Is 2012 the END?

OR IS IT A NEW BEGINNING?

by One Pissed-off Vietnam Vet, Presidential Candidate

Is the United States again "a house divided?"

(Jan. 12, 2012) — If ever there were a house divided, it is now. It would be a lot easier if we had a Mason-Dixon line drawn in the sand, but we don’t, and because there isn’t an obvious demarcation between adherents of the Constitution of the United States and those who haven’t the wherewithal to foresee the demise of their homeland, it makes it doubly difficult to identify the enemy of Lady Liberty. For sure, there are telltale signs that help, such as subscribers to The New York Times, bumper stickers proudly proclaiming the owners’ disdain for America, and other bumper stickers saying it’s not the GOP’s fault. In fact, there is but one political party, not two, and the silence on Obama’s eligibility from both sides of the aisle is all the proof anyone requires.

We’ve ruled out geographical proximity for Obama administration policy supporters, and not all Obots publicly display their overt belief for the overthrow of the Constitution, for their willingness to suspend habeas corpus and the endorsements they’ve lent to insane economic policies and the approval of the abolishing of Civil Rights. It’s virtually impossible to easily identify a traitor, and if you’d quiz them, chances are that they would be unable to make the correlation between supporting Obama and being against the Constitution, of being anti-American. You’d find the fantasy of “politics as usual” quoted and that the next election will be fair and honest, as if the last one was. The mental capacity for denial knows no bounds, as is so aptly expressed by the acknowledgement that the senator from Minnesota, Al Franken, is illegally representing the state.  But so what:  he’s already been sworn in and that’s all there is to it.

It’s as if the total suspension of reality has descended on a spot on earth and rendered certain segments of the society heedless to the consequences of just letting major fabrications go unchallenged. The “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” has long expired: Obama’s honeymoon is over and the facts have been laid out for all to see. Yet state election boards refuse to remove his name from the 2012 ballot, thereby giving some warped validity to his having being vetted for the 2008 election, which is demonstrably not the case.

The economic collapse of America has been a well-calculated operation to gain control of the population through forced reliance on “charitable government assistance,” and if one doesn’t “toe the line,” then refusal of the funds is the sword of Damocles which demands total compliance.  Tnd there is no arbitrator other than a bureaucrat who owes his allegiance to an usurper rather than the Constitution.

Civil servants control the election process, and the question of legality has no merit on actuality; reference the Black Panther intimidation case and the aforementioned Franken case. Jimmy Carter has been known to monitor elections of other Third World countries, which makes one question why can’t he do the same for us, that is, until one learns he’s an Obot, anti-American, pro Communist, anti-Israeli, pro-Islamist. No one has a problem with Arabs; the problem is an Arab political Totalitarian system known as Islam which Carter champions, meeting with terrorist organizations in public, as if his endorsement to a group that would just love to behead the Infidel Carter is a good thing.

So what do we have here? America is truly at the crossroads: our news organizations refuse to share the truth of Islam, of the manufactured economic calamity, and of the corruption of the Constitution by the judicial and law enforcement. Remember that during the American Revolution, supporters of the king lived next door to supporters of the Constitution, and since our Forefathers figured it out, so will we.

OPOVV@yahoo.com

3 Responses to "Is 2012 the END?"

  1. John Sutherland   Saturday, January 14, 2012 at 8:23 AM

    I posted the following comments on another article, but they seem to fit here also.

    Our system of law works well when we are a moral country, living under a system of laws. It doesn’t work very well when members of our government violate their sworn oath to defend and protect us and our laws, and when they do their best to destroy our system of government and our culture.

    If we survive this historic usurpation and overthrow of our government by our domestic enemies, it would serve us well to do a better job at examining the people who run for office (at every level of government) and who we hire into government. It would also serve us well to be able to immediately fire any government employee who does violate their sworn oath of office. Either the oath of office means something or it doesn’t – right now the oath is meaningless because the criminals in government refuse to acknowledge or abide by its terms. This criminal behavior against the people is rampant in all three branches of government.

    I am ready to assign the unlawful federal government to the dustbins of history, but I don’t quite know what to do to the state and local miscreants who echo the unlawful actions of their federal counterparts. What do the people do when they are lawful and their government is not?

  2. cwgf   Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:33 AM

    “It would be a lot easier if we had a Mason-Dixon line drawn in the sand, but we don’t…”

    They didn’t have one in 1776 either. Patriots then were a minority of the population, and all had neighbors who favored the status quo (i.e. subservience to a tyrant). Against all odds they prevailed against a tyrannical government in 1783. They prevailed because God ordained it. I stand with today’s patriots. Will God ordain victory this time?

  3. cwgf   Friday, January 13, 2012 at 8:26 AM

    “There are, at bottom, basically two ways to order social affairs, Coercively, through the mechanisms of the state — what we can call political society. And voluntarily, through the private interaction of individuals and associations — what we can call civil society. … In a civil society, you make the decision. In a political society, someone else does. … Civil society is based on reason, eloquence, and persuasion, which is to say voluntarism. Political society, on the other hand, is based on force.”
    — Edward H. Crane, Founder and president of the Cato Institute

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.