As to #3:

(Even I..) believe that Murica ain't so universally ovine that an inexorable tide towards a Security Theocracy could proceed as slickly as - those with the brains of a Dubya, a Cheney or an Ashcroft (obviously) suppose.

I have no illusions of belonging to "a plurality" - but I have no doubt whatsoever that - I represent a minority which is neither small nor unmotivated.

The rationale for actual anti-Government *action* resides firmly in the wording of the Constitution; that is phrased not as an 'option' but as a Duty: whenever a government has committed actions which are prohibited in that Constitution. 'My Group\ufffd' would be a subset (superset?) of those who have read this document with comprehension and recognize what 'Duty' might mean.

Of course, were this to be an actual next development: nobody could tell the form which such action might take. But - as you say - for me and mine:

Option #3 can be dismissed in the Elder Bush-speak (with the characteristic language mauling of the entire Prescott Bush clan):

This Will Not Stand



(He meant the didactic 'Shall' connotation - in other than first-person usage - but then.. he just read it somewhere, and still: got it Wrong.)