New York Times Retracts Smear Against Ron Paul

The New York Times has just issued a retraction to their piece a few days ago attemting to link Ron Paul to white supremacists. They admit that the piece “should not have been published.”

I hope their retraction gets as much attention as their original post did.

54 thoughts on “New York Times Retracts Smear Against Ron Paul”

    1. Why complain? Our national sovereignty and liberty is at stake and you think it’s no big deal that a worthless rag (NYT) attempts to discredit the only presidential candidate who wants to restore our constitution to the state before Bushco trampleled all over it. Bushco are slime undeserving of residence in the USA. Bushco are fascist traitors who should be indicted, covicted, and imprisoned or executed under the laws of the land.

  2. If they are sincere, the NYT should put that retraction on the top of the front page. Otherwise, it is a phony apology while the dirt has already been spread all over.

  3. “If they are sincere…..” That is funny.As my old New Zealander co-worker was wont to say:Have you been here long,mate?

  4. Ron Paul quotes: He has also been attributed to comments such as these which appeared in his newsletter, the Ron Paul Survival Report:

    “Opinion polls consistently show that only about 5 percent of blacks have sensible political opinions, i.e. support the free market, individual liberty and the end of welfare and affirmative action,”
    “Given the inefficiencies of what D.C. laughingly calls the `criminal justice system,’ I think we can safely assume that 95 percent of the black males in that city are semi-criminal or entirely criminal,”
    “…our country is being destroyed by a group of actual and potential terrorists — and they can be identified by the color of their skin.”
    “…complex embezzling” is “100% white and Asian;” and noting that
    “If you have ever been robbed by a black teen-aged male, you know how unbelievably fleet-footed they can be.”

    “We don’t think a child of 13 should be held responsible as a man of 23. That’s true for most people, but black males age 13 who have been raised on the streets and who have joined criminal gangs are as big, strong, tough, scary and culpable as any adult and should be treated as such.”
    “We are constantly told that it is evil to be afraid of black men, it is hardly irrational. Black men commit murders, rapes, robberies, muggings and burglaries all out of proportion to their numbers.”
    He called former US Rep. Barbara Jordan (D-TX) a “fraud” and a “half-educated victimologist.”
    Paul also claimed former President Bill Clinton not only fathered illegitimate children, but that he also used cocaine which “would explain certain mysteries” about the President’s scratchy voice. “None of this is conclusive, of course, but it sure is interesting,” he said.
    When challenged on those remarks he blamed them on an aide that supposedly wrote them for his newsletter over a period of years. Are we to assume that he hadn’t read his own newsletter?
    His newsletter with his name on it.

    1. Belcastro’s (Beautiful Castro?) post isn’t really a comment but an extended quote of Searcy’s article trying to smear Paul. The quotes are supposed to be taken from Paul’s newletters in the early 90’s, although one critic claims they were all taken from one article. Paul disclaims them as his own, and as the work of a ghostwriter. According to Wikipedia, Paul’s disclaimer is credible because the quotes are so disconsonant with all the rest of his career. His biggest error here, assuming accuracy on all sides, is not monitoring what went out under his name.

      I’m not sure how shocked we should be to hear Clinton accused of snorting coke anyway, since his brother allegedly pointed the finger first. And just last two weeks ago our local newspaper ran an article on the hullaballoo over sentencing youths as adults in horrific crimes. It seems that a principal purpose of political correctness is to obscure truth and favor ideology.

    2. You are probably one of the “sheeple” who has no problem giving up your freedom for safety. Ron Paul is the only presidential candidate who wants to really restore the Constitution. Those piece of garbage slimes who comprise Bushco are traitors and should be treated as such.

    3. Frank, please use your google. Even the Times in their first major article about Paul’s campaign last summer brought these allegations up only to state that there’s no reason to believe that he wrote or approved those things.
      http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/22/magazine/22Paul-t.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print

      He told Texas Monthly in 2001,

      “They were never my words, but I had some moral responsibility for them . . . I actually really wanted to try to explain that it doesn’t come from me directly, but they campaign aides said that”s too confusing. ‘It appeared in your letter and your name was on that letter and therefore you have to live with it.'”

      Regarding Barbara Jordan, he said those comments were

      “”the saddest thing, because Barbara and I served together and actually she was a delightful lady.”

      Texas Monthly continued that this was completely believable because:

      “In four terms as a U.S. congressman and one presidential race, Paul had never uttered anything remotely like this.”

      Have you people really convinced yourselves that the only man running on the principle that “the only legitimate purpose of political action is protecting liberty” is secretly some hateful Nazi?

      Put down the crack pipe and get over yourselves.

    4. Even if Ron Paul made everyone of these statements (which I doubt)there is not a single one that any rational person would disagree with. The statements may not be politically correct, but every one is obviously true.

      1. What?!!! They are neither politically correct or true. It isn’t politically correct to attribute any, I said any trait to one ethnicity versus another without verifiable facts connected to external factors. Politically correct or not, that IS bigoted. And last but not least, it isn’t true, by the very fact that most of those comments are a subjective point of view from the writer based on selective stereo-type traits. I like Ron Paul and don’t think he ever said those things and if he did, I wouldn’t support him. Your comment reflects you ignorance.

        1. Pabst Blue. I qualified my opinion by stating that any rational person would consider the statements as being true. Please point out the statement(s)you believe are untrue, and give examples and reasons why they are not true.

  5. Vote for Obama. He won’t end these murderous wars of empire against brown peoples like Ron Paul will- but he won’t say politically incorrect things that upset the liberal faux enemies of DC empire like the above poster.

  6. “Vote for Obama. He won’t end these murderous wars of empire against brown peoples.”

    Ah yes, Iraq Obombya! He refuses to say he would end the Iraq War by the end of his first term if he is elected and he even threatened Pakistan with bombing. He’s a Democrat and he’s here to help.

  7. Ron Paul has spoken out with courage, insight and tenacity against the warmakers and the enemies of our Constitutional liberties who are leading us to ruin. That he comes from a segment of our political culture that has not always been on the side of the Angels is not a secret. But when over and over again I see his name on the very short list of Congressmen who have dared to stand up for the truth I cannot help feeling a pang of love and appreciation.

    Whether Ron Paul said the atrocious things attributed to him (and as one who has lived and worked in the inner cities I find them stomach-turning), it is a fact that his Libertarian program would finish the job of dismantling the social programs, safety net, regulatory protections, civil rights protections, and protections of the rights of organized labor, that came out of the New Deal and the Vietnam era. In advocating these directions he, like other libertarians, fails to recognize that the drive to war and the danger to our liberties comes not just from Big Government but at least equally from Big Business: the Energy Barons, war profiteers, all the great corporations which are making their profits in China and the Third World now, and all the banking houses that finance and support them. And from their owners, so aptly described by C. Wright Mills 50 years ago in The Power Elite, who meet on the golf courses of the world and make the deals that decide our fates.

    As we are seeing in the subprime mortgage crisis, when we strip away the regulatory environment, we are dismantling the protections against the unbridled profiteering of the super-rich that led us from one crisis and depression to the next for one hundred nightmare years culminating in the Great Depression. The New Deal had a history and a context, and we forget and dismiss it at our peril.

    If we really want to get rid of Big Government, we might talk more about ending the “personhood” of corporations, and breaking them up not just into 2 or 3 pieces but into dozens, with requirements that major shareholders divest, so that the corporate separation is more than a figleaf. But that would take a powerful Federal Government (and a packed Supreme Court) to pull off, and would still leave entities and owners vastly more powerful than the average citizen, still capable of collaborating as a class against the public interest, and filled with a resentment and hunger for revenge against those who dared break up their game.

    The contradictions of this position leads us back to the problem: whose government is it anyway? This is a more central problem than whether it is too big. (Get it out of the war-making business and it will shrink plenty.) How do we build a coalition which is capable of taking it away from the corporate rich who treat it as their private preserve, and return it to the control of the people? It certainly won’t be in a movement led by the likes of Clinton and Obama, those double-talking, lap-dog money-hounds, but it must be led by those who are inclusive, who respect and give expression to the experience and needs of all the victims of the present arrangement, and who draw us all into one big column.

    Can Ron Paul do that? Can he grow to become a champion of all the people? He has the courage, and he has seriously challenged the people and institutions that are leading us down the road to eternal global war and dictatorship. His enemies are our enemies. It is a crucible in which dramatic growth, even transformation is possible. I say: hold back from joining those who would tear him down and reject him out of hand, but engage with him and his supporters, seek common ground and common action, and support his initiatives when they are good.

    1. “In advocating these directions he, like other libertarians, fails to recognize that the drive to war and the danger to our liberties comes not just from Big Government but at least equally from Big Business…”

      It is exactly Big Government by which Big Business enshrines privilege and extracts wealth from everyone. And the biggest Big Business in the United States by far is Big Banking. Regulations are a smokescreen. The sub-prime mortgage debacle (which is only the tip of the iceberg) wouldn’t have been remotely possible were it not for the government-imposed use of Federal-Reserve magic tokens as money. Ron Paul is the ONLY presidential candidate that understands this (or at least is willing to talk about it openly).

      EVERY economic depression is preceded by some form of artificial credit expansion. This includes not only our current recession, but the Great Depression. The claim that we need a Fed to manipulate the money supply to control business cycles was a myth invented in 1935 (long after the Fed was created) by John Maynard Keynes. The myth was adopted as gospel by the intellectual establishment because it’s prescriptions matched what the banks and governments wanted to do anyway.

      Further reading:

      http://www.mises.org/money.asp

        1. I wrote “EVERY economic depression is predicted by some form of artificial credit expansion.”

          rotten reagan asks “really?”

          Yes, really. Of all the historical events you bring up, can you find one in which people weren’t trading some form of money substitute?

          Here’s the way it typically works: Banks would store people’s gold and issue receipts for gold on deposit. These receipts were called bank notes. People would trade these bank notes in place of the gold. (You used to have to pay the banks to store your money, because in theory they used to have to actually store it.)

          The banks came up with a scam where they would issue more receipts for gold than actual gold on deposit. The banks would make money by lending out money or making investments with money that didn’t really exist. A recession is when all this artificial debt is called in at the same time and there isn’t enough ‘real’ money to cover it all.

          Here’s the reason none of this has anything to do with genuine free-market capitalism: In a free market, banks would have to compete with each other for the trust of their depositors. People would only accept bank notes if they thought they were very likely to be able to redeem them for actual money. Banks which lost the trust of their depositors would suffer a bank run and go out of business. And this is as it should be.

          But the bankers who happened to be the most politically influential would team up with the government to come up with ways of forcing people to use the favored bank’s notes in place of gold. A bank would be granted a monopoly on bank note issue. The government would demand that taxes be paid in the favored bank’s notes. The government would force people to accept the notes in place of gold for payment of debt (legal tender laws). The governments would grant these political privileges in exchange for financing government debt, typically to wage war.

          Now that we have fiat currency, there is nothing that holds banks and the government back from printing money out of thin air except for the concern that they will destroy the economy in the process. It’s happened before.

          There’s lots more on the topic in the previously referenced source.

    2. Oh, and there are those who are convinced that the real motivation for the invasion of Iraq and the current belligerence toward Iran is really related to the fact that they were/are switching from dollars to euros. (Iran is now receiving yen instead of dollars from Japan for payment of oil.) The more people switch away from dollars, the less effectively the dollar interests can export the price inflation resulting from monetary expansion (i.e. creating money out of thin air).

  8. Whether Ron Paul said the atrocious things attributed to him (and as one who has lived and worked in the inner cities I find them stomach-turning), it is a fact that his Libertarian program would finish the job of dismantling the social programs, safety net, regulatory protections, civil rights protections, and protections of the rights of organized labor, that came out of the New Deal and the Vietnam era.

    The war is going to do this much more effectively than any conscious attempt to dismantle them.

    With Ron Paul as a one term president (and the man’s already 73)you’d have a much better chance of keeping them than with Hillary or Obama. 4 years would give him time to stop the war, not dismantle the government.

    Than his successor would have the spending room to rebuild them after 8 years of Bush.

    With Hillary or Obama (or the newly sainted Chris Dodd), the war will still be going in 2012 and that’s when the remainder of the safety net would collapse.

  9. I appreciate being here warned about more of the older contents of at least one newsletter put out in Paul’s name. But he is the only Republican posed to dismantle the killing machine debtor police state foisted on us by our federal government, and I appreciate all the brillian responses written above, with many more sure to come. Getting him, Kucinich, or Gravel, not to mention Libertarian or any other third party candidate, into office is going to be a steep uphill battle, but is possible with Paul. Please may we win!

  10. Getting him, Kucinich, or Gravel, not to mention Libertarian or any other third party candidate, into office is going to be a steep uphill battle, but is possible with Paul. Please may we win!

    Paul has some very good positions on the war and some very bad positions on immigration. What we’ve already seen is that (with the help of the same media who’s trying to paint Ron Paul as a Nazi) Tom Tancredo has already pushed the debate on immigration in the direction he wanted to.

    Paul’s not going to win but is there a chance for him to push his anti-war views into the mainstream?

    Not really because the mainstream media and both major parties are for continuing the occupation of Iraq. That’s why anybody who criticizes it (be it Ron Paul, Cindy Sheehan, Gravel, anybody) is going to be labeled a “kook” and a racist (probably an anti-semite) by the mainstream media and by Democratic Party affiliate blogs like the Daily Kos and Republican party affiliated blogs like Little Green Footballs.

    Tancredo did what the “establishment” wanted him to do. Kucinich has gotten no traction at all. Paul has perversely gotten some traction from some people in the mainstream who like his right wing views on economics and social programs but, perversely, gets smeared by the same people for his views on the war.

    The system is so corrupt that anybody running in a mainstream election is going to get whipsawed like this.

  11. We all know that it is nearly impossible to truly retract a statement. People who were convinced, or probably more to the point, had their previous paronoid convictions reinforced, are not likely to change their minds. But,The New York Times is the best at playing both sides. Remember Judith Miller the chief propagandist for the invasion of Iraq? Then after the war The Times, when it is too late, makes a feeble attempt to reestablish their self promoted image as The Newspaper of record. But this is not new for The Times. When Stalin was killing people by the thousands through starvation The Times was singing his praises.

    The reality is that the media has long since stopped being the watchdog and has joined the government propagand apparatus.They feed off each other. They all live in The Washington bubble; attend the same parties;their children are enrolled in the same schools; they intermarry; and think of themselves as the elites.

    But in the end it is the American public that is to blame. The majority of citizens think that the only function of government is to give them something–medical care; a pension; a mortgage bail out; a university education; and so on. People will always sacrifice liberty for security. And as long as the government check is in the mail people willcontinue to vote for the same old stuff.

  12. The “Times” retracts. Yeah, big deal. The “Times” shouldn’t have smeared the good Dr. Paul in the first place. The damage is done and that was the object in the first place. The New York Times sucks. Mainstream journalism in America is dead and whored out to warmongering lunatics. Thanks Antiwar for being there and being straight up.

  13. The New York TImes is just another New World Order mouthpiece. Hell, Rockefeller thanked the NYT for being so “quiet” for the past 50 years while the NWO works its insidious and criminal plan on an unsuspecting public. F the NWO and all Ron Paul haters!!!

    Join the revolution….Vote for Ron Paul!!!!!!!!!!

  14. Just a question for you pro-Paul would-be-voters.

    Let’s just say that Dr. Paul does win the election, becomes President, yada yada yada. But, due to intense lobbying, the promises of wealth beyond power, and/or just plain intoxication of power (absolute power corrupts absolutely, remember?), he eventually went over the Dark Side.

    First it’s “we’ll withdraw from Iraq by summer”, then it’s “by fall, if the bombing rate drops” and before we knew it another election is up. In the end, he’s no different than Hillary or Obama or that loser of an ex-NY mayor whose name I can’t spell properly.

    What will you guys do, then? Open rebellion? Mass exodus?

  15. Amry: Ron Paul is our best hope. I am sure he will be able to bring the troops back. The logical conclusion of your way of thinking is that we should never vote for anyone who promises to do what is right for the nation.

    1. You seem to be misunderstanding me.

      I’m not saying, “Ron Paul will betray you”; what I’m asking is, “what would you do if Ron Paul didn’t live up to his promises”.

      Call me sadistically cruel, but with all the cheerleading for Dr. Paul, I wonder what will happen if he didn’t meet the anti-war / libertarian crowd’s… expectations.

      Remember, nothing is set in stone in politics.

      1. Great troll Amry!

        You really filled my head with doubt!

        Now I’m just not going to bother voting for Ron Paul at all.

        You can go back to Clinton headquarters and tell them you have made one convert. Job well done!

  16. The New Republic has verified all my claims and will be publishing a front page story on Ron Paul’s involvement with various white organizations.

    Eat it you queer Jew sons of bitches. The lot of you are as bad as any other brand of Jew — communist, neo-con, Zionist, etc.

    If you need to discuss this issue further, please call me at 540-798-1393

    Bill White, Commander
    American National Socialist Workers Party
    nationalsocialistworkers@yahoo.com

    2. And my pun was worse than this?

      Just curious, Herr Brain: Doesn’t your attempted smear job on Paul rather undercut your claim that you’re on his side?

    3. Last October a Democrat-sponsored bill, “Prevention of Violent Radicalism and Homegrown Terrorism,” passed the House of Representatives 404 to 6. Ron Paul voted NO.

      You should appreciate that Bill. Imagine where senator Robert Byrd would be today had that bill passed 40 years ago when he was a KKK member.

      1. It figures that 404 of our elected officials voted for some ridiculous mind control civilian fearing bill. What Ron Paul has correctly done is identify this bill as the tyranny that it represents. Just from the title of this thing I can see some serious problems, namely;
        1) who gets to decide what is radical. Remember you may already be a radical.
        2) What do they mean by prevention?
        3) What constitutional rights do we give up for this prevention?

        1. The Senate version of this police state bill is now nestled in its Homeland Security committee. One of my senator’s staff assures me that it is not up for passage, but that is the best I can get from him. Please read this anti-freedom bill, and judge for yourself whether it has any merit. NOT.

  17. Dear Commander Bill,

    As Moe once asked Curly of the 3 Stooges, “How do you spell ‘HEAD’? Moe answered, “B.O.N.E.”

    Take two cyanide and call us in the morning. And that number you printed is probably for a phone booth.

    You are obviously a graduate of NYUK, the NY University of Knuckleheads. Have a bad day!

  19. “he quotes are supposed to be taken from Paul’s newletters in the early 90’s, although one critic claims they were all taken from one article. Paul disclaims them as his own, and as the work of a ghostwriter.”

    Yea, yea, how many times have we heard this before? It was a ghost writer–a staffer, Paul claims–who wrote the words.

    The problem w/ the mysterious staffer/ghost writer allegation? Paul won’t say who the staffer was. He won’t provide the name. Now on such a serious matter, one would think that Paul would feel an obligation to name the staffer so the American people can be assured that Paul who would be President isn’t really a vicious racist.

    Funny, how Paul & his votaries tend to miss that ethically obvious point.

    1. And how exactly would knowing the NAME of the staffer involved induce you to decide that Paul is not a racist? I don’t see anything ethically — or even logically — obvious about that.

  20. The USA is a very racist country, founded on racism, and I am sorry if Paul was part of the publishing of any remarks in 1992 indicating prejudice against Black citizens. Now, can we move on.

  21. Yes, good point Dana. Paul must be a fascist because one of his staffers wrote some incendiary piece about African Americans about 15 years ago. Of course, that’s FAR more important than threatening nuclear war with Iran (Hillary), threatening an invasion of Pakistan (Obama), singing “funny” songs about bombing and killing people (McCain), promising to continue the “Global War on Islamic Fascism” (Giuliani)…oh yeah, or shredding habeas corpus, the separation of powers, and engaging in officially-sanctioned torture (Bush).

    Obviously, Ron Paul’s the REAL fascist here!

    It’s good to see you shills for mass-murder and corporate tyranny liberals have your priorities straight.

  22. Abaraham Lincoln said “you can lie to the people some of the time; but you can not lie to the people all of the time.” The problem with the elites of the USA and the world is they are trying to do exactly that and it is not working in America and the world. “And the truth shall make you free” seems to be working in favor of our next President Ron Paul.

  23. I get the sense that anger is building in our young people. The ones who are knowledgeable are starting to realize that the wars that our corrupt government is pushing (with the help of the msm) will have to be fought by them and they don’t like it one bit. I predict a violent revolution, the likes of which hasn’t been seen in this country since the 60’s. America is starting to wake up!

    1. A bloody revolution wouldn’t surprise me one bit if things get much worse than they are now. I’m also sick & tired of all of the crap they are spraying in the sky on a daily basis (chemical “Chemtrails”) that contain bacterium, viruses, fungi, mold, metallic particulates. They also manipulate the weather with that crap. They’ve been stopping the rain in my area. There are already news reports of a potential hit on Ron Paul. If that happens all bets are off.

      1. here’s a link for anyone who wants to learn about CHEMTRAILS (Clouds of Death). Clifford Carnicom is a former government scientist, and the leading expert on the criminal aerosol campaign the elite is conducting on the population here and abroad. http://www.carnicom.com

    1. It’s quite clear Kenneth is one of the “sheeple”. Google “End Game” and watch it. America is one step away from a police state.

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos