Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

Krauthammer: ‘Pretty Big Violation’ If Trump Team Was Improperly Surveilled – Fox News Insider

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that some of the communications of the Trump transition team were “monitored” after the election as part of an “incidental collection.”

Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said he believes the intelligence collections were done legally, but he is concerned because they were apparently not related to the FBIs investigation into Russias meddling in the presidential election and because they were “widely disseminated” across the intelligence community.

Nunes would not confirm if President Trump’s own communications were specifically monitored, saying only that it was “possible” that the president’s communications were picked up.

On “The First 100 Days” tonight, Charles Krauthammer said there are three distinct charges at play here: the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump’s claim that he was “wiretapped” by the Obama administration during the campaign, and Nunes’ allegation that there may have been improper use of the information picked up legally and incidentally.

“The Nunes charge … is that it was widespread and systematic,” Krauthammer. “That is what he says. We need to see the evidence.”

He said the big question is if intelligence agents usedlegitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on Trump and his associates.

“That would be a pretty big violation of what you’re supposed to do,” Krauthammer said. “Was there an intent to abuse the listening in on the foreigners as a way to get inside and improperly listen to Americans?”

Let us know what you think in the comments.

Utah Man Killed in London Attack While on ‘Dream Vacation’ With Wife

McCain: GOP Must Come Together on Health Care Bill or Risk 2018 Defeat

Companies Are Now Bidding for Contracts to Build Trump’s Border Wall

Starbucks to Hire More Vets After Backlash to Refugee Hiring Plan

Go here to see the original:

Krauthammer: ‘Pretty Big Violation’ If Trump Team Was Improperly Surveilled – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

March 24, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Trump Should ‘Stop Digging’ on Obama Wiretap Claims – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer said President Donald Trump should “stop digging” when it comes to his claims that Trump Tower was illegally wiretapped by then-President Obama during the campaign.

The syndicated columnist sat down with Tucker Carlson after the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees said Thursdaythey’ve seen no evidence of the surveillance.

Krauthammer said it’s clear now that “there’s not a person in Washington” who thinks Trump’s claims are true and the president is risking his credibility by continuing to pursue it.

“He seems to have a belief in conspiracy theories. This is, after all, a man who said Ted Cruz’s father was involved in some way with Lee Harvey Oswald. That’s ‘Twilight Zone’ stuff,” he noted.

Trump made the explosive claims in a series of tweets on the morning of March 4. In an interview Wednesday, Carlson pressed Trump on why he made the claims without first obtaining evidence to back them up.

Trump still claimed there is “a lot” of evidence, citing news reports and saying he was referring to broader surveillance in his tweets.

Krauthammer pointed out that if there were real proof, Trump could get it easily by calling top justice and intelligence officials.

He agreed with Carlson that there may have been “mishandling” of communications involving Americans and Russian officials under surveillance, but that Trump’s claims are distracting from those issues.

Watch the full discussion above and check out Charles’ take on Trump’s new budget proposal.

LOOK: Spicer Treated Like a Rock Star at Trump’s Nashville Rally

Tucker Debates Dem Who Launched Website on Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties

Krauthammer: Damage to Trump ‘Incalculable’ If House Kills Health Care Bill

See the original post:

Krauthammer: Trump Should ‘Stop Digging’ on Obama Wiretap Claims – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

March 24, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charles Krauthammer Returns to the State Theatre on 4/20 – Broadway World

He is a Pulitzer Prize winner and has been named by The Financial Times as the most influential commentator in America. Washington Post Columnist and New York Times Best-selling author Charles Krauthammer returns to the State Theatre on Thursday, April 20th!

Show time is 8:00 PM. Tickets are $105 (Gold Circle with Meet & Greet), $55 and $50 and can be purchased by visiting the State Theatre Box Office, 453 Northampton Street, Easton, by calling 1-800-999-STATE, 610-252-3132 or online at www.statetheatre.org. Sponsored exclusively by the Brown-Daub Family of Dealerships.

Charles Krauthammer has been honored from every part of the political spectrum for his bold, lucid and original writing – from the famously liberal People for the American to the staunchly conservative Bradley Foundation. Since 1985, Krauthammer has written a syndicated column for The Washington Post for which he won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary. He is the author of the New York Times #1 Bestseller Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics, and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard. He is also a contributor to FOX News, appearing nightly on FOX’s evening news program, Special Report with Bret Baier.

For three decades, Krauthammer’s influential writings have helped frame the very shape of American foreign policy. He coined and developed The Reagan Doctrine), defined the structure of the post-Cold War world in The Unipolar Moment, and outlined the principles of post-9/11 American foreign policy in his much-debated Irving Kristol Lecture, Democratic Realism.

National Review featured him on its cover as “Obama’s critic-in-chief. Der Spiegel calls him “the leading voice of America’s conservative intellectuals.” New York Times columnist David Brooke says that today “he’s the most important conservative columnist.” Politico calls him “leader of the opposition… a coherent, sophisticated and implacable critic of the new president.”

The $105 ticket includes a Meet & Greet where tickets holders can enter the Acopian Ballroom (through the main entrance) beginning at6:30 PM. Light hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar will be available. (You must have your ticket to enter). Photos allowed. No signing.

See the rest here:

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charles Krauthammer Returns to the State Theatre on 4/20 – Broadway World

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Gorsuch ‘beautifully’ evaded tough questions – Fox News

Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday on Special Report with Bret Baier that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch beautifully evaded tough questions from Democrats during his confirmation hearing which is exactly what he should be doing.

Refusal to answer questions. No supreme court nominee answers questions who has any hope of getting on the court, said Krauthammer.

The whole idea is not just to be calm and collected and knowledgeable, but to be nimble,” he added. “This is an exercise in obfuscation.

Democrats heavily pressed Gorsuch on abortion, guns, campaign spending and a host of other issues that he said could come before the court in the future, including whether or not he would overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.

When democrats complain about not taking stands you go back to Ruth Bader Ginsberg who made it a principle of her nominating process that she would not in any way telegraph where she would stand on anything, said Krauthammer. Ever since the Bork nomination and the fiasco of the attacks on him its understood your job up there is to dance, to express a fealty to the constitution. You will say you will be independent and that’s it and he did that beautifully.

Excerpt from:

Krauthammer: Gorsuch ‘beautifully’ evaded tough questions – Fox News

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: It’s not easy for governments to take stuff away – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments its not that easy. Once something is given say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. Theres a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.

The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didnt just keep Social Security, he expanded it.

People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations. Which makes repeal very complicated.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryans Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year.

Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high.

Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day.

That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite.

For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two years savings, why would you risk a political crash landing?

Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

Its not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But its very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People wont sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke.

So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didnt sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated.

The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plans block-granting Medicaid.

Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1.

Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (Its how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency.

Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. Thats the headline.

There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform.

Thats the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of reconciliation legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative including, tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight.

Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience.

Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. He can be contacted at:

[emailprotected]

View post:

Charles Krauthammer: It’s not easy for governments to take stuff away – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Obamacare Repeal Tougher In Real World – Hartford Courant

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.

The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didn’t just keep Social Security, he expanded it.

People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations which makes repeal very complicated.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year.

Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high.

Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day.

That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite.

For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two year’s savings, why would you risk a political crash landing?

Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

It’s not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But it’s very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People won’t sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke.

So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didn’t sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated.

The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plan’s block-granting Medicaid.

Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1.

Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency.

Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. That’s the headline.

There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of “reconciliation” legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative including tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight.

Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience.

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated writer in Washington. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

More here:

Charles Krauthammer: Obamacare Repeal Tougher In Real World – Hartford Courant

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer Explains the ‘Price’ of Trump’s Wiretapping Claims … – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer said on “Special Report” that the case involving the search for the leaker or leakers of classified information was overshadowed by the president’s charge against Barack Obama.

FBI Director James Comey and NSA chief Adm. Michael Rogers testified before a Congressional committee today, and were asked about both the leaks and charges that Trump Tower was wiretapped.

“That’s the price of overshooting,” Krauthammer said of Trump making claims that Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower in the midst of questions about Russian collusion and the leaks.

Dem Senator to Face Trial for Corruption, Bribery After Supreme Court Snub

Paul on Wiretapping Dispute: ‘Somebody Was Spying on Trump Campaign’

‘I Love You So Much’: Gorsuch Pauses Opening Remarks to Give Wife a Hug

He said that the case laid out by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for the need to identify who leaked Gen. Michael Flynn’s identity, among other things, to the press was overshadowed by Trump’s tweets.

Krauthammer alluded to the heavy coverage given to allegations against the Obama administration, while giving scant attention to the leaks.

There is one crime, Krauthammer said, “the unmasking of the leaking of the Flynn name.”

He said that FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that Trump’s Tweets were unfounded made Press Secretary Sean Spicer “look ridiculous” because he essentially was contradicted by the president’s own Justice Department.

“That’s the price of doing this kind of tweeting,” Krauthammer said.

Spicer Pressed on Why Trump’s Golf Trips Are Different Than Obama’s

Spicer on Trump-Russia Probe: Investigating and Having Proof Are Different Things

Pelosi: ‘Deflector-in-Chief’ Trump Owes Obama & the American People an Apology

Continued here:

Krauthammer Explains the ‘Price’ of Trump’s Wiretapping Claims … – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

On Health Law, GOP Faces a Formidable Policy Foe: House Republicans – New York Times


New York Times
On Health Law, GOP Faces a Formidable Policy Foe: House Republicans
New York Times
Republican leaders condemned the idea, and the 80 House Republicans who signed the letter acquired a nickname, courtesy of the conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer the suicide caucus. But it wasn't long before a bitter disagreement over …
5 ways GOP is breaking promises to voters with health planWND.com

all 2,933 news articles »

Read the rest here:

On Health Law, GOP Faces a Formidable Policy Foe: House Republicans – New York Times

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Repeal of Obamacare presents variety of complexities – Sioux City Journal

WASHINGTON — The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given — say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans — you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it.

The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didn’t just keep Social Security, he expanded it.

People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations. Which makes repeal very complicated.

The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year.

Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high.

Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day.

That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite.

For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two year’s savings, why would you risk a political crash landing?

Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition?

It’s not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But it’s very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People won’t sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke.

So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didn’t sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated.

The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plan’s block-granting Medicaid.

Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1.

Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency.

Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. That’s the headline.

There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of “reconciliation” legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative — including, tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death — and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight.

Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience.

Excerpt from:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Repeal of Obamacare presents variety of complexities – Sioux City Journal

Fair Usage Law

March 20, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: ‘Pretty Big Violation’ If Trump Team Was Improperly Surveilled – Fox News Insider

The chairman of the House Intelligence Committee said Wednesday that some of the communications of the Trump transition team were “monitored” after the election as part of an “incidental collection.” Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said he believes the intelligence collections were done legally, but he is concerned because they were apparently not related to the FBIs investigation into Russias meddling in the presidential election and because they were “widely disseminated” across the intelligence community. Nunes would not confirm if President Trump’s own communications were specifically monitored, saying only that it was “possible” that the president’s communications were picked up. On “The First 100 Days” tonight, Charles Krauthammer said there are three distinct charges at play here: the investigation into possible ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump’s claim that he was “wiretapped” by the Obama administration during the campaign, and Nunes’ allegation that there may have been improper use of the information picked up legally and incidentally. “The Nunes charge … is that it was widespread and systematic,” Krauthammer. “That is what he says. We need to see the evidence.” He said the big question is if intelligence agents usedlegitimate surveillance on foreign targets to spy on Trump and his associates. “That would be a pretty big violation of what you’re supposed to do,” Krauthammer said. “Was there an intent to abuse the listening in on the foreigners as a way to get inside and improperly listen to Americans?” Let us know what you think in the comments. Utah Man Killed in London Attack While on ‘Dream Vacation’ With Wife McCain: GOP Must Come Together on Health Care Bill or Risk 2018 Defeat Companies Are Now Bidding for Contracts to Build Trump’s Border Wall Starbucks to Hire More Vets After Backlash to Refugee Hiring Plan

Fair Usage Law

March 24, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Trump Should ‘Stop Digging’ on Obama Wiretap Claims – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer said President Donald Trump should “stop digging” when it comes to his claims that Trump Tower was illegally wiretapped by then-President Obama during the campaign. The syndicated columnist sat down with Tucker Carlson after the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence Committees said Thursdaythey’ve seen no evidence of the surveillance. Krauthammer said it’s clear now that “there’s not a person in Washington” who thinks Trump’s claims are true and the president is risking his credibility by continuing to pursue it. “He seems to have a belief in conspiracy theories. This is, after all, a man who said Ted Cruz’s father was involved in some way with Lee Harvey Oswald. That’s ‘Twilight Zone’ stuff,” he noted. Trump made the explosive claims in a series of tweets on the morning of March 4. In an interview Wednesday, Carlson pressed Trump on why he made the claims without first obtaining evidence to back them up. Trump still claimed there is “a lot” of evidence, citing news reports and saying he was referring to broader surveillance in his tweets. Krauthammer pointed out that if there were real proof, Trump could get it easily by calling top justice and intelligence officials. He agreed with Carlson that there may have been “mishandling” of communications involving Americans and Russian officials under surveillance, but that Trump’s claims are distracting from those issues. Watch the full discussion above and check out Charles’ take on Trump’s new budget proposal. LOOK: Spicer Treated Like a Rock Star at Trump’s Nashville Rally Tucker Debates Dem Who Launched Website on Trump’s Alleged Russia Ties Krauthammer: Damage to Trump ‘Incalculable’ If House Kills Health Care Bill

Fair Usage Law

March 24, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Pulitzer Prize Winner Charles Krauthammer Returns to the State Theatre on 4/20 – Broadway World

He is a Pulitzer Prize winner and has been named by The Financial Times as the most influential commentator in America. Washington Post Columnist and New York Times Best-selling author Charles Krauthammer returns to the State Theatre on Thursday, April 20th! Show time is 8:00 PM. Tickets are $105 (Gold Circle with Meet & Greet), $55 and $50 and can be purchased by visiting the State Theatre Box Office, 453 Northampton Street, Easton, by calling 1-800-999-STATE, 610-252-3132 or online at www.statetheatre.org. Sponsored exclusively by the Brown-Daub Family of Dealerships. Charles Krauthammer has been honored from every part of the political spectrum for his bold, lucid and original writing – from the famously liberal People for the American to the staunchly conservative Bradley Foundation. Since 1985, Krauthammer has written a syndicated column for The Washington Post for which he won the 1987 Pulitzer Prize for distinguished commentary. He is the author of the New York Times #1 Bestseller Things That Matter: Three Decades of Passions, Pastimes and Politics, and a contributing editor to The Weekly Standard. He is also a contributor to FOX News, appearing nightly on FOX’s evening news program, Special Report with Bret Baier. For three decades, Krauthammer’s influential writings have helped frame the very shape of American foreign policy. He coined and developed The Reagan Doctrine), defined the structure of the post-Cold War world in The Unipolar Moment, and outlined the principles of post-9/11 American foreign policy in his much-debated Irving Kristol Lecture, Democratic Realism. National Review featured him on its cover as “Obama’s critic-in-chief. Der Spiegel calls him “the leading voice of America’s conservative intellectuals.” New York Times columnist David Brooke says that today “he’s the most important conservative columnist.” Politico calls him “leader of the opposition… a coherent, sophisticated and implacable critic of the new president.” The $105 ticket includes a Meet & Greet where tickets holders can enter the Acopian Ballroom (through the main entrance) beginning at6:30 PM. Light hors d’oeuvres and a cash bar will be available. (You must have your ticket to enter). Photos allowed. No signing.

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Gorsuch ‘beautifully’ evaded tough questions – Fox News

Charles Krauthammer said Tuesday on Special Report with Bret Baier that Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch beautifully evaded tough questions from Democrats during his confirmation hearing which is exactly what he should be doing. Refusal to answer questions. No supreme court nominee answers questions who has any hope of getting on the court, said Krauthammer. The whole idea is not just to be calm and collected and knowledgeable, but to be nimble,” he added. “This is an exercise in obfuscation. Democrats heavily pressed Gorsuch on abortion, guns, campaign spending and a host of other issues that he said could come before the court in the future, including whether or not he would overrule the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion. When democrats complain about not taking stands you go back to Ruth Bader Ginsberg who made it a principle of her nominating process that she would not in any way telegraph where she would stand on anything, said Krauthammer. Ever since the Bork nomination and the fiasco of the attacks on him its understood your job up there is to dance, to express a fealty to the constitution. You will say you will be independent and that’s it and he did that beautifully.

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: It’s not easy for governments to take stuff away – Kennebec Journal & Morning Sentinel

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments its not that easy. Once something is given say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. Theres a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it. The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didnt just keep Social Security, he expanded it. People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations. Which makes repeal very complicated. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryans Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year. Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high. Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day. That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite. For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two years savings, why would you risk a political crash landing? Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? Its not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But its very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People wont sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke. So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didnt sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated. The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plans block-granting Medicaid. Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1. Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (Its how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency. Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. Thats the headline. There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. Thats the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of reconciliation legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative including, tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight. Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience. Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. He can be contacted at: [emailprotected]

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Obamacare Repeal Tougher In Real World – Hartford Courant

The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it. The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didn’t just keep Social Security, he expanded it. People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations which makes repeal very complicated. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year. Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high. Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day. That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite. For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two year’s savings, why would you risk a political crash landing? Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? It’s not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But it’s very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People won’t sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke. So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didn’t sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated. The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plan’s block-granting Medicaid. Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1. Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency. Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. That’s the headline. There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of “reconciliation” legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative including tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight. Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience. Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated writer in Washington. His email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer Explains the ‘Price’ of Trump’s Wiretapping Claims … – Fox News Insider

Charles Krauthammer said on “Special Report” that the case involving the search for the leaker or leakers of classified information was overshadowed by the president’s charge against Barack Obama. FBI Director James Comey and NSA chief Adm. Michael Rogers testified before a Congressional committee today, and were asked about both the leaks and charges that Trump Tower was wiretapped. “That’s the price of overshooting,” Krauthammer said of Trump making claims that Obama “wiretapped” Trump Tower in the midst of questions about Russian collusion and the leaks. Dem Senator to Face Trial for Corruption, Bribery After Supreme Court Snub Paul on Wiretapping Dispute: ‘Somebody Was Spying on Trump Campaign’ ‘I Love You So Much’: Gorsuch Pauses Opening Remarks to Give Wife a Hug He said that the case laid out by Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-South Carolina) for the need to identify who leaked Gen. Michael Flynn’s identity, among other things, to the press was overshadowed by Trump’s tweets. Krauthammer alluded to the heavy coverage given to allegations against the Obama administration, while giving scant attention to the leaks. There is one crime, Krauthammer said, “the unmasking of the leaking of the Flynn name.” He said that FBI Director James Comey’s announcement that Trump’s Tweets were unfounded made Press Secretary Sean Spicer “look ridiculous” because he essentially was contradicted by the president’s own Justice Department. “That’s the price of doing this kind of tweeting,” Krauthammer said. Spicer Pressed on Why Trump’s Golf Trips Are Different Than Obama’s Spicer on Trump-Russia Probe: Investigating and Having Proof Are Different Things Pelosi: ‘Deflector-in-Chief’ Trump Owes Obama & the American People an Apology

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

On Health Law, GOP Faces a Formidable Policy Foe: House Republicans – New York Times

New York Times On Health Law, GOP Faces a Formidable Policy Foe: House Republicans New York Times Republican leaders condemned the idea, and the 80 House Republicans who signed the letter acquired a nickname, courtesy of the conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer the suicide caucus. But it wasn't long before a bitter disagreement over … 5 ways GOP is breaking promises to voters with health plan WND.com all 2,933 news articles »

Fair Usage Law

March 22, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: Repeal of Obamacare presents variety of complexities – Sioux City Journal

WASHINGTON — The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away, but for governments it’s not that easy. Once something is given — say, health insurance coverage to 20 million Americans — you take it away at your peril. This is true for any government benefit, but especially for health care. There’s a reason not one Western democracy with some system of national health care has ever abolished it. The genius of the left is to keep enlarging the entitlement state by creating new giveaways that are politically impossible to repeal. For 20 years, Republicans railed against the New Deal. Yet, when they came back into office in 1953, Eisenhower didn’t just keep Social Security, he expanded it. People hated Obamacare for its highhandedness, incompetence and cost. At the same time, its crafters took great care to create new beneficiaries and new expectations. Which makes repeal very complicated. The Congressional Budget Office projects that, under Paul Ryan’s Obamacare replacement bill, 24 million will lose insurance within 10 years, 14 million after the first year. Granted, the number is highly suspect. CBO projects 18 million covered by the Obamacare exchanges in 2018. But the number today is about 10 million. That means the CBO estimate of those losing coverage is already about 8 million too high. Nonetheless, there will be losers. And their stories will be plastered wall to wall across the media as sure as night follows day. That scares GOP moderates. And yet the main resistance to Ryan comes from conservative members complaining that the bill is not ideologically pure enough. They mock it as Obamacare Lite. For example, Ryan wants to ease the pain by phasing out Medicaid expansion through 2020. The conservative Republican Study Committee wants it done next year. This is crazy. For the sake of two year’s savings, why would you risk a political crash landing? Moreover, the idea that you can eradicate Obamacare root and branch is fanciful. For all its catastrophic flaws, Obamacare changed expectations. Does any Republican propose returning to a time when you can be denied health insurance because of a pre-existing condition? It’s not just Donald Trump who ran on retaining this new, yes, entitlement. Everyone did. But it’s very problematic. If people know that they can sign up for insurance after they get sick, the very idea of insurance is undermined. People won’t sign up when healthy and the insurance companies will go broke. So what do you do? Obamacare imposed a monetary fine if you didn’t sign up, for which the Ryan bill substitutes another mechanism, less heavy-handed but still government-mandated. The purists who insist upon entirely escaping the heavy hand of government are dreaming. The best you can hope for is to make it less intrusive and more rational, as in the Ryan plan’s block-granting Medicaid. Or instituting a more realistic age-rating system. Sixty-year-olds use six times as much health care as 20-year-olds, yet Obamacare decreed, entirely arbitrarily, that the former could be charged insurance premiums no more than three times that of the latter. The GOP bill changes the ratio from 3-to-1 to 5-to-1. Premiums better reflecting risk constitute a major restoration of rationality. (It’s how life insurance works.) Under Obamacare, the young were unwilling to be swindled and refused to sign up. Without their support, the whole system is thus headed into a death spiral of looming insolvency. Rationality, however, has a price. The CBO has already predicted a massive increase in premiums for 60-year-olds. That’s the headline. There is no free lunch. GOP hard-liners must accept that Americans have become accustomed to some new health care benefits, just as moderates have to brace themselves for stories about the inevitable losers in any reform. That’s the political price for fulfilling the seven-year promise of repealing and replacing Obamacare. Unless, of course, you go the full Machiavelli and throw it all back on the Democrats. How? Republicans could forget about meeting the arcane requirements of “reconciliation” legislation (which requires only 51 votes in the Senate) and send the Senate a replacement bill loaded up with everything conservative — including, tort reform and insurance competition across state lines. That would require 60 Senate votes. Let the Democrats filibuster it to death — and take the blame when repeal-and-replace fails, Obamacare carries on and then collapses under its own weight. Upside: You reap the backlash. Downside: You have to live with your conscience.

Fair Usage Law

March 20, 2017   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."