Who Can Take the
New York Times Seriously?

May 15, 2013 --

LPR has read much of the news coverage of the Benghazi tragedy in The New York Times and concludes that the the news columns generally promoted the notion that Benghazi was a protest in response to an anti-Islam video that went bad. Yet, glimmering of light occasionally broke through the news clouds. The Times, September 15, for example, cited "guards at the compound" as saying that the attack occurred "at about 9:30 p.m., without advance warning or any peaceful protest." Yet this account went on to report that "[t]he current information available to the White House suggests that the protests in Benghazi were spontaneous and spurred by the Cairo protests but evolved" into an Islamic extremist attack.

The New York Times editorials on Benghazi reflected the paper's obsession with Republicans, worthy of an official government newspaper. After the May 8 congressional hearing on Benghazi, the Times, notwithstanding a front page subhead stating "NEW BENGHAZI DETAILS" in the lead story, May 9, editorialized, May 10 that "the hearing showed, yet again "that the Republicans were not interested in "sober fact-finding."

This editorial, "The Republicans' Benghazi Obsession," declared "Common sense and good judgment have long given way to conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

LPR learned some time ago that accuracy in political punditry is achieved by turning Times' editorials on their head. Thus, we learn from the May 10 editorial that the paper is not interested in the facts on Benghazi, pursuing, instead, anti-Republican "conspiracy-mongering and a relentless effort to discredit" conservatives.

Actually, recent news reports indicate that the Obama administration has pursued its own relentless effort to discredit Tea Party conservatives by harassing tactics in response to Tea Party requests for tax-exemption. As of May 13, The New York Times had not commented on I.R.S.-gate.

The Times buried its first I.R.S.-gate article on page A11. The paper ran the May 12 I.R.S.-gate article on the front page but the focus was as much on possible political gains by Republican as on I.R.S. political misdeed. I.R.S. harassment of conservative groups included demands that lengthy questionnaires be filled out.

Perhaps the Times, if it does run an editorial will contend that there is no difference between such I.R.S. questionnaires and GOP demands of Obama appointees to cabinet posts.

LPR says -- lets end tax exemptions for all political groups!

-gates Can't Happen During Democratic Administrations

May 15, 2013 --

Forty years ago, the Senate Watergate hearings, chaired by Sen. Sam Ervin, Democrat from North Carolina were underway. The hearings included the comment from Alexander Butterfield that President Richard M. Nixon had a taping system. This comment led to demands that the tapes be produced, and, after they were produced and 18 and one-half minutes found to be missing on one of the tapes, to demands for impeachment. (There were calls for impeachment even before the Butterfield disclosure.)

Forty years ago, the nation was told by the media that a cover-up can be worse than the original offense; that no man is above the law. And forty years ago, we learned that a president can be forced to resign on pain of removal from office. It should also be noted that forty years ago, the resignation of two officials and the firing of a third official could be quickly called by the media a "Saturday Night Massacre" --although the officials involved remain quite alive after their resignations and firing.

And so, I imagine Richard M. Nixon absorbing Hillary Clinton's exclamation at a congressional hearing on the terror attack in Benghazi, last September 11 -- "What different, at this point, does it make?" -- and saying, "why didn't I think of that?" But then, LPR does not believe it would have mattered had Mr. Nixon uttered a Clintonism rather than asserting: "I'm not crook." He was, after all a Republican.

Mrs. Clinton's comment was made at a congressional hearing last January after she offered as alternatives an incorrect assertion (protest) and an incorrect sarcasm (guys on the prowl to kill Americans). The difference Mrs. Clinton refused to recognize stemmed from her inability to deal honestly with the facts.

The aftermath of the Benghazi terror attack suggests to LPR the following insights concerning the media's leftist mindset:

Republicans who question the actions of a Democratic administration are motivated solely by partisanship.

Officials in a Democratic administration who create nonfactual narratives are not disseminating false information; at worst, they are merely confusing some details.

Democratic administrations are incapable of engaging in a cover-up. Democratic conduct can never be considered worse than a misstep or mistake that was made -- and a few weeks after such misstep or mistake, the event fades into the "long ago."

Whistle-blowers are to be lauded only when whistles are blown on Republicans. (Whistle-blowers on Democrats are probably malcontents.)

During Republican administrations, the media must assume an adversary relationship with government. During Democratic administrations, the adversary relationship should be replaced by an advocacy relationship for government.

May 15, 2013 --

From the LPR Archives...

From 2007 -- Old Glory seen here flying outside Yankee Stadium …

From 2009 -- Be strong

May 15, 2013 --

President Obama, addressing I.R.S.-gate Benghazi, at his joint press conference with British Prime Minister David Cameron, May 13, asserted that the Benghazi attack "happened at the same time as we had seen attacks on U.S. embasssies [cq] in Cairo as a consequence of this film." The Wall Street Journal, May 1`0, ran an editorial "Let Benghazi's Chips Fall" that referred, in part, to TV statements by UN Ambassador Susan E. Rice, September 16, that the fighting in Benghazi was a "spontaneous response" to an anti-Islam video. The website of The Wall Street Journal was reported, by The New York Times, September 12, as identifying "Sam Bacile" as the person who put the video on the Internet.

What does The Wall Street Journal know about "this film" and when did it learn it? LPR clicksters might be interested in knowing that the Times, after blaming the Benghazi attack on the anti-Islam video, September 12, ran articles on the film, or the man responsible for it, September 13, September 16, September 28 and November 26.

The article, September 13 was apparently the result of a hastily-formed Times task force force on the video, led by reporter Adam Nagourney, supported by ten contributors. This article, with information from the Southern Poverty Law Center, charged that anti-Muslim right-wing extremists promoted the video. (The video was discussed in the paper's lead editorial, September 13.)

The September 16 article reported that the filmmaker, indentified as Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, an Egyptian Copt, had been questioned by police.

The September 28 article reported that Nakoula was charged with violating his probation on a bank fraud conviction by using the Internet without permission.

The November 26 article provided a great deal in information on Nakoula, including a report that it was his son who uploaded the video on YouTube, which would suggest that the probation violation charge against Nakoula may be unfounded.

May 15, 2013 --

The return of the "chilling effect"?

1) LPR asks The New York Times to show cause why its May 14 editorial assertion that Republicans "are out for political vengeance" is not intended to stifle congressional oversight of the Obama administration.

2) LPR asks the Republican House leadership to show cause why it is intimidated by New York Times anti-GOP editorials to avoid vigorous review of Obama administration policies and actions.

May 15, 2013 --

A Request for Sunday Morning Talk Show Transparency

LPR asks the Sunday Morning Talk Shows to require guests to state whether their comments are based solely on "talking points" prepared by others. This would enable viewers to decide if the guests know what they are talking about or are auditioning to be TV news readers (if not just appearing as political puppets).

May 15, 2013 --

We still don't know why Ambassador J. Christopher was in Benghazi, September 11, do we?

The reports that he was in Benghazi in connection with plans to open a cultural center, including a statement to this effect by President Obama, addressing the United Nations General Assembly, last September, are difficult for LPR to accept, given description of post-Qaddafi Libya as "volatile." We also have yet to learn the circumstances of the death of Ambassador Stevens. The New York Times quoted State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland, September 15: "'We don't know what happened with Chris Stevens.'" The Times reported that the physician who examined Stevens at a Benghazi hospital "said that Mr. Stevens was dressed and did not suffer any trauma, aside from...smoke inhalation." LPR wonders why the doctor made a point of saying that the ambassador was "dressed."

www.broadwayshowleague.com
www.shulerhensley.com
www.rickey.org
www.thepamphleteer.blogspot.com
www.pamspage.blogspot.com
Jackson Simon Review
www.texasbikini.com
www.spicemice.com
www.usarchery.org
www.fixbrosfruitfarm.com
www.davecousins.com
Manhattan Short Film Festival
www.faqbaseball.com
www.nyfilmvideo.com
www.USAFashionShows.com
Veltis Harrattan
www.Tamarkagan.com
www.freedomxtreme.com
www.CapMag.com
www.richardtucker.org
www.jonathanpollard.org
www.homefilmfest.com
www.robbscottdrawings.com
www.thefield.org
www.margotleitman.com
www.Hoyosgroup.com
www.skullco.com
www.nascar.com
www.curventures.net
www.cerealism.com
www.thomastonoperahouse.org
Christmas Village, Torrington, CT.
www.longmarriedcouples.com
www.theblisstones.com
www.nycvisit.com
www.geminiandscorpio.com
www.costumenetwork.com
www.ekayani.com
www.picturestartfilmfestival.com

LPR's Website is
In Memory Of …

Shana Zukerman
1989 - 2006