Sarah Palin pens a Facebook note on Wisconsin: 

Union brothers and sisters: this is the wrong fight at the wrong time. Solidarity doesn’t mean making Wisconsin taxpayers pay for benefits that are not sustainable and affordable at a time when many of these taxpayers struggle to hold on to their own jobs and homes. Real solidarity means everyone being willing to sacrifice and carry our share of the burden. …

Hard working, patriot, and selfless union brothers and sisters: please don’t be taken in by the union bosses. At the end of day, they’re not fighting for your pension or health care plan or even for the sustainability of Wisconsin’s education budget. They’re fighting to protect their own powerful privileges and their own political clout. The agenda for too many union bosses is a big government agenda that only serves the union bosses themselves – not union members, not union families, and certainly not the larger community. …

One final word of warning to my fellow Americans: back in 2009, I warned about what would happen if states accepted short-term unsustainable debt-ridden “Stimulus Package” funds. Accepting those funds allowed states to grow government, increase already unsustainable levels of spending, kick the can down the road on reforming entitlements, and create public expectations that they would continue financing these new mandates once the federal funds ran out. States were not in a position to grow government and take on new financial commitments then, and now the chickens have come home to roost. As goes Wisconsin today, so goes the country tomorrow.

Read the entire note here. And for more on the unfolding situation in Wisconsin, check out NRO’s Developing blog. 

You can also peruse Tahrir Square in Cairo, where as many as a million Egyptians turned out for the triumphant — dare we say Khomeini-esque — return to the homeland of Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi. He is the sharia compass of the Muslim Brotherhood and, for that matter, millions of Muslims the world over.

As John Rosenthal has been reporting at Pajamas, the anti-Mubarak protesters whom the mainstream media and the Obama administration paint as the vanguard of “democracy,” continue to display visceral contempt for Israel and Jews. “Hence,” Mr. Rosenthal observes, “the numerous portraits of Mubarak with a Star of David scrawled on his face or forehead,” and claims that  the deposed Egyptian president was an Israeli “agent” or “spy” against Egypt. It’s shocking, I know, that no one in the legacy media seems particularly interested in these facts and images, but Rosenthal provides them.

Enter Sheikh Qaradawi. The 84-year-old cleric has previously called for the destruction of Israel, endorsed suicide bombing even by women, and expressed a longing to die fighting in the jihad against the Zionist entity. As Robert Spencer recounted at FPM Wednesday in a neat summary of Qaradawi’s views, the sheikh explained in a 2009 sermon that “throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the [Jews] people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler.” Yes, according to Qaradawi, it was Allah who decided to sic Hitler on the Jews. The sheikh further implored Allah to “take this oppressive, Jewish, Zionist band of people. Oh Allah, do not spare a single one of them. Oh Allah, count their numbers and kill them, down to the very last one.”  

These views are widely known and shared in Egypt, where Qaradawi was hailed as a conquering hero at today’s massive Juma observance. He fired up the crowd with calls for the conquest of Jerusalem. No transcript yet, but MEMRI has this report.

Three cheers for “democracy”!

Last week, after agreeing to include a full $100 billion worth of spending cuts in a continuing resolution to fund the government for the remainder of the year, House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) said: “There’s no limit to the amount of money we’re willing to cut.”

Well, on Friday they appeared to have found a limit. An amendment introduced by Reps. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) and Jim Jordan (R., Ohio), chairman of the Republican Study Committee, that would cut an additional $22 billion in non-defense spending from the CR, was voted down 147 to 281. The ‘nays’ included 92 Republicans, most notably the Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.), Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) and a number of freshman members. The additional cuts would have brought non-security spending down to pre-stimulus 2008 levels, as outlined in the GOP “Pledge to America.”

Republicans who voted against the measure argued that they weren’t opposed to further spending cuts, just the manner in which the proposed amendment would achieve them. If enacted, it would have imposed across-the-board cuts — 11 percent from Legislative Branch accounts and 5.5 percent from all other non-defense accounts. Aid to Isreal would be exempted from the cuts.

Rep. Jack Kingston (R., Ga.), who called himself a “proud RSC member,” but voted against the measure, offered a familiar argument against cutting across-the-board, saying it would cede too much power to the Obama administration. “I’ve got to say to my conservative friends, when you cut across the board, who do you think is going to be in charge of where these cuts come from?” Kingston asked.

It is a familiar argument because it is the exact same rationale invoked by Senators (of both parties) who opposed a ban on earmarks. In this case, some Republicans argued that it would be better to wait and include further cuts — specific, Republican-approved cuts — in the 2012 budget that Rep. Paul Ryan (R., Wis.) will release in the spring.

Others were far more blunt in their opposition. Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.) said that across-the-board cuts were “a lazy member’s way to achieve something.” And Democrats were predictably apoplectic — Rep. Jim Moran (D., Va.) said the additional cuts would “commit this country to an economic death spiral.”

On the other side, Rep. Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), a cosponsor of the amendment, urged his colleagues to make good on their commitment to reducing the deficit. “What we’re doing here is a rounding error compared to what we’re going to have to do with entitlement spending,” he said.

Jordan said it was time for government to start making the difficult choices that American families are making on a daily basis. “It’s not pleasant to reduce spending … I get that,” he said. “But if we don’t do this, [the] future for our kids and our grand-kids is diminished.”

After the vote, Republicans on both sides of the debate sought to downplay the split within the party. Rep. Alan Nunnelee (R., Miss.), a freshman member of the appropriations committee who voted against the amendment, told NRO: “As Thomas Jefferson said ‘Every difference of opinion is not a difference of principle’… We’re committed to cutting spending, but doing it across the board is not the proper way to legislate … We need specific cuts.”

An House aide close to the RSC pointed out that in spite of the amendment’s defeat, the conservative caucus has already made a tremendous impact on the spending debate, leading the push to get $100 billion of cuts included in the bill. “Obviously we’re a bit disappointed that the votes weren’t there to go even further,” the aide told NRO. “But overall the process has been a success.”

Whatever the case, the bill that passes the House (a final vote is expected early Saturday morning) won’t get anywhere in the Senate. After all, the bill currently includes amendment to defund Planned Parenthood, the White House “czars” and their staff, and almost every aspect of Obamacare, to name a few. President Obama has threatened a veto. The next real test for House Republicans will be how they handle the impending showdown over spending that will play out from now until March 4, when the current CR expires. Will they be willing to shut down the government in the event of an impasse? Or, perhaps a better way of phrasing that is: Will Republicans be willing to accept the blame for a government shutdown? Not that they’d deserve it, but Democrats and their allies in the media have been incessantly driving this narrative, so it’s something Republicans must consider. And if not, how much will they be willing to concede to Democrats in the form of a compromise?

UPDATE: A House Republican aide tells NRO: “With all due respect, Rep. Kingston’s argument is totally incorrect. The amendment did not leave any discretion to the White House. Each and every account or program would have been reduced by a specific amount, either 11 percent for Congress or 5.5 percent for other non-security accounts.”

One thing Obama’s budget proposal does cut: $8 million for radio broadcasting of Voice of America in China. And Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R., Calif.) doesn’t like it. “It’s basically dramatically reducing the amount of information available to people in China,” he tells NRO.

A representative of the Broadcast Board of Governors, which oversees the international broadcasting of the United States government, disagrees: “The concept is to use our resources wisely, and to navigate away into an online, mobile-friendly news source, in Mandarin.” Their research suggests radio broadcasts are having almost no effect: “Only 0.4 people [in China] use shortwave [radio] on a weekly basis.” China does have, however, “the largest internet-user group in the world. “ The spokesperson concedes, “there’s censorship of the internet. There’s also long-term persistent jamming of short-wave radio.” The Board of Governors “run a web anti-censorship program,” which they will augment as communications efforts go online. “Where places are still using shortwave — Afghanistan, North Korea, etc. — we’re sticking with shortwave,” the spokesperson adds.

Rohrabacher doesn’t buy it: “It’s hard for me to believe that this big-spending administration is cutting $8 million out of foreign broadcasting for being fiscally responsible.” Instead, he suspects that, “the fact that this announcement was made so short after the visit of Mr. Hu Jintao — there’s every reason to believe that this is being done to curry favor with an authoritarian.” He admits, “I’m not an expert on the issue.” But there’s reason to believe online dissemination could backfire: “This gives the ability to track who’s reading — and they’ve already demonstrated that they will go to great lengths to find out who is using the computer system, to find out who is against the regime.” There are two faces to new media.

Voice of America’s own employees in China take Representative Rohrabacher’s perspective. The Tapei Times quotes several employees suspicious that Chinese pressure was involved, and that this could set back human rights in China.

So far, the Broadcast Board of Governor’s story — that they’re streamlining operations for maximal effectiveness, not cowering before Hu Jintao – accords with the data they’ve provided. But you never know what goes on behind the scenes…

Over on the homepage, Washington is leading Lincoln in our favorite-president poll for now–but just wait till the Polkites get the word out.

Also, don’t miss the slideshow of the presidents featuring comments by Brookhiser, Beran, Spalding, Felzenberg, Hood and many others.

I wrote today about how extraordinary it is to have a reformist Republican governor taking on public-sector unions in Wisconsin, the intellectual breadbasket of American progressivism. A couple of points made by friends via e-mail:

1)“What Walker is doing isn’t unprecedented—18 states deny collective bargaining rights to some classes of public workers, or allow municipalities to do so. Virginia and North Carolina have outright bans on public sector collective bargaining. And nearly every state has some sort of restrictions on the scope of collective bargaining– for example, in New York, pension benefits are an excluded subject from collective bargaining.”

2) “Boosting pensions is an especially attractive way for unions to increase members’ overall compensation because pensions are commitments that come home to roost far in the future, when the politicians negotiating them will no longer be in office.  Getting wage raises is harder because the must be factored into budgets immediately.  So, reducing collective bargaining to wages only is a big deal.”

When President Obama called for a new civility, I was somewhat confused. In 2004–7, the uncivil demagoguery of the Left damaged Bush; immediately after Obama’s call for civility, someone wrote an “I hate Joe Lieberman” column; now, Governor Walker–Nazi signs have appeared in Madison. Given that the country polls center-right, the hysterical style is something that the modern Left uses to counteract public opinion; Obama has condemned a methodology that is predominately embraced by his own hard-core base. (Indeed, swarming someone’s private home, or using terms like “enemy” and “punish,” are not unknown to either the younger or older Obama.) The result is the hypocrisy of condemning the incivility that will only become more useful to the Left as the election nears

In the Middle East, Obama seems not to grasp the central paradox, analogous to Jeane Kirkpatrick’s in the Cold War: The relatively pro-American authoritarians (in Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and the Gulf) are more vulnerable than the anti-American and far more savage totalitarian regimes (Iran, Syria, Libya, etc.), at least for now, because the latter are more willing to blockade the international media and to use brutal force to crack down on popular protests. Not only has the administration not appreciated how this paradox may change the strategic map of the Middle East to the detriment of U.S. interests, but it almost seems to consider the more anti-American regimes more sustainable, untouchable, and authentic, and their protesters tainted with Westernization. I don’t know how else to explain the administration’s otherwise inexplicable failure to support Iranian dissidents in 2009, or its harsh attitude toward Mubarak versus its mild treatment of Ahmadinejad, or its efforts to reach out to a rogue Syria while pulling back from a democratic Israel. 

At some point, Obama will have to see what Gov. Jerry Brown here in California has already realized: Out-of-whack public-employee compensation and pensions drain the treasury and preclude grandiose green projects and other dubious liberal programs. To put it rather crassly, the liberal calculus often works out as mostly older white guys wanting their unsustainable pension and benefit payouts while the “other” and the more needy are shorted from receiving proper public attention. Since the states cannot print money and often lose population to other states when they raise taxes, the reality is that the well-off are enjoying perks that younger and private-sector workers lack while social services and the green visions of an Al Gore or a 2008 Obama are defunded.

Finally, what distinguishes Obama’s homespun platitudes about public-sector jobs from state governors’ more honest worries is just that ability to print cash — together with the fact that Americans cannot migrate to a kindred but lower-tax nation, in the fashion overtaxed Californians flee to Texas or Utah. But pass a law that the U.S. must balance its books like the states must, or have something like a workable, low-tax Singapore off our shores, and Obama would start sounding like a Governor Brown, Christie, or Walker.

Maggie Gallagher on Mitch Daniels.

Lila Rose will be on Beck’s Fox show tonight. Abby Johnson will be on O’Reilly’s. 

After going inside Planned Parenthood with Abby Johnson here, an NRO reader in Illinois made a phone call: 

 Good afternoon. I called my local library in Wilmette in the “North Shore” of Chicago and while my local librarian did not seem pleased with my choice of book she did say they would order our local branch a copy as we do not have a copy of it and since it is new, our local share libraries would not send it’s copy to me. (I know- a run-on sentence, but it did flow as I wrote it!). Anyway, I guess my point is that if your readers- fellow National Review types- were to realize that we can help determine the types of books our local libraries have on hand to help not only with the type and direction of discourse but to help mold the minds of our youth, that would be awesome. All one needs to do is to call their local branch and request the book. Since we are are supporting the library through our tax “contributions”, they will generally order the requested book and then send notice once they have it. I have done this several times already and it is a great way to get some excellent conservative books into a not so conservative environment.  “Ask and ye shall recieve, seek and ye shall find.” 

Madison — On Valentine’s Day, over 100 students in tiny Stoughton, Wis., marched out of their classrooms and into the unseasonably warm air. They had decided to protest Wisconsin governor Scott Walker’s new bill to require higher pension and health-care contributions from state and local government employees.

As a student “union” leader barked into a megaphone in the background, one high-school junior expressed his concern for his teachers. “A lot of my teachers have been really concerned about this — they don’t know if they’re going to have jobs next year or not,” he worried.

Two days later, schools in Madison canceled classes so teachers could join 20,000 people in picketing the capitol building. A 700-student entourage from Madison East High School, urged on by their teachers, marched the three miles from their school to the capitol. Wisconsin’s MacIver Institute, armed with a video camera, asked one of the students what the group was there to protest. “We’re trying to stop whatever this dude is doing,” he eruditely explained.

This “dude” is trying to fill a $3.6 billion hole in the state’s budget by requiring state and local government employees to pay 5.8 percent of their salary towards their pensions (most currently pay nothing), and increasing their share of health-care premiums to 12 percent (double their current share). Governor Walker’s plan would also eliminate collective bargaining for almost everything except salary for government employees.

Some of the responses to Walker’s plan from legislative Democrats made our friend from Madison East High look like Winston Churchill. One state senator said the plan instituted “legalized slavery.” (Apparently Wisconsin’s benefits aren’t quite as lucrative as the slave pension plan.) A Democratic assemblyman compared Walker to Hosni Mubarak. On Thursday, with a vote on the full bill scheduled in the Senate, 14 Democratic senators delayed the vote by fleeing to a hotel in Rockford, Illinois. Before he ran for the border, Democratic senator Jon Erpenbach posted a single word on his Facebook page: “Democracy.”

In the meantime, the capitol was packed with thousands of government employees, many of whom had staged a “sleep-in” the night before. One sign-wielding protester approached a tie-wearing GOP staffer and sneered, “You must be a Republican.” He turned and asked, “Because I’m working?”

The raucous, drum-beating crowd was mostly made up of teachers, high-school kids, and University of Wisconsin students. On Thursday, school districts all over the state began canceling classes as their teachers called in sick en masse — government-employee strikes are illegal in Wisconsin — and teachers continued to bring their students to protest with them.

Of course, what the kids don’t understand is that Walker’s plan is intended to save their teachers’ jobs. Without the modest employee contributions required in the bill, Walker estimates he will have to fire up to 6,000 public employees. The teachers are in effect choosing massive job losses over moderate concessions.

In fact, that might be the silver lining in this whole imbroglio: If teachers and their students manage to succeed in killing Walker’s bill, the next government employee demonstration will be half as big.

— Christian Schneider is a senior fellow at the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

From my profile of the 22-year-old president of Live Action: 

“She is the Upton Sinclair of this generation,” Charmaine Yoest, president of Americans United for Life, said on a webcast hosted by the Family Research Council. Talk-radio star Laura Ingraham said Rose is “doing the work that 60 Minutes used to do. She should really get a Pulitzer,” Ingraham says, both celebrating Rose’s undercover efforts and subtly criticizing the MIA media.

Rose herself, meanwhile, isn’t complaining about media bias or governmentfunding of Planned Parenthood but is doing something about it: rallying pro-life activists and rattling the abortion industry and its advocates.

Read here. 

The Department of Health and Human Services today released new conscience regulations for health-care providers. At quick glance, one expert in the area tells me they look like a “total decimation” of George W. Bush-administration regulations. 

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops calls the news a “cause for disappointment.” The Christian Medical Association says it “diminishes the civil rights that protect conscientious physicians and other healthcare professionals against discrimination.”

Former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, a potential 2012 presidential contender, tells National Review Online that he will not run for the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D., N.M.).

“I’d be terrible at the job,” Johnson chuckles. “I’d be terrible at what has historically been a ‘belly up to the trough’ kind of deal. I like Rand Paul and all of what might be the new wave, but I don’t have any interest.”

But he will be paying attention. As the GOP Senate primary develops, Johnson would like to see a libertarian Republican rise. “There might be another Gary Johnson out there lurking,” he says. “I’m holding out hope.”

National Review is accepting applications for its 2011 summer internship. The intern will work in our New York headquarters and receive a modest but adequate salary. Duties will include sundry editorial and administrative tasks, and there will be occasional opportunities to write. The ideal candidate will be a rising college senior with an excellent academic record, some experience in student or professional journalism, and a strong, principled belief in NR’s mission. If you wish to apply, please send a cover letter, your résumé, and a few clips to nr.summer.internship@gmail.com.

When groups like the Susan B. Anthony List help make sure votes have consequences. 

UPDATE: The SBA List reaction to the vote: 

Keep reading this post . . .

Via Politico:

Speaker John Boehner Friday accused President Barack Obama and his political apparatus for “inciting” protests in Wisconsin’s captal, saying that the president is trying to “demagogue reform-minded governors.”

Boehner was referencing Obama’s deployment of his political operation, Organizing for America, to Wisconsin, where public-sector workers are protesting Gov. Scott Walker’s plan to strip them of collective bargaining rights.

Boehner said that OFA is “colluding with special-interest allies across the country to demagogue reform-minded governors who are making the tough choices that the President is avoiding.”

“This is not the way to begin an ‘adult conversation’ about solutions to the big challenges facing our country,” Boehner said in a statement. “Rather inciting protests against those who speak honestly about the challenges we face, the president and his advisers should lead.”

It’s the second statement the speaker made in response to the uproar in Wisconsin. This time he took it a step further, and likened the protests in Wisconsin to the Greece debt uprising, but noted that it is “fueled by President Obama’s own political machine.”

“Rather than trying to ‘win the future,’ the president’s political allies are trying, desperately, to cling to a failed past by fighting reforms our nation needs to liberate our economy from the shackles of debt and create a better future for our children and grandchildren,” Boehner said. “The President should make it clear to his friends that the people of Wisconsin, and states across America, can handle their own affairs without Washington special-interest money and meddling.”

After yesterday’s Wall Street Journal reported on work toward a bipartisan deal on the budget, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform sent three Republican senators a letter noting that the deal, as outlined in the Journal article, would violate their pledge not to raise taxes. The response letter from Senators Chambliss, Coburn, and Crapo strongly suggests that the senators will not support a deal that raises taxes on net. Instead they want a bill that raises revenue only by increasing economic growth. It is hard to believe (a) that tax-policy changes would generate as much increased growth and thus revenue as the dealmakers are aiming for or (b) that Democrats would ever sign a deal that includes no net tax increases and large reductions in planned spending.

Thanks for the vote are due the tea-party movement. Elections have consequences. And Lila Rose, no doubt, played a role — more than a few Republican members used her work at Live Action during the debate over the Pence amendment last night (I tweeted a bit as they talked). Rose reacts to the vote: 

We applaud those in Congress who championed the safety of women, young girls and children today, and refused to funnel hundreds of millions of tax dollars into an organization that furthers the trafficking of minors and enables sexual abusers. We now turn our attention to the Senate. Now they must examine the facts and move to pull the plug on subsidizing Planned Parenthood’s exploitation of the most vulnerable among us. The case to cease funding is crystal clear. But for any Senator who remains unsure, imagine explaining to your constituents that you voted to keep sending $350 million of their tax dollars to an “non-profit” that puts young girls in harm’s way and made $63 million in profits by performing over 300,000 abortions last year. It’s time once and for all to stop financing these activities.

Update: The National Right to Life Committee, in an about-to-be-released statement, seconds my emotion about Live Action: 

Keep reading this post . . .

In addition to a measure blocking all funding for Planned Parenthood, House Republicans have passed the following amendments to the CR:

To block EPA regulation of pollutants, 249 to 177

To defund implementation of Obamacare (Rep. Rehberg), 239 to 187

To block the use of any 2011 funds for Obamacare implementation (Rep. King), 241 to 187

To prevent the payment of salaries to public officials charged with implementing Obamacare (Rep. King), 237 to 191

To prohibit the IRS from using funds towards enforcing Obamacare provisions (Rep. Emerson), 246 to 186

It’s a tea-party victory. 

Brian Bolduc discusses the “splendid misery” of the presidency with three esteemed historians.

Phillip Hamburger finds health-care waivers for McDonald’s unconstitutional, and unjustifiable.

The Editors tell rapacious public-sector unionists and Democratic legislators to get back to work.

Kathryn Jean Lopez profiles Lila Rose.

Adam Paul Laxalt contrasts the hopefulness of the gold rush with today’s risk-averse America.

Kevin Williamson explains the harm that Fannie and Freddie continue to wreak.

Michelle Malkin says the time is now or never to avert our public-sector apocalypse.

Charles Krauthammer analyzes Obama’s budget, and diagnoses the president with a case of entitlement-crisis denial.

Mona Charen longs for a president to ditch the scalpel and take a meat ax to the budget.

The Pence amendment to defund Planned Parenthood has passed the House, 240 to 185.

The Obama administration has been seeking a way to avoid vetoing a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel. It has floated the idea of meeting Israel’s critics halfway with a U.N. “presidential statement” calling Israeli settlements “illegitimate.” Whether or not such a statement is actually issued, the very idea is a mistake. Indeed, we have here in this single idea a display of multiple foreign-policy failures of this presidency. Let us count the ways the administration’s proposed action has already injured Israel and the United States.

For one thing, the U.N. condemnation put forward by the president puts Israel, our closest ally in the region, in an untenable position. In exchange for peace, previous Israeli governments offered radical border concessions, surrendering most of the West Bank and even portions of Jerusalem. In 2005, the government of Ariel Sharon withdrew from the Gaza Strip, uprooting thousands of its own citizens. Yet all such proposals and steps toward peace have been met by Palestinian rejection, by intifadas, by suicide bombings, and by Qassam rocket fire. Isolated more than ever in the region, Israel must now contend with the fact that its principal backer in the world, the United States, is seeking to ingratiate itself with Arab opinion at its expense. Will an increasingly tenuous relationship with the U.S., at the very moment when it is becoming more vulnerable, encourage Israel to be as flexible as it has in the past, or the reverse? The answer is clear.

For another thing, even on its own terms of supposedly promoting the Arab-Israeli peace process, this is not a step forward but a step back. By taking up and embracing a core Palestinian demand, as the president has done repeatedly on this issue over the past two years, the United States is removing incentives for the Palestinians to parley with Israel at all. They are induced to believe that they can simply wait until their demands are handed to them on a silver platter by Washington. The administration’s contemplated compromise in the U.N. thus would punish Israel and reward Palestinian intransigence.

The harm wrought by the Obama administration’s diplomatic decisionmaking is doubly driven home by the fact that it is taking place in that chamber of double-standards, the United Nations. For decades the U.N. has been the epicenter of the worldwide campaign to delegitimize Israel, a campaign that has often devolved into naked anti-Semitism. Democratic and Republican administrations alike have long resisted this vicious business. It was Daniel Patrick Moynihan who in 1975 denounced the U.N.’s “Zionism Equals Racism” resolution as an obscenity, and it was Pres. George H. W. Bush who in 1991 won its repeal. The Obama administration is abysmally remiss in departing from our proud tradition of standing by a democratic ally when the world’s most unsavory regimes gang up on it.

Finally, the episode reveals a strategic failure that transcends mishandling of the Israeli-Palestinian problem alone. For its first two years, the Obama administration downplayed the importance of promoting democracy around the world. Reflexively shunning the foreign-policy approach of its predecessor, it sought to engage adversaries like Iran and North Korea, coddle autocratic allies, and distance itself from democratic friends.

True, over the last few days the administration has belatedly recognized that, in the wake of the revolutions sweeping the Arab world, supporting aspirations for human freedom might be important. It has finally, for example, issued strong statements condemning the Iranian ayatollahs for their violent suppression of the democratic opposition. But one step forward, two steps backward. President Obama’s decision to lean hard on Israel has the U.S. once again currying favor with dictators and distancing itself from democrats.

Putting forward a misbegotten U.N. statement as a compromise was a tactical, strategic, and moral mistake. The administration may conceive of its action as a low cost, split-the-difference gesture, but it has harmed an ally, sent a dangerous signal of inconstancy to allies and adversaries alike, and betrayed basic American principles. That’s three mistakes in one. I hope in the end the U.S. vetoes the anti-Israel resolution, but significant damage has already been done.

Join the rally for Governor Walker tomorrow. 

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano will not run for Senate:

Remember all that talk over the past week that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano was thinking of running next year for the open Senate seat in her home state of Arizona?

Well, you can forget about it. The former Democratic governor of Arizona’s apparently not interested. “Secretary Napolitano told senior Democratic Party leaders earlier this week that she will not seek Arizona’s open U.S. Senate seat in 2012. She cares deeply about Arizona, but the Secretary intends to continue doing the job that the President asked her to do – protecting the American people from terrorism and other threats to our country,” says DHS Spokesman Sean Smith, in a statement Friday. “She’s focused on continuing to strengthen our counter-terrorism initiatives, border security, immigration enforcement, transportation and cyber security, and disaster preparedness.”

Another Democratic Senate seat opens up.

Just before the election last fall, David Kahane and I had the honor of addressing a Tea Party group in southern Illinois, just across the river from St. Louis. We were reading from Rules for Radical Conservatives and taking questions from the audience.

The area, which includes E. St. Louis, Ill., is called, I’m told, the Chicago of southern Illinois, a place ridden with the kind of thuggish corruption we’ve all now come to know and love from Windy City Democrats — and will see more of when Rahm Emanuel wins his all-but-rigged mayoral election.

Far from being the leftist-memed collection of snarling racists, the Tea Party folks I met were exactly the kind of salt-of-the-earth types a rational person might have expected, including a contingent of World War II vets sporting military caps commemorating service aboard ship.They were polite and reasonable, but there was an unmistakeable note of concern in their questions, concern about the future of the country they had fought for — and for which some of their friends had died.

My words to them were simple: The revolution against the pathology of Obamaism was going to have to come from the heartland. The coastal enclaves were too divorced from reality, too bedazzled by the smile and the snake oil, too wedded to the redemption myth, a myth that played to their own insecurities, if not to their own past and current sins. 

And lo, it was the Midwest that rose up mightily in the last election, unleashing a mighty wind that blew west to Death Valley and east to the Hudson River. Not only did the character of the congressional delegations change but, more important, the state legislatures and governorships turned over as well — with the result that we are now witnessing in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin is the Spanish Civil War of our own Cold Civil War, the testing ground for the combat to come in 2012. The Left understands this, which is they why are pouring their Organizing-for-America Lincoln Brigades into Madison; they know that if they lose there, they will lose the larger war. That if the coercive power of the public-employee unions can be broken in Wisconsin, with its history of homespun (as opposed to Alinsky) progressivism, it can be broken elsewhere.

This isn’t just a fight about the teachers’ union, or even about the pusillanimous Democratic legislators who, like the hapless Jerry Lundegaard in Fargo, have fled the jurisdiction. This isn’t even really a fight about labor unions. It’s a fight about the nature of our federal union, and which is to be master: Barack Obama or the Constitution that he swore (twice!) to uphold.

Here’s one for Wisconsin legal theorists and practicioners to ponder. While a lot of folks are pointing Governor Walker in the direction of Calvin Coolidge’s firing of the police strikers way back in 1919, there is probably not a legal mechanism for the governor to fire “striking” school teachers. However, what about filing a suit to declare the Democratic legislators who have fled the state to have vacated their legislative seats? They are clearly derelict in their duties to the public. Would there then be a quorum without them to proceed? Or could the governor call new elections to fill their seats, or better still, make emergency appointments?  

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R., Tenn.) has just now introduced an amendment to the continuing resolution that would cut non-defense discretionary spending by an additional $22 billion compared to President Obama’s 2011 budget request. It would roll back federal spending to just below 2008, pre-stimulus levels.

The amendment would acheive the additional cuts through across-the-board reductions — by 11 percent to Legislative Branch accounts and 5.5 percent to all other non-defense accounts. Aid to Isreal would be exempted from the cuts.

The measure is backed by members of the Republican Study Committee, the conservative caucus largely responsible for the push to cut spending by a full $100 billion for the remainder of the fiscal year. “Families and businesses have had to cut back, and they’re demanding that Washington do the same,” RSC chairman Jim Jordan (R., Ohio) said in a statement. “This week, Republicans are taking the first step to getting the country’s finances in order. This is already a good bill, but I believe we can make it even better.”

Additional sponsors of the amendment include Reps. Jordan, Jeff Flake (R., Ariz.), Scott Garrett (R., S.C.), Mike Pence (R., Ind.), John Campbell (R., Calif.), Jeff Duncan (R., S.C.), Frank Guinta (R., N.H.), Tim Huelskamp (R., Kan.), Steve Southerland (R., Mo.), and Joe Walsh (R., Ill.).

UPDATE: Rep. Dan Lungren (R., Calif.), a member of the RSC, just denounced the amendment on the House floor, saying across-the-board cuts are a “lazy” approach to fiscal responsibility. More on Lungren’s opposition here. And he’s not the only Republican opposing it, Blackburn fighting an uphill battle on this one.

UPDATE II (2:50 p.m.): The amendment fails, 147 to 281. More than 90 Republicans, including Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R., Va.) and Majority Whip Kevin McCarthy (R., Calif.) voted ‘nay.’

That from a top aide to Minority Leader Pelosi, per Politico:

A high-ranking aide to House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) told Democratic chiefs of staff that a government shutdown is more likely than not, according to attendees.

Speaking at a regular meeting of the top aides to House Democrats, Pelosi’s floor director, Jerry Hartz, offered up his assessment that the odds favor inaction before the government runs out of money, sources said. A shutdown would only happen if the House and Senate can’t reach a deal on the continuing resolution that expires on March 4.

Pelosi, of course, is preemptively blaming the Republicans:

“It is a failure. It’s really a failure to say we have taken the leadership of the Congress of the United States and the first thing we’re going to do is shut down the government to the detriment of our people, to our security and to our country’s future,” she told reporters.

“I would hope that instead of having ultimatums and statements of ‘I’m not going to do this’ or ‘I’m not going to do that’ that we will really have a process, go forward with an approach that talks about how to keep government open, not how we intend to shut it down,” she said.

More here.

I’ve started Tyler Cowen’s e-book on my iPad. But if you want a great primer on the argument, Nick Schulz’s interview with Cowen is the perfect place to start. I’m not sure I buy Cowen’s thesis entirely either, but even if it’s wrong in parts, it helps you think about the issues more clearly. Well worth your time.

On February 22, Connecticut will hold a slew of special elections for the state legislature. The new Democratic governor, Dan Malloy, appointed two senators and six representatives to administration posts, and one incumbent senator, Thomas Gaffey of Meriden, resigned after pleading guilty to charges of larceny. These nine vacant seats will be filled on Tuesday.

Can Republicans run the table, or come close? If they do, will the results send a national message that despite the November elections, there is still a lot of voter angst over the economy?

Yes, and yes. Not helping Democratic chances is Governor Malloy, who released his budget this week, proposing over $1.5 billion in higher income and sales taxes — the largest increase in the history of Connecticut, already the nation’s last celebrant of Tax Freedom Day, and ranked as one of the most hostile states to businesses. Malloy also called for jacking spending by over 2 percent.

Into this milieu come the special elections and a group of conservative Republican candidates who are surprisingly (this is Connecticut, after all) viable, and anything but cannon fodder. Outgunned by 94–51 and 23–13 margins in the House and Senate, the GOP’s prospective gains on Tuesday won’t have major mathematical impacts in Hartford (although a 20–16 balance in the Senate could start to influence votes). But they could send a loud message nationwide — that the voter discontent registered last November is still alive and well.

Coulda shoulda woulda: We’ll hope for the best on Tuesday. By the way, among my favorite candidates is Len Suzio, seeking the Meriden senate seat abandoned by the Dem larcenist. Len is solid conservative — on the social issues he is a champion, and way back he was in the thick of the fight to prevent the state income tax. He could pull it off. Also worth watching: Tim Stewart, the popular New Britain mayor making a strong run for the empty senate seat there, and Bob Kolenberg, another true conservative seeking the vacant senate seat in Stamford. On the House side, two impressive conservative women — Linda Monaco in East Haven and Noreen Kokoruda in Madison/Guilford — are running very viable races.

As is often the case, victory will likely come down to GOTV operations. If Republicans who could be volunteering spend this weekend in couch-potato mode, look for Democrats to defy the Malloy tax-and-spend budget and keep CT a deep-blue state.

Check out Developing for all the latest updates on Wisconsin, including how Governor Walker said today that it would be “wise” for President Obama to stop trying to influence what happens. I’ll also be updating on Twitter: follow @katrinatrinko.

Stephen Bell of the Student Free Press Association:

A new study conducted by the Center for Equal Opportunity (CEO) claims Miami University and The Ohio State University discriminate based on race and ethnicity in the admissions process. …

CEO Chairman Linda Chavez said Miami and Ohio State lower academic standards to admit students from diverse racial backgrounds.

“The study shows that many, many students are rejected in favor of students with lower test scores and grades, and the reason is that they have the wrong skin color or their ancestors came from the wrong countries,” she said.

The study found Miami admits African-American students 10-to-1 over white students compared to 8-to-1 at Ohio State.

The study found at Miami median SAT scores differ between back and white students by between 110 to 166 points in what it calls the “black-white gap.”

Gaps in ACT scores between black and white students at Miami were estimated at four points.

Chavez said in addition to accepting students with lower test scores, Miami accepts students with lower high school grades to amplify its racial diversity.

When it comes to the most significant driver of the national debt — entitlement spending — President Obama’s budget, released on Monday, was an unequivocal “punt.” But now that Republicans have the ball, and appear willing to run with it, Democrats are trying to call “time out” by publicly inviting Republicans to negotiate in private.

Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle had urged Obama to take the lead on entitlement reform, at the very least by supporting the final recommendations of his own deficit commission. Otherwise, as NBC’s Chuck Todd pointed out during a White House press conference, “What was the point” of the commission?

Obama responded by accusing the political media of being “impatient,” and said he was confident the issue could be resolved in a bipartisan fashion, just as both parties were able to forge a deal on taxes during last year’s lame-duck session. “This is not a matter of ‘you go first’ or ‘I go first,’” he said. “If you look at the history of how these deals get done, typically it’s not because there is an Obama plan out there, it’s because Democrats and Republicans are committed to tackling this issue in serious way.”

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D., Md.) echoed this sentiment in his opening remarks at a House Budget Committee hearing: “It is important that the White House and the Congress, Republicans and Democrats, come together to seriously discuss and consider the ideas in the Commission’s proposal. Compromise is not a dirty word. Getting things done requires give and take. We should begin that conversation now.”

Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform and an influential conservative, has a message for the GOP: Don’t go into the back room. In an interview with National Review Online, Norquist says he’s not surprised to see Democrats calling for private negotiations, but urges Republicans to debate these issues where the public can see them.

He brings up another instance of behind-the-scene maneuvering that took place during the lame-duck session, what he describes as the “massive effort” by Democrats and the White House to pass an omnibus spending bill that would “spend all of next year’s money, take next year’s budget off the table, and give the freshman class no say on spending.”

“This was Obama and the Democrats sneering at the American people for the punishment they gave them in November,” he says. “The equivalent of undoing an election.”

Fortunately, thanks to the “heroic defense” of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), wavering Republicans were brought to their senses (Norquist half-jokingly wonders if compromising photographs were involved). Still, he says it’s a shame that voters don’t know the true extent of the Democratic chicanery. “What they wouldn’t have given to get that thing through,” he says of the omnibus. Instead, Congress passed another short-term continuing resolution that expires on March 4. House Republicans, including a freshman class of 87 members, are putting the finishing touches on a new CR that will cut more than $100 billion in spending compared with President Obama’s budget request for 2011.

On the issue of tax reform, entitlement reform, or both, Norquist says Republicans should resist the urge to cut deals with Democrats in dark rooms. Anyone who thought President Obama would pursue a more centrist tack after the lame-duck tax deal ought to abandon that wishful thinking with the release of his 2012 budget, when “the mask came off again.” Instead, the GOP should keep its sights set on the 2012 elections by releasing a “Republican plan” in order to present a clear contrast with Democrats. “This is a two-year fight, and it’s important for the Tea Party and independents to see what Republicans are doing,” Norquist says. “At the end of two years, in November, you want the American people to say: ‘We want you guys in charge.’”

The strategy makes sense, he contends, not least because, with Democrats still in control of the Senate and the White House, the GOP will be severely limited in terms of what they can realistically hope to achieve. If Democrats want to make a deal, “get it to me in writing, get me co-sponsors, then we can talk,” he says; otherwise “don’t try to negotiate with imaginary people.” In other words, beware of those who beckon into back rooms, offering vague promises of compromise.

Either way, Norquist doesn’t see much wisdom in trying to bargain with the Left. “Hoping that Democrats suddenly collapse and become reasonable and decide after 100 years to learn what sound economic policy is, is not the way to bet,” he says. “As far as tax reform goes, with Obama holding one of the three levers of power, it’s almost impossible to see how that could end well.”

So until the balance of power in Washington is altered to the GOP’s advantage, Republicans should hold fast by their principles. “Lay out a vision but do not compromise away from that,” he advises, adding: “Nothing good happens before 2012.”

She is a former Planned Parenthood clinic director. She has a new book, with an important story.

Johnson talks to NRO a bit about Planned Parenthood and our culture: 

LOPEZ: You write “we have more in common with the ‘other’ side than we might imagine.” What would you stress here, and how can there be some common cause, politically and otherwise?

JOHNSON: The common goal of both the pro-choice and pro-life movements is to help women in crisis. Both have employees and volunteers who desire to help women, men, and their families and provide the best care for them in their time of need. The difference is the ways that they provide care for these women, men, and families. 

LOPEZ: You go on to write that there is “goodness, compassion, generosity, and self-sacrifice on the other side.” But there are irreconcilable differences, aren’t there?

JOHNSON: The difference is that the abortion industry desires to help women in their time of need and crisis by providing not only reproductive health care, but abortion services if a woman is not ready, or not in a position financially or emotionally, or not stable enough to bring a child into her life. The pro-life movement has the same desire to help women in their time of need and crisis but looks beyond the immediate needs of the woman and considers the life of the child and the woman’s family as well. The abortion industry provides a “quick fix” and focuses more on the immediate effects of the crisis, while the pro-life movement focuses on the long-term effects of the woman’s choice and the reality of what is best for the woman, rather than providing an “out.”

LOPEZ: Your “Never trust a decision you don’t want your mother to know about” jumped out at me because it seemed opposite to the Planned Parenthood message. So much of the line from advocates of Planned Parenthood and legal abortion seems to be “no one needs to know.” Is it?

JOHNSON: Planned Parenthood advocated for the woman’s right regardless of the family’s wants or opinions. Planned Parenthood advocated for the “my body, my choice” motto. I believed in this while I worked at Planned Parenthood, but now, realizing the effect my two abortions had on my family (my parents now knowing that they would have had two more grandchildren if I had not made the choice to abort), I advocate not only for women but for their families, including the life that is inside of them during a crisis-pregnancy situation. While I understand that making an abortion decision is sometimes embarrassing, shameful, and very difficult to follow through with, and that this makes it hard to reveal this decision to the people who would be affected by that decision, it is usually harder to live with the already-made decision to abort that cannot be reversed. If a decision is being made that needs to be kept a secret, oftentimes, that may not be the best decision in the long run. This has been voiced as the truth by thousands, if not more, of post-abortive women, including myself.

LOPEZ: You describe yourself as having had “regret, pain, brokenness, shame, and even blood on my hands.” How much of that is the story of every woman who walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic?

JOHNSON: I have heard countless testimonies of post-abortive women, including women who had abortions at Planned Parenthood, who feel the same “regret, pain, brokenness, and shame.” I have also heard many testimonies of former abortion-clinic workers and providers who feel as though their hands were involved in hundreds and thousands of abortions; they feel the same, as if they have “blood on their hands” due to their actions while involved in this industry that took the lives of so many innocent children and lied to women about the truth of their pregnancies and the children in their womb. The good news is that there is complete healing for post-abortive women, their families, and people involved in the abortion industry through the sacrifice that Christ paid on the cross to bear the burden of our sins and to take our punishment away. That healing is offered even to those who have received abortion services and offered them in their health-care practice. While these feelings may always stick with those of us who have been involved, the healing is there and will take away our burden because we have a God who carries those burdens for us, if we will let Him.

There is more here. And even more in her book, Unplanned. 

Talking to a friend some years ago — a political sage — I said, “This may be hard to explain, but it’s something I sort of feel: Tell me where a candidate stands on Israel and abortion, and you’ve told me all I need to know.” My friend replied — perhaps he was humoring me, but I doubt it — “That’s a deep truth.”

I thought of this last night when reading a post from Bob Costa: wherein I learned that Sarah Palin, when talking with Rand Paul during primary season last year, brought up two issues: Israel and abortion.

I know the cool people hate her, or have little use for her. Which makes me, happy to say, so very uncool.

UPDATE/CORRECTION: A reader writes to tell me that, if I had read more closely, it was Paul, not Palin, who brought up abortion. (Palin had brought up Israel.) The reader was none too nice about it — in the way of many correspondents — but he was quite right. Oh, well. I still think a deep truth is at work, or may be (and that I am still uncool).

Signing off! Gotta work.

I gave my take on events in Wisconsin — and Obama’s role in them — a bit earlier today in “Who’s Polarizing America?” And you’ll find Jay’s great stuff on Wisconsin if you scroll through yesterday’s Corner. But what about the Left?

There’s a fascinating debate on Wisconsin going on between Harold Meyerson and Charles Lane at the Washington Post. It’s of interest that Meyerson is a proud socialist, while Lane appears to be a Democrat unhappy with the left-turn his party has taken of late. At any rate, this debate is well worth following. Here is Meyerson’s initial op-ed, followed by Lane, Meyerson, Lane, and Meyerson.

It turns out that in the Armenian Church today is the Remembrance of the Prophet Jonah.

include real entitlement reforms so that we can have a conversation with the American people about the challenges we face and the need to chart a new path to prosperity.  Our reforms will focus both on saving these programs for current and future generations of Americans and on getting our debt under control and our economy growing.  By taking critical steps forward now, we can fulfill the mission of health and retirement security for all Americans without making changes for those in or near retirement.  We hope the President and Democratic leaders in Congress will demonstrate leadership and join us in working toward responsible solutions to confront the fiscal and economic challenges before us.

Idaho has a “superintendent of public instruction,” and his name is Tom Luna. He has proposed some measures that the teachers’ union doesn’t like, at all. And his opponents have made sure that he feels good and threatened.

Someone went to his mother’s house — his mother’s. Someone slashed his tires and spray-painted a threat onto the door. As reported in this article, Luna has said, “Family and personal property are off-limits. You don’t cross that line . . .”

Oh, yes, you do. At least some do. I will repeat what I have already said this morning: I don’t want to hear from the Left about “civility” for the rest of my life.

The public-employee unions don’t own this country. They may think they do. But we all do. Right? I hope people all across the country, even those who disagree with him, will back Tom Luna: back his right to operate unmolested.

P.S. Following events in Wisconsin and elsewhere, I think of a phrase from The Wizard of Oz: “and your little dog, too.” That’s the malevolent spirit these union jerks are expressing.

We missed and love you. I know I speak for colleagues, readers, friends. 

And colleagues and readers would not be surprised to know how beautifully you’ve cared for your loved ones. 

. . . and whether or not you were afraid to ask, Kevin Williamson supplies all the facts and debunking in his acclaimed new book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Socialism, which you may purchase directly from NR, signed and inscribed by KW, for only twenty bucks (which includes shipping and handling). Order your copy here.

Someone wrote me that the “public employees” in Wisconsin reminded her of Chávez and his goons in Venezuela. Actually, they remind me of Cuba. There, the dictatorship sends its loyalists to the homes of those suspected of not being loyalists. They scream, beat on things, denounce, and threaten. The idea is, the “disloyal” Cubans are supposed to quake in their homes, and they do. These tactics are called actos de repudio — “acts of repudiation.” They are a mainstay of the regime.

In Wisconsin, the schoolteachers and other “public employee” beauties are going to the homes of Republican lawmakers, screaming, denouncing, etc. The situation has gotten very bad. We know where you live. Yesterday, I had a talk with Sen. Randy Hopper, recorded here. Republican lawmakers have received threats, and credible ones: threats to their physical well-being. They are not disclosing their movements, whether they are sleeping in their own homes. They are working with law enforcement on how best to protect themselves and their families.

I admire these Republicans, for persisting in the face of these threats, for continuing to do the job that the voters elected them to do. It’s not easy. It would be more comfortable to give in — to give in to the screaming and violent minority. And I don’t know about you, but I never want to hear from the Left about “civility” again. Ever.

One more thing: Years ago, I left the Left, after experiencing some of life, after thinking things through. One of the main reasons I left: It was clear that, if things didn’t go their way, they wouldn’t mind violence at all. They may not commit it; but they wouldn’t mind it. There was no respect for process — democratic process. All that mattered was, “My way.”

This sign hangs in the office of freshman Michigan congressman Dan Benishek (Bart Stupak’s successor):

As Michelle Malkin wrote this week, calorie counts on menus simply do not work: A new study by the Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School found that calorie counts on menus do nothing to sway people’s food choices.

This is just the latest study to come to this conclusion — it joins a number of others showing the same results. Another recent study, conducted in Great Britain where menu labeling is mandatory (as it will be in the United States thanks to Obamacare’s passage), found customers’ menu choices stayed the same despite the information provided to them. A study conducted at NYU’s School of Medicine and published in the February 15, 2011, edition of the International Journal of Obesity found that menu labels have little effect on the food choices made by either teens or their parents.

In 2009, a joint NYU/Yale study published in the journal Health Affairs examined 1,100 customers at four fast-food restaurants in poor neighborhoods in New York City (where obesity rates are high) and found that only half the customers noticed the prominently posted calorie counts. Of those, only 28 percent said the information had influenced their ordering; nine out of ten of those said they had made healthier choices as a result. But upon inspection of their receipts, researchers found that these same customers who said they made healthier choices actually ordered items that were higher in calories.

Michelle Obama has a favorite study that she likes to cite when pressing the agenda of restaurant regulation. Last year, the White House Task Force on Obesity issued a report recommending calorie information on menus. Citing an unnamed study, the report said “when presented with calorie information (how many calories are contained in each menu item) and a calorie recommendation (how many calories men and women of varying activity levels), people on average order meals with significantly fewer calories.”

Hmm, interesting. Where in the world did this groundbreaking study come from? It seems to counter the findings of these large university studies that all seem to be in agreement.

Further digging reveals that this study was conducted in one Subway sandwich shop on only 292 participants, the vast majority of whom where adult white males, 25 percent of whom admitted they were currently dieting. This isn’t exactly research upon which major policy decisions should be based.

Yet this study will do for the White House Task Force on Obesity, and it’s clearly good enough for the first lady. In the face of larger, more scientifically produced studies, they will cling to these minuscule studies to defend their regulatory tendencies.

The fact that no one is benefiting from these regulations seems not to matter. Neither does the fact that these unnecessary regulations only hurt business and raise prices for consumers.

This Associated Press report on events in Wisconsin is interesting. For example, we read, “As Republicans tried to begin Senate business Thursday, observers in the gallery screamed ‘Freedom! Democracy! Unions!’” That’s what you want in the gallery, right? Screaming. How democratic and civilized.

We also read, “Protesters clogged the hallway outside the Senate chamber, beating on drums, holding signs deriding Walker and pleading for lawmakers to kill the bill.”

“Beating on drums”? Beating on drums? These were public-school teachers, right? In any case, they were public employees. Beating on things is what little kids do when they’re not getting their way, or demanding something. Of course, the beating of drums is meant to menace and intimidate too.

America’s liberals must be very proud. Mobbing the legislature and beating on drums! Bear in mind that the Left is the thinking, sophisticated, and humane party in America.

The AP story — and remember that this is supposed to be a news report from a wire service — contains the line, “Elsewhere in the Statehouse, Democrats showed up in the state Assembly chamber wearing orange T-shirts that proclaimed their support for working families.”

“Working families,” huh? What do you call the families with taxpayers who support what Governor Walker and the Republicans are trying to do, and oppose the unions and their thuggish tactics? Non-working families?

Disgusting, absolutely disgusting.

P.S. One thing about the schoolteachers who called in “sick,” shut down school systems, and went rallying and beating at the capitol: They weren’t working.

I always get a few readers who are appalled at my suggestion that the only way we will ever see the development of a moderate Islam is to let Islamists take power and demonstrate to their own people that Islam is a dead end in the modern world (kind of like Obama’s election finally leading many on the fence to finally see the complete bankruptcy of leftism). They chide me because of what would happen to the Copts and the other Christians left in the Middle East.

As the descendant of Christians chased out of the Middle East, I hardly need any reminding. But our current strategy is certainly not working out for Christians there. First, of course, “democracy” in Iraq has caused half the remaining Christians to flee to more congenial countries like Syria, where the utter lack of democracy ensures a much safer life for Christians. Now we have this latest outrage against a Christian in one of our other client states in the region, Afghanistan. Under my strategy, Said Musa would almost certainly be facing the same fate — but we wouldn’t be paying for it! The Afghan justice ministry’s chief of staff says “They must be sentenced to death to serve as a lesson for others” — and we’re providing his salary and our men are bleeding and dying to protect him from his fellow barbarians in the Taliban.

Ralph Peters, in John Miller’s latest “Between the Covers” interview, has it right: “It’s a worthless war, a useless cause, without thought, without a strategy, by people who are operating on sheer inertia.” The sooner we scrape Afghanistan off our shoes, the better.

During the riots in Greece last year over budget cuts, a common refrain was, “There’s no Tea Party movement in Europe; America is different.” Well, now is the moment to test this proposition. If ever there was a time for the Tea Party movement to take to the streets, it’s now in Ground Zero in Madison, Wisconsin — and other state capitals, from the sound of the news that the unions want to organize rallies in Ohio and Indiana as well. Just winning a big election isn’t enough.