LAS VEGAS, NEVADA - As we await the finalized presidential caucus results here in the Silver State, I thought I'd share a quick clip of my recent appearance on the Fox Business Network's Willis Report, in which the panel discusses the Florida primary outcome, Donald Trump's endorsement of Mitt Romney, and the House Republicans' vote to extend the federal pay freeze -- which flies in the face of President Obama's plan to boost bureaucrats' compensation:
 

As a bonus Townhall TV presentation, here's my lovely and talented colleague Elisabeth Meinecke making her television debut, also with Gerri Willis:
 

On Saturday, D.C. police are finally getting around to clearing out the rat-infested trash heap that is sometimes referred to as "Occupy D.C." Many tents remained in defiance of a ban on camping and had recently defaced a statue of General McPherson in the middle of McPherson Square. Police, however, were very careful in their operation.

The police used barricades to cordon off sections of McPherson Square, a park under federal jurisdiction near the White House, and checked tents for mattresses and sleeping bags and sifted through piles of garbage and other belongings. Some wore yellow and white biohazard suits to guard against diseases identified at the site in recent weeks. Officials also have raised concerns about a rat infestation.

Police by mid-day had arrested four people who refused to move from beneath a statute and two others who crossed a police line.

The National Park Service, which has allowed the protesters to remain in the park for months, has said it will give protesters notice if police decide to clear the park. Police on Saturday were careful to say they were not evicting anyone or closing the park, but were instead stepping up enforcement of an existing ban on camping.

Occupy D.C. has been serving as one of the remaining permanent encampments of the Occupy movement nationwide, as the National Park Service and the D.C. police force had tolerated their existence for months. After reports of rat infestations, Occupy D.C. seemed to reach a tipping point against them from authorities, who have been getting serious about cleaning up the encampment.

The Washington Examiner's offices are right on the square of Occupy D.C. and were able to capture video of riot police thinning the herds of protesters.

Reported earlier:

Russia and China vetoed a U.N. Security Council resolution backing calls for Syrian President Bashar Assad to step down, despite international outrage Saturday over a devastating bombardment of the city of Homs by his regime's forces. Activists said more than 200 were killed in the bloodiest episode of the nearly 11-month uprising.

The overnight onslaught on restive neighborhoods in Homs, Syria's third largest city, signaled a willingness by Assad's regime to bring a new level of violence to stamp out an opposition that has grown increasingly bold and armed.

The Obama Administration and the State Department has stepped up the rhetoric against Syrian leader Bashar Assad recently in the wake of a new wave of violence. In a statement, Obama said, "Assad has no right to lead Syria, and has lost all legitimacy with his people and the international community."

Secretary of State Clinton voiced the U.S. concerns with Russia and China's continued support of Syria, saying "I offered to work in a constructive manner... that has not been possible." U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice put it in much more stark terms, saying,

Since these two members last vetoed a resolution on Syria, an estimated 3,000 more civilians have been killed. 3,000. Another almost 250 killed just yesterday. Many thousands more have been held captive and tortured by Asad and his shabiha gangs. Since these two members last vetoed a resolution, however, and despite the absence of Security Council action, we have seen more and more Syrians speak out in peaceful demonstrations against the regime.

Once again, the courageous people of Syria can clearly see who on this Council supports their yearning for liberty and universal rights-and who does not.

The U.S. has already ruled unilateral military action against Assad off the table, worried about the potential consequences.

Instead of the traditional party, Newt Gingrich plans to hold a press conference following the results of tonight's Nevada caucuses.

An e-mail sent to reporters on Saturday morning set the Las Vegas press conference for 11 p.m. to midnight Eastern time. It will be held at the Venetian, a hotel run by Sheldon Adelson, who has donated millions of dollars to the pro-Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future.

Gingrich has had a rough time on the trail ahead of the Nevada Caucus, the first presidential contest in the West. Sources in or close to his campaign gave reporters incorrect information that Donald Trump would endorse Gingrich (he endorsed rival Mitt Romney). Gingrich also missed a meeting with the Silver State's popular governor, Brian Sandoval, a Rick Perry supporter who was viewed as a possible Gingrich endorsement after Perry dropped.

This has fueled speculation that Gingrich may make a major announcement about the future of his campaign. He's facing an uphill battle against frontrunner Mitt Romney and the next slate of primaries, the Nevada Caucuses included, aren't looking too friendly for Gingrich.

Today's conventional wisdom holds that the upcoming presidential election is about one thing: The economy, stupid.  But the events of the last week -- from the Komen kerfuffle to the Obama administration's shameful violation of the First Amendment -- demonstrate that the Left hasn't taken a jobs-focused holiday from waging the culture war.  On this score, the videos I've embedded below couldn't be timelier.  Earlier this week, I had the honor of attending a gala celebrating the 20th anniversary of the Susan B. Anthony list, an influential pro-life organization. The event featured two first-term US Senators and ascendant leaders within the conservative movement, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Marco Rubio of Florida. Abortion is a polarizing and complex issue that arouses strong passions on both sides, and many Americans hold conflicted views on the legality and morality of the practice. In recent years, polling data has shown a gradual but unmistakable shift toward anti-abortion views, especially among younger voters, and Senators Ayotte and Rubio are great champions of that emerging pro-life generation.

Opposition to abortion is often cast as an extreme and “anti-women” position by its advocates, a gross distortion that ignores both public opinion generally, and the views of millions of women (not to mention the fact that future women bear the brunt of global gendercide). Abortion “rights” supporters also attempt to cast pro-lifers as religious zealots trying to “impose their beliefs” on their fellow citizens. These criticisms miss the mark as well. First, virtually every single law and regulation in existence represents an imposition of values onto society.  Such is the very nature of law.  Second, while some abortion critics are guided exclusively by their faith, many others would argue that their beliefs are rooted in logic, a widely held sense of ethics and morality, and sound science. Senator Rubio used his keynote address at the SBA List gathering to build a pro-life case based on the latter set of criteria.  The full speech is worth your while -- this guy is really special -- but if you're pressed for time, Rubio presents the crux of his argument in the second clip:
 

On a political level, this address showcases Rubio's talent and promise as a future leader.  He spoke passionately and eloquently on a difficult subject with limited notes, at which he rarely even glanced.  He staked out a bold position without sounding extreme, a difficult needle to thread when tackling hot button controversies.  In short, there's a reason "rising star" buzz and speculation surrounds this guy.  On a higher level, Rubio mounted a compelling and persuasive case, dispensing with numerous fallacies advanced by the "choice" cult.  Especially salient were his discussions of the unsettled nature of pre- and postpartum viability, and the "unwanted" child logical canard -- as well as his contemplation of the conflicting rights conundrum that abortion raises.  The shrillest advocates on both sides of this issue often fail to recognize or convey how complicated it is, and can sometimes sound out-of-touch with how most Americans grapple with the question's many intricacies.  In this speech, Rubio advanced a nuanced and thoughtful case for life.  Bravo.

Parting thought: As the Komen fight reached a boiling point this week, many conservatives (myself included) made donations to the charity because we hate cancer, and because we wanted to affirm the organization's decision to cut ties with a truly vile group.  Under relentless bullying from the pro-abortion Left, the charity quasi-reversed its decision.  Ed Morrissey explains that their new policy will still cut off most future grants to Planned Parenthood (after all, most chapters don't offer the screenings Komen is funding), but their letter of apology was an obvious kowtow to abortion zealots.  Rod Dreher rightly frames the ruthless anti-Komen campaign as clarifying evidence of a malignant and perverse liberal blacklist:
 

Of course I support anybody’s right to withhold money or approval from any organization for any reason. But let’s just be clear what’s going on here. Komen broke ranks, and for the cultural left, that cannot be understood, forgiven, or overlooked; Komen must be ruined. Nothing Komen or Nancy Brinker has ever done for women in 30 years matters to these people. This is war...The more I think about it, the more I realize this is a clarifying moment. Think of it! Three decades of service to women fighting breast cancer, and having raised and distributed hundreds of millions of dollars nearly $2 billion towards that goal, means absolutely nothing to these people now trying to destroy Komen. They could have denounced Komen’s decision, but in light of all Komen has done, and still does for women, turned their ire on the Republicans, the Religious Right, and so forth. But no, Komen broke ranks, and it must be dealt with harshly. And the sympathetic mainstream media is helping them do the job. All this reminds one of exactly what we’re dealing with here: what John Paul II called the culture of death. It is helpful to be reminded which side you’re on.

Indeed.  Which is why speeches like Rubio's are so important, and why even in the throes of a dreadful economic downturn, some issues must not be discarded or ignored, no matter how inconvenient or "off message" they may seem.

Following Mitt Romney's 14-point victory in the Florida Republican primary, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are bracing for another double-digit Romney win in Nevada tonight. Townhall's latest polling average shows Romney with a twenty-point lead over his nearest rival, Newt Gingrich. If things break for Mitt tonight, he could end up with fifty percent of the vote.

Romney doesn't even plan on being in Nevada for much of the day - he's flown to Colorado for a short day of campaigning before returning to Nevada for a likely victory party tonight.

Gingrich has cast tonight's Nevada contest as a fight for second place, hoping to hold off Santorum and Ron Paul all while looking ahead. Gingrich might be in for a rough month of primaries in which he's fighting an uphill battle, but he's said time and again that it's about the delegates, and that only very few early states have voted so far.

Romney, however, is positioning himself as the likely nominee.

"I'm convinced that I can beat Barack Obama and I don't think anyone else can," [Romney] told volunteers making phone calls for him Friday.

He accused the president of failing to do enough to create jobs as he campaigned in a state with sky-high unemployment and foreclosure rates. Nevada's unemployment rate was 12.6 in December - well above the national average - after a record economic bust.

This is the second in a series of primaries that look rough for Romney's rivals - this month will be a real test to see if anyone can stop Mitt.

That this politically-calculated abdication was entirely predictable doesn't make it any less disgraceful:

Senate Democratic leaders on Friday said they do not intend to bring a fiscal 2013 budget up for a floor vote. "We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year — it's done, we don't need to do it," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) told reporters on Friday. Reid and Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) argued that the debt-limit agreement in August directs spending for the next year and said Senate Appropriations Chairman Daniel Inouye (D-Hawaii) has already asked the heads of the subcommittees to write their appropriations bills for fiscal 2013. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) has said he would probably mark up a budget resolution for 2013, but Reid recently told the Hill he didn't expect any floor action on a measure produced by the panel.

Schumer said it’s a "total falsity" for Republicans to say that Democrats haven't passed the budget. "We passed it on Aug. 2," Schumer said, referring to the debt deal. "They're attacking us because they have nothing better to do," Reid added. "They need something else to talk about."

Lest you've forgotten, this display comes within weeks of Reid & Co's woeful budget anniversary.  A few points:  First, pace Schumer, it's not a "total falsity" that Democrats haven't passed a budget.  They haven't drawn up, introduced, or passed a fiscal blueprint in nearly three years.  The debt deal "deemed" a budget to have passed, which is quite different than, you know, actually budgeting.  Second, the Debt Deal Deem is just the latest excuse Democrats have offered for their inaction.  They've been lying about this for years, mostly blaming Republican "obstructionism" -- which is a red herring of the highest order.  The truth is that Senate Democrats refuse to do their job because they fear that producing a budget could hurt them politically.  This was true in 2009, 2010, 2011, and today.  Top budget committee Republicans are unloading on their Democrat colleagues.  Rep. Paul Ryan:
 

Earlier today, Senate Democrats confirmed that they’ve given up on budgeting. What a disgrace. Senate Majority Leader Reid's refusal to budget is a recipe for crisis. By refusing to confront the storm clouds ahead, Senate Democrats are committing our nation to a future of debt, doubt and decline.

 

Sen. Jeff Sessions: 

 

"By refusing to lay out a budget plan for public examination—a fact no one can deny—the Democrat Senate has forfeited the high privilege to lead this chamber. If Sen. Reid and his members stand by this announcement, it means that the American people will go through yet another year of crisis without Senate Democrats unveiling and standing behind a financial plan for our future. Budget Control Act spending caps, crafted behind closed doors and rushed to passage at the 11th hour under threat of panic, do not even approach the definition of the budget process that the law requires. They are not in any way or any sense a Senate Democrat budget plan. There is no argument that can be made that these caps are a long-term vision for this country—not on taxes, not on entitlements, not on spending, not on debt."

 

Parting thought: As Senate Democrats continue to refuse to carry out the most basic (and legally mandated) obligations of governance, they've still managed to find the time to formally denounce a private charity for its decision to redirect roughly $700,000 of funds to better serve the needs of women.  They should be absolutely ashamed of themselves, but that would require the capacity for shame.

As Iran gets closer to developing a nuclear weapon, so too do the U.S. and Israel get to a decision about when to strike the rogue country. However, it seems there's tension regarding when, exactly, to execute any attack, as Israel would rather act sooner than later, while the U.S. is reluctant to move beyond sanction at this point.

The U.S. and Israel are publicly disagreeing over timing for a potential attack on Iran’s disputed nuclear facilities, as that nation’s leader said it won’t back down.

The U.S. and Israel have a “significant analytic difference” over estimates of how close Iran is to shielding its nuclear program from attack, Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast peace negotiator in the Clinton administration, said today.

“There’s a growing concern -- more than a concern -- that the Israelis, in order to protect themselves, might launch a strike without approval, warning or even foreknowledge,” he said in an interview.

The differing views were underscored by public comments this week by senior Israeli and U.S. defense officials.

Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said yesterday that Israel must consider conducting “an operation” before Iran reaches an “immunity zone,” referring to Iran’s goal of protecting its uranium enrichment and other nuclear operations by moving them to deep underground facilities such as one at Fordo, near the holy city of Qom.

It's hard to imagine we won't face conflict with Iran this year; relations certainly seem to be reaching a boiling point. Iran has made it clear it has no intention of ending its nuclear program, and that it intends to wipe Israel off the map. Now, it looks like we've moved beyond if, and are deciding when to act. Time will tell.