USA should not back ‘DEMOCRACY’, we are a revolutionary nation for THE RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

And THAT, sports fan is why Obama is way behind the curve.

Individuals with big mouths make Mr. Obama and exceedingly upset, and nervous person.

We’ve heard it otherwise expressed as 1 man, 1 vote, 1 time.

Ochlocracy as a wise apostate individual pointed out, is NOT what we conceive of as democracy.

Mr. Obama is not nervous with the idea of a mob, mass, momentary approval of the obnoxious if it might be for what he conceives of as ‘social justice’ (code) so he cannot help but try to encourage this in some backhanded way while appearing not to, while also appearing to avoid stomping any US ally who is inconvenient to this movement. To him such movement is PROGRESSIVE. It IS if you believe that the many have have the rights they can arrogate (away) of the few and the one (yes, I know, - Spock). It is if you believe the many can COMPEL, by vote, intimidation and state coercion as the absolute vision of ‘democracy’.

The problem is as he has here, it is INDIVIDUALS who want something OTHER than what the mob wants that give him the heebie jeebies. It is the inconvenient INDIVIDUAL that asserts his or her rights that the MB wants to ostracize, and export or worse.

Individual rights usually NEED a democracy to exist, but are not necessary to have the functioning of a society which runs on majority intimidation (can anyone say Copt, Bahai, Ahmadiya), especially a society which has a religious majority of 90%, 90% of whom WANT that religion as the major factor in govt.

Yet a society in which a scrupulous adherence to the will of the majority alone defines policy, would look very little like ours.

Or our revolution.

Or our founders’ ideas.

Beginning with the so called hero of human rights, J Carter, every US president should have been banging the drum of the rights of individuals because they would have been doing so for a constitutional republic with SOME kind of Bill of Rights guarantees.

If it is not democracy (Ochlocracy) but THIS KIND OF GOVERNMENT which is an anathema to Islamic majorities FINE, let’s hear about it.

It MAY be too late for Egypt. It may be impossible in Islamic majority nations (and if so the sooner we know the better), but someone in the USA in leadership or potential leadership positions had better speak up so that we have a 30 second sound byte as to the difference between a mob intimidation rule of the masses, and a democracy whose PURPOSE is the protection of the individual while having majority rule.