About Me

Name: CyberMom
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Nancy Pelosi - telling the truth finally

Posted by CyberMom on Monday, May 18, 2009 2:47:50 PM
Yes, Nancy Pelosi is the victim of her own moral standards. She was not meant for politics. In fact, I feel quite bad for Ms. Pelosi at the moment in time and wish there was some way I could help her. And, yet, with all she's done that has been egregious toward the people of this Country, it's a fact that she is at the receiving end of what she helped contribute to. Why? More of her outrageous commentary? No - in fact - it's because she's finally being honest. She's finally telling people the truth, and now, nobody will believe the little boy who cried wolf....
 
You see, Ms. Pelosi did NOT lie when she said that members of our 'intelligence' agencies (the CIA, the FBI, Internal Affairs, etc.) lie to Congress. When Newt Gingrich, ex Speaker of the House, spoke on the Sean Hannity show saying that Nancy Pelosi was undermining and attacking the innocent and pure "intelligence" agencies of this country and berated her, HE LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. Why? How? Because - If - IF - Nancy Pelosi is telling the truth, then guess what? That means that old Newt knew the truth as well. In fact, it is HIS integrity that is on the line, not the integrity of our "intelligence," agencies. Quite frankly, the words government and intelligence are not only oxymorons, but rather strange bedfellows. What really makes this a 'major' issue that has unleashed such a horrid attack on Nancy Pelosi (and for those of you desensitized to the media - the attacks are outrageously extreme in comparison to ANYTHING else going on right now), is that it also puts 'Ex-Senator,' Mr. Barrack Obama, the current President - on the line for also knowing the truth about the lies AND contributing to it. You see - there's evidence. Not just the Guantanamo Bay garbage, but SO much more -
 
(I'll reflect on only a select 2 or 3 topics in this paper - as the FULL list would take a lifetime to present to you) 
 
When the Adam Walsh Act was initiated, its intentions seemed to be in support of the need to protect our children. However, there is a very dark and underlying agenda to this act. The American Prosecutor's Journal published a "guide" to understanding the Adam Walsh Act. It includes statements such as: "Prosecutors will find some very helpful language contained in the Congressional Findings..." and "Discoveries are not final appeable Orders," et. al. What does all that refer to? It refers to the prosecutors of this country, the D.A.'s that I wrote about previously who supposedly "support the Constitution," in full, relying on language in that bill that allows them to circumvent the Constitutional right for a Defendant to have access to all of the accusatory witnesses and accusatory instruments to be used against him or her. In fact, it outright limited and diminished the ability of any defense attorney to provide a Constitutionally adequate and sufficient defense. Of course, prosecutors love this. They are no longer bound by Constitutional laws protecting everyone. Don't misunderstand - you soccer mom, paranoid schizophrenics of the world out there - we're not talking about the rights of the guilty - only the accused. What's the difference? While you may be so insensitive that you don't care if a person's guilty or accused - you find guilt in everyone - like the good, God-fearing, loving, American you are...... what should scare the living crud out of you is that an innocent person no longer has the right to prove their innocence - and the guilty one continues to stalk the streets - and OUR children. Sorry, but unlike the ignorant masses of this country - I want the GUILTY person caught - because I can either accept that someone's potential innocence leaves a potentially guilty person walking free, or I can understand that jailing the wrong person (beyond our tax dollars going up), means the guilty ARE walking free!! BIG distinction. A chance and a risk I am willing to take,  is to allow someone freedom to represent their FULL innocence, so I can make sure that guilty person is still not walking around, unknown and free.
 
What does this have to do with Congress and intelligence agencies lying? They lie, and they use security officials, "intelligence" agencies to do so. One of the very first court cases (I forget the reference - I apologize) to occur following the institution of this act brought to light the fact that Congress declared hard disks inaccessible to defense experts at their place of business because they wanted to prevent the spread of such materials. However - as the Judge found out - NO such thing has ever occurred. And, he would not uphold a standard in his courtroom upon which lies predicated Congress' decision. You can read Dean Boland's technology blog to see for yourself additional violations of Congressional trust:
 
(2/26/09) "Although a study was released last month by the Internet Safety Technical Task Force that reported a safer Internet than parents and others had imagined. Nevertheless, two politicians from Texas, Jon Cornyn and Lamar Smith, have each filed in the senate and house, respectively, their own versions of the Internet Safety Act, otherwise known as Internet Stopping Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of Today's Youth Act."

So - hold up - the ISTTF reported the internet's quite safe these days. So, what did these other two politicians do? They promoted free wire-tapping and forcing ISP's to keep permanent IP records of everyone. The consequences? IP records DON'T identify a person (go ahead google that phrase and see what you find). However, based on false information that is being presented to Congress - stop - go back - re-read "FALSE INFORMATION" - Congress must pass a law. Based on the presentation of the FBI to Congress that there is a risk of data loss if hard drives are given to defense, forensic experts, Congress must pass a law. Where's the "two-sides," to these arguments? Where's the Constitutionality? Well.. on that matter... I digress. Because, what's important here is evidence that "intelligence" sources have and ARE continuing to misrepresent data to Congress, falsely, and are causing laws to be irrationally initiated. So, where does the President/ex-Senator fit in? Mr. Obama claims his place of infamy in the "Protect Our Children First Act," which expanded upon the Adam Walsh Acts I & II, and further supported DHS' continuing removal of children from homes - even where children were never harmed, were quite safe and happy - and placing them into homes where they are lost, afraid and oft times are raped or abused (and in rare instances murdered).

Did our President want this? No, I don't believe he did. I believe he thought he was doing what was right based on the false information presented to him by DHS and federal authorities (who compiled false data from local law enforcement agencies), that allowed him to stir up Congress and win a feather in his cap for future elections.

But, when Governments lie - we suffer. Now, Nancy Pelosi, who has tried to tell the American public that lies were presented to Congress and Congress acted upon false information, initiating extreme actions that are potentially harmful in every way with every grain of cruelty and abuse that is Anti-American and UnConstitutional, is facing losing her job, her career, her credibility and so much more. Ms. Pelosi is trying to tell people the truth - but when the little boy who cries wolf does it over and over again, soon, no one will believe them. Well, Ms. Pelosi, as much as I am NOT in support of you maintaining your position in politics (unless you have learned something and will begin to sing a different tune), I do believe you and feel for you. I believe you - because the facts are out there. But, Congress doesn't want to be defaced. Newt Gingrich is scrambling to cover his tail in the wake of publishing his new book. The President doesn't need another bad mark on his record. So - you're the fall guy (or, er, um.. gal.. hee hee). You're the whipping boy, the scapegoat... the bobo doll! You are - at the receiving end of all the wild and outrageous verbal commentary you threw out against the American people. 

But, I fear that no one else will believe you. People believe their televisions. The pendulum swings in one direction, then the other - people go from one extreme to the other, and it takes a while to come back and yet, the pendulum does not stop in the middle. I'm afraid that no one but I, will defend you right now - and I am fairly right wing (surprisingly.. hmm?). I'm afraid that no one will aide you but me, right now, because you've not won the popular vote. You've not convinced the sheep they're in trouble. The sheep go where they're told, and trust what they're told. The little boy who cried wolf is the same one who lead his sheep to the slaughter. And, Ms. Pelosi - the sheep who are ignoring the truth about what you're telling them - will be lead to the slaughter. THEY WILL SUFFER, because of what you've done and what is happening now. They will NOT see the wolf coming, nor will anyone come to their aide. What you are now faced with is the devastation that a few misplaced, mistimed and unweighed words will have on the lives of the American people. The "intelligence" agencies will continue to lie. Congress will continue to issue out outrageous and uncalculated laws. Congress will violate the very Constitution of this country to initiate a witch hunt in the traditional style of the late 17th century and innocents will burn. But, only those who are sitting in are awaiting our cages, so that we may be held underwater for an hour to see if we come up breathing and are truly the witch we're accused of being, know the truth. And, we've been quieted. Nobody reads our work. Nobody listens to us. We have been defamed under false pretenses so that we no longer interrupt the wolf's feeding session.

And, now you know how it feels. Sorry -wish I could do more. Wish I knew how. Not solely to protect you - but mainly to protect the people.

 

 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Stop... Obama time! The Orator!

Posted by CyberMom on Monday, September 01, 2008 1:13:56 PM
Okay, due to serious limitations on my time allotted at the computer and assistance by family, I've not been able to update my blog in a while (trying to use family resources for other work where I need it more - but they had extra time to donate to me on Labor Day for typing this out!). And, while I apologize for that, with the upcoming election, you can imagine how many times I've had to bite my tongue when it was seemingly impossible. But, before I start my little ditty here, let me set my platform for you:
 
I am, for all intents and purposes, bi-partisan. I am more concerned with the issues at hand than the righteousness of the left or the right. I do support pro life matters, but also know that there are circumstances in which a woman's right to choose is vitally important. I do support assisting those in need, while also wanting to see an end to that need and no more welfare. I do support big business, but I also believe big business can succeed without harming the consumer - and so on. So, as you can imagine, Presidential elections for me are like visiting the doctor: while it's good to go get checked up on when you're sick and in need of their help, you know the cost of the visit and the medications and the tests, along with the annoying pills you'll take afterward are really going to stink! Of course - that's why I challenge everyone this year to vote for nobody and see what happens. But, I'll save that for the next article!
 
Onto the main event: Mr. Barack Obama!
(might I add that I'm still disappointed, as I wrote in a previous article, on his decision NOT to change his name!)
 
Well, since he was first up to bat with speeches and running partners and what not, I'll let him have the first shot at a defense for his position. I'll make this a multi-part article and split it up for ease of reading. Hope that helps, let me know if it doesn't - thanks!
 
1. Everyone I've spoken with and heard on news and radio is singing his praises as an orrator. Apparently, everyone of these people has not actually heard a word that Barack Obama has said. And, I quote (no mr. AP people - this is MY quote from watching Barack and not stolen - so you don't get to attack me - HAHA):
"Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you, the next President.... [pause] Vice-President, of the United States, Joseph Biden."
For those folks who are anal, let me first apologize if I missed a hyphen, misspelling, etc. Don't want you to miss the point because you can't see the trees through the forest!!
 
The next, um, what? President? WOW! I mean... DOUBLE WOW! How awesome was that? Biden WAS running for president this year - for those who don't know. Biden did rip into Obama, calling him inexperienced and I would [hope], accidentally made a racial slur calling him one of the 'clean,' black people, clearly segregating him from all the 'dirty,' black people! (I will take a risk and be presumptious here and say that, Biden, a known plagiarizer, who has a strong failure to really like the average people - white or black - that if he wasn't accidentally referring to 'clean-cut' - which would be stupid to believe since we have yet to have any of those 'long-haired hippy-like people,'.. hahahahaha run for president - that he was clearly giving his support of Obama's heritage and trying to help him by contrasting him against today's average, black male).
 
Maybe it's just me, but in exercising my free will not to be a biggot, I'm pretty sure that Biden, in all that he has done to break the law thus far (such as the plagiarizing), qualifies as what I would consider to be a 'dirty,' white person. Of course, it's obvious why Obama picked him, isn't it? Better to take on the person that called him inexperienced and show he's not a person to hold grudges just like the radio show hosts are saying about him, right? Maybe. But, perhaps the fact is this: if there are many, many Democrats who also agree in Obama's lack of experience, and given Obama's 'Freudian,' slip in calling Biden, 'President,' perhaps what we are seeing is Obama acknowledging his lack of experience and subliminally saying to the public: Don't worry if I can't cut it, I have a more experienced guy ready to take over.' Dangerous, but possible. When Nixon stepped down, Ford pretty much didn't do anything (keeping to that 'healing,' period; but would Biden be as prone to remain silent? But, back to Obama's oratory skills:
 
Just because 84,000 people can't keep quiet for more than 30 seconds doesn't mean that Obama has said anything that deserves clapping. It means that Obama can say anything, and 84,000 people with ADD who aren't listening, will clap. Obama refers to himself - they clap. Obama refers to his wife - they clap. Obama refers to his children - they clap. Obama says he loves them all - they clap. Anyone ever watch Nixon's speech? He stated a problem, listed his beliefs for resolution, stated his expected outcomes - and then people clapped. Why? Was it because Nixon was less effective than Obama? No. Actually, in truth, it was because he was more effective. Nixon was discussing issues that concerned this country, stating his position on the matter and exactly what he would do to affect change. He wasn't talking about the Clintons, or telling Americans how pretty they all were, or even reminiscing about his wonderful life growing up in pretty, pretty princess, pony-land. He was talking as a President should. Did the Democrats miss the Clinton boat to dumbs-ville, or do they like to look 'cool,' hiding their hidden agendas? What hidden agendas, you ask? I'm afraid I don't know - but I believe it to be so, because there's no other logical explanation for putting Clinton, the sex-fiend, check-bouncing, law-breaking man in the President's chair except to take attention away from something else; because it certainly didn't do much for this country's well being!
 
Worse - the people! The people who are cheering! SHUT- UP. Listen to the man and maybe he'll have to say something that matters! Continually clapping like that means Obama could have interjected with this: Obama refers to himself - they clap. Obama refers to his wife - they clap. Obama says he has a record collection of the Beetles - they clap. Obama refers to his children - they clap. Obama says he loves them all - they clap. Does this make the point? We all know that Obama is not really saying much to any solid foundation of strategy or plan, but we also know that he is getting cheers for his oratory skills when he doesn't say anything at all! Obama could call Biden the next President - and they clap! Good Oratory skills?
 
Don't mistake the stupidity of the masses for the qualifications of an individual they support. We could all support a rock that sits there and says nothing - and using the same premise that is used here to define Obama's oratory skills - people might start talking on the radio about how great the rock's resolve to silence is and how it should be praised for it.
 
My goodness people - this is lame to even write about!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous1Next »