Thursday, December 18, 2014
A Federalist 57 Website
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

A Letter To The New York Times
(Not Published)

 

December 5, 2014 --

Your November 24 news article on a proposal by the Israeli cabinet for "contentious draft legislation that emphasizes Israel's Jewish character" concluded by referring to Hamas as "the Islamic militant group that dominates Gaza." The news article did not make clear, however, what Hamas is "militant" about. It seems to me, based on my reading of the Hamas charter, that this "group" is militantly in favor of obliterating the State of Israel in favor of an Islamic State of Palestine. I am not aware of any news story in The New York Times that describes the anti-Israel aims of Hamas as "contentious," much less the existence of all those Islamic states that surround Israel.

Your November 25 editorial, opposed to references to Israel as "the Jewish State," points to "competing claims to the sacred site in the heart of Jerusalem -- called the Temple Mount by Jews and Noble Sanctuary by Muslims." I am not aware of any claims by the Israeli government to the Al Aqsa Mosque. I am aware that Jews -- note that: Jews -- would like to worship near the site of the Beit Hamikdash, on which Al Aqsa was constructed. The New York Times, apparently, agrees with Palestine Authority head Mahmoud Abbas that it is sacrilege for Jews to be near the Temple Mount but, of course, not sacrilege for a Muslim house of worship to have been constructed on the holiest site of Judaism.

The invidious tone of The New York Times, on matters affecting the Jewish identity of Israel, suggests a certain measure of understanding with the goals of Hamas and, yes, the Palestine Authority as well.

David R. Zukerman
Bronx, New York

Added note from LPR:

The title of the November 25 editorial was "Israel Narrows Its Democracy." The New York Times does not assert that democracy in England is narrowed because the Anglican Church is that country's official religion. Nor does the Times regard democracy as narrowed in the Scandinavian countries where the Lutheran Church is the official religion. The government of Israel has asked the Palestine Authority (PA) to recognize Israel as the Jewish State. How could the government of Israel make this request if Israel itself did not officially consider itself the Jewish State? The PA has, of course, refused to recognize the Jewish nature of Israel. The barbarous slaughter, last month, of four rabbis at prayer was, The Wall Street Journal recognized in its lead editorial, November 19, "Jihad in Jerusalem." The rabbis were slain at morning prayer because they were Jews praying to God. How many more Jews will be slaughtered by jihadists who oppose the existence of Israel as the Jewish State?

Also, The New York Times does not declare that democracy has been narrowed in the United States with President Obama exercising powers given to Congress by the Constitution. In this regard, is there a conservative who will cite these words of Madison in Federalist No. 47: "The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny."

 

Red Line

Does The New York Times Support Justifiable Nihilism?

December 5, 2014 --

The New York Times editorial on the post-Ferguson riots, November 26, "The Meaning of the Ferguson Riots, " has not one word of criticism for the rioters. But then, it is apparent from this editorial that The New York Times is incensed that the St. Louis County grand jury did not indict Office Darren Wilson on a homicide charge.

The editorial commented that the grand jury decision not to indict Office Wilson "would have generated widespread anger and disappointment in any case." Except the reaction escalated beyond anger and disappointment to looting and destruction. Who is targeted by The New York Times for blame? Robert McCulloch, the county prosecutor.

The New York Times found no fault with the rioters who looted and destroyed Ferguson businesses. What did Ferguson business owners do to deserve destruction at the hands of rioters? Apparently, at The New York Times the mayhem and violence after the grand jury decision was announced amounted to justifiable nihilism.
It is clear to LPR that The New York Times wanted Prosecutor McCulloch to steer the grand jury to indicting Officer Wilson. The editorial charged that the county prosecutors office "made no recommendation on whether to indict the officer, Darren Wilson, but left it to the jurors to wade through masses of evidence to determine whether there was probable cause to file charges against Officer Wilson for Mr. Brown's killing." LPR reads the message of The New York Times, in its "Ferguson Riots" editorial to shout: Damn the evidence, full speed ahead to indictment.

The New York Times, LPR concludes, wanted the grand jury to act swiftly by indicting "the white police officer who in August shot and killed Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager..." This conclusion is based on the invidious speculation set forth in the editorial's third paragraph:

"Under ordinary circumstances, grand jury hearings can be concluded within days. The proceeding in this case lasted an astonishing three months. And since grand jury proceedings are held in secret, the drawn-out process fanned suspicions that Mr. McCulloch was deliberately carrying on a trial out of public view, for the express purpose of exonerating Officer Wilson."

The New York Times omitted the fact that defense counsel does not participate in a grand jury proceeding. Is The New York Times suggesting that prosecutor McCulloch took on himself the role of defense counsel for "the white police offier?" In the editorial's fourth paragraph, after all, The New York Times asserted that "Mr. McCulloch's announcement [of the grand jury decision] sounded more like a defense of Officer Wilson than a neutral summary of the facts had led the grand jury to its conclusion."

The New York Times editorial began the fourth paragraph by accusing prosecutor McCulloch of taking "a reckless approach" in announcing the grand jury's decision "late in the evening, when darkness had placed law enforcement agencies at a serious disadvantage as they tried to control the angry crowds that had been drawn into the streets by news that the verdict was coming." The suggestion by The New York Times that the timing of the announcement interfered with police efforts to maintain crowd control is most curious in view of the following assertion constituting the whole of the editorial's sixth paragraph:

"In this context, the police are justifiably seen as an alien, occupying force that is synonymous with state-sponsored abuse."

The New York Times editorial cited "statistics [that] reflect the fact that many police officers see black men as expendable figures on the urban landscape, not quite human beings." But if, as The New York Times wrote, "the killing of young black men by police is a common feature of African-American life and a source of dread for black parents from coast to coast," is there no concern in the African-American community about black-on-black violence? It is not likely, however, that The New York Times would comment that statistics on black-on-black killings reflect the fact that many black men see other "black men as expendable figures on the urban landscape, not quite human beings."

 
"A vote that represents free will is never wasted"
-- David Zukerman
 

Red Line

The New U.S.S.R. or What President Obama's Executive Action Program is All About

December 5, 2014 --

Under our federal system, the president controls only one third of the national government. This governing reality has put President Obama at a disadvantage in his dealings with Iran, whose top leader is Supreme Ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. LPR has a hunch that Iran's Supreme Ruler (S.R.) believes it beneath his official status to negotiate with an official who controls only part of his country's government, not all of it.

LPR would not be surprised to learn that President Obama's proposal to transform the United States was intended to prove to Iran's Supreme Ruler that, as president, he was just as powerful of S.R. Ayatollah Khamenei. Accordingly, in this context, President Obama got Congress to approve Obamacare. Unfortunately, S.R. Khamenei, reportedly, was not impressed, especially after the Obamacare website malfunctioned grievously when it went into operation. Also, notwithstanding Obamacare, President Obama remained merely a president, controlling just one-third of the federal government.

The Republican successes in the mid term elections provided President Obama with the opening he needed to elevate himself, by means of the executive action process, to Supreme Rulership of the U.S.A.

Having done away with the more than 200-year old separation of powers, checks and balances tradition, of the U.S. Constitution, by means of the transformative "given up waiting" formula, President Obama has signaled Iran's Supreme Ruler that the United States, at long last, also has a Supreme Ruler.

All that is left for the President Obama to do is to make a New Year's Eve prime-time announcement that the Office of President has been replaced by the United States Supreme Ruler (U.S.S.R.)

Why, not only S.R. Khamenei -- even Russia's (mere) President Vladimir Putin may be impressed.

 

Red Line

This is NOT LPR's
"11-year anniversary"

December 5, 2014 --

It is no longer unusual to hear radio reporters refer to a "one year anniversary," "two year anniversary," etc. That the term "anniversary" refers to a an event measured in terms of years should give the speakers pause -- that they are stating a redundancy. Apparently not so.

Herewith opposing the war on ordinal numbers, LPR proudly marks its eleventh anniversary, an anniversary that could not have been possible without the talent and expertise of webmaster Terri Fassio and the people at Skullco.com.

 
Please take the LPR poll …
… found on the right-hand column on this page
 

Red Line

Herbert Croly, as Precursor to Jonathan Gruber
(you know, the academic who regards most people as stupid)

December 5, 2014 --

The New Republic (TNR) is marking its 100th anniversary and an article by TNR editorial Franklin Foer, in the special anniversary issue, says this about Herbert Croly, the magazine's founder: "Croly wanted his publication to serve as a transmission belt of ideas, carrying the thoughts of intellectuals to a much broader and, therefore, much more meaningful audience."

Foer then cites a letter from Croly setting forth his goal: "'The whole point is that we are trying to impose views on blind or reluctant people." (LPR's comment: but without gulags?)

 
This website is updated regularly and previous articles are stored for reference. You are invited to read any of these past articles under the Archives section, by clicking on the "ARCHIVES" button on the right. (Editor's Note:  If you don't find the LPR article you are looking for in Archives by title, try searching in Observations.) If you would like to see enlargements of any of the photographs used on this website, please click on each photo. We thank you for visiting the Lonely Pamphleteer Review, and hope you come back again!
 
 

December 5, 2014 --

The New York Times Adopts Tea Party Positions (Kind Of) ...

In an October 28 editorial, The New York Times called for reform of the government bureaucracy. In a November 20 editorial, the Times called for "loosening central control."

Alas, those editorials were directed at Ukraine, not Washington.

 

December 5, 2014 --

LPR's Editorial Cartoon Idea ...

An editorial cartoon in the New York Post suggested that if Republicans were around at the time of the Boston Tea Party, they would have been afraid to act, fearing criticism. LPR suggests this cartoon idea for Democrats: had they been around at the time of the Declaration of Independence, they would have denounced Jefferson, Adams and Franklin as anti-government.

 

December 5, 2014 --

Is this the basis of the bipartisan opposition to Russian President Vladimir Putin?

Republicans oppose Putin, seeing him as a throwback to communism. Democrats oppose Putin because he isn't.

 

Support cooperative
free enterprise.

Predatory free enterprise
is bad for our
economic health.

 

NOTE TO LPR CLICKSTERS:
If we don't speak out against economic bullying by Oil, Credit Cards, Municipalities, WHO WILL?
 

The Next Issue of LPR
will be online on or around

December 19, 2014

Check out the following links -

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

12/5/2014 -- LPR invites you to particpate in our latest poll.
1) Congress is empowered to act under Article I of the Constitution. The President is empowered by Article II of the Constitution. In its lead editorial, November 20, The New York Times commented that President Obama exercised executive power "because he has given up waiting for Congress to act." The New York Times, in particular, and the media, in general, would never tolerate abuse of separation of powers by a Republican president.
Agree
Disagree
Show Results

LPR invites business faculty and media to join our regular clicksters for its view of the economy, among other places, as witnessed deep in the grass roots, and its advocacy of the principles of Federalist Paper No. 57, including the caution that the common good is not served when the self-serving few seek great economic sacrifices from the many.

Do you like this website and want to share it with a friend?


Want to know about the latest LPR updates and happenings? Then sign up for our mailing list today!

CIRCULATION:
710168 Readers Throughout The World!

© 2014 Lonely Pamphleteer Review

LPR's Website is
In Memory Of …

Shana Zukerman
1989 - 2006

 
yu