Tag Archives: letter

Sharon Rondeau Appeals To The Vatican???

Sharon Rondeau Always

Sharon Rondeau Just Had A Thing For Big Lugs In Uniform (Click on Image to Activate.)

Well, once again I got a document from a secret source. This one purports to be an Open Letter from Sharon Rondeau to Pope Francis. I am not sure if it is for real or not, but following her recent missive to the Pentagon, who knows?  (see Note 2 below.) The letterhead seems genuine. Anyway, I report, you decide! Here’s the letter. Just click on it to make it larger. There is also a pdf of the letter which follows the image, which is also very easy to read.

Birther Letter to the Pope

Here is a pdf file of the letter:

Birther Letter to the Pope

Sooo, I don’t know if that was real or not. Which, it is kind of a shame when a group of people do so many silly things that you can’t tell for sure whether something is real, or just a parody.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. Once again, this is an image from the great 1954 film, Devil Girl From Mars. I really like using this film for Sharon Rondeau. You can watch the entire film at youtube:

The Image Easter Egg is based on R.U.R., one of the first stories about robots. Wiki says,

R.U.R. is a 1920 science fiction play in the Czech language by Karel Čapek. R.U.R. stands for Rossum’s Universal Robots, an English phrase used as the subtitle in the Czech original.[1] It premiered in 1921 and introduced the word “robot” to the English language and to science fiction as a whole.[2]

R.U.R. quickly became famous and was influential early in the history of its publication.[3][4][5] By 1923, it had been translated into thirty languages,[3][6]

The play begins in a factory that makes artificial people, made of synthetic organic matter, called “robots.” Unlike the modern usage of the term, these creatures are closer to the modern idea of cyborgs or even clones, as they can be mistaken for humans and can think for themselves. They seem happy to work for humans, although that changes, and a hostile robot rebellion leads to the extinction of the human race. Čapek later took a different approach to the same theme in War with the Newts, in which non-humans become a servant class in human society.

R.U.R is dark but not without hope, and was successful in its day in both Europe and the United States.[citation needed] John Clute has lauded R.U.R. as “a play of exorbitant wit and almost demonic energy” and lists the play as one of the “classic titles” of inter-war science fiction.[7]

There is a lot more at the link. Czech it out!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.U.R.

Note 2. Sharon Rondeau’s Letter to the Pentagon. The Birther Think Tank ran a story yesterday about Ms. Rondeau contacting the  military authorities about Obama’s eligibility.

https://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/08/29/sharon-rondeau-when-the-un-informed-authorities-meet-the-uniformed-authorities/

The story is also at her website, but it is hidden behind the paywall. There is a link in my story to ORYR where you can read the whole thing:

http://www.thepostemail.com/2013/08/29/where-is-the-u-s-military-on-obamas-fake-credentials/

Advertisements

The Marchant Maroon!!! (Or, 100% Sure It’s A Forgery!!!)

Marchant Maroon

The USS BirtherReport Five Minutes BEFORE Being Torpedoed

Well, the Birther blog, ObamaReleaseYourRecords has a little problem. It seems that they posted this letter, ostensibly from Rep. Kenny Marchant (TX):

marchant  TX 2

(Click on Image to make larger.)

http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/update-rep-kenny-marchant-says-obama.html

HOUSTON – A pro-impeachment letter written by a congressman that has shown up on tea party and birther websites recently is not legitimate, according to his office.

A July 8 letter apparently signed by U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant, R–Texas, which expresses sympathy with a constituent calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, has been turning up on tea party-oriented sites and conservative message boards over the last 10 days. […]

“The letter floating around there was indeed altered from its original text and doctored-up,” Marchant’s legislative director, Scott Cunningham, wrote in an email. “We do not know who did this.”

The sites credit the letter to a poster using the name Dougster on a birther website called ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/update-rep-kenny-marchant-says-obama.html#sthash.G2VNZeFk.dpuf

HOUSTON – A pro-impeachment letter written by a congressman that has shown up on tea party and birther websites recently is not legitimate, according to his office.

A July 8 letter apparently signed by U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant, R–Texas, which expresses sympathy with a constituent calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, has been turning up on tea party-oriented sites and conservative message boards over the last 10 days. […]

“The letter floating around there was indeed altered from its original text and doctored-up,” Marchant’s legislative director, Scott Cunningham, wrote in an email. “We do not know who did this.”

The sites credit the letter to a poster using the name Dougster on a birther website called ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com – See more at: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/update-rep-kenny-marchant-says-obama.html#sthash.G2VNZeFk.dpufhttp://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2013/07/update-rep-kenny-marchant-says-obama.html

The only problem is, the letter is a fake! This was caught by  Jon Cassidy at Watchdog.org, and here are a few excerpts from their article:

HOUSTON – A pro-impeachment letter written by a congressman that has shown up on tea party and birther websites recently is not legitimate, according to his office.

A July 8 letter apparently signed by U.S. Rep. Kenny Marchant, R–Texas, which expresses sympathy with a constituent calling for the impeachment of President Barack Obama, has been turning up on tea party-oriented sites and conservative message boards over the last 10 days.

“The letter floating around there was indeed altered from its original text and doctored-up,” Marchant’s legislative director, Scott Cunningham, wrote in an email. “We do not know who did this.”

The sites credit the letter to a poster using the name Dougster on a birther website called ObamaReleaseYourRecords.com.

http://watchdog.org/95928/texas-rep-says-congressional-impeachment-letter-was-doctored/

It seems Rep. Marchant left the Birthers high and dry! The folks at ORYR are upset by the whole incident. Apparently, no one can find the original letter, which I strongly suspect looked something like this:

marchant letter

(Click on Image to make larger.)

Altering letters is very simple! It took me less than a minute to pop the phony letter in MS Paint, and remove the highlighted language, and move the rest around a little. Actually forging it in the first place would have taken a little more time, but if one had the original to work with, it still would have been a very simple process.

The phony letter that ORYR fell for was not done very well at all.  The font type is different and larger on the first paragraph. And, there was not enough physical space left for the constituent’s full address. Just the M____, and not enough for two lines of address. The phony language was also highlighted, although that fact alone would not have necessarily indicated forgery.

In the following paragraph, the language is both stilted, and grammatically incorrect.  The writing style alone clearly indicates there were two writers. In the original language, sentences are short, concise, and to the point. The added language contains run-on-sentences and lousy syntax. The last sentence is clearly goofy, rambles around, and contains superfluous verbiage.

Jon Cassidy noticed the same things I did, as you can see at the above link. But I promise you that I wrote this before I read his full article. The misfit is that obvious.  I think calling it “illiterate” is rather  harsh. It comes across to me more as amateurish or juvenile.  This was either written by a Birther, or a very clever Obot who wished it to make it look like typical Birther writings, in order to screw with them. But, my bet is on a  Birther.  Here is the added language:

Marchant Fake Letter Excerpt

(Click on Image to make larger.)

If these are the general thoughts he wished to express, a more experienced forger should have written:

Investigations are currently underway in both the House and Senate. The FBI has been asked to gather information from the Administration. I am involved with, and support these investigations, in order to obtain as much information as possible about the responsible parties.  The President is also under scrutiny, and if appropriate or necessary, will be held accountable for his actions.

That would have better matched the original language. I am surprised that ORYR fell for this. Maybe sometimes you just see what you want to see. Or what somebody wants you to see. Personally, I can’t wait to see the actual original and how it compares to my GUESS.

Now, another theological question arises. How do we really know that the first letter is a forgery??? After all, the only thing we have to work with are online images. Aren’t we assuming that we can do that very thing that we accuse The Cold Case Posse of not being able to do? Namely, conclude that something is a forgery without examining the actual physical document? Yes! We are!

The only difference is that we have a facially valid denial of the document by the person who allegedly signed it and sent it out, Rep. Kenny Marchant.  If instead, Marchant had adopted this as his genuine letter, and said that it was his valid writing, then our entire conclusion would fall by the wayside. Th0se anomalies that we found, which indicate tampering? They would be useless if Marchant acknowledged it.

Hmmm. Didn’t the Hawaii Department of Health acknowledge Obama’s birth certificates and his birth in Hawaii??? ‘Nuff said!!!

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. This is a photo of a torpedoed Merchant Marine vessel in WWII in the Pacific Theater of Operations. Here is a link:

http://archives.qc.cuny.edu/sci/exhibits/show/wwii-and-sci-part-3/section1/action-in-the-pacific

The Merchant Marine is an extremely important group, as noted as Wiki:

The United States Merchant Marine is the fleet of U.S. civilian-owned merchant vessels, operated by either the government or the private sector, that engage in commerce or transportation of goods and services in and out of the navigable waters of the United States. The Merchant Marine is responsible for transporting cargo and passengers during peace time. In time of war, the Merchant Marine is capable of being an auxiliary to the Navy, and can be called upon to deliver troops and supplies for the military. The Merchant Marine however, does not have a role in combat but rather the U.S. Merchant Marines protects any precious cargo.

The merchant marine was active in subsequent wars, from the Confederate commerce raiders of the American Civil War, to the assaults on Allied commerce in the First and in the Second World Wars. 3.1 million tons of merchant ships were lost in World War II. Mariners died at a rate of 1 in 24, which was the highest rate of casualties of any service. All told, 733 American cargo ships were lost and 8,651 of the 215,000 who served perished in troubled waters and off enemy shores.

Although they suffered the greatest casualty rate of any service, Merchant mariners who served in WWII were denied such recognition until 1988 when a Federal Court ordered it.

 


Stupid Kentucky Birther Denies Being A Stupid Birther!!! (Or, More KY Puh-lease!)

Poor Bobbo Couldn’t Understand Why People Thought He Was A Clown Instead Of An Airship Pilot

DIY Kentucky Birther Todd House wrote a letter to the Gannett Courier Journal editor a few weeks ago (9-5-2012) where he denied being a “Birther.”  Here it is in its entirety, with a link below where you can view it along with the numerous comments. After reading this, you should go to the website, and peruse the comments:

I am not a “birther.” I am a constitutionalist.

The Constitution either means what it says or is relegated to the dustbin of history. The U.S. Supreme Court has the imperative duty to resolve the issue of “natural born citizen” once and for all. This is an intellectual, legal and historical question that is very pertinent today.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible for the office of the presidency. Unfortunately, there is no definition of the term in that document. But the reasons for this unique requirement were and still are well understood.

And that is the rub, for it requires some study of the history of the founding and the political philosophy of the founders, subsequent precedent and familiarity with U.S. and world history to comprehend the seriousness of this issue and, only then, arrive at an informed opinion. Regrettably, few seem to have done their homework. But even those who have disagree, inviting robust debate that all should embrace in a free society. But, for an ultimate resolution, the U.S. Supreme Court must decide it. Ergo, my suit challenging President Obama’s eligibility for the ballot in Kentucky. According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen. So, even assuming that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, his father was never a U.S. citizen and therefore he is NOT a natural born citizen and ineligible for the office of president of the United States.

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate. It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had. My effort intends just and only that.

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

L. TODD HOUSE, M.D.

Louisville 40204 –

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/

http://www.courier-journal.com/comments/article/20120906/OPINION02/309060005/Reader-Letters-Not-birther

What a crock of crap! Where is the basis for this statement:

According to notes and letters written by the framers of the Constitution itself, U.S. jurisprudence and precedent, one must be born in the country of two parents who are its citizens to be a natural born citizen.

I am not aware of any such notes and letters UNLESS one has already decided on the meaning of the term natural born citizen. If you already believe that being an NBC requires two citizen parents, then every time you see the term you can find justification for your belief.  BUT, if you approach the words with an attitude of “Gee, what did the Founding Fathers mean by natural born citizen???”, then you become free to understand the REAL definition, which is found in Section III of Wong Kim Ark (1898):

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

and what does “born in the allegiance” mean??? Further down in Section V:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory,[wild Indian exception omitted].

The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;”

Darn, that is sure hard to understand.  For persons born in the United States, their parents must not fall into the two exceptions.  And then we find this HUGE FRIGGIN LIE:

Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars share sober opinion on both sides of this debate.

No they don’t.  Seasoned and brilliant legal scholars just read Wong Kim Ark and see pretty quickly what the words mean. Even reasonably intelligent non-lawyers get it. The only people on the other side of this issue are stupid Birthers.  Birthers who can’t or won’t understand the few paragraphs from the case. That is why the Birthers keep on getting bounced out of courts across the country on their asses. That is why their cases are called frivolous, and why they are being assessed legal costs for wasting everybody’s time.

This statement is cute, too:

It is, then, plainly clear that the U.S. Supreme Court should be presented this case so that a final answer can be had.

Uh, the Supreme Court has done told us way back in 1898 what the answer was for people born inside the United States.  See above. What part of that don’t you get??? Then we get the “Don’t tease me even though I’m stupid” plea from Mr. House:

Political expediency should not subject such a critical and ultimate constitutional question to callous and cynical pejorative. Let’s debate, not disparage.

Where’s the fun in that??? If you are so darned STUPID that you can’t understand those few paragraphs from Wong Kim Ark after four years, then you all deserve cynical pejorative disparaging you get, and more. No, Mr. House, you aren’t a constitutionalist. You’re just a stupid Birther.

Pull your head out of your rear end.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter

Note 1. The Image. The real caption on the photograph is “Billy” Winslow touring in his airship Barnum & Bailey Show 1910. You can find it, and other interesting photographs here:

http://assemblyman-eph.blogspot.com/2009/03/vintage-circus-photos.html