Monday, January 16, 2017
A Federalist 57 Website
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

The Neo-Leninists’ War
on the President-Elect


January 5, 2017 --

The Neo-Leninists (left-wing extremists) went to war on President-elect Donald J. Trump immediately on word , November 9, that he gained the Electoral College votes needed to be the 45th president of the United States. Thus far, the aggressors in this war have aimed at finding ways and means to keep the president-elect from taking the oath of office, January 20. In this opening phase of the conflict, the left-wing extremists have suffered two setbacks: they failed by recount to undo the election, and they failed to keep Mr. Trump from gaining the necessary Electoral College votes to be president. What next in this war against Mr. Trump?

The Neo-Leninists could, certainly, still attempt to play the Russian card against the president-elect, demanding before his inauguration that he be prosecuted for treason. They could, also, call for boycotts of states giving Mr. Trump their Electoral College votes. And of course, the old, reliable – mass protests against a Trump presidency.

LPR expects that the “unhinged” left will not rest unless President Donald J. Trump is forced out of the Oval Office. The Trump-haters will seek impeachment at the drop of tweet. They also have the Kiev precedent of massive demonstrations in the nation’s capital, the kind of demonstrations that sent Ukraine President Yanukovych fleeing to Russia. Continuous anti-Trump demonstrations on the Washington mall, with regular appearances by Hillary Clinton, Tim Kaine, assorted “conservative’ (hah!) Never-Trumpers, and a pack of Hollywood and Broadway celebrities come to mind.

The theme of the anti-Trump Protests (ATP) are indicated in the lead New York Times editorial, November 6, “Imagining the Country on Nov. 9.” The editorial, two days before the election, asserted (based on the belief that Hillary Clinton would be elected president): “In 2016 we were closer than ever to electing an ignorant and reckless tyrant….” LPR expects the ATP, January 20 and thereafter, to be filled with placards declaring: “Get that ignorant and reckless tyrant out of the White House. ” “End rule by an ignorant and reckless tyrant.” “Crush ignorant and reckless tyranny.”

Indeed the placards could also quote directly from the last paragraph of this bizarre editorial: “It’s time to focus. To confront what Trump represents, the better to end it.” And what was it that Lenin thought it was better to end ? In a word: Liberty.


Red Line

More from Jim Rutenberg of Rutenberg’s Rules for Radical Reporters

January 5, 2017 --

Mr. Rutenberg, media columnist for The New York Times, told readers, in his December 26 column: “[I]t is not the mainstream, non-opinion news media’s job to determine outcomes.” LPR was fascinated by this assertion, for two reasons: first, it contradicts Mr. Rutenberg’s August 8 column 8 column,calling on reporters to be subjective in writing about Donald J., Trump; and second, behold that “non-opinion” loophole.

Apparently, Mr. Rutenberg has no problem with the policy at The New York Times of running only anti-Trump opinion pieces – and hardly any pro-Trump letters. (If anyone knows of a pro-Trump opinion piece from a regular Times columnist, please inform LPR. Same goes if anyone knows of a pro-Trump column from a Times outsider.)

Consider, now, the title of Mr. Rutenberg’s August 8 column, appearing on the paper’s front page, that day: “The Challenge Trump Poses to Objectivity.” When it came to covering Donald J. Trump, Mr. Rutenberg advised reporters : “If you view a Trump presidency as something that’s potentially dangerous , then you’re reporting is going to reflect that.” In effect, Mr. Rutenberg told reporters to “throw out” the basic “who, what, when, where, why and how “ of journalistic tradition and replace it with “I believe….”

In his December 26 addendum to the initial appearance of his rules for radical reporters, Mr. Rutenberg also asserted: “It is political journalism’s job to be true to the facts in a way that helps envision what the candidate will be like in the nation’s highest office.”

But this comment must be understood in the context of the August 8 column, so that Rutenberg is actually telling reporters to be true to what they believe the candidate will be like in office, and make sure the reader will be persuaded by your account.

At the end of the column, Mr. Rutenberg warns reporters against “aggressively seeking to undermine journalism for their own political ends.” Seems to LPR that The New York Times has long ago discarded journalism for its “own political ends.”


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

Red Line

President Obama’s Chanukah Present for Israel

January 5, 2017 --

And so, at the end of his term, President Obama put the United States alongside the enemies of Israel. Why did his representative at the United Nations merely vote to abstain, and not support Security Council resolution 2334, the resolution to pressure Israel into surrendering to the demands of her enemies? LPR believes there is a tradition at the UN of not going from a no vote on a given issue directly to a yes vote – but that the first step away from a no (or yes ) vote is to abstain (rather than vote directly opposite the previous position). Accordingly, had the President Obama previously directed an abstention on a vote condemning Israel, the vote two days before Chanukah and Christmas, would indeed have been a yes vote, joining that “international community” from which the Obama administration contends Israel is today isolated.

Apparently this isolation did not keep Israel from being voted chair of the UN’s Sixth (Legal) Committee, this session of the UN General Assembly.

The New York Times, in its lead editorial December 17, “A Dangerous Choice for Ambassador,” sharply criticized the appointment of David M. Friedman as U.S. ambassador to Israel. The Times asserted that Mr. Freidman’s support for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel’s capital, “would anger Arabs” and “provoke violence.” LPR would point out that at least since May 18, 1939, The New York Times has warned of Arab violence in an anti-Jewish contrext. Its editorial, “Palestine,” that day, supported the British White Paper closing Palestine to Jewish immigration notwithstanding the “barbarism” confronting Jews in Europe.

(The Nazi’s Kristallnacht pogrom throughout Germany occurred six months earlier.) The editorial explained that there was now so much “pressure on Palestine…that immigration has to be strictly regulated to save the homeland itself from overpopulation as well as from an increasingly violent resistance on the part of the Arabs.”

(One month later, June 14, 1939, as the Hamburg- American liner “St. Louis”,turned away from Cuba with some 900 Jews trying to flee Hitler, steamed back to Europe, another New York Times editorial declared that the “days” for “mass migrations” to the United States for “economic difficulties” were over. The population of the United States was then about 130 million. Today, with the U.S. population at about 325 miillion, the Times is rather more liberal on immigration issues. But then, the masses seeking entry to the U.S., today, are not known to be Jewish.)

For LPR, The New York Times lost any moral standing to comment on Jewry and the Middle East as of its cold-hearted editorials, May 18 and June 14, 1939, giving to Jewry the back of its hand. LPR will simply note that once again, to block actions due any sovereign nation, there comes The New York Times, warning –to the point of encouraging—yet more Arab violence against Israel.

Please G-d, January 20 and the inauguration of President Donald J. Trump cannot come soon enough, for as of noon, January 20, please G-d the United States will have a president who will stand alongside Israel, under attack for one reason and one reason only: because it is the Jewish State.


Red Line

LPR Strongly Recommends…

January 5, 2017 --

…that on taking office, President Donald J. Trump should announce plans to visit Israel and address its Knesset, in Jerusalem, on the 50th anniversary of the 1967 campaign in the Arab-Israel conflict, now about to enter its 69th year. LPR would point out to clicksters that the Palestinians, as such, were not a party to the agreements putting an end to the 1967 fighting.

LPR would encourage President Trump, in his Knesset speech, to point to the absurdity of “the principle of land for peace” – mentioned in paragraph 9 of the Invidious Security Council 2334— as suggesting that only one side can offer peace. If only one side can offer peace, doesn’t it follow that that side has been given the right of unilateral belligerency?

If there any principle at work, here, shouldn't it be expressed as the principle of land and peace for peace? For LPR, to speak of land for peace is to speak in terms demanding sufferance from the Jews, which, certainly, is an anti-Semitic demand.

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

Red Line

LPR Photo Observations

January 5, 2017 --

Lenox with his Chanukah toy.
Lenox enjoying his Chanukah toy.

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!

New Year's Greetings
From LPR

LPR wishes its clicksters
all around our world a very



January 5, 2017 --

Where are the protests from “ethicists” and civil liberties groups

…denouncing harassment of members of the Trump family?

Apparently criticism of leftists harassing of members of the Trump family remains locked in the drawer with protests of abusive treatment of conservatives in Wisconsin, harassment of Tea Party groups by the IRS, and so forth . For LPR their silence at abusive treatment of conservatives denies any moral standing to “ethicists” and civil liberties groups who usually get all the public media attention they demand.


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

January 19, 2017

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

1/7/2017 -- LPR invites you to participate in our latest poll. We would like your opinion on the following:
1) Donald J. Trump will prevail over his enemies and make America great again.
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!

© 2017 Lonely Pamphleteer Review

LPR's Website is
In Memory Of …

Shana Zukerman
1989 - 2006