GOP gets loud in DC over “independent” NLRB’s complaint against Boeing

The NLRB’s sloppy wet kiss to Big Labor is gaining attention from not just GOP lawmakers in South Carolina, but in DC as well. Via CNN:

Washington (CNN) – South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley and a group of Republican senators demanded Tuesday that the Obama administration weigh in on the National Labor Relations Board’s complaint against Boeing, saying the complaint could jeopardize thousands of South Carolina jobs and the future of free enterprise in the country.

[…]

The Republicans took turns condemning the White House for allowing a board of Democratic appointees to wield control over how American companies do business.

“This is an issue that may have started in South Carolina, but we want to make sure it never touches another state,” said Haley, who flew to Washington for the press conference at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. “We are demanding that the president respond to what the NLRB has done. This goes against everything we know our American economy to be.”

The White House has been largely silent on the matter, saying that the NLRB is “an independent agency” conducting its own enforcement actions.

Haley was joined at the news conference by her state’s two Republican Senators, Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint, as well as South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson and state Attorney General Alan Wilson.

Tennessee Sen. Lamar Alexander and Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul also took turns questioning the NLRB’s activities, with Paul going so far as to suggest that the White House has “an enemies list.”

Alexander said he plans to finalize language later Tuesday on the “Right to Work Protection Act,” which would protect right-to-work states from federal intrusion over labor disputes.

Graham called the NLRB complaint “absurd” and accused the administration of having a double standard toward Boeing because White House chief-of-staff Bill Daley is a former member of the company’s board.

[…]

“This is something that would happen in a third world county, not in America,” [Sen. Jim] DeMint said of the NLRB action. “I can’t believe the administration is sitting on the sidelines pretending they had nothing to do with it.”

Trust me – Senator DeMint isn’t surprised one bit that this administration is pretending to be “above the fray.” The White House is notoriously two-faced when it comes to political favoritism, slamming lobbyists while at the same time having some of them work directly for the administration (and let’s not forget how candidate Obama tried to skate around the issue of lobbyists by way of defining ‘what he meant’ by the term ‘lobbyists’). That the WH tried to avoid the issue by giving the lame excuse that the NLRB is an “independent” agency is absolutely laughable, considering that agency independence didn’t matter to them one little bit when – for example – it came to the politically motivated firing of AmeriCorps Inspector General Gerald Walpin, who was shown the underneath of the bus after upsetting a fat cat Obama supporter.

In this situation, the WH has the potential to do some good and possibly reverse the NLRB’s bogus complaint via a public denounciation of such a blatantly partisan move but of course he’s not going to do that, because the NLRB is doing his and his administration’s bidding: Bowing and bending over for Big Labor. The closer to the 2012 election, the more this type of outrageous nonsense will happen.

Move along here. Nothing to see …

CIA “deniers” are the new birthers

**Posted by Phineas

Leftist critics of rough interrogation techniques continue to deny –in the face of all evidence– that the techniques used at Guantanamo Bay and in the CIA’s “black prisons” in Eastern Europe contributed in any meaningful way to the hunt for Osama bin Laden.

Marc Thiessen disagrees, and he cites a source Lefties will have a hard time denying:

The evidence that CIA interrogations played a key role in the operation that got Osama bin Laden is overwhelming. Countless intelligence officials, including CIA Director Leon Panetta, have confirmed that detainees interrogated by the CIA provided information that helped lead us to bin Laden. But the CIA deniers continue to insist it is all a “big lie.” Despite this testimony, and the mountains of documents declassified by the Obama administration in 2009, they contend that CIA interrogations did not work.

Well, if they won’t believe these sources, perhaps they’ll believe WikiLeaks.

I doubt it was Julian Assange’s intent to provide still additional evidence of the effectiveness of CIA interrogations, but that is precisely what WikiLeaks’ “Gitmo Files” do. Take, for example, the file on Abu Faraj al-Libi — one of several CIA detainees who helped lead the agency to bin Laden’s courier. The document describes Abu Faraj as the “communications gateway” to bin Laden who once in custody “reported on al-Qai’das methods for choosing and employing couriers, as well as preferred communications means.” Based on intelligence obtained from Abu Faraj and other CIA detainees, it states that “in July 2003, [Abu Faraj] received a letter from UBL’s designated courier” (to whom he referred by a false name, Maulawi Abd al-Khaliq Jan) in which “UBL stated [Abu Faraj] would be the official messenger between UBL and others in Pakistan.” The file also notes a vital piece of intelligence: To better carry out his new duties “in mid-2003, [Abu Faraj] moved his family to Abbottabad” — the city where bin Laden eventually met his end — “and worked between Abbottabad and Peshawar.” And the file reveals that “in mid-April 2005, [Abu Faraj] began arranging for a store front to be used as a meeting place and drop point for messages he wanted to exchange” with bin Laden’s courier and was captured while waiting to meet him.

It is a miracle that al-Qaeda leaders did not read this classified document before bin Laden was killed. If they had, they would have been alerted to the fact that the CIA was on the trail of bin Laden’s courier, and they would had made the connection between the courier, bin Laden and Abbottabad — which could have blown the bin Laden operation.

In other words, waterboarding worked and, again, saved lives.

That sound you hear is the sound of heads exploding all over MSNBC… .

LINKS: My blog-buddy ST on an earlier Thiessen article.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)

Death to What’s-His-Name!

**Posted by Phineas

Yeah, I’d say it kind of spoils your big moment on TV when you pronounce death on the President of the United States … and can’t remember his name:

More seriously, while this is the usual (and not all that well done) condemnation of the Great Satan for killing a noble mujahideen (and sociopathic mass-murderer), note Sheikh Sa’id’s justification: that Obama is a Muslim who has left the faith and therefore, as an apostate, must die:

“Allah’s Apostle never killed anyone except in one of the following three situations: (1) A person who killed somebody unjustly, was killed (in Qisas,) (2) a married person who committed illegal sexual intercourse and (3) a man who fought against Allah and His Apostle and deserted Islam and became an apostate.” –Bukhari 9:83:37

This just goes to show that the “Obama is a Muslim” myth(1) has spread far and wide, even to faraway Sudan, and will probably never die. But I can see where Sa’id is coming from: Obama’s father was a (non-practicing) Muslim and, under Islamic law, if you are born to a Muslim father, you are a Muslim. (Daniel Pipes has a good discussion of this.) Practicing Islam doesn’t make a difference, so, in Sa’id’s view, it’s not unreasonable(2) to accuse Obama of being a murtadd — an apostate. That modern Christianity largely sees membership as a matter of some form of baptism and active profession of faith doesn’t matter; after all, as it says in the Qur’an, Christians are the ones who have “gone astray.”(3)

So… Death to What’s-his-name!

(1) For what it’s worth, I’ve never bought into that; it’s just a variant on the “Manchurian Candidate” meme. If Obama is drawn to any religion, it’s the Black Liberation Theology of James Cone and Jeremiah Wright, which meshes well with Obama’s Socialist politics.

(2) To a totalitarian mind straight out of the Middle Ages, that is.

(3) That passage is generally interpreted to mean the Jews (“…those upon whom Thy wrath is brought down…”) and the Christians (“…those who go astray.”)

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)