June 16, 2013 --

An Open Letter to The New York Times

Your June 7 editorial, "The New Security Team" calls on Amb. Susan Rice, as national security adviser to the president, to "be an honest broker among the other top officials and agencies involved in national security decision-making," and to "allow contrary views to be heard." Your use of the term "honest broker" is unfortunate, in view of Amb. Rice's performance in what The Times outrageously dismisses as "a trumped-up controversy over the Benghazi, Libya tragedy."

Ms. Rice, apparently lacking independent information on Benghazi, spoke to the American people on the basis of official "crib notes" to promote the specious claim that that "tragedy" was spurred by an anti-Islam video. That is to say, in the Benghazi context, Amb. Rice was hardly honest broker vis-a-vis the American people in providing political service to the President in an official capacity. By asserting that Benghazi is "a trumped-up controversy," The New York Times displays its eagerness to propagandize for the Obama administration with the apparent aim of suppressing "contrary views."

June 16, 2013 --

An Open Query to the Obama Administration

In view of your commitment to the cause of transparency in government, please advise -- concerning your surveillance of our phone calls and internet communications -- how do you monitor all the stuff, how many people are monitors, and where are they located?

Importantly: can you assure us that surveillance monitoring has not been outsourced to places like Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and India?

June 3, 2013 --

How The New York Times Showed its Zealous Anti-Republican Bias Once and For All

LPR believes that The New York Times regards Republican control of government as illegitimate. How else explain the assertion, in its May 17 IRS story: "After seizing control of Congress in 1995, Republicans opened investigations into the White House Travel Office [and other issues]. It is LPR's belief that Republicans won control of Congress in 1995 consequent to winning Senate and House majorities in the November 1994 elections -- not a November 1994 seizure of power in the manner of Lenin and the Bolsheviks in Russia, in November 1917.

LPR wonders -- should we consider applying the old Watergate advice -- "follow the money" -- to understand how The New York Times came to kick over any and all traces (borrowing a phrase by the late Yale law professor Alexander Bickel) of objective journalism to become the chief propaganda organ of the Obama administration?