a terrorist investigation. The House version allows 180 days before the searchee need be notified. The original law included, in the seizure of business records, libraries and bookstores which had to reveal the books borrowed or bought by specific individuals. There is considerable effort underway to delete those provisions. The Senate would require that the subject of wiretapping be specifically identified and that the FBI be accountable, after the tap, for the activity. The House version requires none of that and only requires that the court be notified if the location of the tap is changed. How upset is the voting public over all these invasions of privacy? Not very, it would seem. Much of the specifics is never brought out in the popular press which tends to play the Loyalist role to the ever-growing central state. The opposition to the Act is mentioned only in passing and the propaganda machines crank out the steady stream of promises of security afforded by these "minimal" intrusions. One wonders, if a line is ever drawn in the sand, with an objective of restoring constitutional governance, rights to life, liberty and property, if the terms "Loyalist" and "Patriot" will be used. And, if so, which will apply to whom? I urge that promoters of the USA "Patriot" Act be labeled Loyalists! November 8, 2005 Chuck George [send him mail] is a retired orthopedic surgeon in Alabama. Copyright © 2005 LewRockwell.com