Currently viewing the tag: “Secret”
Union officials who have been challenged to accept a federally supervised secret ballot election for Hyatt hotel employees have sought and received protective cover from the Obama Administration. Thus far, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) has rejected four petitions from hotels in California and Indiana asking for a straight up and down vote on unionization. Although it is unusual for an employer to ask for an election, this option has existed at the NLRB for 75 years.
The NLRB had scheduled hearings to review petitions for three of the four properties, but later cancelled those hearings when it became clear UNITE HERE was not asking for the election. The idea now is for the union to hide behind and NLRB procedure so it can sustain its corporate campaign and pressure Hyatt into accepting “card check” as a substitute for a secret ballot election.
The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA),” which provides for “card check,” has been a top legislative priority for union leaders but with Republicans now in control of the House it is unlikely to move. Even with Democrats in control of Congress and the White House in the first two years of the Obama administration, the legislation ran into stiff opposition.
“The lesson from this episode is clear: although unions couldn’t convince Congress to force card check on the American people, it remains their preferred method of organizing and they’ll do whatever they can to intimidate workers and employers into using it,” said Glenn Spencer executive director of the Workforce Freedom Initiative with the Chamber of Commerce.
“It’s unfortunate that the NLRB doesn’t think that years of harassment and pressure tactics by unions should be enough to trigger a true test of workers’ wishes-a secret ballot election. The NLRB seems intent on throwing out precedent in many other areas, it’s time they take a fresh look here.”
Robb Webb, the chief human resources officer with Hyatt, suspects the NLRB would have had a much different reaction if UNITE HERE had asked for the election.
“Although our request for elections has been denied, we believe the NLRB would have looked upon the matter differently if the leaders of UniteHere had agreed to a federally supervised election as they have nearly 300 times over the past five years, he said. “We urge UniteHere to reconsider their decision, so that each of our associates can exercise their right to be heard by casting a ballot.
Clearly, union bosses have not given up on the idea of undermining the use of secret ballots, especially in those circumstances where it clear that employees would prefer to remain free of organized labor. The idea now for the left-leaning attorneys who dominate the NLRB to deliver administratively what could not be achieved legislatively even with Democratic majorities.
When it comes to the thorny issue of guns, President Barack Obama is finding it difficult to please anyone. Gun control groups are dissatisfied with his progress the issue, though a recent meeting with Obama administration officials about reducing gun violence may improve relations. Gun-rights groups, on the other hand, paint Obama as an ‘anti-gun’ President, intent on destroying the Second amendment.
Now a conservative gun-rights organization has launched an email fundraising campaign claiming that Obama is secretly planning to eviscerate the Second amendment through an executive order.
The email, sent on Thursday by the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, solicits donations and implores members to write to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and request that he “expose Barack Obama’s planned use of his ‘executive order’ power”.
From the email:
Your CITIZENS INJUNCTION FORM will urge Senator McConnell to:
1. EXPOSE Obama’s planned use of his “executive order” power to increase federal fees on guns and ammunition, ban guns that are imported, extend waiting periods, ban the use of guns on all government property and even make it illegal to own a gun if you smoke or use tobacco products.
2. Publicly denounce Obama’s back door gun control maneuvers that threaten our Bill of Rights.
3. Lead the battle in Congress to nullify each and every anti-gun “Executive Order” that Barack Obama signs into law.
Since taking office, Obama has signed legislation allowing guns in national parks and allowing guns to be carried in checked luggage on Amtrak trains. And to the disappointment of gun-control advocates, his administration hasn’t taken any action to close the gun show loophole or reinstate the assault weapons ban.
But gun-rights activists remain unimpressed. The email claims, with no shortage of capital letters and exclamation points, that Obama the most anti-gun President the United States has ever seen.
See the full email here.
(Scott)
As subtly foreshadowed here yesterday, today’s Wall Street Journal carries Steve Hayward’s “The secret of Brazil’s energy success.” Steve writes:
The Obama administration’s energy policy is in the midst of transition from being stubbornly ideological to being wholly incoherent. That much was clear when President Obama unveiled his Blueprint for a Secure Energy Future this week.
With gasoline prices climbing above $ 4 a gallon, the administration is talking about tapping our Strategic Petroleum Reserve in a desperate attempt to hold down pump prices. It’s also expanding subsidies and incentives for energy supplies that cost a lot more than oil, and it’s aiming to reduce our dependency on foreign oil by one-third over the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, in a bizarre turn, Mr. Obama recently expressed enthusiasm for aggressive offshore drilling-in Brazil.
At least the president is practicing the green virtue of recycling. His energy address featured all the greatest hits of past presidential declarations of energy independence, including even George W. Bush’s paean to switchgrass ethanol. Yet Mr. Obama’s energy “blueprint” will get no further than all previous presidential schemes for the same reason: It is unserious at its core. . . .
You will want to read it all to discover the deep secret of Brazil’s remarkable energy success.
Initially, I thought this was a joke.
President Obama finally and quietly accepted his “transparency” award from the open government community this week — in a closed, undisclosed meeting at the White House on Monday.
The secret presentation happened almost two weeks after the White House inexplicably postponed the ceremony, which was expected to be open to the press pool.
This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.
[…]
The transparency advocates who presented the award to Obama say that the recognition is important, because despite the work left to be done, Obama has done a lot to change the government’s posture toward openness issues.
You think?
This time, Obama met quietly in the Oval Office with Gary Bass of OMB Watch, Tom Blanton of the National Security Archive, Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight, Lucy Dalglish of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and Patrice McDermott of OpenTheGovernment.org, without disclosing the meeting on his public schedule or letting photographers or print reporters into the room.
Oh yes, the President has a lot to do when it comes to “transparency.” Beginning with this award.
From NY Blueprint, yesterday:
“Do you like sexy panties? Then don’t boycott Israel.” So say the T-shirts worn by activists canvassing Union Square Park and handing out care packages of Israeli manufactured products including Victoria Secret panties today between 1-4pm in Union Square Park near NYU. It is a humorous way of drawing attention to the serious problems caused by the movement to boycott Israel, says the Birthright Israel Alumni Community who is organizing the “Kiss my BDS” event, problems for both innocent Israelis and American consumers most of whom have no idea of the many links between the two economies. These kind of unreasoning attacks on Israel only hurt America – American companies, American super markets, even in American lingerie drawers.
Today (March 30th) to counter the international anti-Israel “BDS Day” (Boycott, Divest, Sanction), sexy Israel supporters will be handing out Victoria’s Secret panties in Union Square Park. (Victoria’s Secret is on the boycott list.)
As much as I tried,I could not find photos of this important event. Sorry.
However, a blog called Jewish FAIL claims:
After receiving fabric from Israel, the undergarments are actually made by Palestinian women and foreign workers in Jordan who toil under brutal, intolerable conditions and then sew “Made in Israel” tags onto their work. The underwear is then returned to Israel, which exports it to the U.S. Yay, exploited labor masquerading as economic cooperation!
 |
| Damn, she’s exploiting poor Jordanians! |
The NYT article they point to to prove that the panties are made in Jordan is dated…1996. It seems possible, but not certain, that the lingerie is still being made in Jordan for Israeli companies. Ha’aretz reported more recently about “sweatshops” in Jordanian factories owned and used by Israeli companies.
So BDSers are boycotting Victoria’s Secret, but others are complaining that Israel doesn’t really make the products. I guess it is a second-level boycott.
Jordan, the nation that actually allows the sweatshops, somehow isn’t blamed for any of this by anyone. Because, of course, the enlightened leftists who are so keen to complain about Israel and Victoria’s Secret don’t have very high moral expectations from mere Arabs.
So, don’t tell anybody, ok? Good. We don’t want that getting out while we’re not sure if we know or care who it is we’re arming. Despite the headline, this story has been widely reported by a number of news organizations. “Exclusive: Obama authorizes secret help for Libya rebels,” by Mark Hosenball for Reuters, March 30:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”
The CIA declined comment.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi’s opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to “ultimately step down” from power. He spoke of applying “steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means” to force Gaddafi out.
“Other means”: Commence “Operation Barry Manilow?”
Obama said the U.S. had not ruled out providing military hardware to rebels. “It’s fair to say that if we wanted to get weapons into Libya, we probably could. We’re looking at all our options at this point,” he told ABC News anchor Diane Sawyer….
Sometimes, blog posts write themselves.
American Thinker Blog
Sometimes, blog posts write themselves.
American Thinker Blog
While the world’s attention is elsewhere…
American Thinker Blog
On a day when a poll found President Barack Obama getting his lowest polling numbers ever, and as the big political story playing out is whether or not there will be a government shutdown, a new story has surfaced via an exclusive report that promises to spark a new extensive debate. And it already has — a debate sweeping like lightning through the Internet and on cable news and cable talk shows:
Reuters reports that Obama has authorized secret help for Libya rebels:
President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to government sources familiar with the matter.
Such findings are a principal form of presidential directive used to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency. This is a necessary legal step before such action can take place but does not mean that it will.
As is common practice for this and all administrations, I am not going to comment on intelligence matters,” White House spokesman Jay Carney said in a statement. “I will reiterate what the president said yesterday — no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya.”
The CIA declined comment.
News that Obama had given the authorization surfaced as the President and other U.S. and allied officials spoke openly about the possibility of sending arms supplies to Gaddafi’s opponents, who are fighting better-equipped government forces.
The United States is part of a coalition, with NATO members and some Arab states, which is conducting air strikes on Libyan government forces under a U.N. mandate aimed at protecting civilians opposing Gaddafi.
Interviews by U.S. networks on Tuesday, Obama said the objective was for Gaddafi to “ultimately step down” from power. He spoke of applying “steady pressure, not only militarily but also through these other means” to force Gaddafi out.
News agencies, news websites and often partisan political blogs are already jumping on the story. Here’s a cross section of news reports and viewpoints so you can make up your own mind on whether this was justified, legal, illegal, a bad move, a smart move or the kind of behind-the-scenes action that may not be unusual except for the fact that it has come out into the political light of day:
–ABC News confirms the story:
President Obama has a signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations to aid the effort in Libya where rebels are in full retreat despite air support from U.S. and allied forces, a source tells ABC News.
The presidential finding discusses a number of ways to help the opposition to Moammar Gadhafi, authorizing some assistance now and setting up a legal framework for more robust activities in the future.
The finding does not direct covert operatives to provide arms to the rebels immediately, although it does prepare for such a contingency and other contingencies should the president decide to go down that road in the future.
The White House press office issued a statement saying it does not comment on intelligence matters.
“I will reiterate what the President said yesterday – no decision has been made about providing arms to the opposition or to any group in Libya. We’re not ruling it out or ruling it in,” the statement said. “We’re assessing and reviewing options for all types of assistance that we could provide to the Libyan people.”
The revelation of the finding comes as Washington is debating whether to arm the rag tag army trying to oust Libya’s long time strongman Moammar Gadhafi.
The ABC News TV report:
–The New York Times:
The Central Intelligence Agency has inserted clandestine operatives into Libya to gather intelligence for military airstrikes and to contact and vet the beleaguered rebels battling Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s forces, according to American officials.
While President Obama has insisted that no American military ground troops participate in the Libyan campaign, small groups of C.I.A. operatives have been working in Libya for several weeks as part of a shadow force of Westerners that the Obama administration hopes can help bleed Colonel Qaddafi’s military, the officials said.
In addition to the C.I.A. presence, composed of an unknown number of Americans who had worked at the spy agency’s station in Tripoli and others who arrived more recently, current and former British officials said that dozens of British special forces and MI6 intelligence officers are working inside Libya. The British operatives have been directing airstrikes from British jets and gathering intelligence about the whereabouts of Libyan government tank columns, artillery pieces and missile installations, the officials said.
American officials hope that similar information gathered by American intelligence officers — including the location of Colonel Qaddafi’s munitions depots and the clusters of government troops inside towns — might help weaken Libya’s military enough to encourage defections within its ranks.
–Time Magazine’s Mark Halperin:
Obama’s Bush-like (which is not to say “Bush-lite”) national security practices have long included a reliance on covert operations to deal in some of the darker corners of the world. Anyone who is surprised that Obama would do this hasn’t been paying attention.
As always, the fear is that Islamists may end up in power, and thus the U.S. will have backed a (new) regime opposed to American interests and those of our allies, especially Israel. Not only that, the administration’s been all over the map, with confused and contradictory statements, and of course a Jello policy on regime change or not. More on that from Melanie Phillips, “Humpty in Toytown and the Arab Boomerang.”
Now of course this is yet another leak of classified info for political gains. But who did it and why? It could be an Obamanaut making sure the country knows he is not a complete muppet. It could also be someone trying to derail the multinational hugs and love fest (with a few bombs) that Barry had sent our military over to run. If we are covertly, well I guess more overtly now, helping the rebels then the whole bold-faced lie he told on television was a bold-faced lie. I mean you can call it misdirection or discretion and you would be correct. But you can dang sure call it a prime time prevarication and it makes it impossible to pretend we are just refueling some planes for our buddies the French.
So I am against whoever leaked it doing so to either help or hinder Obama. I think it is kinda interesting that there are reasons for both to do so. But hey let’s enjoy this rare moment of transparency and just be happy that O is willing to allow the skulking about with satchels of cash and supressed weapons that really makes the best diplomacy. I just assume his aides are reading B5 for their strategery needs.
I wonder if this finding has anything to do with the Libyan expat resident of Northern Virginia, 10 miles from Langley, showing up in Benghazi to command the rebel army?
So this “debate” looks like a clown show. Maybe Obama will officially authorize arms shipments under the UN resolution and maybe he will show “restraint.” But as Hosenball says, the pieces are in place for Obama to permit weapons to funnel to the rebels under the covert action. He may have to give a follow-up assent – known as a “Mother May I” finding – but that’s not too difficult. Arming and training insurgents falls within the scope of this order, the President need only give the go-ahead.
Apparently the proper way to go about this, according to the White House, is to authorize first and ask questions later….
If Gaddafi is overthrown, then Obama wins in 2012 (albeit with an all-GOP Congress), and if there’s any jihadist presence whatsoever in the new Libyan government, would Republicans try to impeach Obama for precisely this — giving materil aid to terrorists? Hell, if he wins again, they’re going to try to impeach him for something, right? This seems as likely a cause as any.
Sources tells ABC News that President Obama has signed a secret presidential finding authorizing covert operations to “aid the effort” in Libya, where the US is working with NATO, and Arab partners to enforce a no-fly zone, protect civilians, and…
Political Punch
Reuters is reporting that in the last two or three weeks President Obama authorized a “finding” which allows secret support of the Libyan rebels. Details on what that support consist of is unclear. No government, in fact no organization can exist without secrets, but this is something that Senator Obama would not have tolerated during the Bush administration. What’s more troubling here is that no one seems to know what kind of people we are supporting there. Are they Velvet Revolution-type supporters of democracy or are they al Qaeda terrorists? Or are they combination of both?
Does Obama know?
Technorati tags: 
news libya Obama Barack Obama armed forces military news
President Obama “has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi,” Reuters reports.
Obama signed the order within the last two or three weeks to authorize secret operations by the Central Intelligence Agency.
Taegan Goddard’s Political Wire
Reuters is reporting that the U.S. is now going to start arming the Libyan rebels:
(Reuters) – President Barack Obama has signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, government officials told Reuters on Wednesday.
Obama signed the order, known as a presidential “finding”, within the last two or three weeks, according to four U.S. government sources familiar with the matter.
A few thoughts here.
First of all, this “secret” order isn’t really a secret anymore, which makes one wonder who may have leaked it. There may be more dissension within the Administration over Libya than we’ve been led to beleive.
Second, this would seem to directly contradict the policy that the President announced in his speech on Monday.
Third, any action to arm the rebels would seem to clearly violate the arms embargo established in United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 (PDF), and strengthened in UNSCR 1973 (PDF).
USA Today reported this week that billions in earmarks remain tucked into the funding measure that keeps the federal government running for the remainder of the fiscal year. Congress is debating right now how much to cut from the measure, yet these secret earmarks are not being openly discussed by members of Congress.
That’s unfortunate. Earmarks should be low hanging fruit for the cost-conscious legislator. They are special interests projects requested by individual members of Congress.
The USA Today story indicates that the House-passed short term funding measure fully funds $ 5 billion in existing earmarks. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) has submitted legislation, in the form of an amendment to a “small business jobs bill,” to remove these projects.
According to USA Today, (Half of ‘earmark’ spending untouched in GOP bills,) $ 4.8 billion in earmarks are hidden in the defense, military construction and veterans affairs were left untouched by the Continuing Resolution (CR) that funds the government until April 8th:
House Republicans who crafted two short-term spending bills made $ 5.3 billion in cuts by going after some of Washington’s least popular spending: those congressional pet projects known as “earmarks.” Even so, a congressional report shows they left $ 4.8 billion in earmarks untouched — and critics of congressional pork say they should go after it. “Many in Congress promised taxpayers a full earmark moratorium, not a half moratorium,” says Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., an earmark opponent who requested the report from the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. “Protecting nearly $ 5 billion in earmarks from cuts sends the wrong message to taxpayers.”
Much of the information comes from a March 17 report from the Congressional Research Service (CRS). According to that report, “funding that was made available to accounts for earmarks in FY2010 would still be available to the agency for obligations in FY 2011.” Uh-oh. The CR that states that “all of the earmark disclosure lists from the FY 2010 appropriations ‘shall have no legal effect’ for FY2011.” This leads one to conclude that all of these apparent reductions in earmarks are fake spending cuts.
If the Congress were to delete the approximately $ 10 billion in earmarks from the FY2010 process, one could make an argument that those funds never would have been expended (because of the “no legal effect” language) and that the American people should not believe that $ 10 billion in the final number of cuts are real cuts to spending for this fiscal year.
Sen. Coburn’s legislation would eliminate all of these old earmarks and other special interest earmarks from the federal budget. One earmark Coburn would repeal is a tax credit for “Volumetric Ethanol.” That move alone would save $ 6 billion in taxpayer money.
Another Coburn legislative item would bar federal unemployment benefits to those earning over $ 1 million a year. The senator’s office says this amendment would save taxpayers $ 20 million:
According to the U.S. Internal Revenue Service, as many as 2,840 households who have reported an income of $ 1 million or more on their tax returns were paid a total of $ 18.6 million in unemployment benefits in 2008. This included more than 800 earning over $ 2 million and 17 with incomes exceeding $ 10 million.
Coburn also defunds earmarks in the FY 2010 defense appropriations bill. One example: a $ 20 million earmark for the Edward M. Kennedy Institute for the United States Senate in Massachusetts. Elsewhere, highway and mass transit earmarks call for nearly $ 700 million in extra spending.
A major obstruction to Coburn’s efforts to pull the plug on earmarks is Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV). Coburn has been offering this legislation as amendments to pending bills. Leader Reid has refused to let the Oklahoman call up any of his amendments to the small business jobs bill preventing a vote. The President also shares some blame for not calling for the CRs to eliminate all earmarks. Nor do House Republicans win any plaudits here; they have yet to pass a short term CR without earmark funding.
