Related: National Tea Party Convention Nashville Sarah Palin Keynote Speech

The nomination of Craig Becker to the National Labor Relations Board was just defeated on a cloture vote 52-33. Sen. Ben Nelson (D., Neb.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D., Ark.), and Sen. Scott Brown (R., Mass.) all voted against cloture.

The Politico story of the Senate stopping big-labor lawyer Craig Becker's nomination for a seat on the National Labor Relations Board by a 52-33 vote is here.

As Politico points out, Becker had come under fire earlier this month in his confirmation hearings for making statements many in the GOP considered too strongly aligned with union interests. The opposition to Becker's seating on the NLRB also is tied into larger Republican opposition to the Employees Freedom of Choice Act (EFCA)--a bill that would make it easier for employees to unionize, and which has come to a standstill in the Senate in the face of GOP criticism.

Related: Why You Should Know About Craig Becker (and Why You Need to Be Worried)

Reading both pieces leaves one with the sinking feeling that the Obama administration is doing more to protect the so-called "rights" of the jihadists than they are to protect the lives of American citizens, and that it has no clue about the enemy we face. Quite telling is the fact that Zuhdi Jasser, a Muslim, has no problem referring to radical Islam whereas the Pentagon's report, under the rule of the Obama administration, refers to radical Islam not even once.

Related must-read: AJStrata believes he's "Discovered How Team Obama Missed The Ft Hood Massacre And Christmas Bomber."

If you don't immediately get what Continetti's refering to, here's a clue: Obama and his top advisers Rahm Emanuel, Valerie Jarrett, and David Axelrod all hail from the Chicago school, but of course most of you caught it right away. having long recognized Barack Obama's style of politics being the Chicago way of doing things that the rest of us think of as being counter to having anything to do with bipartisanship. What's so ironic is that while many Americans voted for this president because of his vow to bring the country together, he and his administration are instead, ripping it apart and have brought the meanest form of politics to Washington.

Ever since the botched Christmas Day plot to blow up a Detroit-bound airliner, the Obama administration's national security officials have struggled to assure the public that they know exactly what they're doing.

So far, they're achieving the opposite, and they're needlessly adding some jitters in the process:

- CIA Director Leon Panetta and other top officials agreed last week that an attack by al-Qaeda is likely in the next three to six months. The warning is bound to frighten the public, with no obvious benefit beyond the ability to say "I told you so."

- Top administration officials revealed last week that bombing suspect Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was again cooperating with authorities. Great. But the news pretty much negates earlier claims that no intelligence was lost when Abdulmutallab was prematurely read his rights.

- In Senate testimony, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair had a "Duh!" moment as he hit his forehead and acknowledged that authorities fumbled the initial questioning of Abdulmutallab by failing to call in the high-value interrogation group, which was created to question terrorism suspects. Refreshingly candid, yes, but not a statement that inspires confidence. Especially when the same day, at another Senate hearing, FBI Director Robert Mueller testified that the high-value unit was still in its "formation stages" and that "there was no time" to get it to Detroit.

All of this follows the string of blunders that allowed Abdulmutallab to carry explosives onto a U.S.- bound plane in the first place. The chaos that followed his arrest now looks just as bad.

My oh my, how time changes things. Indeed, we're reminded that Brennan's comments sound remarkably similar to the type of thing the Left accused the Bush administration of saying.

And as Jim Geraghty points out (H/t - Ed Morrissey):

Looking again at that John Brennan op-ed in USA Today, I see he refers to Abdulmutallab as a "suspect" but asserts that administration critics, ipso facto, "serve the goals of al-Qaeda."

In other words, in the eyes of one the administration's top men on counterterrorism, Abdulmutallab gets a presumption of innocence that you and I don't.

And where does this nutjob's odd op-ed appear? In the New York Times, of course. Where else!

After reading Boot's comments and the nutjobs' curious op-ed, my takeaway is that the op-ed writer has been drinking way too much Obama Kool-Aid (although he's on the opposite side from Obama in the debate about whether America should aim for zero with its nuclear arsenal) and sucked up way too much "touchy feely, let's be loved by everyone," juice that's going to get us all very much dead at the hands of Islamic extremists.

The issue of addressing the meaning of jihad was brought to my attention today by a commenter on this February 2006 post about the then on-going Muslim cartoon rage who wrote:

OK first, off Jihad means struggle. second not all muslims are bad. I am an american muslim.

Dr. Hamid points out what many of us are so keenly and painfully (in the sense of being extremely exasperated) aware of, that apologists for Islamic radicalism immediately raced after 9/11 to convince the West that "jihad" is predominantly understood in a peaceful way, and those apologists continue to spout such nonsense to this very day (eg: the Christmas Day near disaster in Detroit, the individuals recently arrested in Detroit, Denver and New York, and the five Americans detained in Pakistan).

And as Dr. Hamid goes on to note, many in the West accepted and continue to rely on this comforting definition without adequate scientific research in Arabic and Islamic literature. So in order to help clear up the confusion, lets take a further look at what he has to say about the definition of jihad.

Apologists for Islamic radicalism immediately raced after 9/11 to convince the West that "jihad" is predominantly understood in a peaceful way. Many in the West accepted and relied on this comforting definition without adequate scientific research in Arabic and Islamic literature.

For example, John O. Brennan, assistant to the president for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, mentioned that the meaning of jihad is to ". . . purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal" in a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies on Aug. 6.

In addition, John Esposito and Dalia Mogahed defined jihad in their book "Who speaks for Islam" in the same peaceful way.[1]

Hiding the violent meaning of jihad has also permeated reputable encyclopedias for terrorism such as "Encylopedia of Terrorism" by Combs & Slann (See Revised Edition Infobase Publishing, page: 165)

According to classical Islamic texts and sources, jihad can be understood in several ways. Some are very violent and others are peaceful.

Scientific honesty necessitates that we present all views about the meaning of the word jihad instead of selecting the definition that makes us feel most comfortable.

The following facts MUST be addressed to understand the most dominant meaning of the word jihad in the Muslim world:

Currently, the words "jihadi Islam" are used by the mainstream Arab media to refer to the violent form of Islam. If jihad is mainly peaceful, why do the Arab media use the word predominantly to describe violent Islam? (Note: jihad is the noun, jihadi is the adjective)

The word jihad is interpreted in most of the reputable traditional Islamic books in a violent manner. One of the many available examples, al-Shawkaneei's interpretation for the Quran[2] mentions for Sura 9, Verse 73 that "Jihad against the Infidels is achieved by fighting them until they submit to Islam". Is this the moral goal that Brennan's speech writers and "Islamic experts" are alluding to? Why would it be that he the most reputable Islamic scholars understood jihad in such a way if it was predominantly peaceful?

Modern Islamic books written by top Islamic scholars and distributed globally still adopt the violent meaning of the word to fight the disbelievers until "Allah alone is worshiped". For example, Minhaj al-Muslim [3] states clearly that the aim of violent jihad is that "Allah alone is worshiped." Minhaj al-Muslim is published in Saudi Arabia, London, Houston, and New York and is written by al-Jaza'iry, who is a lecturer in the Noble Prophetic Mosque in Saudi Arabia. This position is one of the highest positions in Islam that could be attained by any Muslim scholar. It is unrealistic to assume that he, too, does not understand the definition of jihad.

If the word jihad is primarily understood in a peaceful way, why do we not hear about peaceful jihadi organizations? The word jihad is almost always used by the violent radical groups. If the word is understood predominantly in a peaceful way, we would have seen it used predominantly by peaceful Islamic organizations rather than the violent ones.

The hadith (or sayings of the Prophet Muhammad) that described jihad as a struggle against one's desires ("It is the striving of the servant against his desires") is a Daiif or weak (unbinding) Hadith. [4]

Modern Islamic scholars such as Yusuf Al-Quradawy who are considered "moderates" by many in Western media and academia mention clearly that jihad has to be conducted via wars to spread Islam and make Islam as the only religion [5]. How is it that such a knowledgeable and leading "moderate" Islamic scholar is not aware of the meaning of the word jihad while non-Arabic speakers are aware of it?

It is fair to say that jihad "can be" understood in a peaceful way. However, there is huge difference between saying that "Jihad can be understood in a peaceful way" and "Jihad is a peaceful concept." The former is an honest and accurate statement, while the latter is a wrong and deceiving one that indicates a serious lack of knowledge.

Given such sobering truth about the real meaning of jihad - as defined by "moderate" Muslim scholars, lets no longer accept the nonsense of the Muslim apologists in the media and the Obama administration. Clearly, jihad has to do with Muslim extremists conducting war against the West in order to spread Islam and make Islam as the only religion. And unless we are willing to accept Islam and forgo our own faith, freedoms, and way of life, we'd damn well wake up to what those Islamic terrorists and Muslim extremists have in store for us. As Newt Gingrich recently wrote, it's time to be honest about what we know, before a lot more Americans are killed. We must once and for all acquire the courage to tell the truth and to act on that truth.

Related: Robert Spencer - The Definition of "Jihad" (... certainly most Muslims aren't jihadists. Most probably do think of jihad primarily as a spiritual struggle. But to pretend that the jihadists don't have the intellectual upper hand in the Islamic world today is to undercut any chances for genuine Islamic reform, which can only proceed from an honest acknowledgment of the realities of Islamic doctrine, not from ignoring those elements and implying they don't exist.)

Could Mr. Obama and the far-left Democrats in Congress be so deeply in the tank for the unions as to either completely miss the point from Massachusetts or simply chose to ignore it that they are willing to attempt to force the passing of a bill that would lead to the loss of 600,000 jobs in the first year alone while it decreased US job creation?

You bet they are.

Related video: Warren Buffett Calls Anti-Worker "Card Check" a "Mistake"

Other related:
Card Check could kill my company and yours
Labor's Card-Check Ruse

As Erick Erickson notes (H/t -Kavon):

If Barack Obama cannot be genuine and interested in Republican ideas when the cameras are turned off, there is absolutely no way he can be genuine and sincere with the cameras turned on.

The GOP is often referred to as the stupid party. Let's pray they aren't stupid enough to sit down with a President who has for six months dismissed them as having no ideas. Barack Obama says he wants a bipartisan approach to health care now. Well, there is bipartisan support for scrapping the current proposals and starting over.

Unless Barack Obama says they should scrap the present plans and start over, the GOP should not entertain his invitation to use a gaggle of Republicans to rehabilitate our socialist President.(emphasis mine)

Someone recently commented in another post here that Hyscience was a hate site that wanted Barack Obama to fail. What the commenter obviously chose to ignore is that, as Rasmussen's poll makes clear, a majority of Americans clearly disagree with Mr. Obama's policies and agenda. It is Mr. Obama's policies and agenda that they object to, and yes, they want his policies and agenda to fail - for good reason. They sincerely believe his policies and agenda are socialist, anti-free market, deficit-expanding, and bad for America - as do the posters at this site.

And while we're at it, let's make another thing clear. The disapproval of the president by 54% of voters that has absolutely nothing to do with race. It has to do with his handling of the deficit, the poor economy and jobs, his attempts at over-reaching health care expansion, his pro-socialist expansion of government over the body of private enterprise, and even his foreign policy which has not put us closer than ever to Iran having a nuclear weapon to pass around to its Islamic terrorist friends.

While anyone's passing is sad, especially for his family and friends, I'm not going to pretend I ever liked the guy and I admit to looking forward to his seat being filled by a Republican.
There is, however, a complication with that being accomplished because, as Ace points out, in order to win the seat a Republican will probably have to express a greater interest in earmarks than we'd generally be comfortable with. Indeed, Murtha's "little fiefdom basically ran on tax money siphoned off from the rest of the country."

For those who missed it, here it is:

So, what do you think?

My take is the latter.

Michelle Malkin is also in the "creeped out" camp, and has the context you need to judge which side Audi is on.

Ed Morrissey has a somewhat technical explanation for Audi doing the ad but still finds the ad to work for him far better as a warning of an overreaching government dictating choices -- like incandescent lightbulbs, paper vs plastic in the grocery store, and choice of cars.

Which leaves us with the ad being "a warning of an overreaching government dictating choices -- like incandescent lightbulbs, paper vs plastic in the grocery store, and choice of cars," by a "a corporation whose management has sucked down way too much green Kool-Aid."

So, would I ever by an Audi?

My answer is not just a no, but a raving "hell no"!

Thanks for giving us this long-awaited vacation.

"Republicans already counting the seats they will pick up this fall should keep in mind Obama has a big card yet to play. .

Should the president declare he has gone the last mile for a negotiated end to Iran's nuclear program and impose the "crippling" sanctions he promised in 2008, America would be on an escalator to confrontation that could lead straight to war. ...

And should war come, that would be the end of GOP dreams of adding three-dozen seats in the House and half a dozen in the Senate."

Harry Reid is surely aware a U.S. clash with Iran, with him at the president's side, could assure his re-election. Last week, Reid whistled through the Senate, by voice vote, a bill to put us on that escalator.

Looks like I'm not the only one that wouldn't put it past Barack Obama and the Dems to "Wag the dog" in order to Barack and his motly crew of corrupticrats re-elected. Which is, of course, not to say that I don't think Iran needs to be addressed in harsh-enough terms so as to insure that they don't end up with nuclear weapons. In my mind, the issue is one of timing and intent - and in Obama and the Dems' case, both the timing and the intent could likely be for a political purpose rather than one of national security.

Here's an excerpt:

My brother used to tell me that the place for a woman is either at home or in the grave. I was always restricted to home.

He said: "If you leave the house I'll cut off your head and put it on your chest."
My brother had been to the local school and beaten the girls and the teachers.
He said anyone who wanted to study was a friend of America.

I wanted to be a doctor. I wanted it so much that once I dreamt I was sitting in a hospital, working as a doctor. I wanted to help the poor, those who cannot afford medical fees.
Taliban commanders used to come to our house. There was an underground bunker beside the house, with electricity.

It was concrete and very strong. Cars would drive on top but no-one would realise what was underneath. In that hideout they used to train suicide bombers.
Most were children of my age or younger than me. They were used for these activities because they were too young to know any better.

Going to 'paradise'

I used to see these children getting on a vehicle to go for their missions. They used loud Islamic CDs to motivate them.
And I would think, "My God, more Muslims are going to be buried". Then the news would come that more Muslims were wiped out.

As for how she now feels about the Taliban: "The Taliban slaughter other people's children. They turn women into widows. They should be made to suffer too. I want these Taliban to be burned alive."

And let's not forget that most of the people the Taliban kill are Muslims. If the Taliban don't give a damn about the lives of other Muslims that disagree with them or just happen to be innocent bystanders - as most are, then what does that say about the Taliban and why they must be stopped!