1984: Doublespeak. Up is down, Yes is No.

So much is made of Donald Trump's unchecked facts.  And to be fair and honest, and transparent, I agree for the most part.  Yet what I have noticed over the last two months is lies, slander, and innuendo by academics, media, and liberals against anything and everything related to Donald Trump.  It is obsessive, hate-filled, and blind.  It is intolerant hate, and this is not news, real or fake to anyone.  It is very clear.  It is also not limited to liberals, for their are some conservatives in the Republican party who so loathe Trump, they now find themselves siding with the most loathe some of humans - people who preach intolerance, hate, violence, and an end to free speech - liberals.

You lost.  Get over it.  With illegal voting, although not millions probably, but still with that help, the help of people who said 'never trump', and the apathy of others all helping the vote count for Her, he still won.  He said he was going to do X, Y, Z, and surprise surprise, he is doing X Y and Z along with A, B, C, D, E, and F, with plans for G, H,I,J,K later.  I suspect L, M, N, O will be reserved until his next term if he were to run again.  This is what voters want.  Someone who says and does, not someone who blames and doesn't do.  And surprise, when he blames the media he isn't exaggerating - enemy of the people?  No, but certainly not working toward the sovereignty and independence of the American people.

The people who voted for Trump will do so again, and after he has demonstrated he is not the evil-doer the liberals say he is, some from the left side will vote for him/support him next time.  You can't win, because your message is one of division.  His message isn't one of division, his is one of unification.  Your message is divisive.  He says America is for Americans, for those people who want to be American, who come here to be part of this great experiment in human history.  For those who come legally, and follow our laws and seek to be Americans - all of this is for them.  That is NOT divisive.  Since when is supporting ones nation and the sovereignty and independence of ones nation and people divisive? 

Your message - which is entirely about division and hate, is exactly that - destructive and divisive.  Sad.

And voters see this.  They really do.  You think because 10,000 protest here and 1000 scream there, and 5,000 cry over there - that the nation is waking up.  You made that mistake in November.  The 40+ million who support him are not having fits, committing crimes en masse, or threatening an end to order by their intolerant attitudes toward government and policy.  They will vote.  AND others will also.  The only way you could pull off a coup is by getting illegals to vote, and I suspect in the next 4 years we will see voter reform to prevent much of that!  I know it hurts, but winning by fraud, by deception, by division, isn't winning - it's cheating!  And it kills truth. 

Oh, the Russians, I know.  But according to every poll/study done, NOTHING the Russians never did, helped Her.  And if it did, why hasn't SHE said it has.  Instead she has blamed everyone else BUT the Russians.  Simpletons who still believe the Russians hacked an email account are idiots, in the truest sense of the word.

What I have noticed in the last 3-4 weeks is that our country really does have a serious, serious, serious, very serious illegal immigration issue.  Throughout the country cities and states say they will 'protect' illegals.  But what about law.  They came here illegally, violating state and federal laws in doing so.  They are not fleeing (most) anything worse than what those miserably impoverished states they flee from have always been.  You don't protest the conditions in Mexico that force people to flee.  You instead fly the Mexican flag.  You offer sanctuary and protection flouting laws our government established long before Trump.  You want to hire illegals, and several companies have said they want to, to protect them.  OMG.

Honestly.  Spend your bloody energy saving their wretched countries from the inhuman conditions the people live in so they don't come here. Stop hurting the American taxpayer.

Americans haven't quite figured out all this tax stuff yet, but I promise.  That will come.

In the meantime, I will post some deets about that topic ignored by media in favor of depicting Trump as Satan or his aide.

However, not at this time.  I have things to do.  Later.

Nixonian Politics

Nixon was accused of a great many crimes.  Yet he resigned to spare the country embarrassment and worse, a period of instability at a time when the Cold War was blazing.

There are and have been many academics who teach the lessons of Nixon and do so with a dripping condescension and loathing for those who supported Nixon.


Hillary Clinton, when the history is finally written about her ... will make Nixon look like a boy-scout.  Her personal attacks, her enemies folder, her private investigations and smear teams, her bribing and meddling in criminal matters, her violations of national security, emails and servers ... she has already exceeded whatever crimes Nixon committed by volumes.

And yet, those academics still sing her praises and glory.  Like they were in church.

P.S - they will hang on to the glory of what could have been, even while privately admitting how flawed she was.  Her time is over, and thankfully we do not have anyone like her on the horizon.

Our nation has been spared that suffering.

White House: Control the News, Ask the Questions

White House SetsGround Rules for Local Interviews

by Keith Koffler on August 21, 2012, 11:20 am

The White House is doing something with its local TV interviews that it could not easily get away with in encounters with the White House press corps, which President Obama has been studiously ignoring: choosing the topic about which President Obama and the reporter will talk.

In interviews with three local TV stations Monday, two from states critical to Obama’s reelection effort, Obama held forth on the possibility of “sequestration” if he and Congress fail to reach a budget deal, allowing him to make his favorite political point that Republicans are willing to cause grievous harm to the economy and jobs in order to protect the rich from tax increases.

Obama Monday threw the White House press corps a bone by suddenly appearing in the briefing room for 22 minutes and taking questions from a total of four reporters. It was his first press conference at the White House – albeit in miniature – since March, and only his second of the year. Obama before Monday had taken exactly one substantive question from White House reporters since June.

But the three other interviews Obama also held Monday pointed to the advantage he gets by focusing on local press, with whom he has been speaking more regularly.

Under sequestration, if a budget deal is not reached by the end of the year, harsh automatic spending cuts will occur. Each of the network reporters were from cities with major military facilities that could be unduly impacted if sequestration occurs.

Two of the reporters were from Norfolk, Virginia and Jacksonville, Florida, both presidential battleground states. The third was from San Diego.

The reporters mostly made no effort to hide the arrangement. “The president invited me to talk about sequestration,” NBC 7 San Diego’s reporter told her audience. In the interview, she set Obama up with a perfectly pitched softball the president couldn’t have been more eager to take a swing at:

“What do you want individual San Diegans to know about sequestration?” she asked.

Donna Deegan of FCN Jacksonville initially seemed to apologize for not broaching the appointed subject right away.

“Mr. President, I know we were asked to talk about sequestration today,” she said, but then added she wanted to talk about something else first. Finally, she got to it:

“Let’s talk a little bit about sequestration, because I know that’s why you invited us here,” she said.

Obama used an interview with WVEC Norfolk to specifically bash Republicans.

“The only thing that’s standing in the way of us getting this done right now is the unwillingess on the part of some members of Congress, and folks in in the Republican Party, to give up on some tax breaks for people like me who don’t need them,” he said.

The reporters were able to ask about other topics. But with their face time with the president limited to under ten minutes, and Obama well rehearsed to discuss at length his favored topic, there was little room for much else to come up.

obama

Sharpton on Obama and the election

The Rev. Al Sharpton received the humanitarian award, and urged the crowd to vote this November.

"This election is not just about Obama, this is about your momma," he said.

The Thing About Liberals ...

Wherever they may live - liberals want change, now, immediate, and without hesitation.  They want good things - end of dictators and tyrants, the right of people to speak and scream, the rights of women and children, pro choice on all issues (except in the US where pro choice does not include the right to choose life based upon Biblical traditions).

Liberals want good things, there is no doubt.  They want it now and some, a few, will even march in protests and risk their very lives in cities like New York and Washington.  Set aside how asinine that image is, those same few would not march in protests against Mubarek or Khadafi.  Yet some liberal minded people did march in Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Syria, and Iran.  Some did and some risked everything to march for freedom.  The world media caught them on video, and showed us their heroic efforts to end the rule of tyrants and dictators - sadly, they were not the real protesters.

Sadly the world was mistaken.  But that's another thing about liberals, a slip here and there, a few mistakes along the way, and things are still fine, no apologies.  Like the t-shirt company in the 90's - No Fear.  This one for liberals - No Apologies.  Could be something George Clooney sets up, maybe even Kofi Annan. 

It's alright, they care, and that is all that matters whereas the heartless greedy conservatives hate everyone - unlike Kofi who presided over two genocides (or attempted), and Clooney who is a clueless as Anna, but he cares.

Yet back to the 'liberal protestors' shown on TV in Tunisia and Libya and Egypt, and Syria ... the face of a revolution.  Behind the face are very dark shadows that have seized control in Tunisia and Libya, and are on the edge of control in Egypt.  The liberal protesters sit back and wonder what happened - they are slightly dazed and certainly confused, wondering aloud what happened to all their candidates who promised them a yellow brick road and sunshine. 

"Young liberal and left-wing revolutionaries who led last year's uprising were dismayed when their own candidates lost the first round of the presidential election last month."

Dismayed?  Ha.  Anyone with half a wit, which discounts Obama, understood the 'revolution' was not the Arab Spring of Democracy Obama was touting, as were so many other quagga's in the media.  As if every quean on earth got in line to drink that cool-aid, and boy did they.  The jubilant support for the 'liberal' protesters in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt ... heck, we even put the liberal protesters in power in Libya, and are on the verge of doing the same in Syria.

What havoc we wreak in doing good, promoting good.  And they condemned Bush for Iraq.  Ha. 

Mubarek sentenced to life in prison for the few deaths in Tahir Square a little more than a year ago.  The funny part, 10X that many have died since, hundreds more have disappeared.  Thousands have been beaten and arrested and tried for crimes against the state.    Who now will be held responsible or is that ok with liberals - bloodshed to cleanse the palate.  The French believed that was the way to do it, until they ate their own and the blood ran freely for years.  Insanity.

But never apologize - not for any of your actions, a sure sign of sincerity and caring.


Quagga and quean are words.  They are not pulled out of my ass as some people are prone to doing!
Kofi is mentioned in regard to his passionate work on behalf of ton he Tutsi and Bosnians.







egypt

Bill Maher: Not funny and Still the Village Idiot (albeit with lots of money like the 1%).

What a sexist pig.  Women everywhere should be condemning this man.  A boycott should be started by the women in PINK and the NOW should be marching on the network that provides him with a home.

(Btw, will you release your tax returns so we can all see how generous you have been with your money and the generous taxes you have paid)



On Friday's "Real Time," Maher double down on Hilary Rosen's controversial statement that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life" by saying that, "what she meant to say, I think, was that Ann Romney has never gotten her ass out of the house to work."

"No one is denying that being a mother is a tough job," said Maher. "I remember that I was a handful. Okay, but there is a big difference in being a mother, and that tough job, and getting your ass out of the door at 7am when it’s cold, having to deal with the boss, being in a workplace, and even if you're unhappy you can’t show it for 8 hours, that is a different kind of tough thing."












idiots on parade

The Left and the Right - Different Worlds

I have increasingly grown more certain we all live on different planets - the left live on their own utopian planetoid while the conservatives live on Airstrip One, so detached from reality they ascribe to Plato's utopia, and the two utopian states ne'er meet.

Recently, someone either went to work for Fox News with the intention of being a mole, or did not.  They were either unaware that Fox news was for Conservatives as MSNBC is for liberals, or they were utopian in their naivete as to what the network was about.  I assume if this is the case they missed the last ten years coverage.  Apparently the network's sensitivities were too right-wing for this poor soul and he had to sell what he had found out while employed by Fox, and his chosen outlet - Gawker.com. 

The secrets of Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity (both pompous and egotistical) will be revealed (that they are pompous and egotistical) ... of wait, everyone knew that already, except perhaps Hannity and O'Reilly and an odd handful of followers.  I suppose the Mole will have more to tell us than about the eccentricities of Hannity and O'Reilly.  Perhaps we can compare those oddities to everything we have learned about Keith Olbermann and his erratic and demanding behavior at MSNBC / Current TV.

The Mole does not reveal much and to be honest, cannot reveal anything - we already know the station is to Conservatives what MSNBC is to liberals and what CNN is to the Left.  So, move on.  We already know that O'Reilly and Hannity are pompous and arrogant.  The Mole casts the audience of Fox as "mostly septuagenarian."   And that means what?  That a bunch of old people send in racist comments?  That old people are inherently racist?  The Mole explains how so many comments are racist - they mention the president is black or Muslim.  Clearly racist. 

A network that catered to an old and technophobic audience that was "ostentatiously friendly treatment he routinely gives Republican candidates" - how painful that experience must have been for such a civilized soul as the Mole who will immediately upon being fired by Fox, sell whatever he thinks he knows about a couple pompous and arrogant pontificators to gawker.com.  The shame of it all that someone so touched by civility and reason had to stoop to working for such a racist entity as Fox News.  He should have applied to work at MSNBC where his sentiments would have been shared with the likes of Madow and Olberman.

I would like to strangle the person who forced him to work at Fox, for all the pain they caused him - emotional distress, suffering, and anguish.  Imagine all the holidays he spent drinking, trying to forget where he worked.  It couldn't have been any worse working for a tyrant like Saddam, except that some American network anchors sucked their way in to interview him and coddled and fawned over him much as the Right fawns over Conservatives.

In any case, the Mole is compelled to let us know just how hypocritical those on the Right are using two examples (in one column):

1) Romney is discussing horse riding and dressage.  Not only the act of riding horses but pronouncing dressage correctly places him squarely in the elite class in America and not among the average GOPer who is more concerned with such things as black presidents and subscribing to conspiracy theories. 

Riding horses versus golf.  The Right attack Obama for playing golf - as elitist, versus Romney and horses and not only his love of horseback riding but the fact he can pronounce dressage correctly, which proves he truly is an elitist.

2) Teleprompters: Sean Hannity uses teleprompters yet he attacks the president for using teleprompters.  The Mole would argue that "the ongoing right-wing obsession with Obama's teleprompter remains a mystery" to him, for he doesn't understand why the Right attack Obama over the use of teleprompters when Obama doesn't "use one any more often than any of his predecessors, or any more often than the men who want to replace him.  to speak to six graders and everyone and everything else."

How hypocritical of the Right and the Mole feels a need, a passion, to express his feeling and his opinion on the subject.  He has particular insight into the subject and just has to tell us all about it.  I am not sure if that is the same attitude O'Reilly and Hannity have, but probably very close.



Here is the answer Mr. Mole -

Obama does use the teleprompter more than Reagan did.  He uses it more than Bush did, and probably slightly more than Clinton.  Reagan used 5x7 cards.  W. Bush clearly didn't, for he misspoke and had he followed or used a teleprompter as regularly or obsessively as Obama, he would have been nearly as eloquent.  We have heard Obama speak when he had no teleprompter and he stutters and rambles, digresses, and even makes up words.  Obama uses the teleprompter like a phone solicitor uses the canned speech prepared for him.  Bush used it to remind him of points or ideas.  Bush used it whenever he felt like it.  He didn't need it in his opinion because he spoke from the heart and expressed his values when he did speak - even if it came out all muttered.  Obama has no underlying value to speak to, instead he relies upon words to convey a message he does not understand and uses the teleprompter as a crutch.  Even Clinton didn't do that - he spoke extemporaneously.

The Left just don't understand this.  Hannity using it because his job is to speak to a screen every night.  Obama's job is not to speak to a screen, but to the people.  Hannity entertains and needs, like Maher and Stewart, words written for him.  Obama is supposed to be above that - speaking to us, expressing his values and ideas for a future he envisions, not what is pasted on a teleprompter.

There is a difference.

The same with horse riding.  Reagan rode horses.  No one said he was an elitist.  He could pronounce dressage correctly, and in fact could probably have corrected Romney on horses and or added to what Romney mentioned to Hannity.  No one claimed Reagan was an elitist did they ?  Oh wait, they did.  Reagan, the guy from Dixon Community College was an elitist.  John Kerry, the guy from Harvard or Yale or the Ketchup fortune, he isn't an elitist, he's one of us.  I understand.

The Mole wasn't comparing Kerry or Reagan, he was commenting on how the right-wing attacked Obama as an elitist for playing golf and Romney and his horseback riding really was elitist.  Mr. Mole - once again, different utopian realities in play:
NO ONE has attacked Obama as an elitist for playing golf.  They criticize Obama for playing golf in almost four years, more often than GW Bush did in eight years.  THAT is the point Mr. Mole.  While we were at war, while Americans were dying in a desert far away, GW was playing golf.  The Left had given up on linking golf to the elite when JFK played and when Clinton took up the habit and was busy playing golf as often as he fiddled in the White House with his interns and others.

There is a difference Mr. Mole.   Real differences.

Which is why I believe we live in separate realities.










left

Liberal Hypocrisy

Rush Limbaugh Isn’t the Only Media Misogynist

by Kirsten Powers

Mar 4, 2012 10:00 AM EST
Daily Beast

Rush Limbaugh apologized on Saturday for calling a Georgetown Law student a slut for testifying about contraception and starting a firestorm of outrage. Kirsten Powers says the liberals who led the charge need to start holding their own side accountable.

Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.” When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews
“is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.

Like The Daily Beast on Facebook and follow us on Twitter for updates all day long.

Kirsten Powers is a columnist for The Daily Beast. She is also a contributor to USA Today and a Fox News political analyst. She served in the Clinton administration from 1993 to 1998 and has worked in New York state and city politics. Her writing has been published in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, New York Post, The New York Observer, Salon.com, Elle magazine, and American Prospect online.

liberals

Democrats and Republicans - Politicizing

Obama campaign to the American people:

"His Republican opponents have jumped all over him because they do want to play politics with this issue. The President spoke from his heart on this, it was trying to emphasize with some parents who had just lost a child. By any measure, this was a tragedy and we need to let the investigation take its course," Stephanie Cutter, Obama's Deputy Campaign Manager, said on MSNBC today."People have to stop politicizing it," she added. "It's no surprise that some of our Republican opponents are trying to make an issue with this. But the President spoke from the heart and we need to let the investigation take its course."



In congress however, a different story:


Congressman Rush - a Democrat decided he needed a hood because ...



Rep. Frederica Wilson (D-Florida): This is Treyvon Martin. Trayvon Martin's murderer is still at large. It's been one month, thirty days, with no arrest. I want America to see this sweet young boy who was hunted down like a dog, shot in the street, and his killer is still at large.

Not one person has been arrested in Treyvon's murder. I want to make sure that America knows that in Sanford, Florida, there was a young boy murdered. He is buried in Miami, Florida, and not one person has been arrested even though we all know who the murderer is. This was a standard case of racial profiling. No more! No more! We will stand for justice for Treyvon Martin.


and still others

 

Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Georgia): "He was executed for 'WWB' in a 'GC.' Walking While Black in a Gated Community."

and another

"I, personally, really truly believe this is a hate crime," said Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) in a joint interview with CBC Chairman Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) on CNN.

and another

You know if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon and you know I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves.



BUT

It is the Republicans who are politicizing this!


PLEASE.













liberals

Goose and Gander

I could accept the tit for tat argument, but to make it about the Republicans thwarting a president is ... at best, simplistic.



Dem to Lee: 'You got what you deserved' on Cordray

byJoel Gehrke

Washington Examiner

 

Rep. Gerry Connolly, D-Va., gave "a rebuke" to a Republican senator testifying in a House hearing today about President Obama's controversial recess appointments, which were made when the Senate was not actually in recess. Connolly, who represents the inner suburbs of Northern Virginia, said that Senate Republicans brought the unprecedented maneuver on themselves by obstructing President Obama's agenda.

"You got what you deserved," Connolly told Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah. "I guess, with all due respect, consider this a rebuke." Connolly criticized Senate Republicans for attempting to block the installment of Richard Cordray as head of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Obama made two other recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, who been announced so recently that no paperwork had been submitted to the Senate and no confirmation hearings held.

"I believe that a statement by 44 Republican senators in the United States Senate announcing that they are going to try to thwart the implementation of a duly-passed law," Connolly said, is "a second extra-constitutional bite at the apple to thwart its implementation when you didn't have the votes to defeat it."

Lee explained in the hearing that the Republicans refused to allow a vote on Cordray because the law creating the CFPB was designed into protect it from congressional oversight. The law actually prevents future Congresses from defunding the bureau. "It enjoys an unusual degree of insulation from the normal controls on any government and that degree of insulation has historically been reserved for despots," Lee told House Oversight and Government Reform Chair Darrell Issa, R-Calif.

Connolly did acknowledge that he believes presidents have long "abused" the power to make recess appointments, but he argued that it "has nothing to do with this president per se; it is a long-standing institutional and constitutional issue."









dems

Obama’s inoperable Constitution

By Robert Knight

The Washington Times
Friday, January 6, 2012

ASSOCIATED PRESS Former Ohio Attorney General Richard Cordray has been nominated to head the new Consumer Protection Bureau. But Senate Republicans say he would have too much power. Democrats, for their part, complain of political games being played in the process.

Back in 1973, when the Nixon administration was under fire for Watergate, Press Secretary Ron Ziegler uttered an unforgettable response when caught in a lie during a news conference: "This is the operative statement. The other statements are now inoperable."

Well, the Obama administration just topped that by essentially declaring the U.S. Constitution "inoperable." President Obama did not use that term when making an illegal recess appointment of Richard Cordray to the new post of consumer czar on Wednesday, but he might as well have.

Mr. Cordray now heads the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which will do its best to strangle any thought that business owners might have of getting out from under oppressive bureaucracy long enough to create any new jobs that aren't in the government.

Remember, these are the same folks who thought it was a great idea to let Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat, bring the magic of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the financial sector with the awful Dodd-Frank law. But merit aside, the Cordray appointment was made outside constitutional bounds.

Here's what the official White House blog says about why the administration staged the Cordray coup:

"The Constitution gives the president the authority to make temporary recess appointments to fill vacant positions when the Senate is in recess. ... In an overt attempt to prevent the president from exercising his authority during this period, Republican senators insisted on using a gimmick called 'pro forma' sessions, which are sessions during which no Senate business is conducted and instead one or two senators simply gavel in and out of session in a matter of seconds."

What the White House regards as "gimmicks" are the letter of the law of the Constitution. Article I, Section 5, says "Neither House, during the Session of Congress, shall without the Consent of the other, adjourn for more than three days, nor to any other Place than that in which the two Houses shall be sitting."

Under Speaker John A. Boehner, the House has not granted the Senate adjournment. So, like it or not, Majority Leader Harry Reid's do-nothing Senate, which has not passed a budget in three years, is still in session. In 2007, Mr. Reid refused to adjourn the Senate in order to block President George W. Bush's recess appointments. Unlike Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush abided by the Constitution and backed off.

Mr. Obama also loaded up the National Labor Relations Board with three recess appointees who won't threaten the conviviality of the current labor-union-packed board, whose hobby appears to be sticking needles into a voodoo doll shaped like South Carolina.

The NLRB not only issued orders halting South Carolina's voter-approved measure to preserve secret ballots in union elections, but tried to close a brand-new Boeing factory and move it to union-shackled Washington state. Just the other day, the Justice Department ordered South Carolina to halt enforcement of its photo-ID law, which discourages voter fraud.

You can almost see officials sitting around in the White House, exclaiming, "What will it take to provoke South Carolina into bombarding Fort Sumter again? Should we outlaw barbecue, golf, Krispy Kreme doughnuts and mint juleps?"

The Obama administration's lawlessness is becoming so obvious that nearly everyone outside the liberal mainstream media has caught on. Many Americans are appalled, but hard-core leftists are delighted. They regard the Constitution as a sham document that enables an oppressive, racist, sexist, homophobic society of the rich to oppress college students.

They give a pass to Hollywood moguls, of course, and they think it's great fun to misquote the Constitution's guarantee of religious freedom while going about scrubbing the public square clean of America's Christian heritage.

You almost have to admire Mr. Obama's audacity, which he warned us about in his autobiographies. He openly trashed the U.S. Supreme Court last January during his State of the Union address, knowing the justices who were present could not respond to his bald-faced mischaracterization of their ruling striking down the odious McCain-Feingold muzzling of political speech.

He told us he wanted the United States to get along better with other nations and then sent Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton abroad to lecture them on their stubborn resistance to abortion, homosexuality and global-warming extremism.

He said he wanted to be a healer, bringing the races together. But he appointed an attorney general whose hobby, when not sharpening needles for South Carolina, seems to be stirring up racial animosity and trying to frame Texas gun dealers.

Mr. Obama's piece de resistance, though, was ramming the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, better known as Obamacare, down America's throat while assuring us that we could keep our current health insurance. The lies, evasions, backroom deals and front-room bribes could fill a dozen books.

When Obamacare was being debated, the administration insisted that the individual mandate was not a tax. After more than half the states sued to halt this unconstitutional mess, Mr. Obama's lawyers told courts it was a tax after all. Apparently, the previous claim became "inoperable."

If the constitutional order is not restored and Obamacare is not struck down or repealed, enemies of the state, such as older people who refuse to go gently into the night, might routinely start hearing scarier things than lies, such as: "That patient is now inoperable."

obama

MSNBC’s Maddow Finds When She Leans Left, She Can't Be Right

By Dan Gainor

Published January 06, 2012

FoxNews.com

There’s a Latin phrase “In vino veritas,” meaning in wine there is truth. Someone should buy the folks at MSNBC a drink – or several.

The latest example of MSNBC failing at what the left once called “truthiness” came on Iowa Caucus night, Jan. 3. MSNBC host Rachel Maddow, covering the caucus with a gang of fellow lefties, incorrectly told viewers that libertarian Gary Johnson was throwing his support to Ron Paul.

“The former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson, who never got much traction in his effort to run for the Republican nomination, recently dropped out of a run for the Republican nomination to seek the Libertarian Party’s nomination for president. We are hearing tonight that Gay Johnson has dropped his bid for the Libertarian nomination and instead will be endorsing Ron Paul,” she explained.

Wrong. According to Erik Wemple writing in The Washington Post, “Joe Hunter, the communications director for Gary Johnson 2012, notes, ‘Some enterprising individual concocted an e-mail, using a fake ‘Joseph Hunter’ gmail address, and issued a news release.’”

To her credit, Maddow quickly corrected the error.

Both CNN and Fox News never aired the false report.

Fellow MSNBC crank Lawrence O'Donnell did his best to minimize it, saying “that’ll happen.” He added smugly, “live television, ladies and gentlemen.”

Yes, live TV, only you don’t see liberals ranting and raving about on air inaccuracies when it’s their network. MSNBC leaches off the news operation of NBC and then piles far lefty commentators on top of it. These are not newsmen and women. These are Democratic political operatives disguised as TV hosts.

Baltimore Sun TV critic David Zurawik was equally unkind in his assessment: “I'm sorry, but that doesn't happen to journalists. No one at CNN reported the hoax, because they actually verify information before they put it on the air.

I can't wait for the next batch of ‘Lean Forward’ ads from MSNBC with Maddow talking about journalism -- a discipline she appears to have spent not one day formally studying or practicing prior to becoming a show host and election-night anchor on MSNBC.”

Zurawik was right. That’s exactly to be expected when you fill your network with people who aren’t journalists and don’t even turn to them to cover the news.

MSNBC’s “Lean Forward” strategy is lame code for “Lean Left” and the network always seems to make its errors that direction, too.

In August, Maddow had to apologize to Rush Limbaugh for incorrectly calling him a birther, citing a year-old radio comment. But Maddow didn’t like to appear wrong, so she responded to her own error by claiming Limbaugh is a racist. (Yes, you read that correctly.) “And if you are worried about overall thesis that Rush Limbaugh is not giving up on trying to use the president’s race against him, this day and age, don’t worry about that thesis. Our error in misdating that tape does not undermine our thesis, as well proven by Mr. Limbaugh on his radio show just this week alone.”

And the otherwise affable Maddow is far from the worst problem on the network.

Host Chris Matthews could pile his crazy personal attacks against the right (He called Gingrich “Mephistopheles.”) on top of his leg-thrilling adoration of Obama and the stack would loom over 30 Rock.

In fact, the quality of the network seems to have actually gone down since the departure of Keith Olbermann and that’s hard to imagine.

But all of that’s OK when it’s the liberal network. Few journalists will target MSNBC because they are in sync with what goes on there. These same journalists claim to hail accuracy or subscribe to what the Society of Professional Journalists calls for, telling them to “test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error.”

In fact, journalists complain loud and long when such errors are done by the right kind of people. When it’s left and wrong, it’s still all right.

leftist

Obama Mission Continues

Two years ago, maybe less, I indicated in my ramblings that at some point, not too far off, Obama would slash the military budget to virtually nothing.  To be fair, 'virtually nothing' is subjective and for Obama $100 dollars is a lot for the military, but given the threats on this planet today, it would weaken and destroy our strength at home and around the world.  It would turn us into another Britain or worse, into a France - those two nations who whine a great deal yet can accomplish nothing without the United States support.

This idea is not new.  It is an idea situated in Marxist ideology.  It is an idea leftist Democrats not only support but drool at the prospect of finally achieving.  It is an idea situated on the left, nurtured by Marxism, and supported by those who hate America and or are simply too simple and feeble-minded to know the difference.

Today Obama plans on gutting the military -

Obama plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops

 

Wed, Jan 4 2012

By Laura MacInnis and David Alexander

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Obama administration will unveil a "more realistic" vision for the military on Thursday, with plans to cut tens of thousands of ground troops and invest more in air and sea power at a time of fiscal restraint, officials familiar with the plans said on Wednesday.

The strategic review of U.S. security interests will also emphasize an American presence in Asia, with less attention overall to Europe, Africa and Latin America alongside slower growth in the Pentagon's budget, the officials said.

Though specific budget cut and troop reduction figures are not set to be announced on Thursday, officials confirmed to Reuters they would amount to a 10-15 percent decline in Army and Marine Corps numbers over the next decade, translating to tens of thousands of troops.

The most profound shift in the strategic review is an acceptance that the United States, even with the world's largest military budget, cannot afford to maintain the ground troops to fight more than one major war at once. That is a move away from the "win-win" strategy that has dominated Pentagon funding decisions for decades.

The move to a "win-spoil" plan, allowing U.S. forces to fight one campaign and stop or block another conflict, includes a recognition that the White House would need to ramp up public support for further engagement and draw more heavily on reserve and national guard troops when required.

"As Libya showed, you don't necessarily have to have boots on the ground all the time," an official said, explaining the White House view.

"We are refining our strategy to something that is more realistic," the official added.

President Barack Obama will help launch the U.S. review at the Pentagon on Thursday, and is expected to emphasize that the size of the U.S. military budget has been growing and will continue to grow, but at a slower pace.

Obama has moved to curtail U.S. ground commitments overseas, ending the war in Iraq, drawing down troops in Afghanistan and ruling out anything but air power and intelligence support for rebels who overthrew Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi.

The number of U.S. military personnel formally assigned to bases in Europe - including many now deployed in Afghanistan - is also set to decline sharply, administration sources said, while stressing that the final numbers have not been set.

'BASICALLY DISAPPEAR'

"When some army brigades start coming out of Afghanistan, they will basically disappear," one official said.

Many of the key U.S. military partners in the NATO alliance are also facing tough defense budget cuts as a result of fiscal strains gripping the European Union.

The president may face criticism from defense hawks in Congress, many of them opposition Republicans, who question his commitment to U.S. military strength.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, are set to hold a news conference to flesh out the contents of the review after Obama's remarks, which are also expected to stress the need to rein in spending at a time when U.S. budgets are tight.

White House spokesman Jay Carney said that the defense cuts stemming from an August debt ceiling deal - worth about $489 billion over 10 years - need to be enacted carefully.

"The president made clear to his team that we need to take a hard look at all of our defense spending to ensure that spending cuts are surgical and that our top priorities are met," Carney told reporters this week.

The military could be forced to cut another $600 billion in defense spending over 10 years unless Congress takes action to stop a second round of cuts mandated in the August accord.

Panetta spent much of Wednesday afternoon briefing key congressional leaders about the strategic review. Representative Adam Smith, the senior Democrat on the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee, said after speaking to Panetta that the review was an attempt to evaluate U.S. strategic priorities for the future rather than identify specific budget reductions.

Maintaining a significant presence in the Middle East and Asia, especially to counter Iran and North Korea, was a leading priority in the review, Smith said. So was making sure that military personnel are sufficiently cared for to guarantee the effectiveness of the all-volunteer force. Reductions in the size of U.S. forces in Europe and elsewhere are a real possibility, he said.

Pentagon spokesman Navy Captain John Kirby said with the military winding down a decade of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, it is appropriate to re-evaluate the role of U.S. forces abroad.

"From an operational perspective it's ... an opportune time to take a look at what the U.S. military is doing and what it should be doing or should be preparing itself to do over the next 10 to 15 years," he said on Wednesday.

"So, yes, the budget cuts are certainly a driver here, but so quite frankly are current events," Kirby said.












obama

Unprecedented Power Grab

While Bush was president, how many such appointments did he make?

Did the Democrats say anything about recess appointments during that time?  Yes.

What did they say?  He was abusing his power.  He was ruling by fiat.  He was acting like a dictator.

So .... why are they so quiet when Obama is the one abusing the power?


Unprecedented “Recess” Appointment Contradicts Obama Justice Department     

Posted by Brendan Buck on January 04, 2012

President Obama today made an unprecedented “recess” appointment even though the Senate is not in recess – “a sharp departure from a long-standing precedent that has limited the President to recess appointments only when the Senate is in a recess of 10 days or longer,” according to Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).It turns out that the action not only contradicts long-standing practice, but also the view of the administration itself. In 2010, Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal explained to the Supreme Court the Obama administration’s view that recess appointments are only permissible when Congress is in recess for more than three days. Here’s the exchange with Chief Justice John Roberts:

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: And the recess appointment power doesn't work why?
MR. KATYAL: The -- the recess appointment power can work in -- in a recess. I think our office has opined the recess has to be longer than 3 days. And -- and so, it is potentially available to avert the future crisis that -- that could -- that could take place with respect to the board. If there are no other questions –
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Thank you, counsel.

obama 

Civil RIghts and Protections

That our Constitution applies to even the worst human beings, that we will free the worst human beings for the worst crimes, and or believe their lies about why they were picked up by the US government over accepting that they are all either dangerous or evil - yet some Americans cannot do anything but spout off about ensuring their protections, regardless of where they are held.  Some leftists argue the US government should provide incentives to Israel to free the poor Palestinians held without cause in Israeli jails.

Yet, an American is held and imprisoned in Thailand for exercising his free speech rights and he is held and imprisoned for more than two years and the left are quiet.  He exercised his free speech rights and is now serving more than two years versus bloodthirsty killers who deserve death ...

Dec 11, 12:46 AM EST US response muted as American jailed in Thailand By CARA ANNA Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) -- The U.S. government prides itself on standing up for freedom of speech around the world, but when it comes to longtime ally Thailand and its revered monarch, Washington treads carefully - even when an American citizen is thrown in jail. Thailand on Thursday sent an American, Joe Gordon, 55, to prison for two and a half years for defaming the country's royal family after he translated excerpts of a banned biography of Thailand's king and published them online. He had been living in Colorado at the time. The U.S. government has offered a measured response to the "severe" sentence - saying it was "troubled" by the outcome and asserting the right to free expression of people around the world. It has avoided direct criticism of Thailand over its use of laws punishing lese majeste, the crime of insulting a monarch. Washington's comments pale next to the strident criticism it gives when dissidents, even those without U.S. ties, are jailed by more authoritarian governments in the neighborhood, like China and Vietnam. The State Department typically calls for dissidents' immediate release and urges the government in question to uphold international law. The muted U.S. response may be partly explained by an unwillingness to spoil efforts to secure a royal pardon for Gordon, as has happened for foreigners previously convicted of lese majeste. But it also reflects the depth of U.S. relations with Thailand, which date back to 1833. The country was viewed as a bulwark against the spread of communism and served as a key base for U.S. forces during the Vietnam War. As the Obama administration seeks to step up its engagement in Asia, it wants to consolidate its old alliances. Washington may also view behind-the-scenes efforts to get Thai authorities to ease up on lese majeste prosecutions more effective in a society where public criticism can backfire. Above all, it underscores the sensitivity of any critical, public discussion on Thailand's monarchy. Thailand's lese majeste laws are the harshest in the world. They mandate that people found guilty of defaming the monarchy - including the ailing 84-year-old King Bhumibol Adulyadej, the world's longest-reigning monarch - face three to 15 years behind bars. They can face stiffer sentences still under the 2007 Computer Crimes Act, that punishes circulation of material online that threatens national security. Bhumibol is revered in Thailand and widely seen as a stabilizing force. He has stayed at a Bangkok hospital for more than two years, and there is deep uncertainty about what happens when he dies, as his son and heir apparent does not command the same respect and affection. Political divisions in the country exploded into violence last year that brought the business district of the Thai capital to a halt for weeks and left more than 90 dead. Even among Washington think tanks and U.S. universities, experts on Thailand often prefer not to discuss the monarchy and lese majeste for fear they could be blacklisted. The lese majeste law "inhibits discussion on the future of the monarchy and the political system," said Walter Lohman, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation think tank. "Even Americans worry of talking about it, let alone Thais." Thailand was once seen as one of the most democratic nations in Southeast Asia, a status that has eroded during five years of political tensions. Since a military coup in 2006, there has been a sharp increase in lese majeste charges, frequently used to silence oppositional voices in the name of protecting the royalty. Human rights groups have expressed growing concerns over censorship of the Internet, which has given Thai authorities more targets to pursue. Authorities blocked 57,000 websites for containing anti-royal content in 2010, Thai monitoring groups say. Statistics obtained by The Associated Press from Thailand's Office of the Attorney General show that 36 lese majeste cases were sent for prosecution in 2010, compared to 18 in 2005 and just one in 2000. The figures do not include those filed under the Computer Crimes Act, nor the myriad complaints under investigation that have yet to reach trial. This year has seen a series of stiff penalties. Last month, Amphon Tangnoppakul, a 61-year old Thai grandfather with cancer, got 20 years in prison for sending four text messages received by a government official and deemed offensive to the queen. It was the heaviest sentence ever handed down for a lese majeste case. Amphon, now called "Uncle SMS" by the Thai media, denies sending the messages and says he doesn't even know how to send texts. He wept in court and said, "I love the King." The U.S. did not comment specifically on Amphon's case, but in a deviation from past practice, did say it was "troubled" by recent prosecutions and rulings inconsistent with international standards of freedom of expression. The European Union was more forthright, saying it was "deeply concerned" about Amphon's case. Pavin Chachavalpongpun, a fellow at the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies in Singapore, said the U.S., EU, and other countries were only playing lip service to democratic values and should be more outspoken. "In reality, these countries have also their interests aligned with the Thai monarchy and, like many Thai politicians, do not want to risk their strategic interests in Thailand," he said. Trying to stifle dissent and keep politics under control is not much different than what China wants to do, said Paul Handley, author of the unauthorized biography "The King Never Smiles" that Gordon was punished for translating into Thai and posting online. The book is respected by most Thailand-watchers as shedding new light on Bhumibol's life. It alleges the king has been an obstacle to the progress of democracy in Thailand as he consolidated royal power over his long reign. Aside from the lese majeste law, Thailand has a vibrant political environment, which is far from the case in China, Handley said. He was also encouraged by the new book released in Thailand marking Bhumibol's seventh decade as king, which discusses the lese majeste law and says prosecutions have harmed the image of the monarchy. But Handley, now based in Washington, has no plans to return. "I assume I would be arrested," Handley said. "There's no one who tells me otherwise."

thailand

Obamacare = Government Access to YOU

The savior of our rights, the warrior for the middle-class - and we are now finding out (as Pelosi stated) what is in that monstrosity of a bill - including government access to all your records!





Obamacare HHS rule would give government everybody’s health records


By: Rep. Tim Huelskamp
09/23/11 3:29 PM

OpEd Contributor



Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius has proposed that medical records of all Americans be turned over to the federal government by private health insurers.

It’s been said a thousand times: Congress had to pass President Obama’s health care law in order to find out what’s in it. But, despite the repetitiveness, the level of shock from each new discovery never seems to recede.

This time, America is learning about the federal government’s plan to collect and aggregate confidential patient records for every one of us.

In a proposed rule from Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the federal government is demanding insurance companies submit detailed health care information about their patients.

(See Proposed Rule: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act; Standards Related to Reinsurance, Risk Corridors and Risk Adjustment, Volume 76, page 41930. Proposed rule docket ID is HHS-OS-2011-0022 http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2011-07-15/pdf/2011-17609.pdf)

The HHS has proposed the federal government pursue one of three paths to obtain this sensitive information: A “centralized approach” wherein insurers’ data go directly to Washington; an “intermediate state-level approach” in which insurers give the information to the 50 states; or a “distributed approach” in which health insurance companies crunch the numbers according to federal bureaucrat edict.

It’s par for the course with the federal government, but abstract terms are used to distract from the real objectives of this idea: no matter which “option” is chosen, government bureaucrats would have access to the health records of every American - including you.

There are major problems with any one of these three “options.” First is the obvious breach of patient confidentiality. The federal government does not exactly have a stellar track record when it comes to managing private information about its citizens.

Why should we trust that the federal government would somehow keep all patient records confidential? In one case, a government employee’s laptop containing information about 26.5 million veterans and their spouses was stolen from the employee’s home.

There's also the HHS contractor who lost a laptop containing medical information about nearly 50,000 Medicare beneficiaries. And, we cannot forget when the USDA's computer system was compromised and information and photos of 26,000 employees, contractors, and retirees potentially accessed.

The second concern is the government compulsion to seize details about private business practices. Certainly many health insurance companies defended and advocated for the president’s health care law, but they likely did not know this was part of the bargain.

They are being asked to provide proprietary information to governments for purposes that will undermine their competitiveness. Obama and Sebelius made such a big deal about Americans being able to keep the coverage they have under ObamaCare; with these provisions, such private insurance may cease to exist if insurers are required to divulge their business models.

Certainly businesses have lost confidential data like the federal government has, but the power of the market can punish the private sector. A victim can fire a health insurance company; he cannot fire a bureaucrat.

What happens to the federal government if it loses a laptop full of patient data or business information? What recourse do individual citizens have against an inept bureaucrat who leaves the computer unlocked? Imagine a Wikileaks-sized disclosure of every Americans’ health histories. The results could be devastating - embarrassing - even Orwellian.

With its extensive rule-making decrees, ObamaCare has been an exercise in creating authority out of thin air at the expense of individuals’ rights, freedoms, and liberties.

The ability of the federal government to spy on, review, and approve individuals’ private patient-doctor interactions is an excessive power-grab.

Like other discoveries that have occurred since the law’s passage, this one leaves us scratching our heads as to the necessity not just of this provision, but the entire law.

The HHS attempts to justify its proposal on the grounds that it has to be able to compare performance. No matter what the explanation is, however, this type of data collection is an egregious violation of patient-doctor confidentiality and business privacy. It is like J. Edgar Hoover in a lab coat.

And, no matter what assurances Obama, Sebelius and their unelected and unaccountable HHS bureaucrats make about protections and safeguards of data, too many people already know what can result when their confidential information gets into the wrong hands, either intentionally or unintentionally.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
lies