We are Haters of America accd to Sumcad

Some cad named Sumcad wrote an atrocious hit piece on Ron Paul and his supporters.

http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=30953

A taste:

Quote:

---

The presidential wannabe referred to is considered an oddball because he is arguing for and in fact defending the 9/11 terrorist attack, by finding a plethora of faults in our foreign policy, and in the way we handle the war on terror here in the home front and in the Middle East which he believed justified the terrorists’ attacks killing thousands of innocent Americans.

Paul’s rhetorical arguments in the campaign trail had caught up with haters of America. In one of his follower’s published articles, the government is referred to as a fat “pig” that dipped into the pocket of wage earners in a fiscal robbery called “taxation”. Because of his aberration towards the Federal Government’s revenue-making role in the funding of public expenditures allegedly at the expense of the American people being robbed of their hard-earned income, Republican presidential tax caucuses and forums had started to exclude him and his mouthpieces from their group; in my honest observation and objective assessment of what’s happening, it’s like Republicans are now avoiding him and his handful of noisy supporters the way social lepers in the Bible were shunned and avoided.

---

Talk about an alternate reality. :rolleyes:

Jesus didn't shun the lepers. He's making our point quite nicely, I think.

I just wrote him an e-mail(I kept it clean and professional, I don't want his kind having any weapons to use against our cause)to let him know that I am voting FOR Ron Paul because I LOVE America and he is more like the standard bearers of our past from Barry Goldwater to James Madison! Hopefully others will write him as well.

Here is a thread already about this article:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...highlight=crap

Here's another example of Sumcad making our point for us.

Quote:

---

“Ron Paul wants us to leave Iraq because we have no business being there… there is no purpose …” said another e-mailing hater.

Is there any brain here anyone can see? The thoughts expressed in those lines are in biology, abiotic. The worth of our business in Iraq is already reaching a hundred billion dollars if not today, tomorrow, and some 4,000 dead American soldiers, and still counting. Think about what they know and how they look at the war in Iraq and understand what kind of people we are dealing with here.

---

I read it 3 times trying to figure out what HIS point was because he was making Paul's point so well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LibertyOrDie

Here is a thread already about this article:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...highlight=crap

---

Oh sorry!!

I wrote him specifically arguing about his statement that Paul is acting in contravention to the Constitution by supporting the idea that we pull out of the UN. He bases his argument on Article VI, which states, in part, that any treaty ratified by Congress becomes the 'supreme law of the land', and because Ron Paul wants us out of the UN, he is acting against that Article.

So I responded by referring to Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers of Congress), stating that since Congress has the power to regulate trade/commerce with foreign nations, they can just as easily remove the US from any treaty (like the UN) as they can enter one. He responded saying that Article I Section 8 was irrelevant. Interesting, the enumerated powers of Congress as explicitly stated in the US Constitution are 'irrelevant' regarding what Congress can and cannot do.

He further elaborated that:

Quote:

---

Paul cannot pass a law which is contrary to the Constitution. He must amend first the Constitution. He does not have to pass a law of isolationism if the Constitution is already amended to separate the U.S. from the U.N. Get the point?

---

The Constitution has been 'amended' to separate the U.S. and the U.N? Which amendment is that? His whole argument is on very shaky ground IMO.

This guy can't be serious. I'm starting to think this is a big joke.

The following is an email I wrote in response, followed by his response, and my response to his response :p

Thought that I would post this for you guys to check out/critique. It doesn't reveal all that much, but I thought I'd put it up anyway.

Sorry if I got a little mean in the first email (the attack on his credibility), but I don't normally do that...

Feel free to flame me =)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your article about Dr. Paul was a blatant mischaracterization of him. I
think it is clear that you'd rather smear Ron than present a fair
account. You conveniently forgot to mention that Ron held his own rally
right next to the forum sponsored by ITR and ICA which, by nearly all
accounts, drew several hundred MORE supporters than the ITR forum. Ron
is not just some internet fad. He has many enthusiastic supporters -
more than many of the supposedly more "credible" GOP contenders who were
invited to the ITR forum.

Ron has a voting record consistent with his ideology. He votes against
big government, and he votes against preemptive wars like Iraq. Ron does
not, and has never blamed the US for 9/11. If you believe that what he
did was blame America, then the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA, and
many other authors (much more distinguished than yourself, although
after this smear article, a 6-year-old scribbling on a dinner napkin
with a crayon deserves more credibility than you) have blamed America as
well. This is simply not true. Please do some research on Dr. Paul, his
voting record, and his writings before you spread such rude lies about
him.

Andrew Mackenzie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrelevant. The point is, Paul is no longer accepted by The Iowans for Tax
Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance as a GOP candidate for President.
Whatever you say after the fact, is of no moment. You must accept this
fact, and you should NOT ignore the reason why he is rejected. He is
downright unacceptable...!!Ed.07/03/07


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since when did ITR and ICA become the primary judges of who is and isn't a credible candidate? Ron has more support than most other second tier candidates, and is fourth in overall fundraising in the GOP as of Q1. It is pretty clear that there was an agenda against Dr. Paul, and that you are unwilling to accept this fact. Most of us prefer to rely on polling data and hard numbers rather than the whims of ITR chairman Ed Failor. Perhaps you should as well.

Andrew Mackenzie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spirit of '76

Here's the letter I just sent:


Dear Editors,

I understand that your editorial policy expressly prohibits vitriolic language, which you define as "language of extreme bitterness and malignancy of temper", which "includes rancor (deep-seated ill-will) and/or spiteful, poisonous, or noxious language."

I am writing to inform you of a most egregious violation of this policy on the part of a Mr. Edwin Sumcad in his attempt at an article entitled "Most Despised GOP Presidential Aspirant Used By Haters Of America To Air Chips On the Shoulder", article number 30953. In this piece of writing, Mr. Sumcad airs his grievances against Congressman Ron Paul in a very disturbing manner.

As if the title alone were not evidence of the vitriolic nature of this screed, we see that within the first two paragraphs of this piece, Mr. Sumcad refers to Dr. Paul's supporters as "incorrigible haters of America and . . . congenital bangers of whatever America represents" and likens expressions of support for Congressman Paul to a "chronic disorder" that can only be relieved when "hatred is puked out of the system".

Leaving aside his misrepresentations of Congressman Paul's message and agenda, we can see that he goes on in paragraph six to again insult Dr. Paul's supporters by likening them to "social lepers in the Bible" and saying that they "they are very toxic to American voters who abhor them".

The venom does not stop flowing at paragraph six, however. In paragraph nine he leaves off insulting Dr. Paul's supporters long enough to throw a few pot-shots at Dr. Paul himself. Here we see that he refers to the congressman as "an 'oddball' that has risen from the catacomb of Hell".

In the next paragraph he returns to slandering Dr. Paul's supporters by accusing them of being "haters of America" suffering from "chronic anxiety or OCD". Immediately after that, in the one short sentence that makes up paragraph ten, he accuses Congressman Paul's supporters of having "no brain".

In paragraph thirteen he adds bigotry to his bag of tricks when he refers to Congressman Paul's followers discussing matters of economics as "hillbillies" who "think that they had become Keynesian experts in macroeconomics overnight".

In paragraph fifteen he again accuses Dr. Paul's supporters of lacking "any brain here anyone can see" because of their stance on the continuation of military operations in Iraq.

Do you see a pattern here? The rest of the article devolves into a barely coherent mass of insults wherein we see Dr. Paul called a "scatterbrain", a "loquacious windtalker", an "extraterrestrial idol", and a "hater". Further insults are thrown at the congressman's supporters as well.

In a supreme twist of irony, near the end of this bizarre diatribe, Sumcad takes a break from spewing venom at Dr. Paul long enough to offer to offer to tutor Dr. Paul in "the rudiments of protocol, diplomatic niceties and international leadership [to refine his language as a congressman who wants to be President of the United States]" and pledges to help provide the congressman with a "special makeover" of "his vulgar public persona".

As if the clear vitriol were not bad enough, the sheer number of typographical, grammatical, and idiomatic errors found in the article do no service to the American Chronicle's editorial reputation. This is certainly not an article of which your publication can be proud.

I hope that you will stand by your editorial standards, as this is without doubt a clear violation of your policy regarding vitriol. I urge you to take steps to protect your reputation as a credible journalistic publication by removing this article from your archives and/or printing an apology to Congressman Paul and his numerous supporters.

Thank you for your consideration.

Most sincerely,
etc. etc. etc.

---

No answer yet, so:

Dear Editors,

As I have not yet received a response indicating whether or not you plan to uphold your own editorial policy regarding vitriol in this case, I am forwarding my original letter to you, as it might have escaped your attention the first time.

I will also be opening this letter up and forwarding it to the Society of Professional Journalists, the International Press Institute, the Organization of News Ombudsmen, a number of popular blogs, and a number of top Journalism Schools around the country. Don't you agree that this would make an excellent case study for students learning about journalistic ethics?

Thanks again for your consideration. I look forward to your acknowledgment that you intend to stand by the standards that you yourself have set for works included in your publication.

Most sincerely,
etc. etc. etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AMack

The following is an email I wrote in response, followed by his response, and my response to his response :p

Thought that I would post this for you guys to check out/critique. It doesn't reveal all that much, but I thought I'd put it up anyway.

Sorry if I got a little mean in the first email (the attack on his credibility), but I don't normally do that...

Feel free to flame me =)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your article about Dr. Paul was a blatant mischaracterization of him. I
think it is clear that you'd rather smear Ron than present a fair
account. You conveniently forgot to mention that Ron held his own rally
right next to the forum sponsored by ITR and ICA which, by nearly all
accounts, drew several hundred MORE supporters than the ITR forum. Ron
is not just some internet fad. He has many enthusiastic supporters -
more than many of the supposedly more "credible" GOP contenders who were
invited to the ITR forum.

Ron has a voting record consistent with his ideology. He votes against
big government, and he votes against preemptive wars like Iraq. Ron does
not, and has never blamed the US for 9/11. If you believe that what he
did was blame America, then the 9/11 Commission Report, the CIA, and
many other authors (much more distinguished than yourself, although
after this smear article, a 6-year-old scribbling on a dinner napkin
with a crayon deserves more credibility than you) have blamed America as
well. This is simply not true. Please do some research on Dr. Paul, his
voting record, and his writings before you spread such rude lies about
him.

Andrew Mackenzie

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Irrelevant. The point is, Paul is no longer accepted by The Iowans for Tax
Relief and Iowa Christian Alliance as a GOP candidate for President.
Whatever you say after the fact, is of no moment. You must accept this
fact, and you should NOT ignore the reason why he is rejected. He is
downright unacceptable...!!Ed.07/03/07


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since when did ITR and ICA become the primary judges of who is and isn't a credible candidate? Ron has more support than most other second tier candidates, and is fourth in overall fundraising in the GOP as of Q1. It is pretty clear that there was an agenda against Dr. Paul, and that you are unwilling to accept this fact. Most of us prefer to rely on polling data and hard numbers rather than the whims of ITR chairman Ed Failor. Perhaps you should as well.

Andrew Mackenzie

---

Wow. I thought his response to me was out there. Wow.

Yeah apparently he gauges the credibility of a candidate based solely upon whether or not he/she is approved of by a couple of private organizations.

I emailed him several days ago about this article.
I told him that his article was a joke and so was he.

Oh, and he didn't write back...
I guess you can't argue with logic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pazzo83

I wrote him specifically arguing about his statement that Paul is acting in contravention to the Constitution by supporting the idea that we pull out of the UN. He bases his argument on Article VI, which states, in part, that any treaty ratified by Congress becomes the 'supreme law of the land', and because Ron Paul wants us out of the UN, he is acting against that Article.

So I responded by referring to Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers of Congress), stating that since Congress has the power to regulate trade/commerce with foreign nations, they can just as easily remove the US from any treaty (like the UN) as they can enter one. He responded saying that Article I Section 8 was irrelevant. Interesting, the enumerated powers of Congress as explicitly stated in the US Constitution are 'irrelevant' regarding what Congress can and cannot do.

He further elaborated that:


The Constitution has been 'amended' to separate the U.S. and the U.N? Which amendment is that? His whole argument is on very shaky ground IMO.

---

The UN treaty on it's face is unconstitutional since it acts in effect to replace the Constitution or to render it moot at the digression of the UN... In other words, you cannot pass a law that is in conflict with the Constitution which the UN Treaty is...

To quote the first and longest standing Supreme Court ruling on this kind of thing...

Quote:

---

" ...the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."-- Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 1803

---

JTCoyoté

We are not hated for who we are. We are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that have spawned pandemic hatred of America in the Islamic world. It is our policies. -- Where the Right Went Wrong --PJB

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pazzo83

Wow. I thought his response to me was out there. Wow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JTCoyoté

The UN treaty on it's face is unconstitutional since it acts in effect to replace the Constitution or to render it moot at the digression of the UN... In other words, you cannot pass a law that is in conflict with the Constitution which the UN Treaty is...

To quote the first and longest standing Supreme Court ruling on this kind of thing...



JTCoyoté

We are not hated for who we are. We are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that have spawned pandemic hatred of America in the Islamic world. It is our policies. -- Where the Right Went Wrong --PJB

---

Right, you'd have to amend the Constitution to do so, and that clearly never happened.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pazzo83

I wrote him specifically arguing about his statement that Paul is acting in contravention to the Constitution by supporting the idea that we pull out of the UN. He bases his argument on Article VI, which states, in part, that any treaty ratified by Congress becomes the 'supreme law of the land', and because Ron Paul wants us out of the UN, he is acting against that Article.

So I responded by referring to Article I Section 8 (enumerated powers of Congress), stating that since Congress has the power to regulate trade/commerce with foreign nations, they can just as easily remove the US from any treaty (like the UN) as they can enter one. He responded saying that Article I Section 8 was irrelevant. Interesting, the enumerated powers of Congress as explicitly stated in the US Constitution are 'irrelevant' regarding what Congress can and cannot do.

He further elaborated that:


The Constitution has been 'amended' to separate the U.S. and the U.N? Which amendment is that? His whole argument is on very shaky ground IMO.

---

“… all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land …

Where does the United States garner its Authority? From the Constitution, the Supreme Law Of The Land.

Therefore: “… all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land … specifically means that all laws and treaties must conform to and fall under the Constitution, if they do not, they are null and void. You cannot amend the Constitution via treaty. The Constitution specifically designates the Congress as having the exclusive power to declare War; it does not give them the authority to delegate that power to the President or the U.N.

Also, NOWHERE in Article II Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution does it specify that the President of the United States of America is obligated to uphold "Agreements Under the United Nations Charter" especially when they are in direct violation of the Constitution.

So, Art I Sec VIII is irrelevent? His credibility is shot after that comment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pazzo83

Right, you'd have to amend the Constitution to do so, and that clearly never happened.

---

Exactly... nor can it happen easily... you cannot throw out the Organic Constitution by mere amendment... It would require the method that was used to create it as well as it's "Part and Parcel" the Bill of Rights... That method would be an Article V Constitutional Convention...

Anytime someone or some organization wishes to put forth a Convention in order to Amend the Constitution... Be Very Skeptical... no matter how altruistic or sensible their reason may seem... the end could be a run away Convention since among those who would become delegates are Globalists of the most despicable stripe... and would no doubt lead to Constitutional suicide.

The bottom line is, that the fellow who wrote this article is wrong at the very least.

JTCoyoté

We are not hated for who we are. We are hated for what we do. It is not our principles that have spawned pandemic hatred of America in the Islamic world. It is our policies. -- Where the Right Went Wrong --PJB

In the words of one of my friends: "I am now stupider for having read that"

I honestly dont know how anyone can make any sense out of his articles. I did a search and found plenty of others that agree, he makes no sense even if he seemed like he was on our side, it still wouldnt make sense. I only found one person who praised him and he was in one of those neo-con republican groups.

Maybe hes using George Orwell's "Newspeak"

Victory!

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread....9658#post49658

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spirit of '76

Victory!

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread....9658#post49658

---

It is so nice to know that "Folks" are reading these Forums! Even if it is by request!

JTCoyoté

" ...the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument."-- Justice John Marshall, Marbury v Madison, 1803

Now to see if we can get some pro-Paul pieces in there. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spirit of '76

Victory!

http://ronpaulforums.com/showthread....9658#post49658

---

Spirit...I am VERY impressed. I have a fond respect of you and your knowledge.

Aw, shucks. It ain't nothin'.

Thanks, though. :D

Sumcad needs to apply for Rick Perry's next campaign effort.

They go together nicely, since they think EXACTLY alike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spirit of '76

Aw, shucks. It ain't nothin'.

Thanks, though. :D

---

Well, it's nice to know that when some cad tries to spew lies and vitriol, the Spirit of 76 will haunt his ass!:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesogen

The presidential wannabe referred to is considered an oddball because he is arguing for and in fact defending the 9/11 terrorist attack, by finding a plethora of faults in our foreign policy,

---

Yeah, how dare he :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mesogen

and in the way we handle the war on terror here in the home front and in the Middle East which he believed justified the terrorists’ attacks killing thousands of innocent Americans.

---

That is an absolute lie and I would challenge anyone saying that to actually find an indoctored piece of Ron Paul actually saying explicitly that attacks were justified.

By the way, hi, I'm Akus, a new board member and a die hard Hillary voter j/k:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kuldebar

Well, it's nice to know that when some cad tries to spew lies and vitriol, the Spirit of 76 will haunt his ass!:D

---

Badum-ching!

He's here all weeks, folks! Try the veal. :D