Text of Marco Rubio's Senate Speech

If you did not hear it.  If you did not read it.  Do yourself a favor, become informed and read it now.  We need more leaders like Senator Marco Rubio in Washington, D.C.  We need public servants who are true to the word they gave their constituents.  Above all we need Senators who do not pander to the Washington D.C. establishment, and are not afraid to put a pompous ass like John Kerry in his place!
Two Sisters

Sen. Rubio: "Save The Whole House Or It Will All Burn Down"

“I rise here on the Senate floor today to speak on the tremendous issue that's captivated, and rightfully so, the attention of our country.

“Let me start by saying that I do not enjoy nor relish the partisan role of attack dog. I never found any fun in that. I don’t think it’s constructive. I don't intend to become that here in the Senate.

“I also have only been here for seven months, which means I haven't been here long enough to think any of the stuff that's going on is normal. And I certainly don't think any of the stuff that goes on around here too often is normal. So I think the fact that I've been here seven months has served me well in that regard.

“Let me begin if I can. One of the things that I’ve noticed this week is that Washington is full of people from all over the world and all over the country that have traveled here this week to come and watch their government at work and see the monuments of the city and found themselves in the middle of this debate.

“So I think it’s important to remind people what we're debating because although it is a difficult and important issue, it is not a complicated one to understand. It’s pretty straight forward.

“And here’s the way I would describe it the United States of America more or less -- these are rough numbers but they’re accurate – spends about $300 billion a month. It has $180 billion a month that comes to the federal government through taxes and other sources of revenue and that means that in order to meet its bills at the end of every month it needs to borrow $120 billion.

“Now, for much of the history of this country, there have been increases in the debt limit and the ability to borrow money. But what has happened over the last few years is that it's no longer a routine vote because the people who give us our credit rating are saying too much of the money that you spend every month is borrowed and we want you to show us how over the next ten years you are going to borrow less as a percentage of what you spend.

“And so that's why, for years, where the debt limit was routine vote, it no longer can be. It’s not something that was made up in some conservative think tank. But the reality that we cannot continue to borrow 40% to 41% of every penny that the government spends has brought us to this point.

“So you would think that seeing that, our government and our leaders here in both parties would react to that immediately and work on it.

“And I've heard lot of talk today about delaying tactics and delaying votes. I would argue to you that this issue has been delayed at least for the last two and a half years.

“In the two years before I even came here, this chamber neither proposed nor passed a budget. It is a startling figure that for the last two years this government has operated without a budget. So think about that. Two years have gone by without a budget. The first two years that the President was the president, no budgets.

“Some people would say, well, that's because of partisanship in Washington. Well, that's not true. In the two years before I got here, both the House and Senate were controlled by members of the Democratic Party, which are the President's party. In fact, in this chamber for at least one of those two years, 60 votes, 60 out of the 100 members here caucused with the Democrats. And as you recall, on Christmas Eve of the year 2009, they were able to pass a health care bill that was very controversial because they had the 60 votes in the President’s party.

“Over two years, no budget. In fact you know how long it has been since this chamber proposed a budget? Forget passed a budget, proposed a budget? 822 days. That’s a long time. A lot of things have happened in the last 822 days, but proposing a budget is not one of them out of this chamber.

“So then I got here – and we got here in January, seven months have passed, still no budget. Again, not budget passed, proposed, offered. Here's our budget. Still no budget. 822 Days and every single day that I've been here.

“Now, in the last seven days on this debt debate, we have finally seen a proposal from the esteemed senator from Nevada, the majority leader. You would think, has he brought it to the floor to vote? Not until last night. So, again, offered a proposal over the weekend and still for six days we sat around and what did we do around here? Nothing. It was never brought to a vote.

“You would think these issues would have been worked on in January, February, March -- nothing. This chamber has done nothing. You talk about delay tactics? They've been delaying for two and a half years.

“Now the President doesn't have the luxury of some of these things. He has to propose a budget by law, and he did. Let me tell you how ridiculous the budget was. Not a single member of this Senate voted for it, including the Democrats. It is a budget that didn't lead with the debt limit; in fact, it increased the debt. That's how absurd the budget was.

“Where is the President plan? We haven't seen it. We haven't seen it. Here's the President's plan: a blank sheet of paper. He doesn't have a plan. He hasn't offered a plan. Again, if this were a Republican president, I would say the same thing.

“I do not understand how an issue of this magnitude, of generational importance, the President of the United States has not offered a plan. If someone has seen the president's plan, please send it to me because no one else has seen it. It does not exist.

“So this has been the plan all along, by the way. The plan all along was not to take a position, to let the days count down until we got to this point with 72 hours to go and then force a vote on something that they wanted. I believe that that has been the plan the entire time. And you can see it carrying itself out.

“You want to know why people all across America get grossed out about politics? It’s by watching this kind of stuff happen.

“And instead let me tell you what we’ve seen for the last few days. First of all, for today and for much of this time I have heard all these attacks and name-calling. If we had $1 billion for every time I heard the words "tea party extremist," we could solve this debt problem.

“So all this name-calling, so I said let me read some quotes about this debt limit and I found some pretty extremist quotes.

“Here's one.

“It says, "The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America's debt.” A quote from a tea party extremist, right? No. This is a quote from March 16 of 2006 from Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“I found another extremist quote. This one says, "Because this massive of accumulation of debt was predicted, because it was foreseeable, because it was unnecessary, because it was the result of willful and reckless disregard for the warnings that were given and for the fundamentals of economic management, I am voting against a debt limit increase.” Well, that must be from a tea party extremist member of the House, right? No. This is March 16, 2006, from Senator Joe Biden of Delaware.

“And last but not least, here's a quote from September 27 of 2007. It says, "I find it distasteful and disturbing to increase the debt limit yet again. Clearly we need to change course and this debt limit bill is just another reminder of that." And that is from the distinguished Senator from Nevada, the majority leader. On that date in 2007.

“And yet now these same quotes in this context, what we're talking about raising the debt limit more than has ever been raised in one vote, is extremism? This name-calling is absurd and it sets this process back.

“The other thing I hear -- oh, it is not reasonable. This is a waste of time. This bill can't pass the Senate when they talk about the House bill. So now it disqualifies the bill the fact that it can't pass in the Senate.

“Well, guess what? The Senate bill can't pass in the Senate -- the Senate bill can't pass in the Senate.”

Sen. John Kerry (D-MA): “Will the Senator yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes, I'll yield.”

Sen. John Kerry: “I thank the Senator for doing that. That's become somewhat unusual in the Senate today. So I truly appreciate it.

“I would ask the Senator, as ironic as it may be that on occasion people in the past have indeed voted against a debt limit -- both Republicans and Democrats alike -- is it not true that in those situations those votes did not hold the nation hostage, did not come at a moment of enormous economic fragility as we are in today, and did not run the risk of default because it was going to pass overwhelmingly every time?

“Is that not true?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts, I would say two things.

“The first is that those votes -- put it to you this way. If the Senator from Illinois at the time, Senator Obama, had had his way, we'd be in the same position we are in now. Because he had voted against the debt – and I recognize the President has now said that the debt limit is -- he made a mistake and he wouldn't have said that were he here today.

“My point, I would say to the Senator from Massachusetts, is that rhetoric two years ago was not considered extremist language and now that rhetoric, which by the way I have not found. I think it is a myth. There may be a handful of people in the building both in the House and Senate perhaps that believe that the nation doesn't have to raise the debt limit. But by and large everyone recognizes that something must be done about the debt limit.

“What we have also said – I speak for myself. Let me not speak for any other member of this chamber or the next.

“What I have also said is that it would be a terrible mistake to lose this opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt. And that the debt limit gives us an opportunity to do something meaningful about the debt, because the crisis that America faces is not one that I have defined.

“But one that has been defined by the rating houses and rating agencies who have said if you do not get your spending in order, we don't care whether you raise your debt limit or not, we will downgrade you.

“And what that means for every American is an increase in their interest payments.”

Sen. John Kerry: “Will the Senator further yield for a question?”

Sen. Rubio: “Yes.”

Sen. Kerry: “Mr. President I appreciate what the Senator is saying. I would just say first of all that everybody understands the danger of the rating agencies right now.

“The problem is, we got to reach across the aisle and negotiate. We've got to come to agreement. Right now there's not a lot of negotiating going on.

“I would ask the Senator, if he doesn't agree that there is an enormous difference between -- the Senator a moment ago said if he had gotten his way. But the whole point is, everybody knew he wasn't about to get his way. That was a truly symbolic vote.

“Today, however, is it not true we are on the brink of a default and the absence of negotiation or the absence of a settlement presents us with a far more serious consequence to the unwillingness to raise the debt ceiling today?”

Sen. Rubio: “To the Senator from Massachusetts I would say it's impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn't offer a plan. How do you negotiate with someone who will not offer a plan and will not put it on the table?

“But the finger pointing of who has a plan and who doesn't have a plan is relevant, but it's not the central issue here.

“I would also say that in March of this year, March 30 to be exact of this year, I wrote an op-ed piece that ran in The Wall Street Journal and it outlined the things I was looking for to be a part of this debate. And I was told on March of this year that we didn't have enough time to do all those things. Although later on we found out perhaps we did, this grand bargain and I am prepared, as I stand here today, if there is a meeting going on right after this, I'd love to be a part of it.

“I am prepared to discuss the things that I believe we need to do not just to raise the debt limit. Raising the debt limit is the easiest thing. That's one vote away. The hard thing is to show the world we are serious about putting our spending in order so we can show people we'll able to pay our bills down the road.

“And that is a combination of things that I have outlined very clearly, not just on March of this year in The Wall Street Journal, but in repeated speeches on this floor.

“And those are the things, we need to do two things.

“Number one is we need to grow our economy because while the debt is the biggest issue in Washington, jobs are the biggest issue facing America. And if we could get more people back to work, we would have more people paying taxes, and if we had more people paying taxes, we'd have more revenue for government.

“And so that is the first thing we need to do, is figure out how to create jobs in America and I think there is bipartisan agreement on things we can do to do that.

“The President himself mentioned regulatory reform as a necessity in the State of the Union. Let's do it.

“We've all talked about tax reform. Flattening and simplifying our tax code. And if there are things in that tax code that do not belong there because they are the product of good lobbying instead of good policy, then let's go after those things. We’ve talked about that. Let's talk about that.

“I think we all agree that there has to be some changes in discretionary spending, but we also agree that doesn't solve the problem. That's a small piece of our overall budget. That we have to save Medicare because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is. That we have to save Medicaid because it goes bankrupt if we leave it the way it is.

“And I can tell you that history will back up what I'm about to say and that is that there is no government run by conservatives, Republicans, put whoever you want there, if you give government the opportunity to spend more money than it has, it will do it. It will do it every time.

“That's why I believe there are at least 20 members of the Senate in the other party who have supported some version of the balanced budget amendment and yet it's something we cannot even get a vote on much less discuss in the Senate.

“So I believe there can be compromise on those outlines but here's the last thing I would say.

“I believe my time is about to expire so let me close with this.

“Compromise is fantastic.

“I would love nothing more than to leave this building tomorrow night having said the republic still works. I was able to stand shoulder to shoulder with people from states far from mine with views different from mine but who love their country so much that we were able to come together and save it when it faced this catastrophe.

“I would love nothing more than compromise. But I would say to you that compromise that's not a solution is a waste of time.

“If my house was on fire, I can't compromise about which part of the house I'm going to save. You save the whole house or it will all burn down.

“We either save this country or we do not.

“And to save it, we must seek solutions.”

Copyright Politico 2011

Senator Marco Rubio (video) Addresses the U.S. Senate

One of the best things that the citizens of Florida have done for the United States in recent years is to send Marco Rubio to the United States Senate.

Watch this video and see Senator Rubio put John Kerry in his place when Kerry challenges Sen. Rubio on the Senate floor during the debt ceilling debates. 

Two Sisters 

We regret that the video is not transferring as it should, but click on "You Tube" and see it in its entirety.  We're working on the problem.

So, Who's Playing Politics With Our Children's Future?

The opinion below was written by the Editorial Staff of the New York Post.  Two Sisters From The Right are in complete agreement that Americans need to face reality and acknowledge that our country is in serious trouble. 

Carrying on with life and business as usual without becoming involved and informed about what is happening in Washington, is not going to make our economic crisis - the partisanship - the unnecessary overspending -  the waste, and dishonesty that pervades the nation's capital, go away simply because we don't face up to it.   The number of Americans who are unaware of the present debate in Washington is astounding.  

We are been played, but most injurious of all is the game that Washington politicos are playing with the future of young Americans.  It MUST stop!
Two Sisters

A debate America needs


By a 218-210 vote, the House yesterday passed Speaker John Boehner's two- stage plan to raise the federal debt ceiling in return for trillions in mandatory spending cuts.

As expected, the Democratic-controlled Senate then blocked it, 59-41, shifting focus back to President Obama.

The GOP bill approved in the House yesterday was reworked after conservatives rightly deemed an earlier Boehner proposal insufficient.

Those holdouts sparked a lot of rancor, but the debate they forced is one worth having -- and one that must continue at least as long as Washington's spending addiction does.

 

The president went to great pains yesterday to stress that raising the $14.3 trillion debt limit "is not a vote that allows Congress to spend more money. . . . [It] simply gives our country the ability to pay the bills that Congress has already racked up."

Bushwa.

Washington spends more than it takes in -- and that can't continue.

Indeed, it was reported yesterday that the US Treasury now has an operating cash balance of $73.8 billion -- $2.4 billion less than the cash that Apple, the computer giant, has on its books.

The reason is simple: Apple collects more cash than it spends. With Washington, it's the other way around. And increasing Washington's revenues via higher taxes does nothing to rein in spending.

As Charles Gasparino noted in these pages yesterday, the high drama in Washington is part of a debate over the size of government and the future of the American welfare state.

Republicans have made great strides -- most notably, by forcing the Democrats to take tax increases off the table and by sharply increasing the amount the Dems say they're willing to cut, albeit with some accounting sleight-of-hand.

But there's a limit to how far they can go -- given that they control only one-half of a single branch of government.

That said, the GOP is right to hold out for a two-stage plan, rather than the single debt-limit hike that Obama is demanding -- complete with threat of a veto -- in order to push the issue past the 2012 election.

Because Obama's proposal doesn't solve the problem -- it just postpones the reckoning.

So who's playing politics?

The president and the Democrats


Copyright The New York Post - July 30, 2011

In Senator Obama's Words.



Sometimes your very words come back and bite you in the derriere!

Fix Your Gaze On 2012

We ask that the article below, from  IBD Editorials,  be read objectively.  I attended the first Tea Party with Glenn Beck in San Antonio, Texas.  It was a day that will remain with me forever because in my opinion it was the day that America's "silent majority" found its voice.  The Tea Party has accomplished the unimaginable.  Now it is time to regroup and prepare for the battle to save America from the clutches of Barack Hussein Obama and his minions. 

We are NOT the majority in Washington, D.C. YET!  The Democrats in the Senate and a Democrat president still outnumber us.  We simply cannot win every battle with those odds.  We should also not be willing to sacrifice our country for the sake of stubborn pride.   

If we bide our time, play our cards right, and do not become too complacent with our past accomplishments and the power that we have gained since the Tea Party was formed, we can defeat the Socialists and Marxists who threaten our very independence, indeed our Republic and the way of life we have always enjoyed.  Remember Proverbs 16:18 - "Pride goeth before destruction, And a haughty spirit before a fall."

Sister One

Editorial: Tea Party, Fix Your Gaze On 2012

Posted 07/29/2011 06:54 PM ET

Debt Battle: The Tea Party has proved its power — and its principle. Now it's time to declare an imperfect battlefield victory in 2011 and regroup for the more important struggle of defeating President Obama in 2012.

Champions of smaller government, low taxes and a freedom-driven economy shouldn't expect whatever the end result of "Boehner 2.0" is to be worth very much cheering, especially after Harry Reid's Senate gets through with it.

But with the clock ticking on the federal government's debt deadline, Tea Partyers should take whatever half-loaf now comes their way.
They've demonstrated that theirs is one of the most formidable grassroots movements in American history. What they stand for is right, and would make our Founding Fathers proud. And they've demonstrated that they're the real deal, not shills for those who are a little right of center within the Republican Party.

Bismarck might not be the Tea Party's favorite historical figure, but his advice has never been more pertinent than here and now: "Politics is the art of the possible."

Tea Partyers shouldn't lament that their preferred Cut, Cap, Balance approach, which passed the House, is impossible to get enacted into law in 2011; rather, they should take pride in realizing that because of their movement, real spending reform is indeed politically possible — just not this year.

They're poised to be a part of replacing Barack Obama with a Tea Party president. But that won't happen if they let Obama shift the blame for this economy to Tea Party-beholden GOP congressmen. What'll happen in that case is very likely the collapse of the Tea Party as a serious force.

Leaders of this great movement should know better than anyone that the war against spending is a long one. Even if by some miracle, $3 trillion or $4 trillion in cuts did materialize this year, we're still talking about government debt less than a decade from now approaching $30 trillion. This debt ceiling conflict is only the opening shot of their People's Revolt against such madness.

Entitlement reform and elimination of wasteful agencies, not to mention the possibility of a Balanced Budget Amendment being ratified by the states, are all battles that lie ahead. But they are battles that will be won only with control of both the White House and Congress.

What the Senate and House agree to is unlikely to include a BBA. Still, the Tea Party should take it, declare a partial win for its agenda and get to work ousting Obama in pursuit of the completion of their goals. GOP internecine warfare only wastes ammunition that will be needed next year — for the real fight.

As Sun Tzu advised, "He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious." For the Tea Party, now is the time to lock and load and wait till next year.

Copyright IBD Editorials, July 2011

"White Privilege" Is A Myth

While reading our various journals and blogs today, we came accross this article written by Selwyn Duke, for The American Thinker.  We felt it was a fantastic follow up to yesterday's article. 
Two Sisters

July 28, 2011

The Myth of White Privilege

By Selwyn Duke

Author Selwyn Duke

Something must be wrong. My finances are in shambles; mainstream newspapers won't publish my pieces; and, no matter how much I try to convince Fox News that they need male eye candy as well, they just won't give me a show. Then I gaze into the mirror at my alabaster complexion and say, "What's wrong with this picture? I'll have to address this at the next White People's Meeting."

 

Of course, it isn't really true that all we Caucasians get together in a big conference hall somewhere and, rubbing our hands together with devilish glee, conspire as to how we're gonna get ourselves some'a that there white privilege. Yet you wouldn't know it listening to egghead academics, media mouths, and uncivil rights agitators.

Put "white privilege" into a search engine and no small number of results will be for ".edu" URLs, which means that our mental institutions of higher learning are busy teaching "critical race theory" and ideas such as "Whites are taught not to recognize white privilege" and that, as this University of Dayton site informs, white persons have a "special freedom or immunity from some [liabilities or burdens] to which non-white persons are subject[.]" There is also something called "The White Privilege Conference" and a website devoted to it (I actually had to log on to make sure it wasn't a spoof site, but truth is stranger -- and stupider -- than fiction). And American Thinker recently wrote about an event called "Erasing White Privilege," during which whites sat around in a room confessing their collective oppressor sins while "people of color" discharged rage, "yelling at them" and "preaching." Ain't Obama's post-racial America grand?

Of course, I don't imagine there are many plumbers, supermarket workers, or forklift operators at such meetings -- and not just because they actually have to work. It's also because they know something:

White privilege is a myth.

Let's look at the facts. Because of the fashionable discrimination known as affirmative action, whites (males especially) are often untouchables in the job market. And examples are legion. Talk-show host Michael Savage has often mentioned that after he earned his Ph.D., he had trouble finding a job in his chosen field and was told in so many words that "white men need not apply." I could also mention a junior-high-school friend of mine whose test score was too low to qualify for the specialty high school I attended and the black student who gained admission with the exact same score. Or read this essay by Professor Louis Pojman, who cites the case of a brilliant Ph.D. philosopher who was denied a tenure-track position because the university in question had to hire a "woman or a Black." Then there is the Dayton, OH police department, which recently discarded its recruit exam and the scores of 748 people who passed it because not doing so would have resulted in too many whites being hired.

And there is social discrimination as well. While black comedians can use derogatory terms for whites such as "cracker," white comedians who use corresponding anti-black racial epithets risk career destruction. A racial slur isn't even necessary for a white person to incur the thought police's wrath.

 Sportscaster Jimmy "the Greek" Snyder lost his job in the 1980s for, while tipsy at a restaurant, offering an unsophisticatedly stated opinion as to why blacks are great athletes. Even more ridiculous, Washington, DC mayoral staffer David Howard was pilloried and had to resign his position (he was later rehired) for using the word "niggardly," which is of Scandinavian origin and means "cheap," during a staff meeting. Golf commentator Kelly Tilghman was suspended for two weeks for innocently using the term "lynch" when describing what young players might have to do to beat Tiger Woods. And university student Keith John Sampson was charged with "racial harassment" for reading a book about the Ku Klux Klan in the presence of black colleagues. It didn't matter that it was an anti-KKK book.
There is also a trove of government programs designed to aid minorities -- such as those geared toward minority-owned businesses -- but no corresponding help for whites. And, as whistleblowers recently revealed, our Department of Justice has long been ignoring voting-rights cases when the victims have been white.

This is where the white-privilege propagandists may say, "But, wait, whites are wealthier than other racial groups and occupy most positions of power and prestige. Why do you think that is?!" This is the same reasoning leftists use when claiming that the large number of blacks in prison proves discrimination in the criminal/justice system. But let's see how valid this circumstantial argument really is
.
The median income of Jewish Americans is approximately twice that of their non-Jewish countrymen. Additionally, while only about 40 percent of high-school graduates attend college, the rate among Jews is 85 percent. Jews also occupy positions of power at a rate greatly in excess of their two percent of the population. Yet should we speak of "Jewish privilege"? It would be more instructive to note a secret of Jewish people's success: They place great emphasis on education and workplace achievement.

And what about blacks' dominance in mainstream sports? Wouldn't it be ridiculous to talk about "black athletic privilege"?

Group-specific success isn't just an American phenomenon, either. As Professor Walter Williams wrote:

[D]uring the 1960s, the Chinese minority in Malaysia received more university degrees than the Malay majority - including 400 engineering degrees compared with four for the Malays, even though Malays dominate the country politically. In Brazil's state of Sao Paulo, more than two-thirds of the potatoes and 90 percent of the tomatoes produced were produced by people of Japanese ancestry.

So while we could prattle on about Chinese privilege in Malaysia or those privileged Japanese boys from Brazil, it would be wiser to accept a simple truth: There is simply no evidence that all groups can succeed equally in every endeavor.

And this brings us to the real prejudice at work here. Whether it's Jewish Nobel Prize-winners, blacks in the athletic arena, or something else, we generally give credit where it is due.

Except when the relatively successful group is white people.
Then they are guilty -- of discrimination, oppression, and victimization -- and will never be proven innocent. Their success just must have come at the expense of others, no matter what the facts say.

As for oppression, what is the endgame here? Many foreign nations have enacted hate-speech laws predicated on the idea that expressing negative sentiments, true or not, about a group can ultimately lead to its persecution. Well, another privilege whites don't have is a dispensation from the laws of man's nature. And when they are constantly and unfairly maligned as deserving not their successes but only contempt for being the source of the world's woes, it's not hard to figure out what the consequence will be.

Contact Selwyn Duke

Achieving The American Dream

Quite often liberals accuse conservatives of being "one sided." Their claim is that we only read what those of like mind write, and listen only to conservatives. The following is proof that such is not the case.

What makes most conservatives differ from liberals is the fact that they have the wisdom and maturity to weigh both sides of the issues and then choose what is best for the United States and the American people. Unlike special interests groups who have just the one cause, or a single agenda that they want addressed while receiving preferential treatment, we right wing conservatives read all, so that we can present a truly unbiased opinion. How often have we heard, "Oh, NO! I'd never watch Fox News, they're so one sided?" They're not. Having watched all newscasts we can assure with much certainty that Fox News is indeed, the most fair of all. The same argument is used when referring to conservative blogs.

Still think we're one sided? Here's a glimpse at an email shared within a conservative group. Notice that the article in question was published by the latest conservative smearing partnership in the world of so called journalism; The Huffington Post and America Online, who by the way reported a pre-tax loss of $11.2m for the quarter. The company said Huffington Post "exceeded budgeted revenue" in the first quarter. Also, page views on Huff Po have plummeted since it was sold to AOL. I suppose that if we're going to throw figures around, we should note that our economy is in pretty bad shape, and everyone, not just minorities is suffering. The email below just happened to be written by Sister Two to our small thread of conservative friends. We felt the subject was a good way to end our hiatus and return to our usual blogging.

Stories like this (below) seldom point out the fact that many of these "minorities" or "non-whites" are immigrants who are a lot better off here in the U. S. than they were in their own countries. Many of them are uneducated, unskilled and have no interest in speaking English fluently or assimilating into American culture. The wealth gap will continue to widen as long as we mollycoddle immigrants and minorities instead of encouraging them to accept the fact that the American dream is best achieved through education and hard work, not through entitlement programs and preservation of their cultural heritage.

Many minorities/immigrants are ambitious and hard-working, but running little neighborhood businesses like restaurants, landscaping services, convenience stores, and nailshops is NOT going to make them millionaires. If they want to achieve real wealth.....the kind that will put them on the same level as wealthy whites....they are going to have to earn college degrees and wear suits and carry briefcases and work their way up the ladder of success the way most wealthy people do.

What angers me most is that liberals will use stories like this one to prove that Obama is right.....that things are unfair in America, that wealth must be redistributed, etc. etc. etc.

What BS!!

I'm not wealthy, but I have absolutely no problem with the gap between MY income and someone who earns millions. That's how America works. We are the land of opportunity, but our intelligence, our capacities, our talents....and even our LUCK.... are NOT equal. When we were promised a piece of the proverbial pie, no one said all the wedges were going to be the same size.


Wealth Gap Between Whites, Minorities, Widens to Greatest Level in a Quarter Century


WASHINGTON -- The wealth gaps between whites and minorities have grown to their widest levels in a quarter-century. The recession and uneven recovery have erased decades of minority gains, leaving whites on average with 20 times the net worth of blacks and 18 times that of Hispanics, according to an analysis of new Census data.
The analysis shows the racial and ethnic impact of the economic meltdown, which ravaged housing values and sent unemployment soaring. It offers the most direct government evidence yet of the disparity between predominantly younger minorities whose main asset is their home and older whites who are more likely to have 401(k) retirement accounts or other stock holdings.
"What's pushing the wealth of whites is the rebound in the stock market and corporate savings, while younger Hispanics and African-Americans who bought homes in the last decade – because that was the American dream – are seeing big declines," said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin-Madison professor who specializes in income inequality.
The median wealth of white U.S. households in 2009 was $113,149, compared with $6,325 for Hispanics and $5,677 for blacks, according to the analysis released Tuesday by the Pew Research Center. Those ratios, roughly 20 to 1 for blacks and 18 to 1 for Hispanics, far exceed the low mark of 7 to 1 for both groups reached in 1995, when the nation's economic expansion lifted many low-income groups to the middle class.
The white-black wealth gap is also the widest since the census began tracking such data in 1984, when the ratio was roughly 12 to 1.
"I am afraid that this pushes us back to what the Kerner Commission characterized as `two societies, separate and unequal,'" said Roderick Harrison, a former chief of racial statistics at the Census Bureau, referring to the 1960s presidential commission that examined U.S. race relations. "The great difference is that the second society has now become both black and Hispanic."
Stock holdings play an important role in the economic well-being of white households. Stock funds, IRA and Keogh accounts as well as 401(k) and savings accounts were responsible for 28 percent of whites' net worth, compared with 19 percent for blacks and 15 percent for Hispanics.
According to the Pew study, the housing boom of the early to mid-2000s boosted the wealth of Hispanics in particular, who were disproportionately employed in the thriving construction industry. Hispanics also were more likely to live and buy homes in states such as California, Florida, Nevada and Arizona, which were in the forefront of the real estate bubble, enjoying early gains in home values.
But those gains quickly shriveled in the housing bust. After reaching a median wealth of $18,359 in 2005, the wealth of Hispanics – who derived nearly two-thirds of their net worth from home equity – declined by 66 percent by 2009. Among blacks, who now have the highest unemployment rate at 16.2 percent, their household wealth fell 53 percent from $12,124 to $5,677.
In contrast, the median household wealth of whites dipped a modest 16 percent from $134,992 to $113,149, cushioned in part by a stock market recovery that began in mid-2009.
"The findings are a reminder – if one was needed – of what a large share of blacks and Hispanics live on the economic margins," said Paul Taylor, director of Pew Social & Demographic Trends. "When the economy tanked, they're the groups that took the heaviest blows."
The latest data come as President Barack Obama and congressional leaders try to reach a deal to avoid a U.S. default on its financial obligations after Aug. 2. Democrats and Republicans have been wrangling over proposals that could cut trillions of dollars from programs such as Medicare and Social Security; they are divided over whether to bring in new tax revenue, such as by closing corporate tax loopholes or increasing taxes for the wealthy.

The NAACP and other black groups urged Obama to resist deep cuts to housing assistance or safety net programs, saying it would disproportionately hurt urban areas with high poverty and unemployment. The U.S. poverty rate currently stands at 14.3 percent, with the ranks of the working-age poor at the highest level since the 1960s. Some analysts believe the poverty rate will climb higher when new figures are released in September.
"Typically in recessions, minorities suffer from being last hired and first fired. They are likely to lose jobs more rapidly at the beginning of the recession, and are far slower to gain jobs as the economy recovers," said Harrison, who is now a sociologist at Howard University. "One suspects that blacks who lost jobs in the recession, or who have tried to help family members or relatives who did, have now spent whatever savings or other cashable assets they had."
Other findings:

_About 35 percent of black households and 31 percent of Hispanic households had zero or negative net worth in 2009, compared with 15 percent of white households. In 2005, the comparable shares were 29 percent for blacks, 23 percent for Hispanics and 11 percent for whites.

 _Asians lost their top ranking to whites in median household wealth, dropping from $168,103 in 2005 to $78,066 in 2009. Like Hispanics, many Asians were concentrated in states like California hit hard by the housing downturn. More recent arrivals of new Asian immigrants, who tend to be poor, also pushed down their median wealth.

_Across all race and ethnic groups, the wealth gap between rich and poor widened. The share of wealth held by the top 10 percent of U.S. households increased from 49 percent in 2005 to 56 percent in 2009. The threshold for entry into the wealthiest top 10 percent, however, dipped lower: from $646,327 in 2005 to $598,435.
The numbers are based on the Census Bureau's Survey of Income and Program Participation, which sampled more than 36,000 households on wealth from September-December 2009. Census first began publishing wealth data from this survey, broken down by race and ethnicity, in 1984.

As one reads the Huff Po report above there is a sense that minorities' income have decreased because of some implied, racism or discrimination. The same statistics about Asians as reported in the Huff Po were reported as a simple matter of fact in the blog 8Asians . There was no mention of the NAACP pleading with Obama It was objectively reported without a hint of complaint or recrimination. In the same blog the following was observed:

“Asian American teens spend an average $140.97 per month on fashion, the most of any ethnic group, while white teenagers spend the least amount ($111.58). Latinos spend the most per trip–$98.20–while again, whites spend the least ($81.41).

"Across all race and ethnic groups, the wealth gap between rich and poor widened."This statement from the article above, when read alone states a great deal that is overlooked. ACROSS ALL RACE and ETHNIC groups, which indicates that among those affected, whites must also be included. Let's face it folks, all but the obscenely wealthy are hurting in this recession.
It is a fact that whites have been a majority in the US for generations. They have had a head start acquiring their wealth arriving to these shores earlier, and being a driving force in its success. Another factor is their faith in the stock market and their investment in programs such as 401Ks.  Many minorities are not willing to take the risk, gamble on the market or invest in tax deferred programs.  Our country has always welcomed immigrants who come here legally, with the intention of assimilating and becoming American citizens.

It is also ironic that these statistics have changed for the worse during the tenure of America's first minority president who was elected on the promises he made of Hope and Change. We are now seeing through studies such as that of the Pew that the change that was promised was not what voters expected it to be.

We went to the Pew Research Center Website and found the following:

We ask that Americans read objectively, research their subject, and study all of the facts before coming to a conclusion. If you're reading this blog, you have Internet access. This is 21st Century America. Isn't it time that we stopped dividing ourselves and instead became just, unhyphenated Americans? Shouldn't we just treat one another as equals,  unite in a common goal, and stop the politicians and the media from using us as pawns in their power game? Shouldn't all of us have the same goal - to achieve the American Dream? 

Your Are Not Entitled To What I Earned

Roll out those crazy, hazy, lazy days of summer,

Those days of soda, and pretzels and beer,

Roll out those crazy, hazy, lazy days of summer,

You'll wish that summer could always be here!

Lyrics by Charles Tobias, music by Charles Carste

Many of us remember Nat King Cole singing that catchy tune, and it did represent our summer days of years ago.  We no longer feel that summers are hazy or lazy, but they sure are crazy.  They're not crazy with fun filled activities as the song implied, but rather crazy with worry about employment, finances, health care, Social Security for the aged, and just being able to have enough money to meet our families' needs and to survive.  They are crazy days because we have an administration that has done nothing to improve our country's financial woes, but rather has taken steps to bring this nation down - to lose it's exemplary global status and make our monetary status nearly incomprehensible to the common man.

Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Michael Boskin sounds an alarming warning of what we can expect in the days ahead.  Obama's talk of "taxing the rich" will have a greater impact on "middle class America."  We object to Obama's theories that those of us who worked hard, and gave up much to earn our income, should be forced to share it with those who lacked incentive and initiative to earn their own.

Our thanks to our friend Bill for bringing this enlightening article to our attention.  As we sisters try  to enjoy our grand children's summer vacations, we have little time for original prose.  However,  it is our goal to bring to our readers some of the best of the web.

Two Sisters

Get Ready for a 70% Marginal Tax Rate
From the Wall Street Journal

Some argue the U.S. economy can bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers than what we're headed for without spending cuts.

By MICHAEL J. BOSKIN

President Obama has been using the debt-ceiling debate and bipartisan calls for deficit reduction to demand higher taxes. With unemployment stuck at 9.2% and a vigorous economic "recovery" appearing more and more elusive, his timing couldn't be worse.

Two problems arise when marginal tax rates are raised. First, as college students learn in Econ 101, higher marginal rates cause real economic harm. The combined marginal rate from all taxes is a vital metric, since it heavily influences incentives in the economy—workers and employers, savers and investors base decisions on after-tax returns. Thus tax rates need to be kept as low as possible, on the broadest possible base, consistent with financing necessary government spending.

Second, as tax rates rise, the tax base shrinks and ultimately, as Art Laffer has long argued, tax rates can become so prohibitive that raising them further reduces revenue—not to mention damaging the economy. That is where U.S. tax rates are headed if we do not control spending soon.

The current top federal rate of 35% is scheduled to rise to 39.6% in 2013 (plus one-to-two points from the phase-out of itemized deductions for singles making above $200,000 and couples earning above $250,000). The payroll tax is 12.4% for Social Security (capped at $106,000), and 2.9% for Medicare (no income cap). While the payroll tax is theoretically split between employers and employees, the employers' share is ultimately shifted to workers in the form of lower wages.

But there are also state income taxes that need to be kept in mind. They contribute to the burden. The top state personal rate in California, for example, is now about 10.5%. Thus the marginal tax rate paid on wages combining all these taxes is 44.1%. (This is a net figure because state income taxes paid are deducted from federal income.)

So, for a family in high-cost California taxed at the top federal rate, the expiration of the Bush tax cuts in 2013, the 0.9% increase in payroll taxes to fund ObamaCare, and the president's proposal to eventually uncap Social Security payroll taxes would lift its combined marginal tax rate to a stunning 58.4%.

 

Martin Kozlowski

But wait, things get worse. As Milton Friedman taught decades ago, the true burden on taxpayers today is government spending; government borrowing requires future interest payments out of future taxes. To cover the Congressional Budget Office projection of Mr. Obama's $841 billion deficit in 2016 requires a 31.7% increase in all income tax rates (and that's assuming the Social Security income cap is removed). This raises the top rate to 52.2% and brings the total combined marginal tax rate to 68.8%. Government, in short, would take over two-thirds of any incremental earnings.

Many Democrats demand no changes to Social Security and Medicare spending. But these programs are projected to run ever-growing deficits totaling tens of trillions of dollars in coming decades, primarily from rising real benefits per beneficiary. To cover these projected deficits would require continually higher income and payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare on all taxpayers that would drive the combined marginal tax rate on labor income to more than 70% by 2035 and 80% by 2050. And that's before accounting for the Laffer effect, likely future interest costs, state deficits and the rising ratio of voters receiving government payments to those paying income taxes.

It would be a huge mistake to imagine that the cumulative, cascading burden of many tax rates on the same income will leave the middle class untouched. Take a teacher in California earning $60,000. A current federal rate of 25%, a 9.5% California rate, and 15.3% payroll tax yield a combined income tax rate of 45%. The income tax increases to cover the CBO's projected federal deficit in 2016 raises that to 52%. Covering future Social Security and Medicare deficits brings the combined marginal tax rate on that middle-income taxpayer to an astounding 71%. That teacher working a summer job would keep just 29% of her wages. At the margin, virtually everyone would be working primarily for the government, reduced to a minority partner in their own labor.

Nobody—rich, middle-income or poor—can afford to have the economy so burdened. Higher tax rates are the major reason why European per-capita income, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, is about 30% lower than in the United States—a permanent difference many times the temporary decline in the recent recession and anemic recovery.

Some argue the U.S. economy can easily bear higher pre-Reagan tax rates. They point to the 1930s-1950s, when top marginal rates were between 79% and 94%, or the Carter-era 1970s, when the top rate was about 70%. But those rates applied to a much smaller fraction of taxpayers and kicked in at much higher income levels relative to today.

There were also greater opportunities for sheltering income from the income tax. The lower marginal tax rates in the 1980s led to the best quarter-century of economic performance in American history. Large increases in tax rates are a recipe for economic stagnation, socioeconomic ossification, and the loss of American global competitiveness and leadership.

There is only one solution to this growth-destroying, confiscatory tax-rate future: Control spending growth, especially of entitlements. Meaningful tax reform—not with higher rates as Mr. Obama proposes, but with lower rates on a broader base of economic activity and people—can be an especially effective complement to spending control. But without increased spending discipline, even the best tax reforms are doomed to be undone.


Mr. Boskin is a professor of economics at Stanford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He chaired the Council of Economic Advisers under President George H.W. Bush.

Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Obama, The Taxman Cometh

We found this article written for The American Thinker to be a reflection of what most of our friends and readers feel about the current situation in Washington, D.C. We agree wholeheartedly with the premise that Obama must be defeated in 2011.
Two Sisters



By Ralph Alter
for The American Thinker

The grim determination with which Barack Obama and his minions continue to pursue tax increases for Americans brings to mind a story told of Mulla Nasruddin, a satirical Sufi sage thought to have lived in the 13th century.

The tale is told of a tax collector who fell into the reflecting pond on his way into the Treasury building. Unable to swim and weighted down with the gold he had extracted from the local citizenry, he flailed about wildly while crying for help. A group of men formed a human chain, hand-to-hand and reached out to the tax collector, imploring him to: "Give me your hand!"

The tax collector ignored them and continued to thrash about. They again entreated him to "Give me your hand!" The tax collector continued to ignore the men and began to sink beneath the surface.

Finally Mulla Nasruddin saw the commotion and approached the scene. The men told them of their inability to rescue the tax collector and asked the great sage to help them. Agreeing to help, Naruddin installed himself at the end of the chain and reached out to the tax collector saying:
"Take my hand." The taxman did and was safely pulled to solid ground.

The lesson, of course, is to realize that one can never ask the tax collector to give you anything: he only knows how to take. Obama and his allies in the Party of Take are the modern personification of the tax collector interested only in what they can take from the American people: Automobile companies, the incandescent light bulb, our national pride and now, even greater taxes are in Obama's line of sight. I suggest we follow the Biblical wisdom of the synoptic gospels and render unto to Obama what is Obama's.

Based on his performance in office thus far, the only thing Taxman Barry has coming is a permanent vacation from the Presidency starting in 2013. It can't get here soon enough.

Ralph Alter is a regular contributor to American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/07/obama_the_taxman_cometh.html

Obama's Second Battlefront Against Americans

by Rich Carroll

Muslims praying in New York

We are all now quite familiar with Obama's first assault on “we the people;” the Cloward-Piven method of destroying capitalism by overwhelming our system with massive government spending. His communist mentors taught him well.

Phase II, or shall we say “part II of his pincer movement” is strengthening his Mohammedan brothers. He began this campaign in earnest from day one of his presidency by financially supporting Hamas, the group squatting on land stolen from Israel, and dedicated to picking-up where Hitler left-off; killing Jews. Obama has now stepped-up his Muslim Brotherhood campaign by enlisting the services of his other Saul Alinsky disciple useful idiot Hillary Clinton, who met with Obama's pal Ekmeleddin Ihsanoalu, head of the 57 nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to concoct something straight out of a George Orwell novel. Are you ready? Anyone calling a murdering Muslim a “murdering Muslim” will be charged with blasphemy. How's that for a set of gnads? “Together we have begun to overcome the false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of religion. We are pursuing a new approach based on concrete steps to fight intolerance wherever it occurs,” Secretary Clinton said. I wonder if that “false divide” is the fact Muslims murder on average 400 Christians per week since 911 and that the penalty for carrying a Bible in most Islamic nations is death? Mrs. Clinton, I realize you'll get a ton of Muslim cash for siding with these murdering bastards, but at least TRY to explain your “false divide.”

Pardon me while I split a rib laughing here but when a murderous cult keeps killing people because they are not Muslim, I have the “freedom of speech” to mention these atrocities. But let's consider the source: Obama. He doesn't want his Mohammedan bro's disrespected, or the truth about their murderous agenda revealed. We will face a sad day in America when my friends at www.thereligionofpeace.com can't post the weekly slaughter figures from the hands of maniacal Muslims. Once Islam buys, pays off, pushes, cajoles or blackmails this nasty anti-American administration into limiting free speech, Obama's job, will be complete and we as a sovereign nation are DONE.

All this nonsense about Islamophobia, is that due to fragile Muslim egos or simply their way of bullying us and laughing about it? Fragile egos don't strap bombs around their children; I'll go with the later. Alas, however, no matter how many children or adults get slaughtered in the name of “Islamic Jihad” we are to keep our traps shut and continue to allow it like good little dhiminis. Don't you DARE mention Infidelphobia, the desire to kill Christians and Jews; that would be “blasphemous.” No, Islam prefers to run over us, like the picture with this article of Muslims clogging the streets of Manhattan, New York to pray to Allah. Bet your week's paycheck that if these people were Christians they would be arrested by the bus-load.

A recent study by the New York Police Department noted that mosques are becoming increasingly violent, especially those with high levels of Sharia adherence called “Salafi ideology.” These are the mosques where believers wear mostly Arab clothing (not western garb) and contain more violent anti-West pamphlets and materials. I cannot find any backlash on this extensive report but I feel certain NY's finest were somehow tagged with the label “Islamophobes” for printing the report. But, back to Obama, the guy who invites “Salafi ideology” high ranking Muslims to join him in YOUR White House for Ramadan dinner.

Obama fails to prosecute 911 mastermind “KSM” and fails to prosecute Ft. Hood assassin Nadal Hassan, and fails to prosecute GITMO Muslim prisoners, yet orders his Justice Department to defend Muslims in court cases around the U.S. See a trend? Islam will continue to aggressively pursue us on our home turf as long as they perceive our President is “on their side.”

Let's drop the charade and pretense: This guy in our White House is purposely trying to destroy our country; one way or another.

A great reference for those who want to know more:

www.meforum.org/2931/american-mosques “Sharia and Violence in American Mosques”

Copyright 2011 - Rich Carroll

It is the End of An Era for the USA



Did you ever think that a cartoonist would place the
figure on an Astronaut on the unemployment line,
even a a joke?  This cartoon by Michael Ramirez is so
very real, and so very sad.
It is the End of An Era for the USA.

We were in Junior High School and High School in 1961 when president John F. Kennedy excited the country with his goal to beat the Soviet Union into space and to land a man on the moon.  It seemed that every one was supportive of the program and anxious to see if it could be done.  Youngsters had played with rockets for years and now many wanted to grow up to be astronauts.  Of course the competition with the U.S.S.R. fueled our nation's desire to be the first to land a man on the moon.

In 1969 we were newlyweds when we heard Astronaut Neil Armstrong declare, "That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind."
Tragically President Kennedy was assassinated in November of 1963, and did not see his dream realized.  However Americans felt a wonderful sense of pride and accomplishment.  We'd made it to that new frontier, and the American Space Program and NASA have always been a source of inspiration and pride in achievement to all Americans.

Sadly, Barack Hussein Obama has cut the funding to the Space Program and now the only way Americans will fly in Space again will be by "hitching a ride" from the Russians whom we had beaten to the moon.  Hopefully once Obama is defeated in 2012, the damage he had done to our country can be reversed.

Below is a brief history of the American Space Program from the Kennedy Library.  We thought it wise to publish it here for those who've forgotten, and perhaps for those who are to young to have lived during those exciting years.
Two Sisters

JFK SPACE PROGRAM

JOHN F. KENNEDY
Presidential Library and Museum

 

 

In 1961, President John F. Kennedy began a dramatic expansion of the U.S. space program and committed the nation to the ambitious goal of landing a man on the moon by the end of the decade.  

In 1957, the Soviet Union launched the satellite Sputnik, and the space race was on. The Soviets' triumph jarred the American people and sparked a vigorous response in the federal government to make sure the United States did not fall behind its Communist rival.
A new space program, Project Mercury, was initiated two years later, during President Dwight D. Eisenhower's administration. Seven men were selected to take part in the program: Scott Carpenter, Leroy Gordon Cooper, John Glenn Jr., Virgil "Gus" Grissom, Walter Schirra Jr., Alan Shepard Jr., and Donald "Deke" Slayton. Project Mercury's goals were to orbit a manned spacecraft around Earth, investigate the ability of astronauts to function in space, and recover astronauts and spacecraft safely.
Then, in 1961, the nation suffered another shock when Soviet cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin became the first man to orbit the Earth. The United States, it seemed, was still falling behind.

President Kennedy's Challenge

President Kennedy understood the need to restore America's confidence and intended not merely to match the Soviets, but surpass them. On May 25, 1961, he stood before Congress to deliver a special message on "urgent national needs." He asked for an additional $7 billion to $9 billion over the next five years for the space program, proclaiming that "this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before the decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth." President Kennedy settled upon this dramatic goal as a means of focusing and mobilizing the nation's lagging space efforts. Skeptics questioned the ability of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) to meet the president's timetable. Within a year, however, Alan Shepard and Gus Grissom became the first two Americans to travel into space.

An American in Orbit

On February 20, 1962, John Glenn Jr. became the first American to orbit Earth. Launched from Cape Canaveral, Florida, the Friendship 7 capsule carrying Glenn reached a maximum altitude of 162 miles and an orbital velocity of 17,500 miles per hour. After more than four hours in space, having circled the earth three times, Glenn piloted the Friendship 7 back into the atmosphere and landed in the Atlantic Ocean near Bermuda.
Glenn's success helped inspire the great army of people working to reach the Moon. Medical researchers, engineers, test pilots, machinists, factory workers, businessmen, and industrialists from across the country worked together to achieve this goal. By May 1963, astronauts Scott Carpenter, Walter Schirra Jr., and L. Gordon Cooper had also orbited Earth. Each mission lasted longer than the one before and gathered more data.

To the Moon

As space exploration continued through the 1960s, the United States was on its way to the Moon. Project Gemini was the second NASA spaceflight program. Its goals were to perfect the entry and re-entry maneuvers of a spacecraft and conduct further tests on how individuals are affected by long periods of space travel. The Apollo Program followed Project Gemini. Its goal was to land humans on the moon and assure their safe return to Earth. On July 20, 1969, the Apollo 11 astronauts—Neil Armstrong, Michael Collins, and Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin Jr.—realized President Kennedy's dream.

Read more about the Kennedy Space Program here:

We believe that there will come a time when Americans will once again fly rockets, and our country will once again be First In Space.

Two Sisters