Are you a "citizen" or a "people" of the USA?

[ChristopherABrown]

You can start by finding out how it is that sheriff Ward has been made out to be a hero and why the media has blatantly lied about the whole incident in and around Burns.

That is simply digging deeper into the problem.

Implementation of the solution is what I'm working on. Allowing redundant definition of the problem to dominate cannot be allowed to distract from acting on solution.

I cannot say you have ever outright stated you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Can you at least explain why you refuse to agree and accept the framers intended the ultimate purpose of free speech to enable the unity by which the people might effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Many Americans have chosen evil over good, have elected socialistic officials into office and allowed Satan to blanket moral decay around the nation. The only hope we have at this point is when the Elders of Israel step up and help true adherents to the Constitutions save it from complete destruction.
I, at least, appreciate your fervor in saving our rights. It's much better than saying the Constitution is so flawed that it needs to be changed before it should be saved.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome.

Does that mean you fail to agree that these are prime constitutional intent as derived from the framing documents of America?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Americans can only defend their rights by first agreeing upon what are. That Americans agree upon prime constitutional is the only thing that really matters, if enforcement actually matters.

By agreeing you demonstrate that enforcement of constitutional rights actually matters to you.

[freedomforall]

That is simply digging deeper into the problem.

Implementation of the solution is what I'm working on. Allowing redundant definition of the problem to dominate cannot be allowed to distract from acting on solution.

I cannot say you have ever outright stated you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Can you at least explain why you refuse to agree and accept the framers intended the ultimate purpose of free speech to enable the unity by which the people might effectively alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights?

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Many Americans have chosen evil over good, have elected socialistic officials into office and allowed Satan to blanket moral decay around the nation. The only hope we have at this point is when the Elders of Israel step up and help true adherents to the Constitutions save it from complete destruction.
I, at least, appreciate your fervor in saving our rights. It's much better than saying the Constitution is so flawed that it needs to be changed before it should be saved.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome.

Does that mean you fail to agree that these are prime constitutional intent as derived from the framing documents of America?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Americans can only defend their rights by first agreeing upon what are. That Americans agree upon prime constitutional is the only thing that really matters, if enforcement actually matters.

By agreeing you demonstrate that enforcement of constitutional rights actually matters to you.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Quizzing me is not proper. At this point you should have already been able to extrapolate some semblance of an idea from my thoughts and come up with your own conclusion on the matter of what I would like to see happen. Your prodding me for direct answers is a needless endeavor and makes no sense at all. What I do and believe is my business, so please quit prodding. Or should I ask you if you have read:

None Dare Call It Conspiracy, Allen
An Enemy Hath Done This, Benson
Prophets, Principles and National Survival, Newquist
Latter-day Prophets And The United States Constitution, Cannon
A Glorious Stand: for all mankind, Bentley
The Gospel Key to Our True Constitution, Horowitz
The Book of Mormon

and others I haven't read yet.

And why would I read them if I had no interest in the condition of our country?

[freedomforall]

Man Files 35M Lawsuit After Baltimore Cop Sucker Punched Him In The Face

[ChristopherABrown]

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Many Americans have chosen evil over good, have elected socialistic officials into office and allowed Satan to blanket moral decay around the nation. The only hope we have at this point is when the Elders of Israel step up and help true adherents to the Constitutions save it from complete destruction.
I, at least, appreciate your fervor in saving our rights. It's much better than saying the Constitution is so flawed that it needs to be changed before it should be saved.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome.

Does that mean you fail to agree that these are prime constitutional intent as derived from the framing documents of America?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Americans can only defend their rights by first agreeing upon what are. That Americans agree upon prime constitutional is the only thing that really matters, if enforcement actually matters.

By agreeing you demonstrate that enforcement of constitutional rights actually matters to you.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Quizzing me is not proper. At this point you should have already been able to extrapolate some semblance of an idea from my thoughts and come up with your own conclusion on the matter of what I would like to see happen. Your prodding me for direct answers is a needless endeavor and makes no sense at all. What I do and believe is my business, so please quit prodding. Or should I ask you if you have read:

Yes, extrapolation indicates you would like to see violence and bloodshed. Even to the point of denying any participation in a lawful and peaceful revolution.

And of course if some one actually working to interfere with the purpose of free speech directed at constitutional defense, it is a form of treason. And everyone who unconditionally supports the constitution then cares about such business, because it goes against the constitution. Your beliefs are another case.

But by pretending that posting about problems and projecting a hopeless situation AND also refusing to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent, you could indirectly malign constitutional defense or confuse people that think that constant posting about problems is some form of constitutional defense when it is not.

But realistically, if there is a traffic accident and paramedics are working on a life saving procedure, and members of the public must be in the proximity, a law enforcement officer will make them be quiet and not distract the vital activities. So my efforts, as minimal as they are, are justified.

I'm merely looking to legitimize your constant posting of violation of rights etc. which people are already dynamically aware of. I do this by working to gain your cooperation of adding some dimension of direct support for the constitution and solution to the problems your posting is about.

[freedomforall]

Does that mean you fail to agree that these are prime constitutional intent as derived from the framing documents of America?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Americans can only defend their rights by first agreeing upon what are. That Americans agree upon prime constitutional is the only thing that really matters, if enforcement actually matters.

By agreeing you demonstrate that enforcement of constitutional rights actually matters to you.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Quizzing me is not proper. At this point you should have already been able to extrapolate some semblance of an idea from my thoughts and come up with your own conclusion on the matter of what I would like to see happen. Your prodding me for direct answers is a needless endeavor and makes no sense at all. What I do and believe is my business, so please quit prodding. Or should I ask you if you have read:

Yes, extrapolation indicates you would like to see violence and bloodshed. Even to the point of denying any participation in a lawful and peaceful revolution.

And of course if some one actually working to interfere with the purpose of free speech directed at constitutional defense, it is a form of treason. And everyone who unconditionally supports the constitution then cares about such business, because it goes against the constitution. Your beliefs are another case.

But by pretending that posting about problems and projecting a hopeless situation AND also refusing to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent, you could indirectly malign constitutional defense or confuse people that think that constant posting about problems is some form of constitutional defense when it is not.

But realistically, if there is a traffic accident and paramedics are working on a life saving procedure, and members of the public must be in the proximity, a law enforcement officer will make them be quiet and not distract the vital activities. So my efforts, as minimal as they are, are justified.

I'm merely looking to legitimize your constant posting of violation of rights etc. which people are already dynamically aware of. I do this by working to gain your cooperation of adding some dimension of direct support for the constitution and solution to the problems your posting is about.

Since when do I report to you for any reason? And don't pretend to know what I think. I dodge answering you because of your pompous attitude. I think what I will do is put you on my ignore list because you apparently refuse to honor my request to quit prodding me for direct answers you do not warrant getting at this point.

And here's why.

This response was an insult to the max and a pompous response to my question regarding your credentials in a curious query only meant in fun:

...and I find that the answers to your questions are not important to you, but my credentials are. As if any info coming to you over the web of that type had substance.

Please, allow me to create your credibility, while demonstrating mine, by invoking an answer from you to a very simple pair of questions based in prime constitutional intent.

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Your prompt answer to those two questions, accepting the obvious prime constitutional intent, will establish your credibility, and the fact that I am asking them, establishes mine.

The only thing established was my need to be avoid giving you direct answers. So this establishes my credibility.

[ChristopherABrown]

Does that mean you fail to agree that these are prime constitutional intent as derived from the framing documents of America?

Do you agree and accept that the framers of the founding documents intended for us to alter or abolish government destructive to our unalienable rights?

Do you agree and accept that the ultimate purpose of free speech is to enable the unity adequate to effectively alter or abolish?

Americans can only defend their rights by first agreeing upon what are. That Americans agree upon prime constitutional is the only thing that really matters, if enforcement actually matters.

By agreeing you demonstrate that enforcement of constitutional rights actually matters to you.

I really fail to see why this is such a big deal to you. Whether I agree or disagree makes no difference to the final outcome. Quizzing me is not proper. At this point you should have already been able to extrapolate some semblance of an idea from my thoughts and come up with your own conclusion on the matter of what I would like to see happen. Your prodding me for direct answers is a needless endeavor and makes no sense at all. What I do and believe is my business, so please quit prodding. Or should I ask you if you have read:

Yes, extrapolation indicates you would like to see violence and bloodshed. Even to the point of denying any participation in a lawful and peaceful revolution.

And of course if some one actually working to interfere with the purpose of free speech directed at constitutional defense, it is a form of treason. And everyone who unconditionally supports the constitution then cares about such business, because it goes against the constitution. Your beliefs are another case.

But by pretending that posting about problems and projecting a hopeless situation AND also refusing to agree with and accept prime constitutional intent, you could indirectly malign constitutional defense or confuse people that think that constant posting about problems is some form of constitutional defense when it is not.

But realistically, if there is a traffic accident and paramedics are working on a life saving procedure, and members of the public must be in the proximity, a law enforcement officer will make them be quiet and not distract the vital activities. So my efforts, as minimal as they are, are justified.

I'm merely looking to legitimize your constant posting of violation of rights etc. which people are already dynamically aware of. I do this by working to gain your cooperation of adding some dimension of direct support for the constitution and solution to the problems your posting is about.

Since when do I report to you for any reason?

The only thing established was my need to be avoid giving you direct answers. So this establishes my credibility.

We are accountable to each other as the nature of our commonly held republic. That should be obvious to all.

By not providing a reason for refusing to agree with and accept this inquiry defining prime constitutional intent, the only thing you have established is you may not be a sincere American. And, without a reasonable description of the suffering and compromise agreeing will bring, your credibility as a sincere American to anyone using critical thinking is compromised.

So I'm really providing an opportunity to establish that you are indeed a completely sincere American. And it's very easy or painless, just agree with and accept these prime constitutional intents which are derived directly from the framing documents.

[freedomforall]

Obama’s True Motive Behind The Oregon Shooting Has Just Been Revealed— Busted Wide Open

Green Berets Warn Obama... Don't mess with the Second Amendment

FYI, 65,376,373 AMERICANS 'ARM UP' BEFORE CIVIL WAR. What is the number today?

Obama Blames Media For The Rise Of Trump

[freedomforall]

Surrender Your Weapons!