Saturday, June 30, 2012


Dear Readers:

Due to illness, we have not been able to post on Two Sisters From The Right on Blogger for several months.  We had instead continue to post best reads and articles on our Two Sisters From The Right page on Facebook.  Today we received an excellent editorial from a citizen journalist and attempted to publish it, only to find that Blogger has made several changes to the templates and format with which  we are not familiar.

This GUEST EDITORIAL is very worth reading and passing on to your friends.  Citizen journalists such as the author of this editorial are our most important form of communication because it is not tainted by media bias.   Our time is running out and we must unite in an effort to Take America Back and to Defeat Barack Hussein Obama.
Two Sisters.

Two Sisters From The Right received this message from a friend and reader. He asked us if we could use it. We certainly can. This is what we and Andrew Breitbart called "citizen journalism" and we wish we'd receive more of it, on a regular basis.
This was sent to me by a physician

The following comment is made by a physician with 20+ years of experience in academic settings, military facilities, private practice, emergency care, missionary work, and group practice who happens to be a believer and a veteran - if you find it informative or instructive, please pass it on;

Regarding the Supreme court ruling of June 28, 2012;

The Old Testament and New Testament both teach; Love thy neighbor as thyself.

Today's health care ruling will allow a law to stand which will continue to raise your neighbor's health care premiums - if they are employed.
Today's health care ruling will also make it more difficult for your unemployed neighbors to find work.

The ruling will also leave a law mostly intact which will possibly cause your neighbor without insurance to pay more than they would have had to pay in order to afford a policy if the law were not enacted - or pay a tax instead.

The law preserved today will sooner or later result in your elderly neighbor being denied certain medical procedures which their doctor believes to be medically necessary.

The law will not likely help your uninsured neighbor find health insurance which is more affordable than was available before but can prevent your neighbor's employer from being able to offer certain forms of care which other neighbors already rely upon.
The law will seem to legitimize a number of false claims made by the authors of the law including the false implication that this was the only way to get insurance for your neighbor who has a pre-existing condition (such a policy could have been agreed upon in a bipartisan fashion if the true goal of the law was to improve upon our current health care system).

Instead the law will certainly increase the future national debt to be burdened upon your neighbor's children and will also eventually result in decreased access to quality care for your neighbor's children.

The evidence for the above is so overwhelming that anyone who claims to be informed and yet continues to support the law is likely to be; subject to severe cognitive dissonance, excessively influenced by cult-figure hero worship, willfully suspending their disbelief of false claims made on behalf of the law, suffering from the emotional influence of identity politics or class bigotry, or simply hiding the fact that they only agree with the law on the basis that they are hoping it leads to a totally different health care system by undercutting the system which preceded the law (or some combination of these or similar factors).

Given the last statement, out of compassion, we should pray for our friends who either still support the law or do not yet understand why it is so harmful.

I am sure many of us were hoping the Supreme Court would do the heavy lifting for us so that the monumental task of educating many others in time for the November election would not fall so heavily upon us.

On a positive note; If we had to choose between a better ruling today and keeping the same president we now have for four more years or getting rid of the current president while keeping this ruling, that would be an easy choice.

I don't know about you, but I believe Providence has had a guiding hand in establishing this country for the betterment of the rest of the world and that being said, things could well be happening now for the purpose of waking us up and motivating us to do whatever is legally necessary to ensure that the liberties entrusted to us which have made this country strong will not be abated - at least not on our watch.

There are 130 days until the election. That gives us 40 days of preparation followed by a season (90 days) of focused action. I pray we will be blessed with the strength and resolve for this task. It will not be easy. The proponents of this silly law will spend much money and energy in a deliberate effort to confuse and mislead our neighbors as to what the stakes truly are. It is not up to the Supreme Court to stop them. It is up to us.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

Obama's America

On February 16, at a hearing of the House Budget Committee, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner was asked by committee chairman Paul Ryan to describe the administration’s plans for addressing the mounting risk of a debt crisis. His reply was: “We’re not coming before you today to say we have a definitive solution to that long-term problem. What we do know is we don’t like yours.”
Today’s presidential speech to the annual Associated Press Luncheon was basically just a long, dishonest way of saying the same astonishingly irresponsible thing. In essence, the president argued that our country’s future depends on allowing our government to grow uncontrollably, and that any attempt to restrain its growth and to keep the size of government in relation to the economy where it was during the fifty years preceding his election would be heartless and irresponsible. Keeping that growth in check—not reversing it, mind you, but allowing the government to grow only about as quickly as the economy does—would, we are told, subject our nation to unimaginable horrors. If all of Ryan’s cuts in the growth of spending were “applied evenly,” the president argued, then:
The year after next, nearly 10 million college students would see their financial aid cut by an average of more than $1,000 each. There would be 1,600 fewer medical grants, research grants for things like Alzheimer’s and cancer and AIDS. There would be 4,000 fewer scientific research grants, eliminating support for 48,000 researchers, students, and teachers. Investments in clean energy technologies that are helping us reduce our dependence on foreign oil would be cut by nearly a fifth.
If this budget becomes law and the cuts were applied evenly, starting in 2014, over 200,000 children would lose their chance to get an early education in the Head Start program. Two million mothers and young children would be cut from a program that gives them access to healthy food. There would be 4,500 fewer federal grants at the Department of Justice and the FBI to combat violent crime, financial crime, and help secure our borders. Hundreds of national parks would be forced to close for part or all of the year. We wouldn’t have the capacity to enforce the laws that protect the air we breathe, the water we drink, or the food that we eat.
Cuts to the FAA would likely result in more flight cancellations, delays, and the complete elimination of air traffic control services in parts of the country. Over time, our weather forecasts would become less accurate because we wouldn’t be able to afford to launch new satellites. And that means governors and mayors would have to wait longer to order evacuations in the event of a hurricane.
What the president is referring to, of course, are not cuts from today’s levels—let alone yesterday’s levels—in all of these programs, but cuts from the projected growth that would occur if the government were allowed to continue ballooning.
Instead of doing all these wonderful things, the Republicans want to reduce taxes, Obama argues. They want to let people keep more of what they earn, and we all know that those people will only waste that money rather than use it to support clean energy technologies and accurate weather reports. Every millionaire would get to keep $150,000 more of his money, the president claimed, and such people would no doubt use that money to pollute the air and undermine medical progress (because millionaires never support environmental and medical causes). Just think of how much more effectively the government could use that money:
Let’s just step back for a second and look at what $150,000 pays for: A year’s worth of prescription drug coverage for a senior citizen. Plus a new school computer lab. Plus a year of medical care for a returning veteran. Plus a medical research grant for a chronic disease. Plus a year’s salary for a firefighter or police officer. Plus a tax credit to make a year of college more affordable. Plus a year’s worth of financial aid. One hundred fifty thousand dollars could pay for all of these things combined — investments in education and research that are essential to economic growth that benefits all of us. For $150,000, that would be going to each millionaire and billionaire in this country. This budget says we’d be better off as a country if that’s how we spend it.
There is of course lots about all this that is simply dishonest and false. The Ryan budget doesn’t call for across the board cuts. And that budget calls for the Ways and Means Committee to propose a revenue-neutral tax reform that would lower rates while eliminating loopholes—so it wouldn’t deny the government revenue it now has but would seek ways to obtain it that are more conducive to growth (and of course those loopholes benefit the wealthy above all). But the dishonesty is not the most extraordinary thing about this speech. The most extraordinary thing is the basic vision of American life it lays out: The president talks as though the liberal welfare state were not crumbling all around him, as though his budget does not abide (indeed, prescribe) an unprecedented explosion of debt that will crush American prosperity in the coming decades, as though all the money earned by all Americans were simply a pot for the government to spend as it wishes and allowing people to keep more of their earnings were just one way to spend it.
He speaks as though the problem—our unsustainable entitlement state—were the solution, and as though the solution—a budget that restrains the growth of spending, modernizes and reforms our collapsing entitlement and welfare programs to avert their collapse, and charts a path toward economic growth—were the problem. In this upside-down, inside-out world, Barack Obama accuses Paul Ryan of putting the future of America’s younger generation in danger and inviting American decline.
A psychologist might call this projection. The president’s political advisors probably call it all they’ve got. Let us hope that voters will know what to call it this fall: reckless denial and cynical dishonesty from a failed president with nothing left to offer. Or, if we are lucky, perhaps the last straw.

The above article appeared in THE CORNER on National Review Online.  We're hoping that all readers pass this around to others.  We certainly could not have said it better.


Sunday, March 18, 2012

I Am SO Sick!

I received the following essay in the form of an email this morning.  It was from the younger half of Two Sisters From The Right.  Physically she's just fine, but her "illness" refers to her mental state as it regards politics. 

Like her, I too am sick, as are millions of Americans.  The very powerful Obama political  machine has silenced our voices.  Natural causes silenced one of Conservatism's greatest voices, Andrew Breitbart, but the powers that be in government, and the left wing, liberal mainstream media does not allow our voices to be heard.  This is the reason why many of us have become "citizen journalists" and have turned to the Internet as a means to vent, and to express our frustrations and our concerns. 

Is there time to reverse gears and plan another course?  Presently there are no clear answers, but anything has to be better than what is happening now.  Today we read that Mitt Romney has issued a directive to his staff to minimize the strife between candidates and to try to achieve party unity.  We pray, for the sake of the GOP that others follow in his steps.

Sister One for Two Sisters From The Right

In Philippians 1:27, Paul makes this very clear: “Whatever happens, conduct yourselves in a manner worthy of the gospel of Christ.” That is, he says, “Live day by day in the Roman colony of Philippi as worthy citizens of your heavenly homeland.”

Santorum, Romney and Gingrich make me SICK every time they slam each other (which they do every single day).
If I were a presidential candidate, and if I had the best interest of the nation on my conscience (NOT my own personal gain), my message would be this:
  • "I want to be president and I am qualified to be president. These are my policies; this is what I believe; and I hope you will vote for me. this time the most important thing for American voters to do is to make sure they rid their country of the most destructive administration they have ever placed in power.  To that effect.....please note that ANY Republican candidate is a better option for the USA than another four years with a president who is consistently and recklessly destroying individual freedoms, tanking the economy, and shredding the Constitution."
I realize candidates can't express themselves that succinctly, but there are so many ways they can convey that message.......beginning by avoiding calling each other weak, untrustworthy, incompetent, etc.    A united front is the ONLY thing that will ensure a GOP win. How can they expect American voters to get behind their efforts if all they do is bicker, criticize and complain?  
Voters need to feel that, if their favorite candidate is not nominated, either of the other two is a viable option. Instead, Santorum followers think Romney's weak and Gingrich is two-faced. Romney's followers think Santorum is wishy-washy.....etc. etc.
Meanwhile, the Democrats stand by champing at the bit.....ready to pounce on any and all stupid remarks that come out of Republicans' (or conservatives') mouths while they themselves are firmly united in their quest to destroy America as we know it.
Are Republicans so extraordinarily dense that they just don't see this?    Do they not see that they are destroying themselves?
HOW can stupidity and mindlessness reign so supremely within the party that can save us while cleverness and quick-wittedness is so eminently employed by the bad guys?  If this is truly a battle between good and evil, evil is going to triumph. And I believe it could have been avoided if Republicans had heeded a well-known biblical warning: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."
Sister Two for Two Sisters From The Right


Friday, March 16, 2012

Reads To Wake You Up!


by Tina Korbe - Hot Air

The administration this afternoon released its “Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on preventive services policy.” Translation: President Barack Obama and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are moving forward with their controversial contraception mandate, which requires even religiously affiliated employers to provide their employees with insurance that covers contraception — even if those employers object to contraception on religious grounds.

But don’t worry: Secretary Sebelius says your religious liberty is assured, so it is assured.

“The President’s policy respects religious liberty and makes free preventive services available to women,” she said. ”Today’s announcement is the next step toward fulfilling that commitment.” MORE

by Steve Jordahl - CitizenLink

Just how committed is the federal government to Planned Parenthood? Enough to put more than 100,000 low-income Texas women at risk.

The Lone Star State has completely defunded Planned Parenthood and other providers of elective abortions. Congress, meanwhile is looking into allegations that Planned Parenthood affiliates nationwide have committed Medicaid fraud. Late last week, the federal Department of Health and Human Services announced it will withhold Medicaid dollars from Texas unless it allows Planned Parenthood to have some of the money.

That’s the money the Texas Women’s Health Program relies on to provide low-income women with breast cancer screenings and other preventive services.

“Our Legislature decided in 2011 that we were not going to fund abortions or abortion affiliates of Planned Parenthood, and this administration basically doesn’t care,” Gov. Rick Perry said, adding that the administration is violating the 10th Amendment.
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott may take it to court.
“Greg has clearly said that if they continue to go after the State of Texas that he will sue to defend our constitutional right to administer this program,” Perry said.  MORE

by John Hawkins - Townhall

Should you vote for Barack Obama or the Republican candidate in 2012? Here's a little quiz to help you decide!

1) The latest report from the CBO shows that the one decade cost estimate for Obamacare has almost doubled from 900 billion to 1.76 trillion dollars, it will add 700 billion dollars to the deficit over its first 10 years, 3-5 million people will lose their health care, and 30 million people still won't have health coverage -- and history has shown that CBO projections of this sort almost always turn out to be optimistic. So, do you want the American health care system to be decimated by Barack Obama?

2) Do you want to see gas prices rise as fast as possible while Barack Obama slow walks offshore drilling, blocks the Keystone Pipeline, and opposes ANWR?

3) Obama's stimulus may have been the single most wasteful expenditure in human history. It cost more than the "Marshall Plan, the Louisiana Purchase, and putting a man on the moon" combined and yet, numerous critics correctly predicted that it wouldn't work. Do you want more stimulus bills like that one in the future?  MORE

by Leo Rennert

Earlier this week, the newly elected Egyptian Parliament adopted a resolution calling for a belligerent policy toward Israel that would put a formal end to three decades of peaceful relations.

Among other things, the resolution urged the deportation of Israel's ambassador to Cairo, a halt to the export of Egyptian natural gas to Israel, a re-examination of the Camp David peace accords, adoption of ''all forms of resistance'' against the Jewish state and mobilization of the Arab League in opposition  to the "Judaization of Jerusalem."

For good measure, the Parliament also gave a green light to direct assistance to the Palestinians in the context that the "Zionist regime is the primary enemy of Egypt."

This chilling turnabout of Egyptian foreign policy was engineered by a coalition of Islamist parties -- the Muslim Brotherhood and the Salafists -- plus leftist parties.

The Zionist Organization of America immediately sent word to a U.S. congressional delegation visiting Cairo, urging the lawmakers to take up this issue with Egyptian authorities and to warn them that formalization of the resolution as government policy would mean an immediate cutoff of U.S. aid.

It turns out, however, that ZOA President Morton Klein, in his appeal to House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, who's heading the visiting American delegation, may just be whistling in the dark.

Because no sooner had the new Egyptian Parliament formulated its hostile stance toward Israel than the State Department nevertheless proceeded with plans to reopen the multi-billion-dollar U.S. aid pipeline to Egypt -- with Pelosi's full approbation.  MORE

By Ross  Kaminsky - American Spectator

A trial balloon that failed to rise above the president's rhetorical gutter.

On Thursday, Reuters reported that Britain and the U.S. have reached an agreement to release oil from the nations' oil reserves. The report states that the idea originated with the Obama administration and that "Britain would respond positively" to a formal request.

The report was immediately denied by a White House spokesman and questioned by some oil analysts.

Such a move would be a reprise of a similar failed effort less than a year ago. However, given pressure from Democrats and bad polling for President Obama on fuel prices, the initial report is easier to believe than the White House's denial. Indeed, the denial did not say that this was not a topic for discussion between Barack Obama and British Prime Minister David Cameron, but simply that there was no actual agreement.

The burst of activity, including how quickly the administration had a response ready, had the distinct air of a "trial balloon," something that panicky administrations resort to when out of ideas. MORE

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Bring Them Home!

No one denies that the War in Afghanistan began in retaliation for the sneak attacks of September 11, 2001.  What soon became known as Bush’s War became Obama’s War in 2009 when the newly elected president decided to escalate the war by sending more troops in an attempt to create a surge such as the one in Iraq.  Unfortunately, the Obama administration was not as well advised or prepared to take this step.  Obama launched the surge without any clear military strategy for the end of the war. 

When George W. Bush ordered the strikes on Afghanistan, most of us believed that his objective was to destroy the Taliban and to capture Osama bin Laden.  We supported this objective and we supported our troops.  Although the eventual capture of bin Laden came during Obama’s tenure in office, he eluded capture because the Pakistani government protected him all along while pretending to be America’s ally and accepting American foreign aid.  Bush’s failure came not in failing to capture bin Laden, but rather in attempting to “nation build” in Afghanistan.

A cursory glance at the history of the Afghan people will show that for the most part, Afghans have for centuries been fiercely proud of their land, religion and ancestry.  They value their independence, and their loyalty is first to their local leaders and their tribe.  Afghanistan is inhabited by various ethnic groups who don’t share the same language, customs or traditions.  The people of Afghanistan have never identified with national unity. 

It is ludicrous to attempt to force a Western style democracy on them because they will not accept it.  Democracy and Islam do not mix well. The concept of a national identity is quite a fragile one for the Afghan people.    Religion is the common thread that binds all these people. Islam is followed by almost all Afghans and it dominates much of their personal, political, economic and legal lives.

Two Sisters From The Right believe that after 10 years of war it is time to begin withdrawing our troops from Afghanistan.  Barack Obama’s timeline of 2014 for a complete withdrawal is simply not acceptable.  Enough American blood has been shed, and enough American lives have been lost in a country where it is obvious the people no longer welcome our presence, if they ever did. 

The reaction of the Afghans to the act of mistakenly burning a few Korans which had already been desecrated by other Afghans is a very graphic hint that religious zealotry is predominant in that country.  That incident sparked a rash of violence among the Afghans which lasted several weeks.  It resulted in 30 deaths, and afforded the corrupt Afghan President Karsai  the opportunity to capitalize on the people’s rage and win approval points from his opponents.

Two Sisters believe that Barack Obama should not have apologized to Karsai.  A simple, “It was a mistake,” should have sufficed.  Instead Americans appeared to be groveling for forgiveness. Obama’s idea of diplomacy seems to always come in the form of an apology, making the United States appear weak.

The recent “massacre” of civilians by one soldier was a tragedy.  Karsai’s calling for putting him on trial in Afghanistan is a travesty.  Two Sisters agree that the soldier should be tried in a military court, and be taken out of the country as soon as possible.  As tragic as the murder of women and children was, the Afghans reaction once again brought to the surface how the situation in Afghanistan is rapidly unraveling.

 As of April 2011, at least 858 U.S. soldiers had died in the Afghanistan war since Barack Obama took office in January 2009. That equals 60 percent of the 1,427 American soldiers killed so far in the 10-year war in that country at the time. Be it obstinacy or lack of military knowledge, the fact is clear that Barack Obama’s foreign policy in Afghanistan has been a complete failure.

Just yesterday when Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, arrived in Afghanistan for talks with US and Afghan military leaders, there was an attempt on his life by a would be suicide attacker, yet at the joint meeting American Marines were asked to turn in their weapons and enter a room with hostile Afghans unarmed.  This is how one of the most influential persons in the world is protected?  Considering the fact that several Americans have been killed by their Afghan counterparts one wonders who was making the decisions there and why.

One reason that Barack Obama was elected was that he ran as an anti-war candidate.  Yet, it was he who escalated the war in 2009.  Ten years into the war, two thirds of all Americans want to see an immediate troop withdrawal.  Two Sisters From The Right have always supported the American military, and it is because of our great respect and concern for them that we join with those who want to see an end to our involvement in Afghanistan.  We won the war in Afghanistan.  The Taliban was thrown out of Afghanistan and Navy Seal Team Six captured and executed the elusive Osama bin Laden.  There isn’t any more to be gained by remaining there.

Because of the recent and well publicized events and the escalating violence in Afghanistan, the issue of troop withdrawal has become a talking point with politicians.  We reproach anyone in either party who uses the issue of troop withdrawal to attempt to gain votes.  We are talking about human lives here, real patriots and American heroes who have put themselves in harm’s way in a remote corner of the world because they answered their country’s call to duty. 

Ten years at war is just too long.  Instead of apologizing to Karsai we should be forcing him to clean up his corruption.  We’ve given the Afghans the training and the tools to fight off the Taliban if that is what they wish. We’ve done enough.  We’ve lost too much. The time has come to declare victory and to bring our troops home!

Two Sisters From The Right.    


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Holder, Obama, States' Rights and The Abuse of Power

We begin today's opinion piece with a brief lesson in Civics and Government.  If any of our readers are like the Two Sisters, we need a refresher course every now and then.  During the Obama administration we've seen our constitutional rights violated and in keeping with our ideas of what constitutes an informed voter, we avail ourselves of the material which is now so readily available to all. 

The first 10 amendments to the U.S. Constitution, known collectively as the Bill of Rights, were adopted as a single unit two years after ratification of the Constitution. Dissatisfaction with guarantees of freedom listed in the Constitution led the founding fathers to enumerate personal rights as well as limitations on the federal government in these first 10 amendments. The Magna Carta, the English bill of rights, Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, and the colonial struggle against tyranny provided inspiration and direction for the Bill of Rights. 1

The 10th Amendment states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." 2

At the Constitutional Convention in 1787, delegates represented state governments that had become autonomous centers of power. The Constitution avoided a precise definition of the locus of sovereignty, leaving people to infer that the new charter created a divided structure in which powers were allocated between the central government and the states in such a way that each would be supreme in certain areas. 3

  • State Rights are a doctrine and strategy in which the rights of the individual states are protected by the U.S. Constitution from interference by the federal government. 4

States Rights have been an issue which has concerned America during various periods in our history.  It was the Tenth Amendment  which formed  the basis of the doctrine of states' rights that became the ante-bellum rallying cry of the Southern states, which sought to restrict the ever-growing powers of the federal government. The principle of states' rights and state sovereignty eventually led the Southern states to secede from the central government that they believed had failed to honor the covenant that had originally bound the states together. 5

During the 1930's the New Deal policies under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt substantially increased the size and the power of the federal government.  In the 1940's the issue of states rights was raised again as the Southern "Dixiecrats" challenged Democrat President Harry S. Truman when he called for a more aggressive civil rights policy.  Democrats in the South unitedly decided that  their "states' rights" platform called for continued racial segregation and denounced proposals for national action on behalf of civil rights. 6

By the 1960s  segregationists again argued for state sovereignty, and developed programs of massive resistance to racial integration in public education, public facilities, housing, and access to jobs.  Beginning in the 1960s, other states' rights proponents started stressing the need for local control of government. One reason was the introduction of federal welfare and subsidy programs. The concern was that along with federal money would come federal control. 7

By the 1980s the fears that many held that the encroaching powers of the federal government would take away the sovereign rights of states became a great concern.  President Ronald Reagan agreed with the public that the federal government was becoming too involved in state government affairs.  As a result, a major focus of his administration was to reduce the size and power of the federal government. States were given more authority to experiment with policy initiatives, especially social programs, which had previously been directed from Washington.

Subsequent administrations followed suit. In the early 2000s, however, political analysts commented that a new trend was afoot: both Republicans and Democrats were pushing for federal laws that would preempt state laws, especially state laws that attempted to regulate financial corporations and other types of business. 8

In 2008 Americans of both parties began to fear the abuse of power by the Obama  administration, and a grassroots a movement which became know as second Tea Party took root.  The Tea Party movement called for three basic principles: 
  • Limited government
  • Adherence to the Constitution of the United States
  • Free market system
Which brings our discussion to the main issue we face today.  Early in March, nine Republican attorney generals denounced the Obama administration's abuse of power.  “You’re seeing now a federal government that’s doing everything in its power to circumvent the Bill of Rights,” South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson said during a press conference during the Washington, D.C. meeting of the Republican Attorneys General Association.

“We are constantly being forced to sue the federal government to protect our states,” added Florida AG Pam Bondi.

Washington is waging an “across the board regulatory assault” on state governments, said Virginia’s AG, Ken Cuccinelli, who organized the event. This “administration repeatedly shows disdain for the law … the states, and the Constitution,” he said. “It is absolutely unprecedented.”

President Barack Obama’s legal impositions on states should be recognized by voters in November, Cuccinelli said. “It is important for them to understand what is at at stake in this election. … It is literally the rule of law itself.”

In July of 2010 AG Eric Holder and the Justice Department, filed  a lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Phoenix against the state government and Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.), arguing  that the new state law violates the Constitution by claiming authority over immigration policy, which has historically been the jurisdiction of the federal government.

The law requiring voters to present proper identification in order to vote was enacted simply to prevent voter fraud.  It is a law that is popular with most Texans except those Democrats who count of fraudulent votes for their election.  Although voter fraud is prevalent throughout the nation, it is particularly significant here in Jim Wells County, Texas where we live.  
  • Texas Attorney General Greg Abbot, writes about voter fraud in Texas:  "In Texas, AN EPIDEMIC of voter fraud is harming the electoral process and it's time we rooted it out.  Of course, voter fraud is  no newcomer to the Lone Star State.  Six decades ago, the votes "found" in Jim Wells County's infamous Ballot Box 13 helped Lyndon Johnson squeak into the U.S. Senate.  Maybe none quite so dramatic, but other instances of "election irregularities" on both sides of the political aisle have plagued Texas since that 1948 primary. And the fraud continues.  Just since last summer, my office has been involved in prosecuting several voter fraud cases across the state.  Last month, three people, including a Texarkana City Council member were indicted in Bowie County for illegally handling mail-in ballots for seniors and other voters during the November 2004 general elections."
Holder's speaker in this case is Assistant AG Thomas Perez for the Civil Rights division of the DOJ.  Claiming that the law discriminates against Hispanics, Perez boldly refutes  the word of Texas AG Abbott stating that, "The department concluded there is little evidence of voter fraud in Texas warranting the legislative changes."  As Texas residents we are particularly perplexed by a New Yorker's summation of voting conditions in Texas.  The audacity to challenge the word of our own Attorney General is typical of the arrogance of the Obama administration.

For those readers who are not aware of the new law, it simply requires voters to present a form of photo  identification when voting.  This can include a driver's license, a military ID, a U.S. citizenship certificate, a U.S. passport or a license to carry a concealed handgun. 

Acquiring a state issued Texas I.D. card is a very simple process and one that can be completed before the November election.  The items needed are proof of citizenship and cash or a money order to pay the fee.  The ID is obtainable at the Texas Department of Public safety and it takes very little time.  The state of Texas, along with many others, requires a state-issued ID to check into a hotel, to board airplanes, to cash checks and to complete several other day-to-day activities.  It is not much to ask that a picture ID be provided in order to vote.

What is at stake here of course is that the law  takes away the element of fraud from those unscrupulous politicians who would cheat their way into elected office.  As of just a few weeks ago we were reading about irregularities that have surfaced regarding Barack Obama and the 2008 presidential elections.  The Hispanic population is growing at a rapid pace. In states like Texas, the Hispanic vote will become more and more important for a candidate to win office. Democrats are terrified at losing this support.  It is no coincidence that before this election, Holder is doing what he can to claim that Texas - led by Republicans - is trying to deny minority (read Hispanic) voters the right to cast a vote.

We find it insulting to the Hispanic population of Texas to have Eric Holder consider them so gullible that they will fall for his ploy.  Hispanics in Texas and other states are increasingly discovering that their philosophy of life and beliefs fall more in line with those of the Republican party and not the Democratic party of their forefathers who kept them under the thumb of the "patron system".  This system   did not permit Hispanics in Texas  the upward mobility and personal independence needed to succeed, and which was richly deserved. 

Perhaps Eric Holder, Obama, and that entire Chicago backroom politics system under which they operate, need to take a serious look at the world around them and realize that people want to put an end to crooked politics.   They are tired of being manipulated.   The intention behind the Texas voter ID law is to eliminate voter fraud.   

Holder and Obama need to cease attempting to create problems among Texans.  Their plot to pit Hispanics and non-Hispanics against one another will fall flat in a state where the lines which once divided them are being quietly erased.  We have a saying in Texas, DON'T MESS WITH TEXAS.  It started out as a campaign to stop littering our streets and highways,  but it has become synonymous with our state.  It is a strong message which conveys to  those who would interfere with our state's sovereignty  to back off and let Texans govern themselves. 

Two Sisters From The Right  


Sunday, March 11, 2012

The Week That Was and Weekend Wrap-Up

We've done a great deal of reading this weekend.  Even the weather forecasts have been bad for Spring Breakers this week.  The Republican nomination has not been finalized.  Barack Hussein Obama, the campaigning president, is still out on the trail, and Washington D.C. is still in the hands of incompetent partisan legislators.  Our country is in a real quandary.  Our unemployment is still exorbitantly high, gas prices are rising, the housing market has not improved, folks worry constantly about the instability of the future of health short, nothing has changed for the better. 

Politicians are crisscrossing the country making promises they can't possibly keep.   We worry about Obama's apologies to the very Muslims who sneakily attacked us on our soil on September 11, 2001.  GOP voters seem as divided as ever and it will take divine intervention or a great love of country to unite them all against Obama.   

We read insatiably searching for answers, seeking a glimmer of hope, but so far, what we read only adds to our worries.  We don't like sounding pessimistic, but fear for our nation's future is overwhelming.  We offer no answers, we do not pretend to have solutions, we'd like for you to read these selections and give us your opinion.  If you are a member of Facebook, Two Sisters From The Right has a page by the same name and we welcome your input.
Two Sisters From The Right. 

by Ed Morrissey - HOT AIR

This is simply awful, if true — and it appears it is:

A U.S. soldier was taken into custody in southern Afghanistan on Sunday, a few hours after he opened fire on Afghan civilians, killing 15, U.S. and Afghan officials said.

The shooting took place at approximately 3 a.m. as a lone soldier left a checkpoint in Kandahar province’s Panjwai district and opened fire on civilians in two villages, said Javed Faisal, the director of the provincial government’s media center.

Citing preliminary reports, Faisal said at least 15 people were killed and five were wounded. Provincial authorities said they were awaiting news from an investigative team sent to the villages before releasing a definitive death toll. READ MORE

 by John Hawkins - TOWNHALL.COM

My analysis is that most faith based systems depend upon an absolute moral order. The declaration of things as absolutely evil or absolutely good, as sin or virtue, puts liberalism into a horrible position because it’s founded on no judgment on anything. As a result, any faith that is seriously practiced or understood is a challenge to the politics that depend on constituencies that would rather not be told that their choices are bad and their lives are not virtuous. — Hugh Hewitt
Most liberals in this country tend to treat Christians one of two ways: either with open, sniggering contempt or if they think they need their votes, they tend to switch over to hamhanded and grotesque pandering. That’s not to say that there aren’t liberal Christians, there are plenty of them, but they’ve just become accustomed to being treated by their fellow liberals like the sort of refuse you scrape off your shoes after a long walk through a cow pasture. — John Hawkins
Liberalism is so unrelentingly hostile to Christianity that it's virtually impossible to be both a devout Christian and a devout liberal at the same time. To be a liberal Christian means you either have to completely gut your religious beliefs to make them compatible with your political inclinations or alternately, you have to spend your days cowering with your eyes down while your fellow liberals demean, smear, and mock everything you should hold dear. READ MORE

by Drew Zahn - WND

Let the president be duly warned.

Rep. Walter B. Jones Jr., R-N.C., has introduced a resolution declaring that should the president use offensive military force without authorization of an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that such an act would be “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.
Specifically, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution reserves for Congress alone the power to declare war, a restriction that has been sorely tested in recent years, including Obama’s authorization of military force in Libya.

In an exclusive WND column, former U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo claims that Jones introduced his House Concurrent Resolution 107 in response to startling recent comments from Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta.

“This week it was Secretary of Defense Panetta’s declaration before the Senate Armed Services Committee that he and President Obama look not to the Congress for authorization to bomb Syria but to NATO and the United Nations,” Tancredo writes. “This led to Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., introducing an official resolution calling for impeachment should Obama take offensive action based on Panetta’s policy statement, because it would violate the Constitution.”  READ MORE

by Emmanuelle Ottolenghi - THE WEEKLY STANDARD

Every time trouble has erupted in Iran against the regime—1999, 2003, and, most recently, 2009—university students have been at the forefront of protests. This is partly why Iran’s current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has been battling over control of Iran’s biggest institution of higher learning for the last three years.
Established in 1983, the Islamic Free University (a.k.a. Azad University) has become the largest center of higher education in the land. With 400 branches across the nation and abroad (including Dubai and Oxford), and 1.5 million students enrolled, Azad is a powerhouse. Relying on donations and tuition fees rather than government funding, Azad has accumulated over $20 billion worth of assets over the years. And since its early days it has been firmly in the hands of Iran’s most astute politician – Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani.

As I previously reported in these pages (“A Ph.D. in Torture”), Ahmadinejad sought to snatch control of the university from Rafsanjani under the pretext that the university sided with the reformists in the 2009 presidential elections. In March 2010, Ahmadinejad won his first victory when he managed to get the university’s status changed by limiting a chancellor’s tenure to two four-year terms, which would force out conservative politician and Rafsanjani proxy, Abdollah Jasbi, who had been serving almost thirty years. Rafsanjani tried to outmaneuver Ahmadinejad by transforming the university into a religious endowment in order to shield Azad from state interference, but Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, intervened to block this move. Eventually, Jasbi was forced out in January 2012.  READ MORE

It takes a British newspaper, the Daily Mail, to publicize a study with tremendous political implications:

White Americans feel they are more discriminated against than blacks, a new study reveals. 

Sociologists from Harvard and Tufts universities asked 208 white and 209 black men and women to rate 'racism' against both ethnic groups since the 1950s on a scale of one to ten.

The results showed that while both blacks and whites saw anti-black racism decreasing over the decades, whites saw race relations as a 'zero sum game' where they were losing out as blacks gained the advantage.

The results, published in the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science, showed that on average blacks saw anti-white bias rising slightly from 1.4 in the 1950s to 1.8 today.READ MORE

Weekend Political Wrap-Up

1. Ron Paul won the popular vote in his first primary or caucus -- the Virgin Islands -- but Mitt Romney still ended up walking away with most of the delegates. Dave Weigel explains.

2. That was pretty much the theme of the weekend. Rick Santorumwonthe Kansas Republican caucuses easily. But Romney did just well enough to keep the state from being winner-take-all for Santorum, nabbing seven delegates, and then pulling in delegates from Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Romney also prevailed in this weekend's voting in the seemingly never-ending Wyoming caucuses. Romney got the most delegates this weekend, 39-33, extending his lead.

3. The mathessentially favors Romney at this point, but because the counts are inexact -- a lot of unbound delegates still out there, plus caucuses where the delegate allocation has a confusing relationship with the popular vote totals -- it isn't clear how much so. Tim Carney lays out the realistic best-case scenario for Romney, Sean Trende the worst case. Either way, Santorum and Newt Gingrich stand a much better chance of denying Romney a majority than overtaking him.

4. Gingrich stands a chance of winning Alabama and Mississippi on Tuesday. If he doesn't? Initially, it seemed he would consider dropping out, but now he is insisting that he won't. Obviously, how well he does and where he places will be important. But a Southern strategy can't just consist of South Carolina and Georgia.

5. Rasmussen shows both Romney and Santorum winning national pluralities against President Barack Obama.


The President proclaimed, "Oil is the energy of the past." The truth is, oil is the energy of the present. Our economy depends on it. The media and the White House have constructed a juvenile argument that if you support short term self-sufficiency through domestic drilling, you are automatically opposed to renewable energy or green energy research. Obama reinforces this argument with false constructions and half-truths. America currently produces 2% of the world's oil but only because U.S. policy currently restricts the development of oil on federal land. The Institute for Energy Research has stated there is enough recoverable oil within our borders to fuel America for 250 years. We may use 20% of the global oil but we produce 25% of the world's energy, we use it more efficiently than the rest of the world and our economy is responsible for about 25% percent of the world's GDP. - Michael Ramirez -Facebook


Thursday, March 8, 2012

Enough With The Obama Apologies!

Obama apologizes to Karsai
Link Savoie, a  retired military, Korea / Vietnam veteran and a veterans advocate has written an excellent article for Daily World.  We came across this article while researching the apologies that Barack Hussein Obama issued to the Afghan people after American soldiers  mistakenly burned  Korans which had already been desecrated by having writing on them,  We agree with every word that Mr. Savoie has written.  It had been our intention to just publish the cartoons and satire that Obama's apology has inspired, but this article was just too good not to share. 

Two Sisters From The Right

No Apologies to US After Soldiers Die

by Link Savoie

"If they're to burn the Quran, we don't want them here. They will never be forgiven for betraying the holy book."a statement of an Afghan police officer. That same police officer who turns his head now and spits when he sees a U.S. military convoy roll by.

"I wish to express my deep regret for the reported incident. I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies," President Barack Obama's three-page apology letter to Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai.

"It was fine to fight along-side the Americans. But, after the Muslim holy books were burned at a U.S. base, I detest them," a 25-year-old Afghan soldier said.

"Tensions are running very high here, and I think we need to let things calm down, return to a more normal atmosphere, and then get
on with business. We've got to create a situation in which al-Qaida is not coming back," a statement Ambassador Ryan Crocker gave to CNN. I wonder if Crocker is aware that these riots prompted the British and French to recall hundreds of international advisers from all Afghan ministries. They are concerned about the safety of their citizens. That is the attitude President Obama should have about the American military.

The sad part of this entire situation is that President Karzai's demands are being met. He wants the American soldiers who are responsible for burning those alleged religious documents punished. As quick as President Obama apologized to the Afghan people, an investigation by Marine Gen. John Allen, the commanding officer in Afghanistan, revealed that the Qurans inadvertently burned by U.S. troops were previously defaced with extremist messages and placed in an office. The books were mistaken for trash and taken to a burn pit and destroyed. The investigation by Gen. Allen indicated that the soldiers were careless "but there was no ill will. For the soldiers, it will be serious. They could lose rank or face reprimands."

Since the Muslim religious material was mistakenly burned with other military documents on Feb. 20, six American soldiers were assassinated due to the burning incident. They were killed by a number of Afghan police and soldiers, or militants disguised in their uniforms who are turning their guns on their foreign allies. Not once did our administration demand an apology for the killing of our soldiers. It is obvious that the Obama administration appears to care more about not offending the Afghans. So there it is, America. Everybody and his brother want the United States "occupiers" out of Afghanistan, our allies are dropping out of the fighting and furnishing support only. The only person who wants to remain in that country is President Obama and Crocker.

Columnist Cal Thomas recently brought up a good point. Since President Obama has announced the deadline for the withdrawal of surge-level troops in Afghanistan for later this year, maybe it's time to pull all U.S. forces out now and leave Hamid Karzai to his fate. No matter how soon or how long we remain in Afghanistan, al-Qaida is patient enough to wait until the Americans leave and they will gain total control anyway.

So what's the point in our troops remaining and continue to fight under restrictive and self-imposed rules of war while the enemy does not?

Link Savoie is retired military, Korea / Vietnam veteran and a veterans advocate. Reach him at