5 More Stories that will Encourage Conservatives


Department of the Interior sued by environmentalists

  1. Trump Administration Will ‘Shed Light’ On A Secretive Practice That Costs Taxpayers Millions Of Dollars

A 15 May 2019 Daily Caller article outlines Trump’s plans to “shed light” on Obama-era practices styled to benefit environmentalists willing to game the system.

The Interior Department will publicly list attorneys’ fees paid out, often to environmental activist groups, for legal settlements, according to a recent memo from Principal Deputy Solicitor Daniel Jorjani.

Jorjani’s memo states the Interior Department will develop a webpage within 30 days to publicly list details of legal settlements and cases, which the agency says is a big step in bringing sunshine to a non-transparent practice that the public is largely unaware is happening.

“This is a big deal that will shed light on the millions of dollars the DOI pays out every year in attorneys’ fees” under federal laws, an Interior Department official said in an email.

“This is your tax money and only by shining a light on this process can you decide if it is being put to good use,” the official said.

The memo was signed May 10, but made public Wednesday. Jorjani issued the memo in response to a 2018 order from Interior Secretary David Bernhardt while he served former Secretary Ryan Zinke’s number two. Zinke resigned earlier this year and has since been replaced by Bernhardt as head of the Interior Department.

Environmental groups have been particularly successful using “citizen suits” to sue the federal government into taking an action, then getting taxpayers to pay their attorneys’ fees. A 2016 Daily Caller News Foundation investigation found federal agencies paid out $49 million for 512 citizen suits filed under three major environmental laws during the Obama administration.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

This certainly has shades of Democrat dirty dealings, the legacy of Obama scandals, and other unsavory issues on the left. With all of the left’s problems with capitalism, this certainly shows that they have no problems with gaming the system and using crony capitalism.


Nikki-Haley-Venezuela

  1. ‘Cowardice’: Nikki Haley Takes Aim At Ocasio-Cortez, Omar And Sanders Over Venezuela

In a second 15 May 2019 Daily Caller article, former UN ambassador Nikki Haley calls out the reluctance of fake socialists (you know, the ones who have million-dollar royalties and three homes or three-figure salaries and exclusive apartments that they don’t share with the masses) to face the reality of socialism in Venezuela.

Former Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley sharply criticized three prominent Democrats — Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — for going soft on Venezuela’s socialist dictatorship.

“On the fringes of the left, celebrity politicians refuse to condemn [Venezuelan dictator Nicolas] Maduro. Worse, some have actually embraced him,” Haley wrote in a Monday post for Stand For America, her new political organization.

Haley ticked through the responses from Ocasio-Cortez, Omar and Sanders, taking shots at each one.

Ocasio-Cortez dodged when asked if Maduro was a legitimate ruler. “A simple ‘no’ would have sufficed,” commented Haley.

(Read more at the Daily Caller)

Considering the fact that AOC does not understand the difference between socialism and capitalism (as demonstrated by the following video), it shouldn’t be hard to convince thinking liberals to consider the benefits of the system that has lifted more people from poverty worldwide.

When you compare Bernie Sander’s “Democrat(ic) Socialism” to the socialism that wrecked Venezuela, you’ll find mirror copies shared by Bernie and Venezuela. Both Bernie and Venezuela went for government-owned banking. Both Bernie and Venezuela went for universal healthcare. Most importantly, both Bernie Sanders and the socialists of Venezuela would rather that the people not be able to defend themselves with guns.

In retrospect, that did not work out very well for the people of Venezuela.

us-weekly-jobless-claims-fall-more-than-expected

  1. Jobless claims fall more than expected

A 15 May 2019 Reuters article points out how economic factors have worked in favor of anyone with a business. Therefore, this works well for non-socialists (non-Democrats).

The number of Americans filing applications for unemployment benefits fell more than expected last week, pointing to sustained labor market strength that should underpin the economy as growth slows.

Initial claims for state unemployment benefits dropped 16,000 to a seasonally adjusted 212,000 for the week ended May 11, the Labor Department said on Thursday. Data for the prior week was unrevised.

Claims had been stuck at higher levels for three straight weeks, reflecting difficulties stripping out seasonal fluctuations from the data around moving holidays like Easter, Passover and school spring breaks.

Economists polled by Reuters had forecast claims would fall to 220,000 in the latest week. The Labor Department said no states were estimated last week.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, considered a better measure of labor market trends as it irons out week-to-week volatility, rose 4,750 to 225,000 last week.

The labor market is strong, with the unemployment rate near a 50-year low of 3.6%. The robust job market is supporting the economy as the boost from the White House’s $1.5 trillion tax cut package fades and President Donald Trump’s escalating trade war with China disrupts supply chains at factories, which are already struggling with an inventory bloat that has cut production.

(Read more at Reuters article)

Reading the above Reuters article, you can tell that the author wants America to fail so that Republicans (and the evil business community that supports them) will fail. Oddly, nothing but a point of view separates the author from those he hates. Similarly, I have seen leftist Antifa supporters bludgeoning young women and old men over their having attended a Trump rally. Again, nothing but a disagreement on whether a socialist government or a free people would best govern America separates the attackers from the victims.

In contrast, I have worked for ideologies to fail, but not people. In s recent post, I advocated against the passage of the Equality Act because I am certain that it will lead to the subjugation of my religious rights. However, in other posts, I have stood against Islamists that would kill gays. That is to say, I have stood by those in the “Gay Agenda,” because I see life as sacred, all people as sinners, and the only unforgivable sin as the rejection of Christ.

However, I also cannot stand by while Christians continually find themselves abused by gay groups who had benefited from the Christians’ action. Additionally, I cannot ignore the harshness and inhumanity of a gay system that time and time again has proven itself willing to subjugate those who disagree on points of conscience.

ChristineQuinn

  1. Liberals have started to lose their composure due to fear of losing the battles they forced on the rest of America

Unborn Babies Are Not Human? CNN Debate Leads to Stunning Declaration: ‘That Is Not a Human Being’

A 10 May 2019 Christian Broadcasting Network article shows how liberals have been taken so aback by the possibility that Roe versus Wade might be returned to the states. As reported, a CNN panel consisting of former Senator Santorum, Chris Cuomo, and talking head Christine Quinn produced a surprising quote.

A CNN interview this week raised some powerful questions about the humanity of the unborn, taking the abortion debate straight to the most central question. But the arguments made by CNN’s host and contributor are stunning.

Host Chris Cuomo took the pro-abortion side as he questioned former US Senator Rick Santorum and CNN political contributor Christine Quinn.

They spoke about states that are passing restrictive abortion laws like Georgia’s hearbeat law, with Cuomo and Quinn arguing that a decision by five people on the Supreme Court is more valid than the rights of states or the beliefs of millions of Americans.

That turned into a heated exchange over when life begins before Quinn said something a lot of people find shocking.

The pro-life Santorum had challenged Cuomo and Quinn about their belief that the unborn baby inside a woman’s womb is not a human.

“Do you guys realize a baby DIES in an abortion? Are you ignoring that fact. This is a human life,” Santorum says.

“It’s not a legal fact,” Cuomo inserts.

“Do you disagree that at the moment of concept that child is human and alive? Is it biologically a human life?” Santorum says. Cuomo says the issue should only be about “viability,” to which Santorum replies, “You guys talk about being the party of science, that is so a-science.”

Then he raised the issue of humans being treated as property in a clear reference to the wrong-headed arguments that had been used by pro-slavery forces in the 1800’s. “That’s a unique human being inside that woman. So is it the property of a woman, that you can do whatever you want with it?”

Christine Quinn, a board member of the National Institute of Reproductive Health, said, “When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her. It’s part of her body, and this is about a woman having full agency and control over her body and making decisions about her body and what is part of her body with medical professionals.”

(Read more at the Christian Broadcasting Network)

When liberals start claiming that babies in utero are not human, they are losing their grip with reality. Nobody thinks that you will crack an eagle egg and get a chicken or a wolf, but (somehow) liberals want us to believe that there is an immaculate conception each time a woman decides to keep her child. Until then, according to Christine Quinn, no human is human.

Ilhanomar

  1. Even Street Artist Sabo recognizes the wrongness of Ilhan Omar’s Anti-Semitism

PHOTOS: Street Artist Sabo Calls Out Ilhan Omar over Her Anti-Semitic Remarks

As shown by a 23 March 2019 Breitbart article, it seems that even street artists have had enough of Representative Omar’s anti-Semitic rants.

IlhanomarPolitical street artist Sabo put up a number of signs criticizing anti-Semitic comments from Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) in the Woodland Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles amid the freshman lawmaker’s appearance in town for a speech.

Ilhan Omar is scheduled to speak at a fundraiser for the controversial Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in Los Angeles Saturday. Counter-events have been organized against herIlhanOmardoor_hangers appearance.

“CAIR-LA is honored to have Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) as the featured speaker for the 4th Annual Valley Banquet,” the group’s website states.

“Born in Somalia, Ilhan and her family fled the country’s civil war when she was 8 years old. They lived in a refugee camp in Kenya for four years before coming to the United States, eventually settling in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood of Minneapolis in 1997.”

IlhanOmarSharia_ZoneStreet artist Sabo is mocking both Omar and CAIR with new street art. The art calls out Omar for her past of anti-Semitic statements.

(Read more at Breitbart)

When the arts community recognizes the way Democrats are working against the good of the rest of us, we are talking about a sea change. Like the tweets by Cher regarding the money spent on illegals while American vets and American homeless starve on the streets, it seems that some on the left have started to wake up.


Three articles showing the lies in Obama’s last press conference


Opposing Views fact checks Obama

In contrast to Obama’s statements, almost 95% of jobs during Obama’s tenure were part-time

Opposing Views stated in a 21 December 2016 article comparing Obama’s statements to a recent study from professors at Harvard and Princeton:

“President Barack Obama’s administration says that they have created millions and millions of new jobs since the economic recession, but a new study has found that 94 percent of them have not been full-time, permanent positions.

A group of Harvard and Princeton economists who studied the job surge found that, out of the 10 million new jobs created during Obama’s presidency, all but a handful of the openings sought temporary or part-time employees and contractors, reports Investing.com.

At the start of Obama’s presidency, 10.7 percent of workers reportedly had jobs that were not full-time. That number has gone up to 15.8 percent.

‘Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,’ said Krueger, a former White House Council of Economic Advisers chairman.

Though the gradually vanishing full-time jobs have impacted every demographic, it hit women the hardest since education, medicine, and other fields traditionally dominated by women declined heavily over the years.

One million fewer workers are earning paychecks than they were before the onset of the Great Recession, but Obama has said on multiple occasions that he has grown the economy by adding 15 million jobs to the private sector, notes CNN Money.

‘Anyone claiming that America’s economy is in decline is peddling fiction,’ Obama said in his final State of the Union speech, according to CNN Money.

But the metrics he uses to get the 15 million job figure are generous, to say the least. Rather than measuring economic improvement from January 2009, when his term began, he counts job growth from employment’s lowest period in February 2010, when fewer than 130 million Americans had jobs. Now, nearly 145 million are working — just not full-time.

(Read the full story on Opposing Views)

Obviously, Obama cannot be this clueless so as not to know the real numbers coming out of his own Bureau of Labor Statistics.  Therefore, I can only surmise these are lies meant to deceive faithful Democrats.

Dr. Krueger

Investing reports nearly 95% of jobs were part-time

An Investing 21 December 2016 article reported on a Harvard study on jobs during the Obama administration:

“A new study by economists from Harvard and Princeton indicates that 94% of the 10 million new jobs created during the Obama era were temporary positions.

The study shows that the jobs were temporary, contract positions, or part-time ‘gig’ jobs in a variety of fields.

Female workers suffered most heavily in this economy, as work in traditionally feminine fields, like education and medicine, declined during the era.

The research by economists Lawrence Katz of Harvard University and Alan Krueger at Princeton University shows that the proportion of workers throughout the U.S., during the Obama era, who were working in these kinds of temporary jobs, increased from 10.7% of the population to 15.8%.

Krueger, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, was surprised by the finding.

The disappearance of conventional full-time work, 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. work, has hit every demographic. ‘Workers seeking full-time, steady work have lost,’ said Krueger.

Under Obama, 1 million fewer workers, overall, are working than before the beginning of the Great Recession.

The outgoing president believes his administration was a net positive for workers, however.

‘Since I signed Obamacare into law (in 2010), our businesses have added more than 15 million new jobs,’ said Obama, during his farewell press conference last Friday, covered by Investing.com.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

One more rebuttal to Obama’s last press briefing

Ben Shapiro wrote an article rebutting the claims Obama made before jetting off to his last presidential Hawaii vacation. Originally published at Creators.com, Mr. Shapiro’s article appeared on OneNewsNow as follows:

“Last Friday, President Obama gave his last press conference as commander in chief. Undeterred by his would-be successor’s devastating loss to Donald Trump in the presidential election, unswayed by Republicans’ complete domination of Congress, state legislatures and governor mansions, he maintained his cool and collected self-aggrandizement. Why not? According to Obama, Obama has been a major success.

Perhaps the most hilarious moment of delusion came when he talked about terrorism. ‘Over the past eight years, no foreign terrorist organization has successfully executed an attack on our homeland that was directed from overseas,’ Obama stated. He then continued, saying no attack has been executed ‘in a rainstorm with the attacker driving a tractor with one hand, drinking a Miller High Life with the other and wearing a clown nose.’

To be fair, Obama didn’t add those final qualifiers – but he might as well have. In order to define away the problem of terrorism that has grown dramatically worldwide on his watch, he simply spoke of terrorism as a problem of organized groups within defined territories. That’s not how modern terrorism works. Terrorist groups can recruit without formal structures and can operate as independent cells within various countries.

Just three days after Obama’s statements, an alleged jihadi plowed a truck into a Christmas market in Berlin; the same day, a Turkish terrorist murdered the Russian ambassador to Turkey. These latest attacks aren’t outliers. In the past several years, we’ve seen terrorist attacks in Turkey, Germany, Belgium, Great Britain, Canada and Australia.

This sort of terrorism isn’t relegated to foreign countries, of course. Here is an incomplete list of radical Islam-related terror attacks and attempts on American soil under Obama: shootings of American military recruiters in Little Rock, Arkansas; the massacre at Fort Hood; the Boston Marathon bombing; an attempted bombing of the airport in Wichita, Kansas; hatchet attacks on New York City police officers; attempted shootings at the “Draw Muhammad” event in Garland, Texas; the attacks on military recruiters in Chattanooga, Tennessee; the massacre at the San Bernardino Inland Regional Center; the Orlando nightclub shooting; the New York and New Jersey bombings; and the Ohio State University car attack.

Obama still thinks he can cover his abysmal record with closely drawn definitions of terrorism. It’s the equivalent of President Bill Clinton saying he’s been faithful to his wife except for certain areas, like sex. It’s technically true so far as it goes, but it doesn’t go very far.

(Read more at OneNewsNow)

Who Would You Rather Trust: Someone Who Planned for Possibilities or Two Who Just Failed?


Three Experienced Huge Monetary Problems, But Only One Planned for Problems

One Who Planned for a Possible Loss: Donald Trump

If you regularly peruse the New York Times for truthful and useful information, you might want to dig through thr fluff and find the sample first chapter of The Art of the Comeback posted to the New York Times Book section in 1997. There, Donald Trump not only spelled out the circumstances under which he lost approximately $1 billion, but also explained how he kept solvent through the ordeal.

“Essentially, I placed a big bet. ‘Look,’ I said. ‘I can tie you guys up for years–in court proceedings, bankruptcy filings, and the other legal maneuvers I’m good at–when forced. But I’m willing to do something else.’ I told them that if they gave me a $65 million line of credit, used only to keep my valuable assets and good business going, I’d agree to end any thought of legal skirmishes. My side of the deal looked like this: First, the banks would float me $65 million to keep my head above water. Second, no single bank could lay claim against me for five years (until June 30, 1995). Third, all interest and principal on loans would be deferred until that time. It was a win-win situation for all. I was able to buy some time in hopes that the casino or the real estate markets would rebound. And the banks were able to collateralize their unsecured debt and consolidate the rest.

This was the biggest bet of my life, and boy, did it pay off! Had I tried to make this deal six months later, it would have been impossible. The banks were becoming more and more illiquid–there’s no way they would have been able to allow any more money to go out. They were as tight as I was then. Timing, once again, was everything.

By 1993 I began to feel more like Chavez than like Taylor. My personal debt of $975 million had been reduced to $115 million, and I had two years to finish cleaning it up. There was no way to deny that things were going really great. Piece by piece, deal by deal, a beautiful picture was beginning to emerge. What my people and I had already achieved was astonishing.”

Considering how many real estate moguls were ruined during the 1990’s, the moves Trump made to remain solvent did involve a strong degree of savvy.  Therefore, in response to Hillary’s mocking taunt (“What kind of genius loses a billion dollars in a single year?”), it seems that it’s the kind of genius who uses leverage that ties the fates of potential foes together for their mutual gain.  It’s the kind of genius that keeps people employed (as opposed to the Obama/Clinton model in place since 2009).

The Genius Who Lost $6 Billion from the State Department

Governmental entities like the Department of State may not be expected to turn a profit; however, they are normally expected to give a full accounting of how they spend the taxpayer’s money. That is, unless you are an unaccountable Democrat named Hillary Clinton, you are expected to keep detailed records.  In a 13 April 2013 Washington Post article, the lack of bookkeeping details found by the Inspector General of the State Department came to light.  It is not necessarily true that Hillary embezzled $6 billion, but it is true that nobody knows what happened to the money:

“The April 3 news article ‘State Department’s IG issues rare alert‘ reported on the management alert issued recently by my office. In the alert, we identified State Department contracts with a total value of more than $6 billion in which contract files were incomplete or could not be located. The Post stated, ‘The State Department’s inspector general has warned the department that $6 billion in contracting money over the past six years cannot be properly accounted for . . . . ‘ “

Admittedly, this accounting oversight requires that Hillary would be required to put two and two together — which may be well above her pay grade. Remember, it was Hillary who, when asked about her wiping a server, responded “Like with a rag?”

Nonetheless, neither Hillary’s $6 billion dollar loss of taxpayer funds nor Hillary’s inability to bring 200,000 promised jobs to New York as senator seem to stop Hillary’s faithful from chortling in response to her hypocritical hyperbole (refer to the video below for her recriminations).

NY Times Accused Donald Trump of Tax Indiscretion Despite Five Problems with Their Story

On 1 October 2016 the New York Times claimed to cite confidential sources as they tried to accuse Donald
Trump of nefariously taking legal income tax deductions.  The problems with this accusation include:

  1. Writing off losses from income tax is a legal protection we are all afforded.  It is legal.
     
  2. The New York Times took advantage of the same protection and will likely do so again this year.  According to a United States Securities and Exchange Commission Form 10K discussed in a 4 October 2016 Townhall article, the New York Times was all too willing to take a $3.6 million refund in 2014.
     
  3. The New York Times piece (for all of its bravado) was nothing but speculation.  As pointed out by a 3 October 2016 article in the Last Refuge:

    “The New York Times has published part of the tax returns of a private citizen in an effort to score political points for a candidate they endorse, Hillary Clinton.  That should be the real headline people pause and think about.

    The front pages of the tax returns themselves are essentially a non-issue, representing the 1995 gross business loss incurred by candidate Donald Trump who operates a massive conglomeration of business entities.

    The anti-Trump political angle is easily identifiable within the extensive article use of: “could have”, “might be”, “may have”, phrases used throughout the woven narrative.  Journalistic “narratives” are rarely based on facts.”

  4. Hillary Clinton used this provision of income tax law to write off losses. According to a 4 October 2016 article in Townhall:

    (G)etting back to returns and the Clinton campaign’s attack on Trump, it appears that Hillary may have utilized a similar “scheme” by declaring a capital gains loss to avoid paying more in taxes. The financial blog Zero Hedge has more from her 2015 return, where she declared a $699,540 loss.”

  5. You did not have to cite a confidential source.  Donald Trump wrote about the loss in the first chapter of The Art of the Comeback that he posted to the New York Times Book section in 1997.

Obama’s and Hillary’s Two Big Lies


Thanks to http://truthfeed.com/

Obama’s Lie on Not Knowing of Hillary’s Illegal E-mail Server

PJmedia Calls it Obama’s Colossal Email Lie Final Test for Tarnished MSM

In a 24 September 2016 article that introduced me to the fact that Obama knew about Hillary’s server when he claimed he learned about it in the press, PJmedia had the following critique of this crooked, crooked situation:

“That Barack Obama communicated in 2012under a redacted pseudonym—with Hillary Clinton on the then secretary of State’s permeable home-brew email server and then claimed he did not know of that server’s existence until it was reported in the press in 2014 is far more than the usual politician’s prevarication.

Since the fish rots from the top—and in this case it stinks to high heaven—the surfacing of this particular presidential lie calls to question the entire FBI inquiry into the Clinton server, an investigation whose credibility was paper thin in the first place and has now completely vanished.

It’s time to ask that age-old question: “What did the president know and when did he know it?”

That we do know (as of this Friday’s dump) that one of Clinton’s own IT workers referred to her then just-announced 60-day email retention policy (who does that?) as “Hillary’s coverup operation” almost (but not completely) tells the story in those three quoted words. Even though they say it’s not the crime, but the coverup, in this case, it’s both.

The seriousness of this crime/coverup—involving the national security of our country—makes Watergate seem like a minor kerfuffle at a sewing circle. If the mainstream media does not investigate this thoroughly, they are unquestionably the court eunuchs many of us have accused them of being. Worse, they are the enablers of the decline of Western civilization.  Without a free and honest press — some of it anyway — not to mention adherence to the rule of law, such a civilization cannot survive.  And the decline can come remarkably swiftly.  We have plenty of  examples of that from twentieth century Europe.

If the mainstream broadcast media can bring itself to report on its golden boy and its golden girl, it will break an existing record of under-reporting on and covering for Democrats. Luckily, there is still the print media, a few conservative media outlets, and the British press. Otherwise, we would be at the whims of the CBS, NBC, and ABC nightly infotainment.

Obama lies to the face of CBS correspondent Bill Plante

For the Doubters, Here is the CBS article and the video where Obama LIES

In a 8 March 2015 CBS article, Obama lies (though not exposed until the above article submitted how Obama s-mailed to Hillary using a pseudonym).

“President Obama only learned of Hillary Clinton’s private email address use for official State Department business after a New York Times report, he told CBS News in an interview.

CBS News senior White House correspondent Bill Plante asked Mr. Obama when he learned about her private email system after his Saturday appearance in Selma, Alabama.

‘The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,’ the president told Plante.

Mr. Obama’s comments follow a long week of media scrutiny surrounding Hillary Clinton’s private email address and the “home-brewed” server that hosted it.

‘The policy of my administration is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived,’ Mr. Obama said. ‘I’m glad that Hillary’s instructed that those emails about official business need to be disclosed.’

Despite widespread criticism from Republicans who believe Clinton acted inappropriately, the president continued to defend his former Cabinet member’s record.

‘Let me just say that Hillary Clinton is and has been an outstanding public servant. She was a great secretary of state for me,’ Mr. Obama said.

Following the New York Times report Monday, the House Select Committee in charge of investigating the 2012 Benghazi attacks issued a subpoena of Clinton’s private emails. Clinton herself took to Twitter late Wednesday in her first public statement regarding the clintonemail.com server controversy.

‘I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible,’ the likely Democratic presidential candidate tweeted.

The president reiterated his support of these actions.

‘I think that the fact that she is putting them forward will allow us to make sure that people have the information they need,’ Mr. Obama said.

Plante, who was a reporter covering ‘Bloody Sunday’ for CBS News 50 years ago, sat down for an interview with the president to talk about the recent Clinton controversy, foreign affairs and the state of race relations in the United States.

Obama’s and Hillary’s Big Lie on Serin Gas Supplied to Syrian Rebels

Evidence Points toward Obama/Clinton Supplying Rebels

In a 11 May 2015 Slate article, the suspicions of Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh point toward cooperative action between Obama, Clinton, and Syrian rebels in the gasing of Ghouta, Syria:

“But the criticism of Hersh’s latest piece echoes the controversy that recently met Hersh after he published two other stories—in December 2013 and April 2014, also in the London Review—about the Syrian civil war. Both stories cited anonymous sources, corroborated by second- and third-hand accounts, saying that Syrian rebels, not the Assad regime, were the first to use chemical weapons in the country’s ongoing civil war, specifically in a sarin gas attack on Ghouta, Syria, on Aug. 21, 2013.

At the time, President Obama had recently issued a ‘red line,’ saying that if Assad used chemical weapons, the U.S. would intervene in the conflict on the rebels’ behalf. Hersh argued that the government was blaming the rebel attack on Assad to justify direct involvement in the war. (The U.S. ultimately decided against entering the conflict directly.)

Hersh’s first story, from December 2013, said that the rebel group responsible for the sarin gas attack was the al-Nusra Front, an affiliate of al-Qaida. As the Huffington Post’s Michael Calderone and others noted at the time, Hersh also said that al-Nusra had ‘mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity.’ This first story asserted the administration “cherry-picked” evidence and deliberately manipulated intelligence to avoid implicating al-Nusra. But the story raised eyebrows, in part because the New Yorker and the Washington Post declined to publish it. But that wasn’t all: At Foreign Policy, Eliot Higgins cited open-source evidence—including YouTube videos—to show that the munitions in the gas attack had been used repeatedly by the Syrian military. ‘There is no evidence of Syrian rebel forces ever using this type of munition—and only Syrian government forces have ever been shown using them,’ Higgins wrote.”

Let’s see, Is the Obama/Clinton cabal lying about this one, too? Did Hillary lie about 2,800 emails? Did Hillary promise to bring 200,000 jobs to New York as senator fall flat just before she started blaming a 4-year-distant President Bush for her inaction?

A Labor Union Leader Sees Obama for What He Is


Thanks to LiUNA for this photo of President O’Sullivan

Terry O’Sullivan of the Laborers’ International Union of North America calls out Obama

In an 12 November 2015 CNS article, the president of one of the unions to endorse Obama in 2012 now sees Obama for what he is:

In reaction to President Barack Obama’s decision to not allow the Keystone XL pipeline to be built, Terry O’Sullivan, the president of the Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA!), said Obama had “once again” thrown “hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus” while “doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change.”

“His actions are shameful,” said O’Sullivan in a press release. “The president may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer.”

Last week, President Obama announced his decision to kill the pipeline proposal because Secretary of State John Kerry and the State Department had informed him that Keystone XL “would not serve the national interest of the United States.”

Obama also stressed the necessity for America to “transition” to a “clean energy economy,” and added, “America is now a global leader when it comes to taking serious action to fight climate change.  And frankly, approving this project would have undercut that global leadership.  And that’s the biggest risk we face — not acting.”

LiUNA’s President Terry O’Suillivan said, “President Obama today [Nov. 6] demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs.  After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the President’s decision to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans.”

“The President may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer,” said O’Sullivan.

The Keystone XL pipeline would have run from Canada down through the Midwest United States to refineries in Texas and Illinois, and to a distribution center in Oklahoma.
According to the American Petroleum Institute, construction of the Keystone XL pipeline “could support 42,000 jobs and put $2 billion in workers’ pockets.”

LiUNA, the Laborers’ International Union of North America, was founded in 1903 and currently has 557,999 members. It is affiliated with the AFL-CIO. Terry O’Sullivan has been president of LiUNA since 2000.

“The President Has Thrown Working People Under the Bus”

In an op-ed written by O’Sullivan in the Labor Press on 9 November 2015, the president of this union unloads on Obama:

President Obama today demonstrated that he cares more about kowtowing to green-collar elitists than he does about creating desperately needed, family-supporting, blue-collar jobs.After a seven-year circus of cowardly delay, the President’s decision to kill the Keystone XL Pipeline is just one more indication of an utter disdain and disregard for salt-of-the-earth, middle-class working Americans.

The politics he has played with their lives and livelihoods is far dirtier than oil carried by any pipeline in the world, and the cynical manipulation of the approval process has made a mockery of regulatory institutions and government itself. We are dismayed and disgusted that the President has once again thrown the members of LIUNA, and other hard-working, blue-collar workers under the bus of his vaunted “legacy,” while doing little or nothing to make a real difference in global climate change. His actions are shameful.

In its Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Keystone XL Project Executive Summary, issued in January 2014, President Obama’s own State Department concluded that building the Keystone XL “is unlikely to significantly affect the rate of extraction in oil sands.”[1] Worse, reviewing the impact of not building the Keystone XL, the same report concluded that, “the total annual GHG emissions (direct and indirect) attributed to the No Action scenarios range from 28 to 42 percent greater than for the [Keystone XL].”[2] But facts apparently mean as little to the President as the construction jobs he repeatedly derided as insignificant because they are “temporary.” Ironically, the very temporary nature of the President’s own job seems to be fueling a legacy of doing permanent harm to middle- and working class families.

From this decision on the Keystone XL, to the attack on quality healthcare through the so-called “Cadillac Tax,” to his efforts to ship good jobs overseas through the Trans-Pacific Partnership, Barack Obama’s disdain for working people is evident. The President may be celebrated by environmental extremists, but with this act, President Obama has also solidified a legacy as a pompous, pandering job killer.The half-million members of LIUNA – the Laborers’ International Union of North America – are on the forefront of the construction industry, a powerhouse of workers who are proud to build America.