In The News

Two Sisters From The Right return from an extended hiatus by bringing you some of the best internet reads on pertinent subjects in the news this week.  We welcome your input and submitted writing as well.  Two Sisters will not endorse any GOP candidates until one is chosen at the GOP convention.  We are very distraught by the happenings in the Republican Party and will put our effort behind supporting the ABO Movement...ANYONE BUT OBAMA.

Sister One for Two Sisters From The Right


 

Mark Levin Tells Media 'Go to Hell' - 'You’re Not Going to Succeed in Driving Rush Limbaugh From the Airwaves'

By: Noel Sheppard      Newsbusters

Conservative talk radio host Mark Levin took to the airwaves Friday to defend Rush Limbaugh from all the media attacks he's receiving over his comments regarding Georgetown University law student Sandra Fluke.
"You’re not going to succeed in driving Rush Limbaugh from the airwaves...In fact, I think I speak for tens of millions of Americans when I say you can go to hell" (video available here, partial transcript follows)

Read More

I Stand Uncorrected

By Jay D. Homnick onPolitical Hay

Thanks to the Republican presidential race, political correctness has taken a beating it won't recover from.

All around me I hear nothing about this presidential primary campaign but those onomatopoeic grr words. You know the ones…grimacing, grinding, griping, grouching, grousing, grudging, grumbling, grumping. Romney's chauffeur is parking the Cadillac too conspicuously and Gingrich's bellhop is collapsing under the weight of his baggage and Santorum's priest is tripping over his cassock and Paul's wizard is suffocating under his hood. No one is any good and you don't need a crystal ball to see Obama's Inaugural Ball.
But to be honest, I am having the time of my life. Perhaps foolishly, I have stopped keeping score of the hassling and the tussling between the guys. Whoever wins will have my vote unless his name is Paul, on his road to non-intervention in Damascus, in which case my anti-anti-Semitism will prevail over my anti-anti-Constitutionalism. I can sleep at night with either Romney or Gingrich or Santorum as President, with the added bonus that Romney may put me to sleep by day as well.
My overall sense remains one of exultation. These candidates may or may not defeat Obama, but two of them, Gingrich and Santorum, have accomplished a far more significant victory, one which may hold greater ramifications. Between them they are dismantling, piece by brittle piece, the structure of political correctness that has stifled our debate in this society for decades. Read More

Andrew Breitbart: How Do We Replace the Irreplaceable?

by John Ondrasik

I loved Andrew Breitbart.
Ironically, it took an Andrew Breitbart to give me the courage to say publicly that I could love an Andrew Breitbart.

Andrew had the back of those who, worried about a backlash to their livelihood. He was the bodyguard, the kid who stood up to the bullies. He was the bouncer you couldn’t elbow out of the doorway.
His best friend was his childhood pal and business partner, Larry. For many of us, though, Andrew was our best friend. If we didn’t have a brother, he filled that void. If we needed a mentor, he fit the bill. If we desired a third child, there was Andrew. For all of his incredible energy and gifts, it was, at times, like caring for a wild-eyed teenager with no sense of time and space. We didn’t mind taking him in, in fact, we arm-wrestled for the chance.

Many of us, including Andrew, live and lived for our nation’s military. I’ve often asked young American soldiers how they deal with the death of a buddy in combat. How do you keep going, do your job, continue to live and push forward? The answers are all profound and different. I will never have the courage of our nation’s bravest, but for the first time in my life, I have a sense of that empty foxhole. That notion, that though the fight is right, a chunk of me is gone — never to be filled.

There are great stories floating around about Andrew, and I have them too. I’m just too sad to lay them out.  Read More

WaPo laces Obama-Netanyahu summit with anti-Israel poison pills

Leo Rennert

In the run-up to President Obama's summit with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, the president gave an interview to Atlantic Magazine during which he ratcheted up his warnings that the United States is prepared to use military force, if necessary, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
"When I say we're not taking any option off the table, we mean it," Obama declared. Asked to elaborate on what options he has in mind, he replied: "It includes a military component." That's news, coming from a president of the United States.

Obama said he's confident that Israel takes him at his word. "The Israeli government recognizes that, as president of the United States, I don't bluff," he remarked. "Both the Iranian and the Israeli government recognize that when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapons, we mean what we say."

Obama also made news by emphasizing that blocking Iran from going nuclear "isn't just in the interests of Israel, it is profoundly in the security interests of the United States" because of critical risks that an Iranian nuclear arsenal could leach such weapons to terrorist organizations and start a nuclear arms race in the most volatile region of the world.  Read More

Misusing The Constitution...Again

It has come to this, again.  As long as this administration is in power people will feel free to trample upon the Constitutional rights of others because they see it done daily by those who have sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution.

This story needs no explanation really.  All of us who are Conservatives are familiar with the "Pigford Affair"  and Shirley Sherrod.  Ms Sherrod is one of the prime examples of how this administration has, and continues to play the "race card,"  which has set back race relations in this country at least one complete generation.

A lot of good it did  for all of us who argued and marched for Civil Rights and equality for all.  Now, year later we see that all these years, regardless of their upward mobility in a society which once brutally discriminated them, members of the black community have harbored a bitter resentment against us, regardless of our actions, and judging us only by the color of our skin.

Is this what we call reverse discrimination?  Is it payback time?

Andrew Breitbart the subject of this article, and Ben Shapiro the author of the piece are journalists of impeccable credentials.  We might not always agree with them, but we know that they are, unlike those on the left, incapable of publishing anything less than the truth.

Shirley Sherrod's Unconstitutional Attack on Andrew Breitbart

By Ben Shapiro

On Thursday, Feb. 10, 2011, Internet entrepreneur Andrew Breitbart, the impresario of the ACORN scandal and a growing investigative force in the conservative media, held a press conference at the Conservative Political Action Conference. At that press conference, he laid out evidence of a concerted effort by government officials, race-baiting lawyers and certain black non-farmers to defraud the federal government of millions of dollars by exploiting a legal settlement called Pigford. On Saturday, Feb. 12, 2011, Shirley Sherrod, the single largest recipient of cash from the Pigford settlement, filed a lawsuit against Breitbart for defamation.

Sherrod, you may remember, was a ranking Department of Agriculture official in Georgia. Breitbart released a video of Sherrod speaking to the NAACP, where she told a story about discriminating against a white farmer before realizing that such discrimination was wrong. The purpose of releasing the video, as Breitbart clearly stated, was to demonstrate that the same NAACP that labeled the tea party racist tolerated racism within its own ranks. The video accomplished that purpose -- members of the NAACP cheer and laugh as Sherrod describes her past racism in the video.

No matter what you think of the original Sherrod incident, Breitbart's commentary falls squarely within the protections of the First Amendment. Freedom of political speech lies at the core of the Constitution; we attack our political officials all the time without fear of reprisal. Sherrod was an outspoken public figure, one that unapologetically stated that she saw the world through the framework of Marxism.

Sherrod had indeed made racist statements in the past. In June 2009, for example, she explained to a group of college students that school integration was one of the "worst things that happened to black people" because integration undermined black self-sufficiency. She was quoted in 1996 as explaining that the federal government's role was "to be a force for keeping blacks on the land." Even in the NAACP speech at issue, she explained, "it is about black and white, but it's not."

Whether Breitbart is wrong isn't the issue here. It's whether Shirley Sherrod and her group of well-funded thug lawyers should be able to silence political opposition. Let's be frank: Sherrod's lawsuit is probably being backed by someone larger than Sherrod. Her lawyers are the famed law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. They wrote a 40-page complaint to lead things off. If Kirkland & Ellis charge Sherrod their usual rates, such a complaint probably would cost a minimum of $40,000 to produce. A full-scale lawsuit would cost Sherrod hundreds of thousands of dollars -- if she were paying.

In all likelihood, she isn't. Kirkland & Ellis just happens to be the second largest donor, through its employees, to President Barack Obama's 2008 campaign committee and leadership political action committee. Its lawyers are committed liberals, and as a Chicago-based firm, it is heavily tied in to the Democratic Party. As Andrew Breitbart drew the left's spotlight in 2009 and 2010 by defending the tea party, intensely pursuing Obama administration corruption and exposing liberal allies from unions to Hollywood, the left took notice. And they went to their favorite firm, Kirkland & Ellis, to deliver the knockout punch.

Unfortunately for the left, the Constitution stands in the way of such efforts. Sherrod's lawsuit is frivolous in the extreme. She can demonstrate no malice, because no malice existed; she can demonstrate no libel, because Breitbart's writings were fair comment on matters of public interest. Further, Sherrod has no damages -- she has been offered a promotion and made a cottage industry out of playing the victim.

The incredible cynicism of this lawsuit is obvious. The real culprits here are the members of the Obama administration who forced Sherrod's resignation -- and Sherrod even acknowledges that inconvenient fact in her lawsuit. Yet nobody in the Obama administration is a named defendant.

Andrew Breitbart has vowed that he will not be silenced. Thank God for the Constitution, which will allow him to continue his work, despite the legal bills he will have to incur. And shame on Shirley Sherrod for allowing herself to be used as a pawn in a chess match designed to shut down conservative criticism of the Obama administration once and for all.




©Creators Syndicate