Ron Paul Has Betrayed The GOP! (Former Staff Member on Ron Paul's change after 9/11)

AFK at Townhall ^ | 04/18/2007 | Cary Wesberry

[SJackson]

I don't enough about Rittberg to characterize him, but Paul and his supporters do, and it's their opinion that counts. That Ron Paul would retain a total wackjob, a liar, and advocate of prostitution, a veritable lunatic, as a valued staffer, in fact in supervisory positions, for over a decade points to Ron Paul's complete inability to judge character, imo obvious from the places he accept support. This is not a good recomendation for even a supervisory position in government, say postmaster, much less a position from which he'll be appointing judges and Cabinet members.

My guess, if Rittberg wore a "Pull the Troops out NOW!" T-shirt, he'd be described as an accomplished long term member of the Paul team.

[wideawake]

That Ron Paul would retain a total wackjob, a liar, and advocate of prostitution, a veritable lunatic, as a valued staffer, in fact in supervisory positions, for over a decade points to Ron Paul's complete inability to judge character, imo obvious from the places he accept support.

Excellent point.

Ron Paul is perfectly willing to hire Rittberg and to appear on Alex Jones' program.

[George W. Bush]

That Ron Paul would retain a total wackjob, a liar, and advocate of prostitution, a veritable lunatic, as a valued staffer, in fact in supervisory positions, for over a decade points to Ron Paul's complete inability to judge character, imo obvious from the places he accept support.

Rittberg was more conventional early on. He just became more and more a nutjob over the years. Finally, Ron Paul and the Republican Liberty Caucus and the Libertarian Party all disavowed him.

Dondero/Rittberg did this to himself, no one else. You know, at the end, he even called in and attacked Harry Browne on his last radio broadcast. The rest of the RLC, Ron Paul, the Libertarians Rittberg hung out with didn't change. Rittberg did.

[George W. Bush]

What is it about Judaism that allows one to be "half Jewish?" Does this guy believe and worship as a Jew (halfway), or does he merely count "Jewishness" as an essentially genetic characteristic?

You may recall during the final vote on Shamnesty, Harry Reid was making these same exact claims for himself. As if we're supposed to care one way or the other regardless of how Jewish they are. I could care less about someone's breeding history and official pedigree.

I think you're Jewish if your mother is Jewish. I always thought that was the official standard in ancient and in modern times. You can also become Jewish, this was true in ancient times as well though not common. But Judaism has never been a proselytizing religion the way that Christianity or Islam is.

[George W. Bush]

My guess, if Rittberg wore a "Pull the Troops out NOW!" T-shirt, he'd be described as an accomplished long term member of the Paul team.

Guess again. Rittberg wore out his welcome pretty much everywhere years ago. He's only relevant to anyone now because Ron Paul is running for president.

[SJackson]

Excellent point....Ron Paul is perfectly willing to hire Rittberg and to appear on Alex Jones' program.

It's reminiscent of the dustup over his newsletter/campaign flyer. It goes out as a piece authored by Ron Paul with a number of clearly racist comments, interestingly a comment on the evil Israeli lobby similar to remarks attributed above.

The explanation, not my feelings, someone wrote it for me. Fine as far as it goes, but leave open the question of why an outspoken racist would be in a position of trust sufficient to actually author something in Ron Paul's name. Very poor character judgement, or a tolerance for racists. Which doesn't make him a racist as his cultists will soon accuse me of saying.

[the OlLine Rebel]

I totally agree. If it’s the advice of the unsurpassed Washington, I’m all for it.

My reaction to Paul’s comments at the famous debate was that it’s all moot about not getting involved, though. We’re in it now; you can’t just pretend we are not and start playing in 1s and 0s.

[Ultra Sonic 007]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

[George W. Bush]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

This is where some of us RP supporters disagree with him. For instance, I for one don't think you can completely pull out of Iraq and leave them easy prey for Turkey to grab the oil in the Kurdish north or for Iran and Saudi Arabia to make mischief in the center or south.

I think that having smashed their military, we are obligated to stay to defend the country's borders until they can do it themselves. But that doesn't mean I think we should be the primary forces on the ground, acting as police. The Iraqis need to maintain internal order for themselves, protect their oil sales to have the money to provide badly needed services and then to rebuild their military to defend against aggressive neighbors and those who infiltrate across their borders, especially the Saudis and North Africans entering over the border via Damascus.

[SJackson]

Of interesting note is that George Washington's quote used to support non-interventionism also said that we should settle affairs we are currently engaged in.

Of course, Washington had a sense of honor, which he extended to actions of the nation as well. A post of mine on the "quote" from another thread.

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

Is that ever true. The Washington quote is one of the most misused by internutters of the isolationist, and other, varieties. Ironically it’s the WIKI version of the quote.

I’ll use The Papers of George Washington, a final version of the Address in the NYC Library archives archives for my comments on the theory, other transcripts differ a bit word to word, but legitimate sources include the omission(s)

Rather than

"The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to domestic nations, is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities."

The 2 paragraphs blended into one actually read, my bold for the deleted line. I’m sure the omission by internutters is an accident, they’re the most principled of political commentators and would never make a deliberate omission to support their point.

The Great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign Nations is in extending our comercial relations to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.

Europe has a set of primary interests, which to us have none, or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence therefore it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves, by artificial ties, in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations & collisions of her friendships, or enmities.

Of course the context of the speech is important as the wisdom of our mutual defense treaty with France (yes, we were obligated by treaty entered into by the Founders to defend France) was being questioned at the time.

No matter, the omitted line negates the purpose the altered quote is generally used for, not fulfilling already formed engagements.

Many of you have actually read the Address, but for the benefit of the internet cut and pasters, the next three paragraphs, my bold as to the reiteration of Washington’s point about fulfilling engagements.

Our detached & distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one People, under an efficient government, the period is not far off, when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or War, as our interest guided by justice shall Counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European Ambition, Rivalship, Interest, Humour or Caprice?

'Tis our true policy to steer clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World--So far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it--for let me not be understood as capable of patronising infidility to existing engagements, (I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy)--I repeat it therefore, Let those engagements. be observed in their genuine sense. But in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them.

Personally I suspect a 21st century would recognize that our position isn’t as detached & distant as in the 18th century, and that our ability to defy material injury from external annoyance ended in 1812, as some of us were reminded on 9/11.

But Washington's position on infidelity to existing relationships is clear.

[the OlLine Rebel]

Of course. I didn’t think of Washington as the kind to not deal with problems, nor with the Founders as a whole. Look at the Barbary Pirates. Look at Madison for the “1812” war.

[Tears of a Clown]

Good read. Thanks for posting.

[OldArmy52]

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and Libertarians tend to be diverse on a variety of issues. Sort of wild card folks, but generally conservative....but not on all issues.

[wastedyears]

I also think we should follow a policy of not intervening where we shouldn’t. But if we are attacked directly, or a military base in a foreign country, the country that attacked us should be certain that we will fight back. If it is one of our allies, we should be ready to offer them any support they may need, short of sending our soldiers to the action, except in a dire case.

[anymouse]

CD 14 ping

[traviskicks]

“Ron Paul is a mole for the Communists.”

lol, does this sound like Karl Marx:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Ron_Paul

[soccermom]

LOL! Ron Paul employs a “total whackjob” for 12 years? Interesting.......

[shield]

Just another reason I think Ron Paul is a kook. It’s time for district 14 to vote him out. When Paul was running the first time, he had PROMISED term limits on himself. As all can see he didn’t intend to ever keep that promise.

[George W. Bush]

Over the years, Dondero just got weirder and weirder. At the beginning, he worked with lots of people, Republicans, Libertarians, etc. Then he just fell apart over advocating prostitution. Then that really bad book. His wife and those beating/abuse stories, etc. At one time, Dondero was respected in many circles but he turned into a contrarian wacko that attacked everyone and everything around him. He’s so radioactive no one who once associated with him will have anything to do with him now. Truly, he is pitiable. He’d had a bright future ahead of him.

[GulfBreeze]

I AM one of his constituents and you ARE 100% right.