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

[freedomforall]

What are your credentials? Or do you merely study a lot?

This was an honest question that needed no scrutiny pertaining my interest as to how you know what you claim. So we'll leave it at that.

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.

Sorry, I don't see it that way. Asking questions as a way of assuming it answers others is a very common practice on this forum.

As if any info coming to you over the web of that type had substance.

We had another poster that used this same type of phraseology.

Since bringing my post answering your questions is not something you are willing to do to gain logical answers without "credentials", I shall bring my post forth to answer your questions because any who know the law can see the post does answer your questions. I do this with the quoted post of Robinhood who had similar issues to your questions that I answered.

Thanks for forwarding information. It saves me from having to chase other threads, which I believe is a logical and proper way. Besides there are others who just might have enough savvy to answer my questions in a slightly and more courteous manner. Isn't this an open forum, not a college classroom?

I post things as a way to open up dialog and ideas. I ask questions in order to raise interest and a desire to research and be productive in doing something, anything that will help all of us to get involved with what is destroying our freedom and liberty, and ways to correct the problems found.

Now, if the people of this land had paid attention to the DOI we would probably havwe had a change in government already. The people, apparently, seek evil over righteousness.

Proverbs 29:2
2 When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.

But I add that where people are too engrossed in false security offered by a socialistic government rather than freedom...most of their mourning will come after death. Is complacency, apathy and ignorance bliss?

Milton Friedman Versus A Socialist

[ChristopherABrown]

What are your credentials? Or do you merely study a lot?

This was an honest question that needed no scrutiny pertaining my interest as to how you know what you claim. So we'll leave it at that.

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.

Sorry, I don't see it that way. Asking questions as a way of assuming it answers others is a very common practice on this forum.

As if any info coming to you over the web of that type had substance.

We had another poster that used this same type of phraseology.

Since bringing my post answering your questions is not something you are willing to do to gain logical answers without "credentials", I shall bring my post forth to answer your questions because any who know the law can see the post does answer your questions. I do this with the quoted post of Robinhood who had similar issues to your questions that I answered.

Thanks for forwarding information. It saves me from having to chase other threads, which I believe is a logical and proper way. Besides there are others who just might have enough savvy to answer my questions in a slightly and more courteous manner. Isn't this an open forum, not a college classroom?

The question you asked is not related to the framing documents which these questions defining constitutional intent are related. Not much interested in folks perceptions of other poster phraseology. Seeking those that will support, defend and enforce the constitution.

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?

[freedomforall]

The question you asked is not related to the framing documents which these questions defining constitutional intent are related. Not much interested in folks perceptions of other poster phraseology. Seeking those that will support, defend and enforce the constitution.

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?

Answered.

[ChristopherABrown]

The question you asked is not related to the framing documents which these questions defining constitutional intent are related. Not much interested in folks perceptions of other poster phraseology. Seeking those that will support, defend and enforce the constitution.

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?

Answered.

Would you mind copying that and posting it for me. I've read over our exchange and do not see an actual, direct answer to these two simple questions. I see responses and replies, but nothing indicating you agreement and acceptance.

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?

Which is odd, because your posting generally is in complaint about abuses of authority and tyranny impinging on our rights, and the questions are about the people protecting and securing rights.

[freedomforall]

The question you asked is not related to the framing documents which these questions defining constitutional intent are related. Not much interested in folks perceptions of other poster phraseology. Seeking those that will support, defend and enforce the constitution.

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?

Answered.

Would you mind copying that and posting it for me. I've read over our exchange and do not see an actual, direct answer to these two simple questions. I see responses and replies, but nothing indicating you agreement and acceptance.

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?

Which is odd, because your posting generally is in complaint about abuses of authority and tyranny impinging (infringing and destroying is the proper verbiage) on our rights, and the questions are about the people protecting and securing rights.

Abuses of authority and tyranny are not impinging anything except the willful act of taking away our rights/privileges, freedom and in using legalized plunder as a way to control the people by bad government over the past many decades. When Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture he was told by Khrushchev that Americans wouldn't accept socialism outright but we would be fed bits of socialism over time until we wake up one day to realize we already have it in full.

impinging
The physical coming together of two or more things.

Authority, abuse and tyranny as opposed to freedom and liberty is nothing more than an oxymoron, not impinging. Huge difference.

Now, would you please use proper terms when trying to quote me?

What are your views as answers to these questions?:

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?

[ChristopherABrown]

The question you asked is not related to the framing documents which these questions defining constitutional intent are related. Not much interested in folks perceptions of other poster phraseology. Seeking those that will support, defend and enforce the constitution.

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?

Answered.

Would you mind copying that and posting it for me. I've read over our exchange and do not see an actual, direct answer to these two simple questions. I see responses and replies, but nothing indicating you agreement and acceptance.

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?

Which is odd, because your posting generally is in complaint about abuses of authority and tyranny impinging (infringing and destroying is the proper verbiage) on our rights, and the questions are about the people protecting and securing rights.

Abuses of authority and tyranny are not impinging anything except the willful act of taking away our rights/privileges, freedom and in using legalized plunder as a way to control the people by bad government over the past many decades. When Ezra Taft Benson was Secretary of Agriculture he was told by Khrushchev that Americans wouldn't accept socialism outright but we would be fed bits of socialism over time until we wake up one day to realize we already have it in full.

impinging
The physical coming together of two or more things.

Authority, abuse and tyranny as opposed to freedom and liberty is nothing more than an oxymoron, not impinging. Huge difference.

Now, would you please use proper terms when trying to quote me?

What are your views as answers to these questions?:

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?

I of course agree and accept those two definitions of prime constitutional intent.

And "impinge" is a proper term when considering the agenda imposed by the infiltrations of our governments as it impacts our rights.

But it seems that your answer to these questions is far more important.

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?

A mere semantical différence should not impair American unity and lawful function defending rights.

I would also ask, what great sacrifice or compromise you will suffer by agreeing and accepting those definitions of constitutional intent? Why the evasion, please, it is important. I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

[freedomforall]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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. Find out how it is that Sheriff Ward turned his back on those upholding the Constitution and he refuses to uphold his oath to it. Find out why Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 is overridden with unlawful government Feds, and FBI saying they are above the supreme law of the land, that they can do anything they want to the destructive end of people they don't like. Find out how it is that a group of possible mercenaries surrounded Finicum and in cold blood killed him. Even a retired cop said the whole thing was done improperly which indicates that whoever they were, everything they did was overshadowed with lawlessness.
When you can find viable answers to these questions then we'll be getting some place. The media sure as heck won't tell the truth.

LaVoy Finicum Shooting Killed By Gov - Retired Cop Use Of Force Reveiw

[ChristopherABrown]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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?

If you do not agree and accept them, please explain why. What great sacrifice or compromise does it represent to you?

[freedomforall]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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?

If you do not agree and accept them, please explain why. What great sacrifice or compromise does it represent to you?

One needs to know and recognize the basis of problems before a viable solution can be implemented for each of them. There are numerous problems, each needing correction. When all the problems have been resolved and corrected, then the ultimate resolution and future abolishment of wrongful actions can be implemented. One cannot find a solution if the problem is not known. One must dig into a problem in order to find the proper and unique resolution to fix it.
At this point the directive in the DOI is moot because Americans have done nothing to recognize the problem and then apply the resolution already given. Too much has taken place to where our freedom and liberty has been encroached and true patriots are being called domestic terrorists.

[ChristopherABrown]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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. Redundant definition of the problem dominating 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?

If you do not agree and accept them, please explain why. What great sacrifice or compromise does it represent to you?

One needs to know and recognize the basis of problems before a viable solution can be implemented for each of them. There are numerous problems, each needing correction. When all the problems have been resolved and corrected, then the ultimate resolution and future abolishment of wrongful actions can be implemented. One cannot find a solution if the problem is not known. One must dig into a problem in order to find the proper and unique resolution to fix it.
At this point the directive in the DOI is moot because Americans have done nothing to recognize the problem and then apply the resolution already given. Too much has taken place to where our freedom and liberty has been encroached and true patriots are being called domestic terrorists.

It appears your argument against accepting and agreeing with the prime intents of the framing documents has gained a counter circularity.

Freedomforall wrote:
"At this point the directive in the DOI is moot because Americans have done nothing to recognize the problem "

That is part of the reason I ask for agreement and acceptance of the fact that the purpose of the freedom of speech is abridged.

The abridging of the purpose of free speech prevents Americans from knowing the truth of the problems. How can they recognize a problem they do not know of? The truth is reduced to rumors and fringe theory.

After making that point, the abridging of free speech also prevents Americans from gaining an informed opinion to use in democratic action that is comprehensive towards solving the problems, the most meaningful recognition.

The directive of the DOI has a counterpart in the Bill of Rights. If the framers intended for Americans to alter or abolish government destructive to unalienable rights, what did they intend to serve the PURPOSE of enabling the unity required to effectively alter or abolish if it was not free speech?

Unity of course happens for a reason, there is a problem requiring unity to solve. People must know of the problem, that is the first purpose of free speech, then unity upon soluative action is next.

Accordingly, do you agree and accept these definitions of prime constitutional intent now?

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?

And if not, why?

[Robert Sinclair]

As "citizens" of "we the people" the Homestead Act, gave right to claim 160 acres of federal land, with title to a covenant and a deed, one could take to the bank, to get a loan on their "equity".

This was a good thing and ought to be looked at in Congress and the Senate, for different ways, to bring this back, for "citizens" of "we the people" to prosper according to the will of God for his people, see Joshua 1:6 & D&C 42:30.♡

[ChristopherABrown]

As "citizens" of "we the people" the Homestead Act, gave right to claim 160 acres of federal land, with title to a covenant and a deed, one could take to the bank, to get a loan on their "equity".

This was a good thing and ought to be looked at in Congress and the Senate, for different ways, to bring this back, for "citizens" of "we the people" to prosper according to the will of God for his people, see Joshua 1:6 & D&C 42:30.♡

Yes, the homestead act is something that ought to be scrutinized by congress, but congress is not working for citizens any longer. They work for multinational corporations and globalists now. They have "Agenda 21" that is their project now directed at controlling us.

Curious thing tho, its supposed to protect the environment, but the impacts of cities are not dealt with, so its kind of a joke. The idea is that they densify the populations vertically to get rid of suburban sprawl. I think your idea properly done would work better. After all, nature can absorb our impacts IF they are spread out. Accordingly, a 1/4 section that is inhabited is probably the max, and curiously they seemed to have known that then.

But in order to get congress working for us again, we will need to use our right to a lawful peaceful revolution. That will require we control our states as state citizens. To do that we need to unify in a very special way, around prime constitutional rights, then direct our states towards an Article V convention.

[Robert Sinclair]

Talk to your Congressmen and Senators, when you are able, and open up their eyes to these things, such as the Homestead Act, which fullfilled the command of God to "divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them", see Joshua 1:6.

And if they are LDS, they should be shown D&C 42:30, which says basically the same thing, two witnesses to the truth of the will of God, for his people who love him and desire to serve him.

Whether Jew or Christian, both believe we are the children of Israel gathered together upon this land, yes, that includes the Indians, descended from Lehi, of the tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph, who was sold of his brethren into Egypt.

All someday soon will fullfill Ezekiel 37:15-23 & 2 Nephi 3:12 and be confounded no more of the true doctrine of God, and will lay down contentions, and forsake their idols, and transgressions, and establish peace, even as is is written.♡

[ChristopherABrown]

Talk to your Congressmen and Senators, when you are able, and open up their eyes to these things, such as the Homestead Act, which fullfilled the command of God to "divide for an inheritance the land, which I sware unto their fathers to give them", see Joshua 1:6.

And if they are LDS, they should be shown D&C 42:30, which says basically the same thing, two witnesses to the truth of the will of God, for his people who love him and desire to serve him.

Whether Jew or Christian, both believe we are the children of Israel gathered together upon this land, yes, that includes the Indians, descended from Lehi, of the tribe of Manasseh son of Joseph, who was sold of his brethren into Egypt.

All someday soon will fullfill Ezekiel 37:15-23 & 2 Nephi 3:12 and be confounded no more of the true doctrine of God, and will lay down contentions, and forsake their idols, and transgressions, and establish peace, even as is is written.♡

I feel as though we have very few representatives that stand with the people and the constitution. We shall have to unify for its enforcement, the good ones will step forward in service when they see the people leading.

Here is result of my last effort to get Ron Paul to recognize that free speech has a purpose.

art-v.ron.paul.capps.jpg (66.81 KiB) Viewed 2410 times

He forwarded my letter to my useless congress person whom I'd long ago given up on trying to gain support for the principles of the constitution.

[freedomforall]

Police officer snaps on driver for asking questions during an illegal checkpoint… Ignoramus cop gets owned!

[freedomforall]

GUY REFUSES TO GIVE ID TO A NOSY COP!!

[freedomforall]

Some cops are on the ball in defending the Constitution and keeping their oath of office.
It is NOT the job for cops to make money for the government.
Sounds like Sheriff Ward does not care about his oath nor does he know his true duty to the people he serves.

[freedomforall]

Private Police Bulletin Targets Oath Keepers and III

Who are the III?

[ChristopherABrown]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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?

If you do not agree and accept them, please explain why. What great sacrifice or compromise does it represent to you?

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?

[freedomforall]

I aim to find a way to assure none ever suffer the fate of Robert Lavoy Finicum and that patriots can take lawful, effective action with the people.

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?

If you do not agree and accept them, please explain why. What great sacrifice or compromise does it represent to you?

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.

[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.