Saturday, April 28, 2012

I'M NOT VOTING FOR ROMNEY


Just because Romney is the heir-apparent to the Republican throne does not mean that I’m going to roll over.  The only reason he is at the top of the heap is that the hierarchy at the helm of the Republican Party did everything in the world to undermine his opponents and assure his nomination.  Now that it’s all over except the shouting, the Party and a lot of other organizations are quick to dial me up and tell me I’d better fork over a hefty donation… pronto.  Well, I still don’t like him and do not plan to contribute a nickel to his campaign.  I will not vote for him in November, I will vote against Obama.   And as soon as I do, I am dropping out of the Republican Party after a lifetime of membership.  They have totally lost touch with me and have convinced me beyond a reasonable doubt that they are just as unresponsive to the will of the people as the Democrats. 

So, Tea Party Patriots, American Tea Party, Heritage Foundation, NRCC and the rest of the gang, my money will be going to the NRA.  The NRA understands what is really going on here and they are not happy, either.  Of course, they’re against Obama and his anti-gun agenda and I know that I will get far better value for my donations out of the NRA than anyone else.  The NRA represents a large and solid block of Americans against Obama, which is where I want to put my money… against Obama and not for Romney. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.   

Thursday, April 26, 2012

MEXICO: AMERICA’S BIGGEST SECURITY THREAT


SPECIAL POST

It may be difficult to believe when you consider China, Russia, North Korea, Iran and Al Qaeda, but Mexico poses the must imminent and largest threat to the security of the United States.  For decades, Cuba has been festering anti-American factions in Mexico and South America.  Today, it’s Iran and Al Qaeda who are supplying the Mexican drug lords with guns, ammunition, explosives and propaganda in a concerted effort to destabilize the Mexican government and send chaos across the border. 

In Many sections of Mexico, there is already anarchy; governing authorities are either corrupt or otherwise unwilling to confront the drug lords.  Mexico is, in fact, a nearly failed state and if it fails, we will be directly involved.  Over 40,000 people have been killed in Mexico in the last few years, almost half of them living in Mexican states bordering the U.S.  Although the U.S. has been secretly funneling some military aid to Mexico, the Mexican government seems to be almost impotent against the bloody onslaught.  Neighboring countries are pleading for a NATO styled agreement to bring all North American countries to the table in an effort to resolve the situation. 

The fact is that, unless the drug gangs and their foreign backers are stopped and stopped soon, it is entirely possible that the Mexican government will collapse.  And just where do you think all of the good Mexicans are going to head?  Will the bad ones follow them? 

The problems we have with illegal immigration are minute when compared to the possibilities and we have a government with its head stuck deeply in the sand, seemingly unwilling and unprepared to deal with this threat. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

Tuesday, April 24, 2012

WHITE HOUSE ISSUES DENIAL

SPECIAL POST

The Obama White House has emphatically denied that any member of its advance team that was in Columbia engaged in any misconduct.  We all know that the Secret Service advance team did, and I suppose Obama would have us believe that the Secret Service is not connected with the White House.  

Leaving that aside, history has proven that whenever Obama gets on his high horse and swears he's not guilty of anything, he's as guilty as sin.  That has happened time and time again in this Administration and if anything, I'm now totally convinced that this story is one helluva lot bigger than we ever thought it was.  Could it even be that the Secret Service was checking out the hookers for Obama?  

Whatever it is, this smells like the tip of the iceberg of Solyndra and a dozen other scandals that have rocked the Obama White House.  I hope some news agency is diligent enough to dig it out.  

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

Saturday, April 21, 2012

TIRADE OVER U.S. GOVERNMENT



This is the last straw.  The Federal Government will now require all new cars sold in the United States after 2015 to have “black boxes” installed.  Ostensibly, this is only to allow accident investigators to know what was happening in the car immediately prior to an accident.  I believe there is more to it.  They would be able to track where you went and how long you were there as well.  Now, they will pooh paw this suggestion, but the plain truth is that those intersection cameras that were only supposed to be used to record accidents are now being used to track individual car traffic and to issue speeding tickets. Plus, that means the price of the cars will go up to cover the cost of this invasion into our privacy. 

Why doesn’t the government just call us all in to clinics and install the microchip into our necks and get it over with?  They know where every nickel you stick into the bank came from and where every dime was spent.  They know who lives with you, whether or not you have herpes, how often you get your teeth cleaned and how much you spend on birth control. 

They have invaded our privacy beyond the limits of reason and the Constitution.  By mining data from various government agencies and businesses, they already know virtually everything about us.   Now, they want to listen in to your cell phone conversations without court approved wire taps, monitor your key strokes when you’re on the Internet and to know how fast you drive and where you go

It’s time for us to get up in arms over this intrusion into our privacy.  They have no right to know how many guns I have or how often I shoot them.  They have no right to know what kind of condoms I buy. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

Thursday, April 19, 2012

CONGRESS: THE BASTION OF REASON

SPECIAL POST

The word is out today that natural gas prices are at their lowest in ten years.  The reason is that there is an abundance of natural gas.  It may have something to do with the fact that Congress is back from its spring break.  I've never been able to figure out why their favorability ratings go up when they not in session...

And, why is it that government always makes more rules to solve a problem instead of enforcing the rules they already have?  With the number of stupid laws they pass every year, I think it's about time we limit their sessions to one day a year.  How do you think THAT law would be received by those lamebrains? 

Do they really think that they can legislate their way out of their own legislative mess? 

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

Tuesday, April 17, 2012

LOOSE CANNON IN THE WHITE HOUSE


SPECIAL POST

Let’s face it; we never know what this President is going to say or do.  One day, he calls out the Supreme Court.  Another day, he turns down a pipeline that will create jobs and help out in the nation’s energy crisis.  He pushes the Solyndra deal and several others like it that the media is covering up.  He tells the Roman Catholic Church what it can believe in.  He tells the country that he will personally reduce the national debt and then he turns around and proposes a budget that will certainly put the nation into bankruptcy.  He creates a culture of excesses to the embarrassment of the country in the international arena. 

We simply don’t know what to expect out of this President next.  It’s almost as if he’s doing drugs.  How would you like to be employed in his public relations department?  That would have to be the nightmare job of the century. 

When you have a loose cannon on a ship, it rolls around with the waves and destroys things.  This is a perfect comparison because this man is rolling around and destroying this country, piece by piece.  Smart sailors will either get the damned cannon reined in and tied down, or they’ll find a way to push it overboard.  This President will not be reined in; the time is coming for us to push him overboard. It can't happen soon enough.  

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

Saturday, April 14, 2012

OUR FUTURE IS IN OUR HANDS

It is in vogue for our President and for us to blame our nation's problems on someone else.  Obama blames Bush; we blame Obama.  

We are the ones with the power in this country.  We are the ones... black, white, brown... rich or poor... Republican, Democrat or otherwise... Christian or otherwise... we are the ones who have the power to control the course upon which our Ship of State is embarked.  We are the ones who determine our national mores, who set the standards upon which members of our American society shall be judged.  

The power of the electorate is ours.  It's in our hands.  All we have to do is to use it. Then, and only then, can we be in control of our destiny. 

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

Thursday, April 12, 2012

THE FUTURE JUST GOT REAL UGLY

SPECIAL POST

We have all segments of the black community out screaming racism.  We have the Black Panthers offering $1 million for Charles Zimmerman, dead or alive and we have a black Attorney General who refuses to do anything about it.  We had Black Panthers scaring people away from voting in 2008 at Philadelphia and a black Attorney General who refused to bring charges.  We have a black President fanning the flames of racism in this country and a black community that not only refuses to call him down for it, they react to it by echoing his cries.  

We have gangs of black youths storming into white operated stores and robbing them of their goods and no interest by the Federal government.  

The prospect of outright mob violence in this country is ugly.  The picture of Black Panthers in uniform parading around outside polling places this November threatening whites who want to vote is a stark reality.  

Obama intends to win and he will do anything to make it happen.  


That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

Tuesday, April 10, 2012

I COULD NOT HAVE SAID IT BETTER IF I HAD SAID IT MYSELF



This is floating around on the Internet....

President May be in Deep Trouble?

This will be an interesting turn of events if it does come to the surface
?Obama May Be In Deep Trouble ... with Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court.

According to sources who watch the inner workings of the federal government, a smack-down of Barack Obama by the U.S. Supreme Court may be inevitable.

Ever since Obama assumed the office of President, critics have hammered him on a number of Constitutional issues. Critics have complained that much, if not all of Obama's major initiatives run headlong into Constitutional roadblocks on the power of the federal government.
Obama certainly did not help himself in the eyes of the Court when he used the venue of the State of the Union address early in the year to publicly flog the Court over its ruling that the First Amendment grants the right to various organizations to run political ads during the time of an election.



The tongue-lashing clearly did not sit well with the Court, as demonstrated by Justice Sam Alito, who publicly shook his head and stated under his breath, 'That's not true,' when Obama told a flat-out lie concerning the Court's ruling. As it has turned out, this was a watershed moment in the relationship between the executive and the judicial branches of the federal government. Obama publicly declared war on the court, even as he blatantly continued to propose legislation that flies in the face of every known Constitutional principle upon which this nation has stood for over 200 years.

Obama has even identified Chief Justice John Roberts as his number one enemy, that is, apart from Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, and so on. And it is no accident that the one swing-vote on the court, Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated recently that he has no intention of retiring until 'Obama is gone.'

Apparently, the Court has had enough. The Roberts Court has signaled, in a very subtle manner, of course, that it intends to address the issues about which Obama critics have been screaming to high heaven. A ruling against Obama on any one of these important issues could potentially cripple the Administration. Such a thing would be long overdue.
First, there is Obama Care, which violates the Constitutional principle barring the federal government from forcing citizens to purchase something. And no, this is not the same thing as states requiring drivers to purchase car insurance, as some of the intellectually-impaired claim. The Constitution limits FEDERAL government, not state governments, from such things, and further, not everyone has to drive, and thus, a citizen could opt not to purchase car insurance by simply deciding not to drive a vehicle. In the Obaman Care world, however, no citizen can 'opt out.'

Second, sources state that the Roberts court has quietly accepted information concerning discrepancies in Obama's history that raise serious questions about his eligibility for the office of President. The charge goes far beyond the birth certificate issue. This information involves possible fraudulent use of a Social Security number in Connecticut , while Obama was a high school student in Hawaii. And that is only the tip of the iceberg.

Third, several cases involving possible criminal activity, conflicts of interest, and pay-for-play cronyism could potentially land many Administration officials, if not Obama himself, in hot water with the Court. Frankly, in the years this writer has observed politics, nothing comes close to comparing with the rampant corruption of this?Administration, not even during the Nixon years. Nixon and the Watergate conspirators look like choirboys compared to the jokers that populate this Administration.

In addition, the Court will eventually be forced to rule on the dreadful decision of the Obama DOJ suing the state of Arizona. That, too, could send the Obama doctrine of open borders to an early grave, given that the Administration refuses to enforce federal law on illegal aliens.

And finally, the biggie that could potentially send the entire house of cards tumbling in a free-fall is the latest revelation concerning the Obama-Holder Department of Justice and its refusal to pursue the New Black Panther Party. The group was caught on tape committing felonies by attempting to intimidate Caucasian voters into staying away from the polls.

A whistle-blower who resigned from the DOJ is now charging Holder with the deliberate refusal to pursue cases against Blacks, particularly those who are involved in radical hate-groups, such as the New Black Panthers, who have been caught on tape calling for the murder of white people and their babies. This one is a biggie that could send the entire Administration crumbling--that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

PLEASE PASS THIS ON TO EVERYONE ON YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS LIST!!!
In passing this on it is no wonder Americans of every race and political persuasion are disgusted with our Federal Government, it is not hard to understand the mistrust and the disgust. Obama and his administration should be impeached and the quicker the better.

Obama only knows the blame game, now it is the Tea Party that caused him to spend our country into debt so deep it may never recover. He is a President that had a super majority in both houses until last November. And because of that he jammed pork barrel projects and spending of every kind of an entitlement bill one can't imagine along with Obama Care down our throats with spending that is unattainable. He is borrowing 42 cents on every dollar we owe and spend, wake up America we have become a third world communist country.

Saturday, April 07, 2012

OBAMA’S UGLY AGENDA


The latest attack by Barack Hussein Obama against the Supreme Court appears to be a well-orchestrated attempt to make Americans think that one of their revered institutions is comprised of a bunch of worthless, antagonistic cads.  While this is the second direct attack Obama has made against the Supreme Court, it has surprised him and his cronies because of the uproar of the populace. 

But, the Supreme Court is not the only American treasure on Obama’s hit list; he’s been going after religion, guns, Congress, our Constitution, marriage and senior citizens in a relentless campaign to destroy the things we Americans value the most.  This is not just a mean-spirited payback from a black man; he’s been tearing down black values as well while stirring up the embers of racism.  Taken in total context, one must wonder if these castigations are not a well-orchestrated attempt to cause Americans to overthrow their government. 

These are the exact tactics used by one Adolf Hitler and other despicable despots in history prior to their takeovers of their own countries.  If you think that can’t happen here, you are mistaken.  Only you and I can stop it. 

That’s MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 

Friday, April 06, 2012

HOLDER DID NOT BACK DOWN: READ IT ALL

SPECIAL POST


The hyperbole emanating from the press and media would suggest that Eric Holder backed down from the President's belligerent attack on the Supreme Court the other day.  In fact, he did not.  You can read the letter Holder wrote to the Federal Court below and see for yourself that Holder, while acknowledging the power of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of anything and everything, is insistent that the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the ObamaCare case, because enactments of Congress are presumed on their face to be constitutional and because  ObamaCare concerns the Commerce Clause in which the Supreme Court has no business hearing.  That's the thrust of what he says; he's telling the Court, yes, you can decide this case, but you have no business doing so.  That, my friend, is the sole jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to decide, and it's all about checks and balances in which the Obama Administration has no belief. 

Below is the full letter signed by Attorney General Eric Holder, requested by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals following comments made by President Obama calling the DOJ’s stance into question. 

Judge Jerry E. Smith
Judge Emilio M. Garza
Judge Leslie H. Southwick
c/o Mr. Lyle W. Cayce 

April 5, 2012
Clerk, United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
600 S. Maestri Place
New Orleans, LA 70130 

RE: Phvsician Hospitals o[America v. Sebelius. No. 11-40631 

Dear Judge Smith, Judge Garza, and Judge Southwick: 

This Court's letter of April 3, 2012 requested a response to questions raised at oral argument in this case, Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebelius, No. 11-4063 1. From the electronic recording of the argument, I understand the Court to have requested the views of the Department of Justice regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. The Court indicated that its inquiry was prompted by recent statements of the President.

The longstanding, historical position of the United States regarding judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation has not changed and was accurately stated by counsel for the government at oral argument in this case a few days ago. The Department has not in this litigation, nor in any other litigation of which I am aware, ever asked this or any other Court to reconsider or limit long-established precedent concerning judicial review of the constitutionality of federal legislation. 

The government's brief cites jurisdictional bars to the instant suit and urges that plaintiffs' constitutional claims are insubstantial. See Appellee Br. ofthe United States at 17-38. At no point has the government suggested that the Court would lack authority to review plaintiffs' constitutional claims if the Cour1 were to conclude that jurisdiction exists. The case has been fully briefed and argued, and it is ready for disposition. The question posed by the Court regarding judicial review does not concern any argument made in the government's brief or at oral argument in this case, and this letter should not be regarded as a supplemental brief. 

1. The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute. See generally, e.g. , Free Ente1prise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Bd. , 130 S. Ct. 3138 (20 10); FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993). The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbwy v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177-78 ( 1803). In that case, Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/05/2012 the Court held that " [i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.” Marbury, 1 Cranch at 177. 

The Supreme Court has further explained that this power may only be exercised in appropriate cases. “If a dispute is not a proper case or controversy, the courts have no business deciding it, or expounding the law in the course of doing so.” Daim/erChJys/er C01p. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 341 (2006); see, e.g., Weinberger v. Sa/fi, 422 U.S. 749, 763-766 (1975) (addressing a statutory bar to jurisdiction). In the case before this Court – Physician Hospitals of America v. Sebe/ius, o. 11-40631 -we have argued that this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. See Appellee Br. of the United States at 15-38. 

Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress. 

2. In considering such challenges, Acts of Congress are “presumptively constitutional,” Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 507 U.S. 1301, 1301 (1993), and the Supreme Court stressed that the presumption of constitutionality accorded to Acts of Congress is “strong.” United States v. Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221,346 U.S. 441 , 449 (1953); see, e.g., Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 28 (2005) (noting that the “congressional judgment” at issue was “entitled to a strong presumption of validity”). The Supreme Court has explained: “This is not a mere polite gesture. It is a deference due to deliberate judgment by constitutional majorities of the two Houses of Congress that an Act is within their delegated power or is necessary and proper to execution of that power.” Five Gambling Devices Labeled in Part .. Mills,” and Bearing Serial Nos. 593-221, 346 U.S. at 449. In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional. See, e.g., Salazar v. Buono, 130 S. Ct. 1803 , 1820 (20 1 0) (“Respect for a coordinate branch of Government forbids striking down an Act of Congress except upon a clear showing of unconstitutionality.”); Beach Communications, Inc. , 508 U.S. at314-15. 

3. While duly recognizing the courts’ authority to engage in judicial review, the Executive Branch has often urged courts to respect the legislative judgments of Congress. See, e.g. , Nature ‘s Daily. v. Glickman, 1999 WL 158 1396, at *6; State University of New York v. Anderson, 1999 WL 680463, at *6; Rojas v. Fitch, 1998 WL 457203, at *7; United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 75i v. Brown Group, 1995 WL 938594, at *6. 

The Supreme Court has often acknowledged the appropriateness of reliance on the political branches’ policy choices and judgments. See, e.g., Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New Eng., 546 U.S. 320, 329 (2006) (explaining that, in granting relief, the courts ‘·try not to nullify more of a legislature’s work than is necessary” because they recognize that’” [a] ruling of unconstitutionality frustrates the intent of the elected representatives of the people’”(alteration in the original) (quoting Regan v. Time, inc. , 468 U.S. 641, 652 (1984) (plurality opinion))); Turner Broadcasting System, inc., 512 U.S. at 665-66. The “Court accords ‘ great The “Court accords ‘ great weight to the decisions of Congress”‘ in part because “[t]he Congress is a coequal branch of government whose Members take the same oath [judges] do to uphold the Constitution of the United States.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57,64 (1981) (quoting Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Democratic National Committee, 412 U.S. 94, 102 (1973)). These principles of deference are fully applicable when Congress legislates in the commercial sphere. The courts accord particular deference when evaluating the appropriateness of the means Congress has chosen to exercise its enumerated powers, including the Commerce Clause, to accomplish constitutional ends. See, e.g. , NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U.S. 1, 32 (1937); McCulloch v. Matyland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 408 (1819). See also Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 651 F.3d 529, 566 (6th Cir. 20 11) (Opinion of Sutton, J.); Seven Sky v. Holder, 661 F.3d 1, 18-19 (D.C. Cir. 201 1) (Opinion of Silberman, J .) 

The President’s remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.
[Filed and served via ECF]
Sincerely,
Eric H. Holder, Jr.
Attorney General
Case: 11-40631 Document: 00511812922 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/05/2012

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  

Thursday, April 05, 2012

OBAMA CAMP FIRES OFF ANOTHER SALVO AT JUDGES!

SPECIAL POST

After President Obama chastised the Supreme Court as being "activist Judges" who have no right as appointed officials to overrule legislation passed by a duly elected Congress, a firestorm erupted in Washington that threatens to engulf the Presidency and guarantee a one-term reign.  A three member panel of a Federal Appeals Court directed Attorney General Eric Holder to provide, by today, a written opinion and position paper on whether or not the Administration believes that the Court has not right to rule on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Yesterday, the Obama regime started to fire back at the Federal panel, basically telling them to "butt out" and asserting that the White House does in fact understand the power and authority of the Supreme Court to rule on constitutional issues but that the Court should exercise "restraint" because only Obama knows what is economically best for the country.  In other words, it would be "unprecedented" for the Supreme Court, with all of its power, to have the audacity to challenge Barack Hussein Obama's agenda.  

Today, of course, Holder faces the deadline to deliver up an epistle to the Federal Appeals Court and I do not think he will.  I think the Obama camp is going to make it clear, by not complying with the order, that they hold the Federal Court system in contempt  and that they will not cowtow to the mere whims of a lowly appeals court.  

Perhaps, finally, Obama is faced with some Americans one who have the guts and the courage to stand up to him and put him solidly and firmly in his place. 

Stay tuned.

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted. 


Wednesday, April 04, 2012

WAR BREAKS OUT IN WASHINGTON, D.C.!!!

SPECIAL POST

A three-judge Federal Court Panel yesterday ordered Attorney General Eric Holder to issue an opinion as to whether or not the Administration believes it is legal for Supreme Court Judges who were appointed to rule on legislation passed by Congress, whose members are elected.  One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a "challenge" to judicial authority -- referring directly to Obama's latest comments about the Supreme Court's review of the health care case.

Any person who has bothered to read the Constitution knows very well that it is the job of the Supreme Court to rule on the Constitutionality of laws passed by Congress or the State Legislatures and Executive Orders issued by the Administration.  That's their main job. 

Judge Jerry Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was "referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect ... that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress. That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority.  "And that's not a small matter."

What these Judges do not comprehend is that the President does not believe in  the Constitution at all and that he therefore needs to be impeached.   He has certainly ticked off every red-blooded American in this country by calling down the Supreme Court and starting a war of colossal proportions between branches of the Federal Government.  

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.  


Tuesday, April 03, 2012

I DESPISE PAYING EVEN A DIME IN TAXES

SPECIAL POST

Every year at this time, tens of millions of us either sit down to agonize over complicated tax instructions, or we hire some lackey to do it, and we wonder and worry all of the way to the end of the process about how much it is going to cost us this year. 

And for what?  A Congress that not only cannot pass a budget, but cannot control how much it spends, either?  A President why has made no bones about the fact that he doesn't like our Constitution or our form of government and economy?  To pay for some college student's abortion?  To house thousands of illegal immigrants in prisons who should never have been here in the first place? To fan the flames of racism and divisiveness?  To conduct illegal gun-running operations on the border?  To fund the Solyndra's of the world? 

Those jerks in Washington can't even bury our war dead in their correct graves.  Our government is corrupt, our society is crumbling, and they want me to pay my taxes and smile about it? 

Yes, I'm angry.  You should be, too. 

That's MY AMERICAN OPINION, respectfully submitted.