Replies

Noting that the governments instituted among men "derive their just powers from the consent of the governed", and noting further that you ignored my last question, I must dispute your contention. "We" never allowed them this power; this is unjust tyranny.
If we don't stop it, we'll never contain it.

In the last General Election most of the "governed" gave their "consent" to the Leftist candidate and they outnumber us as the Popular Vote proved. They are the "we" that allowed it to happen and want it to continue. That's the answer to your question.

Consort, on one level, I understand what you are saying when you say "we" allowed it to happen. But on another level, you are very wrong. Over and over again, actions by the ACLU prove very unpopular in polls. The majority of Americans don't WANT public expression of religion shut down. Until recently, many believed they had no choice. The courts had spoken; the matter was settled. With recent overreaching by the Supreme Court and other courts, many Americans are waking up to the fact that the judicial branch has usurped far more power than the Constitution allows, and "we" will move to remind them of their proper role and place.

As for "we" electing leftists who appoint liberal activist judges, the problem is worse than that. Even judges appointed by conservatives have participated in this newfound "divine right of rule" by judges.

In the last General Election most of the "governed" gave their "consent" to the Leftist candidate and they outnumber us as the Popular Vote proved.

This statement is quite open to dispute. After all, the dead are no longer subject to this government, and the fictitious voters never were.

It's actually comical to see the moaning about how "the popular vote means that Al Gore is REALLY president" -- on that supposition, Slick Willie would never have survived '92. If the president were to be elected by simple majority of the popular vote, '92 would have spawned a runoff. How do you suppose that would have gone? Could Bubba have gathered in all those Perotistas? I trow not. Savor the irony.

The elitists who speak through the courts, these self-anointed Philosopher Kings, wouldn't make so much as a spit in the ocean by comparison with those whom they seek to rule. They often find themselves using the power of the courts to overrule the people's actions, whether taken by legislature or referendum.