Beyond the Cusp

May 14, 2016

How Democracy Dies in Israel

 

Though we had discussed thoughts of this nature we could only obliquely refer to our suspicions but thanks to Caroline B. Glick for her article which is the meat of our commentary and worth reading as her manner and ability to cut to the bone and serve the meat on any subject is particularly poignant and we would feel as if we had deprived our readers of every morsel and fact within her article The Fruits of Subversion which we read in Jewish World Review which is one of many places where Carolyn Glick can be found. The discussion we will attempt will be to delve into some of the ramifications; both the potential, and the other simply dread and hopefully never come to pass. Needless to point out, adding to a Caroline B. Glick article is not a task for the queasy and in this endeavor failure is not only an option but even a probability. I guess by now we can simply assume that Caroline B. Glick is a reporter and editorialist extraordinaire whom we hold in high esteem. Now let us proceed and try and tackle this not so simple task and hope for the best.

 

There has been a shadow government operating in concert with the administration of a foreign power, that of President Barack Obama and the United States Department of State. This government has taken upon itself the pursuit of an agenda which is completely the opposite of that of the elected government. These individuals have taken upon themselves to assist the aims of President Barack Obama and report to the State department, administration appointees and even the Secretary of State or the Director of Central Intelligence Agency any deviations from the presumptive and United States approved policy potentially taken or in the plans of the government in Israel. Examples from the article included reporting the plans for a strike on the Iranian nuclear sites and we might discern that other such treasonous revelations granted the United States and Obama Administration would include any objections or arguments which Prime Minister Netanyahu might have regarding any peace and concessions and any resistance to of President Obama’s carefully laid out agenda which he and his tools in Israel believed to be superior and a better path for Israel going into the future and against the will of the voters and their elected governance. The problem is that this infection had spread throughout much of the highest ranks including the general staff as well as the intelligence community. Caroline Glick mentioned some names but we suspect, as does she more than likely, that the disease is rotting through many institutions who see their job description to include preserving the democracy their politics support, the people be damned, as what do the people know about the realities of the world and the best of paths for the state of Israel. Another place where this rot had held sway since the beginning of the state of Israel and through the same process of self-appointing replacements and choosing those of identical political philosophies while punishing those who hold contrary opinions even to the point of demotions or forced retirement from serving the country is the Supreme Court and likely the entire legal and judicial system.

 

Perhaps this might be a good time to confess that we did not vote for Likud and much of the reasoning was a dislike and distrust of Prime Minister Netanyahu and wished that there was some way of either limiting the number of total years or terms a Prime Minister is permitted to serve and after that set period of time they would need to set aside their leadership of the nation and allow another to be the representative of their party as Prime Minister even if they continued to lead the party. Such an example might be that Prime Minister Netanyahu after serving, say, a decade holding the office of Prime Minister he would need appoint another from the party, or better yet, have the party choose the new Prime Minister designate to represent that position for example it might be Gilad Erdan, Yuli Edelstein, Yerael Kats or any other Likud member in good standing. Perhaps with such a limitation allowing for fresh leadership even if the same party remains as leading the government year after year after year which might prevent the self-appointed demi-gods from perverting the elective process and the choices of the people and destroying the democracy in order, in their minds, to preserve the democracy.

 

Part of the problem, as we estimate the situation, is that due to sclerotic and often paralytic political power structure which retains a small group of leadership holding all of the positions including Prime Minister and his Cabinet that stresses the top positions in the military, courts, intelligence and other political and security positions which are not elected directly or indirectly by the people into using their privileged positions and access to the decisions, plans and other intelligence including both external, internal and even secretive plans which only the very highest military position and heads of intelligence have privilege to acquire and who are trusted by the people not to overstep their boundaries and serve the people and its government. What is even more disturbing is the seeming support these paragons of perfect knowledge, or at least self-perceived as such, have abused their positions and forfeited the trust of the people and the government they are presumably serving have been celebrated and even granted privileged acceptance and praises from their political allies who are leaning on these people of rank to allow for their political goals and views to be implemented through abuse of force and forfeiting the votes of millions of their nation’s citizenry. The actions of the previous Director of the Mossad, Maj. Gen. Meir Dagan, and commanders such as Deputy Chief of General Staff Maj.-Gen. Yair Gola, compared Israeli society to the Nazis on Holocaust Remembrance Day; the General Staff’s vilification of Sgt. Elor Azaria, for killing a wounded terrorist in Hebron; and the drumming from his position as a commander of an Infantry Company of Lt. Col. Shalom Eisner for striking a European leftist instigator who had earlier broken a number of Eisner’s fingers and caused other equally painful injuries which required medical treatment.

 

Ya'alon and General Staff

Ya’alon and General Staff

 

The general policy being empowered by these paragons of democracy, well, at least in their own minds, and that of the extreme leftists, the defeatists, the leftist media which is to say the majority of the mainstream media, the European Union, United Nations, European government and media, and worst of all the anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli Administration of President Barack Obama is one duly leftist in its approach to all policies and completely placating and forgiving empowering the Arab Palestinians and the terror infrastructure and support systems all in the name of peace at any price even to include the complete compromise of the freedom and identity of Israel as the Jewish State. The obvious question is why these generals are not simply forced from service and replaced with other senior officers who hold more reasonable understandings of the power and responsibility of the military to serve the governance elected by the people. One reason is that it is very likely that the Supreme Court would intervene and return these general staff officers and likely find some choice names of officers who are approaching senior positions and blame them for attempting to overthrow the general staff and they themselves would find themselves drummed from service and potentially incarcerated, thus is the established leftist shadow governance. As far as removing such generals from the IDF, such a move would necessarily require the support of the Defense Minister and MK Ya’alon leans left himself and would likely defend these generals and may be partly the reason that Ya’alon was chosen for the position such as to have a person who could work with the generals the IDF offered and not one to shake things up and rock the boat. The entirety of the system of unelected policy experts who are pursuing their own agenda is an echo chamber which amplifies the problem which will take a brave and ready to fall on their political swords for the nation and its people.

 

The final item we will attempt to cover is why it may be time to find a new Prime Minister to replace Netanyahu, from Likud if necessary. The nation needs a bold leader who is willing to take whatever steps are required to enforce the will of the people. Such a person would be, by necessity, somebody with an almost careless outlook and one who does not prefer the limelight and instead simply desires sacrificing to serve the nation and its people. Unfortunately such a person is unlikely as a parliamentary system is not usually capable of taking dire steps even when many see it as necessary. A Parliamentary system most often places a party functionary who has the right pedigree often the result of years of steady service to the party as a dedicated soldier. This is how Ya’alon became Defense Minister as did the rest of the Prime Minister’s inner cabinet. One of the complaints we have often heard was that there was such a seeming dearth of politicians who would be worthy of being the next Prime Minister. Even when other parties are added to the discussion with their presumed additional candidates there are still very few if any additional candidates who might excite the people, or at least none of us here. We did have one we would have hoped would offer themselves as a challenger for the office of Prime Minister as the lead of their party but they made a couple of defeatist comments, one in particular which displayed a serious deficiency which displayed they were not ready for prime time, let alone Prime Minister. If anyone has any ideas on a viable challenger, please encourage them as Israel cannot long survive these closed systems and their ruinous effect acting against the will of the people. The leaders in the legal systems, military, intelligence and law enforcement systems are presumed and designed to serve the people and the government and to implement the desires and policies of same, not take it upon themselves to be gods and rule taking power upon themselves simply because they see themselves as superior to the elected governance. Such is a closed system free of outside forces for change thus not reflecting the will of the people as they serve and should not be placing themselves above the people and their welfare, which is also against Torah.

 

Thank you all,

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

August 13, 2012

Death of a Constitution

The Constitution of the United States of America is a singularly exquisite document unparalleled in all of human history. It is very likely the seminal document championing dignity, freedom and liberty of all human beings over the powers of government dictating a system based on the universality of the rule of law over the absolute rule of man such as a king or other potentate. The Constitution of the United States is the framework around which the application of the American Declaration of Independence becomes possible. It is by the application of the checks and balances on power by the Constitution that governance is leashed and restricted to owning only that influence granted it by those whom it is presumed to serve. This was the beauty and significance of the founding documents, the Constitution in tandem with the Declaration of Independence, on which what has been called the American experiment in government of the people, by the people, and for the people was founded. This Constitution of the United States was relatively workable until the courts decided that it was within their power to institute laws rather than just adjudicate them.

One of the most grievous of these cases was Roe vs. Wade where the United States Supreme Court took what was rightfully a States’ issue, which should have remained relegated to be decided by the individual states as dictated by the Tenth Amendment, and turned the entire argument into a Federal Case. This forced any remedial actions to originate with the Federal Government and eliminating any redress by the individual States. The main problem that many Constitutionalists who stand for the strict interpretation of the Constitution, with an eye towards the framework and structures of the Constitution and its related arguments as covered in the Federalist Papers and the  Anti-Federalist Papers, is not over whether abortion should or should not be legal within the United States but that deciding such was not included within the narrow and defined powers of the Supreme Court or any other branch of the Federal Government. Unfortunately, anybody attempting to make such an argument is immediately struck upside their head with claims of their intent being to deny a woman of her “right to choose” and the rights of the States to decide such issues by the dictates and will of their citizens never gets discussed. Such a hijacking of the argument denies any legitimate debate over States’ rights versus Federal power to force unified laws on any issue they feel obligated or coerced into ruling.

Since the Roe vs. Wade decision was handed down, there have been a number of laws and court cases which have further eroded the power of the individual States in the name of protecting the rights of the people or some segment within society which has found favor at the Federal level of government. This precedent has also allowed for the Federal government to set standards for items, procedures and various other interactions, many of which resulted in unfunded mandates imposed upon the States under the guise of forced universal compliance. Some examples would include but not be limited to the low volume water per flush toilets, Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance, required auto insurance, Prescription Drug Plans for Seniors, front loading washers, and a litany of other programs which are considered by many to be extra-Constitutional with likely the most dangerous one soon to be implemented, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (Obama Care). Universal standards are understandable and desirable in near countless places such as weights and measures, but not in limiting the choices of the public when it comes to goods and services.

It has been proven that more will usually be accomplished if the choices are left up to the people as long as the people are given the truth of concerns and information. One example which often is misrepresented concerns pollution standards. Despite the claims to the contrary, the vast percentage of the requirements put forth in the first rendition of anti-pollution regulations contained in the Clean Air Act of 1972 had already been met before much of the debate even began without any actions by any level of government. What had occurred was simply the people were made aware of the problems from air pollution and water pollution and began to demand of manufacturers that they clean up their acts (all puns intended). Numerous companies included their efforts towards cleaner air and water in their advertising campaigns and by doing such garnered a larger market share. Nobody can know how far public pressures might have pushed industry, even automobile manufacturers, to cut back on emissions and cleaning up the air and water. What is known is that once the Federal Government put in place a required minimum standard, then one could easily predict to what level advances would be implemented, exactly to the requirements and not one ounce lower. By setting a standard, the Government had also set a maximum on efforts to lower emissions and removed the pressure by the consumer as it would then be considered being overly demanding to go any further than Government had set as what was to be expected.

The most egregious loss of the falling away from strict Constitutional limitations of the Federal government has been the loss of the citizen’s influence over the day-to-day influences upon their lives by government. The idea behind the Founding Fathers limitations on the Federal Government included in the Constitution was to place the vast majority of the governing influences upon the citizen as close to the citizen as feasible. As was stated by James Madison, “The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those powers which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.” If you prefer something more succinct there is the quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson which states, “The government that governs best governs least.” (This is one of the many versions of the quote.) The going theory of the day was for the largest amount of power over the individual was to be placed with each individual. It was equated that in order to maximize personal freedoms and liberties one would also have to be most responsible and respectful of others. The only reason for the intervention then by government was to enforce the rights of the individual as long as such did not impose upon the rights of the next individual. The most local level of government would be responsible for adjudicating disputes and abridgements by one individual upon another. The local government was also responsible for keeping the peace in order to facilitate the highest level of liberty and freedom for the entirety of the limited area over which it had influence. This level of government would only be given those powers which the people as a whole were willing to allow it to possess. The next level of government would be tasked with settling any disputes between these local governances. The power of this level of government would be dependent upon both what the individuals were willing as a society to grant to government and the items allowed it by the lower levels of government. This would continue all the way up the levels of government even to a world governance should such be established by the next level of governance, that of countries. Each level of government would deal for the people who resided within its jurisdiction with other governments of similar levels or governance. They would hold only that which the people were willing to surrender or loan to that government. The people would also have the right to remove the power from such government if they decided such power was being abused or was too infringing upon their lives. Each level of government which would be above the other would be limited to even less power as at no level could any power be vested in government which had not been granted by the people to their closest level of governance. Thus, as one climbed the ladder from local neighborhood government to general area government to district area government to State government and finally to Federal Government one would find that at each level the amount of power vested in the government would decrease from the previous lower level. This was the design and the beauty of the idea put forth from which we have driven far astray. This is also the perfection in governance which we the people must struggle to reclaim such that we once again will be fully empowered to control our own lives and government is returned to being the beggar for power and influence from the granters of power, the people.

Beyond the Cusp

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.