CNN Caught Lying Nearly 16,000 Times plus all you need to know about FAKE NEWS and Dirty Tricks

The video below was taken down by powers greater than me...I replaced it with the one above.

Published on Jun 4, 2017

CNN Caught Being Fake News - Staging A Backdrop Of Protesters. From Twitter - It was caught on camera them handing out signs.
At London Bridge Terror Attack scene.They left immediately after CNN finished reporting. Source: https://mobile.twitter.com/markantro/...
"CNN also timed this and BBC wanted to film it when they were on
Note the white police officers leaving before the CNN shot & the Asian officers coming in. They then left after they went off air!"
The only other explanation could be if they were filming a movie.

_______________________________

WHOA! BREAKING NEWS:
CNN Producer Caught On Undercover Tape Admitting Trump-Russia Coverage Is BULLSH*T…”President Is Right To Say You Are ‘Witch Hunting’ Me” (VIDEO)
100 Percent Fed Up

James O’Keefe’s Project Veritas reporters went undercover at CNN to investigate the Very Fake News network to determine the motivation behind CNN’s Trump-Russia collusion obsession. Since the inauguration, CNN has mentioned “Russian story” nearly 16,000 times.

Project Veritas’ reporters can be seen in the video below having a conversation with CNN’s supervising producer John Bonifield. The reporter talked to Bonifield first about the constant barrage of Trump-Russia stories on CNN. Bonifield admitted that although CNN has no evidence or proof of Trump involvement with Russia, they continue to make it their top story on CNN simply for “ratings” and to “make money.” Bonifield has worked as a journalist and as a producer for nearly 15 years at CNN, making him a pretty reliable source when it comes to how things work at CNN.

Bonifield actually confessed to the undercover Project Veritas journalist that President Trump is correct when he says the media is on a “witch hunt” to take him down. Bonifield told the reporter: “I think the President is right to say, like, look you are ‘witch hunting me’ you have no real smoking gun, you have no proof.”

Bonifield went on to admit how CNN is biased and is playing to their audience by attacking President Trump, therefore admitting that “Trump is good for business right now.” The Project Veritas reporter asked Bonifield, “But honestly, you think the whole Russia shit is bullshit?” to which Bonifield replied: “Could be bullshit. I mean, it’s mostly bullshit right now. Like, we don’t have any big, giant proof. The way these leaks happen, they’d leak it. It’d leak. If it was something really good, it would leak.”

Watch the unbelievable video here:

Did the three resignations that took place at CNN today have anything to do with the impending release of O’Keefe’s explosive video proving that CNN manufactures Trump-Russia collusion stories for ratings, or for money?
The story about the three CNN employees resigning for publishing fake news broke yesterday. Is ti a coincidence that today, O’Keefe released this explosive bombshell video?
Here’s the story that broke yesterday: 
CNN employees have resigned for their role in pushing fake news about the Trump-Russia story that claimed a member of the Trump transition team was under investigation.
Reporter Thomas Frank, editor Eric Lichtblau and executive editor Lex Haris all resigned from their positions following a company-wide investigation into the single-sourced story that was quickly debunked, The Washington Post first reported. CNN quickly followed up with a story of their own on the resignations. Lichtblau reportedly oversaw the false story, while Haris headed up CNN’s investigative unit.
“In the aftermath of the retraction of a story published on CNN.com, CNN has accepted the resignations of the employees involved in the story’s publication,” CNN’s coverage quotes a company spokesman as saying.
Philly.com – On Thursday evening, CNN investigative reporter Thomas Frank published a potentially explosive report involving an investigation of a Russian investment fund with potential ties to several associates of President Donald Trump.
But by Friday night, the story was removed from CNN’s website and all links were scrubbed from the network’s social media accounts.
“That story did not meet CNN’s editorial standards and has been retracted,” CNN said in an editors note posted in place of the story. “Links to the story have been disabled.”

_________________________

A Brief History of ‘Fake News’
By Paul Davis @ American Thinker

The original concept of fake news was called “disinformation,” an invention of Joseph Stalin, who coined the term.  Some writings from the time indicated that the Soviets in many cases considered disinformation to be a higher intelligence priority then actual intelligence collection. This appears to be a continuing philosophy, with intelligence collection left to independent hackers and the thrust of state sponsored intelligence going to disinformation (dezinformatsiya).

Disinformation is false information spread deliberately to deceive and cause chaos. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest-ranking defector from the Soviet bloc explained in his book Disinformation that the ultimate measure of success for disinformation was when the major organs of the media coud be tricked into unknowingly propagating deliberate falsehoods.

But the Russians are far from the only ones practicing disinformation designed against political systems. The current investigations of alleged “Russian collusion” on Capitol Hill are the result of a disinformation campaign that was begun by the Democratic Party and continued when the mainstream media were fooled into publicizing the accusations as fact.

This is not to say the Russians weren’t involved. There was much made of the former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele’s “Trump Dossier.” The dossier contained a lot of unverified allegations against Trump that would lead the reader to assume the Russians were either in contact and helping him or that they had enough information to blackmail him once he was in office. What is less well publicized is that Steele paid for the information, that he paid what turned out to be Russian operatives, and that he was never able to verify the information he received. There have been attempts to breathe life into the dossier by pointing out that parts seemingly have been verified by recent independent revelations. This is, however, part and parcel of a disinformation campaign, finding ways to shore up the reports you have already pushed out.

Of course, this type of reasoning can drive you crazy. If any lie can be proved true, then what is true?  Actually, it’s not that difficult.  You need multiple sources to confirm a story and they must be vetted to be trusted. This is where the disinformation campaign falls apart. The deeper you dig, the less the “facts” hold up.

This process appears to be happening now with the investigations into the Trump campaign and the Russians. The so-called multiple contacts between the campaign and Russian operatives were a bunch of disconnected and unrelated data points. So-and-so met with this person that has a connection to the Russian government. Look deep and there is a good and legitimate reason.  President Trumps’ son-in-law attempted to set up a back channel to Russia. This is standard stuff and we only knew about some of it by intercepting the Russian ambassador’s communications with Moscow that he knew were being intercepted and read. So, there was a meeting between Jared Kushner and the Russian Ambassador. This we know is true, but the exact contents may or may not have been revealed. If they were, it is still nothing, as back channels are a normal part of statecraft. We also know, or at least most believe, the DNC was hacked and e-mails released. This, however, is not a disinformation campaign since what was in the e-mails is true. This is a crime, as hacking is a crime, but it is not disinformation.

What was begun as a political talking point to explain the unexplainable, that Clinton lost to Trump, morphed into disinformation and is being carried so far that now the Russians have latched onto it to continue a campaign of disruption of the American government and political system.

What is happening now is that very good people are putting out misinformation, information that is not true but is believed to be so by those making the statements. Unfortunately, the process of countering the lies takes time and energy.  But as with Jared Kushner, the lies must be exposed and ended. I understand that the Dems would like to keep this going to win back the House of Representatives and the Senate, but the damage it is doing to the country is not worth it, even if it could work which is looking less and less likely. The American people are facing fatigue on this issue.

Disinformation only works if people refuse to think or find it easier not to. I ask all, to please think about what is being laid in front of you and see if it makes sense.

Paul Davis is a retired Army Military Intelligence Analyst who began as a Soviet analyst and moved on to Korea and the Middle East and worked as a consultant to the Intelligence Community after retirement.   

___________________________________

The following video was Published on Oct 17, 2016

In this explosive new video from Project Veritas Action, a Democratic dirty tricks operative unwittingly provides a dark money trail to the DNC and Clinton campaign. The video documents violence at Trump rallies that is traced to the Clinton campaign and the DNC through a process called birddogging.
A shady coordinated communications chain between the DNC, Clinton Campaign, Hillary Clinton’s Super PAC (Priorities) and other organizations are revealed. A key Clinton operative is on camera saying, “It doesn’t matter what the friggin’ legal and ethics people say, we need to win this motherfucker."
Website: http://projectveritasaction.com/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProjectVerit...
Twitter: https://twitter.com/@Pveritas_Action

 

CLIMATE CHANGE...massively overblown claims of immediate and impending disaster.

My Reasons For Doubting Global Warming Theory
By Politics Alabama
Part 5: In Conclusion

This is part 5 of a 5-part series. Read the Introduction, Part 2, Part 3, and Part 4 here.

The theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, which has since been renamed Climate Change, attempts to prove that human actions are driving dramatic increases in temperature, with all of the associated side-effects of melting ice caps, rising ocean levels, and more, all leading to a world-changing conclusion.
But the climate of this planet has been changing since the planet itself was first created, and has been both hotter and colder than it is today. The “Little Ice Age” ended in the mid-1800’s, so why are we surprised by a period of warming? That’s sort of what logically comes next, right?
The plethora of climate computer models are a joke, seeming to be more of an attempt to “prove” an already determined outcome than accurately reflect how the climate functions. Because they want to show that man has a dramatic upwards effect on temperatures, that’s what the computer models show. Reality, however, doesn’t agree, and most computer models consistently overshoot what actually happens.
Climate Change scientists exist in a quasi-incestual relationship with government. Government funds the research into climate change, which they then use to justify new programs and increased power over “the environment”… and us. Where does the dog end and the tail begin? It’s hard to tell, but it is clear that the practical effect is to promote pro-global warming research and inhibit any contrary research. Global Warming scientists themselves have tilted the playing field further through the peer review process, and then claim the lack of publication proves that “the science is settled.” Somewhere in the middle of all of this, the actual science sort of gets lost behind the hype.

And then there are the constant, never-ending, and massively overblown claims of immediate and impending disaster. Predictions of future destruction are gleefully shared in order to justify more funding or passage of specific measures, but somehow the predictions never come true. There are no roving bands of climate refugees. The sea level hasn’t risen to the point that coastal areas are flooding. The arctic ice caps haven’t turned into a few scattered ice cubes floating in a sea of boiling saltwater. All this panic doesn’t make me more likely to believe what you’re saying… quite the reverse.

I still remember the year that “scientists” proclaimed that global warming would cause super-hurricanes of incredible strength, and more of them than ever. I admit I chuckled when the year ended with almost historically low hurricane activity. After that, the ridiculous claims died down to… well, more reasonable levels.

The claims are legion, but consistently false. Have you heard that the polar bear populations are declining at an alarming rate? I’m sure you have, as it’s a favorite and easy target. But it isn’t true, as polar bear populations are pretty stable, stymying past predictions of their demise. Of course, the truth isn’t stopping new forecasts of dying polar bears.

So, what DO I believe? To put it simply, I believe that yes, man’s presence on the planet does affect the climate, but not to anything like a great degree. Slightly. We are not heading for a disaster, civilization is not going to drown with a gurgle, and polar bears are not going to disappear. No great catastrophe is looming, so dramatic and expensive government action is unwarranted. We shouldn’t tax coal into extinction, we shouldn’t run gasoline prices up to European levels in order to inspire a switch to electric cars, and we shouldn’t abandon our power gird in favor of solar and wind power. No, we shouldn't place such rigorous requirements on emissions that businesses and power plants are forced to close. The danger isn’t real, the extreme, doomsday claims aren’t accurate.

What drives the global temperatures to a much greater extent are the sun and natural processes such as volcanoes. Mankind contributes a very small fraction of the greenhouse gasses introduced into the atmosphere each year, after all. The climate changes naturally, and human activity hasn’t changed that.

Do I believe in global warming?

If, by global warming, you mean that the planet has gotten warmer since the Little Ice Age, I can agree with that. If, on the other hand, you mean that human activity is forcing global temperatures higher and higher to the point that one catastrophe or another will occur, there we part company.

Global warming is real, but it’s nothing to upend human civilization about.

Now, after finishing this long series of posts, I’m hungry. Anybody know where I can score a polar bear steak?

It also means that...we are not realistic. - Read full text here ↓

↑ Provided by Norman E. Hooben ↑

Realism and Islam

James V. Schall, S.J.  ~ April 17, 2016

Our leaders cannot comprehend what is going on, either when a whole Western civilization

loses its faith and moral standards or when Islam reawakens to the implications of its own faith and its vision of world conquest.
Political realism, long associated with Augustine, constrains us to consider what Machiavelli later recommended to us—namely, to look at what men “do” do and not at what they “ought” to do. This advice would be more persuasive if, in fact, some men did not do what they ought to do or others do what they ought not to do. Both sides usually persuade themselves that they ought to follow their convictions. Machiavelli thought that if men did what they “ought” to do they would not survive the onslaughts and cunning of those who did what they had power to do whatever they could do. However, Augustinian realism did not, as in the case of Machiavelli, justify this careful look at what men “do” do as a reason to deny the distinction between good and evil so that any means could be used to accomplish their purposes.

The “realistic” look was “realistic” for Augustine precisely because good and evil were included in the look itself, in the reality as seen. To see and act on the reality of good or evil is to see reality in its fullest dimensions. Practical truth, in terms of acting according to an accurate description of what is there, is the first principle of realism as well as of political action. Thus, Maritain could rightly maintain in the Augustinian tradition that “justice, brains, and strength” need not be separated. They belong together. Or, to refer obliquely to Lord Acton, the lack of power can also corrupt absolutely. Not to possess and use responsible power in defense of what is right is itself an evil, cowardice.

With this background in mind, we recall recent events from “9/11”, the bombings in Spain, England, Mumbai, Bali, Fort Hood, San Bernardino, twice in Paris, Lahore, and Brussels, not to mention the persecutions and beheadings in Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen, Nigeria, Libya, Somalia, Chad, Syria, and the Sunni/Shiite inner-Muslim battles. What is the most plausible way to judge such continuing violence and its origins? To make this assessment, we have to acknowledge that Islam, in principle, is actually and potentially violent throughout its entire history. The basic reason for this method is obedience to the Law of Allah, not love for violence itself.

On the basis of evidence and theory, we cannot conclude from the fact that Islam is a “religion” that therefore it is not “violent” or is so only by abuse of its own founding. It is possible to be a religion and to espouse violence. (Were this not so, we would have to exclude many key passages on the Old Testament itself.) We cannot obscure what is there and affirmed to be there by Muslims themselves. Realism means that we can and should call what happens by its proper name. It also means that, if we cannot or will not make this proper naming, we are not realistic. We will inevitably suffer the consequences of our failure to state the truth of what is there.

These things are said not to promote counter violence against Muslims or to justify Muslim violence against others. Rather it is to respect Islam’s insistence that all those inside and outside of its enclosure be subject to the law of the Prophet. Whether we like it or not, this vision of world rule that is proper to Islam can only be called “religious” in nature. It is rooted in and promoted as a worship of the god called Allah. Not to take this wording seriously is unrealistic. The Muslims who claim that they can read their religious texts as if such violence is not advocated and justified may be applauded for trying to mitigate the historic record. But the fact is that those who see this violence as essential to the religion have the better side of the argument and are the better witnesses to what historic Islam stands for.

II.

What is argued here, then, is not to be unfairly “critical” of Islam. On the contrary, it is written with considerable admiration for the zeal, consistency, and effectiveness displayed over the centuries by Islamic armies and law. And while it may be politically incorrect to state these things, they need to be stated and are in fact the truth—things that both Muslims and non-Muslims need to hear and consider. The designated and determined goal of the conquest of the world for Allah has been reinvigorated again and again in world history from the time of Mohammed in the seventh century. These revivals and expansions, which have only been temporarily halted by superior counterforce, have roots in the Qur’an itself and in its commentaries.

What we witness today, much to our surprise, is but another step in the historic world mission that Islam envisions for itself as the will of Allah, a goal that inspires the real and recurrent vigor that is found in its history. The reason we do not call it what it is lies not in Islam but in our own very different concepts of philosophy, religion, and law. In this sense, it is our own culture that often prevents us from being ourselves political realists.

Many believing Muslims, likely more than we are willing to admit, are tired and frustrated at having their religion’s principles denied. Outside observers are unwilling to believe or imagine that what Muslim advocates say about themselves, both in their founding texts and in their historic actions, is true. World conquest over time is what they hold must be achieved.

In other words, whether they be Muslim or otherwise, many people refuse to acknowledge that violence is proposed and carried out in the name of Islam. Outside Islam, it is called by the peculiar word “terrorism”. It is rarely called what it is, namely, a religious endeavor to conquer the world as an act of piety. Muslims, in this central tradition, are not “terrorists” just for the fun of it. That is insulting and resented. They practice what we call “terror” because they see themselves carrying out the will of Allah, even sometimes to their own death in doing so. Those who, in the process, kill “infidels”—that is, any non-Muslim or Muslim who does not accept true Islam—is considered to be a “martyr” to the cause of Islam. Only if Islam is not true can these ritual killings be seen as the objective evil that they are.

A subtle philosophic theory (called “voluntarism”) purports to justify this usage of what we call terror for religious purposes. The principle of contradiction cannot hold in a “revelation” that contains, in its texts, contradictory commands, as does the Qur’an. Allah then must become pure will, not bound by Logos or reason. Hence Allah is not limited by any distinction of good and evil. The Muslim blasphemy laws that threaten with death anyone who violates this claim arise from this source.

Allah’s mandate to Islam is progressively to subject the world to his will and to the law based on it. Terror will end and true “peace” will result only when all are submissive to Allah and live under Muslim law in all its details. What we outside of Islam call acts of violence are considered within it to be the carrying out of Allah’s will. Gruesome beheadings of Christians, however innocent, are seen as acts of justice. They are acts of “virtue” in this sense. The people who cannot understand this religious charge given to Islam, whether they be themselves Muslim or not, are themselves both unrealistic and dangerous. Their own presuppositions prevent them from recognizing and judging the real issue. They also prevents them from doing anything effective to hinder this expansion of Islam into Europe, Asia, Africa, and America.

III.

Back in 1975, I wrote an essay in the Modern Age entitled “On the Teaching of Ancient and Medieval Political Theory”. The gist of this essay was that unless we understand the content and history of religions—their truth claims and aberrations—we will be unable to see the actual forces that swirl through the political world. An education that lacks a proper and accurate study of the theology and theologies peculiar to each different religion is not really an education. It could not prepare anyone to deal with a world in which religions, in their differences, are a reality. Both in Europe and America in the last half century or longer, this sanitized education is what decades of students have been given. With it, most citizens are simply not equipped to face the forces now reappearing in the world. Indeed, even to propose a realistic look at Islam, as is proposed here, is almost everywhere forbidden and excluded from any consideration, however valid the analysis.

This neglect of or hostility to religion has come back to haunt us. We have lumped all “religions” together as illusions or myths. They are to be defanged and wholly subject to state power. Our political, academic, and cultural leaders cannot comprehend what is going on, either when a whole Western civilization loses its faith and moral standards or when Islam reawakens to the implications of its own faith and its vision of world conquest. The two—the loss of faith and the rise of Islam—are connected. The decline of the birth rate and civil undermining of the family in the West is one thing. Muslim immigration or invasion has engulfed this same area. Muslims, especially young males, did not seek power and prosperity in other adjoining Muslim lands. The expansion of Islam was justified also by its charge of moral decadence against the West.

We see well-equipped modern armies, with inept and not seeing political leadership and with little motivation of forces, out-fought by young armed zealots in pick-up trucks who can, with their followers, threaten every train station and public building in Europe, Africa, Asia, and America. As they planned, they have managed to turn the whole world into a battleground of fear. The cry “Allah be praised!” is heard after every act of destruction. It is quite clear by now, or should be, that no cultural artifacts—be they books, buildings, statues, or paintings—will be allowed to exist. They are seen to be contrary to Allah’s will, no matter what they are or when created. In this sense, the Pyramids, the Buddhist statues, the library in Timbuktu, the Vatican, and the monasteries in the deserts, Canterbury, the towers in New York, the kosher markets in Paris, and the airports in Brussels are equally subject to destruction. Everything must be protected because everything is now threatened.

Not only are individual Christians eradicated but so are the statues of their saints. The reason for this destruction is “religious”. Such things ought not to exist. We have here a literal application of the belief that nothing should be allowed public or private space that does not correspond with strict Muslim beliefs. Provisional tolerance of Christians and Jews if they accept second class citizenship and pay heavy fines is merely temporary until the conquest is complete. Such zealous destruction to do the will of Allah, in other words, is considered to be an act of piety. If someone is going to oppose such acts, it cannot be done on the grounds of opposition to “terror” or that it is unreasonable. Ultimately, it depends, as Augustine learned with the Donatists, on a conversion and rejection of the theology that justifies it.

IV.

Whether Islam, in its origins, is a rereading of Jewish, Nestorian, and Christian texts (as it probably is) can be disputed. First, Islam claims to be a literal revelation of what is in the mind or being of Allah. In this sense, what is in the text must always remain in the text. It cannot be changed or “reinterpreted” to leave out those multiple passages that propose and justify violence in the name of the expansion of this religion. This advocacy of violence, which has been practiced in Islam from its seventh century beginning, has a purpose. This purpose is, ultimately, religious and pious. Whether the Muslim notion of “heaven,” where its martyrs go, is primarily this-worldly or transcendent, can also be disputed. In any case, the concept of heaven is very earthy sounding. This picture is not, as such, an argument against its truth.

The message contained in the Qur’an is that the world should bow in submissive worship to Allah. This purpose abides and recurs over the centuries because it is there in the text. Men may temporarily neglect its zealous pursuit, but the text itself always contains the mission for others to find and pursue. There will always be those who realize that the mission of world conquest in the name of Allah is not complete. This realization is why, so long as it exists unrefuted, the Qur’an will always produce what we call “terrorists”. What we see now is little different from what has been seen throughout the centuries wherever Islam is found.

In this view, the world is divided into an area of peace and an area of war. The former is where the law of Allah rules politically, religiously, and culturally, where no other philosophy or faith has any right to be present. All signs of alien religion, art, artifact, and people are eliminated through forced conversion or death. Sometimes, Christians and Jews can be allowed to stay alive provided that they accept second class citizenship and pay taxes. This situation, in practice, is the basic constitutional rule in all existing Muslim states, even in those that reject ISIS or other approaches to eventual conquest of the world. Once Islam has conquered, it has always followed the same principles. In its history, certain famous battles have turned back Muslim conquests for a time, sometimes for centuries. But this relative inertness is only on the surface. As long as the book exists, its goals will again and again inflame prophets, imams, politicians, and the young men to recommence the conquest of the rest of the world.

In conclusion, what is argued here in terms of political realism is that we must understand the religious nature of Islamic expansion and the methods used to achieve it. By trying to abstract these motivation from the soul of this particular religion, which is, on this score, unlike most others, only makes it impossible to describe what in fact is going on in the mind of the adversary that is Islam. Wars are first fought in minds—and this is a war. It is not World War III; rather, it is an extension of the wars that Mohammed first launched against Byzantium, Persia, Syria, eventually North Africa, even to India, Spain, the and Balkans.

The Muslim protagonists of today realize how close they were several times in the past to conquering Europe as the next step in world conquest. What they see today is a very realistic opportunity to succeed where their ancestors failed. They, though also idealists, are (often unlike ourselves) realists. That is, they see what our minds really hold. And they see that they are largely empty of what really counts in this world: a true conception of God. Their only fault is that of choosing a false understanding of the real God. Aside from this “small” issue, one cannot help but admire, and fear, a blind faith that so abides over time and place without the real presence of the Logos whose incarnate presence in the world is explicitly denied.

 

THE BLACK RACE IN THE UNITED STATES IS IN TROUBLE because our so-called warriors are too busy running around like a bunch of dogs in heat. ~ Edward Cage

From: UNHYPHENATED AMERICA

Source

Unhyphenated American: Edward Cage-Uncaged
By Leslie Brown - October 30, 2014

“Once I was able to read past a third grade level with comprehension I never voted Democratic again, I ran with my wife and kids off the plantation to freedom.”

Wow!  Such honesty, and candor in an age of deceit.  A friend sent me a link on Edward, and I realized he would be a great role model for our site.

We’re kinda “radical” here at UA, because we ascribe to that whole, “judging on the content of character, not the color of skin” thingie like M.L.K. Jr. preached, oh, say FIFTY YEARS AGO!

Edward Cage has been an eloquent and powerful advocate for conservatism, recognizing that the false story line told by the left and propagandized by the media only serves to keep America’s minorities “on the plantation.” He joins us from Missouri to share his tactics for opening the eyes of those who are still enchained by the leftist lies, and for bringing them to see the light of truth.

Edward Cage was born in St. Louis, Missouri. Raised on the city’s North side, he was faced with countless challenges, each of which he overcame. Edward’s teen years were full of pain and confusion, including running with a gang and becoming a father at the age of sixteen.

He dropped out of high school and began to sell drugs, but when so many of his old school mates were killed or locked up, Edward decided to make a change and got a job at a sandwich shop. While working there he learned a great truth: he couldn’t read or write. Mad at the world generally and white people specifically, he turned to Islam.

But as he taught himself to read and write, he started to see life in Black America differently. He stopped feeling sorry for himself, and walked away from Islam. This journey has taken him from liberalism to being a God-fearing, strong-minded, thought-provoking, in-your-face Christian Conservative with an attitude. As Edward says, “Once I was able to read past a third grade level with comprehension I never voted Democratic again, I ran with my wife and kids off the plantation to freedom.”

Edward, thank you for your work in calling people “out”, telling the Truth and spreading the Word. 
Thank you to: http://rageagainstthemedia.org/edward-cage-proud-conservative-truthteller/

I think the biggest environmental hazard is the EPA ~ Norman E. Hooben

"And one gentleman from Maryland was talking about an 18-mile road.  And he brought with him some of the approvals that they’ve gotten and paid for.  They spent $29 million for an environmental report, weighing 70 pounds and costing $24,000 per page." ...full text below ↓

Above depiction by Norman E. Hooben

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release

June 09, 2017

Remarks by President Trump on Regulatory Relief

Department of Transportation
Washington, D.C.

11:40 A.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT:  Thank you, Secretary Chao.  Thank you, everybody.  This is very nice, by the way.  Beautiful.  I want to really thank you.  You have been so amazing as the leader of this department, and the progress is being made so quickly.  Leaders and officials gathered here from across the country have all praised the work that the Secretary is doing to create a safe, modern and reliable transportation system for the United States and for its great, great, great people.
I also want to thank Secretary Zinke for the fantastic job he’s doing at the Department of the Interior to clear the way for new infrastructure and economic development.
Both Secretary Chao and Zinke joined us at the White House yesterday for a meeting with state and local leaders to develop plans to replace America’s decaying infrastructure and construct new roads, rails, pipelines, tunnels, and bridges all across our nation.
We are here today to focus on solving one of the biggest obstacles to creating this new and desperately needed infrastructure, and that is the painfully slow, costly, and time-consuming process of getting permits and approvals to build.  And I also knew that from the private sector.  It is a long, slow, unnecessarily burdensome process.
My administration is committed to ending these terrible delays once and for all.  The excruciating wait time for permitting has inflicted enormous financial pain to cities and states all throughout our nation and has blocked many important projects from ever getting off the ground.  Many, many projects are long gone because they couldn’t get permits and there was no reason for it.
We’ve already taken historic steps to speed up the approvals, including the approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline -- which was very quickly approved.  They were sitting there for a long time saying, well, that project is dead.  Then I came into office and, all of the sudden, a miracle.  And I guarantee you, the consultants went over to the heads of the company and told them what a great job they did.  They asked for a lot of money, most likely.  But we got it approved.  And we got it approved fast.
I’m also very proud to say that the Dakota Access Pipeline is now officially open for business.  It was dead 120 days ago, and now it officially just opened for business. Very proud of that.  Hi, Bill.
We’re also excited to be joined by representatives from our labor unions, including the North America Building Trades Union, which I know well, and the Laborers International Union of North America.  You will play a -- go ahead, fellas, take a little credit.  Come on, fellas. You will play a central role in rebuilding America.  Very important.
We’re also joined, as well, by many distinguished members of Congress who share our total passion and desire to repair and restore America’s highways, railways, and waterways.  In the audience is Chairman Bill Shuster of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.  Stand up, Bill. Thank you, Bill, great job -- who is working very closely with us, including on our proposal to dramatically reduce airport delays by reforming air traffic control.
We have an obsolete system.  And I have to say, before Elaine got here, they had spent close to $7 billion on the system.  Boom -- a waste.  All wasted.  But we’re going to have a great system -- great new system.  A top of the line -- it will be the best in the world.  Right now, we’re at the lowest part of the pack.  It will be the best in the world, for a lot less money than they’ve been wasting for years.
For too long, America has poured trillions and trillions of dollars into rebuilding foreign countries while allowing our own country -- the country that we love -- and its infrastructure to fall into a state of total disrepair.  We have structurally deficient bridges, clogged roads, crumbling dams and locks.  Our rivers are in trouble.  Our railways are aging.  And chronic traffic that slows commerce and diminishes our citizens' quality of life.  Other than that, we’re doing very well.
Instead of rebuilding our country, Washington has spent decades building a dense thicket of rules, regulations and red tape.  It took only four years to build the Golden Gate Bridge and five years to build the Hoover Dam and less than one year to build the Empire State Building.  People don’t believe that.  It took less than one year.  But today, it can take 10 years and far more than that just to get the approvals and permits needed to build a major infrastructure project.
These charts beside me are actually a simplified version of our highway permitting process.  It includes 16 different approvals involving 10 different federal agencies being governed by 26 different statutes.
As one example -- and this happened just 30 minutes ago -- I was sitting with a great group of people responsible for their state’s economic development and roadways.  All of you are in the room now.  And one gentleman from Maryland was talking about an 18-mile road.  And he brought with him some of the approvals that they’ve gotten and paid for.  They spent $29 million for an environmental report, weighing 70 pounds and costing $24,000 per page.
And I said, do me a favor.  I’m going to make a speech in a little while.  Do you mind if I take that and show it?  So I’m going to show it.  So they spent millions and millions of dollars.  When I said, how long has this short roadway been talked about, the gentleman said, well, if you say 20 years, you’re safe.  I said, yeah, don’t say anymore because I have to be -- you know, I have to be exactly accurate with these people.  I was off by like two months -- it’s a major front-page story.
But these binders on the stage could be replaced by just a few simple pages, and it would be just as good.  It was actually be much better.  Because these binders also make you do unnecessary things that cost billions and billions of dollars and they actually make it worse.
As another example, the 23 -- if you look at it, in Ohio, the Ohio River Bridge -- $2.3 billion.  The project amassed a 150,000-page administrative record -- 150,000 pages is a five-story-tall building.  Think of it.  If you put the paper together, it’s a five-story building.
How can a country prosper under this kind of nonsense?  And I know it.  I know it so well, being in the private sector.  But you know, in the private sector you move, and you wheel, and you deal, and you hope, and you pray.  And maybe it goes a little faster, but it’s a horrible thing in the private sector also.  And we’re talking about reducing that for the private sector likewise.
Why should we continue to accept what is so clearly unacceptable?  Oftentimes, the consultants -- that are making a fortune because you can’t doing anything without hiring them, paying them a tremendous amount of money, having them write up this nonsense -- you can’t get approvals.  And they’re in, in the case of New York, Albany -- they go to Albany, the state capital or, here, they go to Washington for federal.  And they want to make it really tough because that way, you have to hire them.  It's a terrible thing.  It's a group of people -- probably nobody has ever heard anybody talk about it because -- I know it because I'm a business guy, I understand that.  They work really hard to make it difficult.  And some are believers, but most aren't.  Most want to make a lot of money.  So they make a very, very simple roadway or whatever you want to be building a very complicated subject, and they make it very much more expensive and they make it worse.  It's not as good as it would have been.
I was not elected to continue a failed system.  I was elected to change it.  All of us in government service were elected to solve the problems that have plagued our nation.  We are here to think big, to act boldly, and to rise above the petty partisan squabbling of Washington D.C.  We are here to take action.  It’s time to start building in our country, with American workers and with American iron, and aluminum and steel. It’s time to put up soaring new infrastructure that inspires pride in our people and our towns.
When I approved the Keystone Pipeline I said, where was the pipe made?  Unfortunately, they had purchased a lot of it, but I put a little clause at the bottom -- you want to build a pipeline in this country, buy American steel and let it be fabricated here. Very simple little clause written in hand, but it does the trick.
It is time, at last, to put America First.  Americans deserve the best infrastructure anywhere in the world.  They deserve roads and bridges that are safe to travel, and pipes that deliver clean water into their homes.  Not like what happened in Flint, Michigan.  They deserve lanes of commerce that get people and products where they need to go on time.  Most of all, Americans deserve a system of infrastructure that is looked upon not with pity -- the world, in many cases, is so far advanced that they look at our infrastructure as being sad.  We want them to look at us with envy -- a system worthy of our magnificent country.
No longer can we allow these rules and regulations to tie down our economy, chain up our prosperity, and sap our great American spirit.  That is why we will lift these restrictions and unleash the full potential of the United States of America.
To all our state and local leaders, I appreciate you being here today.  Thank you.  Thank you.  Thank you, Bill.  I want you to know that help is finally -- after many, many decades -- on its way.  We are giving control back to the cities and the states.  You know best how to plan your communities, analyze your projects, and protect your local environment.
We will get rid of the redundancy and duplication that wastes your time and your money.  Our goal is to give you one point of contact to deliver one decision -- yes or no -- for the entire federal government, and to deliver that decision quickly, whether it's a road, whether it's a highway, a bridge, a dam.
To do this, we are setting up a new council to help project managers navigate the bureaucratic maze.  This council will also improve transparency by creating a new online dashboard allowing everyone to easily track major projects through every stage of the approval process.  This council will make sure that every federal agency that is consistently delaying projects by missing deadlines will face tough, new penalties.  I know it won't happen with these two.  We don't have to worry about them.  We will hold the bureaucracy accountable.
We are also creating a new office in the Council of Environmental Quality to root out inefficiency, clarify lines of authority, and streamline federal and state and local procedures so that communities can modernize their aging infrastructure without fear of outdated federal rules getting in their way.
This massive permit reform -- and that's what it is; it's a permit reform -- doesn’t sound glamorous.  They won't write stories about it.  They won't even talk about it.  But it's so important.  But it's only the first step in renewing America’s roads, rails, runways and rivers.
As I discussed in Ohio recently, my new vision for American infrastructure will generate $1 trillion in infrastructure investment -- which we desperately need.  We've spent, as of a few months ago, $6 trillion in the Middle East.  Think of it -- $6 trillion in the Middle East.  And it's worse than it was 15 years ago by a factor of 10.  And yet, if you want to build a little road in one of your communities in Pennsylvania or Ohio, or in Iowa, or in North Carolina, or in Florida, you can't get the money.
State and local leaders will have more power to decide which projects get built, when they start and how they are funded.  And investors will have a much more predictable environment that encourages them to invest billions of dollars in capital that is currently stuck on the sidelines.
Together, we will build projects to inspire our youth, employ our workers, and create true prosperity for our people.  We will pour new concrete, lay new brick, and watch new sparks light our factories as we forge metal from the furnaces of our Rust Belt and our beloved heartland -- which has been forgotten. It's not forgotten anymore.
We will put new American steel into the spine of our country.  American workers will construct gleaming new lanes of commerce across our landscape.  They will build these monuments from coast to coast, and from city to city.  And with these new roads, bridges, airports and seaports, we will embark on a wonderful new journey into a bright and glorious future.  We will build again.  We will grow again.  We will thrive again.  And we will Make America Great Again.
Thank you.  God bless you.  I appreciate it.  Thank you very much. Thank you.
12:05 P.M.
EDT