Follow by Email

Friday, August 17, 2012

New York Times, "In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson": Sleaziest Editorial in Its 161-Year History

The New York Times was established in 1851, and never in its 161-year history has it descended to the contemptible nadir it reached in its editorial entitled "In Thrall to Sheldon Adelson" (

Although this editorial would condemn contributions from Sheldon Adelson to the Romney campaign, there is no mention by this hyper-partisan editorial of Obama's stinky Chicago real estate deal with convicted felon Tony Rezko.

On the same day in 2005 Obama purchased his Chicago mansion, the wife of Rezko bought the adjacent empty lot from the same seller, who wanted to sell both properties together. However, as reported by ABC News (

"While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama denies there was anything unusual about the price disparity. He says the price on the house was dropped because it had been on the market for some time but that the price for the adjacent land remained high because there was another offer."

Do you buy Obama's explanation concerning this sweetheart real estate deal? Sorry, I don't.

Also no mention by the Times editorial of the funds received by Obama in 2008 from Goldman Sachs. As Peter Schweizer, president of the Government Accountability Institute and the William J. Casey Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, wrote earlier this week in an article entitled "Why Goldman Sachs, Other Wall Street Titans Are Not Being Prosecuted" in The Daily Beast (

"On Thursday the Department of Justice announced it will not prosecute Goldman Sachs or any of its employees in a financial-fraud probe.

. . . .

Thursday’s announcement that there will be no prosecutions should hardly come as a surprise. In 2008, Goldman Sachs employees were among Barack Obama’s top campaign contributors, giving a combined $1,013,091. Eric Holder’s former law firm, Covington & Burling, also counts Goldman Sachs as one of its clients. Furthermore, in April 2011, when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued a scathing report detailing Goldman’s suspicious Abacus deal, several Goldman executives and their families began flooding Obama campaign coffers with donations, some giving the maximum $35,800."

But why should this trouble the Times?

The Times complains of the flow of super PAC money to Romney, but ignores the super PAC money being received by Obama via Priorities USA Action, which most recently found itself in the news owing to its specious advertisement seeking to link Romney to the death of a steelworker's wife.

And although the Times editorial refers to "multiple federal investigations into the company behind Mr. Adelson’s wealth," it also acknowledges that "the company has denied all allegations of improper behavior." Query: In the US are persons guilty until proven innocent?

The Times demands that Romney avoid Adelson, but no mention is made of funds received by Obama from George Soros, who was convicted in France of insider trading and fined $1.25 million (see:

The editorial casts aspersions upon Sheldon Adelson's efforts to lobby on behalf of holding the Olympics in China, given China's abominable human rights record. But as president, what has Obama done to improve human rights in that country? In fact, he has all but ignored the topic. Moreover, in order to appease the Chinese, Obama saw the visiting Dalai Lama in the Map Room of the White House and not the Oval Office. There was no official welcome, the meeting was closed to the press, and the Dalai Lama was sent out of the White House via a back door, where a pile of trash was unceremoniously waiting for him.

This sickening editorial is part and parcel of the gutter politics which characterize the 2012 election. It also heralds the further decline of a once respectable news organization, which is well along the path to moral and financial bankruptcy.

[Compare the language of the Times editorial ("Three days after Paul Ryan became the presumptive Republican vice presidential candidate, he made a pilgrimage on Tuesday to the Las Vegas gambling palace of Sheldon Adelson, the casino tycoon") with the words from a letter sent by Julianna Smoot, Deputy Campaign Manager, Obama for America ("Today, just 72 hours after joining the GOP ticket, Paul Ryan is making a pilgrimage to the Sands' Venetian casino in Las Vegas to kiss the ring of Sheldon Adelson," see: seeking donations for the Obama campaign. Sickeningly similar? You bet!]


  1. What idiotic comments and comparisons. The sheer scale of Adelson/Romney/Ryan bears no moral or ethical comparison at all to what is cited here with such faux outrage. Accepting, indeed chasing after, up to £100M from a corrupt casino billionaire seeking to buy the presidency for persons who will then be expected to do his bidding has completely dicredited the Republican campaign.

  2. Yeah, sure, Greg. Obama can accept millions from Soros, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood, but Romney can't take money from Adelson. Now it all makes sense to me.

  3. OK, I know very little about Adelson (to lazy to google) and don't like what he is doing, but I despise the NYT (more and more) and view it as Der Neue Stuermer.
    Yes, the parallel is amusing. Yes, there is a problem with Obama, with his money (and Romney and his money), but the biggest problem is with the collapsing country which deserves to collapse.
    I am not voting. They can all go to hell where they will be kept warm and comfortable.

  4. Ah, if someone wants to hire me to turn them over ... there, I am available if I get to choose whom to ... treat ...