AN OPEN LETTER TO THE POST & EMAIL'S SHARON RONDEAU

Original article at: http://www.birthersummit.org/news/84-an-open-letter-to-the-post-a-emails-sharon-rondeau.html

"I am personally appalled at the defamation of character you have displayed against Orly Taitz. As editor of The Post & Email, I normally keep opinions to myself; however, your egregious attack on her character and efforts is very revealing about your motivation. I am truly shocked at what you have written, for which Dr. Taitz could hold you legally liable.

Having thoughtfully pondered your message, Sharon, I have decided to respond, largely because you purport to be an Internet news source, and as such, your communication is quite disturbing—not because I am, in any way, personally offended at your characterization of things I have said, nor by your supposed understanding of my motivation (as though you could read my mind), but because of the appearance of impropriety that laces your words. “Defamation” is an accusation of illegal activity, which you further assert could be the foundation of legal recourse against me. Ironically, if such a claim were repeated by you to anybody, that would be the actionable offense.

Apart from the legalities of such language, I am forced to consider whether defaming a bad character isn't a good thing.

While you are one of a relatively small handful of individuals in our movement who has responded to me in much the same cowardly way as you have (by slamming the proverbial door on what were formerly mutually respectful relationships, without so much as a conversation with me about the veracity of my remarks), of that very small group, you are the one who claims to be a journalist of some sort (rather than merely a commentator). I am also aware that this was not the only message you have sent regarding this issue. However, I really am not concerned at all about what you think of me; my objective is simply to ascertain the truth, and to speak it. As a journalist, I would think that “speaking the truth” would at least be somewhere on your radar as well.

Some of us entered this movement for no other reason than wanting to know the truth. Along the way, it was as if something other than pure truth was being disseminated, and suddenly, the masses congregated like jackals being fed red meat, each morsel a new, tantalizing twist of events that titillated our anticipation that some new and improved “effort” would finally bring about our much-anticipated goal of Obama's eligibility finally being addressed in broad daylight.

Well, it has come to a point that some of us have stopped and tasted what is being tossed into the community trough, and realized that it doesn't taste like meat at all. In fact, it tastes like something that the cattle have previously eaten. And, while I choose not to partake of that, I had also held my tongue “for the sake of unity,” even though most of the leaders in the movement, with whom I would converse often, would complain about the constant assaults on their palates as well. So, who was I to say anything?

Once that substance formerly known as cattle feed was viciously used as a weapon against folks who are friends of mine, and have worked very hard in this cause, I was no longer able to remain quiet, and I merely started exposing one of the main sources of that which one takes great care not to step in on the farm.

So, since you opened this door with your email to me, let's douse the yellow lights for a few moments, and proceed in a more honest way toward what the truth is. And, in that vein, I would like to ask you a few questions.

But, before I do, for the sake of this particular communication, I will make an important concession. It is doubtful that anyone but the dullest among us would ever argue that there is not a vast level of incompetence involved in what we've witnessed in all of the dentist's cases. While we have a contingency who strongly believes that the ineptitude is merely feigned as a brilliant ploy to keep us from ever advancing to a stage of serious discussion of the matter, I will stipulate to the pitiful legal shenanigans (which have doomed us at every step) being the result of honest incompetence, rather than a conspiratorial facade.

There is a steady stream of very dishonest, misleading headlines and internet posts that come from your friend's website. From an insistence that Barack Obama was ordered by a judge to “stand trial,” to claims that countless individuals, literally from around the world, had been subpoenaed “by a judge” to appear at such “trial.” Even recently, there was a deceptive statement that made the rounds about a judge giving a “green light” for a request to be made to a particular court, which was a gross misrepresentation of what had actually occurred. As a journalist, you should be acutely aware of the history of such misleading, and sometimes wholly untruthful, bits of information being released to the public.

1. Based upon the easily demonstrated fact that what is, very often, being disseminated, is not based wholly upon the truth, how does it not affect your personal and professional integrity to support and defend that, while also condemning someone who honestly calls it what it is?

There is a very long history of personal attacks coming from your friend's website and her email account—vicious, baseless attacks—against those within our movement. Anyone who garners even a sliver of public attention is open prey, as it appears that your friend believes that all attention should be lavished upon her, for she is the self-exalted “face of our movement.” I have personally read numerous outrageously false comments from your friend stating that she is the one who does “99% of the work in our movement.” I have also read thoroughly false statements about me that she emailed to others.

Moreover, there is a concerted effort to minimize the very existence of others within this movement by referring to legitimate legal entities as “bloggers,” as if stating such nonsense somehow elevates her position of authority or importance. It would be well for her to note that, were it not for “bloggers,” she would likely have no public recognition at all. It should also be noted that her own website can legitimately be called a “blog.”

I have seen her refer to me as an “unemployed musician,” which is laughable on many levels. For most of my musical career, I have been self-employed, so the notion of being “unemployed” would suggest that I either fired myself or laid myself off. I stepped away from my primary career many months ago to pursue what I am doing in this cause. That being a voluntary choice hardly constitutes my being “unemployed.” Such epithets are obviously meant to be personal attacks, and that is the despicable modus operandi we have all come to expect. Such conduct is not only inappropriate, unfortunate, and thoroughly unprofessional, it is morally reprehensible. And, not only have I not seen you condemn such behavior, you castigated me for what you state are attacks against her. I believe, in the industry, that is called “hypocrisy.”

2. Based upon the easily demonstrated history of unwarranted, baseless attacks on others within our movement, and such atrocious behavior rightfully being regarded as morally questionable at best, how does it not affect your personal and professional integrity to support and defend that, while also condemning someone who honestly calls it what it is?

I am not opposed to anybody placing a method for receiving donations on a website, allowing those who desire to send a few bucks in appreciation their way. However, it is quite another matter to send out a nearly-constant barrage of pleas for donations that are based on the aforementioned deceptive and misleading headlines and blog updates. Asking people to part with hard-earned money to fuel something that has never shown anything even remotely resembling a victory, and has demonstrated nothing but failure (as a result, not of conspiracy or stonewalling, but of incompetence), is quite another matter.

There have also been statements decrying any person or organization within our movement that accepts donations, accompanied by the bizarre notion that all money donated should ultimately go to your friend. To try to fund one's own efforts through donations resulting from misleading information is bad enough, but your friend openly stating that money that is donated to any other individual or organization rightfully belongs to her is beyond the pale.

3. Based upon the easily demonstrated history of shameless begging for donations, and statements regarding donations made to others being money that should be sent to your friend (a behavior that is ethically questionable at best), how does it not affect your personal and professional integrity to support and defend that, while also condemning someone who honestly calls it what it is?

Now, before you respond about anything to do with the Georgia Ballot Challenge (somehow characterizing it as some sort of “victory” because the opponent's Motion to Quash was denied), make sure you know the truth of that matter, rather than the utter lies that have been put out about that one as well. And, regarding that, you might want to tell your friend something (although, she's been told and over-told). After what was the equivalent of a grade school skit in the Atlanta courtroom, she is once again petitioning a state court to demand that a Hawaii court break Hawaii law. There is no possible way under Hawaii law that she can, or ever will, obtain any original (or certified copy) of Barack Obama's birth certificate from the Department of Health. She has no direct and tangible interest, and a Georgia court has no authority to force Hawaii to make any exceptions to its statutes. Look up “vexatious litigant” and see if YOU can explain it to her.

And, while you're at it, ask her how many times she has tried to weasel her way into Sheriff Joe's investigation, just like she did with the Georgia hearings (yes, hearings—not trials).

Sharon, I do not write this as a personal indictment against you, but to continue exposing the single biggest problem that exists in our movement. You (and others) might wish that I would just keep my mouth shut and go away; however, I have personally invested much in this movement, so I have every right to sit at this table. The problem is, I will not sit quietly while someone slaps poop on a plate and calls it prime rib.

And, lest anyone try to use the quasi-pragmatic argument about your friend's tenaciousness, tireless pursuit of justice, and super-human resolve, it might be useful to understand that one can expend unbelievable amounts of energy, and through sheer determination, move a mountain of manure from one spot to another, but actually do nothing beneficial for the field.

You see, because of the things I have done, I am necessarily identified as being a part of this movement, and I am not willing to be “guilty by association” of the blatant dishonesty that gets bandied about as patriotism. We are either fully for the truth, or we are fully against it. When I see something posted that is misleading, deceptive, or blatantly false, I'm going to call it what it is.

Sharon, please take a look at this link (http://www.mental-health-today.com/narcissistic/dsm.htm) and tell me whether or not you believe it looks like anyone we know. And, let me remind you that this is deemed a psychological “disorder.” We all need to be highly vigilant about our alliances. Are you up for a little scientific experiment? Remove the “M,” “E,” and “I” keys from your friend's keyboard, and see how long her blog even exists.

In my past few articles, I have pointed out things that have clearly not been the truth. And, rather than refuting anything I said about those things, you responded with a blanket castigation of me—which is the typical response of one who cannot refute the truth. So, I am asking you to answer my three questions.

Additionally, I welcome you to provide a truthful refutation of any facts that I have shared in my recent articles. And, I'll make it easy for you to find them:

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/80-georgia-hearings-two-out-of-three-aint-bad.html

http://www.birthersummit.org/news/74-of-subpoenas-trials-and-a-vexatious-litigant.html

You see, I know what I have shared has been the truth, and when one calls the truth an “egregious attack” on anybody, that should cause one grave concern, both personally and professionally. While this should have been stated long ago, it is more than apparent that anyone who supports your friend either has morals/ethics issues, or intelligence ones.

It is well past time for those within our movement to insist that your friend become the face of a different cause. I hear Harold Camping might be looking for a replacement.

If you would like more information about the Birther Summit, please visit our website often at www.birthersummit.org or contact Dean Haskins at dean@birthersummit.org.

Blogger fights are almost as fun as midget fights.

True, but lately there is a lot of cross-over between the genres.

There is an awesome quote to be had upthread, though:

I will not sit quietly while someone slaps poop on a plate and calls it prime rib.

That's good stuff right there, I'll tell you what.

Since you’re here how about an update the pursuit Virginia’s birth certificate?

Wanted to ask if you knew the Hawaii Christian Name Law and the Hawaii law a Negro parent was to be classified as Puerto Rican on Hawaii birth certificates.

Any photos of a pregnant Stanley Ann Dunham?

A marriage certificate? Hawaii law; an ad must be placed in local newspapers, running for several days, prior to the issuance of a license.

Did you know a British subject must have permission from the British consulate to marry a foreigner. If not the marriage is not valid.

Any information zero was born prior to statehood?

Any information Ann Dunham is not the biological mother?

Any information Obama brought an African baby to Hawaii?

Was Mooney or Roberts the biological mother of zero?

Have you looked into the East West center? When was it built? There’s numerous reports Obama and Ann met the EW center, but it was not built until 1962. The Honolulu Advertiser reported they met at the EW center.

How could they? It did not exist in 1960 or 1961.

Just askin.

Why did the Founders use the word natural in natural born citizen?

What is a natural citizen?

Permit me to hint..its meaning.

Shakespeare penned in Henry the V: ‘Were all thy children kind and natural?’

Music Producer pursue this angle..then you will know the meaning of a natural born citizen.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.