Cannibals in GOP Establishment Employ Tactics of the Left

by Sarah Palin on Friday, January 27, 2012 at 2:57pm

We have witnessed something very disturbing this week. The Republican establishment which fought Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and which continues to fight the grassroots Tea Party movement today has adopted the tactics of the left in using the media and the politics of personal destruction to attack an opponent.

We will look back on this week and realize that something changed. I have given numerous interviews wherein I espoused the benefits of thorough vetting during aggressive contested primary elections, but this week’s tactics aren’t what I meant. Those who claim allegiance to Ronald Reagan’s 11th Commandment should stop and think about where we are today. Ronald Reagan and Barry Goldwater, the fathers of the modern conservative movement, would be ashamed of us in this primary. Let me make clear that I have no problem with the routine rough and tumble of a heated campaign. As I said at the first Tea Party convention two years ago, I am in favor of contested primaries and healthy, pointed debate. They help focus candidates and the electorate. I have fought in tough and heated contested primaries myself. But what we have seen in Florida this week is beyond the pale. It was unprecedented in GOP primaries. I’ve seen it before – heck, I lived it before – but not in a GOP primary race.

I am sadly too familiar with these tactics because they were used against the GOP ticket in 2008. The left seeks to single someone out and destroy his or her record and reputation and family using the media as a channel to dump handpicked and half-baked campaign opposition research on the public. The difference in 2008 was that I was largely unknown to the American public, so they had no way of differentiating between the lies and the truth. All of it came at them at once as “facts” about me. But Newt Gingrich is known to us – both the good and the bad.

We know that Newt fought in the trenches during the Reagan Revolution. As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, Newt was among a handful of Republican Congressman who would regularly take to the House floor to defend Reagan at a time when conservatives didn’t have Fox News or talk radio or conservative blogs to give any balance to the liberal mainstream media. Newt actually came at Reagan’s administration “from the right” to remind Americans that freer markets and tougher national defense would win our future. But this week a few handpicked and selectively edited comments which Newt made during his 40-year career were used to claim that Newt was somehow anti-Reagan and isn’t conservative enough to go against the accepted moderate in the primary race. (I know, it makes no sense, and the GOP establishment hopes you won’t stop and think about this nonsense. Mark Levin and others have shown the ridiculousness of this.) To add insult to injury, this “anti-Reagan” claim was made by a candidate who admitted to not even supporting or voting for Reagan. He actually was against the Reagan movement, donated to liberal candidates, and said he didn’t want to go back to the Reagan days. You can’t change history. We know that Newt Gingrich brought the Reagan Revolution into the 1990s. We know it because none other than Nancy Reagan herself announced this when she presented Newt with an award, telling us, “The dramatic movement of 1995 is an outgrowth of a much earlier crusade that goes back half a century. Barry Goldwater handed the torch to Ronnie, and in turn Ronnie turned that torch over to Newt and the Republican members of Congress to keep that dream alive.” As Rush and others pointed out, if Nancy Reagan had ever thought that Newt was in any way an opponent of her beloved husband, she would never have even appeared on a stage with him, let alone presented him with an award and said such kind things about him. Nor would Reagan’s son, Michael Reagan, have chosen to endorse Newt in this primary race. There are no two greater keepers of the Reagan legacy than Nancy and Michael Reagan. What we saw with this ridiculous opposition dump on Newt was nothing short of Stalin-esque rewriting of history. It was Alinsky tactics at their worst.

But this whole thing isn’t really about Newt Gingrich vs. Mitt Romney. It is about the GOP establishment vs. the Tea Party grassroots and independent Americans who are sick of the politics of personal destruction used now by both parties’ operatives with a complicit media egging it on. In fact, the establishment has been just as dismissive of Ron Paul and Rick Santorum. Newt is an imperfect vessel for Tea Party support, but in South Carolina the Tea Party chose to get behind him instead of the old guard’s choice. In response, the GOP establishment voices denounced South Carolinian voters with the same vitriol we usually see from the left when they spew hatred at everyday Americans “bitterly clinging” to their faith and their Second Amendment rights. The Tea Party was once again told to sit down and shut up and listen to the “wisdom” of their betters. We were reminded of the litany of Tea Party endorsed candidates in 2010 who didn’t win. Well, here’s a little newsflash to the establishment: without the Tea Party there would have been no historic 2010 victory at all.

I spoke up before the South Carolina primary to urge voters there to keep this primary going because I have great concern about the GOP establishment trying to anoint a candidate without the blessing of the grassroots and all the needed energy and resources we as commonsense constitutional conservatives could bring to the general election in order to defeat President Obama. Now, I respect Governor Romney and his success. But there are serious concerns about his record and whether as a politician he consistently applied conservative principles and how this impacts the agenda moving forward. The questions need answers now. That is why this primary should not be rushed to an end. We need to vet this. Pundits in the Beltway are gleefully proclaiming that this primary race is over after Florida, despite 46 states still not having chimed in. Well, perhaps it’s possible that it will come to a speedy end in just four days; but with these questions left unanswered, it will not have come to a satisfactory conclusion. Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney’s conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate. The Tea Party grassroots will certainly feel disenfranchised and disenchanted with the perceived orchestrated outcome from self-proclaimed movers and shakers trying to sew this all up. And, trust me, during the general election, Governor Romney’s statements and record in the private sector will be relentlessly parsed over by the opposition in excruciating detail to frighten off swing voters. This is why we need a fair primary that is not prematurely cut short by the GOP establishment using Alinsky tactics to kneecap Governor Romney’s chief rival.

As I said in my speech in Iowa last September, the challenge of this election is not simply to replace President Obama. The real challenge is who and what we will replace him with. It’s not enough to just change up the uniform. If we don’t change the team and the game plan, we won’t save our country. We truly need sudden and relentless reform in Washington to defend our republic, though it’s becoming clearer that the old guard wants anything but that. That is why we should all be concerned by the tactics employed by the establishment this week. We will not save our country by becoming like the left. And I question whether the GOP establishment would ever employ the same harsh tactics they used on Newt against Obama. I didn’t see it in 2008. Many of these same characters sat on their thumbs in ‘08 and let Obama escape unvetted. Oddly, they’re now using every available microscope and endoscope – along with rewriting history – in attempts to character assassinate anyone challenging their chosen one in their own party’s primary. So, one must ask, who are they really running against?

– Sarah Palin

Michelle Obama’s warning to gun owners « » Print The Daily Caller

Nearly three years into President Obama’s first term in office, Michelle Obama finally said something with which I can agree.

At a recent fundraiser for President Obama’s re-election campaign in Providence, Rhode Island, the first lady told her audience:

“We stand at a fundamental crossroads for our country. You’re here because you know that in just 13 months, we’re going to make a choice that will impact our lives for decades to come … let’s not forget what it meant when my husband appointed those two brilliant Supreme Court justices … let’s not forget the impact that their decisions will have on our lives for decades to come.”

This was music to the ears of the small, affluent crowd of admirers who cheered and applauded. But to gun owners, Michelle Obama’s remarks should sound like a warning bell, alerting us to the danger ahead should Barack Obama win re-election and get the opportunity to alter the current make-up of the Supreme Court.

When Americans flock to the polls in 13 months, we will not simply decide which direction our country should take over the next four years. Rather, we will decide whether or not our fundamental, individual right to keep and bear arms will survive over the next several decades.

Currently, the Second Amendment clings to a 5-4 pro-freedom majority on the Supreme Court. Just one vote is all that stands between the America our Founding Fathers established and a radically different America that Barack Obama and his supporters envision.

If you want to read something scary, take another look at the minority opinions in the Supreme Court’s landmark Heller and McDonald decisions that struck down Washington, D.C.’s and Chicago’s unconstitutional gun bans. In the Heller dissent, four justices concluded that the Second Amendment does not guarantee an individual right to own a firearm, nor does it protect our right to defend ourselves, our families, or our property. In McDonald, the same four justices argued that the 5-4 Heller decision should be reversed.

If these four justices had just one more vote on their side, their opinion — that the Second Amendment should not exist in today’s modern society — would be the law of the land today. And assuredly, the anti-gun activist wing of the court knows how close they are to gaining the upper hand. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told a Harvard Club audience in 2009, she looks forward to the day when a “future, wiser court” overturns 5-4 decisions like Heller.

Praying for the health of five justices is not a sound legal strategy for ensuring that our Second Amendment freedoms survive the relentless legal assault that gun-ban groups are waging in courtrooms across America. We need a president who will nominate sound, originalist nominees to the high court — nominees who will preserve the freedoms our Founding Fathers enshrined in our Constitution.

If President Obama gets the opportunity to tilt the balance of the Supreme Court in his favor, we’re unlikely to see another pro-gun victory at the Court in our lifetime. Even worse, the 5-4 majorities in Heller and McDonald will be in serious jeopardy of being reversed, effectively eliminating the Second Amendment.

NRA members, gun owners and all freedom-loving Americans should heed Michelle Obama’s warning. We must spend the next 13 months working to make sure her husband doesn’t get four more years to destroy American freedom for generations to come.

Chris W. Cox is the Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) and serves as the organization’s chief lobbyist.

via Michelle Obama’s warning to gun owners « » Print The Daily Caller.

For the fools that use the Dem talking point that Sarah Palin is a quitter.

Upon her return to Alaska to resume her duties as Governor, Sarah Palin was plagued with one trumped up ethics charge after another which cost her staff dearly.

That entire campaign of BS lawsuits was meant to do nothing but hamstring the governor’s office and bankrupt Sarah Palin.

The endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration.
She saw that if she stayed on as Governor it would continue to cost the state millions of dollars in wasted time and resources to defend against false and maliciously ethics complaints and doom it to gridlock.

By the way, she had fulfilled all the campaign promises she made, i.e., ethics reform, budget cutting, earmark cutting, getting the natural gas pipeline off high center through an open, transparent, and competitive process!

In an article Sarah. Palin said:
“I said, ‘Enough. Political adversaries and their political friends in the media will not destroy my State, my administration, nor my family. Enough.’ I knew if I didn’t play their game any longer, they could not win. I would not retreat, I would instead reload, and I would fight for what is right from a different plane.”

She promised to keep the frivolous anti-Palin law suits away from the Alaskan people and to be more effective on the stump ( supporting candidates , fundraising, etc)
Sarah Palin was truthful on both accounts!

She has worked tirelessly to fight Obama’s policies and elect
conservatives; Sarah Palin was #1 in the fight and she basically
spearheaded the 2010 victory with her endorsements and rallies all over
the country.

From the moment Sarah Palin resigned the governorship of Alaska she has repeatedly offered serious policy statements on issues such as health care, the Federal Reserve’s money printing in funding our federal deficit, crony capitalism, energy independence, etc)
She was the first Republican to make a high-profile critique of the
Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing, though even earlier she had
marked the collapsing value of the dollar as one of her issues.
Sarah Palin has discussed more policy specifics in her speeches and through her writing than anyone else in the 2012 field!
She took Obama on when his approval ratings were still high and no one dared say anything negative about “the messiah”.

Candidate Guide: Where Does Rick Santorum Stand?

by National Journal Staff
Updated: January 3, 2012 | 1:23 p.m.
January 2, 2012 | 6:00 a.m.
Chet Susslin

Sen. Rick Santorum speaks to the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2012 Presidential Candidates Forum in Washington, on Dec. 7.

Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum is a social conservative and a defense hawk running to be the Republican nominee for president in a race largely defined by the domestic economy. Here is a review of some of his key policy positions.

Abortion

Santorum has campaigned for support from social conservatives by emphasizing his opposition to abortion. He supports a blanket ban on abortion without exceptions for rape or incest, he has said in public statements.

“I believe that life begins at conception and that life should be guaranteed under the Constitution,” Santorum said when asked about such exceptions during a June appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press. Santorum also said he would support criminal prosecution of physicians who perform abortions.

During his failed reelection campaign against Sen. Robert Casey, D-Pa., in 2006, Santorum expressed support for allowing abortions in cases of rape and incest or to protect the life of the mother.

In another Meet the Press appearance Sunday, Santorum explained that he supported compromise positions on abortion in hopes of moving the country toward a fuller ban. “Today I would support laws that would provide for those exceptions; but I’m not for them,” he said.

Gay Marriage

Santorum opposes gay marriage and supports amending the Constitution to impose a federal ban on gay marriages. He has argued passage of such an amendment would invalidate existing gay marriages.

Santorum famously stirred controversy in 2003 with his comments outlining his opposition to the Supreme Court overturning a Texas sodomy law in Lawrence v. Texas. The court later overruled the law.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum told the Associated Press.

“In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That’s not to pick on homosexuality. It’s not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be,” he said.

Budget

Santorum has called for a series of broad, nonspecific steps to cut federal spending. On his campaign website, he calls for cutting $5 trillion of federal spending within five years. He also calls for reducing all federal nondefense discretionary spending to 2008 levels through across the board spending cuts. He proposes freezing defense spending at current levels.

Santorum supports passage of a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution capping government spending at 18 percent of gross domestic product. He would extend a pay freeze for nondefense related federal employees for four years; cut the federal workforce by 10 percent; and slash benefits for federal workers, according to his website.

Santorum also call for a series of specific cuts to programs unpopular with conservatives. Among them are cuts for Environmental Protection Agency funding and the elimination of federal funding for Planned Parenthood (he favors directing half of this funding to support adoption instead). Santorum also calls for ending energy subsidies and “most agriculture subsidies” within four years.

Earmarks

Santorum sought earmarks while in Congress, a position other candidates have attacked. On Sunday’s Meet the Press, Santorum defended doing so by noting that federal spending has since increased. “When I left Congress, budgets began to explode,” he said.

Earmarks have never accounted for a significant portion of the federal budget, and an increase in federal spending was underway before Santorum left Congress in 2007. Santorum on Sunday continued to defend earmarking, arguing that, “there is a legitimate role for Congress to allocate resources.”

Taxes

Under what he calls the “Santorum solution,” Santorum said he would replace current income tax brackets with two rates: 10 percent and 28 percent.

In addition his plan, summarized from his campaign website, would:

• End the alternative minimum tax and estate tax

• Reduce capital-gains taxes to 12 percent, and triple the personal deduction for each child

• Eliminate a cap on deductions for losses incurred in the sale of a principal residence

• Cut the corporate income tax rate in half, from 35 to 17.5 percent

• Increase a research and development tax credit from 14 to 20 percent

• Eliminate the corporate income tax for manufacturers

• End taxes on repatriated corporate income invested for manufacturing equipment and a corporate tax on other repatriated income invested in the U.S.

Federal Courts

Santorum on his campaign website says if elected he would “call on Congress to abolish the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.” Conservatives view the court as excessively liberal and activist.

Deregulation

Santorum’s campaign website states that as president he would “roll back job killing regulations, restrain our spending by living within our means, and unleash our domestic manufacturing and energy potential.”

Santorum supports repeal of the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill of 2010. He has attributed the financial crash of 2008 in part to excessive government intervention in markets, specifically the government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Santorum has called for eliminating both entities within five years.

Entitlements

Santorum has said he supports a proposal by House Budget Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., to eventually turn Medicare into a voucher-based system where seniors would not receive coverage for healthcare services above the voucher’s value.

Santorum calls for changing the formula for adjusting Social Security benefits, raising the retirement age for younger workers and shifting Medicaid to a block grant system.

Health Care

Santorum opposed Democrats’ 2010 health care overhaul. He says he would “repeal and replace Obamacare with market-based health care innovation.”

Santorum’s health care policy, as outlined on his website, includes options touted by many Republicans, such as medical liability reform and allowing the purchase of health insurance across state lines. He calls for strengthening “patient-driven health coverage options,” such as health care savings accounts.

Islam

Santorum in March of 2010 told Bates College students that Islam is stuck in the seventh century and that people who try to modernize Islam “get killed.” When pressed on these remarks during a May debate, Santorum insisted he’s not “anti-Islam,” but recognizes the “reality” that the spreading “version of Islam” practiced in the Middle East “is not going to be one that we can deal with very easily.”

Iran

Santorum often cites his eight years on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and legislative efforts related to foreign policy, highlighting especially his aggressive stance on Iran.

On Meet the Press, Santorum said that as president he would OK bombing of suspected Iranian nuclear facilities if Iranian leaders did not agree to dismantle their suspected weapons program or allow international inspectors to review the facilities.

Santorum also said his administration “would be very open” about efforts, even covert ones, to slow or stop Iran’s program. Like most other GOP presidential hopefuls, Santorum argues the Obama administration’s reliance on sanctions to pressure the Iranian regime is inadequate.

In a CNBC blog post this fall, Santorum argued that the U.S. must work with Israel to determine the “proper military response” needed. “If that includes targeted airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, then I am prepared to authorize that action,” he wrote.

“I would work with Israel to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat immediately and put provisions in place to assist any pro-democracy uprising in Iran,” he wrote.

Syria

Santorum has said he wouldn’t suggest sending U.S. troops into Syria, where Syrian President Bashar al-Assad is cracking down on his own people. Instead, he advocated for working “vehemently and vigilantly with the people in Syria” and going after the strongman “covertly or otherwise.” This, he said, would show the Iranians that “we are going to stand up to them.”

Iraq

Like many other GOP hopefuls who have criticized Obama for pulling out virtually all U.S. troops from Iraq, Santorum said he’s “not for taking [U.S. troops] out of the region.” The administration needs “to listen to our generals—and our generals are being very, very clear that we need to continue to stabilize Iraq,” he said. “The Iraqi government wants and needs our intelligence in particular, needs force protection.”

Afghanistan

Santorum has generally criticized Obama’s plan to withdraw surge troops from Afghanistan, objecting to the administration setting limits on time and resources in the war effort.

Pakistan

Santorum said the U.S. has to step up its engagement with Pakistan and pressure the country to identify militants in its lawless border areas. “We have tolerated a lot of bad behavior on the part of Pakistan, particularly in the area of Waziristan, and we have not done what President [George W.] Bush did originally, which said you are either with us or you were against us,” he said in a May debate. The U.S., Santorum said, needs to issue an ultimatum to Islamabad: Side with the U.S., or not receive American aid.

Libya

Santorum has blasted his GOP rivals’ “very isolationist view” of U.S. engagement when it comes to Libya. “We could have been a source for good from the very get-go in Libya, but this president was indecisive and confused from the very beginning,” Santorum said in a June debate. “He only went along with the Libyan mission because the United Nations told him to, which is something that Ronald Reagan would have melted like the Old Wicked Witch of the West before he would have allowed that to happen.”

However, amid division within the U.N. Security Council, the U.S. pushed for a resolution that went even beyond establishing a no-fly zone, introducing a resolution authorizing members to deploy all necessary actions.

China

In one of the noted foreign-policy gaffes in the debates, Santorum told rival Mitt Romney in October he doesn’t want to go to a trade war with China. Instead, he said, “I want to beat China. I want to go to war with China and make America the most attractive place in the world to do business.”

Israel

Santorum, like many other GOP contenders, slammed Obama for “turning his back on Israel” and “complaining about settlements in Jerusalem, the capital of the country.” During an appearance on C-SPAN, he called for the U.S. to stand by Israel “especially at a time when it increasingly appears to be standing alone.” Referencing the Arab Spring, Santorum said the “recent dislocation of the old order in the Middle East will usher in a new one and anti-Israel elements are working overtime all across the world to take advantage of this opportunity.”

United Nations

Santorum says he has been a longtime advocate of defunding the United Nations “because evidence shows the organization to be corrupt.”

Defense Cuts

Santorum has criticized Obama for advocating defense cuts over the next decade. In April, Santorum said reductions to the military budget send the “wrong signal, wrong effort at the wrong time,” arguing that “now is not only the time to be increasing our military preparedness but to finish the task of comprehensive missile defense systems. Nothing is more helpful [to negotiations] toward peace, as Ronald Reagan showed, as overwhelming strength and defense.”

Here it is, all in one sentence

The choice, Santorum said, is “whether we will be a country that believes that government can do things for us better than we can do for ourselves, or whether we believe, as our founders did, that rights come to us from God, and when he gave us those rights, he gave us the freedom to go out and live those rights out to build a great and just society, not from the top down but from the bottom up.”

Obama vows to veto House GOP’s bill to extend payroll tax cut – Washington Times

Obama being “bipartisan”:– “We won, you lost, so shut up”– “You gotta sit in the back”–“They Bring a Knife…We Bring a Gun”–“Get in Their Faces!”–“I don’t want to quell anger. I think people are right to be angry! I’m angry!”–“Hit Back Twice As Hard”–“We talk to these folks… so I know whose azs to kick.“–“A Republican victory would mean “hand to hand combat”–“It’s time to Fight for it.”–“Punish your enemies.”–“I’m itching for a fight.”–“The Tea Party are terrorist”–“lets take these sons-of-bitches out”

via Obama vows to veto House GOP's bill to extend payroll tax cut – Washington Times.

Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org

I happened to read this comment on News Busters this morning. It was in response to Colin Powell’s attempt to lay the blame on the country’s current dilemma on the Tea Party. In my view, where it appears to some that the the conservatives in this country are just saying no to most of the current “solutions” put forward by the opposition, the time has come to stand firm to stop the traditional way that business is done in Washington. We cannot continue on our current path. The following comment speaks of compromise as it has occurred in the past and where conservatives stand relative to the subject.

POWELL: “They compromised — the Founding Fathers compromised on slavery. They had to in order to create a country.

“Right there you have the heart of the national dilemma.Old graybeards like Powell insist on a compromise. But 60 years of compromise since WW2 have delivered a $15 trillion national debt and a government system that is in a death spiral.But take Powell’s example about the compromise on slavery, of all things. While he is historically correct, he implies that we may have to accept some self-destructive evil in order to preserve the country. The compromise on slavery did indeed permit the 13 original states to form a country, but we then had to suffer a destructive civil war 80 years later in order to rectify the wrong.Beltway creatures like Powell whom I once held in high regard don’t get it. The time for compromise is over. In relative terms, the US is now at where it was in 1859, not in terms of splitting apart through secession, but in terms of the eve of another cataclysmic upheaval, this time of an economic nature. We are accelerating toward the kind of economic destructive that anti-capitalists yearn for, because they believe capitalism will ultimately destroy itself perhaps with a big shove from the extremes, opening opportunities for failed systems like communism and fascism.Neville Chamberlain believed compromise at Munich in 1938 would spare Europe another world war. It didn’t.The Old Guard in the Beltway believes that compromise will get us past this tough economic slump long enough for them to win re-election. But the simple math proves them wrong. Compromise is now merely kicking the can down the road again. Republicans and Democrats have kicked the can for decades even when the evidence of a future train wreck was irrefutable. They’ve known for decades that Social Security and Medicare would become unsustainable in the early 21st Century.And now we’ve run out of time for compromise. We need adult leadership that not even the likes of a retired general can provide.”

via Colin Powell Blames Media and Tea Party for Divisive Tone in Washington | NewsBusters.org.

Occupy Wall Street Protester Defecates On Cop Cars, Vandalizes Property, Pelosi Says “Bless Them” – Big Journalism

The link below has more examples of these degenerates who dare to be compared to the Tea Party:

More via OWS Defecates On Cop Cars, Vandalizes Property, Pelosi Says “Bless Them” – Big Journalism.

Obama Calls for Restraint by Egypt’s Christians | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier

by Keith Koffler on October 13, 2011, 12:05 pm

President Obama has responded to the Egyptian military’s massacre of Coptic Christian protestors in Cairo Sunday with a pointedly even-handed statement that calls equally on Christians and the military to show restraint.

“The President is deeply concerned about the violence in Egypt that has led to a tragic loss of life among demonstrators and security forces,” Obama said in a statement released this week. ”Now is a time for restraint on all sides so that Egyptians can move forward together to forge a strong and united Egypt.”

Incredibly, Obama is not only equating the deaths of peaceful protestors and their killers, but he is suggesting that Egypt’s increasingly persecuted Christian minority should show as much “restraint” as their tormentors and refrain from vigorously objecting to the growing abuse.

More than two dozen people, most of them Copts, were killed as security forces attacked demonstrators protesting the burning of a church.

The Egyptian military has denied the killings, but news reports, eyewitness accounts, and videos posted to the Internet contradict the claims, with footage showing armed personnel carriers ramming through crowds of protestors and a soldier firing at them. The dead, according to forensic reports, were either crushed by being run over or were shot.

Three soldiers are also said to have died, but this appears to have occurred as protestors were fighting for their lives. There can be no mistaking that this was a slaughter of civilians.

The church burning was only the latest in an escalating series of attacks by Islamists against Christians and their churches.

Obama’s statement does say that “the United States continues to believe that the rights of minorities – including Copts – must be respected.” But the moral equivalence given to the demonstrators and military signals that the White House is not yet serious about curtailing the anti-Christian violence and preempting additional brutal action by the military.

In another sign of unseriousness, Obama notes reassuringly “Prime Minister Sharaf’s call for an investigation,” even though Sharaf has already blamed the violence on a foreign consipiracy.

“It is difficult for us to consider what happened in Egypt in the past hours is due to sectarian strife, but what is for certain is that it is one of the pieces of this plot,” Sharaf said.

Some analysts fear that the Egyptian military may be promoting violence in order to give it an excuse to crack down and increase its power.

Via Obama Calls for Restraint by Egypt’s Christians | The Blog on Obama: White House Dossier.

President Obama growing isolated from his own administration – NYPOST.com

The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum.

The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sometimes only, to friend and adviser Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist.

Everybody else, including members of his Cabinet, have little face time with him except for brief meetings that serve as photo ops. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner both have complained, according to people who have talked to them, that they are shut out of important decisions.

The president’s workdays are said to end early, often at 4 p.m. He usually has dinner in the family residence with his wife and daughters, then retreats to a private office. One person said he takes a stack of briefing books. Others aren’t sure what he does.

If the reports are accurate, and I believe they are, they paint a picture of an isolated man trapped in a collapsing presidency. While there is no indication Obama is walking the halls of the White House late at night, talking to the portraits of former presidents, as Richard Nixon did during Watergate, the reports help explain his odd public remarks.

Obama conceded in one television interview recently that Americans are not “better off than they were four years ago” and said in another that the nation had “gotten a little soft.” Both smacked of a man who feels discouraged and alienated and sparked comparisons to Jimmy Carter, never a good sign.

Blaming the country is political heresy, of course, yet Obama is running out of scapegoats. His allies rarely make affirmative arguments on his behalf anymore, limiting themselves to making excuses for his failure. He and they attack Republicans, George W. Bush, European leaders and Chinese currency manipulation — and that was just last week.

The blame game isn’t much of a defense for Solyndra and “Fast and Furious,” the emerging twin scandals that paint a picture of incompetence at best.

Obama himself is spending his public time pushing a $450 billion “jobs” bill — really another stimulus in disguise — that even Senate Democrats won’t support. He grimly flogged it repeatedly at his Thursday press conference, even though snowballs in hell have a better chance of survival.

If he cracked a single smile at the hour-plus event, I missed it. He seems happy only on the campaign trail, where the adoration of the crowd lifts his spirits.