Mohamed Morsi sought more power than necessary

Screen captured of CNN facebook posting decrying Morsi's fall

The Fall of Morsi is a huge blow to the ambitions of the Muslim Brotherhood and its financier and supporter, President Barrack Hussein Obama. But the CNN, as an Obama drone, made some outrageous claims while failing to address why the Egyptians took to the streets in massive number for the third time.

Off course Morsi is not the only President to hold the office of President in the name of "Democratic Election". Egyptian leaders in the past rose to power through military coup and their successors took over without the Democratic elections. But why should they? Egypt, like many of the Middle East, don't like Democracy - they prefer a government based on Islamic rules. During Mubarrak's time, the West constantly accused him of undermining the rights of Egyptians for far too long, in which he responded by easing up government grip and allowing voters to go to the poll to vote. He was voted, as anticipated, as president and remained that way until he was forced to step down by the Muslim Brotherhood and the West.

In fact, Democratic election is far far removed from its authentic meaning when you are either in the Soviet Bloc - now Russia, or in the Middle East. In the West, elections are held and voters cast their vote for candidates they think can do a better job in leading. In most countries in the West, voters look to party policies and vote for that which would benefit them in various ways. Poll watchers and international observers are called to watch or witness the elections in case there's dirty dealings by either sides. But this is not the way elections are held in the ME. There are no observers in the ME and when they do, they are either paid drones, or they spoil them while the government operatives are hard at work manipulating ballots and tweaking ballot outcomes. This is how the President and Prime Minister of Russia, President of Zimbabwe, President of Iran, the Prime Minister of Palestine in Gaza, the President of Egypt etc. got elected. It is their version of Democratic elections. Thus, it is right to say that the elections in these part of the world have predetermined outcomes. They already knew who won but the process must go on for PR purposes. 

Morsi rose to power because Egyptian were tired of Mubarrak. He had been in power for decades, mostly ruling by the power of his finger and the Egyptian army was willing to execute whatever plans he placed on the table. He ruled Egypt for a long time - long enough for people to know how corrupt he was and all his corrupt dealings including his relationships with the West and Israel that most Muslims hate. Morsi, prior to becoming the president of Egypt, made speeches which he called for the destruction of Israel - calling Jews pigs. So it is natural for him to seek the kind of power the Pharaohs of ancient Egypt had so that he can act without authorization of a governing constitution. 

Last year, Egyptians took to the street and protested for the second time against their elected President because he attempted to amend the constitution to suit his own ego and the mission of his party - the Muslim Brotherhood coalition. The protest subsided when government promised not to do it. But as time went by Egyptians realized that their president had been empowering himself. For that reason, he had to go, and it would be a huge mistake for the West to condemn any government  that will take over Egypt, military or otherwise because that's the only way.
My only fear is that the army might take complete control of the situation and the country without the normal parliamentary rules and regulations. If things end up this way, dictatorship, or authoritarianism will return to Egypt.