The title of this blog was the original phrase for the "inalienable rights" of humankind that governments must honor and protect. For a variety of reasons, including concern for the poor, Jefferson chose the broader phrase, "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
Legally secure property ownership is the economic and social foundation of freedom. The freest nations in the world - Cannda, England, the USA and several in Europe - provide protection for their citizens from unreasonable search and seizure. Today over 60% of Americans enjoy home ownership; In Russia the figure has just climbed to 6%!
The June 23, 2005 ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo, et. al. v. the City of New London, CT. is a monumental break with Constitutional tradition. Expanding the rights of local governments to claim "eminent domain" and allow the property to go to new private owners without significant public use guarantees is a reckless ruling that will open the door to the exploitation of the poor by the politically-connected.
Until this ruling, eminent domain was reserved for things such as roads, parks, environmental restoration or publc/private partnerships that directly benefitted a large number of citizens. The 5th Amendment calls for proper compensation for those who are displaced, but history tells us that planning commissions and powerful interests will find was to "distress" land they desire.
My fear is that this will open the door to the seizure of more homes and - and I am not being paranoid, just cautious - the condemnation of churches and other non-profits who do not generate the tax revenue of condos or a strip mall.
Hopefully this ruling will stay limited; however, we must be vigilant and prepared to fight city by city and county by county. Ownership is NOT something bestowed by the government. It is a right protected by the government!
If we are not careful, we will end up with a new form of fascism, with powerful private interests in collusion with a corrupt government. Such alliances are not new, but until now we enjoyed reasonable protection for legally-titled land. Now we must battle to protect the foundation of our freedom.
Friday, June 24, 2005
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Israel and History
The unhistorical and unwise remarks of President Bush concerning Israel's boundaries with an emerging Palestinian State are devastating for Israel and empowering for Islamic fundamentalists.
The President recently affirmed that the 1949 Armistice lines should guide current negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is working intently to remove Jewisg settlers from Gaza and most of the West Bank.
Israel is willing to displace thousands of her own people for a promise of peace with a neighbor that will not unambiguously acknowledge Israel's right to exist!
President Bush and others who wish to appease the Arabs are ignoring the history of the last 50+ years.
The United Nation has already created two states. In the 1947 partition, Israel and TransJordan (now shortened to Jordan) were formed, with Jordan getting the West Bank and Jerusalem. Egypt controlled Gaza and the Sinai, Syria possessed the Golan Heights and Israel placed her capital in Tel Aviv. The survivors of the pogroms and the Holocaust were not completely happy with the boundaries, but an imperfect homeland was better than none.
By 1949, truce lines were established, but there were no formal peace accords or diplomatic relations with any Arab states (though back- channel negotiations with Jordan and others occured sporadically). These lines affirmed the original mandate and the resolution passed in 1948 recognizing the state of Israel.
In 1967 Israel was attacked and in a week defeated her Arab foes and "conquered" the Sinai, the West Bank, the Gaza and the Golan heights. There are the "occupied territories" in Arab rhetoric. For Israel they have been a buffer and an aid in negotiation.
In 1978 Israel and Egypt made peace and the Sinai was returned and a promise made to create another Palestinian State. The Oslo Accords of 1992 reiterated these commitments and Arafat and the Palestinians were offered 98% of the land they desired.
For the past several years, radical Arab groups have sabotaged all attempts at reasonable solutions. In 2005 we have another opportunity for peace, but if Israel is asked to yield all territory back to 1949 lines and the new Palestinian State is allowed a corridor to connect Gaza and the West Bank, it is Israel that is eviscerated.
The creation of the "barrier" surrounding Israel has reduced terrorist bombings by over 90%. What is lacking in current talks is a failure to consider Israeli security and the ensure a Palestinian regime that will crack down on terrorism and be a real partner with Israel.
The events of the past half-century needs to be paramount in forming US policy. A strong Israel and a moderate Palestine would be a victory for good. The danger is giving in unconditionally to Palestinian demands is that they become merely a stepping stone for destabilizing and eventually devouring Israel. The end of the "Zionist entity" is still the stated purpose of the PLO Charter and the majority of Arab groups.
President Bush needs to read a bit of history, qualify his geopolitical boundaries and insist upon an end to a policy of rioting and terror as a precondition for final negotiations.
Mr. President, will you have the courage to do this, in spite of your coziness with the House of Saud?
The President recently affirmed that the 1949 Armistice lines should guide current negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon is working intently to remove Jewisg settlers from Gaza and most of the West Bank.
Israel is willing to displace thousands of her own people for a promise of peace with a neighbor that will not unambiguously acknowledge Israel's right to exist!
President Bush and others who wish to appease the Arabs are ignoring the history of the last 50+ years.
The United Nation has already created two states. In the 1947 partition, Israel and TransJordan (now shortened to Jordan) were formed, with Jordan getting the West Bank and Jerusalem. Egypt controlled Gaza and the Sinai, Syria possessed the Golan Heights and Israel placed her capital in Tel Aviv. The survivors of the pogroms and the Holocaust were not completely happy with the boundaries, but an imperfect homeland was better than none.
By 1949, truce lines were established, but there were no formal peace accords or diplomatic relations with any Arab states (though back- channel negotiations with Jordan and others occured sporadically). These lines affirmed the original mandate and the resolution passed in 1948 recognizing the state of Israel.
In 1967 Israel was attacked and in a week defeated her Arab foes and "conquered" the Sinai, the West Bank, the Gaza and the Golan heights. There are the "occupied territories" in Arab rhetoric. For Israel they have been a buffer and an aid in negotiation.
In 1978 Israel and Egypt made peace and the Sinai was returned and a promise made to create another Palestinian State. The Oslo Accords of 1992 reiterated these commitments and Arafat and the Palestinians were offered 98% of the land they desired.
For the past several years, radical Arab groups have sabotaged all attempts at reasonable solutions. In 2005 we have another opportunity for peace, but if Israel is asked to yield all territory back to 1949 lines and the new Palestinian State is allowed a corridor to connect Gaza and the West Bank, it is Israel that is eviscerated.
The creation of the "barrier" surrounding Israel has reduced terrorist bombings by over 90%. What is lacking in current talks is a failure to consider Israeli security and the ensure a Palestinian regime that will crack down on terrorism and be a real partner with Israel.
The events of the past half-century needs to be paramount in forming US policy. A strong Israel and a moderate Palestine would be a victory for good. The danger is giving in unconditionally to Palestinian demands is that they become merely a stepping stone for destabilizing and eventually devouring Israel. The end of the "Zionist entity" is still the stated purpose of the PLO Charter and the majority of Arab groups.
President Bush needs to read a bit of history, qualify his geopolitical boundaries and insist upon an end to a policy of rioting and terror as a precondition for final negotiations.
Mr. President, will you have the courage to do this, in spite of your coziness with the House of Saud?
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
The Paradox of National Sovereignty
Recent initiatives to offer amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants in the USA strike at the very heart of rational policies to ensure a viable future for the American Experiment in representative government rooted in a virtuous citizenry and the rule of law.
The United States has a checkered history on immigration. The Irish were discriminated against in the mid-19th century as they fled the famines in their land. Half a century later, they were an integral part of the American cultural topography.The halycion days of Ellis Island gave way to the xenophobia and anti-Semitism of the the 1920s to 1940s. On the Pacific coast, anti-Chinese laws reflected racism contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. The internment of Japanese-Americans in 1942 was a tragic moment in national paranoia.
In spite of these awful moments, The USA has been and must continue to be a land of opportunity and safety for those willing to abide by her laws and principles.
The situation with Mexico has a convoluted history. The U.S. deliberately provoked a war in 1847 in order to capture the rest of the continent. This aggression has never been forgotten by our neighbors south of the border. There are radical groups in Mexico and the USA that have a long-term strategy to create a new nation in the Southwest. The more pragmatic leaders envision a borderless economic and political arrangement that favors free access for Mexicans to enjoy the economic and social benefits of the U.S. economy. The second largest source of revenue for the Mexican economy is the flow of dollars from north of the border!
Democratic politicians and Republican business leaders want to ignore the long-term sociopolitical problems with our current chaos and enjoy the cheap labor and potential voting blocs created by the current blindness in Washington, D.C.
Proponents of a rational policy are dubbed racists and xenophobes and genuine concerns for American culture and security are ignored.
National sovereignty has been questioned by elites since the end of WWI and the beginning of the League of Nations. "One-world" thinking is not confined to academics, Marxist protestors or U.N. employees. Powerful economic and politcal forces want to see a borderless world and a decline in U.S. hegemony.
I contend that the preservation of national sovereignty through rational immigration policies is the best guarantee of long-term freedom for Americans and the world. Citizenship and intelligent patriotism are important components for long-term stability. Every nation in the world that wants to enhance her distinct place in the global community needs a sane policy. Diversity is not disunity - global cooperation without co-opting freedom is always a goal.
The sane rule of law (and the ability to improve those laws) is a gift to world freedom. Once participation in a society is reduced to mere economics, local and regional fracturing of common ideals is not far behind.
Pragmatically, the murderous drug gangs and the infiltration of Islamofascist terrorists are reasons enough to enforce our borders, regardless of the strictness of immigration policies.
We need to have a real debate on the nature of neighborliness with all countries, especially with Mexico. There are multiple ways to enjoy mutual prosperity without undermining national sovereignty or reverting to past policies.
I challenge the leaders of both parties to show real courage. My liberal friends, are you ready to pay Social Security taxes to your gardeners and maids? Farmers, are you ready for a regulated labor pool, with protection for the workers? High-tech executives, are you discriminating against native-born American workers because you can import an engineer on the cheap? Republican business leaders, are you ready to pay a living wage? Oh, I almost forgot - U.S. citizens, are you willing to pay a bit more for your fruits and vegetables in order to pay for border regulation and better wages to legal guest workers?
We might learn from Australia. Labor is hard to import down-under; therefore, harvesting technology is much more advanced and products are brought to market efficiently without burdening the social structure.
We have important choices to make.
The United States has a checkered history on immigration. The Irish were discriminated against in the mid-19th century as they fled the famines in their land. Half a century later, they were an integral part of the American cultural topography.The halycion days of Ellis Island gave way to the xenophobia and anti-Semitism of the the 1920s to 1940s. On the Pacific coast, anti-Chinese laws reflected racism contrary to the spirit of our Constitution. The internment of Japanese-Americans in 1942 was a tragic moment in national paranoia.
In spite of these awful moments, The USA has been and must continue to be a land of opportunity and safety for those willing to abide by her laws and principles.
The situation with Mexico has a convoluted history. The U.S. deliberately provoked a war in 1847 in order to capture the rest of the continent. This aggression has never been forgotten by our neighbors south of the border. There are radical groups in Mexico and the USA that have a long-term strategy to create a new nation in the Southwest. The more pragmatic leaders envision a borderless economic and political arrangement that favors free access for Mexicans to enjoy the economic and social benefits of the U.S. economy. The second largest source of revenue for the Mexican economy is the flow of dollars from north of the border!
Democratic politicians and Republican business leaders want to ignore the long-term sociopolitical problems with our current chaos and enjoy the cheap labor and potential voting blocs created by the current blindness in Washington, D.C.
Proponents of a rational policy are dubbed racists and xenophobes and genuine concerns for American culture and security are ignored.
National sovereignty has been questioned by elites since the end of WWI and the beginning of the League of Nations. "One-world" thinking is not confined to academics, Marxist protestors or U.N. employees. Powerful economic and politcal forces want to see a borderless world and a decline in U.S. hegemony.
I contend that the preservation of national sovereignty through rational immigration policies is the best guarantee of long-term freedom for Americans and the world. Citizenship and intelligent patriotism are important components for long-term stability. Every nation in the world that wants to enhance her distinct place in the global community needs a sane policy. Diversity is not disunity - global cooperation without co-opting freedom is always a goal.
The sane rule of law (and the ability to improve those laws) is a gift to world freedom. Once participation in a society is reduced to mere economics, local and regional fracturing of common ideals is not far behind.
Pragmatically, the murderous drug gangs and the infiltration of Islamofascist terrorists are reasons enough to enforce our borders, regardless of the strictness of immigration policies.
We need to have a real debate on the nature of neighborliness with all countries, especially with Mexico. There are multiple ways to enjoy mutual prosperity without undermining national sovereignty or reverting to past policies.
I challenge the leaders of both parties to show real courage. My liberal friends, are you ready to pay Social Security taxes to your gardeners and maids? Farmers, are you ready for a regulated labor pool, with protection for the workers? High-tech executives, are you discriminating against native-born American workers because you can import an engineer on the cheap? Republican business leaders, are you ready to pay a living wage? Oh, I almost forgot - U.S. citizens, are you willing to pay a bit more for your fruits and vegetables in order to pay for border regulation and better wages to legal guest workers?
We might learn from Australia. Labor is hard to import down-under; therefore, harvesting technology is much more advanced and products are brought to market efficiently without burdening the social structure.
We have important choices to make.
Thursday, May 26, 2005
A Better Future
I had the honor of addressing a wonderful group of Republican Women in San Francisico last night. They are a vanguard of clarity and sanity in a city known for "interesting" politics.
These women were not right-wing fanatics or narrow-minded bigots. These were professional, successful, and thoughtful leaders who are willing to join hands, roll up their sleeves and get to work solving the real social challenges of our day.
The group includes business owners and executives, nationally-known leaders in the arts and many who know what it is to lead voter registration drives and be insulted for their Republican identity. These are courageous and insightful people and it was a joy to interact together.
I mention this meeting in order to give my readers a window into the best that politics has to offer. In all of the egoistic polemics we see in the media from Left and Right, we forget the moral strength and hard work of so many who deeply care about their communities and our nation.
Take time soon and thank someone who volunteers in the community - whether it is at your local hospital or school or in some other field. These are the real heroes.
I shared four keys to a transformed personal and social future that I want to encapsulate here and expand upon in coming columns:
Humility, honesty, helpfulness and hope - whay not demand that every public servant, whether appointed or elected, ascribe to this "foursquare" set of values?
A better future begins today!
These women were not right-wing fanatics or narrow-minded bigots. These were professional, successful, and thoughtful leaders who are willing to join hands, roll up their sleeves and get to work solving the real social challenges of our day.
The group includes business owners and executives, nationally-known leaders in the arts and many who know what it is to lead voter registration drives and be insulted for their Republican identity. These are courageous and insightful people and it was a joy to interact together.
I mention this meeting in order to give my readers a window into the best that politics has to offer. In all of the egoistic polemics we see in the media from Left and Right, we forget the moral strength and hard work of so many who deeply care about their communities and our nation.
Take time soon and thank someone who volunteers in the community - whether it is at your local hospital or school or in some other field. These are the real heroes.
I shared four keys to a transformed personal and social future that I want to encapsulate here and expand upon in coming columns:
- Key # 1: Humility calls us to never lose the wonder of the "starry heavens above and the moral law within." (Immanuel Kant) We are beckoned to remember that we are not the center of the universe and that others really matter.
- Key # 2: Honesty with ourselves and others is not bluntness or crassness, but clarity and integrity in our words and commitments. Why do we need spin doctors explaining press secretaries' interpretations?
- Key # 3: Helpfulness reminds us that we find much greater joy seeing others encouraged and help than in selfishly pursuing our own success withoutr regard for those who help us! Who are we helping to move ahead today?
- Key # 4: Hope is not wishful utopianism, but the belief that our future can be better when today's choices are rooted in lasting values and an enduring vision.
Humility, honesty, helpfulness and hope - whay not demand that every public servant, whether appointed or elected, ascribe to this "foursquare" set of values?
A better future begins today!
Wednesday, May 18, 2005
The "Kingdom of Heaven" - History Rewritten
Ridley Scott's movie, "the Kingdom of Heaven" was filmed in consultation with Muslim scholars and has received praise from Islamic leaders for its fair portrayal of Islamic beliefs and personalities during the Crusades, especially Saladin the Great.
There has been no mention of any consultation with Catholic scholars - after all, we all "know" how evil the Latin Crusaders were.
There is, however, a problem with this simplistic scenario. From middle school to graduate school, from "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" to current Hollywood attempts to have terrorists be anyone but a Muslim, we are fed a diet of anti-Christian propoganda that fails to tell the whole story.
I am not going to historically or theologically defend one of the darkest chapters of church history. The Crusading spirit is antithetical to most Christian's understanding of the message of the Bible and the progress made since the 12th-14th centuries is welcome. Using violence to promote faith is contrary to the noble teachings of Jesus and even the early chapters of the Koran.
With this caveat, however, it is helpful to understand the historical forces at work prior to 1099, when the Latin armies conquered Jerusalem.
From 632 to 732 a variety of Islamic armies conquered vast territiories in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. Were it not for the efforts of Charles Martel at Tours, the crescent might have been the dominant symbol of much of Western Europe rather than the cross.
As Islamic empires consolidated control, Christians and Jews were tolerated as dhimmi, inferiors fit for menial tasks and higher taxes. Treatment of non-Muslims varied from location to location. In some cases, there was considerable cooperation, especially in the fields of philosophical scholarship in Spain.
The Catholic Church and the emerging nation-states of the West were coming out of a long season of civilizational decline as the year 1100 approached. The Byzantine Empire was continuing to shrink under the pressure of the new Ottoman power. In 1054 the Latin and Greek branches of Christendom severed ties over political and theological differences spanning five centuries.
The First Crusade was preached in 1096 as a call to restore the holy sites of Palestine to Church control, or at least allow Christian pilgrims free access. By 1099, it had degenerated into a bloodbath during the conquest of Jerusalem. In the succeeding two centuries God, glory, gold and outlets for an excess of petty nobility would darken the chronicles of world history. The last Latin presence in the Holy Land ended in 1291.
The Crusades were not simply about religion and war. Complex geopolitical and economic interests created shifting alliances, pragmatic partnerships and provided the foundations for the emergence of the modern world. Byzantine intrigues, the national aspriations of western monarchs, Italian trading centers, and competing Islamic forces make these centuries rich with events that defy simplistic analysis. Add to these facts the gradual Reconquista of Spain, the Catholic crusades against heretics and the emergence of proto-Protestant dissent and the years 1100 to 1300 emerge as the dawn of modern history.
For some sane accounts of the Crusades that consider all sides, I recommend Geoffry Hindley's, The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy (Carroll and Graf, 2003). Jonathan Ridley-Scott has written a concise narrative, The Crusades: A Short History, that is worth reading. James Reston's Warriors of God: Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin in the third Crusade (Anchor Books, 2001) is another fine work. Duncan Baird's editing of The Illustrated History of the Crusades (University of Michigan, 2004) is balances and contains amazing maps, plates and original art form the period.
As we face a post-9/11 world we confront radical Islamic movements with long (and selective) memories and a Western culture that has abandoned its Christian principles. The road ahead is not found in a revival of pious militarism, but in moral renewal, military restraint and wisdom and a recognition that freedom requires sacrifice and virtue.
There has been no mention of any consultation with Catholic scholars - after all, we all "know" how evil the Latin Crusaders were.
There is, however, a problem with this simplistic scenario. From middle school to graduate school, from "Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves" to current Hollywood attempts to have terrorists be anyone but a Muslim, we are fed a diet of anti-Christian propoganda that fails to tell the whole story.
I am not going to historically or theologically defend one of the darkest chapters of church history. The Crusading spirit is antithetical to most Christian's understanding of the message of the Bible and the progress made since the 12th-14th centuries is welcome. Using violence to promote faith is contrary to the noble teachings of Jesus and even the early chapters of the Koran.
With this caveat, however, it is helpful to understand the historical forces at work prior to 1099, when the Latin armies conquered Jerusalem.
From 632 to 732 a variety of Islamic armies conquered vast territiories in the Middle East, North Africa and Spain. Were it not for the efforts of Charles Martel at Tours, the crescent might have been the dominant symbol of much of Western Europe rather than the cross.
As Islamic empires consolidated control, Christians and Jews were tolerated as dhimmi, inferiors fit for menial tasks and higher taxes. Treatment of non-Muslims varied from location to location. In some cases, there was considerable cooperation, especially in the fields of philosophical scholarship in Spain.
The Catholic Church and the emerging nation-states of the West were coming out of a long season of civilizational decline as the year 1100 approached. The Byzantine Empire was continuing to shrink under the pressure of the new Ottoman power. In 1054 the Latin and Greek branches of Christendom severed ties over political and theological differences spanning five centuries.
The First Crusade was preached in 1096 as a call to restore the holy sites of Palestine to Church control, or at least allow Christian pilgrims free access. By 1099, it had degenerated into a bloodbath during the conquest of Jerusalem. In the succeeding two centuries God, glory, gold and outlets for an excess of petty nobility would darken the chronicles of world history. The last Latin presence in the Holy Land ended in 1291.
The Crusades were not simply about religion and war. Complex geopolitical and economic interests created shifting alliances, pragmatic partnerships and provided the foundations for the emergence of the modern world. Byzantine intrigues, the national aspriations of western monarchs, Italian trading centers, and competing Islamic forces make these centuries rich with events that defy simplistic analysis. Add to these facts the gradual Reconquista of Spain, the Catholic crusades against heretics and the emergence of proto-Protestant dissent and the years 1100 to 1300 emerge as the dawn of modern history.
For some sane accounts of the Crusades that consider all sides, I recommend Geoffry Hindley's, The Crusades: Islam and Christianity in the Struggle for World Supremacy (Carroll and Graf, 2003). Jonathan Ridley-Scott has written a concise narrative, The Crusades: A Short History, that is worth reading. James Reston's Warriors of God: Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin in the third Crusade (Anchor Books, 2001) is another fine work. Duncan Baird's editing of The Illustrated History of the Crusades (University of Michigan, 2004) is balances and contains amazing maps, plates and original art form the period.
As we face a post-9/11 world we confront radical Islamic movements with long (and selective) memories and a Western culture that has abandoned its Christian principles. The road ahead is not found in a revival of pious militarism, but in moral renewal, military restraint and wisdom and a recognition that freedom requires sacrifice and virtue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
