January 19, 2015 --

LPR has no doubt that The New York Times represents the voice of Mayor Bill de Blasio. The paper acknowledged as much in its December 30 lead editorial, "Police Respect, Squandered," when it laced into the New York Police Department for reacting to the mayor's expressions of hostility towards the NYPD: "Mr. de Blasio isn't going to say it, but somebody has to...." Yes, indeed, "somebody" quick to smear the NYPD with a very broad brush, indeed.

The December 30 editorial was the first of three Times editorials that directed a barrage of venom against the NYPD. Decemeber 31, the lead editorial, "When Cops Walk Off the Job" admonished the police to not "violate the Constitution" and "Don't kill unarmed people."

This editorial previous asserted that "Eric Garner, an unarmed black man, was killed by a swarm of cops on Staten Island..." Zero mention by the Times of the circumstances leading to Garner's death, including the fact that he had resisted arrest.

The admonitions to the NYPD in this editorial would, LPR believes, support the anti-cop view that the NYPD regularly violates constitutional rights and kills unarmed people.

The third Times anti-cop editorial, "No Justice, No Police", January 7, urged de Blasio to "appeal directly to the public and say plainly that the police are trying to extort him and the city he leads." This editorial also advised de Blasio to consider replacing police commanders and inviting "the Justice Department to determine if the police are guilty of civil rights violations in withdrawing policing from minority communities."

An apparent police slowdown in issuing parking tickets and making arrests for misdemeanors seems to have given the Times the notion to get the Justice Department involved. The Times, however, has not made clear its position as to the appropriate NYPD response to persons resisting arrest for minor offenses. Does the Times advocate a "Drop the handcuffs where there is resistance" policy?

Clarity is scarcely served by vitriol. The December 31 editorial warned that "the plunge" in arrest statistics "suggest a dangerous, deplorable escalation of the police confrontation with the de Blasio administration." Beware plunging escalations? This editorial opened: "Many members of the New York Police Department are furious at Mayor Bill de Blasio and, by extension, the city that elected him." Huh? For LPR, that is a leap much, much, too far, but, then, this editorial went on to assert: "Mr. de Blasio was elected by a wide margin on a promise to reform the policing excesses that were found unconstitutional by a federal court." So wide a margin -- yet so few the total votes in relation to the electorate. The editorial did not mention that the previous mayoral administration intended to appeal the decision of that federal court; de Blasio dropped the appeal.

The Times, editorially, also promoted the notion that the police who turned their backs on the mayor (an apt response to a mayor who has turned his back on the NYPD, LPR believes) disrespected the families of murdered police officers Rafael Ramos and Wenjian Liu. There are, apparently, no limits to the arrogance of Bill de Blasio and the editorial writers at The New York Times in pursuing government by leftist stereotype.

A few more words: LPR cannot expect that The New York Times would address to President Barack Obama the words: "Don't violate the Constitution." By its support of unconstitutional action by the president, The New York Times is an advocate of Personal Government which, as the style of government preferred by King George III, instructs us that The New York Times has transformed itself into the nation's leading organ for the counter-revolution.