Monday, April 27, 2015
A Federalist 57 Website
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Transforming the U.S. By "Doublethink"


April 19, 2015 --

The latest New York Times attack (lead editorial, April 12) on critics of the president asserts that the March 9, 2015 open letter to Iran's leaders, signed by 47 Republican senators, stated that President Obama "had no authority to conclude negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program."

My copy of that letter states, inter alia, "...while the president negotiates international agreements, Congress plays the significant role of ratifying them." The letter then provided the number of senators required to ratify a treaty and and requirements for approving "[a] so-called congressional-executive agreement." The letter then noted: "Anything not approved by Congress is a mere executive agreement." The letter went on to state: "The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time."

Where does the letter declare that President Obama lacks authority "to conclude negotiations over Iran's nuclear weapons program?" LPR finds no such assertion in its text.

The Times' April 12 editorial comments: "Try to imagine the outrage from Republicans if a similar group of Democrats had written to the Kremlin in 1986 telling Mikhail Gorbachev that President Ronald Reagan did not have authority to negotiate a nuclear arms deal at the Reykjavik summing meeting that winter."

Didn't the Reykjavik summit lead to agreement on a treaty that was then ratified by the U.S. Senate? Indeed it did. Clearly, the Times put forth an analogy that does not stand up to minimal scrutiny.

Is there no limit to the lengths to which The New York Times will go to distort reality? Or is it that The New York Times is intent on what Orwell, in "1984" called "reality control?" In that novel, George Orwell writes that the Party could say that past events never happened.

The Times seems to be going Orwell one better -- to assert that non-occurring events did happen. Reality control is effectuated by "doublethink," described by Orwell, in part, "to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies...." Does The New York Times believe its distortions, or does it count on the passive acceptance of its editorial machinations not only by the left, but by the Republican establishment, as well?

Earlier this month, five leftist groups reportedly sent a letter to Senate Democrats opposing congressional review of a nuclear arms agreement with Iran. I challenge The New York Times to declare that it would support a Republican president who negotiated an agreement with a foreign power without obtaining Senate approval. Indeed, I challenge The New York Times to assert that it would support law-making authority for a Republican president who declared that he had given up waiting for action by Congress, notwithstanding the paper's support of such power for President Obama.

In the absence of opposition to leftist moves in support of Orwellian government, the way is open to the utter transformation of the United States to a nation whose rulers proclaim: Liberty is Bigotry; Dissent is Disrespect; Democracy is Gridlock. The silence of conservatives hastens the arrival at the White House of Big Brother -- or, indeed, Big Sister -- perhaps as soon as 2020, if not earlier.


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

Red Line

"Big Words and Big Thoughts"

April 19, 2015 --

The Wall Street Journal, April 8, published an op-ed article by former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George P. Shultz on negotiations with Iran on that country's nuclear program.

This long critique, "The Iran Deal and Its Consequences," raised a number of serious questions in a dispassionate manner.

Asked for State Department reaction to the Kissinger-Shultz critique, acting department spokesperson Marie Harf remarked, April 9, that she "heard [sic] a lot of big words and big thoughts."

Subsequently, Ms. Harf came in for criticism, including from a family friend, for what appeared to be a breezy rejoinder.

The Kissinger-Shultz piece arguably contains a number of serious observations. Consider the following: "Cooperation is not an exercise in good feeling; it presupposes congruent definitions of stability."

LPR wonders: was Ms. Harf put off by the term "congruent?" This observation continued: "There exists no evidence that Iran and the U.S. are remotely near such an understanding."

Does the Obama administration contend that Washington and Tehran are close to reaching "congruent definitions of stability?"

Consider this, too, from Kissinger and Shultz: Washington "must develop a strategic doctrine" for the Middle East. Does the Obama administration contend that it has such a doctrine and is implementing it? KIssinger-Shultz added: "Stability requires an active American role. For Iran to be a valuable member of the international community, the prerequisite is that it accepts restraint on its ability to destabilize the Middle East and challenge the broader international order."

A response from Tehran to this observation is indicated in reports, April; 14, that Iran is preparing Hezbollah for a major assault on Israel.

Kissinger and Shultz article point out that at this stage of the negotiations with Iran, the West, more than Iran, is constrained by "[t]he threat of war." They suggest that once sanctions are ended, the need for "coordinated international action" to reimpose sanctions...risks primarily isolating America, not Iran." And they point to difficulties of verification and enforcement.

Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Khameini did not undermine the Kissinger-Schultz concerns when he was reported, April 9, to declare that sanctions must end when the nuclear agreement is signed, and that inspection of military sites will not be permitted.


Red Line

Obama Views Israel Through His Political Looking Glass

April 19, 2015 --

President Obama invited New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman to the White House, April 4, to explain his view of negotating with Iran. Friedman reported on the meeting, in his April 6th Times column. Friedman related the president's belief that diplomacy can make the world secure against an Iran nuclear threat. The columnist also reported the president's insistence "on preserving the presidential prerogative to enter into binding agreements with foreign powers without congressional approval." (A different view is suggested in Federalist Paper No. 75, attributed to Alexander Hamilton. Apparently Friedman did not call No. 75 to the president's attention.)

LPR was struck by Friedman's account of what the columnist called the president's "distress at being depicted in Israel and among American Jews as somehow anti-Israel when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis and his administration has been acknowledged by Israeli officials to have been as vigorous as any in maintaining Israel's strategic edge."

The words in this quote from Friedman -- "when his views on peace are shared by many center-left Israelis" -- say it all, about the president's approach to Israelis, to Americans, to people in general. President Obama has no interest in anyone who does not share his leftist political outlook. He welcomes into his fold all who agree with him politically -- and will dominate all others.

LPR wonders whether a report, April 13, that Isaac Herzog, leader of the Israeli left's Zionist Union, joined the governing coalition in opposing a nuclear-armed Iran, will convince President Obama that all Israelis politicians -- even on the left -- disrespect him.

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

Red Line

Editorial Transference at The New York Times

April 19, 2015 --

LPR has long believed that attacks from the left against conservatives are more appropriate to describing the left.

And so, consider this from The New York Times lead editorial, April 12, "A New Phase in Anti-Obama Attacks": "As Barack Obama's presidency heads into its twilight, the rage of the Republican establishment toward him is growing louder, angrier and more destructive."

LPR understands that the Times has actually declared that for the last 21 months of the Obama presidency, it will be "louder" and "angrier" towards Republicans with the aim of their destruction. The editorial went on to assert that "Republican lawmakers in Washington" have been denigrating the president "personally since the day he took office."

For LPR, Times editorial denunciations against Republicans are the paper's equivalent of the "Two Minutes Hate" that was a feature of the Party workday in Orwell's "1984." (What is frustrating for LPR is the silence of Republicans, most of the time, to New York Times editorial that regularly denigrate them.)

When it comes to denigrating public officials, no one takes second place to The New York Times.

In its March 17 editorial on Prime Minister Netanyahu's election victory, "An Israeli Election Turns Ugly," the Times declared that Netanyahu "forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis"; delivered a "racist rant" (for simply saying that Israeli Arabs are voting in large numbers); called the Israeli prime minister "desperate, and craven"; accused him of making "a subversive speech before Congress"; and said that he "resorted to fear-mongering and anti-Arab attacks."

And so, the title of this Times editorial, "A Israeli Election Turns Ugly," should properly be understood as stating: a New York Times editorial turns ugly.

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!

April 19, 2015 --

Hillary Clinton Announces for President ...

If Ms. Clinton is elected, will her conservative critics face indictment? LPR is pretty sure, now that Ms. Clinton is an announced candidate for president, all inquiries about her conduct as secretary of state will end on grounds that her defenders will accuse congressional Republicans of trying to undermine her candidacy.


Support cooperative
free enterprise.

Predatory free enterprise
is bad for our
economic health.


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

May 5, 2015

Check out the following links -
Jackson Simon Review
Manhattan Short Film Festival
Veltis Harrattan
Christmas Village, Torrington, CT.

4/20/2015 -- LPR invites you to particpate in our latest poll.
1) The left's shrill denunciations of Republican candidates will not persuade voters to vote for Democrats.
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!

710168 Readers Throughout The World!

© 2015 Lonely Pamphleteer Review

LPR's Website is
In Memory Of …

Shana Zukerman
1989 - 2006