KOMMONSENTSJANE – THE FIGHT HAS JUST BEGUN


I do agree trump needs us to not second guess him and keep the faith. Remember when has how he would be ISIS he would always say I’m not telling you by tell the enemy what you are going to do. Well the enemies now are the Demorats and many RINO’s so don’t worry about the Freedom Caucus.

kommonsentsjane

agenda

Received the following from Corey – if any of you all are interested you can go to his website.  We have to do something because of the lack of cooperation of the  Democrats and the media.

They have had a mental breakdown and are completely out of it.

March 31, 2017 4:55 PM

From:  Corey R. Lewandowski, Chairman <marketing@thepoliticalinsider.com>

Subject:  The fight has just begun!

Chairman, Great America Agenda PAC

hat

For the last two years, we have worked hand-in-hand to help Make America Great Again.

As President Trump’s campaign manager, I thought my job was over after his historic election. Boy, was I wrong! That’s why I agreed to become Chairman of Great America Agenda, to help President Trump “drain the swamp” and get America moving again. And, frankly we still need your help. Will you join me?

It’s clear, the Liberals are not going quietly. Conspiring with the mainstream media…

View original post 396 more words

Al Qaeda Rebranding Serves US Agenda


More insanity this strategy can never work!

Knowing it Can’t be Done – Adam Schiff Requests White House Intelligence Distribution to Entire Committee…


LATEST –  Adam Schiff downplays intelligence reports, and falls back on same strategy deployed in Part 3.

Ranking Intel Member Adam Schiff releases a statement that is fraught with parseltongue and obfuscation in the hopes that average voters/Americans don’t know the difference between executive level intelligence (highest security level), used by President and only available to Oversight Gang-of-Eight, and committee level intelligence (lower security threshold) which can be reviewed by the entire House Intelligence Committee.

Even a public official openly discussing the various levels of “compartmented” intelligence and various differences within the authorized use of SCIF facilities, is itself a violation of classified intelligence rules.  This makes it easy for deceivers to manipulate their words knowing they cannot be publicly challenged.

If you are paying close attention, you’ll note this strategy is what Adam Schiff is using in the statement he released below:

Ranking Intelligence Committee Member Adam Schiff claims: “I cannot discuss the content” and then claims “they should have been shared with the full committees”.

Schiff knows full well the executive office level intelligence, as an end product, cannot be shared (as a whole) with the intelligence committee because the committee is not authorized to see the same level of intelligence as the President.

Only the eight congressional intelligence oversight members, the Gang-of-Eight, can be allowed access to the same end-product intelligence as the President of the United States.  If the Go8 level intelligence is shared, it must come as individual parts from each of the intelligence agencies that have assembled the product.

The President DID ask the congressional committees to review and investigate the intelligence leaks, which would encompass looking at the actual intelligence that was being leaked:

Devin Nunes investigated the intelligence as an outcome of information leaked to him by a member of the Intelligence Community.  His concern, after reviewing the intelligence, was “unmasking” as a tool to target political opponents.

Later, after Nunes reviewed part of the surveillance intelligence and reported his findings to the President – the President, through his office of legal counsel – and following clearly defined rules of classification and protocol, requested the four intel committee chairs of the G08 (Nunes, Schiff, Burr and Warner) to review the same intelligence.   Only Nunes and now Schiff have done so.

Senator’s Burr (Chair) and Warner (Vice-Chair) have NOT reviewed the intelligence; yet Schiff is now claiming it should be distributed to all members of both intelligence committees (House and Senate).

 

KOMMONSENTSJANE – DO YOU HAVE AN AWESOME ATTITUDE?


Good principles to live by especially today.

kommonsentsjane

March 31, 2017

Do you have an awesome attitude!

As the renewal of Spring and Easter is upon us this seemed appropriate.

valley

How many of us have this AWESOME attitude?  This is something we should all think about from time to time to remember what a short time we really spend on earth.  It seems just a few years ago we were children.

During my growing up years, I dreamed in 20-year segments – like, when I was 20 I thought where and what will I be doing in 20 years and, my goodness, what a wonderful ride it has been and never once have I been disappointed, even with setbacks, there was always a reason for them, and never once looking back was I disappointed – always seeing and thinking – whew – so that was the reason!

And now, the rest of the story!

A 92-year-old, petite, well-poised…

View original post 336 more words

KOMMONSENTSJANE – SCHUMER BELLY ACHING AGAIN.


Schumer is a smuck

kommonsentsjane

Friday March 31, 2017

carrot
Schumer is so bad that not even some of the Jewish people claim him anymore.

Schumer Warns GOP Against Rules Change to Confirm Gorsuch to Supreme Court

Friday, 31 Mar 2017 08:54 AM

As he tries to line up enough votes to block President Donald Trump’s Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Democratic leader is strongly warning Republicans against changing Senate rules to confirm Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Minority Leader Chuck Schumer lost two in his caucus Thursday when Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota said they would vote for the Colorado jurist. But Schumer still appears to be on track to amass enough Democratic votes to block the nomination, which could prompt Republicans to change Senate rules so that Gorsuch could be confirmed.

Schumer, of New York, had tough words for his Republican counterpart, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky…

View original post 792 more words

Sean Spicer Brings Out Hillary Clinton’s Uranium Deal With Russia


Hillary not trump is the traitor

Chuck Todd: Trump on the Brink of ‘Lame Duck’ Presidency


They are barking up the wrong tree, Trump has beat them at every turn they just do not know how to actually get things done.

Intel Official Behind “Unmasking” Of Trump Associates Is “Very Senior, Very Well Known”


Tyler Durden's picture

Day after day, various media outlets, well really mostly the NYT and WaPo, have delivered Trump-administration-incriminating, Russia-link-related tape bombs sourced via leaks (in the hope of keeping the narrative alive and “resisting.”). It now turns out, according to FXN report, that the US official who “unmasked” the names of multiple private citizens affiliated with the Trump team is someone “very well known, very high up, very senior in the intelligence world.”

As Malia Zimmerman and Adam Housley report, intelligence and House sources with direct knowledge of the disclosure of classified names (yes, yet another “unnamed source”) said that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, now knows who is responsible – and that person is not in the FBI (i.e. it is not James Comey)

Housley said his sources were motivated to come forward by a New York Times report yesterday which reportedly outed two people who helped Nunes access information during a meeting in the Old Executive Office Building. However, Housley’s sources claim the two people who helped Nunes “navigate” to the information were not his sources. In fact, Nunes had been aware of the information since January (long before Trump’s ‘wiretap’ tweet) but had been unable to view the documents themselves because of “stonewalling” by the agencies in question.

 

For a private citizen to be “unmasked,” or named, in an intelligence report is extremely rare. Typically, the American is a suspect in a crime, is in danger or has to be named to explain the context of the report.

“The main issue in this case, is not only the unmasking of these names of private citizens, but the spreading of these names for political purposes that have nothing to do with national security or an investigation into Russia’s interference in the U.S. election,” a congressional source close to the investigation told Fox News.

The White House, meanwhile, is urging Nunes and his colleagues to keep pursuing what improper surveillance and leaks may have occurred before Trump took office. They’ve been emboldened in the wake of March 2 comments from former Obama administration official Evelyn Farkas, who on MSNBC suggested her former colleagues tried to gather material on Trump team contacts with Russia.

White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said Friday her comments and other reports raise “serious” concerns about whether there was an “organized and widespread effort by the Obama administration to use and leak highly sensitive intelligence information for political purposes.”

“Dr. Farkas’ admissions alone are devastating,” he said.

Clearly this confirms what Evelyn Farakas said, accidentally implicated the Obama White House in the surveillance of Trump’s campaign staff:

The Trump folks, if they found out how we knew what we knew about the Trump staff dealing with Russians, that they would try to compromise those sources and methods, meaning we would not longer have access to that intelligence.

Furthermore, Farkas effectively corroborated a New York Times article from early March which cited “Former American officials” as their anonymous source regarding efforts to leak this surveillance on the Trump team to Democrats across Washington DC.

In addition, citizens affiliated with Trump’s team who were unmasked were not associated with any intelligence about Russia or other foreign intelligence, sources confirmed. The initial unmasking led to other surveillance, which led to other private citizens being wrongly unmasked, sources said.

Unmasking is not unprecedented, but unmasking for political purposes … specifically of Trump transition team members … is highly suspect and questionable,” according to an intelligence source. “Opposition by some in the intelligence agencies who were very connected to the Obama and Clinton teams was strong. After Trump was elected, they decided they were going to ruin his presidency by picking them off one by one.”

So if the source isn’t Comey, has anyone seen Jim Clapper recently? The answer should emerge soon, meanwhile the ridiculous game with very high stakes of spy vs spy, or in this case source vs source, continues.

 

McCaskill To Oppose Gorsuch, Virtually Assuring Use Of “Nuclear Option”


Tyler Durden's picture

Senator Claire McCaskill said she will join the Democrats attempted filibuster of Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch and will not vote for him, making it almost certain that Republicans will have to trigger the “nuclear option” to confirm President Trump’s first Supreme Court nominee.

The Missouri Democrat announced Friday in a post on Medium, faulting the nominee for “a stunning lack of humanity.”

“While I have come to the conclusion that I can’t support Neil Gorsuch for the Supreme Court ?- ?and will vote no on the procedural vote and his confirmation? – ?I remain very worried about our polarized politics and what the future will bring, since I’m certain we will have a Senate rule change that will usher in more extreme judges in the future,” McCaskill wrote in a post on Medium.

She said the nomination of Gorsuch goes against the grain of Trump’s promise to help working-class Americans because he is “a judge who can’t even see them.” McCaskill also raised concerns about Gorsuch’s refusal during his confirmation hearing to say how he viewed the constitutionality of campaign fundraising regulations, which were limited by the landmark case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010.

“I cannot support Judge Gorsuch because a study of his opinions reveal a rigid ideology that always puts the little guy under the boot of corporations,” she said adding “I cannot and will not support a nominee that allows dark and dirty anonymous money to continue to flood unchecked into our elections.”

What makes McCaskill’s opposition unique is that she is the first Democrat facing reelection next year in a state President Trump carried by double digits to come out against Gorsuch, a move which will likely force other “on the fence” Democrats to follow in her footsteps.

The political press is divided over what her no vote means: according to Axios: “Gorsuch just got the last “no” it needed so the Democrats can meet the vote threshold to filibuster his nomination. Republicans will now have to get rid of the 60-vote filibuster threshold for judges, or allow Gorsuch’s nomination to fail.”

A less definitive conclusion comes from the Hill, according to which her “no” vote shrinks the pool of Democrats who have undecided or unclear positions on Gorsuch to nine. Gorsuch’s nomination needs the backing of eight Democrats or Independents, along with all 52 Republicans, to break a filibuster.

Only two Democrats have so far said they will vote to end a filibuster of Gorsuch and support his final confirmation, according to The Hill’s Whip List. Both of them, Sens. Joe Manchin (W.Va.) and Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), represent states Trump won overwhelmingly in November.

Meanwhile, Senate Leader Mitch McConnell has vowed that Gorsuch will be confirmed and has told colleagues to expect a vote to change the rules to lower the threshold for ending a filibuster to a simple majority, i.e. the “nuclear option”.

As The Hill adds, to avoid a showdown over the rules, it now becomes crucial for Gorsuch to pick up the support of the two remaining undecided Democrats who face reelection next year in strongly pro-Trump states: Sen. Jon Tester (Mont.) and Sen. Joe Donnelly (Ind.).

Gorsuch would likely also need the support of senior Democrats such as Sen. Dianne Feinstein (Calif.), the ranking member on the Judiciary Committee, and Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.), who might be concerned about preserving their power to filibuster for the next vacancy on the court.

Other Democrats up in the air are centrist Sens. Mark Warner (Va.) and Chris Coons (Del.), along with Independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), who praised Gorsuch earlier this year as “exceedingly independent.”

Assuming Axios’ whip list is the correct one, and McCaskill’s vote was the tiebreaker, forcing the “nuclear option”, the likely outcome is to make the already deep split between Republicans and Democrats even more polarized, further complicating the passage of any future Trump legislative proposals.

Do The Roots Of Rising Inequality Go All The Way Back To The 1980s?


Tyler Durden's picture

Authored by Charles Hugh-Smith via OfTwoMinds blog,

Unless we change the fundamental structure of the economy so that actually producing goods and services and hiring people is more profitable than playing financial games with phantom assets, the end-game of financialization is financial collapse.

I presented this chart of rising wealth inequality a number of times over the past year. Do you notice something peculiar about the inflection points in the 1980s?

Correspondent W.S. noted that the inflection point for the top .1% (late 1970s) preceded the inflection point of the bottom 90% (around 1986): both increased their share of household wealth from 1978 to 1986, and then the share of the top .1% took off, essentially tripling from 8% to over 22%, while the share of the bottom fell precipitously from 36% to 23%.

(Note that the data stops at 2012; if we extend the trends to the present, the lines have certainly crossed and the share of the .1% now exceeds that of the bottom 90%.)

So what happened between 1978 and 1986? The first phase of the financialization of the U.S. economy. What is financialization? In a financialized economy, speculating with highly leveraged debt and exotic financial instruments is far more profitable than producing goods and services.

Financialization hollows out the productive assets of an economy by incentivizing leverage, debt, opacity, speculation, financial fraud, collusion and the perfection of crony capitalism, i.e. financial Elites’ ownership of the government’s regulatory and legislative bodies.

Here is another less pungent description via Wikipedia: “Financial leverage overrides capital (equity) and financial markets dominate traditional industrial economy and agricultural economics.”

Here is my more formal definition:

Financialization is the mass commodification of debt and debt-based financial instruments collaterized by previously low-risk assets, a pyramiding of risk and speculative gains that is only possible in a massive expansion of low-cost credit and leverage.

Another way to describe the same dynamics is: financialization results when leverage and information asymmetry replace innovation and productive investment as the source of wealth creation.

I describe the dynamics in What’s the Primary Cause of Wealth Inequality? Financialization (March 24, 2014)

Correspondent W.S. submitted commentary and references this 2005 book Financialization and the World Economy:

In the US “total credit market debt divided by GDP was about 1.5 from 1961 to 1981. It accelerated rapidly in the decade of the 1980s – from 1.6 in 1981 to 2.3 in 1989 – as the federal budget deficit soared, hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts loaded corporations with debt, and household borrowing increased. Corporate and household borrowing raised indebtedness further in the 1990s; by 2001 the debt to GDP ratio was 2.8, almost double the ratio in the Golden Age. Moreover, average real interest rates have been much higher in the neoliberal era than they were in the three decades that preceeded it.

W.S. Also referenced FINANCIALIZATION OF THE ECONOMY and added this commentary:

While “bloated” conglomerates were linked by some to the sluggish performance of the American economy in the 1970s, for corporate raiders they presented a get rich quick opportunity via the “market for corporate control” (Manne 1965). Outsiders could buy the firm from its existing shareholders, fire its managers, and sell off the parts for a quick profit.

After the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, this became possible on a grand scale due to relaxed antitrust guidelines, changes in state antitakeover laws, and financial innovations that enabled raiders to get relatively short-term financing on a large scale (Davis & Stout 1992). Within a decade, nearly one-third of the Fortune 500 largest industrial firms had been acquired or merged, often resulting in spinoffs of unrelated parts, and by 1990 American corporations were far less diversified than they had been a decade before (Davis et al 1994).

The other thing that happened in the mid-1980s was computer technology became cheap enough and powerful enough to start replacing human labor on a wider scale. Spreadsheets such as Excel became accessible to small business, and the desktop publishing combo of the Apple Macintosh and laserprinters revolutionized the cost structure of marketing.

The rise of the Internet (coupled with cheap memory and processing power) further fueled the productive expansion of digital technologies. As I describe in my book Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy, these tools– which are now ubiquitous and inexpensive–enable one person today to equal the output of what once took four people to produce in the late 1980s.

In effect, labor entered an era of dynamic over-supply just as healthcare costs began to rise, making it more costly to hire workers. Some skills and trades remain scarce and thus well-paid, but as a generalization it became cheaper and more efficient to replace increasingly expensive human labor with increasingly inexpensive and powerful software and digital tools.

Unless we change the fundamental structure of the economy so that actually producing goods and services and maximizing opportunities for people is more profitable than playing financial games with phantom assets, the end-game of financialization is financial collapse.

Recent podcasts/video programs: