Friday, July 03, 2015
A Federalist 57 Website
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

The Lenox Idea for a Senior Citizen Credit Card -- $5, 000 at 3%


June 19, 2015 --

Lenox -- whose image is posted nearby, showing him looking out the left rear window of "Car," an ailing 2004 Buick LeSabre and his good friend -- gave LPR this credit card idea. (LPR thanks's Terri Fassio, the nation's best website designer/webmaster, for posting the Lenox-in- "Car" image.) LPR offers this idea to Hillary Rodham Clinton -- or any presidential candidate interested in relating to the people, and, in particular -- to senior citizens. Lenox says that his idea is really based on necessity being the mother of invention. Lenox, as LPR mentioned in its June 5 posting, has diabetes and recently suffered a bout of pancreatitis. Lenox thanks Dr. Maureen Hurson and the staff at City Vet on West 72nd Street in Manhattan for getting him over this medical problem -- and gives lots more thanks to his friends Howard and Debbie Jonas for making possible this medical treatment.

Presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton was reported, in The New York Times, June 14, to have given a speech on Roosevelt Island in New York City that had a "populist" tone, what with Ms. Clinton declaring that her campaign identifies with "'factory workers and food servers who stand on their feet all day, for the nurses who work the night shift, for the truckers who drive for hours.'"

So far as LPR can determine, Ms. Clinton had nothing to say for senior citizens who live only on social security, augmented by food stamps, and who, therefore have great difficulty paying medical bills for pets, much less repair costs for their autos. True, someone like radio talkbully Mark Levin, might say: "Why should old people who are poor have pets, much less drive cars? LPR has done some arithmetical calculating, nevertheless. Ms. Clinton has been reported to have made $200 thousand for giving a speech. Let's reduce the figure to $180 thousand, for easy arithmetic. At 60 minutes for an hour's talk, that comes to $3,000 a minute. In thirty seconds -- half a minute -- Ms Clinton makes $1,500 -- more than what many seniors, living just on social security, get for a month.

A Healthy Lenox, age 3 years, 9 months, standing on the rear seat of "Car"

LPR knows of one senior who gets $1,263 monthly in social security. Note to LPR clicksters: a few hours after writing this, LPR noticed a New York Times article, June 15, about seniors in prosperity. Buried way down in the piece was this caveat: "To be sure, many older people have trouble making ends meet...." LPR has a hunch, however, that an article on "Seniors in poverty" is not on the current Times agenda. Perhaps the paper will focus on "Seniors in Poverty" if a Republican becomes president.

So here is the credit card suggestion from Lenox. Seniors living only on social security, whose poverty is evidenced by their EBT (food stamp) card, should get credit cards with a $5,000 cap, with interest at 3% a year. This type of credit card would make it possible for loving and beloved pets like Lenox to get needed medical treatment from their owners, or needed car repairs for 11-year old autos like "Car." Of course, this should not prevent veterinarians and car mechanics from giving poverty seniors loans @ 3% to cover pet and car bills.

LPR and Lenox can think of no better test for all presidential candidates to link up with elderly poor Americans than by supporting a $5,000, 3% credit card. Let the cry go forth: $5,000 at 3% for the elderly poor. The now-elderly poor who, years before, were hammered by usurious credit cards, deserve nothing less, particularly from the pols and the banks who, previously, let 30% interest rates batter the middle class into penury.

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

Red Line

U.S. Threats Against Israel are Nothing New

June 19, 2015 --

Earlier this month, The New York Times printed a report by Helene Cooper raising the possibility that the Obama administration might support a United Nations Security Council resolution "embodying the principle of a two-state solution that would include Israel's 1967 borders, with mutually agreed swaps of territory with the future Palestine." The New York Times should be advised that U.S. threats to end support for Israel in international organizations go back at least to June 10, 1949, in a State Department memorandum calling for "Immediate adoption of a generally negative attitude toward Israel." [Italics in original.] This memo also included a recommendation to end the tax-exempt status of the United Jewish Appeal because "[s]uch contributions are now of direct benefit to a sovereign foreign state."

This memorandum was prompted by Israel's rejection of Washington's ideas -- as set forth in a May 28 note to the Government of Israel -- on "territorial settlement in Palestine and to the question of Palestinian refugees." The May 28 note stated that the United State Government was "seriously disturbed" by Israel's attitude. The May 28 note warned that rejection by Israel "of the friendly advice offered by the US Gov for the sole purpose of facilitating a genuine peace in Palestine" will force "the US the conclusion that a revision of its attitude toward Israel has become unavoidable."

The suggestion by the Obama administration that American Jews better follow the Democratic party line on the Middle East is nothing new. President Truman, according to a State Department"TOP SECRET" memorandum, dated June 9, 1949, warned "a number of Jewish leaders who had called on him that unless they were prepared to play the game properly and conform to the rules they were probably going to lose one of their best friends."

LPR is puzzled that the June 10 memorandum referred to Israel as "a sovereign foreign state." Clearly, the State Department's expectation that Israel should jump when ordered to suggests to LPR that the State Department viewed Israel as not quite "sovereign." The ongoing refusal of the State Department to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel certainly cannot be said to respect Israel's sovereign rights.

In 1948-1949, Washington wanted Israel to give up the Negev, if it retained western Galilee. Will the Obama administration resurrect that demand on Israel as a "conciliatory" peace term? It should also be noted that when Jordan controlled the West Bank, from 1948 to 1967, there was no call for "a two-state solution."

By the way, what with all the emphasis on Israel as "obstacle to peace," does anyone know the peace terms that the Palestinian Authority have in mind? And is it not interesting that Hamas, which kills Israeli civilians, rejects the existence of Israel and intends to establish an Islamic State of Palestine after Israel is destroyed, is never referred to as an"obstacle to peace." Nor does the Obama administration refer to the Moslem Brotherhood -- Hamas is the Palestine branch of the brotherhood -- as an "obstacle to peace," nor is the term applied to Iran and Hezbollah. Not even barbarous ISIS is denounced as "obstacle to peace."

It is to be expected that a UN Security Council calling for" a two-state solution" -- perhaps by November 29, 2017 -- would be precursor to a resolution demanding sanctions against Israel should Israel reject such a resolution. The anti-Israel boycott, divestment, sanctions (BDS) crowd would applaud sanctions against the Jewish State. But there is nothing new to the current BDS movement,either. From the time of Israel's establishment, the Arab world has boycotted Israel, economically as well as diplomatically. The RAND Corporation prediction of an economic benefit from "a two-state solution" is bizarre. Just consider the "cold" nature of peace between Israel and Egypt, and Israel and Jordan. It is to be expected that The New York Times, in a June 13 editorial on the RAND prediction, would cite "the political climate in Israel" why "there is no prospect of a quick revival of peace talks." History instructs, however, that "there is no prospect of a quick revival of peace talks" because the Palestinian Authority is interested only in peace negotiations where Israel is on its knees, begging for mercy.

LPR calls on the RAND Corporation to explain how the anti-Semitic indoctrination of Palestinian children makes likely its prediction of peace dividends. The UN Palestine Partition Plan of November 29, 1949 included a call for economic union of the Arab and Jewish States. That didn't work out either, did it?

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!

June 19, 2015 --

LPR Wonders ...

With the media so biased against conservatives, the election of conservatives to House and Senate must mean that the American people have minds of their own, notwithstanding media disparagement of the intelligence of the people.

Is Michelle Obama waiting until 2016 to announce that she is a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination? After all, what if President Obama determines that the only person standing between Hillary Rodham Clinton and the White House is...his wife?


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

July 5, 2015

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

6/18/2015 -- LPR invites you to particpate in our latest poll.
1) There is no Republican candidate for president who could defeat Michelle Obama.
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