Oh boy, hold on to your caps… It’s a hurricane of winningness today.
…“and we will win, and you will win, and we will keep on winning, and eventually you will say we can’t take all of this winning, …please Mr. Trump …and I will say, NO, we will win, and we will keep on winning”.
We begin with yet another record breaking day for the DOW, S&P 500 and Nasdaq:
But, wait… oh it gets so much better. Remember, we’re in uncharted territory folks. To showcase the economic backdrop we discover the highest level of consumer confidence in decades:
BLOOMBERG: U.S. consumer confidence unexpectedly improved in November to a fresh 17-year high, a sign Americans are growing more confident about the economy and labor market, according to figures Tuesday from the New York-based Conference Board.
The jump in the Conference Board’s measure of expectations signals consumers are growing more upbeat about the outlook for economy and job prospects. The improvement in household confidence will help underpin household spending, the biggest part of the economy, this quarter.
The share of respondents who currently see jobs as plentiful rose to a 16-year high, while the share expecting more jobs will be available six months from now was the highest in eight months. The monthly jobs report due next week is projected to show hiring continued to advance at a healthy clip in November.
In a sign that greater confidence will make for a robust holiday-shopping season, a greater share of respondents indicated they planned to step up purchases of appliances and big-ticket items, as well as more intentions of taking vacations. (read more)
“Unexpectedly” ? ROFLMAO…
Oh, but wait… Oh heck, we ain’t done piling on the winning yet. Not even close.
Remember, we knew the first reports from Brick and Mortar holiday sales were going to come out today…. Remember x 2 the naysayers of the record-breaking sales from last week said the massive sales gains [ +17.9% ] would ‘likely’ be offset by diminished or flat brick and mortar store sales. Remember that?
Well, we’ve got the first analysis from the National Retail Federation…. And yes, this becomes the first KPI (Key Performance Indictor) for data that will assemble about a week from now… You ready?
You sure?
WASHINGTON – From Thanksgiving Day through Cyber Monday, more than 174 million Americans shopped in stores and online during the just-concluded holiday weekend, beating the 164 million estimated shoppers from an earlier survey by the National Retail Federation and Prosper Insights & Analytics.
Average spending per person over the five-day period was $335.47, with $250.78 — 75 percent — specifically going toward gifts. The biggest spenders were older Millennials (25-34 years old) at $419.52.
Retailers’ technology investments paid off with consumers seamlessly shopping on all platforms through the long weekend. The survey found that over 64 million shopped both online and in stores. In addition, over 58 million shopped only online, and over 51 million shopped only in stores. The multichannel shopper spent $82 more on average than the online-only shopper, and $49 more on average than those shoppers who only shopped in stores.
The most popular day for in-store shopping was Black Friday, cited by 77 million consumers, followed by Small Business Saturday with 55 million consumers. The top two days that consumers shopped online were Cyber Monday with more than 81 million and Black Friday with more than 66 million. In addition, 63 percent of smartphone owners used their mobile devices to make holiday decisions, and 29 percent used their phones to make actual purchases. (read more)
So we’re seeing 18% growth in retail sales on-line. AND 7 to 8% growth (beyond projections) in foot traffic for brick and mortar retail store shopping… AND remember, retail sales account for two-thirds of all GDP growth…. AND remember the NY Fed has already increased the 4th quarter growth forecasts upward, TWICE… and remember, there’s still a lot of economic activity taking place…
…”Hold on to your economic britches peeps – throw dem ju-ju bones out the windows – grab hold of the young-un’s, squeeze em tight and introduce them to their first opportunity to see capitalism unchained; we are in uncharted MAGA territory now. Q4 GDP growth will be well beyond 3.2% 3.8%… Well Beyond.”…
Previously, the Department of Justice, White House Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), agreed with President Trump’s authority to appoint an ‘acting director’. The legal counsel within the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) also agreed that President Trump was well within his authority to appoint Mick Mulvaney. However, that didn’t stop bureau employee Leandra English from filing a personal lawsuit requesting an injunction against President Trump trying to stop Director Mulvaney and install herself as director.
Federal judge Tim Kelly listened to the argument of CFPB employee Ms. English yesterday. Judge Kelly did not make an immediate ruling. Instead, the DOJ filed a response to the pleading (read here), and Judge Kelly scheduled a hearing for 4:00pm today.
BREAKING: Federal Judge Tim Kelly Rules In Favor Of Trump Administration:
WASHINGTON – A federal judge on Tuesday handed a win to the Trump administration in the latest fight over the scope of President Donald Trump’s authority, denying a request for an emergency order to block Trump from appointing Mick Mulvaney, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, as the acting head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
US District Judge Timothy Kelly, announcing his decision from the bench on Tuesday afternoon, said that Leandra English — the CFPB official suing Trump and Mulvaney and claiming to be the rightful acting director — had failed to show that she was likely to succeed in her lawsuit at this stage of the case. (read more)
The Administration applauds the Courts decision, which provides further support for the Presidents rightful authority to designate Director Mulvaney as Acting Director of the CFPB. Its time for the Democrats to stop enabling this brazen political stunt by a rogue employee and allow Acting Director Mulvaney to continue the Bureaus smooth transition into an agency that truly serves to help consumers. (link)
The CFPB is the product of far-left progressives, specifically Elizabeth Warren, initially setting up a financial control agency that operates without congressional oversight. The Bureau construct was previously challenged in court and ruled ‘unconstitutional’.
The CFPB was essentially created to work as a legal money laundering operation for progressive causes by fining financial institutions for conduct the CFPB finds in violation of their unilateral and arbitrary rules and regulations. The CFPB then use the proceeds from the fines to fund progressive organizations and causes. That’s the underlying reason why the Democrats are fraught with anxiety right now.
Elizabeth Warren set up the bureau to operate above any oversight. Additionally, the bureau was placed under spending authority of the federal reserve. The CFPB gets its operating budget from the Federal Reserve, not from congress. Again, this was set-up to keep congress from defunding the agency as a way to remove it. Everything about the way the CFPB was structured was done to avoid any oversight. Hence, a DC circuit court finding the agency held too much power, and deemed the Directors unchecked position unconstitutional.
Mick Mulvaney is now in a position to look at the books, look at the prior records within the bureau, and expose the political agenda within it to the larger public. That is sending the progressives bananas.
Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within the bureau. That sunlight is toxic to Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the Democrats. If the secrets within the bureau are revealed, there’s a much greater likelihood the bureau will be dissolved.
There are billions of scheme and graft at stake. Within the record-keeping there are more than likely dozens of progressive/Democrat organizations being financed by the secret enterprise that operates without oversight. That’s the risk to the SWAMP.
President Trump’s geopolitical economic strategy is most often talked about regarding trade, China and resetting a massive U.S. trade deficit therein. However, a critical part of that strategy, generally overlooked by U.S. media, is the relationship President Trump is building with India.
Expanded economic engagement with India creates more than just bilateral trade opportunities. A strengthened relationship, and possibility of moving India to the top of the trade priority list, also creates leverage toward China and ASEAN partner nations.
While most were paying attention to Thanksgiving’s ‘Black Friday‘ shopping; China quietly, lowered U.S. import tariffs. BIGLY. See Here [ <– That’s a big ‘effen deal]
Chinese media watch President Trump’s ongoing engagement with India far more closely than U.S. media watch it. Chairman Xi Jinping and his economic advisers know the scale of risk inherent to their economy with a growing U.S./India trade relationship.
NEW DELHI, Nov. 28 (Xinhua) — Ivanka Trump, the daughter and adviser of U.S. President Donald Trump, has arrived in India for the annual global entrepreneurship summit, foreign ministry officials said Tuesday.
The summit scheduled to held in the southern city of Hyderabad Tuesday is being co-hosted by India and the United States.
Ivanka accompanied by several top administration officials reached India late Monday night.
The three-day summit, which is being held for the first time in South Asia, will also be attended by Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi.
The theme of this year’s summit is “Women First, Prosperity for All” and will include 1,200 young entrepreneurs, mostly women.
“It is a pre-eminent gathering of entrepreneurs, investors, and supporters from around the world,” officials said. “Ivanka Trump leading the U.S. contingent will be addressing the inaugural session and take part in two plenary sessions about women empowerment.”
Authorities have deployed more than 10,000 security personnel in the city as part of security measures around the high-profile summit.
Reports said during her visit, Ivanka is expected to visit the old city as well as the Charminar, the iconic symbol of Hyderabad city. (link)
OMB Director Mick Mulvaney is covering as ‘Acting Director‘ for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) until a permanent replacement is nominated by President Trump. As most people are aware the Democrats are apoplectic about their holy grail bureau being under oversight of Mr. Mulvaney, and they have attempted legal maneuvers to stop the Trump administration from authority within the agency.
The Department of Justice, White House Office of Legal Counsel, agreed with President Trump’s authority to appoint an ‘acting director’. The legal counsel within the CFPB also agreed that President Trump was well within his authority to appoint Mulvaney. However, that didn’t stop a bureau employee named Leandra English from filing a weakly positioned lawsuit trying to stop Director Mulvaney.
A federal judge listened to the argument of CFPB employee Ms. English a few hours ago. Judge Tim Kelly did not make an immediate ruling. Instead, the DOJ will file a response to the pleading later tonight and Judge Kelly said he’ll take a look and make a decision from there.
The CFPB is the product of far-left progressives, specifically Elizabeth Warren, initially setting up a financial control agency that operates without congressional oversight. The Bureau construct was challenged in court and ruled ‘unconstitutional’. That’s the backdrop for this press conference today with Acting Director Mick Mulvaney.
The CFPB was created to work as a legal money laundering operation for progressive causes by fining financial institutions for conduct the CFPB finds in violation of their rules and regulations; and then using the fines to fund progressive organizations and causes. That’s the real underlying reason why the Democrats are so fraught with anxiety right now.
Elizabeth Warren set up the bureau to operate above any oversight. Additionally, the bureau was placed under spending authority of the federal reserve. The CFPB gets it’s operating budget from the Federal Reserve, not from congress. Again, this was set-up to keep congress from defunding the agency as a way to remove it. Everything about the way the CFPB was structured was done to avoid any oversight. Hence, the court finding the agency held too much power, and deemed the Directors position unconstitutional.
Mick Mulvaney is now in a position to look at the books, look at the prior records within the bureau and expose the political agenda within it to the larger public. That is sending the progressives bananas.
Most likely President Trump will not appoint a replacement until Mulvaney has exposed the corruption within it. That sunlight is toxic to Elizabeth Warren and can potentially be politically destructive to the Democrats. If the secrets within the bureau are revealed, there’s a greater likelihood the bureau will be dissolved.
There are billions of scheme and graft at stake. Within the record-keeping there are more than likely dozens of progressive organizations being financed by the secret enterprise. That’s the risk to the SWAMP.
Everything you need to know to understand the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau back-story is contrast against Mick Mulvaney and Leandra English today. Director Mulvaney goes to the CFPB office to review the CFPB transition guidance, while Leandra English runs to a meeting on capital hill with Senator Chuck Schumer and Senator Elizabeth Warren.
Mr. Mulvaney is focused on the job and tasks at hand. Ms. English is focused on the internal politics within DC. ‘Nuf said. Pretty obvious where each establishes their priorities.
Last night CFPB employee Leandra English (pictured above) filed a lawsuit to install herself as the acting director of the CFPB. This action was despite the legal guidance by the department’s own top lawyer Mary McLeod who informed all CFPB employees that President Trump has the legal authority to appoint the interim director of the agency:
(Via Reuters) […] Mulvaney and English both issued statements on Monday morning indicating they were in charge of the 1,600-employee CFPB.
English sent an email in which she welcomed staff back from the Thanksgiving holiday and signed off as “acting director,” according to a source.
But Mulvaney quickly installed himself in Cordray’s former office and stood his ground, writing an hour later:
“Please disregard any instructions you receive from Ms. English in her presumed capacity as Acting Director,” he said in a staff memo seen by Reuters. “If you receive additional communications from her today … please inform the General Counsel.”
Mulvaney also signed off as “acting director” and invited staff to pop by his fourth-floor office to “grab a donut.” Mulvaney’s communications director tweeted a picture of him “hard at work as acting director” with the bureau’s transition briefing handbook on his desk.
English was due to meet later on Monday with senior Senate Democrats, including Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Warren, her office said.
As Mulvaney was getting settled in, the source told Reuters, CFPB general counsel Mary McLeod sent a memo to the CFPB’s legal division agreeing with the U.S. Justice Department that Trump had the power to appoint Mulvaney as temporary leader of the watchdog. (read more)
U.S. Senator Tom Cottonreacts to Ms. English attempting to install herself as acting director for the CFPB:
Washington, D.C. – Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) tonight released the following statement on the recently filed lawsuit to install Leandra English as acting administrator of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau:
“The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is a rogue, unconstitutional agency. Leandra English’s lawsuit to install herself as acting director against the president’s explicit direction is just the latest lawless action by the CFPB.
She doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on, as her own general counsel has conceded and the Department of Justice has concluded. The president should fire her immediately and anyone who disobeys Director Mulvaney’s orders should also be fired summarily. The Constitution and the law must prevail against the supposed resistance.” (link)
The Daily Caller has a great write-up on the toxic political stew that exists within the CFPB as it was constructed by Senator Warren and Leandra English. It’s quite an eye-opener into the workplace:
EXCERPT: People know Mulvaney, but who is Leandra English?
TheDCNF spoke to current and former employees of the embattled bureau about English and the culture she had created in her various positions.
Many former and current CFPB employees told TheDCNF about their reactions to English receiving the acting director position.
“Her rapid ascension within the CFPB and the series of promotions seems consistent with the CFPB culture, which is full of cronyism,” said one long-time former CFPB employee.
“It was surprising because many hard-working employees had to file lawsuits and grievances just to get promoted one step at the CFPB,” the former official told TheDCNF in an interview.
English, along with Warren, spearheaded a culture of secrecy within the bureau that appears to permeate throughout the agency and would later infuriate Congress.
Warren and the Democratic Congress housed CFPB inside the Federal Reserve, which is independent of Congress.
The transfer of CFPB into the Fed allowed the bureau to circumvent congressional oversight. Even its annual budget is outside of the regular congressional budget authorization process.
Sources within the bureau say English actively promoted that effort of secrecy early in the bureau’s actual operations.
Emails obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch show English established meetings without any notification to the public and meetings that specifically barred press.
The Judicial Watch emails also show English was active in arranging private meetings with special interests that were largely liberal and progressive activist groups.
English was involved, for example, in organizing an Oct. 27, 2010, meeting that was led by Warren, who is now the Democratic senator from Massachusetts.
The participants of that meeting included Consumers Union, the AFL-CIO, PIRG and the National People’s Action. It was closed to press.
On Jan. 22, 2011, English helped CFPB hold another private meeting with Americans for Financial Reform, a pro-CFPB group with participants that constituted a Who’s Who of liberal activist groups.
The meeting included leaders from the AFL-CIO, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union), Ralph Nader’s PIRG (Public Interest Research Group), AFSCME (American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees), Consumer Federation of America, Center for Responsible Lending, and Public Citizen. No press was permitted.
Earlier today President Trump held a White House Event honoring Native American Code Talkers and their historic contributions to U.S. military efforts.
[TRANSCRIPT] 2:27 P.M. EST – MR. MACDONALD: Thank you, Honorable President of this great United States of America, President Trump. Thank you for inviting us, Navajo Code Talkers, to the Capitol and to the White House of this great nation we call the United States.
Today, we have with us three of the thirteen surviving Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. First, we have Fleming Begaye. Fleming Begaye is 97 years old, the oldest veteran of World War II. He survived the Battle of Tarawa. His landing craft was blown up and he literally had to swim to the beach to survive. Also, on Saipan, he also landed on Tinian where he got shot up real badly, survived one year in naval hospital.
We have Thomas Begay, also one of the Code Talkers who were on Iwo Jima, a tough battle, where Three Marine Division landed on Iwo; 5th Marine Division — he was part of the Code Talkers within the 5th Marine Division.
Also, as if Marine Corps was not enough, he enlisted to be United States Army, and served in the Korean War. Survived that awful battle at Chosin.
My name is Peter MacDonald. I’m the president of the 13 surviving Navajo Code Talkers. I went in — I’m 90 years old — I went in when I was 15 years old in 1944. I was with the 1st Marine Brigade on Guam, and then went on to North China with 6th Marine Division to get those Japanese in Northern China to surrender. They didnt want to surrender, but it took 1st Marine Division, 6th Marine Division to get them to surrender eventually. We had a separate treaty ceremony in Tsingtao, China, October 25th, 1945.
Navajo Code Talkers, in the early part of World War II, the enemy was breaking every military code that was being used in the Pacific. This created a huge problem for strategizing against the enemy. Eventually, a suggestion was made in early 1942 — February ’42, essentially — to use Navajo language as a code.
The Marine Corps recruited 29 young Navajos, not telling them what they are being recruited for, because this was a top-secret operation. They were just asked, “Do you want to join the Marines? You want to fight the enemy? Come join the Marines.” So they volunteered.
Twenty-nine young Navajos joined the Marines in 1942, after going through boot camp, passed boot camp with flying colors; combat training — the same thing. Then entered the Marine Corps Communication School — passed that. Then they were separated from all the rest of the Marines, took them to a top-secret location just east of San Diego — Camp Elliott. That’s where they created a military code to be used in the Pacific.
After creating 260 code words, the 29 young Marines — half of them were sent overseas to join the 1st Marine Division. The 1st Marine Division was getting ready to go on to the first offensive movement in the Pacific, Guadalcanal.
On August 7, 1942 — 75 years ago — 1st Marine Division hit the beaches of Guadalcanal with 15 Navajo Code Talkers. This was the first battle where the Navajo code was to be tested in actual battle to test to see how our memory would be under heavy enemy fire. Well, three weeks after the landing, General Van De Griff, Commander of the 1st Marine Division, sent word back to United States saying, this Navajo code is terrific. The enemy never understood it; he said, we don’t understand it either, but it works. Send us some more Navajos.
So that opened up the gate for United States Marine Corps, San Diego to start recruiting more and more Navajos, using the same tactics: “You want to fight? You want to join the Marines? You want to wear this beautiful blue uniform? Come join the Marines.” So we all volunteered. That’s how he went in, that’s how he went in, that’s how I went in.
Boot camp, combat training, communication schools. Then we all get separated, go to that special top-secret Navajo code school to learn to code. Initially, 260 code words, all subject to memory only. Eventually, by the time the war ended, 1945, there were 400 of us that went to war. And also, our code words grew to 600 code words, subject to memory only. In every battle two communication networks were established: Navajo communication network for all top-secret, confidential messages; the second network, English network, for all other messages.
In every battle — from the front-line, beach command post, command ship, all other ships — Code Talkers were used. On the island of Iwo, Major Connor said, the first 48 hours of battle, over 800 messages were sent by the 5th Marine Division, only. The first 48 hours, over 800 messages. Major Connor also said: Without Navajo, Marines would never have taken the island of Iwo Jima. (Applause.)
So thank you very much. The 13 of us, we still have one mission — that mission is to build national Navajo Code Talker Museum. We want to preserve this unique World War II history for our children, grandchildren, your children, your grandchildren to go through that museum.
Why? Because what we did truly represents who we are as Americans. America, we know, is composed of diverse community. We have different languages, different skills, different talents, and different religion. But when our way of life is threatened, like the freedom and liberty that we all cherish, we come together as one. And when we come together as one, we are invincible. We cannot be defeated. That’s why we need this national Navajo Code Talker Museum so that our children, the future generation, can go through that museum and learn why America is so strong.
Thank you very much for listening. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: That’s fantastic, thank you. That’s fantastic. Thank you very much. Beautiful.
That was so incredible, and now I don’t have to make my speech. I had the most beautiful speech written out. I was so proud of it. Look. And I thought you would leave out Iwo Jima, but you got that in the end, too. (Laughter.)
And I want to tell you — you said you’re 90 years old? That’s great, because you have good genes. That means the press has got me to kick around for a long time. (Laughter.)
That was beautiful. I loved that and I loved your delivery. And the Code Talkers are amazing. And seriously, it is what I said. So what I’m going to do is give you my speech, and I want you to hold that. And I know you like me, so you’ll save it. But that was so well delivered, from the heart. That was from the heart.
So I want to give you this speech because I don’t want to bore them with saying the same thing you just said. And you said it better, believe me, because you said it from here. And I mean it from there too.
And you have a lot of great friends. Tom Cole is here, and you know Tom. And you know Jeff. So I want to thank you both, Jeff Denham. I want to thank you both for being here, and you too for being here.
Also, General Dunford, head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Kelly. And I have to say, I said to General Kelly — I said, General, how good — here he is right there, the Chief; he’s the General and the Chief. I said, how good were these Code Talkers? What was it? He said, sir, you have no idea. You have no idea how great they were — what they’ve done for this country, and the strength and the bravery and the love that they had for the country and that you have for the country.
So that was the ultimate statement from General Kelly, the importance. And I just want to thank you because you’re very, very special people. You were here long before any of us were here, although we have a representative in Congress who, they say, was here a long time ago. They call her “Pocahontas.”
But you know what, I like you because you are special. You are special people. You are really incredible people. And from the heart, from the absolute heart, we appreciate what you’ve done, how you’ve done it, the bravery that you displayed, and the love that you have for your country.
Tom, I would say that’s as good as it gets, wouldn’t you say? That’s as good as you get.
General Kelly, just come up for one second. I want to just have you say what you told me, a little bit about the Code Talkers. Because it really has been — learning about you and learning about what you’ve done has been something that I’d like General Kelly to say to the press.
Go ahead, General.
GENERAL KELLY: Well, sir, as you know, being associated with United States Marines, it’s as much a cult as it is a service. And we never forget. Our motto, of course, is Semper Fidelis — always faithful. Whether you’re a young recruit at Parris Island or San Diego, or a middle-aged guy from out west, what these men did, the advantage they gave our Marines when they invaded Iwo Jima was really — and I think it was pointed out — was one of the very few factors that allowed us to be successful on that island.
Their ability to outwit the Japanese who were, you know, listening to this wonderful language and had no idea that a language like this existed on the Earth. What they did, very small number of men, sir, made the difference. We lost 6,000 Marines and 25,000 wounded on that island in 28 days of battle. It would have been a lot worse had we not had the Navajo Code Talkers. And I thank you.
Semper Fidelis. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: So they’re working on building a Navajo Code Talkers Museum. And we will help you. Okay? And we have some pretty good strength. We will help you, and you deserve it. And I want to thank you all for being here.
I assume you’re the young one in the group? Are you the young one in the group? Thank you so much for being here. You’re very special people. And without you, maybe the results would have been a lot different. I’ve heard that, actually, the results could have very well been different.
So, on behalf of the United States, thank you all. Very much appreciate it. (Applause.)
MR. MACDONALD: Mr. President, we know you’ll succeed. America is in good hands. You have all top Marine Corps generals as your assistants — (laughter) — so we know that we’re in good hands. (Applause).
THE PRESIDENT: What a group. This is a great group. Thank you all very much. Thank you.
Q What about the tax bill?
THE PRESIDENT: I think the tax bill is going very well. We had a meeting on it today. It’s going to be a tremendous tax cut — the biggest in the history of our country. You’ll have to pay a lot less tax. That’s okay. But we’re going to have a tremendous — I think we’re going to have great receptivity.
We’ve had great spirit. And I will tell you the Republican senators were up. If we win, we’ll get some Democratic senators joining us. If we don’t win, they won’t be joining us — you understand that. But, if we win, I think we’ll probably have a bipartisan bill, meaning a number of people are going to come over. But I’m not so interested in that. We’re really interested just in getting it passed.
Again, it will be the biggest tax reduction in the history of our country. It will bring jobs, it will bring a lot of income coming into the country, buying product, et cetera. And, I think it’s doing very well.
Q Is there a worry, though, that it benefits hedge fund owners during (inaudible) —
THE PRESIDENT: No, I think we’re going to have really — I think — actually, I think it’s going to benefit everybody. It’s going to mostly benefit people looking for jobs more than anything else, because we’re giving great incentives.
And we’re going to be bringing back into this country probably an excess of $4 trillion — $4 trillion — that’s outside of the country that right now, because of our tax laws, can’t come back in. And we will be bringing back at least — I think the number will be substantially higher — but at least $4 trillion, which will immediately be put to work in this country. So I think the tax bill is doing very well and I think the Republicans are going to be very proud of it. Thank you.
Earlier today Murdoch activated his Decepticon control agent Carly Fiorina to appear on Fox News Sunday, utilize a familiar passive-aggressive technique, and help shape the official Wall Street/K-Street sexism narrative via Chris Wallace. You can watch HERE.
A few hours later the second set of Decepticon billionaires surface; the Koch Brothers, who financed a $1.8 billion deal including the purchase of Time Magazine.
NEW YORK (AP) — Meredith Corp. announced Sunday that it is buying Time Inc. for about $1.8 billion, a deal CEO Stephen Lacy called “a transformative and financially compelling growth opportunity” that joins two giant magazine companies.
Meredith brings with it a magazine portfolio that includes Better Homes & Gardens, Family Circle, allrecipes and Shape, while Time Inc. owns properties including Time, Sports Illustrated, People, Fortune and Entertainment Weekly.
The companies said the deal was unanimously approved by their boards of directors and will close early next year. (read more)
It is being reported by ‘some’ media outlets that Democrat John Conyers has stepped down from the House Judiciary Committee, that is false. Conyers is staying on the committee and just removing himself from the seniority position of “ranking member”.
As CTH shared when the sexual harassment charges and financial settlements surrounding John Conyers were first revealed, the institution of the Democrat apparatus will never stop supporting Conyers. It is a cornerstone of the institutions created by progressives (Democrats) to operate their leadership hierarchy from positions of seniority. Cue the audio visual demonstration by Nancy Pelosi:
Rep. John Conyers steps aside as top Democrat on House Judiciary Committee amid investigation into sexual harassment allegations against him. https://t.co/CkSlqhEuJ4
WASHINGTON – Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) announced he is stepping aside as the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee pending an investigation into allegations of sexual harassment.
“After careful consideration and in light of the attention drawn by recent allegations made against me, I have notified the Democratic Leader of my request to step aside as Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee during the investigation of these matters,” he said in a statement on Sunday. (read more)
CTH has been looking, unsuccessfully, for China SME’s who have insight on the DC lobbying angle by Chinese foreign nationals and the hidden story of how the Trump administration might be confronting that aspect.
Gordon Chang briefly touches on that note during a discussion segment on the overall outcome of President Trump’s 12-day visit to Asia.
Apparently, if Chang’s sources are accurate (likely they are), the notification by POTUS Trump toward Chairman Xi Jinping, of the lobbyist warning did take place [Video 02:25].
.
The foreign influence lobbying is a critical element for us domestically in the larger geopolitical strategy. Chinese nationals pay our congressional representatives millions of dollars to purchase U.S. foreign policy. CTH is cautiously optimistic this is a key element of Robert Mueller.
China, Russia and the downstream North Korean enablers (Cuba, Venezuela, etc.) are the keys to stopping the DPRK. As such each national interest is being targeted and leveraged as part of the N-Korean strategy.
♦ President Trump continues to pressure Russia via energy.
♦ President Trump continues to pressure China via trade outcomes.
♦ President Trump is leveraging financial sanctions on Venezuela along with energy pressure; and simultaneously breaking away from former short-sighted benefits for Cuba delivered that were delivered by President Obama.
Hopefully CTH readers can see how comprehensive this strategy is. Unfortunately you won’t see it outlined in U.S. media.
The Government continues to flounder with directionless and inconsistent energy policies, inviting much public commentary, but the science these days scarcely gets a mention.
As we have seen in social policy, the strategy of the left is first to shut down debate and delegitimise any dissent from the position adopted by the left-leaning elements of the media, academia, bureaucracy, the environmental movement and renewable-energy interests.
Lacking the capacity to distinguish science from pseudo-science, the Coalition under Howard effectively acquiesced to the totalitarian-left idea that the science on global warming was settled. It dared not question the assertion that carbon dioxide was causing dangerous global warming for fear that it would be loudly denounced and ridiculed as being in denial about the harmful effects that our emissions of carbon dioxide were supposed to be having on the climate.
In doing so, the Coalition allowed the totalitarian left to define the terms of the debate. But, let us do the impermissible and look at the science behind the question of whether carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming.
The scientific method for investigating a new idea is to pose two falsifiable hypotheses: the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. The null hypothesis tests the most obvious explanation; and the alternative hypothesis tests the new theory that the scientist is bringing to bear on the issue.
In the context of global warming, the null hypothesis is that the warming observed since the onset of industrialisation is due to natural causes; the alternative hypothesis is that this warming is due to anthropogenic carbon-dioxide emissions. Both hypotheses must be tested and the objective is to see which of these two hypotheses is incompatible with the data. That is, we are attempting to falsify one or the other or both of the hypotheses (since it is conceivable that there is another human-related cause of the global warming which has not yet been thought of).
A hypothesis can never be proved by this method but it remains viable only as long as it remains consistent with the data. You must not cherry-pick your data; the hypothesis must be consistent with all of the available data. It takes only one instance of the hypothesis being found to be inconsistent with the data for it to be falsified; and this is why the science is never “settled”.
One must begin by assembling all of the available data. The data we are concerned with in this issue are the temperature and atmospheric carbon-dioxide data. The temperature data consists of the meteorological record that has been collected using various instrumental techniques since the 1850s, and also data from various “proxy” sources that enable the temperature record to be inferred. This may be done from such techniques as the measurement of isotope ratios in gas samples extracted from ice cores and seabed cores.
Using these proxy sources of temperature data, scientists have been able to reconstruct the temperature history of the planet going back thousands to hundreds of thousands of years and beyond. Samples collected from ice and seabed cores can also be used to determine the concentrations of carbon dioxide present in the air over those periods.
Figure 1. After Professor Bob Carter (lecture at the 10th International Conference
on Climate Change at the Heartland Institute on June 12, 2015). Air Temperatures
above the Greenland ice cap for the past 10,000 years reconstructed from
ice cores using data from Alley, 2000 (The Younger Dryas cold interval
as viewed from central Greenland. Quaternary Science Reviews 19, 213-226)
(top panel), with a time scale showing years before modern time.
Lower panel shows the carbon-dioxide concentrations of the atmosphere
over the same period from EPICA Dome C ice core.
Figure 1 shows one example of data derived from such proxy sources. The top panel of the figure shows a declining temperature trend over the 8,000-year period from the Holocene Climate Optimum to the modern warm period (left-hand scale). It also shows that this location experienced numerous cycles of warming and cooling that involved temperature changes of the order of two degrees Celsius.
The superimposition of the temperature data from the modern period instrumental record (dotted line and right-hand scale) provide a very appro-ximate context to the late 20th-century warming.
The lower panel shows that the carbon-dioxide concentration over the same period has been consistently increasing. Neither the cooling trend nor the cyclic behaviour of temperature is reflected in the carbon-dioxide record in the lower panel. Therefore carbon dioxide cannot be causing the observed temperature changes. No causation can exist if there is no correlation.
These data clearly show that whatever effect carbon dioxide may have on the temperature, it is far outweighed by other factors: and this falsifies the hypothesis that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming. The data show that there is nothing unusual about the current episode of increased global temperature in either its timing or its amplitude, which lies well within the bounds of natural variation.
From these data we cannot ascribe any cause to the current warming event, nor is it necessary to do so. We simply observe that the data are seen to be consistent with the null hypothesis that the modern warming is due to natural causes, and inconsistent with the alternative hypothesis that this warming is due to carbon dioxide. We do not need to understand the details of the operation of the climate system, which so occupies the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
It is important to recognise that no single data set is ideal. All available data sets have their limitations, including those of Figure 1. It is equally important to recognise that all of the available data must be considered. It is not valid to simply disregard data that don’t suit you when there is no satisfactory data set available to provide all the information required on its own.
The data most commonly relied upon in making the case that carbon dioxide is causing dangerous global warming are the data from the instrumental meteorological record. Over the 167-year period of the meteorological record, it is not possible to observe the extent of natural variation in temperature that can be seen in the proxy record of figure 1. Therefore the meteorological record is incapable of being used to test the null hypothesis. This makes the meteorological record the least useful of the data sets that are available for answering the question of whether the warming observed over the last 100 years is due to increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Conclusions based on these data alone are therefore worthless.
The main limitation of the data of Figure 1 is that they are derived from ice cores at a single location and cannot therefore be considered to represent the “global average” temperature that the meteorological record attempts to approximate. This does not mean that these data can be disregarded. There is evidence from a vast range of sources that the warming cycles of Figure 1, among them the Mediaeval Warm Period, The Roman Warm Period, the Minoan Warm Period and the Holocene Climate Optimum, did not occur only at the sites from which the cores were taken but were in fact widespread and probably global. (For a comprehensive discussion of the evidence, see Heaven and Earth. Global Warming: The Missing Science, by Professor Ian Plimer. Available from Freedom Publishing.)
It is probable, however, that the amplitude of the temperature excursions from the baseline in Figure 1 are somewhat larger than would be seen in a global average graph, if such a graph were available, since temperature variations in equatorial regions are usually smaller than temperature variations at higher latitudes. Nevertheless, the data cannot be ignored, because such data provide the best indication we have of the natural variability of temperature and provide the context within which modern-day warming must be considered. In this context, the current warming event appears to be just the latest in a long series of warming and cooling cycles.
The alternative hypothesis is seen to be completely inconsistent with the data and must be rejected since the 8,000-year declining temperature trend occurs in conjunction with a steadily increasing carbon-dioxide trend.
The current meteorological record shows that there has been no statistically significant warming over the past 19 years. This suggests that we may be at the peak of the current warming cycle and that the next temperature change is more likely than not to be the cooling phase of this cycle. This is consistent with the expectation by some astrophysicists that in the next 20 to 30 years we will encounter conditions similar to those of the Little Ice Age that were experienced during the last cooling cycle.
Under those conditions, the global-warming alarmists may come to regret their love affair with wind turbines that stop turning and solar panels which, in colder areas such as those located around Canberra, may become covered with snow if the southern hemisphere experiences a similar cooling to the northern hemisphere. The alarmists may then want to burn all the coal that they can get their hands on. That may become difficult if the Greens are successful in their push to have all coalmines and coal-fired power stations closed down. Do they seriously imagine that these natural climatic cycles have somehow stopped?
Changes in the climate can be expected and it is prudent to prepare for them. But whether it is warming or cooling, our ability to cope with the changes will depend on the availability of cheap and reliable power. It is deadly foolish to base our response to inevitable climate changes upon a theoretical understanding of the way that the climate system operates that is known to be inconsistent with the data and that would result in a complete inability to deal with the cooling that will inevitably come at some time in the future.
The cooling that was experienced in Europe during the Little Ice Age resulted in shorter northern-hemisphere growing seasons, crop failures, starvation, depopulation and the plague, and was far more deadly than any possible warming we might face. (Again, see Plimer, Heaven and Earth.)
Although there is endless reporting and commentary about the danger of global warming, there is no mention of the data supporting the anthropogenic global-warming hypothesis because no such data exist. Discussion always diverts to such matters as modelling, sea-level changes, weather events, reef bleaching, melting ice caps or any of a myriad other phenomena in which changes have been observed.
If you study nature you will always observe change, but these changes must be seen in their proper context. All of these changing phenomena may (or may not) be signs of warming. But signs of warming are precisely what one would expect to see at the peak of a warming cycle and they tell us absolutely nothing about the cause of the warming. To test the hypothesis that it is carbon dioxide that is causing the warming we must turn to carbon dioxide and temperature data: and they show that whatever the cause of the warming is, it is not carbon dioxide, whose warming effect, such as it is, is clearly outweighed by natural factors.
Any attempt to imply that rises in sea level, for example, are a sign that carbon-dioxide emissions are the cause of global warming is bogus science (there are other reasons why sea levels might rise). It is effectively saying that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is causing global warming is being supported by another hypothesis: that sea-level rises are due to global warming, which is due to carbon dioxide. Or that the bleaching of the Great Barrier Reef is due to the warming of the oceans, which is due to global warming, which is due to carbon dioxide.
You cannot support a hypothesis with another hypothesis or even a series of hypotheses. That is bogus science. The test of the global-warming hypothesis can only be made against the carbon-dioxide and temperature data.
In a similar vein, any attempt to assure us that we must cut emissions because if we add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere we will reach a “tipping point” that our theory (and our models) show will bring us catastrophe, is also bogus science. Such a line of reasoning is effectively saying: “Don’t take any notice of the data that falsify our global-warming hypothesis. No, we have a theory about how the climate system operates and our understanding of this system is much better at telling how carbon dioxide affects the climate than the data. We know about triggers and tipping points and whatnot, and if we keep adding to the carbon dioxide it will bring catastrophe – just you wait and see.”
That is not science; you cannot support a hypothesis with a theory. The theory is, after all, based on the premise that the hypothesis is true: but the data show that it is false. When vascular plants evolved on earth some 400 million years ago, the carbon-dioxide concentration was more than 10 times the current level, and that did not cause tipping points or runaway global warming; yet we are asked to believe that a mere doubling of carbon dioxide from the very low levels we see at present will bring catastrophe.
Those who claim that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming need to produce data that force the rejection of the null hypothesis: that the warming is due to natural causes. This has not been done and, in the absence of those data, the global-warming hypothesis must be regarded as nothing but a theory based on a premise that is known to be false.
For all the costs that “clean” energy policies and high energy prices impose on household, business and national budgets, there can be no possible bene-fit, since the proposition that carbon dioxide causes dangerous global warming is falsified by the data.
One must ask: how can the government have got it so wrong, since the government has access to the best scientific advice available?
The answer to that has two parts. The first, as alluded to earlier, is that the left long ago completed its march through the institutions – including the scientific institutions – so the overwhelming majority of advice to the government conforms to the so-called “consensus” view. The second is that there are too few people entering the ranks of Parliament who understand science and who recognise when they are being fed pseudo-science by those providing the advice.
As the late Professor Bob Carter pointed out, it was not until the election to Parliament of Dr Dennis Jensen as a Liberal Member for the House of Representatives in 2004 that the Liberal Party had anyone with the scientific qualifications and training to discern the pseudo-science from the science and develop an informed approach to the global-warming issue. Dr Jensen displayed a healthy scepticism about the global-warming alarmism in his maiden speech to Parliament.
Unfortunately, Mr Howard did not put him in charge of global-warming policy. Instead, the Liberal Party continued to struggle with the issue while the myths and falsehoods associated with global warming took hold and green ideology took the moral high ground in professing to be intent on saving the planet from “carbon pollution” and the dangerous global warming it was alleged to cause.
Malcolm Turnbull entered Parliament in the same year as Dr Jensen and, in the biggest mistake of his career, Mr Howard in 2007 placed the left-leaning Turnbull in charge of Environment and Water Resources, presumably to give his environment policies some “green credentials”. The opportunity to tackle the global-warming falsehoods and develop a rational energy policy was thereby lost.
The election of Donald Trump to the presidency of the United States and his rejection of the Paris Climate Change Agreement, however, provide the Australian Government with an opportunity to admit its mistake and change direction on global warming and energy policy and thereby give itself a chance of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat at the next election. It needs to find a leader who can tackle this issue head on in the face of the furious opposition that it will encounter from the ABC and the rest of the media, academia, the bureaucracies, and vested interests in the scientific and renewable energy industries.
It will be a tough fight, but it is a fight that can only be fought from within government and not from opposition. It is only when you control the appointments and the purse strings that it is possible to challenge those presenting pseudo-science as evidence and dismiss those who will not properly deal with the scientific objections to the global-warming “consensus” position.
I believe it is the only way this nation can be saved from the high energy costs that are crippling our industries and punishing household budgets. Providing strong support to President Trump on this issue might even begin to turn around this insanity globally and allow the availability of cheap and reliable power to lift underdeveloped nations out of the poverty that currently denies them access to electricity, clean water and sanitation.
Dr Ian Flanigan (retired) obtained a PhD in chemistry at the Research School of Chemistry (ANU).
I have created this site to help people have fun in the kitchen. I write about enjoying life both in and out of my kitchen. Life is short! Make the most of it and enjoy!
This is a library of News Events not reported by the Main Stream Media documenting & connecting the dots on How the Obama Marxist Liberal agenda is destroying America
Centinel2012 