[Carry_Okie]

Maybe I’m a failure at communicating.

No, it's how you are communicating that makes for unnecessary strife. When you use absolutes and unqualified statements lacking alternatives, the reader is forced to take you literally. Thus:

I believe you fight on EVERY front you can.
Yeah. They can also EITHER ignore their immoral, unconstitutional opinions, and/or impeach the usurpers.
True. But the threshold for simply ignoring their immoral, unconstitutional opinions as the legal nullities that they in fact are, is AS LOW AS IT CAN GO.
It doesn’t usually cost ANY money to simply do your duty and keep your oath.
I believe you fight on EVERY front you can.
Maybe they’ll listen FOR ONCE. Yes, you do have a communication problem:

EVERY (twice), EITHER (with no other possibilities), as low as it CAN go (as if there was no possibility of a defensible hazard or way it could be easier), FOR ONCE (as if FRC had never listened before)... Each of these statements is exclusive, placing its object in a position or condition that is logically unlikely. Each invites argument by exception which you apparently find frustrating. Yet by closing the box, you exclude solutions outside the box, and are thus forced to struggle out of an unnecessarily difficult position. Struggles don't go over well.

I don't recommend that style of discourse. It carries the risk of making enemies where you could have enlisted allies.

[EternalVigilance]

Actually, my “either” was simply an addition, an expansion, to the very narrow range of options you offered for dealing with the problem - a grand total of one option.

And you didn’t like that.

You’re just nit-picking and fault-finding.

Talk about unnecessary strife.