Conquering Drawbacks of Democracy


http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:cnnnSRimWmcJ:www.familysecuritymatters.org/index.php?id=1208571%2B"president%2Bfor%2Blife%2Bbush"%2Bsite:familysecuritymatters.org&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Author: Philip Atkinson
Source: The Family Security Foundation, Inc.
Date: August 3, 2007

President George W. Bush is the 43rd President of the United States. He was sworn in for a second term on January 20, 2005 after being chosen by the majority of citizens in America to be president.

Yet in 2007 he is generally despised, with many citizens of Western civilization expressing contempt for his person and his policies, sentiments which now abound on the Internet. This rage at President Bush is an inevitable result of the system of government demanded by the people, which is Democracy.

The inadequacy of Democracy, rule by the majority, is undeniable �?? for it demands adopting ideas because they are popular, rather than because they are wise. This means that any man chosen to act as an agent of the people is placed in an invidious position: if he commits folly because it is popular, then he will be held responsible for the inevitable result. If he refuses to commit folly, then he will be detested by most citizens because he is frustrating their demands.

When faced with the possible threat that the Iraqis might be amassing terrible weapons that could be used to slay millions of citizens of Western Civilization, President Bush took the only action prudence demanded and the electorate allowed: he conquered Iraq with an army.

This dangerous and expensive act did destroy the Iraqi regime, but left an American army without any clear purpose in a hostile country and subject to attack. If the Army merely returns to its home, then the threat it ended would simply return.

The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons to slaughter Iraqis until they complied with his demands, or until they were all dead. Then there would be little risk or expense and no American army would be left exposed. But if he did this, his cowardly electorate would have instantly ended his term of office, if not his freedom or his life.

The simple truth that modern weapons now mean a nation must practice genocide or commit suicide. Israel provides the perfect example. If the Israelis do not raze Iran, the Iranians will fulfill their boast and wipe Israel off the face of the earth. Yet Israel is not popular, and so is denied permission to defend itself. In the same vein, President Bush cannot do what is necessary for the survival of Americans. He cannot use the nation’s powerful weapons. All he can do is try and discover a result that will be popular with Americans.

As there appears to be no sensible result of the invasion of Iraq that will be popular with his countrymen other than retreat, President Bush is reviled; he has become another victim of Democracy.

By elevating popular fancy over truth, Democracy is clearly an enemy of not just truth, but duty and justice, which makes it the worst form of government. President Bush must overcome not just the situation in Iraq, but democratic government.

However, President Bush has a valuable historical example that he could choose to follow.

When the ancient Roman general Julius Caesar was struggling to conquer ancient Gaul, he not only had to defeat the Gauls, but he also had to defeat his political enemies in Rome who would destroy him the moment his tenure as consul (president) ended.

Caesar pacified Gaul by mass slaughter; he then used his successful army to crush all political opposition at home and establish himself as permanent ruler of ancient Rome. This brilliant action not only ended the personal threat to Caesar, but ended the civil chaos that was threatening anarchy in ancient Rome �?? thus marking the start of the ancient Roman Empire that gave peace and prosperity to the known world.

If President Bush copied Julius Caesar by ordering his army to empty Iraq of Arabs and repopulate the country with Americans, he would achieve immediate results: popularity with his military; enrichment of America by converting an Arabian Iraq into an American Iraq (therefore turning it from a liability to an asset); and boost American prestiege while terrifying American enemies.

He could then follow Caesar’s example and use his newfound popularity with the military to wield military power to become the first permanent president of America, and end the civil chaos caused by the continually squabbling Congress and the out-of-control Supreme Court.

President Bush can fail in his duty to himself, his country, and his God, by becoming �??ex-president�?? Bush or he can become �??President-for-Life�?? Bush: the conqueror of Iraq, who brings sense to the Congress and sanity to the Supreme Court. Then who would be able to stop Bush from emulating Augustus Caesar and becoming ruler of the world? For only an America united under one ruler has the power to save humanity from the threat of a new Dark Age wrought by terrorists armed with nuclear weapons.

That Philip Atkinson dude forgot to mention that Bush’s people conjured up the threat of wmd. And that anyone who wouldn’t pretend along, was ridiculed, deemed unpatriotic and could very well lose his job.

“The wisest course would have been for President Bush to use his nuclear weapons…”

Anyone who thinks it’s wise to use nuclear weapons should be kicked in the nuts, swiftly and repeatedly.

The family security foundation has this clown on its payroll ? ? ?

Am I the only one who thinks it might not be such a good idea for the security of the family to use nuclear weapons? Might be good for he family securty foundation though.

That’s laughable! Thanks for digging up such an entertaining article.

The Family Security Foundation?

It’s always in the name of safety and the children, isn’t?

Two legs good, Four legs baaaa’d…

I read this a few days back and was really appalled. I can already hear HH call for “El-Presidente Jorge for life”…

Anyway, there’s a guy that (over?)analyzed this piece. Here it goes;

[i]“President-for-Life” linked to Bush Administration itself

I heard about this on, where else, the Thom Hartmann show. He discussed Democratic Underground’s look at Family Security Matters. This bunch of sickos (apologies to Michael Moore) advocates that Bush should be our permanent president and that there should be no more democracy. Democracy is bad. Kings are good.

Who’s on their advisory board? Reagan era remnants abound. Here are some names that Hartmann tossed out: Barbara Comstock, Laura Ingraham, Frank Gaffney, James Woolsey, and…drum roll…Dick Cheney. Oh, and by the way, it’s the same Gaffney who goes on CNN with talk of aggression against Iran. That Frank Gaffney.[/i]

http://cliffschecter.blogspot.com/2007/08/group-that-wants-bush-to-be-president.html

I’m hereby removing all my anagrammatic Free Software Foundation stickers and badges for fear of being associated with the Family Security Foundation.

edited

Is he serious…? What an idiot.

Wreckless, when you’re done kicking him in the nuts, give me a go too.

This piece is quite sickening.