I’m getting really sick and tired of economic analysts talking down the U.S. economy even when they are surrounded with resoundingly good news.  These economic control agents are furious that President Trump is deconstructing their decades-long lies; and showing just how manipulated the U.S. economy has been – by elites, to the detriment of the middle-class…. I digress:

Despite the devastating hurricanes in August and September the Third-Quarter GDP grew at a revised upward rate of 3.3%. Third quarter growth was initially reported at 3%.

BLOOMBERG – The U.S. economy’s growth rate last quarter was revised upward to the fastest in three years on stronger investment from businesses and government agencies than previously estimated, Commerce Department data showed Wednesday.

The 3rd quarter (July, Aug, Sept) growth was led by business-equipment spending which rose at a 10.4% pace, a three-year high, revised from the initial report of 8.6%. CTH has continually highlighted that capital investment and capital equipment purchasing is a key to see how confident businesses are in the future.

BLOOMBERG – […] While the revised growth rate is in line with President Donald Trump’s goal, economists generally see such a pace as unsustainable and expect growth to slow sometime in 2018. Trump and congressional Republicans are pushing a tax-cut plan with the aim of lifting GDP gains to 3 percent annually, though analysts expect any economic boost to be modest, on balance, if the proposal becomes law.

[…] Consumer spending, which accounts for about 70 percent of the economy, continues to be the main driver of growth, though revisions showed it was slightly weaker than previously estimated on purchases of both durable and nondurable goods.

The biggest improvement came in business investment, which made a 1.2 percentage-point contribution to growth, up from 0.98 point in the initial estimate a month ago. (read more)

The chairman of the Federal Communications Commission, Ajit Pai, fired a direct shot across the bow of the technocrats who control social media platforms today.

Chairman Pai righteously called out Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and other platform control agents for being ideologically biased, and using their platforms to target their ideological opposition.

Defending his plan to roll back Obama’s one-sided internet rules, the Chairman outlined how he intended to ensure a free, fair and open internet.  [Full Speech Transcript below]

“The Internet is the greatest free-market innovation in history. It’s allowed us to live, play, work, learn, and speak in ways that were inconceivable a generation ago. But it didn’t have to be that way. Its success is due in part to regulatory restraint. Democrats and Republicans decided in the 1990s that this new digital world wouldn’t be centrally planned like a slow-moving utility. Instead, they chose Internet freedom. The results speak for themselves.

Now, much has been said and written over the course of the last week about the plan to restore Internet freedom. But much of the discussion has brought more heat than light. So this afternoon, I’d like to cut through the hysteria and hot air and speak with you in plain terms about the plan. First, I’ll explain what it will do. Second, I’ll discuss why I’m advancing it. And third, I’ll respond to the main criticisms that have been leveled against it.

First: what will the plan do?

When you cut through the legal terms and technical jargon, it’s very simple. The plan to restore Internet freedom will bring back the same legal framework that was governing the Internet three years ago today and that has governed the Internet for most of its existence.

Let me repeat this point. The plan will bring back the same framework that governed the Internet for most of its existence. If you’ve been reading some of the media coverage about the plan, this might be news to you.  After all, returning to the legal framework for Internet regulation that was in place three years ago today doesn’t sound like “destroying the Internet” or “ending the Internet as we know it.” And it certainly isn’t good clickbait. But facts are stubborn things.

And here are some of those facts. Until 2015, the FCC treated high-speed Internet access as a lightly-regulated “information service” under Title I of the Communications Act. A few years ago, the Obama Administration instructed the FCC to change course. And it did, on a party-line vote in 2015; it classified Internet access as a heavily-regulated “telecommunications service” under Title II of the Communications Act. If the plan is adopted on December 14, we’ll simply reverse the FCC’s 2015 decision and go back to the pre-2015 Title I framework.

Now, I’m sure some of you out there are still thinking that there must be more to it than this. And I’ll confess that once the plan to restore Internet freedom is adopted, one thing will be different compared  to three years ago. Consumers will be empowered by getting more information from Internet service providers (ISPs). My ISP transparency rule will be stronger than it was in 2014.

That’s the “what.” Next: why? Why am I proposing to return to the pre-2015 regulatory
framework? The most important reason is that it was an overwhelming success.

Think back to what the Internet looked like in 1996. E-mail was still the killer app. AOL was the most visited website. The top 20 sites included the homepages for four universities (Carnegie Mellon, Illinois, Michigan, and MIT). Forget about YouTube; just downloading a static webpage took 30 seconds, and you paid by the hour for access. And being online also tied up your phone line.

So how did we get from there to here?

As I said at the outset, a huge part of the answer is the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As part of this landmark law, President Clinton and a Republican Congress agreed that it would be the policy of 2the United States “to preserve the vibrant and competitive free market that presently exists for the Internet . . . unfettered by Federal or State regulation.”

They deliberately rejected thinking of the Internet as Ma Bell, or a water company, or a subway system. Encouraged by light-touch regulation, the private sector invested over $1.5 trillion to build out wired and wireless networks throughout the United States. 28.8k modems eventually gave way to gigabit fiber connections.

U.S. innovators and entrepreneurs used this open platform to start companies that have become global giants. (Indeed, the five biggest companies in America today by market capitalization are Internet companies.) America’s Internet economy became the envy of the world, and the fact that the largest technology companies of the digital economy are homegrown has given us a key competitive advantage.

But then, in early 2015, the FCC chose a decidedly different course for the Internet. At the
urging of the Obama Administration, the FCC scrapped the tried-and-true, light touch regulation of the Internet and replaced it with heavy-handed micromanagement.

It did this despite the fact that the Internet wasn’t broken in 2015. There was no market failure that justified the regulatory sledgehammer of Title II. But no matter; 21st century networks would now be regulated under creaky rules that were the hot new thing back in the 1930s, during the Roosevelt Administration.

The results have been bad for consumers. The first negative consumer impact is less
infrastructure investment. The top complaint consumers have about the Internet is not and has never been that their ISP is doing things like blocking content; it’s that they don’t have enough access and competition. Ironically, Title II has made that concern even worse by reducing investment in building and maintaining high-speed networks. In the two years of the Title II era, broadband network investment declined by $3.6 billion—or more than 5%. Notably, this is the first time that such investment has declined outside of a recession in the Internet era.

When there’s less investment, that means fewer next-generation networks are built. That means fewer jobs for Americans building those networks. And that means more Americans are left on the wrong side on the digital divide.

The impact has been particularly serious for smaller Internet service providers. They don’t have the time, money, or lawyers to navigate a thicket of complex rules. I have personally visited some of them, from Spencer Municipal Utilities in Spencer, Iowa to Wave Wireless in Parsons, Kansas. So it’s no surprise that the Wireless Internet Service Providers Association, which represents small fixed wireless companies that typically operate in rural America, surveyed its members and found that over 80% “incurred additional expense in complying with the Title II rules, had delayed or reduced network expansion, had delayed or reduced services and had allocated budget to comply with the rules.”

Other small companies, too, have told the FCC that these regulations have forced them to cancel, delay, or curtail fiber network upgrades. And nearly two dozen small providers submitted a letter saying the FCC’s heavy-handed rules “affect our ability to find financing.”

That’s what makes Title II regulations so misplaced. However well intentioned, they’re hurting the very small providers and new entrants that are best positioned to bring additional competition into the marketplace. As I warned before the FCC went down this road in 2015, a regulatory structure designed for a monopoly will inevitably move the market in the direction of a monopoly.

Turning away from investment, the second negative consumer impact from the FCC’s heavy-handed regulations has been less innovation. We shifted from a wildly successful framework of permission-less innovation to a mother-may-I approach that has had a chilling effect. One major company, for instance, reported that it put on hold a project to build out its out-of-home Wi-Fi network due to uncertainty about the FCC’s regulatory stance.

A coalition of 19 municipal Internet service providers —that is, city-owned nonprofits— have told the FCC that they “often delay or hold off from rolling out a new feature or service because [they] cannot afford to deal with a potential complaint and enforcement action.” Ask yourself: How is this good for consumers?

Much of the problem stems from the vague Internet conduct standard that the Commission adopted in 2015—a standard that I’m proposing to repeal. Under this standard, the FCC didn’t say specifically what conduct was prohibited. Instead, it gave itself a roving mandate to second-guess new service offerings, new features, and new business models. Understandably, businesses asked for clarity on how this standard would be applied. My predecessor’s answer, and I quote: “We don’t know, we’ll have to see where things go.” That’s the very definition of regulatory uncertainty.

Well, where did things go? It’s telling that the Commission’s first target under the Internet
conduct standard was consumer-friendly free-data plans. Wireless companies are offering customers the option of enjoying services like streaming video or music exempt from any data limits.

These plans have proven quite popular, especially among lower-income Americans. Yet the FCC had met the enemy, and it was free data. It started a lengthy investigation of free-data plans and would have cracked down on them had the presidential election turned out differently.

So that’s what I’m proposing to do and why I’m proposing to do it.

Next, I’d like to take on the main criticisms I’ve heard directed against the plan and separate fact from fiction—one claim at a time. And given that some of the more eye-catching critiques have come from Hollywood celebrities, whose large online followings give them out-sized influence in shaping the public debate, I thought I’d directly respond to some of their assertions.

Perhaps the most common criticism is that ending Title II utility-style regulation will mean the end of the Internet as we know it. Or, as Kumail Nanjiani, a star of HBO’s Silicon Valley put it, “We willnever go back to a free Internet.”

But here’s the simple truth: We had a free and open Internet for two decades before 2015, and we’ll have a free and open Internet going forward.

Many critics don’t seem to understand that we are moving from heavy-handed regulation to light-touch regulation, not a completely hands-off approach. We aren’t giving anybody a free pass. We are simply shifting from one-size-fits-all pre-emptive regulation to targeted enforcement based on actual market failure or anticompetitive conduct.

For example, the plan would restore the authority of the Federal Trade Commission, America’s premier consumer protection agency, to police the practices of Internet service providers. And if companies engage in unfair, deceptive, or anticompetitive practices, the Federal Trade Commission would be able to take action.

This framework for protecting a free and open Internet worked well in the past, and it will work well again. Chairman Ohlhausen will soon offer further details.

The plan would also empower the Federal Trade Commission to once again police broadband providers’ privacy and data security practices. In 2015, we stripped the Federal Trade Commission of that authority. But the plan would put the nation’s most experienced privacy cop back on the beat. That should be a welcome development for every American who cares about his or her privacy.

Another concern I’ve heard is that the plan will harm rural and low-income Americans.

Cher, for example, has tweeted that the Internet “Will Include LESS AMERICANS NOT MORE” if my proposal is adopted. But the opposite is true. The digital divide is all too real. Too many rural and low-income Americans are still unable to get high-speed Internet access. But heavy-handed Title II regulations just make the problem worse! They reduce investment in broadband networks, especially in rural and low-income areas. By turning back time, so to speak, and returning Internet regulation to the pre-2015 era, we will expand broadband networks and bring high-speed Internet access to more Americans, not fewer.

Then there is this critique that offered by Mark Ruffalo: “Taking away #NetNeutrality is the Authoritarian dream. Consolidating information in the hands of a few controlled by a few. Dangerous territory.” I will confess when I saw this tweet I was tempted to just say “Hulk . . . wrong” and move on.

But I’ve seen similar points made elsewhere, including in one e-mail asking: “Do you really want to be the man who was responsible for making America another North Korea?”

These comments are absurd. Getting rid of government authority over the Internet is the exact opposite of authoritarianism. Government control is the defining feature of authoritarians, including the one in North Korea.

Another common criticism is that after the plan is adopted, the Internet will become like cable television, and Americans will have to pay more to reach certain groups of websites.

George Takei of Star Trek fame recently tweeted an article claiming that this was happening in Portugal, which doesn’t have net neutrality, and that this would happen in the United States if the plan were adopted.

There are a few problems with this. For one thing, the Obama Administration itself made clear that curated Internet packages are lawful in the United States under the commission’s 2015 rules.

That’s right: the conduct described in a graphic that is currently being spread around the Internet is currently allowed under the previous Administration’s Title II rules. So, for example, if broadband providers want to offer a $10 a month package where you could only access a few websites like Twitter and Facebook,they can do that today.

Indeed, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals recently pointed out that net neutrality
rules don’t prohibit these curated offerings. So the complaint by Mr. Takei and others doesn’t hold water. They’re arguing that if the plan is adopted, Internet service providers would suddenly start doing something that net-neutrality rules already allow them to do. But the reason that Internet service providers aren’t offering such packages now, and
likely won’t offer such packages in the future, is that American consumers by and large don’t want them.

Additionally, as several fact-checkers have pointed out, as part of the European Union, Portugal does have net neutrality regulations! Moreover, the graphic relates to supplemental data plans featuring specific apps that customers could get from one provider, beyond the various unrestricted base plans that provider offered. As one report put it, this example “is pointing to an example that has nothing to do with net neutrality.”

Shifting gears, Alyssa Milano tweeted, “We’ve faced a lot of issues threatening our democracy in the last year. But, honestly, the FCC and @AjitPaiFCC’s dismantling of #NetNeutrality is one the biggest.”

I’m threatening our democracy? Really? I’d like to see the evidence that America’s
democratic institutions were threatened by a Title I framework, as opposed to a Title II framework, during the Clinton Administration, the Bush Administration, and the first six years of the Obama Administration.

Don’t hold your breath—there is none. If this were Who’s the Boss?, this would be an opportunity for Tony Danza to dish out some wisdom about the consequences of making things up.

This reminds me of another point, one that’s been brought home to me the past few days.

This debate needs, our culture needs, a more informed discussion about public policy. We need quality information, not hysteria, because hysteria takes us to unpleasant, if not dangerous places. We can disagree on policy. But we shouldn’t demonize, especially when all of us share the same goal of a free and open Internet.

Anyway, the criticism of this plan comes from more than just Hollywood. I’m also well aware that some in Silicon Valley have criticized it. Twitter, for example, has said that it strongly opposes it and “will continue to fight for an open Internet, which is indispensable to free expression, consumer choice, and innovation.”

Now look: I love Twitter, and I use it all the time. But let’s not kid ourselves; when it comes to an open Internet, Twitter is part of the problem. The company has a viewpoint and uses that viewpoint to discriminate.

As just one of many examples, two months ago, Twitter blocked Representative Marsha
Blackburn from advertising her Senate campaign launch video because it featured a pro-life message.

Before that, during the so-called Day of Action, Twitter warned users that a link to a statement by one company on the topic of Internet regulation “may be unsafe.” And to say the least, the company appears to have a double standard when it comes to suspending or de-verifying conservative users’ accounts as opposed to those of liberal users. This conduct is many things, but it isn’t fighting for an open Internet.

And unfortunately, Twitter isn’t an outlier. Indeed, despite all the talk about the fear that
broadband providers could decide what Internet content consumers can see, recent experience shows that so-called edge providers are in fact deciding what content they see.

These providers routinely block or discriminate against content they don’t like.

The examples from the past year alone are legion. App stores barring the doors to apps from even cigar aficionados because they are perceived to promote tobacco use. Streaming services restricting videos from the likes of conservative commentator Dennis Prager on subjects he considers “important to understanding American values.”

Algorithms that decide what content you see (or don’t), but aren’t disclosed themselves. Online platforms secretly editing certain users’ comments. And of course, American companies caving to repressive foreign governments’ demands to block certain speech—
conduct that would be repugnant to free expression if it occurred within our borders.

In this way, edge providers are a much bigger actual threat to an open Internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint.

That might explain why the CEO of a company called Cloudflare recently questioned whether “is it the right place for tech companies to be regulating the Internet.” He didn’t offer a solution, but remarked that “what I know is not the right answer is that a cabal of ten tech executives with names like Matthew, Mark, Jack, . . . Jeff are the ones choosing what content goes online and what content doesn’t go online.”

Nonetheless, these companies want to place much tougher regulations on broadband providers than they are willing to have placed upon themselves. So let’s be clear. They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these Internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the Internet economy.

And here’s the thing: I don’t blame them for trying. But the government shouldn’t aid and abet this effort. We have no business picking winners and losers in the marketplace. A level playing field, not regulatory arbitrage, is what best serves consumers and competition.

To wrap up, I’d like to quote from an article in The New York Times: “Some experts say the
government’s planned withdrawal from Internet management . . . is the best way to bring marketplace efficiencies to the increasingly commercial global network. But pessimists worry that this critical part of the emerging electronic web could become a patchwork of private roads.”

This passage was written way back in 1994 about the decision to privatize the Internet.

History has proven that policymakers made the right decision then. And that they made the right decision in 1996, when they applied a light-touch regulatory framework to the Internet.

So when you get past the wild accusations, fearmongering, and hysteria, here’s the boring bottom line: the plan to restore Internet freedom would return us to the light touch, market-based approach under which the Internet thrived. And that’s why I am asking my colleagues to vote for it on December 14.”

[Transcript Link]

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”.

~ Donald Trump

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.”…

….. Sing it with me:

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)

White House Statement:

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)

(LINK)

Keep digging Mr. Mulvaney… keep digging.

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.

BACKSTORY:

• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (big picture)
• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (Some Details)
• President Trump appoints Mick Mulvaney as interim director for CFPB
• Elizabeth Warren goes bananas.
• DOJ Office of Legal Counsel agrees with President Trump
• CFPB Internal Legal Counsel Agrees with President Trump
• Mick Mulvaney first day on the job
• Mick Mulvaney holds a press conference (video)
• DOJ files response to Leandra English

Make Sure You Watch The Video:

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.

BACKSTORY:

• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (big picture)
• CFPB Financial Control Schemes (Some Details)
• President Trump appoints Mick Mulvaney as interim director for CFPB
• Elizabeth Warren goes bananas.
• DOJ Office of Legal Counsel agrees with President Trump
• CFPB Internal Legal Counsel Agrees with President Trump
• Mick Mulvaney first day on the job

BACKSTORY:

• CFPB Financial Control Schemes
• President Trump appoints Mick Mulvaney as interim director for CFPB
• Elizabeth Warren goes bananas.
• DOJ Office of Legal Counsel agrees with President Trump
• CFPB Internal Legal Counsel Agrees with President Trump

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:

(LINK TO THREE-PAGE MEMO)

(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 Cotton reacts 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.

(Read More to include the astronomic costs)

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.

Thank you.

END 2:43 P.M. EST

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)