Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

snopes.com: Charles Krauthammer on President Obama

Message accurately summarizes Charles Krauthammer’s talk at the Center of the American Experiment.

To my Friends & Associates:

Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’, feel free.

A summary of his comments:

1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer’ who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s ‘behind the mask’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time.

2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES!

3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling

4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid.

5. He’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama’s not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says.

6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

Originally posted here:

snopes.com: Charles Krauthammer on President Obama

Fair Usage Law

January 9, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Repeal Insurance Industry Bailout Provisions and You Repeal Obamacare

Syndicated conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer advised Republicans in Congress to pursue one agenda item when they return from the holiday break: revoke the provisions within the Affordable Care Act that provide for a bailout of the insurance industry. He wrote in his Friday column that a repeal of that provision is effectively a repeal of the entire health care reform law.

Krauthammer counseled Republicans in the House to craft and pass a law that consists entirely of one line: Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed.

RELATED: Krauthammers Power Move: Force Democrats to Swear Off a Bailout of Insurance Companies

End of bill. End of bailout. End of story, Krauthammer wrote. He added that a bailout appears increasingly likely given the number of last-minute changes to the law which were designed to ensure the strongest mix of healthy and infirmed ACA enrollees.

Administration officials cant say it for political reasons, he adds. Its Obamacares escape hatch. And surprise, surprise its already baked into the law.

Krauthammer asserted that a federal bailout would be wildly unpopular and the bill he recommends would have bipartisan support among American voters. He further recommended that Republicans attach this repeal provision to a debt ceiling increase.

Who can argue with no bailout? he concludes. Let the Senate Democrats decide support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare.

[Photo via screen grab]

> >Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Go here to read the rest:

Krauthammer: Repeal Insurance Industry Bailout Provisions and You Repeal Obamacare

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Early Returns On ObamaCare’s First Day – Video



Early Returns On ObamaCare's First Day
Reaction from the 'Special Report' All-Star panel, John Roberts, Steve Hayes, Ab Stoddard, Charles Krauthammer. Fox News: Special Report with Bret Baier http…

By: yazchattiest

The rest is here:

Early Returns On ObamaCare’s First Day – Video

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer | The Weekly Standard

The weathervanes of conventional wisdom are engaged in another round of angst about America in decline. New theories, old slogans: Imperial overstretch. The Asian awakening. The post-American world. Inexorable forces beyond our control bringing the inevitable humbling of the world hegemon.

On the other side of this debate are a few–notably Josef Joffe in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs–who resist the current fashion and insist that America remains the indispensable power. They note that declinist predictions are cyclical, that the rise of China (and perhaps India) are just the current version of the Japan panic of the late 1980s or of the earlier pessimism best captured by Jean-Franois Revel’s How Democracies Perish.

The anti-declinists point out, for example, that the fear of China is overblown. It’s based on the implausible assumption of indefinite, uninterrupted growth; ignores accumulating externalities like pollution (which can be ignored when growth starts from a very low baseline, but ends up making growth increasingly, chokingly difficult); and overlooks the unavoidable consequences of the one-child policy, which guarantees that China will get old before it gets rich.

And just as the rise of China is a straight-line projection of current economic trends, American decline is a straight-line projection of the fearful, pessimistic mood of a country war-weary and in the grip of a severe recession.

Among these crosscurrents, my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands.

Not that decline is always a choice. Britain’s decline after World War II was foretold, as indeed was that of Europe, which had been the dominant global force of the preceding centuries. The civilizational suicide that was the two world wars, and the consequent physical and psychological exhaustion, made continued dominance impossible and decline inevitable.

The corollary to unchosen European collapse was unchosen American ascendancy. We–whom Lincoln once called God’s “almost chosen people”–did not save Europe twice in order to emerge from the ashes as the world’s co-hegemon. We went in to defend ourselves and save civilization. Our dominance after World War II was not sought. Nor was the even more remarkable dominance after the Soviet collapse. We are the rarest of geopolitical phenomena: the accidental hegemon and, given our history of isolationism and lack of instinctive imperial ambition, the reluctant hegemon–and now, after a near-decade of strenuous post-9/11 exertion, more reluctant than ever.

Which leads to my second proposition: Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States–controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture–has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome.

The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is.

Indeed, as he made his hajj from Strasbourg to Prague to Ankara to Istanbul to Cairo and finally to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama drew the picture of an America quite exceptional–exceptional in moral culpability and heavy-handedness, exceptional in guilt for its treatment of other nations and peoples. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own country for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness (toward Europe), for maltreatment of natives, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantnamo, for unilateralism, and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

More here:

Charles Krauthammer | The Weekly Standard

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer – Profile – Right Web – Institute for …

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post who is regarded as an important intellectual trailblazer of neoconservative discourse in the United States. A former psychiatrist, Krauthammer has been a writer and pundit since the early 1980s, when he joined the New Republic. Krauthammer has also written for Time magazine, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, and the National Interest, among other journals and media outlets.[1]

A frequent and controversial proponent of U.S. military intervention abroad, Krauthammer has supported a number of neoconservative-led initiatives that champion hawkish pro-Israel policies and militarist U.S. defense postures. He participated in the advocacy efforts of the Project for the New American Century, has served as an adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and has been a frequent participant in the activities of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Krauthammers writings have won numerous awards, particularly from right-wing organizations. A winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, Krauthammer was also the first ever recipient of the conservative Bradley Foundations Bradley Prize in 2004.[2] That same year, he received the American Enterprise Institutes 2004 Irving Kristol Award.[3]In 2009, the conservative National Review called him one of Americas most important opinion journalists for about 25 years now.[4]

A leading public champion of the war on terror, Krauthammer has used his perch at the Washington Post to attack public leaders he considers soft on terrorism or hostile to Israel.

Neoconservative?

Despite his long affiliation with the neoconservative brand, Krauthammer has rejected the neoconservative label as an anti-Semitic smear. It is an epithet. It is nothing more, he told the National Reviews Rich Lowry in a January 2013 interview. It once had a meaning, when Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz sort of changed their political ideology and made a great case for it in the 70s. Today its usually meant as a silent synonym for Jewish conservative. I would ask you whenever you hear the word [to] challenge the person to describe and explain to you what a neocon is. And I guarantee you they will have no answer.[5]

At least one conservative commentator disagreed. On brief inspection, the doctors tendentious tantrum borders on hilarity, wrote Christopher Manion. Many neocons wear the label proudly. After Obamas illegal war on Libya (another disastrous failure, but I digress), Bill Kristol cheered, and proudly baptized Obama as a born again neocon. Did Mr. Kristols use of that sly epithet intend to brand Obama as a Jewish conservative, I wonder?[6]

In October 2012, prior to Krauthammers comments, Daily Beast blogger Ali Gharib disputed what he called the conflation of neoconservativism and Jewishness. Although a handful of right-wing Jewish thinkers helped to shape the movement, Gharib wrote, neoconservativism is not a Jewish political movement; rather, its an American one closely identified with using military might to pursue interests. Gharib pointed to prominent non-Jewish neoconservatives like the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and former ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, as well as Jewish conservatives like Dov Zakheim who understand the limits of U.S. power, to illustrate his point. Gharib concluded that the association of neoconservativism with Jewishness was often invoked by right-wing hawks to blame any careful look at neoconservatives, or even their policy positions, on anti-Semitism.[7]

The Unipolar Moment and Its Legacy

Original post:

Charles Krauthammer – Profile – Right Web – Institute for …

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer’s minimum wage proposal is a terrible idea

Why is the GOP launching a new anti-poverty campaign?

By BYRON YORK | 01/08/14 08:13 AM

This week many prominent Republicans are taking part in a new campaign to emphasize GOP solutions for poverty. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Reince Priebus, and others are marking the 50th anniversary of Lyndon…

By CHARLIE SPIERING | 01/08/14 08:05 AM

On the Hugh Hewitt show Tuesday, Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., reacted to the upcoming memoir from Robert Gates in which the former Defense secretary was critical of President Obama’s approach to foreign policy.

By CHARLIE SPIERING | 01/08/14 07:44 AM

According to the White House schedule for Wednesday, Obama will attend five events with Biden at his side, including a meeting with intelligence leaders and a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry.

By TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | 01/07/14 10:08 PM

Local governments do tons of stupid and oppressive things to try to keep out Walmart. The D.C. Council, for instance, passed a bill that would have stuck Walmart, and only Walmart, with an extra-high minimum wage. But…

By JOEL GEHRKE | 01/07/14 06:42 PM

Go here to read the rest:

Charles Krauthammer’s minimum wage proposal is a terrible idea

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

snopes.com: Charles Krauthammer on President Obama

Message accurately summarizes Charles Krauthammer’s talk at the Center of the American Experiment. To my Friends & Associates: Last Monday was a profound evening, hearing Dr. Charles Krauthammer speak to the Center for the American Experiment. He is brilliant intellectual, seasoned & articulate. He is forthright and careful in his analysis, and never resorts to emotions or personal insults. He is NOT a fearmonger nor an extremist in his comments and views. He is a fiscal conservative, and has a Pulitzer prize for writing. He is a frequent contributor to Fox News and writes weekly for the Washington Post. The entire room was held spellbound during his talk. I have shared this with many of you and several have asked me to summarize his comments, as we are living in uncharted waters economically and internationally. Even 2 Dems at my table agreed with everything he said! If you feel like forwarding this to those who are open minded and have not ‘drunk the Kool-Aid’, feel free. A summary of his comments: 1. Mr. Obama is a very intellectual, charming individual. He is not to be underestimated. He is a ‘cool customer’ who doesn’t show his emotions. It’s very hard to know what’s ‘behind the mask’. Taking down the Clinton dynasty from a political neophyte was an amazing accomplishment. The Clintons still do not understand what hit them. Obama was in the perfect place at the perfect time. 2. Obama has political skills comparable to Reagan and Clinton. He has a way of making you think he’s on your side, agreeing with your position, while doing the opposite. Pay no attention to what he SAYS; rather, watch what he DOES! 3. Obama has a ruthless quest for power. He did not come to Washington to make something out of himself, but rather to change everything, including dismantling 4. His three main goals are to control ENERGY, PUBLIC EDUCATION, & NATIONAL HEALTHCARE by the Federal government. He doesn’t care about the auto or financial services industries, but got them as an early bonus. The cap and trade will add costs to everything and stifle growth. Paying for FREE college education is his goal. Most scary is his healthcare program, because if you make it FREE and add 46,000,000 people to a Medicare-type single-payer system, the costs will go through the roof. The only way to control costs is with massive RATIONING of services, like in Canada. God forbid. 5. He’s surrounded himself with mostly far-left academic types. No one around him has ever even run a candy store. But they’re going to try and run the auto, financial, banking and other industries. This obviously can’t work in the long run. Obama’s not a socialist; rather he’s a far-left secular progressive bent on nothing short of revolution. He ran as a moderate, but will govern from the hard left. Again, watch what he does, not what he says. 6. Obama doesn’t really see himself as President of the United States, but more as a ruler over the world. He sees himself above it all, trying to orchestrate & coordinate various countries and their agendas. He sees moral equivalency in all cultures. His apology tour in Germany and England was a prime example of how he sees America, as an imperialist nation that has been arrogant, rather than a great noble nation that has at times made errors. This is the first President ever who has chastised our allies and appeased our enemies!

Fair Usage Law

January 9, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Repeal Insurance Industry Bailout Provisions and You Repeal Obamacare

Syndicated conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer advised Republicans in Congress to pursue one agenda item when they return from the holiday break: revoke the provisions within the Affordable Care Act that provide for a bailout of the insurance industry. He wrote in his Friday column that a repeal of that provision is effectively a repeal of the entire health care reform law. Krauthammer counseled Republicans in the House to craft and pass a law that consists entirely of one line: Sections 1341 and 1342 of the Affordable Care Act are hereby repealed. RELATED: Krauthammers Power Move: Force Democrats to Swear Off a Bailout of Insurance Companies End of bill. End of bailout. End of story, Krauthammer wrote. He added that a bailout appears increasingly likely given the number of last-minute changes to the law which were designed to ensure the strongest mix of healthy and infirmed ACA enrollees. Administration officials cant say it for political reasons, he adds. Its Obamacares escape hatch. And surprise, surprise its already baked into the law. Krauthammer asserted that a federal bailout would be wildly unpopular and the bill he recommends would have bipartisan support among American voters. He further recommended that Republicans attach this repeal provision to a debt ceiling increase. Who can argue with no bailout? he concludes. Let the Senate Democrats decide support the bailout and lose the Senate. Or oppose the bailout and bury Obamacare. [Photo via screen grab] > > Follow Noah Rothman (@NoahCRothman) on Twitter

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Early Returns On ObamaCare’s First Day – Video




Early Returns On ObamaCare's First Day Reaction from the'Special Report' All-Star panel, John Roberts, Steve Hayes, Ab Stoddard, Charles Krauthammer. Fox News: Special Report with Bret Baier http… By: yazchattiest

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer | The Weekly Standard

The weathervanes of conventional wisdom are engaged in another round of angst about America in decline. New theories, old slogans: Imperial overstretch. The Asian awakening. The post-American world. Inexorable forces beyond our control bringing the inevitable humbling of the world hegemon. On the other side of this debate are a few–notably Josef Joffe in a recent essay in Foreign Affairs–who resist the current fashion and insist that America remains the indispensable power. They note that declinist predictions are cyclical, that the rise of China (and perhaps India) are just the current version of the Japan panic of the late 1980s or of the earlier pessimism best captured by Jean-Franois Revel’s How Democracies Perish. The anti-declinists point out, for example, that the fear of China is overblown. It’s based on the implausible assumption of indefinite, uninterrupted growth; ignores accumulating externalities like pollution (which can be ignored when growth starts from a very low baseline, but ends up making growth increasingly, chokingly difficult); and overlooks the unavoidable consequences of the one-child policy, which guarantees that China will get old before it gets rich. And just as the rise of China is a straight-line projection of current economic trends, American decline is a straight-line projection of the fearful, pessimistic mood of a country war-weary and in the grip of a severe recession. Among these crosscurrents, my thesis is simple: The question of whether America is in decline cannot be answered yes or no. There is no yes or no. Both answers are wrong, because the assumption that somehow there exists some predetermined inevitable trajectory, the result of uncontrollable external forces, is wrong. Nothing is inevitable. Nothing is written. For America today, decline is not a condition. Decline is a choice. Two decades into the unipolar world that came about with the fall of the Soviet Union, America is in the position of deciding whether to abdicate or retain its dominance. Decline–or continued ascendancy–is in our hands. Not that decline is always a choice. Britain’s decline after World War II was foretold, as indeed was that of Europe, which had been the dominant global force of the preceding centuries. The civilizational suicide that was the two world wars, and the consequent physical and psychological exhaustion, made continued dominance impossible and decline inevitable. The corollary to unchosen European collapse was unchosen American ascendancy. We–whom Lincoln once called God’s “almost chosen people”–did not save Europe twice in order to emerge from the ashes as the world’s co-hegemon. We went in to defend ourselves and save civilization. Our dominance after World War II was not sought. Nor was the even more remarkable dominance after the Soviet collapse. We are the rarest of geopolitical phenomena: the accidental hegemon and, given our history of isolationism and lack of instinctive imperial ambition, the reluctant hegemon–and now, after a near-decade of strenuous post-9/11 exertion, more reluctant than ever. Which leads to my second proposition: Facing the choice of whether to maintain our dominance or to gradually, deliberately, willingly, and indeed relievedly give it up, we are currently on a course towards the latter. The current liberal ascendancy in the United States–controlling the executive and both houses of Congress, dominating the media and elite culture–has set us on a course for decline. And this is true for both foreign and domestic policies. Indeed, they work synergistically to ensure that outcome. The current foreign policy of the United States is an exercise in contraction. It begins with the demolition of the moral foundation of American dominance. In Strasbourg, President Obama was asked about American exceptionalism. His answer? “I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.” Interesting response. Because if everyone is exceptional, no one is. Indeed, as he made his hajj from Strasbourg to Prague to Ankara to Istanbul to Cairo and finally to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama drew the picture of an America quite exceptional–exceptional in moral culpability and heavy-handedness, exceptional in guilt for its treatment of other nations and peoples. With varying degrees of directness or obliqueness, Obama indicted his own country for arrogance, for dismissiveness and derisiveness (toward Europe), for maltreatment of natives, for torture, for Hiroshima, for Guantnamo, for unilateralism, and for insufficient respect for the Muslim world.

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer – Profile – Right Web – Institute for …

Please note: IPS Right Web neither represents nor endorses any of the individuals or groups profiled on this site. Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for the Washington Post who is regarded as an important intellectual trailblazer of neoconservative discourse in the United States. A former psychiatrist, Krauthammer has been a writer and pundit since the early 1980s, when he joined the New Republic. Krauthammer has also written for Time magazine, the Weekly Standard, Commentary, Foreign Affairs, and the National Interest, among other journals and media outlets.[1] A frequent and controversial proponent of U.S. military intervention abroad, Krauthammer has supported a number of neoconservative-led initiatives that champion hawkish pro-Israel policies and militarist U.S. defense postures. He participated in the advocacy efforts of the Project for the New American Century, has served as an adviser to the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, and has been a frequent participant in the activities of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. Krauthammers writings have won numerous awards, particularly from right-wing organizations. A winner of the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary, Krauthammer was also the first ever recipient of the conservative Bradley Foundations Bradley Prize in 2004.[2] That same year, he received the American Enterprise Institutes 2004 Irving Kristol Award.[3]In 2009, the conservative National Review called him one of Americas most important opinion journalists for about 25 years now.[4] A leading public champion of the war on terror, Krauthammer has used his perch at the Washington Post to attack public leaders he considers soft on terrorism or hostile to Israel. Neoconservative? Despite his long affiliation with the neoconservative brand, Krauthammer has rejected the neoconservative label as an anti-Semitic smear. It is an epithet. It is nothing more, he told the National Reviews Rich Lowry in a January 2013 interview. It once had a meaning, when Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz sort of changed their political ideology and made a great case for it in the 70s. Today its usually meant as a silent synonym for Jewish conservative. I would ask you whenever you hear the word [to] challenge the person to describe and explain to you what a neocon is. And I guarantee you they will have no answer.[5] At least one conservative commentator disagreed. On brief inspection, the doctors tendentious tantrum borders on hilarity, wrote Christopher Manion. Many neocons wear the label proudly. After Obamas illegal war on Libya (another disastrous failure, but I digress), Bill Kristol cheered, and proudly baptized Obama as a born again neocon. Did Mr. Kristols use of that sly epithet intend to brand Obama as a Jewish conservative, I wonder?[6] In October 2012, prior to Krauthammers comments, Daily Beast blogger Ali Gharib disputed what he called the conflation of neoconservativism and Jewishness. Although a handful of right-wing Jewish thinkers helped to shape the movement, Gharib wrote, neoconservativism is not a Jewish political movement; rather, its an American one closely identified with using military might to pursue interests. Gharib pointed to prominent non-Jewish neoconservatives like the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and former ambassador Jeane Kirkpatrick, as well as Jewish conservatives like Dov Zakheim who understand the limits of U.S. power, to illustrate his point. Gharib concluded that the association of neoconservativism with Jewishness was often invoked by right-wing hawks to blame any careful look at neoconservatives, or even their policy positions, on anti-Semitism.[7] The Unipolar Moment and Its Legacy

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer’s minimum wage proposal is a terrible idea

Why is the GOP launching a new anti-poverty campaign? By BYRON YORK | 01/08/14 08:13 AM This week many prominent Republicans are taking part in a new campaign to emphasize GOP solutions for poverty. Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Reince Priebus, and others are marking the 50th anniversary of Lyndon… By CHARLIE SPIERING | 01/08/14 08:05 AM On the Hugh Hewitt show Tuesday, Sen. John Kyl, R-Ariz., reacted to the upcoming memoir from Robert Gates in which the former Defense secretary was critical of President Obama’s approach to foreign policy. By CHARLIE SPIERING | 01/08/14 07:44 AM According to the White House schedule for Wednesday, Obama will attend five events with Biden at his side, including a meeting with intelligence leaders and a meeting with Secretary of State John Kerry. By TIMOTHY P. CARNEY | 01/07/14 10:08 PM Local governments do tons of stupid and oppressive things to try to keep out Walmart. The D.C. Council, for instance, passed a bill that would have stuck Walmart, and only Walmart, with an extra-high minimum wage. But… By JOEL GEHRKE | 01/07/14 06:42 PM

Fair Usage Law

January 8, 2014   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed


Fair Use Disclaimer

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

Under the 'fair use' rule of copyright law, an author may make limited use of another author's work without asking permission. Fair use is based on the belief that the public is entitled to freely use portions of copyrighted materials for purposes of commentary and criticism. The fair use privilege is perhaps the most significant limitation on a copyright owner's exclusive rights.

Fair use as described at 17 U.S.C. Section 107:

"Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phono-records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

  • (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for or nonprofit educational purposes,
  • (2) the nature of the copyrighted work,
  • (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole, and
  • (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work."