British Cartoon: The Debagging of Uncle Sam

We came across the cartoon below while researching how the news media abroad was treating the information that was released by WikiLeaks today.  Actually,  we feel that WikiLeaks is just the means by which Julian Assange does his dirty work.  The cartoon was posted in The English Blog.  Surprisingly, we were not offended, as it truly. and ebarassingly so, depicted the state in which our country, represented by our beloved Uncle Sam, now finds itself.  We did think that it was amusing that the cartoon came with an explanation.  Even teen agers are sophisticated enough to interpret a political cartoon.  We recalled the days when our children were in high school, and would have to take a political cartoon to their Government class, with a written explanation about it.

Posted by Jeffrey Hill on November 29, 2010

"This cartoon by Peter Brookes from The Times relates to the leaking to the Guardian and other international media by WikiLeaks of more than 250,000 classified cables from US embassies, many sent as recently as February this year.

Uncle Sam is on what appears to be a stage lecturing a large audience. His trousers (and pants) are around his ankles. In fact, he has just been debagged by the WikiLeaks figure who can be seen running off, laughing wildly.

EXPLANATION

The debagging of Uncle Sam is clearly a metaphor for the embarassing (and exposed) position the US finds itself in following the leaks. (In fact, the Guardian talks about the US world view being laid bare.) Another expression which springs to mind is to be caught with your pants down, which means to find yourself in an embarassing situation you are not prepared for."  Read more here...

The British who should probaby be the most offended by some of the insults revealed in the "Leaks," actually found some humor in it, albeit at our country's expense.  Such was not the case in other parts of the world.  The Arab media has been fairly silent about it.  They don't want it to be known that the U.S. and some of their neighboring Arab countries had actually discussed the possibility of war with Iran and "cutting off the head of the snake."  Obviously many Arab countries don't want to see Iran becoming a nuclear power.

Here in the States, we were  very impressed by former Ambassador John Bolton's rage, when he called the leaking of such sensitive material, "an act of treason that should be punished to the fullest extent of the law."  We agree wholeheartedly. He was emotionally involved in the crisis as are we.

The documents released don't only concern those in the Obama administration.  Some of the accusations go back to the time before he was President.  What is puzzling to us is the reaction of the American media, epecially those who have seemed to be an extension  of his administration.   The American media's reaction to  Assange and the Wikileaks  is a black mark on American journalism.  Is it right for American journalists to compound the injury to American foreign policy by publishing and repeating the secrets revealed in the leaks? 

One journalist writing for The Arena, in Politico.com, asked the question, "How can we be sure that Assange didn't change the wording?" It makes one think, because he could have.  But American journalists are reveling in the scandal.  Even the die hard Obama supporters appear to want to excuse Julian Assange in some way or another.  On the Today Show this morning, Matt Lauer twice labeled theWikileaks website as only a "messenger"  for the documents.

Does Mr. Lauer mean to imply that had NBC been offered the ability to release the secret documents they would have done so, regardless of the damage it would do to their country and their government, particularly the Obama administration?   ABC's George Stephanopolous wondered if the release of the secret documents wasn't perhaps "information that the public should have."  It might come as a surprise to some of these headline seekers  that both CNN and The Wall Street Journal were offered the opportunity to publish the same material, and they discreetly declined. 

Politico's David Mark interviewed former NSC Official Elliott Abrahms on how responsibly the media is acting with regards to WikiLeaks, and what security precautions the U.S. government must take.  The interview can be read here.....and Two Sisters highly recommend it.

We've spent the last two years over exposed to Barack Obama's arrogance, and this scandal could have the possibility of humbling him a bit.  However, in spite of our opposition to him, and his Administration we reiterate once more  that we are Americans first.  What hurts our country hurts us - All of us!   We wish we'd never heard of WikiLeaks or Julian Assange.

Some believe that Assange is "not anti American," he's just "anti war."  We disagree.  In all of our years, we don't recall a more catastrophic scandal for our country, as it involves not just us, but world leaders and diplomats throughout the world. Julian Assange is an evil man.

As Assange releases  damaging videos of the war in Iraq on You Tube, we pray for the safety of our troops who are serving in that hostile land to keep our nation free, and to insure that we all have the  Constitutional  privilige to responsibly  abide by the rights granted to us in the First Ammendment.  

Comments can be directed to SisterOne46@yahoo.com

Links to Best Reads

BEST READS

Although the Wikileaks seem to dominate the news today, it is important to remember that there are other issues that affect Americans.  Being an informed citizen is fundamental.

Vast Leak Discloses Diplomatic Secrets

China Envoy Seeks Urgent Talks on Korea

IRS Begins Plan to Regulate Tax Return Preparation Business

The Irrelevance of START,   

 Surrendered Nation

Obama calls for 2-year freeze on federal employees' pay  

 Criminalizing Free Speech:The Kafkayesque persecution Of Ilya Sobolevskeiy. 

 Schultz Call Congressman Elect Allen West, "Bigoted and Ignorant."

 

WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables Hit the Internet

WikiLeaks Diplomatic Cables Hit the Internet 11/28/2010 6:36:39 PM

Whistleblower website WikiLeaks Sunday released more than 250,000 U.S. diplomatic cables related to foreign governments. Video courtesy of NewsCore

Wikileaks might spoil Obama's popularity in Europe!

In April of 2009, Karl Rove wrote about Barack Obama saying, "President Barack Obama has finished the second leg of his international confession tour. In less than 100 days, he has apologized on three continents for what he views as the sins of America and his predecessors."
When he visited France, President Obama continued his apology tour by saying that the United States  "has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."  In Prague he went on to say that the United States has "a moral responsibility to act on arms control because only the U.S. had used a nuclear weapon."


As Americans sat at home, open mouthed at this man's audacity, he went on to London and declared that the world's financial system was no longer decided by "just Roosevelt and Churchill sitting in a room with a brandy."  Even if that were true, it seems the world finance system was much better off then, than it is now.   While visiting  Latin America, Obama  said the U.S. had not "pursued and sustained engagement with our neighbors" and that we Americans had "failed to see that our own progress is tied directly to progress throughout the Americas." 


Unlike his predecessors, Obama refused to remark on America's exceptionalism, a trait that sets us apart from the rest of the world.  He also was  extremely ungracious, and ungentlemanly  in criticizing those who'd held office before him.  We at home could not believe what we saw and heard on the nightly news.  Anti American supporters of Obama probably reveled in his words, but it is our opinion that this now well known "Apology Tour" was the defining moment when those Americans who'd been hoodwinked into voting for the Senator from Illinois began to realize that their idol had feet of clay.


Obama worked on enhancing his popularity abroad, at the expense of our country's vital interests.  Is it any wonder then that the article below begins with the statement:  "He is the US president many Europeans thought they always wanted?"   Why should we care what sort of president Europe wanted us to have?  Who always answered Europe's cry for help in time of need, or war?  Who liberated France?  What country is inundated with immigrants from Latin America? 


Barack Obama did his country and the American people a great disservice when he apologized to the world for our actions.  As he toured the world apologizing for our country, it became obvious that this was a man who had not been educated in the traditional American way, but had rather been indoctrinated in an ideology that is not compatible with democracy. Now as Wikileaks reveals some of the most sensitive material ever to have been leaked, the harm done is  not only damaging to our foreign policy, and our relationship with European leaders, particularly our Brittish allies,  but it is  most embarrassing to the American president.


Two Sisters From The Right believe that Julian Assagne, owner and creator of Wikileaks, is an impudent scoundrel.  As much as we revere the right to speak freely, there are times when discretion must rule.  Assagne is not using his own words, he is broadly releasing classified information, obtained illegally, to cause mayhem and chaos between governments.  If what Julian Assagne has done is not a punishable crime, we believe that it should  be.   Julian Assagne in engaging in acts of sheer malice.


Although we are critical of Barack Obama's public statements, those made in private should remain private.  We'd wish the same for any president regardless of political affiliation.  The Europeans will now see what many of us have always known, that Barack Hussein Obama is not the man to lead this nation.  However, they should be able to come to that realization on their own, judging him on his actions, not at Assange's whim.
SisterOne46@yahoo.com
Related articles:

World braces for WikiLeaks flood of US cables
US warns Israel of WikiLeaks release

Will release of new Wikileaks secrets blow Obama's nice guy image?

THE TELEGRAPH.CO.UK

COMMENTARY

He is the US president many Europeans thought they always wanted, but leaks of US diplomatic cables may show him rather differently, says Toby Harnden in Washington.
After emerging from a basketball game with a split and swollen lip on Friday, Barack Obama was given 12 stitches by a White House doctor.


It was the most serious presidential injury since 2002, when George W. Bush suffered a cut and bruised cheekbone after he choked on a pretzel, fainted and fell off the couch.


But Mr Obama's injury, courtesy of the elbow of Rey Decerega, director of programmes for the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute, was superficial and compared to the body blow he is expecting at the hand of Wikileaks.


With some 2.7 million communications from the US State Department about to be published online, Mr Obama is bracing himself for revelations that would not only be embarrassing but could also seriously damage his foreign policy.


Thousands of these documents are believed to be diplomatic cables from Washington to the US Embassy in London, including brutal assessments of Gordon Brown's personality and cold-eyed judgements of David Cameron's capabilities.


The ramifications for Mr Obama could be enormous. With his popularity flagging at home, one of his remaining political strengths has been his high standing abroad - assiduously cultivated in a series of speeches in which he apologised for past US actions and promised a kinder, gentler America.
Diplomatic cables are necessarily frank, a mirror image of the bland euphemisms offered up to the public after meetings between world leaders. The Obama administration has continued to play this game, uttering little of meaning to the press while swapping private barbs internally.


Mr Obama's problem over Wikileaks is that he promised to repair American relations with the world while at the same time vowing to change the rules of the game in Washington.


He was the type of American president, apparently straight from a West Wing episode, that Europeans had dreamed off.


The Wikileaks documents are likely to underline that he is still the US commander-in-chief and stands atop a system based on certain enduring American values and policies - and that he operates like most other politicians by saying one thing in public and another in private.


Once European politicians read about the disdain for them felt by Obama aides, and perhaps even Mr Obama himself, a frost is likely to descend on the warm post-Bush relations with Washington.
In the short term, Mr Obama's waning hopes of persuading Republicans in the Senate to ratify a new START treaty could disappear once the White House's own doubts about Russia's intentions are laid bare.


The "special relationship" with Britain could be badly affected. Mr Obama's coolness towards Mr Brown at their first Oval Office meeting in March 2009 was obvious, though strenuously denied by the White House and Downing Street.


His removal of the Winston Churchill bust in the Oval Office, his present of DVDs and the lack of an invitation to Camp David all spoke of a downgrading of the alliance with Britain. A State Department official even described Britain as "just the same as the other 190 countries in the world".


If the Wikileaks documents confirm this picture of a lack of interest in, or even disdain, for Britain then America's most enduring alliance could suffer.


Amongst many Americans, the relationship with Britain has become something of a touchstone of Mr Obama's foreign policy. Tony Blair is still widely admired in and the value of the "special relationship" deeply cherished.


Any suggestion that Mr Obama has been giving Britain the cold shoulder while her troops fight in Afghanistan will play badly in Middle America.


Although Mr Obama cannot be blamed for the fact that a lowly US Army private was apparently able to gain millions of sensitive intelligence and diplomatic documents, he bears ultimate responsibility for the debacle it has produced.


During the 2008 election campaign, a cable written by Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador to Washington, was leaked to The Daily Telegraph.


In it, Sir Nigel noted that Mr Obama "does betray a highly educated and upper middle class mindset", that he was "maybe aloof, insensitive" at times and that charges of elitism were "not entirely unfair".
Mr Obama's advisers reacted with iciness. The assessment was relatively kind and the comments about his personality have been borne out over time but the Obama operation despised leaks, was highly protective of Mr Obama's carefully-crafted life "narrative" and extremely sensitive to any criticism. Now the shoe is on the other foot.


Once the Wikileaks release happens, Mr Obama will no doubt offer emollient words and reassurance. Unfortunately for him, however, he is likely to find that the power of his words will now be greatly diminished abroad as well as at home.

RECOMMENDED READS

18 Former ACORN Workers Have Been Convicted or Admitted Guilt in Election Fraud

Atheists' ad blitz calls Christmas a myth

Iranian Official: First Nuclear Plant Fueled Up

 Homeland Security Seizing Websites ,           How Airports Should Profile Terrorists

 Muslims Claim Jerusalem's Western Wall of the First and Second Jewish Temple to Have  "No Religious Significance to Jews"

Somali-Born Teen Who Plotted Car Bombing Contacted Suspected Terrorist

HAVE MOST AMERICANS LARGELY FORGOTTEN THE THREAT OF COMMUNISM?

There are times when we think about a topic, or subject, and the proper words to express our feelings just don't come.  For me, such is the case with Korea.   I don't recall spending to much time studying about Korea in school or in college.  I suppose that I have always thought of Korea in terms of the long running television series M.A.S.H.  Beneath all the comedy in the program,  there was a serious message that came through.  One was to question why we were there at  all. Many failed to grasp it.  My late uncle, a physician, was stationed in Korea with peace keeping forces in the U.S. Navy. His stories were mostly about the people he treated for medical reasons, and the freezing cold  weather he experienced there.  

Early in his presidency, during the State of the Union speech in 2002, George W. Bush referred to Iran, Iraq and Korea, as the "Axis of Evil."  He was not taken seriously, and many scoffed at his words. Not only did he accuse them of harboring terrorism, but he described them as possessing weapons of mass destruction.  Does a day go by now  that we don't think about those three nations in one way or another, or the impediment they present to a peaceful world?  We either have a loved one serving in the Armed Forces in Iraq, or we're subjected to the threats and shows of force by either of those two megalomaniacs Mahmoud Amahdinejad, or the diminutive but dangerous Kim Jong Il.

Writing for the Weekly Standard, Stephen Hayes refers to the Korean Conflict as "The Sixty Year War."   Suddenly, it doesn't really matter if I can't put the proper words together.  Fortunately, others are writing, educating us, and keeping us informed about the threat that these countries present.  Today, particularly, our concern is North Korea, and how this incompetent administration will handle this latest crisis.  I ws delighte to happen upon Alan Caruba's essay for Intellectual Conservative.   He eloquently expresses, the thought I could not put into words.  This is the article we will feature today on 2Sisters. 

NORTH KOREA, CHINA'S HIDDEN DAGGER

by Alan Caruba

Americans have largely forgotten the threat of communism. The latest North Korean attacks are China's way of reminding the U.S. of its dilemma and dependence.

The Korean War ended in a stalemate in 1953. Having begun on June 25, 1950 with the blessings of Joseph Stalin, an armistice agreement on July 27, 1953 left the peninsula divided between the Republic of South Korea and the Peoples Republic of North Korea. How long ago was that? Dwight D. Eisenhower was elected largely on the promise to go there and secure an end to the conflict

By the time it was over the Red Chinese had intervened and American casualties were around 54,000 with 103,000 wounded. The North Koreans and Chinese were estimated to have lost ten times that number. The war was immensely unpopular with an American public that was still recovering from World War Two that had ended in 1945.

To his credit, President Truman did not hesitate to commit troops. Within two days after the invasion, Americans were fighting another war in Asia. The United Nations provided cover and the conflict was officially a UN action.

It was a proxy war, part of the long Cold War that had begun at the end of World War Two. The Chinese got involved when Gen. Douglas McArthur's strategies put U.S. troops close to their border. He wanted to finish off not just the North Koreans, but the fledgling communist Chinese government as well. Truman relieved him of command after he neglected the fact that U.S. armies fight under civilian control in the form of an elected Commander-in-Chief and authorization from Congress.

In time, China for reasons of proximity and other factors became the power that controlled North Korea. Under Kim ill-Sung, known as the "Great Leader", a Soviet protégée of Stalin's, and his son Kim Jong-il, the "Dear Leader", North Korea has evolved into the classic rogue nation. It was named one of George W. Bush's "axis of evil."

China provides life support for North Korea, the supplier of food and energy. In his 2004 book, "Rogue State: How a Nuclear North Korea Threatens America", William C. Triplett II, noted that "communist China is central to all North Korean issues, from human rights to weapons proliferation."

Whatever North Korea does is sanctioned by China. This fact has been largely shielded by U.S. policy from the American public. North Korea is known in diplomatic circles as "China's hidden dagger." The phrase is taken from an ancient Chinese military text called "36 Srategems." It means the covert use of another country to annihilate your enemy. North Korea threatens South Korea and Japan, and by extension the U.S. which is committed to come to its defense.

American administrations have negotiated with North Korea and each has learned that they will not adhere to any agreement, using negotiations to secure bribes of all kinds, including one in which the U.S. agreed to build two nuclear facilities there! Recent news revealed they have increased their ability to produce nuclear weapons to the utter astonishment of U.S. intelligence agencies.

Its nuclear program was begun by Moscow and Beijing converted it to a weapons program. Triplett said that Beijing uses North Korea as a proxy distributor of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles to terrorist nations that include Iran and Syria. They in turn, provide weapons to their proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Like Iran, no sanctions and no threats of military reprisal have ever had any serious affect on North Korea.
Writing during the George W. Bush administration, Triplett said "There is no endgame strategy. North Korean aggression and provocations still go unpunished." Together, the North Koreans and China "have successfully bogged any progress in endless diplomatic meetings and conferences while North Korea's nuclear research marches on."

America is in no position to fight another war on the Korean peninsula and is dependent on China (and Japan) to purchase its securities to keep its economy functioning in the wake of the 2008 economic crisis. America's manufacturing base has largely been undermined by the transfer of many of our industries to China.

Americans have largely forgotten the threat of communism.

The latest North Korean attacks are China's way of reminding the U.S. of its dilemma and dependence.

The failure to secure a victory over North Korea in the 1950s, too much dithering since then, and too much distraction fighting recent wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have combined to render America a paper tiger who, despite our vast military power, will not or cannot pull the trigger.





Featured Political Cartoon by Michael Ramirez



IT'S BEEN AN INTERESTING BLACK FRIDAY!

It's been a crazy Black Friday! We wondered if any of our readers ventured out to the stores and Malls today.  The stories we've read  are frightening.  But the craziness was not confined to Christmas shopping.  Although this writer stayed at home sitting by a cozy, warming fire, the headlines have been alarming.  With the N. Koreans making threats, and China giving them support, it tends to be one of those days when one can say, "Stop the world, I want to get off!"  The news seem to be a little more alarming all of the time.  Yet behind every dark cloud there seems to be a silver lining and the story of the three teenagers rescued after being lost and adrift for 50 days has made us all marvel and cause us to once again give thanks.  For those who did not venture out to fight the crowds, we'd like to remind you that consumers can purchase Black Friday bargains at most stores online.  Let's not forget "Cyber Monday" when retailers will once again offer great values.

Headlines

North Korea Warns Region Is On Brink of War

Crazed Shoppers Stampede at Target (Video)

Obama Catches 12 Stitches After Errant Elbow To Mouth

Aging Diva, Cher, Trashes "Teabaggers as F***ing Nuts"

Obama's Poll Numbers Point to His Defeat in 2012

The Bogus and Bigoted Wall of Separation Between Church and State

Two Sisters from the right is proud to feature an essay by Steve Bussey.  Mr. Bussey is a good friend and contributor to our original Two Sisters From The Right. He is a political commentator, blogger and radio show host.  His thoughts and opinions can be read on his own site, www.stevebussey.com .  We look forward to collaborating with Steve as he brings us informative and thought provoking articles.  Welcome!

The Bogus and Bigoted Wall of Separation Between Church and State

By Steve Bussey

Well, Thanksgiving is over and Black Friday is upon us marking the official start of the 2010 Christmas Season in America. And with the advent of a new Christmas Season comes the inevitable politically correct “holiday office party” and the attendant arguments and struggles between Church and State. I have an idea; how about we try to interject some truth into the debate this year, some real historical facts?

Many people, like me, erroneously ascribe the Separation of Church and State movement to communism attempting to overthrow America by destroying traditional, religious-based morality and ethics, or the secular humanists. But that’s wrong, or at least, not how it all started. Communists and humanists may have co-opted the movement in modern times, but they really had nothing to do with the origins.


The separation of Church and State advocacy has absolutely nothing to do with the Constitution of the United States – nothing. The separation of Church and State advocacy groups simply found judges and justices willing to bastardize and defile our Constitution toward their own racist, anti-immigration and bigoted ends, as liberal/progressive groups usually do.


The movement really started in the early 20th Century as an anti-Catholic movement, and involved, to a great degree, the Ku Klux Klan. That’s right; the separation of Church and State movement in America is an outgrowth of the KKK’s anti-Catholic stance of religious bigotry, hate and fear and is much the same today. But what it is not about is the Constitution.


Barry Lynn is the current Executive Director of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State . However, that organization was started in 1947 by Glenn L. Archer as Protestants and Other Americans United for the Separation of Church and State. Why would Protestants start such an organization? Can you say W.A.S.P. – White, Anglo-Saxon Protestant American – KKK?


I find that original name extremely significant. Here’s part of the Wikipedia entry for Glenn Archer:


Glenn L. Archer (1906–2002) was the founder of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, formerly known as Protestants and Other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.[1]
In its first years, a main focus of AU’s activity was opposition to the political agenda of the Roman Catholic Church and it was seen by critics as an anti-Catholic organization.[2] It was under Archer’s tutelage that the Roman Catholic hierarchy was dubbed in 1949 as being more dangerous and clever than communism.
He petitioned the FCC to deny TV licenses to Jesuits because they were an alien organization. He also demanded that Cardinals in the Catholic Church have their citizenship revoked.[3] Furthermore, he asked the House Un-American Activities Committee to investigate the intentions, scope and achievements of Vatican espionage in the United States, charging that the Catholic clergy had learned American secrets hardly anyone except the president knows.[4]


Notice that Mr. Archer petitioned the FCC to deny TV licenses to Jesuit priests because they were an alien organization and not due to any separation of Church and State.


According to Princeton University:


POAU was founded largely because of the climate in the United States permitting government support of religious schools, notably the 1947 Supreme Court decision of Everson v. Board of Education that affirmed the principle of the separation of church and state but approved busing children to parochial schools at public expense on the grounds that it provided welfare to the child, not the school. Fearing that this would provide justification for other federal funding to parochial schools, POAU instituted a multifaceted, proactive program to educate the American public on the issues at stake and raise support for church-state separation.


Who was predominating in parochial education in America? The Catholic Church. But this wasn’t even the beginning of the Church and State movement. The movement really began in the 1920’s. Check out this information from Seattle Civil Rights and Labor History Project:


""During the Ku Klux Klan’s revival during the 1920s, the organization formed a strong presence in the Pacific Northwest. In Washington, the majority of the Klan’s work was devoted to passing an anti-Catholic school initiative and attempting to spread their particular brand of white, Protestant supremacy. Yet while Oregon passed an anti-Catholic school bill in 1922, heavily backed by the Oregon Klan, Washington voters rejected a similar measure–and the influence of the Washington Klan–two years later. The Ku Klux Klan that surfaced in the 1920s formed the second wave of Klan activity in the United States. Unlike the first emergence of the Ku Klux Klan, formed in the South in 1868 and mainly concerned with keeping black people from exercising their new freedoms, the second wave of the Ku Klux Klan focused their efforts on a wider range of issues. This new wave portrayed themselves as a race-protecting group that “espoused a virulent form of racism, anti-Semitism, anti-Catholicism, and anti-immigrant sentiment. . . ."
. . . The Oregon School Bill aimed to close private Catholic schools in Oregon and have the children sent to the public school system. Since public schools taught state-mandated curricula, the Klan saw this measure as a way to “Americanize” Catholic children and limit the amount of “non-Protestant” instruction they received. Oregonians who supported the Compulsory Education Bill, including the Oregon Klan, made the argument that private and parochial schools were often controlled by non-American organizations that emphasized foreign ideologies over traditional American values."[6]


It’s more than just a little ironic how the KKK’s concern was the same as Mr. Archer’s – Catholic schools. I contend that Barry Lynn’s group is an outgrowth of the KKK’s anti-Catholic bigotry, and a manner by which to mask that bigotry. Their anti-Catholic initiatives in the 1920’s were too narrow in scope and too identifiable with an anti-Catholic bigotry so they had to expand it to all religion in order to mask their narrow WASP bias, especially since the KKK fell from grace. Bigoted groups rarely fold up their tents and go home when they lose. They simply morph into something more palatable.

But why, why were Catholics such a threat in the 1920’s and why would an anti-Catholic organization spring up in America in the first place? According to Julie Byrne, Department of Religion, Duke University:


The story of Roman Catholicism in the nineteenth century IS the story of immigration. Until about 1845, the Roman Catholic population of the United States was a small minority of mostly English Catholics, who were often quite socially accomplished. But when several years of devastating potato famine led millions of Irish Catholics to flee to the United States in the mid 1840s, the face of American Catholicism began to change drastically and permanently. In the space of fifty years, the Catholic population in the United States suddenly transformed from a tight-knit group of landowning, educated aristocrats into an incredibly diverse mass of urban and rural immigrants who came from many different countries, spoke different languages, held different social statuses, and emphasized different parts of their Catholic heritage.

So, the Catholic population in America was growing – and growing through immigration. Here’s a post from Answers.com . Now admittedly, I do not know the origins of this post, who posted it or what their background is.

The KKK has never liked the Catholic Church, but became even more vocal about its opposition upon its resurgence in the early 20th century. Reasons for the Klan’s anti-Catholicism stems from both social and religious reasons. Historically, the Klan has Protestant roots, from which it takes the more radical views on Catholicism. The KKK considers the pope a Roman dictator, placing itself before God. As well, Catholicism is notorious for its multi-culturalism, another mark against it. Socially, many of the immigrants coming to America were Catholics, whom the Klan felt were taking jobs away from Americans and hence were undesirables. In 1974, faced with dwindling popularity and numbers, David Duke made a milestone, shifting Klan policy by opening Klan membership to Roman Catholics provided they were white.


There is more than enough information to show the current Separation of Church and State crowd as the bigots and liars that they are. Don’t buy into their crap this Christmas, and insist we return to the America bequeathed us by our Founders.


The author can be contacted at:  Frawddawg@aol.com

Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Presidential Proclamation

     What a meaningful way to end a truly outstanding day!  Our friend, and author Rich Carroll, sent us this email which really gives closure to this historic day.  One of the advantages of being a blogger is that it affords us the opportunity to read history again -- some we'd forgotten -- some we'd never learned.  Today was a day to give thanks for so many blessings. Yet, we fell that today, when our country is at war, and our military is deployed to so many parts of the world, it is particularly fitting to reprint this proclamation by President Abraham Lincoln, lest we forget to whom we give thanks, and why.
Two Sisters

Abraham Lincoln's 1863 Thanksgiving Presidential Proclamation



Thanksgiving was first celebrated by settlers at Plymouth in the Massachusetts colony in 1621. U.S. Presidents Washington and Madison each issued a Thanksgiving proclamation once during their Presidencies. However, it was not until 1863 when Abraham Lincoln issued his Thanksgiving Day Proclamation that the holiday was established as a national annual event. The first observance of this U.S. national holiday came one week after the dedication of the Soldiers National Cemetery at Gettysburg.
by the President of the United States of America

The year that is drawing toward its close has been filled with the blessings of fruitful years and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the Source from which they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary a nature that they can not fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God.


In the midst of a civil war of unequaled magnitude and severity, which has sometimes seemed to foreign states to invite and to provoke their aggression, peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, the laws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhere, except in the theater of military conflict, while that theater has been greatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union.


Needful diversions of wealth and of strength from the field of peaceful industry to the national defense have not arrested the plow, the shuttle, or the ship; the ax has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of iron and coal as of the precious metals, have yielded even more abundantly than theretofore. Population has steadily increased notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battlefield, and the country, rejoicing in the consciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect continuance of years with large increase of freedom.


No human counsel hath devised nor hath any mortal hand worked out these great things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, while dealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy.


It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be solemnly, reverently, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and one voice, by the whole American people. I do therefore invite my fellow-citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquility, and union.


In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.


[Signed]


A. Lincoln



Two Sisters From The Right would like to wish you and your loved ones a very Happy Thanksgiving Day.  Let us join together in giving thanks for all of our blessings.  We are so very fortunate to live in this exceptional, free nation.

God Bless You

and

God Bless the United States of America.

Address comments to: SisterOne46@yahoo.com 

UNITED WE STAND

Some months back I attended a Tea Party in Corpus Christi, TX. The main purpose of it was to motivate people to vote at the midterm elections. I admire the work of the Corpus Christi, South Texas Tea Party so much that I actually became a member, even though I cannot vote in their elections. I participate in as many of their functions as I can. Because of the tireless work of the party and its members, Nueces County which once had only one elected Republican, experienced a historic Republican takeover on Election Day. The victory was in part due to the help of a dissatisfied public as the local party purposefully widened its appeal.

The most surprising defeat of all was in the unseating of Democrats in local and state seats, and the upset of U.S. Rep. Solomon Ortiz Sr., who has held the 27th Congressional District seat since 1983. I've waited years for America's silent majority to find it's voice. In my 65 years I've seen many changes, the Tea Party movement really captured my heart. I have attended Tea Parties since Glenn Beck held the very first one on April 15, 2009, at the Alamo in San Antonio, Texas.

On that particular day at the Corpus Christi Bayfront, I had persuaded my "non activist" friend to join me. It was a chilly, blustery, overcast day. We were surprised at the number of people who had braved the elements to attend, and make a statement. As the speeches ended, we all placed a strip of blue masking tape across our lips and walked across the street to the bay side. We stood in a straight line, with Corpus Christi Bay to our backs, as a camera rolled by and filmed us.


Our statement that day was to protest the government's and the media's effort to silence us. We, the American people, who have always enjoyed freedom of speech, were being ignored by the Obama administration and the Democratic Congress. Our grassroots movement was called "astro turf". Our protests were rejected and discarded. Comedians and pundits laughed at us, calling us obscene names. When hundreds of thousands of Tea Partiers marched upon Washington, D.C. to protest Obamacare and the increased Socialist ideology spreading through the country, legislators on the left, including the President, left town and refused to meet with them.


I often hear people express their support of the Tea Party movement, and it is a movement, not a third party as many in the media have tried to report, but how many actually travel and take part in Tea Party sponsored events? My friend Janet in California has traveled twice to Washington D. C. to peacefully, yet in great numbers make themselves heard. When the Tea Party Express was scheduled to go to San Antonio, I drove two hours alone, stayed at a hotel, and was standing at the Alamo the next day, along with hundreds others who had come from near and far to show our support and wish them well.


On Super Bowl Sunday this past January my reluctant but supportive friend once again drove with me to Houston to be part of a support Rick Perry Rally, and to see and hear the guest Speaker, Sarah Palin. It was a memorable event, as we stood in line, in the cold for hours waiting to be allowed in the auditorium. I think my actions, my money, my travels, my writings and my vote speak for themselves. I am a Conservative Republican. However, I am an American first, and I am most proud and protective of our freedom to express ourselves whenever and wherever we can, which brings me to the point of this writing.


Long before we knew who the GOP candidates would be, Two Sisters From The Right had a different forum. Back then we'd purchased our own domain and our format was very different. Sister Two is fluent in html and we were able to add links and signs to our blog that we cannot do now. One of our very first was a sign that encouraged Republicans to "Draft Sarah Palin." She was not a household word then, and we were often asked who she was. After John McCain became the GOP nominee for President we endorsed him as well, with the caveat, borrowed from Pamela Geller, "Because the alternative is unthinkable." We'd done our homework and we knew that electing Barack Hussein Obama to the highest office in the land was equivalent to sounding the death knell for the USA as we had always known it.


Aesop, a Greek slave and fable author, wrote, "United we stand, divided we fall." It is a saying that has been used as a motto by nations, and orators, for years. Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln were two Americans most noted for making it a phrase often quoted. After September 11, 2001, when we were attacked by Islamic terrorists, it became a rallying cry for Americans, and  it helped bring a wounded nation together. It is also a phrase by which this writer lives, from family to country, it is applicable and followed. 

Most recently I have noted a very disturbing trend among Conservative Republicans. If someone should dare to say something considered a tad unflattering about former Governor Sarah Palin, it causes certain persons to go postal. I've seen it happen when Karl Rove, or George W. Bush, and now just yesterday, New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, didn't appear to be as taken and mesmerized with Sarah Palin as others are. It is then that the detestable word "RINO" is used. Personally, I intensely dislike labels, and derogatory name calling. Just as no one has yet been able to define the word "conservative" in terms with which all can agree, the word "RINO" is used too loosely, too frequently, and derogatorily.  I refuse to use it.  It is indicative of a rift among Republicans who fail to remember that "united we stand, divided we fall."

Sarah Palin might be a goddess of sorts to some, but to many of us she's just another woman politician, albeit a charismatic one.  I am very serious when I say that it is dangerous to place a mere mortal on a pedestal as some have done with her. I like Sarah Palin, she is a strong conservative, she's politically savvy, she is enthusiastic and articulate, she has governing experience and has proved that she's an intelligent and courageous woman as well. She is also not flawless. Two years is a long time, and a lot can happen in that period of time. In order for democracy to function as it was designed, we have to increase the dialogue, and put an end to this immediate censoring and name calling of those who disagree with us.

We must be open minded and willing to consider the opinions of others. We aren't all going to think alike. We aren't all going to support the same candidate. We have to put the country first -- what is best for our country now and future generations. My California friend was not happy when Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman were the Republican nominees for senator and governor of California, but she said, "Even if I have to crawl on my hand and knees, over broken glass to get to the polls, I'll vote Republican." That, my friends, is standing united.

Address comments to:  SisterOne46@yahoo.com

Did North Korea attack South Korea as a means of getting world attention?

The world awoke today to the news that North Korea had attacked South Korea's island of Yeonpyeong , which houses a military base and some 1,700 civilians. Yeonpyeong Island is one of the Korea's closest territories to Communist North Korea. As a result of the attack, fires burned out of control, and civilians and South Korean soldiers were either killed or wounded.

This action by the North Koreans brings on another headache for the already ailing Obama administration. There are tens of thousands of American troops stationed in South Korea. It concerns us that we are already fighting wars on two fronts and that American soldiers might have to take an active role in yet another Korean "police action." President Obama announced on Tuesday that the United States would stand "shoulder to shoulder" with South Korea and would soon stage joint military exercises after the North Korean attack.

North Korean leader Kim Jong II, who is in poor health, recently announced that his youngest son, twenty something Kim Jong Un, would be named as his successor. North Korea is prone to attention getting stunts and obviously quite envious of their more successful neighbors to the south. Could this attack have been a ploy to garner world attention? We question what Kim Jong II's motives were for this latest provocation. Envy? A desire to start another global war? Is condemnation of the Korean aggression by the U.S. and the international community a sufficiently strong response? The people of North Korea are starving, and desperate for help.  Is this latest attack a ploy for attention? 


The Associated Press' Jean H. Lee has written a very reasonable analysis which explains the status between the two countries, and attempts to answer why this most violent altercation between the two countries since the end of the Korean War, has taken place. 

Analysis: Attack is North Korean Bid For Attention

By  Jean H. Lee

                       
 A frustrated North Korea is lashing out again, this time with a deadly volley of artillery aimed at reminding rival South Korea — and the world — that it will not be ignored.

The destruction that set homes ablaze, sent civilians fleeing for underground shelters and killed two South Korean marines may have been more than Pyongyang bargained for in its game of chicken with the South.

But it gets attention, which is what Pyongyang wants as it seeks to restart negotiations to barter its nuclear program for much-needed aid.

It can be hard to remember in bustling, cosmopolitan Seoul that the Korean peninsula remains in a state of war.

Sixty years after the fighting began, the U.S.-backed South has risen to become the world's 15th-largest economy, an example of industriousness and pluck.

Two weeks ago, Seoul basked in the limelight of hosting more than 30 world leaders for the Group of 20 summit in what was seen as the country's diplomatic debut. Next week, South Korea will make its case for the right to hold the 2022 World Cup.

But a rising South Korea does not sit well with its poorer northern neighbor. Once the richer of the two Koreas, the North has suffered over the years from the loss of Soviet aid, economic mismanagement and natural disasters that destroyed its precious few resources.

And as the rest of the communist bloc has crumbled, North Korea has remained staunch in its "juche" policy of self-reliance, continuing to build up a nuclear program that has earned it pariah status with the West.

Its nuclear bombs and its unpredictability remain North Korea's most valuable assets, and Pyongyang has played its cards shrewdly over the decades.

The last two years have been a particularly delicate time in Pyongyang, with leader Kim Jong Il reportedly suffering a stroke in 2008 and then paving the way to name his youngest son as his successor.

But Kim Jong Un, still in his 20s and known as the Young General, won't have the benefit of decades of preparation that his father had before taking over from his father, the late North Korea founder Kim Il Sung.

There are at least three things Kim will want to secure before he can comfortably hand over the reins: loyalty to the Young General, economic stability and political security ensuring the regime's grip on power.

Time may be running out. Health issues notwithstanding, Kim is likely to want to formally anoint his heir in 2012, the centennial of Kim Il Sung's birth, a significant milestone that would cement the family's ruling status in ritualistic North Korea.

Winning the military's loyalty will be key in a society that operates under a "military first" policy.

The armistice signed in 1953 was designed to keep the peace, but North Korea has never accepted the maritime border drawn by the U.N. at the close of the Korean War, and the western waters have long been a flashpoint.

They've fought three deadly skirmishes there since 1999. The last one, a year ago, was particularly humiliating, with the North suffering one death and more wounded.

Revenge may have been behind the plot to take down South Korea's Cheonan warship, which investigators say was torn in two by a North Korean torpedo in March. If the young son wanted to earn the military's loyalty, it would have been a prize: 46 South Koreans died in the worst attack on Seoul's military since the Korean War.

Pyongyang denies involvement, as it has past provocations.


However, neither nation wants another war, and both have sought ways to repair relations without losing face.

Since taking office in February 2008, South Korea's President Lee Myung-bak has been sticking to a hard-line policy of demanding concrete action on denuclearization before offering the North any significant aid.

Yet in recent weeks, he has shown a limited willingness to yield, offering North Korea a shipment of rice and other humanitarian aid to help with devastating flooding and backing off demands that Pyongyang apologize for the Cheonan sinking.

North Korea, which is suffering under U.N. economic sanctions for its nuclear defiance, also has been reaching out, eager to get back to talks on winning aid in exchange for nuclear concessions.

Pyongyang has been putting out feelers in unprecedented fashion, allowing foreign journalists to cover a massive 65th anniversary parade for its ruling Workers' Party that served as an international debut for his son and heir.

Both sides also agreed to let families divided since the Korean War meet at a North Korean resort for reunions that inevitably draw attention to the emotional toll the peninsula's division has taken. There are rumors that top-level aides were trying to negotiate a summit between their two leaders.

But Pyongyang has become frustrated by the slow pace of restoring relations with Seoul and eventually the U.S., a key step toward its goal of securing aid and stability. That impatience has bubbled over into petulance.

The regime wants respect. And though it increasingly has turned to neighboring China for political and financial support — a strategic alliance that has broader geopolitical consequences — its sense of being rebuffed by the U.S. and South Korea still stings.

The decision to show off a new uranium enrichment plant to a U.S. scientist recently was a clear ploy to pressure Washington and Seoul and remind the allies what's at risk in putting off disarmament talks.

Drawing South Korean troops into a skirmish on an island populated by civilians was a pointed escalation that emphasized that Pyongyang, or the Young General, is prepared to play tough.

Smoke billowed into the air and screams sounded as Yeonpyeong's islanders ran from burning homes with shells raining down upon them.

For those who lived through the Korean War, the scene recalled the death and destruction of that conflict. It was North Korea's way of reminding the world that the war is not over and that ignoring it comes with dire consequences.

Jean H. Lee is AP's bureau chief in Seoul, South Korea, and recently visited North Korea

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101123/ap_on_an/as_koreas_clash_analysis

How Obama Will "Rule" by Executive Order in 2011

After Barack Hussein Obama was elected president of the United States a member of his transition team made a comment about how he would "rule."  That comment prompted Two Sisters From The Right to write a rebuttal to her statement.  Now it seems that the ugly word "rule" has crept up again. Because of it, it is imperative that we understand what an Executive Order is.


Early on, we reminded our readers that American presidents govern, they do not "rule."  Our ancestors fought a War of Independence so that we could break from the rule of the English king, and form our own sovereign nation.  Our Founding Fathers created a government OF THE PEOPLE, BY THE PEOPLE, AND FOR THE PEOPLE.   Had Obama been properly educated in American schools, instead of trotting the globe with his mother and her husbands, he might have learned that lesson early in his life.


As a people we respect the office of the presidency, yet we are always mindful of the fact that the president is not infallible and above all else, he works for us, THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.


Just exactly what is an Executive Order?  According to the National Archives the definition of an E.O. is as follows:

Executive orders are official documents, numbered consecutively, through which the President of the United States manages the operations of the Federal Government. 

In other words, an Executive Order is a rule or order that is issued by the executive branch of the government and has the status of a law. According to a Gallup Poll in February of 2009, Obama's initial executive orders have been very unpopular with many American voters.  They were orders allowing federal funding for overseas abortions and closing Guantanamo  (GITMO).  We now know how foolish that order was, and nearly two years after issuing it, Guantanamo is still open and housing terrorists who would harm America. 


Obama supporters cite the number of executive orders that George W. Bush signed.  Let us set the record straight.  During his tenure as president, from 2001-2009, George W. Bush signed 280 Executive Orders.  William J. Clinton, during his two terms as president, averaged about one executive order each week. By doing so, he was able to effectively legislate from the Oval Office.  During his tenure in office, 1993-2001, Clinton issued 364 executive orders. Since January 2009 to the present, Obama has issued a total of 66 executive orders in the last twenty two months.


One of Barack H. Obama's most interesting E.O.s was the one issued on January 21st, 2009, his very first day in office. On that day Barack Obama implemented and signed into law Executive Order 13489, barring the release of his birth certificate. 


In light of the fact that many believe that Obama, the lame duck president, will rule by executive order in the future, we recommend the article, Executive Orders: A Blueprint for Dictatorship? by Tanya L. Green, J.D.
Some of the more interesting facts that Green discusses are:

"Executive orders are presidential proclamations or directives that have the force of law without prior congressional approval."

"No constitutional basis exists for any president to legislate or make laws through executive orders.""


"What began as a narrow use of executive orders under extreme national crises has grown into executive discretion bordering on dictatorial powers."

"The Lockean Theory: -that the purpose of the executive order is for the public good in times of dire emergencies." 

If Obama really intends to "rule" by executive order, we as citizens must become aware of the fact.  Presently it is only speculation.  However, the subject crops up often in essays and conversation.  Recently we received the article below from a fellow blogger.  Although long, it is particularly alarming. 

The Agenda Revealed: How Obama Will "Rule" by Executive Order in 2011
by Ben Johnson

Two Sisters From The Right believe that the newly elected Republican House of Representatives, as well as the gains made in the United States Senate, will be sorely tested by this administration.  It is quite obvious that the citizens of the United State sent a new mandate to the Obama administration during the midterm elections.  Mr. Obama seems prepared to once again disregard the will of the people.  Republicans and even freedom loving Democrats must be vigilant and develop a plan to block, prevent and reverse Obama's Socialist agenda.  The time has come for all those who love the liberty and freedoms that we enjoy in this country to implement our own change.

Comments may be sent to:  SisterOne46@yahoo.com