What do you mean by that?
I didn't try to ridicule you, but your "nice" wordings seems you are doing exact that to me!
Your post sounds like the guys in the UN, talking and talking that leads to nowhere!!
I have come to think it is very naive to rely on any measure to get rid of the usurper by our scared (corrupt ?) judicial system and is a total waste of energy which has been proven from multiple cases thrown out of court the last year!!!
There are movements brewing all over the country, Tea Parties (?) in protest and when you don't have bread and butter on the table for your kids, something drastic is going to happen, whether you like it or not. In my State the "official" unemployment is now 11.2% and the unemployment cash coffer is EMPTY.
What do you think will happens when the unemployment rate reach 25-30%, which I believe it is heading toward?
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." President Ronald Reagan
Posting platitudes fails to answer the question. Our government provides redress for perceived wrongs. Until a citizen has exhausted these means of redress, advocating revolution seems to me to be not only premature but also a reflection that the complainant is really upset at WHO is in power, and not at the political system that allowed his ascension to power. In the end, if a majority of citizens accept the status quo, stealing the will of that majority by advocating an overthrow of the government, makes its proponents un-American.
You wrote, “I have come to think it is very naive to rely on any measure to get rid of the usurper by our scared (corrupt ?) judicial system and is a total waste of energy which has been proven from multiple cases thrown out of court the last year!!!” (Again with the multiple exclamation points, emphasis which I refer to as hyperbole.)
If everyone in this country had “standing” then, individual Defendants would face countless suits. So, the courts have necessarily winnowed down standing to a finite number of litigants. None of the cases presented thus far was sound. They not only violated basic standards of legal reasoning but they also conflated suspicion with fact; and fact with opinion. You know how hard I am working to expose that nothing in the public record evidences BO is a NBC, and to settle this issue. But even I could not deny, each of these cases was infirm from the outset. The only objection I could reasonably register to any of the rulings is that, the judges took too personally the ineptitude of the petitioners.
I am neither defending the bench nor excoriating the lawyers. I am just saying, citing the results of these cases to support your contention the courts could be corrupt, misses the point.