Nation Is Getting a Front Seat at How Unions Work!

Jury still out regarding how Egypt's Revolution will end. It6 could end in a way that is most unappealing to all concerned. (See 1 below.)
---
David Harris discusses the similarities among President Chavez, Prime Minister Erdogan,President Morales, and President Ortega, and concludes their actions of late border on hypocrisy. Their professed claims have proven shallow.(See 2 below.)
---
Democrats, Unions and Obama believe it is their right to win at any price. They claim their rights are being taken away yet, they do not believe anyone else should have rights.

I have often written when a Liberal idea is resisted and/orchallenged, like a child, far too often they become petulant and ill of humor.

Wisconsin is a battleground and if the intemperate win one more nail will have been driven into our nation's coffin. Our undertaker president has buried us in debt now the unions want to do the same.

Public workers should not have the same right to collective bargaining as private workers because it gives them far too much power to influence the political environment.

By laundering outsized salaries and pension benefits into political contributions public unions are able to buy unwarranted political influence.

Public unions claim their rights supersede - that's their message and anyone who challenges their brutishness must be aware that unions goons, and even this president, have no desire to obey laws. (See 3 and 3a below.)
---
Is Obama ready to go to war against Qaddafi? (See 4 below.)

But then viewed from another perspective Obama seems more willing to punt the ball to the Europeans. (See 4a below.)

Meanwhile Jordan's King is getting an ear full. Tribal leaders are telling the young King there are too many Palestinians. What goes around comes around. The King's father heard the same and set about killling about 15,000 of them in a week. (See 4 below.)
---
Chris Christie keeps knocking the cover off the ball by responding clearly and patiently to questions that media folks are stupid enough to continue asking. (See 5 below.)
---
Dick
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1) The Tricky Business of Revolution
By Elliot Chodoff

Revolutions capture our imaginations and inspire us, but they make for tricky business. To paraphrase Winston Churchill’s saying about war, people may know how to start one, but nobody knows how it will turn out. The uprisings in Egypt and Libya provide good cases in point. Lots of democratic fervor, aging dictators who have ruled by emergency regulations for three or four decades, and closed corrupt economic systems that benefitted close cronies of the regime provided the ingredients for textbook-style popular eruptions that have ignited the enthusiasm of the Western media. If we follow the enthusiastic reports coming out of Cairo, we are on the verge of a brave, new Egypt, and, with Tunisia down, the Libyan uprising boiling, along with Bahrain, Yemen, Oman, and who-knows-where-next, perhaps a new, free Middle East as well. If only it were so bright, clear, and simple.

Revolutionaries are romantically admirable characters, representing the weak and downtrodden against oppressive and self-serving regimes. They risk liberty, life, and limb to stand up for their rights and those of their fellow citizens, opposing leaders who often respond violently before being overthrown. Furthermore, many revolutions fail, with the would-be revolutionaries killed, jailed, or scattered and hiding for fear of reprisals. Failed revolutions are often followed by minor concessions and reforms, along with severe crackdowns on liberties by the regime’s security services.

Unfortunately, success brings its own problems, since it is far easier to tear down rotten, oppressive regime structures than it is to build new, clean, democratic ones. Moreover, the interim chaos provides sterling opportunities for those who wish to hijack the process and use it to their own benefit.

In the struggle for control of the new regime, organization skills and infrastructure, singularity of purpose, and willingness to use violence are premium assets. Thus a small, well organized, ideological movement has a significant advantage in the early competition. A charismatic leader, whether religious or merely ideological, may emerge from the wings, or preferably from exile, to guide the nascent “republic” along its path to freedom.

Sometimes, the new rulers co-opt the revolutionary naïfs and use them to ease their way to power, in the name of the people, freedom, and the revolution. Those who persist in opposition to the lofty goals of the new power-wielders are likely to be rounded up, incarcerated, and executed. Having succeeded in overthrowing the old regime, and imbued with their new sense of righteous empowerment, the freedom fighters are often surprised with the cynical brutality of the hard-line ideological opportunists who have gained power. By this pont, however, it will be too late to turn back.

The result, all too often, is a new regime that is at least as brutal as the old one, having replaced a traditional, corrupt system with an ideologically murderous one. We should keep in mind that the modern term “terror” may be traced to the Reign of Terror of the French Revolution that delivered as many as 40,000 victims to the guillotine in the name of equality, fraternity, and liberty.

All the uprisings are still in their early stages. In the meantime in Egypt, power has been transmitted from a dictator, Hosni Mubarak, to a military junta under Defense Minister Tantawi. This means that the revolution has not yet really occurred. Promises of a new constitution, free elections, and the lifting of 30-year old emergency regulations remain just promises. More important is the question of the military’s continued control over significant segments of the Egyptian economy.

The direction of the next phase of the uprisings will be determined by the ideologues, both foreign and domestic. Iran has made no secret of its interest in seeing Egypt and other states shift from secular, Western-allied powers that contribute to regional stability to ones that are ruled by Islamists and will align themselves with the Shi’ite Islamic Republic. The Muslim Brotherhood, touted in much of the Western media and by some US government analysts as a moderate, non-violent, social organization without a charismatic leader, has thrown its hat in the Egyptian ring. With the return from exile of Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi and his Friday address to the crowd in Tahrir Square, the Brotherhood has its charismatic leader. The Brotherhoods official, traditional motto, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our constitution, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations,” should be sufficient to disabuse anyone of its true intentions and preferred methods. At the same time, it is not at all clear, Western hopes notwithstanding, that al Qaeda is forlornly standing by, watching the train of history leave the station without it on board (to paraphrase the NYTimes).

Will Egypt collapse into full revolution resulting in the emergence of a Brotherhood ruled Islamic republic? It is still too early to predict the next stage, and certainly the final stages, of the process that began with the demonstrations in Tahrir Square that sent Mubarak packing. But it would behoove us to watch the process closely, with an attitude considerably less sanguine than the near-cheerleading descriptions that have emerged in the news reports and commentary.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Dear President Chavez, Prime Minister Erdogan,
President Morales, and President Ortega

David Harris, AJC Executive Director


Each of you has several things in common.

For starters, you are the leaders of your respective countries -- Venezuela, Turkey, Bolivia, and Nicaragua.

Moreover, each of you, in many speeches, has talked about the centrality of justice.

President Chavez, you've spoken of your quest "to bring about a state that is social, democratic, and just."

Prime Minister Erdogan, you have said that "peace, justice, brotherhood, and solidarity were in the best interests of every country."

President Morales, you stress that you seek "equality and justice."

President Ortega, you describe yourself as a fighter "for a just and free world."

Third, each of you has been a recipient of the Muammar Al-Gaddafi International Prize for Human Rights.

According to the website, the prize was established in 1988 to honor those who have "achieved great actions in defending human rights, protecting the cause of freedom, and supporting peace everywhere in the world."

President Chavez, you were in Tripoli in 2004 to receive the prize. Subsequently, you hosted Gaddafi in Caracas, comparing him to Simon Bolivar and conferring on him your country's highest civilian decoration. At the time, you declared: "We share the same destiny, the same battle in the same trench against a common enemy, and we will conquer."

Prime Minister Erdogan, you were in Tripoli last year for the award ceremony, at which time you said: "You can be sure that this award will encourage our struggle for human rights in a regional and global sense."

President Morales, you proudly traveled to Tripoli in 2000 to get the prize.

And President Ortega, it was your turn in 2009, and you did not hesitate to accept it.

Finally, notwithstanding your stated commitment to justice, your postures in recent days, as Gaddafi unleashed the state's deadly power against those protesting his 41-year authoritarian reign, could not be more striking.

Surely, the right thing to do at this moment, first and foremost, is to renounce the Gaddafi prize, not to mention the cash award that accompanied it. Why not donate the funds, not back into the coffers of Gaddafi, but to relief efforts on behalf of the victims of his brutality?

Why would anyone claiming to battle for justice wish to be associated with a mass murderer? How cruel a joke in the first place to associate Gaddafi with human rights and possess an award that links the two?

Yet, not only have you not relinquished the prize, but it gets still worse.

President Chavez, you and your foreign minister proclaimed on February 25th, with hundreds, if not more, slaughtered, leaving rivers of blood flowing through the streets of Libyan cities, "Viva Libya and viva Gaddafi."

Prime Minister Erdogan, where is your outrage and fury at what is taking place before the world's eyes? Is it only when Israel is deemed to be involved that you show a capacity for unbridled anger?

President Morales, the silence from La Paz is deafening. Why? Where is your voice in support of the "justice" you proclaim as your guiding light?

And President Ortega, no doubt Gaddafi valued your phone call this week to express your solidarity, emphasizing, in your own words, that "it's at difficult times that loyalty and resolve are put to the test."

Actually, it's at such times that leaders reveal themselves. And the four of you have revealed yourselves for all to see.

You accepted a ludicrously named prize from a murderous scoundrel. In doing so, you conferred undeserved legitimacy on Gaddafi's rule. After all, it most assuredly didn't take until 2011 to understand the true nature of Gaddafi and the ruthless nature of his regime.

When you had the chance this month to show the world that you learned your lesson, however belatedly, by returning the award, you did not, even as the reports from the ground compellingly described a bloodbath for which Gaddafi and his henchmen are responsible. Does the award really mean that much to you as a source of validation, gratification, and inspiration?

And given the chance to condemn resoundingly the denial of justice, the repression of human rights, and the negation of brotherhood in Gaddafi's Libya, you couldn't bring yourselves to do so. So much for the high-minded values you preach.

How tragic! And yes, how telling!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)The Entitled Party
By Karin McQuillan

President Obama and the left wing of the Democratic Party think they are entitled to win. From our narcissistic President to screaming union organizers, they are puffed up with self-righteous zeal. They must have health care to save the sick, they must shut down Louisiana oil rigs to save the planet, they must defend government unions to save the middle class.

Of course, each side thinks they are right. Being right is no excuse. You have to abide by the law, you have to abide by elections, you have to respect the courts and constitutional separation of power, or else we no longer live in a democratic country. In our democracy, no one is entitled to win. If you won't lose, you cannot have democracy.

What you have are the Wisconsin Democrat senators who are unwilling to abide by the election results that put them in a minority. What you have is Reid and Pelosi, ramming Obamacare through by breaking rules of procedure, in order to flout the 2010 election results. What you have is the Obama White House, blocking Congress's right to confirm appointees, and openly ignoring federal courts. What you have is the Justice Department announcing it will no longer defend the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act in court, as if Obama gets to decide which laws are constitutional. What you have is a Democratic Party run amok, undercutting our democracy in the service of their own power.

The complacency, nay, the vociferous support, from Democrat leaders and the legacy media for this disregard for the rule of law reminds me of the old joke about the psychiatrist. A man is sent by his family to see a shrink because he thinks he's a chicken. After months of treatment, he is still clucking. The family asks the psychiatrist if he's told his patient he is not a chicken. "No," the psychiatrist admits. "Why not!" "Because I like the eggs."

The Democrats like the eggs. They like imposing their will, whether it be ObamaCare, or the off-shore drilling moratorium, or the blockage of Wisconsin's elected government. Are they really this short-sighted? Don't they understand the damage to our democratic system by these anti-democratic precedents? Do they really want to change congressional rules so that the House and the Senate version of bills no longer have to be reconciled, as they did to jam ObamaCare through by the fiction it was a finance bill? Do they really want the Interior Department ignoring federal court orders? Do they really want state senators refusing to accept that when you lose an election, the other side gets to pass their agenda?

Obama appointed extremists for important administrative positions, controversial and even creepy people, like Van Jones, whom he knew would not get past Congressional confirmation. The checks and balances between executive and legislative branch were instituted by our founders for this exact purpose. The executive nominates but Congress must confirm -- bedrock principles of American democracy. Obama's answer: flout the law. Call his appointees 'czars' and bypass confirmation. This is not legal and it is not democracy. Do the liberal legacy media and Obama's fellow Democrats want presidents to have this unlimited power? Do they really want to give up the safeguards of congressional confirmation by calling appointees czars?

Czars indeed.

The White House is not only ignoring elections and subverting the power of Congress, it is also willing to disobey federal courts. When the health care bill was challenged in court and the administration lost, Obama ignored the ruling of Justice Roger Vinson of the U.S. District Court in Florida. Judge Vinson declared the entire ObamaCare bill unconstitutional in a ruling that the judge stated was the equivalent of an injunction. The White House has not halted implementation. The White house has not followed normal rules to fast-track the appeal process so the Supreme Court can decide. Our White House seems entirely comfortable to show contempt of court.

In Louisiana, the administration didn't like a court ruling lifting the moratorium on off-shore drilling, so what did the Obama administration do? It ignored the court. In response, on February 2, the U.S. District Court Judge Martin Feldman held the Department of Interior in contempt. The Administration then adopted a go slow policy and did not issue a single permit. So on February 21, Judge Feldman ordered the Obama administration to act on five deep water drilling permits in the Gulf of Mexico within 30 days, calling the delays in issuing new decisions "unreasonable, unacceptable, and unjustified." We have a White House that places its anti-energy policy above the rule of law. This is unacceptable in a democracy.

Democracy is a complex system based on cultural norms and principles as much as institutions. As we see governments topple in the context of resurgent jihadi movements in the Arab world, we are keenly aware that elections alone rarely lead to democracy. George Washington was an almost unique figure in the history of the world, in that he relinquished power. Our founding fathers were political geniuses who gave us a system of checks and balances to curb misuse of power by those who govern. As Americans, we are privileged to witness the recurring, orderly transfer of power from one administration to the next, through which voters get to determine the direction of their government and correct mistakes and imbalances.

We are seeing in both the Obama White House and the Wisconsin Senate that the Democratic Party is unwilling to lose. Over and over in the past two years, we have seen a Democrat administration willing to flout the courts, flout rules and regulations, and flout the voice of the people as expressed in elections.

Disregard for the democratic limits on power is as important as the administration's fiscal irresponsibility that threatens our prosperity, as important as the explosive growth of bureaucracy that threatens our liberties.

Our democracy cannot survive if only the Republican Party cares about it. It is time for centrist Democrats to throw off the power grab by the radical wing of their party and start defending the Constitution, as they have sworn to do.

3a)Unions vs. the Right to Work
Collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty
By ROBERT BARRO

How ironic that Wisconsin has become ground zero for the battle between taxpayers and public- employee labor unions. Wisconsin was the first state to allow collective bargaining for government workers (in 1959), following a tradition where it was the first to introduce a personal income tax (in 1911, before the introduction of the current form of individual income tax in 1913 by the federal government).

Labor unions like to portray collective bargaining as a basic civil liberty, akin to the freedoms of speech, press, assembly and religion. For a teachers union, collective bargaining means that suppliers of teacher services to all public school systems in a state—or even across states—can collude with regard to acceptable wages, benefits and working conditions. An analogy for business would be for all providers of airline transportation to assemble to fix ticket prices, capacity and so on. From this perspective, collective bargaining on a broad scale is more similar to an antitrust violation than to a civil liberty.

In fact, labor unions were subject to U.S. antitrust laws in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890, which was first applied in 1894 to the American Railway Union. However, organized labor managed to obtain exemption from federal antitrust laws in subsequent legislation, notably the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914 and the National Labor Relations Act of 1935.

Remarkably, labor unions are not only immune from antitrust laws but can also negotiate a "union shop," which requires nonunion employees to join the union or pay nearly equivalent dues. Somehow, despite many attempts, organized labor has lacked the political power to repeal the key portion of the 1947 Taft Hartley Act that allowed states to pass right-to-work laws, which now prohibit the union shop in 22 states. From the standpoint of civil liberties, the individual right to work—without being forced to join a union or pay dues—has a much better claim than collective bargaining. (Not to mention that "right to work" has a much more pleasant, liberal sound than "collective bargaining.") The push for right-to-work laws, which haven't been enacted anywhere but Oklahoma over the last 20 years, seems about to take off.

View Full Image

Associated Press
.The current pushback against labor-union power stems from the collision between overly generous benefits for public employees— notably for pensions and health care—and the fiscal crises of state and local governments. Teachers and other public-employee unions went too far in convincing weak or complicit state and local governments to agree to obligations, particularly defined-benefit pension plans, that created excessive burdens on taxpayers.

In recognition of this fiscal reality, even the unions and their Democratic allies in Wisconsin have agreed to Gov. Scott Walker's proposed cutbacks of benefits, as long as he drops the restrictions on collective bargaining. The problem is that this "compromise" leaves intact the structure of strong public-employee unions that helped to create the unsustainable fiscal situation; after all, the next governor may have less fiscal discipline. A long-run solution requires a change in structure, for example, by restricting collective bargaining for public employees and, to go further, by introducing a right-to-work law.

There is evidence that right-to-work laws—or, more broadly, the pro-business policies offered by right-to-work states—matter for economic growth. In research published in 2000, economist Thomas Holmes of the University of Minnesota compared counties close to the border between states with and without right-to-work laws (thereby holding constant an array of factors related to geography and climate). He found that the cumulative growth of employment in manufacturing (the traditional area of union strength prior to the rise of public-employee unions) in the right-to-work states was 26 percentage points greater than that in the non-right-to-work states.


Beyond Wisconsin, a key issue is which states are likely to be the next political battlegrounds on labor issues. In fact, one can interpret the extreme reactions by union demonstrators and absent Democratic legislators in Wisconsin not so much as attempts to influence that state—which may be a lost cause—but rather to deter politicians in other states from taking similar actions. This strategy may be working in Michigan, where Gov. Rick Snyder recently asserted that he would not "pick fights" with labor unions.

In general, the most likely arenas are states in which the governor and both houses of the state legislature are Republican (often because of the 2010 elections), and in which substantial rights for collective bargaining by public employees currently exist. This group includes Indiana, which has recently been as active as Wisconsin on labor issues; ironically, Indiana enacted a right-to-work law in 1957 but repealed it in 1965. Otherwise, my tentative list includes Michigan, Pennsylvania, Maine, Florida, Tennessee, Nebraska (with a nominally nonpartisan legislature), Kansas, Idaho, North Dakota and South Dakota.

The national fiscal crisis and recession that began in 2008 had many ill effects, including the ongoing crises of pension and health-care obligations in many states. But at least one positive consequence is that the required return to fiscal discipline has caused reexamination of the growth in economic and political power of public-employee unions. Hopefully, embattled politicians like Gov. Walker in Wisconsin will maintain their resolve and achieve a more sensible long-term structure for the taxpayers in their states.

Mr. Barro is a professor of economics at Harvard and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------4)US weighs hit-and-run raids to disable Qaddafi's air capability

The US is repositioning its naval and air forces around Libya, Pentagon spokesman Col. David Lapan stated Monday, Feb. 28, indicating possible military steps to break the standoff between Muammar Qaddafi's army and rebel forces in the fighting for control of the towns commanding the roads to the capital Tripoli where Qaddafi is barricaded. The reported rebel capture of the key towns of Misrata and Zawiya is technically correct. In fact, they are both surrounded by Libyan troops who control their road links with Tripoli. In Misrata, the army has a valuable edge over opposition forces in its control of the local airfield.

The Pentagon spokesman's indeed remarked that there are "various contingency plans" for the North African country where Muammar Qaddafi's forces and rebels in the east "remain locked in a tense standoff."

Most military observers interpreted his remark as referring to potential US military intervention in Libya to break the stalemate. It was strengthened by the imminent redeployment off the Libyan coast of USS Enterprise from the Red Sea and the amphibious USS Kearsarge, which has a fleet of helicopters and about 1,800 Marines aboard.

This US naval movement appeared to be running ahead of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who, speaking in Geneva, Switzerland, earlier Monday said "nothing is off the table" but added "there is no pending naval action planned against Libya."
Military and intelligence sources report the presence of the two US warships opposite Libya gives Washington and its allies a flexible option for military intervention should Qaddafi be seen to prevail over the opposition or if the standoff lingers too long. Among the 1,800 marines aboard the Kearsarge are units especially trained for guerrilla or covert raids behind enemy lines. They would have air cover from the Enterprise to protect them from Libyan air and helicopter strikes. They primary mission would be to disable the Libyan air force and put its air fields out of commission. The rebels would not then be stalled by the Libyan ruler's ability to bring in fresh troops and drop them at any point and give them a better chance of carrying the day.

The other "contingency plan" in discussion between Washington and European allies is creating a no-fly zone to protect the people from air assault. The American UN Ambassador Susan Rice said later that Washington is discussing militlary options with its allies but a determination is premature.

On the sanctions front, the US government Monday blocked a record $30 billion in Libyan assets, the largest amount ever frozen, in line with the Obama administration's decision to impose unilateral and multilateral sanctions on Qaddafi.

4a)Obama looks to Europe to take principal role in Libyan crisis
By Paul Richter and David S. Cloud

Is President being cautious or sending signals of unpreparedness?

Despite growing calls in the U.S. for action, the Obama administration is carefully limiting the American role in the unfolding international effort to halt the killing of Libyan demonstrators by dictator Moammar Gadhafi's regime.

U.S. officials have been pushing European countries to take the lead in world powers' response to Gadhafi, arguing that the Europeans have closer ties and more leverage. U.S. officials also want to limit military involvement in what could be a protracted civil war, coming at a time when U.S. forces are overstretched in Iraq and Afghanistan.

"This is predominately a European problem, in the sense that they are the ones who have the most at stake," said a senior U.S. official who spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive diplomacy.

U.S. officials have been working for days with European officials, including at the United Nations Security Council, to prepare multilateral and unilateral sanctions against the regime. These include freezes on the leadership's financial assets, an arms embargo and travel restrictions, as well as possible recommendations for war crimes charges in the International Criminal Court.

The White House on Friday announced plans to impose unspecified U.S. sanctions on Gadhafi, and for the first time singled out Gadhafi personally for criticism.

Gadhafi "is overseeing the brutal treatment of his people … and his legitimacy has been reduced to zero in the eyes of his people," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.

U.S. officials had avoided comments about Gadhafi while hundreds of American diplomats and other citizens were in Libya. But Washington sharpened its language Friday after about 300 diplomats and other Americans left the country on a ferry, and the State Department temporarily closed down the embassy.

Edward S. Walker Jr., a former top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, said the administration had to be cautious since Gadhafi's security forces had sacked and burned the U.S. embassy in Tripoli in 1979, at the time of the Iranian revolution. U.S. citizens "escaped by the skin of their teeth," he recalled.


While the U.S. normalized relations with Libya in 2008, it could not afford to risk a hostage situation, Walker said.

Reports of the deaths of hundreds of Libyan protesters have brought increasing calls for U.S. intervention. A group of 41 former U.S. officials, human rights activists and others sent a letter to President Barack Obama on Friday warning that "we may be on the threshold of a moral and humanitarian catastrophe," and urged the U.S. and allies to lay plans for a variety of steps, including a halt to Libyan oil imports and establishment of a no-fly zone in Libya.

Omar Khattaly, a Libyan-American and spokesman for the Libyan Working Group, said he understood the desire to have Europeans take the principal role, but believed the U.S. also should make a major effort.

"In this situation, you need help from the superpower," he said.

The U.S. sanctions will take months to produce results and are not likely to affect the bloody clashes between Gadhafi's forces and the demonstrators, most experts say.

The U.S. military's minimal role in the crisis has become noticeable in recent days as several European allies — Great Britain, France and Italy — sent their armed forces to evacuate citizens from Libya. Pentagon officials said they were not asked by the State Department to help in the evacuation of U.S. citizens.

The proximity of Libya to southern Europe is raising the fears of the Italian, French and other governments that the brutal violence will create a humanitarian crisis, with thousands of refugees making their way across the Mediterranean, U.S. officials said.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Friday after convening an emergency meeting on Libya that the priority should be on evacuation and on humanitarian assistance. He played down the possibility of a no-fly zone, calling it a "far-reaching approach" that could only be undertaken with U.N. approval.

Any U.S. military response to the crisis is likely to be as part of a larger NATO force and even then the U.S. is likely to play a supporting role, the senior U.S. official said.

In one visible sign that the Pentagon is not planning a major role in Libya in the near future, the only U.S. aircraft carrier in the region, the USS Enterprise, left the Mediterranean earlier this month and is now in the Indian Ocean.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4)In Jordan, King Abdullah II getting earful from tribal leaders
By Kim Murphy

Fissures are slowly beginning to take hold

Fayez grew up hearing about the day in 1970 when his father and other Jordanian tribal leaders summoned the late King Hussein to complain about entrenched Palestinian fighters who were virtually occupying the country.

"King Hussein was two hours late. When he finally arrived, my father stood up — and he used to call the king by his first name — 'Hussein,' he said, 'We feel now that for you we are the cover that the shepherd uses. When you get cold, you cover up with us. When you don't need us, you kick the cover with your feet.' "

The king apologized for being late. He said he didn't know the tribal elders were waiting. He valued their advice. Even better, from their point of view, he unleashed the army against the militants. "A quality man, with a humane view of people," Fayez said.

Over mint tea at his desert home, he turned the conversation to the current king.

"King Abdullah, the situation is not the same as it was with his father. There's negligence in the state. He lets things go. It's like the shepherd that leaves his sheep to go astray. And for this reason, corruption has spread everywhere."

Fayez's Bani Sakher tribe this month showed its displeasure by lining up across the highway between the capital, Amman, and Queen Alia International Airport, blocking the road in protest of the government's use of increasingly valuable traditional tribal lands for development.

Although most analysts think there is little chance of a popular storm like the one that swept Egypt in this quiet kingdom of luxury hotels, impoverished mud hut villages and exotic desert castles, King Abdullah II is facing criticism from a quarter that couldn't be more troubling: some of the tribesmen and military veterans who have been the bedrock of the Hashemite dynasty and are unnerved by the country's large and growing population of Palestinians.

Tribal leaders such as Fayez's father have never hesitated to confront the king privately, but the 49-year-old monarch has faced rare, open criticism in recent months. Since the Egyptian uprising, dissent from leftists and Islamist and labor leaders has escalated into almost-daily street protests and a public letter from 36 tribe members demanding an end to corruption and the king's near-unilateral hold on political power.


The king has responded by pledging to rewrite the election laws and expand freedoms. He fired the Cabinet and replaced the prime minister with a former military officer and tribesman.

"I want real and quick reform," the king said in a Feb. 20 speech, in which he pledged to investigate corruption, speed up review of the election law and hasten economic progress. "I want quick results. When I talk about political reform, I want real reform consistent with the spirit of the age."

But Jordanians, emboldened by what happened in Egypt, appear to expect much more.

"These are not concessions," Labib Kamhawi, a political analyst and reform advocate in Amman, said of the new government. "The one who appointed the first prime minister who was fired is the king. The one who fired him is the king, the one who appointed his successor is the king, and the one who's going to fire him is the king. These men are mere clerks with high rank. And this is not reform."

About 4,000 Jordanian protesters took to take to the streets of downtown Amman Friday to demonstrate for reform. Their key demands are fair elections and a return to the 1952 constitution as it existed before most power was transferred to the monarchy.

The Muslim Brotherhood, the only real organized opposition in Jordan, boycotted the parliamentary vote last year as a protest against what it said were fraudulent elections in 2007, in which the organization against all reasonable expectations netted only six seats out of 110. Brotherhood leaders, along with other reform advocates, are insisting on a prime minister who is selected by parliament, perhaps in consultation with the king.

"What happened in Tunisia and especially Egypt has brought a big hope — Egypt was the most secure and autocratic regime, and it fell," said Murad Adaileh, a member of the Muslim Brotherhood's executive committee. "People's frustration is increasing because we have started to see a total alliance between the authority of the state and money, which has led to an unprecedented state of corruption."

Privatization efforts have led to complaints that the country was getting raw deals for selling off its golden geese. A businessman with purported close connections to the royal palace landed a lucrative cell phone license for a fraction of what other companies were offering, according to widespread complaints in the local media. Critics said phosphate and potash companies sold to foreign companies quickly showed profits greater than the amount for which they were sold.

"In one year, one profited three times the sales price. This is not just corruption, it is audacious corruption," said retired Gen. Ali Habashneh, who was one of a number of senior military veterans who signed a public letter last year demanding reforms.

Much of the public blame seems to focus less on King Abdullah than on his queen, Rania. The beautiful Kuwaiti-born Palestinian's vacations in St. Tropez in the company of rock star Bono and model Naomi Campbell have not sat well among Jordanians who are reeling under rising food and fuel prices in a capital city that has the highest cost of living in the Arab world.

Public irritation came to a boiling point in September, when the queen hosted an opulent party for her 40th birthday in the scenic desert valley of Wadi Rum. Though some villages in southern Jordan can barely pay for electricity, the party reportedly featured a large number "40" in lights.

The event raised $1.6 million for charity and wasn't that glitzy, said Ayman Safadi, who was deputy prime minister in the government that was sacked this month.

"Any middle-class Jordanian would have thrown a better party," he said. "And the food? I came back and had to order a hamburger because I was still hungry."

Simmering at the heart of the tribal discontent is the issue of Palestinian demography that has bedeviled the kingdom since the 1967 war with Israel.

Tribesmen of Jordanian stock from the East Bank of the Jordan River worry that the growing number of Palestinians who have moved in from the West Bank and elsewhere will erode their traditional hold on money and power.

Although the Palestinian population is officially pegged at 49 percent, most observers believe it has reached 60 percent and is growing. Yet Palestinians typically hold fewer than 20 percent of the seats in the elected lower house of parliament (a figure that slipped to 12 percent in the November elections).

Analysts say true reform will almost surely erode the East Bank Jordanians' hold on power and, in the process, the massive system of public subsidies they enjoy. This is not only controversial but also may be impossible — East Bank tribesmen have traditionally formed the bulk of the army and police.

It means, in stark terms, taking away generations of perks from, as one analyst put it, "the guys with the guns — good luck."

Yet the king's decision to appease the East Bank by restoring many subsidies, raising public wages and appointing a new prime minister from the tribal old guard, many analysts say, is almost sure to slow the pace of economic reforms, crucial to new investment and jobs.

It is in many ways a no-win situation for the king at a time when winning may be a matter of survival.

Safadi insisted that the king remains popular and had made it clear he was committed to reform even before events elsewhere in the region increased their urgency.

Kamhawi, the political analyst and reform advocate, is skeptical.

"The government is not wholeheartedly for reform," he said. "The government considers it its duty now to defuse the tension. And this will not work."

"The issue is not the king, or royalty. We don't care about that. We have so far nobody at all proclaiming their intention to change the regime. But the regime has to accept that this is not an open check to say, 'OK, well, accept the regime as it is.' No. The regime has to change according to the will of the people."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5)What is it about Chris Christie?
By Jennifer Rubin

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R) appeared on "Face the Nation" yesterday. He turned in another gripping performance, following his recent speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

He is -- no doubt a consequence of his years as a prosecutor -- entirely fluid in his delivery. He maintains good cheer even when dismantling the question. And he makes even the toughest position sound like nothing more than common sense.

Asked if Gov. Scott Walker has "gone too far," Christie responded:

Bob, let me tell you what -- what went on in New Jersey. My predecessor, Governor Corzine, stood on the front steps of the Capitol at a public-sector union rally and said, "I'll fight to get you a good contract." And I thought to myself, watching that, who's he fighting with? Once he says that, the fight's over. What I believe in is true adversarial collective bargaining. And so, every state is different. I'm not going to micromanage Wisconsin from Trenton, New Jersey. I know Scott Walker. I like him. And I trust him. And I think he believe he's doing what's in the best interest of Wisconsin, the same way I'm going to do what I think needs to be done for New Jersey, which is, to reform the pension system and roll back health benefits for public-sector workers, to put them more in line with the rest of the population in New Jersey, to put us on a long-term path to fiscal stability.

But aren't collective bargaining rights inviolate? Christie, a former U.S. attorney, reminds us:

Now listen. All these rights are legislatively created. They didn't come down from tablets at the top of a mountain. And so, political things change and go back and forth. And every state is going to make their own determination on that. Wisconsin is in the middle of making that determination. As you know, Bob, there are plenty of states in America where that right doesn't exist. And so, each state has to make their own determination on that.

But it's not the legal precision of the answer that is exceptional. What stands out is his utter candor. I frankly can't imagine another politician debunking the notion that public employees have a God-given right to collectively bargain.

But his best answer was in response to the accusation that he is "demonizing teachers." In his unflappable and cheery way, he essentially told Schieffer that was nuts:

Listen, I think that the teachers in New Jersey, and there's thousands and thousands of great ones deserve a union as good as they are and they don't have it. And, I disagree with the premise of your question, which is that everybody agrees there should be education reform. It's everybody, but the teachers union who believes that everything is fine. If you listen to them in New Jersey, they'll tell you everything is fine. I mean it's great. It's great except for the hundred and four thousand kids in New Jersey that are struck in -- stuck in 200 chronically failing schools. I mean, you know just because their zip code is in a poor urban center doesn't mean we should be fighting to change the system that's failing them. So, no. What I'm trying to do is have a merit-based system for teachers, so that great ones get rewarded and paid more and that the really great ones want to stay in the profession, not only because they love it but because they're rewarded financially for it. The union, Bob, they protect the worse of the worst. That's what there for, they make it impossible to fire bad teachers and it's ruining our education system.

Contrary to the rap that Christie is a bully, he delivers his message without the slightest trace of annoyance, let alone anger.

He is unabashed in refusing to raise taxes: "[W]e're not going to continue the spending spree and we're certainly not just going back to raising more and more taxes. The people in New Jersey have had enough of that. Hundred and fifteen times in eight years, I think they'd given it the office, Bob."

He is matter-of-fact about avoiding a government shutdown: "I mean their job is to solve these problems and not just to stand in a corner and hold your breath. So -- and I say that about both sides. So let's get together. They've got a week to figure it out. Let's get in the room and figure it out. I was a little surprised they took the last week off, to tell you the truth, given that this was looming."

Far from overbearing, he seems like the tough football coach -- he's not going to take any guff, but he devoted to his guys (in this case, the ordinary citizen).

And those who think he doesn't show restraint should think again. Is Sarah Palin ready for president? "She's got to make that judgment herself." Should Michelle Obama be dinged for her anti-obesity campaign? "Well, I think it's unnecessary. I think it's a really good goal to encourage kids to eat better. You know, I've -- I've struggled with my weight for 30 years and it's a struggle. And if a kid can avoid that in his adult years or her adult years, more power to them." The man knows when not to throw a punch.

He, of course, insists he isn't running for president. But here's the deal (a Christie-ism): if he racks up another big win in the budget fights, the GOP field continues to shrink and disappoint and the economy is still in the doldrums, don't you think Christie might just decide to take the ball and run with it? And with his reputation and name identification, he could make that decision in November. By then, the Republican electorate should be desperate for a candidate who can not only beat Obama but take Washington by storm.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------