Without getting into the legal details of it all, a thing which should probably be done, here is a thought, partially in answer to MH. Although Frosty often writes things that are technically against the laws of the land, and the statistics of the world as a whole, and the way we think privately, yet Frosty's writings seem to fit the things that are being done. Why is that?

I mean, if we, and the law, are adverse to the things that Frosty writes, why is it that Government and world operations so often seem to match the things that he says?

I propose that the answer is something that we have basically overlooked. Consider House Joint Resolution 192 from 1933. "On June 5, 1933, Congress passed House Joint Resolution (HJR 192). HJR 192 was passed to suspend the gold standard and abrogate the gold clause in the national constitution. Since then no one in America has been able to lawfully pay a debt. This resolution declared: ..." Read more at http://abundanthope.net/pages/True_US_History_108/US_Congress_House_Joint_Resolution_192_of_June_5_1_3312.shtml.

The questions are, why did Congress do this, and what authority gave them the right or duty to do it (HJR 192)? The answer starts in the same article at the same link listed above. It reads, "We (the US people) are the Creditors in this bankruptcy! The corporate UNITED STATES is the debtor." In other words (the details of which are not explained in the article) the formal Government has been in bankruptcy since at least 1933.

What happens when you have an organization that is like a corporation - because it incorporates many people into positions of responsibility inside its organization, even if it is not a formal corporation - goes into bankruptcy? What if the bankruptcy is similar to a Chapter 11 bankruptcy, one that is basically a reorganization, one that allows business to continue, one that calls for a change in business operations so that the "business" can run in profit, one that has a trustee outside of the business itself as the controller of the business that the corporation members have to answer to? Might not the things that we consider disobediences on the part of Government officials - that is, the breaking of Oaths of Office - be totally in conformity with the bankruptcy that prompted HJR 192?

Google "House Joint Resolution 192." Then Google any references you can find that you think are pertinent to the bankruptcy. Why? If we can find the record that shows that the bankruptcy is a lie, we will have reason reverse all the effects of banking, and impeach all Government officials who will not change things back to what they should be.

In your research, you will find a lot of things that don't seem logical, just as the disobediences of Government officials don't seem logical. I recommend that you withhold final judgment regarding the truthfulness of these things until you have thoroughly researched the whole subject of the HJR 192 bankruptcy declaration.

Dear Mr. Gammill,

Thank you for taking the time to write this. That’s all I initially planned to say, as I’d long ago stopped reading anything published by Mr. Wooldridge, but then I saw your link to his article that you’re addressing and thought I should at least do the courtesy of seeing what he had written that provoked you to respond. That was a big mistake on my part!

Regarding Mr. Wooldridge’s article:

First of all, relative to the concept of a president in general, I’m not looking for a leader. This sense of government existing to “serve the people,” or that the people comprising government “work for me” is ludicrous, especially when held in juxtaposition to the notion that I’m also (at the same time) going to be led by these people. How is this a logical construct? Do I enter an establishment of business (a restaurant for example) and say, “decide for me what I should purchase (eat).”

I don’t have the time to address everything in this article. I would however like to address the statement regarding, “He broke the U.S. Constitution...,” and perhaps this alone will serve as rebuttal to most of the rest of what is written. As early as February of 1791, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson addressed this issue in his rebuttal to Hamilton’s proposal to Congress for a central bank. By “this issue,” I’m referring to the ongoing (yet clearly lost) debate over strict or loose construction of the Constitution. Paraphrasing Mark Ledbetter’s America’s Forgotten History, Jefferson held that Hamilton’s justification for a central bank (not one of the powers of government enumerated by the Constitution) could only come from two phrases: that Congress may “provide for the general welfare” and “make all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution the enumerated powers” (Ch. 3) i.e. The General Welfare clause.

Here’s what Jefferson wrote (in part):

“To consider [that the phrase gives Congress] a distinct and independent power to do any act they please, which might be for the good of the Union, would render all the preceding and subsequent enumerations of power completely useless. It would reduce the whole instrument to a single phrase, that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the U.S. and as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they pleased. It is an established rule of construction, where a phrase will bear either of two meanings, to give it that which will allow some meaning to the other parts of the instrument, and not that which would render all the others useless. Certainly no such universal power was meant to be given them. It was intended to lace them up straitly within the enumerated powers...”

Thus we can see that President Obama did not “break the Constitution.” It has been “broken” every time the “leaders” of our country have violated the boundaries of the specifically enumerated powers, and they have done this over and over throughout our nation’s entire history under the guise of the “General Welfare Clause.” I submit that perhaps the real issue here, is that different people at different times are dissatisfied with the way the Constitution is being broken, not in fact, that it has been broken.

Dear Powell, Well sir, you made my day. Thank you. Commentator Brit Hume said, “I think we are looking at a failed presidency.” Washington Post columnist George Will wrote, “Stopping a lawless president.” Reality of Obama's failures check mates your hopes. Your old friend, Frosty