Monica Crowley

You Say You Want A Revolution

This is a tale of two revolutions.

The first, unfolding now across the Middle East, primarily in Egypt, where 30 years of brutal, despotic rule have finally pushed the people too far. Nearly a week ago, Egyptians began pouring into the street, demanding a greater voice in how they were governed, greater economic opportunity, and far more respect for their human rights. This movement originally was spontaneous, borne out of a similar movement in neighboring Tunisia that resulted in the relatively peaceful removal of their longstanding dictator. The revolt in Egypt has since taken a dark turn, with the Islamist forces of the fearsome Muslim Brotherhood laying in wait while joining up with Iranian patsy Mohammed al-Baradei to look like they're a reasonable governing partner. If the MB assumes power in any way, the people of Egypt will be consigned to the perpetual darkness of Islamist rule.

Team Obama flails. Like the majority of Egyptian protesters (who do not want an Islamist government), they grasp in the descending darkness. They are torn between our interests (having a stable regime with good ties to the U.S. and a continuing respect for the peace agreement with Israel) and our values (having a free Egypt with full and fair elections, a thriving free market economy, and a full respect for human rights.) Barack is literally between a Barack and a hard place.

The Egyptian people are trying to skake off three decades of iron fist governance. There has been violence. There has been looting. There has been brutality and imprisonment and death. This is what happens when dictatorships fall. But what replaces it might be much, much worse. In 1979, the Iranian people had similar complaints about the Shah. They revolted, and President Carter stood back, betrayed our American ally, the Shah, and thought he could manage the ascent of the Islamists. He was wrong.

The moment is dangerous. This could go any possible way, but the immediate future looks to be more volatile.

Contrast what we're seeing in Egypt with what we've seen in the United States over the past two years. Unprecedented spending has led to record $1.5 trillion deficits as far as the eye can see, a national debt that has been increased by nearly $5 trillion, the undemocratic passage of ObamaCare, a massive new entitlement that the clear majority of Americans did not want and knows we can't afford, bailouts, wasteful "stimuli", and an overall cavalier disregard for the will of the people. Like the Egyptian people, the American people took to the streets when they were being abused by their leadership. Unlike the Egyptians, Americans did it peacefully, through the Constitutionally guaranteed processes of peaceful assembly and expression. We have also done it peacefully at the ballot box, removing the abusive party and replacing it with the party we hope will respect our wishes and bring the country's public finances under control. We have also done it peacefully through the judicial process, filing lawsuits against the most egregious abuse, ObamaCare. Today, another federal judge, Roger Vinson in Florida, ruled that "because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void."

Because we have a durable Constitution that provides for individual liberty, a limited government, and guaranteed protected avenues for the redress of grievances, we do not have blood in the streets or brutality inflicted on the people in the name of the regime.

The people of Egypt may want to get there. But they have a long way to go, and they're going to have to steer around the evil, atavistic forces of Islamism and tyranny to achieve it. It took us years and a revolutionary war to break free of the tyranny that oppressed us, and it took decades for those behind the Iron Curtain to do the same. It will not be easy, and it could fail.

As the Beatles put it: "You say you want a revolution/Well, you know/We all want to change the world..."

We went through a violent revolution in order to establish a system in which the rule of law--and not of men---was the law of the land. The Egyptians are going through their own revolution. They are changing the world. But the question remains: which way will it go?

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us for another freewheeling edition of "The McLaughlin Group" this weekend. Check your local listings for time and channel, or visit www.McLaughlin.com for more information.

The Revolt Spreads

The desire for greater individual freedom is intrinsically human. It's also contagious.

Last week, a purely spontaneous revolt began in the North African nation of Tunisia. Fed up with decades of corrupt and oppressive authoritarian rule, Tunisians took to the streets. To their amazement, the army stood down and refused to fire upon them. Ben Ali, the dictator who had kept them poor and enslaved, fled, and his regime collapsed.

Millions of Arabs saw that. They also saw the Iranian revolt that began in 2009 and continues, in fits and starts, beneath the jackboot of the mullahs. They also saw the establishment of a somewhat decent, representative government in Iraq. It may be shaky. It may be fractious. It may be hit with violence now and again. But it exists.

The Iraqi and Tunisian examples are proving to be powerful draws. In the last few days, the revolt for greater political freedom, economic development, and basic human rights has spread to Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Yemen, Libya, and Saudi Arabia. The tyrants who rule there are quaking in their robes. Are the mobs going to grow? Will their security forces join with the demonstrators? Should they flee? Will they survive? Is this the end of the line?

As I wrote yesterday, this revolt is fundamentally different from previous Middle East mass protests (see "Sandstorm"). Another critical difference has emerged: like the Iranian revolt, these are driven primarily by the middle class and by young people. They are communicating via Facebook, Twitter, and other social media. The regimes are trying to shut those sites down, but the kids will always find a way. Two-thirds of Egypt's 80 million people are under the age of 30. One Egyptian Facebook user posted, "We have started the path to freedom and we will not stop."

The current revolts are still driven by those forces, but now darker forces have emerged to try to co-opt and control them. The Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamist forces have joined the fray, with an eye on capitalizing on the chaos in order to seize power. This is a very dangerous moment.

We were caught flat-footed when the people suffering behind the Iron Curtain revolted, leading to the collapse of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. We were similarly unprepared when the Iranian people took to the streets to demand a greater voice. And we've been stunned again by this rapid turn of events in the Arab world.

Which way will these revolts go? Will they succeed in overthrowing longstanding dictatorships? Will they be crushed? Will the dark forces of Islamism ride this to power the way they did with the original Iranian Revolution in 1979? Will the revolts go the way of greater liberty or toward Islamist extremism?

No one knows the answers to these questions yet. But we do know that the world can change on a dime. It's happening right now.

Are we ready?

Sandstorm

We've been consumed with domestic issues for quite a while. The economy remains stuck in the muck. Jobless claims rose last week by a staggering 51,000, indicating that the unemployment picture is not improving and probably won't any time soon. Foreclosures are up and housing prices continue to collapse. Yesterday the Congressional Budget Office announced that the federal government will run a record $1.5 trillion deficit this year, meaning spending is moving at such a rapid pace that we'll hit that $14.3 trillion debt ceiling sooner than anyone thought.

This is bad news, and we're all living this hideous economy every day. But there is something really big happening abroad. There are mass protests happening across the Arab world.

Yes, there have been demonstrations in the Middle East and North Africa in the past, but they were always run by the standing dictatorships to reinforce their authoritarian rule. The rent-a-crowds would chant "Islam is the solution" and cry for pan-Arabism, Islamism, or Baathism. They'd scream "Death to America" or "Death to Israel."

That's not happening this time. Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into the streets in Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Jordan, and Lebanon to protest the tyrannies that have long oppressed them and to demand political and economic liberalization. Smaller demonstrations are taking place in Libya, Algeria, and even Saudi Arabia.

All of this comes on the heels of the revolt that began nearly two years ago in Iran, where protestors demanded greater freedom and more economic opportunity.

In Iran, the regime managed to suppress the demonstrators, but their movement still roils just under the surface and could explode again at any time. In Egypt, the fearsome security forces moved against the crowds, only to have the crowds push back. And in Tunisia, the police stood down, in essence siding with their countrymen over the regime which they served.

These are breathtaking developments. President Obama---who blew it by failing to support the Iranian revolt---gave a weak shout-out to the Tunisian people during the State of the Union address. The White House put out a somewhat stronger statement. And Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been making some firm statements encouraging the democracy movements and reform while calling on the Egyptian government to refrain from using force to resolve the crisis.

The administration could be doing a lot more publicly to support those seeking greater freedom in the Arab world. For the first time, the people feel emboldened to challenge their regimes and demand change. One important caveat to this positive news: as we saw in Gaza, sometimes when the Arab world is opened to "democracy," the people choose Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood or Hamas. That is a distinct danger. And that's why the role of the American president and administration is so vital. Both publicly and covertly, the Obama administration must be working to support the people's desire for greater liberty while discouraging the ascent of the Islamists.

None of this is easy. In fact, it's extremely difficult and sensitive. But it doesn't help that as with the Iranian revolt that began in 2009, this administration seems to be caught flat-footed by these astonishing developments. Obama doesn't have a coherent standing policy on the Middle East, so when unexpected things happen, he doesn't have a clue. He's stuck managing crises rather than influencing events. This is a major deficit of leadership.

Obama is genuinely uncomfortable with the Bush policy of encouraging greater democracy abroad. For Obama, it's tainted policy. But the overthrow of Saddam Hussein allowed the Iraqi people to be liberated from exactly the kind of dictator many of these Arabs are protesting today. And although Iraq is hardly a Jeffersonian democracy, it has a relatively decent, representative government. Folks across the Arab world have seen this and thought, "If the Iraqis can have it, why can't we?"

What we are seeing today spreading across the Arab world is epic. It's a direct result of the Iraq war, for which President Bush should get full credit. Obama fought it tooth and nail, but now he's reaping the benefits of a freer Iraq and of an Arab world ready for greater freedom---if he manages it correctly.

The winds of change are blowing. It's still an open question as to which way they're going to go. But the American president must not miss another opportunity to stand for liberty, and to do whatever he can to make sure it gains footholds where it never has before.

Imus In The Morning

I'll be a guest with Don Imus tomorrow morning (Thursday) at 8:30am ET. Please tune in to the Fox Business Network or visit www.WABCRadio.com to hear it streamed live.

Freeze This!

In his State of the Union address last night, President Obama made a big show of announcing a five-year budget freeze of non-defense discretionary spending. How is this meaningless and destructive? Let us count the ways.

First, Obama is just not that into shrinking government. When John McCain proposed exactly this kind of budget freeze during the 2008 campaign, Obama dismissed the idea out of hand, calling it a budgetary "hatchet" when what was needed was a "scalpel."

Second, Obama spent the last two years increasing budgetary outlays by almost 25%. That means that the current baseline---at which he want to freeze---is nearly 25% higher than it was when McCain originally proposed the idea. No wonder Obama doesn't mind suggesting a freeze.

Third, the so-called freeze he tossed out there does NOT---I repeat, does NOT---apply to the Big Budget Busters: Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Nor does it include things like the interest payments on the national debt. In fact, his "freeze" only covers about 1/7th of the budget. The other 6/7ths of the budget will continue to explode out of control.

Fourth, suggesting a "freeze" at steeply elevated levels is insulting to our intelligence and destructive to our dire fiscal situation. Annual deficits are in the trillions, the national debt is about to smash through the $14.3 trillion ceiling, and we're hurtling toward default, and Obama suggests grabbing more cookies out of the cookie jar. The jar is empty, and he's still grasping.

Finally, the American people have spoken repeatedly and emphatically that they want the federal government not to freeze astronomical spending levels, but to cut spending---and cut it drastically. They don't want us to be so deeply in debt that we give Greece a good laugh. What Obama showed last night is that he is fundamentally unserious about slashing spending and the size of government. As if that was ever a point of suspense.

If anyone were wondering who and what Obama would be after the 2010 election, he left no doubt last night. He blew a few kisses in the direction of so-called centrism, but when it counted---on the size, scope, and spending of government---he showed us exactly who and what he is: a big government, big spending progressive. He has not changed one iota. His circumstances have changed; he's got to deal with a Republican House. But he has not had a change of ideological heart, nor has he moved to the much-ballyhooed center. He is a pure left-wing ideologue who has to pretend he likes Republicans and is willing to embrace some of their ideas. He hates it. He hates the conservative ideology. He hates the new GOP majority. He hates his new circumstances. And he hates having to compromise.

Which is why he did so little of it last night.

As the rubber begins to hit the road in the next few weeks over the federal budget and the debt ceiling, don't expect him to compromise or "come together," as Democrats have been fond of saying since they lost their majority.

Every fiber of Obama's being will fight it. If he can only bring himself to freeze a minor amount of spending, he has shown us who he is. He is who he always was.

Where They Stand

Much has been made of the Congressional seating arrangement at tonight's State of the Union address. Instead of the usual arrangement, where Republicans sit on one side of the House chamber and Democrats on the other, they've decided to mix it up, so Republicans and Democrats will be seated next to each other throughout the room. This is supposed to be a post-Tucson gesture of comity.

What it really is is a Democrat-engineered stunt. Not a single Democrat suggested such a magnanimous symbol of bipartisan graciousness while they controlled the House. When they sat in the House and the Senate with big majorities, they practically made the Republicans sit in the hallway. Not to mention that when actual policies came up for debate, the Democrats railroaded the Republicans, shutting them up and shutting them down.

Now that they're in the distinct minority, the Democrats are suddenly interested in demonstrating genteel bipartisanship.

The seating stunt is silly, but what it's designed to do is not silly at all: it is designed to strip the intensity out of the GOP agenda, the agenda that swept the Republicans into power in the House. It's the agenda of less government, big spending cuts, real tax cuts, less regulation, and the ObamaCare repeal. If Democrats can muddy the GOP message on these things, they'll dilute the power of the GOP win and of their new majority. This is what the seating thing is REALLY all about. It's meant to make the GOP majority look smaller than it is, and to confuse voters as to what message belongs to whom.

Also remember this: the jumbled seating is all about appearances, just as the absurd discussion about "tone" was after the Tucson shooting. This country has very deep and very real problems that will not be solved by "tone." There are very deep and very real philosophical differences between the parties about how to fix those problems. The American people sent a clear message last November about the policy path they'd like to see, and they installed big numbers of Republicans to carry it out.

By getting the GOP to agree to this ridiculous seating arrangement, the Dems have already won a major PR battle. (Example: GOP Rep. Peter King has agreed to sit next to Democrat Anthony Weiner, thereby rewarding Weiner for his outrageous, irresponsible, and rude rantings about King in particular and the GOP in general.) The Republicans fell for it. Stupid. But more importantly, they musn't fall for the seductive but phony Democrat line about "coming together." It's meant only to water down the winning GOP agenda.

As you watch this dog-and-pony show tonight, remember that all of the sitting in each other's laps is not going to bridge the profound differences between big government, big spending Dems and limited government Republicans.

This is not about where these lawmakers sit tonight. It's about where they stand.

Chicagoland, Unplugged

I'm mourning the loss of my beloved New York Jets to the Pittsburgh Steelers in last night's AFC Championship game. I thought nothing could possibly pull me out of my Jets doldrums today when I spied this delicious headline: "Rahm Emanuel booted off mayoral ballot."

It seems that while the corruptocrats in Chicago were perfectly fine with Rahm skating the residency requirements to run for mayor, the judges on the appellate court were not. They just ruled, 2-1, that Rahm is ineligible to run because he has not lived in the city for the requisite year.

Rahm's people say they will appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. I can't imagine that Chicago being Chicago, and Rahm being Rahm, that he won't find a way to get on the ballot. When Obama first ran in Chicago, he found a way to boot his biggest opponent off the ballot by challenging the signatures on her petitions. I'm sure he'll help his old Chief of Staff find a way to do it in reverse and get him on the ballot.

But still: after Obama's support and a big, splashy campaign stop by his other former boss, Bill Clinton, Rahm Emanuel gets faced.

When he got the news, I'm sure the newly discovered life forms on Mars heard the expletives that flew out of his mouth.

It may just be a little bit of justice, and temporary, but it has certainly made my Jets-induced depression go away.

The McLaughlin Group

Please join us for another scintillating edition of "The McLaughlin Group" this weekend. Check your local listings, or visit www.McLaughlin.com for more information.

Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is, Mr. President

Last year, at the height of the debate over ObamaCare, abortion became a central issue. Would the ObamaCare legislation allow taxpayer-funded abortions? Obama desperately wanted---needed---the bill to pass and could not allow a sideshow over abortion to derail it. He signed an executive order that at least theoretically banned taxpayer money from funding abortion. With that gesture, he won the support of Congressman Bart Stupak and several other Democrats who claimed that they opposed abortion. And with that, ObamaCare passed.

The Republicans are now running the House, in large part because of huge public opposition to the new law. On Wednesday, the House voted decisively to repeal the whole thing, root and branch. Given the high hurdles this clean repeal faces in the Senate and ultimately in the form of a presidential veto, House Republicans are now turning their attention to dismantling it piece by piece.

They begin with the element that secured its passage: abortion. They have just introduced HR 3, known as the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act. (Nothing like meaning what you say and saying what you mean.) It would specifically ban any federal funding for abortion under ObamaCare.

If the GOP is smart, they will pass this and send it to the Senate. Harry Reid will try to kill it. Republicans should pound him every day on it until he's forced to bring it up for a vote. While they're doing that, they should ask Obama to demand that Reid raise it for a vote. After all, Obama said he was on their side. He even signed an executive order last year barring taxpayer dough from paying for abortions.

So, Mr. Obama: put your money where your mouth is. You claimed to oppose this. You put your name on a presidential order. Now it's time to back up the rhetoric with some real, concrete action.

The GOP should force not just Reid's hand, but Obama's. He talked the talk. Now it's time to walk the walk.