Thursday, February 11, 2016
A Federalist 57 Website
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Politics 2016 Is Now Underway:
Will the People Vote the Aggrandizers Out of Power?


February 5, 2016 --

The Wall Street Journal began its lead editorial, February 2 by suggesting that the victory of Sen. Ted Cruz over Donald J. Trump in the Iowa caucuses rendered talk of an "American political revolution" an exaggeration. Perhaps not.

Cruz and Trump got some 51% of the vote. Sen. Marco Rubio, perhaps now the great hope of the establishment, came in third with some 23%. Seems to LPR that the anti-establishment vote more than doubled t he establishment vote in Iowa on February 1.

Is this, at long last, the presidential election year when attention will be paid the insight of James Madison, in Federalist No. 57 that there are, indeed, people seeking the "ambitious sacrifice of the many to the aggrandizement of the few?"

More than 16 years ago, Boston College Professor Alan Wolfe, director of the Center for Religion and American Public Life, wrote an op-ed piece in The New York Times, "The New Politics of Inequality." Wolfe noted that during the decade of the 1990's the gap between rich and poor widened and continues to grow ever wider. He wondered, however, that Americans, who traditionally did not care about income disparity, are about to pay attention.

The professor, who, as LPR read it, took a non-partisan view of wealth inequality, was a bit premature anticipating an public response to the inequality. It should be instructive to the current Democrat presidential candidates that Wolfe indicated that the gap between the wealthy and the working class widened during the presidency of Bill Clinton.

Today, one can only infer from the campaign rhetoric of Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, that the inequality has widened even more throughout the Obama presidency. In brief this is not a partisan issue. Is it an institutional issue?

For all the talk from Sen. Sanders about a "political revolution," LPR continues to suggest that the solution is found in Federalist No. 57. First, lets drop the term establishment for "anti-democratic aggrandizers." Tucker Carlson, writing in Politico -- "Donald Trump is Shocking, Vulgar and Right: sees the Trump phenomenon as a revolt against the political insiders whose primary interest is to maintain themselves in the extraordinary comfort in which them have placed themselves and choose to continue, without concern for the public interest. E.E. Schattschneider, in "The Semisovereign People," suggested that the American people will accept economic adversity that impacts across the board. He wondered, as an example, how the people would respond if automobiles were available only to the wealthy. LPR sees true political revolution --upending of the social order -- as occurring when the great mass of the people have had enough getting hammered by the anti-democratic aggrandizers.

Professor Wolfe wrote, concluding his September 1999 op-ed: "Now Republicans might find that voters would like a privileged candidate courageous enough to shame the rich for their greed." Unless the anti-democratic aggrandizers regain their political footing with the New Hampshire primary and those to follow, the Republicans this election year might have a candidate to lead a revolution to oust the aggrandizing class from political power, based not on the theories of Karl Marx, but on the democratic vision of James Madison.

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

Red Line

Hillary for President

February 5, 2016 --

The New York Times lead editorial, January 31, did not exactly say that. The editorial simply called for Ms. Clinton's presidential nomination by the Democrats.

Does anyone doubt, however, that the Times will back Ms. Clinton if she gains the Democrat presidential nod? The Times endorsement made no mention of Benghazi, nor did it comment on Ms. Clinton's penchant for public appearances for hundreds of thousands of dollars a pop.

The editorial did acknowledge as "legitimate" inquiry into her "use of a private email server" -- while secretary of state, LPR here adds.

Still, notwithstanding predictable support from the Times for Ms. Clinton, LPR wonders if the paper is hedging a bit. Two days before the endorsement of Ms. Clinton, the Times ran an op-ed piece by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, "One Way to Rebuild Our Institutions."

The column opened: "While presidential candidates from both parties feverishly pitch their legislative agendas [sic], voters should also consider what presidents can do without Congress."

LPR did not have to read more to conclude that Sen. Warren is telling Democrats she will accept their presidential nomination if Ms. Clinton falters.

Concerning the Sanders candidacy, is there no member of the press to ask him: should you be elected, after imposing socialized medicine on the nation, is their any aspect of the free enterprise system that you will allow? And if the Vermont senator owes political success to the emergence of the wealth inequality issue, some 16 years after Alan Wolfe's New York Times op-ed on the subject, would it be reasonable to suggest that the presidential candidacy of Ralph Nader in 2000 was also just 16 years too soon.

Seems to LPR that Ralph Nader anticipated the Sanders candidacy this year.

From the LPR Archives - 2004: Ralph Nader, fund raising in Winsted, Connecticut on December 23rd.



Red Line

On the Relevance of
Federalist No. 62

February 5, 2016 --

The headline for The New York Times lead editorial, January 18, said it all concerning the subject: "A Safer World Thanks to the Iran Pact/" LPR will just note the sentence in the editorial, referring to the seizure by Iran of two U.S. Navy patrol boats: "Iran's hardline military boarded the ships [sic] and released photos of the sailors in custody, a possible violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Missing from the sentence is the word "humiliating" -- between "released" and "photos." The editorial merely remarked that Secretary of State John Kerry and the Iran leadership "moved quickly to defuse the incident." With the humiliating photos to live on in Cyberworld.

LPR offers these words from the conclusion of Federalist No. 62 for consideration by the Obama administration: "No government any more than an individual will long be respected, without being truly respectable...."




Red Line

The Anti-Israel Pressure Intensifies

February 5, 2016 --

The day after Dafna Meir, 38, was stabbed to death in her home, January 17, with her children upstairs, the U.S. ambassador to Israel, Dan Shapiro, took note of the killing and went on to criticize Israel for its settlements policy on the West Bank. (A few days later, the ambassador indicated that his criticism of Israel might have been ill-timed.) And after the stabbing of two other Israeli women, January 25, resulting in the death of one, Shlomit Krigman,23, the U.N. secretary general called the attacks a response "to occupation." A New York Times editorial, November 19, 2014, on the murder of four Israeli men, three of them rabbis, was called "Horror in Israel." No more. Today, the media and the international community, led by the U.N. secretary general and the Obama Administration declare, in effect, "Palestinian Violence -- An Understandable Reaction to Israeli Policies."

The New York Times, February 1, published an op-ed from the U.N. secretary general that asserted: " No one can deny than everyday reality of occupation provokes anger and despair, which are major drivers of violence and extremism...."

It cannot be expected that U.N. secretary general would write: " No one can deny the everyday reality of Israeli civilians murdered in broad daylight by Palestinians who reject Israel's existence.

It cannot be expected that this U.N. secretary general would write: "The Jewish State of Israel cannot be expected to accommodate any Palestinian demands while incurring murderous attacks by Palestinians on her people, including pregnant mothers, by statements from Palestinian parents that they are proud their sons who kill Israeli women, by a Palestinian leadership that hails murderers of Israeli civilians as "martyrs: and that will never accept the existence of Israel as a Jewish State.

The U.N. secretary general gave passing lip service to even-handedness, calling on Palestinians, among other things, "to end attacks on Israelis," but the mailed fist of anti-Israel bias is revealed by this threat from the U.N. Secretary General: "greater isolation of and international pressure on Israel...." The message for Palestinians: maintain your anti-Israel hostility. (Meanwhile France plans to reward this hostility by recognizing the state of Palestine. While also urging French Jews not to leave the country?)

The title of the U.N. Secretary General's op-ed was called, flippantly, "Don't Shoot the Messenger, Israel."

If honesty prevailed at The New York Times, the title would have been: Break the Stalemate, O Israel, Capitulate to Your Enemies."

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

February 5, 2016 --

The New York Times on the GOP Field

Below the paper's endorsement of Hillary Clinton, the paper commented on the Republican field. The paper had faint praise only for Ohio Governor John Kasich. LPR sees this as a suggestion by the aggrandizing class that it would accept Kasich as a front for their self-serving designs. Never, of course, would The New York Times endorse a Republican for president, not even Gov. Kasich.


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

February 19, 2016

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

2/5/2016 -- LPR invites you to particpate in our latest poll.
1) Chelsea Clinton should get the Democrat presidential nomination in 2020, if her mother is not elected this year, or, if elected, chooses to serve only one term. If Hillary Clinton is elected to two terms, her daughter should succeed her as president in 2024.
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!

© 2016 Lonely Pamphleteer Review

LPR's Website is
In Memory Of …

Shana Zukerman
1989 - 2006