Archive for the ‘Charles Krauthammer’ Category

Charles Krauthammer: Lessons from Sessions – The State Journal-Register

Transparency, thy name is Trump, Donald Trump. No filter, no governor, no editor lies between his impulses and his public actions. He tweets, therefore he is.

Ronald Reagan was so self-contained and impenetrable that his official biographer was practically driven mad trying to figure him out. Donald Trump is penetrable, hourly.

Never more so than during his ongoing war on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Trump has been privately blaming Sessions for the Russia cloud. But rather than calling him in to either work it out or demand his resignation, Trump has engaged in a series of deliberate public humiliations.

Day by day, he taunts Sessions, attacking him for everything from not firing the acting FBI director (which Trump could do himself in an instant) to not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

What makes the spectacle so excruciating is that the wounded Sessions plods on, refusing the obvious invitation to resign his dream job, the capstone of his career.

Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance.

Dominance is his game. Doesn’t matter if you backed him, as did Chris Christie, cast out months ago. Or if you opposed him, as did Mitt Romney, before whom Trump ostentatiously dangled the State Department, only to snatch it away, leaving Romney looking the foolish supplicant.

Yet the Sessions affair is more than just a study in character. It carries political implications. It has caused the first crack in Trump’s base. Not yet a split, mind you. The base is simply too solid for that. But amid his 35 to 40 percent core support, some are peeling off, both in Congress and in the pro-Trump commentariat.

The issue is less characterological than philosophical. As Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard put it, Sessions was the original Trumpist before Trump. Sessions championed hard-line trade, law enforcement and immigration policy long before Trump rode these ideas to the White House.

For many conservatives, Sessions’ early endorsement of Trump served as an ideological touchstone. And Sessions has remained stalwart in carrying out Trumpist policies at Justice. That Trump could, out of personal pique, treat him so rudely now suggests to those conservatives how cynically expedient was Trump’s adoption of Sessions’ ideas in the first place.

But beyond character and beyond ideology lies the most appalling aspect of the Sessions affair reviving the idea of prosecuting Clinton.

In the 2016 campaign, there was nothing more disturbing than crowds chanting “lock her up,” often encouraged by Trump and his surrogates. After the election, however, Trump reconsidered, saying he would not pursue Clinton who “went through a lot and suffered greatly.”

Now under siege, Trump has jettisoned magnanimity. Maybe she should be locked up after all.

This is pure misdirection. Even if every charge against Clinton were true and she got 20 years in the clink, it would change not one iota of the truth or falsity of the charges of collusion being made against the Trump campaign.

Moreover, in America we don’t lock up political adversaries. They do that in Turkey. They do it (and worse) in Russia. Part of American greatness is that we don’t criminalize our politics.

Last week, Trump spoke at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Ford was no giant. Nor did he leave a great policy legacy. But he is justly revered for his decency and honor. His great gesture was pardoning Richard Nixon, an act for which he was excoriated at the time and which cost him the 1976 election.

It was an act of political self-sacrifice, done for precisely the right reason. Nixon might indeed have committed crimes. But the spectacle of an ex-president on trial and perhaps even in jail was something Ford would not allow the country to go through.

In doing so, he vindicated the very purpose of the presidential pardon. On its face, it’s perverse. It allows one person to overturn equal justice. But the Founders understood that there are times, rare but vital, when social peace and national reconciliation require contravening ordinary justice. Ulysses S. Grant amnestied (technically: paroled) Confederate soldiers and officers at Appomattox, even allowing them to keep a horse for the planting.

In Trump World, the better angels are not in evidence.

To be sure, Trump is indeed examining the pardon power. For himself and his cronies.

Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Read the original post:

Charles Krauthammer: Lessons from Sessions – The State Journal-Register

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Chain of Command Will Determine Gen. Kelly’s Success – Fox News Insider

Trump: MS-13 ‘Transformed Peaceful Parks into Killing Fields’

‘He Never Laid Out Principles’: GOP Rep Says Trump Shares Blame for Repeal Failure

Charles Krauthammer said that the departure of Reince Priebus and appointment of Gen. John Kelly as White House chief of staff reflects how Trump runs the White House writ large.

He said it makes it clear that Trump “runs a very personal presidency.”

“He never had the personal relationship with Reince that he has with others,” Krauthammer said.

The syndicated columnist added that Trump respects military officers and needs a point man with “discipline.”

Krauthammer said Trump’s business-executive style is to run a “chaotic” firm, but that the same operational method doesn’t transfer well to politics.

He added that it will be key to see whether new Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci reports to Trump or Kelly.

“[That] will determine the success of Kelly’s tenure,” he said.

Bret Baier added that when President Richard Nixon ran into turbulent times, he replaced Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman with a general – Al Haig.

Watch more above.

Long Island Sheriff Cites Gang Eradication Progress Under Trump

Schumer: ‘We Aren’t Celebrating’ ObamaCare Repeal Fail; Celebrates With Selfie

The rest is here:

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Chain of Command Will Determine Gen. Kelly’s Success – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Profane Tirade ‘Disgraceful’ – Newsmax

Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer condemned as “disgraceful” an expletive-loaded tirade by incoming communications director Anthony Scaramucci against White House rivals Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon.

In remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report” with Bret Baier, scolded the Wall Street financier that “being a New Yorker is no excuse.”

“This is the degradation of the presidency,” Krauthammer said, calling out President Donald Trump for not restraining the new top aide, who will become White House communications director in August.

“This is where we have come to. None of us have ever seen this. The reason is that it is not to be done. That kind of language is not be used, particularly when it’s infighting in the White House.”

“The fact that the president is allowing all of this to go on means that it rests with him,” he added. “He’s the only one who can actually restrain this. He appears not to. Perhaps he believes that Scaramucci is the guy who will clear the swamp in the White House, but this is really disgraceful.”

Scaramucci tweeted Thursday night would “refrain” from using “colorful language,” but said he would remain “passionate” about Trump’s agenda.

2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Read the original:

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Profane Tirade ‘Disgraceful’ – Newsmax

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Sessions lessons – Boulder Daily Camera

Charles Krauthammer Washington Post

WASHINGTON — Transparency, thy name is Trump, Donald Trump. No filter, no governor, no editor lies between his impulses and his public actions. He tweets, therefore he is.

Ronald Reagan was so self-contained and impenetrable that his official biographer was practically driven mad trying to figure him out. Donald Trump is penetrable, hourly.

Never more so than during his ongoing war on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Trump has been privately blaming Sessions for the Russia cloud. But rather than calling him in to either work it out or demand his resignation, Trump has engaged in a series of deliberate public humiliations.

Day by day, he taunts Sessions, attacking him for everything from not firing the acting FBI director (which Trump could do himself in an instant) to not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton.

What makes the spectacle so excruciating is that the wounded Sessions plods on, refusing the obvious invitation to resign his dream job, the capstone of his career.

Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance.

Dominance is his game. Doesn’t matter if you backed him, as did Chris Christie, cast out months ago. Or if you opposed him, as did Mitt Romney, before whom Trump ostentatiously dangled the State Department, only to snatch it away, leaving Romney looking the foolish supplicant.

Yet the Sessions affair is more than just a study in character. It carries political implications. It has caused the first crack in Trump’s base. Not yet a split, mind you. The base is simply too solid for that. But amid his 35 to 40 percent core support, some are peeling off, both in Congress and in the pro-Trump commentariat.

The issue is less characterological than philosophical. As Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard put it, Sessions was the original Trumpist — before Trump. Sessions championed hard-line trade, law enforcement and immigration policy long before Trump rode these ideas to the White House.

For many conservatives, Sessions’ early endorsement of Trump served as an ideological touchstone. And Sessions has remained stalwart in carrying out Trumpist policies at Justice. That Trump could, out of personal pique, treat him so rudely now suggests to those conservatives how cynically expedient was Trump’s adoption of Sessions’ ideas in the first place.

But beyond character and beyond ideology lies the most appalling aspect of the Sessions affair — reviving the idea of prosecuting Clinton.

In the 2016 campaign, there was nothing more disturbing than crowds chanting “lock her up,” often encouraged by Trump and his surrogates. After the election, however, Trump reconsidered, saying he would not pursue Clinton who “went through a lot and suffered greatly.”

Now under siege, Trump has jettisoned magnanimity. Maybe she should be locked up after all.

This is pure misdirection. Even if every charge against Clinton were true and she got 20 years in the clink, it would change not one iota of the truth — or falsity — of the charges of collusion being made against the Trump campaign.

Moreover, in America we don’t lock up political adversaries. They do that in Turkey. They do it (and worse) in Russia. Part of American greatness is that we don’t criminalize our politics.

Last week, Trump spoke at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Ford was no giant. Nor did he leave a great policy legacy. But he is justly revered for his decency and honor. His great gesture was pardoning Richard Nixon, an act for which he was excoriated at the time and which cost him the 1976 election.

It was an act of political self-sacrifice, done for precisely the right reason. Nixon might indeed have committed crimes. But the spectacle of an ex-president on trial and perhaps even in jail was something Ford would not allow the country to go through.

In doing so, he vindicated the very purpose of the presidential pardon. On its face, it’s perverse. It allows one person to overturn equal justice. But the Founders understood that there are times, rare but vital, when social peace and national reconciliation require contravening ordinary justice. Ulysses S. Grant amnestied (technically: paroled) Confederate soldiers and officers at Appomattox, even allowing them to keep a horse for the planting.

In Trump World, the better angels are not in evidence.

To be sure, Trump is indeed examining the pardon power. For himself and his cronies.

Email: letters@charleskrauthammer.com

See the original post here:

Charles Krauthammer: Sessions lessons – Boulder Daily Camera

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

‘Degradation of the Presidency’: Krauthammer Blasts Scaramucci’s Foul Language – Fox News Insider

Is Reince Priebus the White House Leaker? Conway Responds to Scaramucci Tweet

Eboni Williams: Sanctuary Cities Endanger the Immigrant Community

Charles Krauthammer blasted White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci for breaking decorum and reportedly using colorful language.

According to the New York Post, Scaramucci told New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is a “f–king paranoid schizophrenic.”

Turning his ire to adviser Stephen Bannon, Scaramucci reportedly said he is not similar to the former Breitbart News chief, making a reference to a lewd sex act.

“I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f–king strength of the president. I’m here to serve this country,” Scaramucci continued, according to Lizza’s record of their phone call.

Scaramucci was outraged at the leak of his financial disclosure paperwork, and heightened observers’ attention when he added Priebus’ twitter handle to a related tweet.

That tweet was later deleted, but followed by a second message:

Bret Baier asked Krauthammer if the fact Scaramucci and Trump are from New York City – where people tend to use colorful language – had anything to do with the former trader’s word choice.

“Being a New Yorker is not an excuse,” Krauthammer, a Big Apple native, said. “This is the degradation of the presidency.”

Krauthammer said the fact Scaramucci can get away with using those words means President Trump tacitly approves of it.

“[It] rests with him,” he said. “Perhaps he believes Scaramucci is the guy who will clear the swamp in the White House.”

Watch more above.

WATCH: McCain Riffs on Graham’s Phone Ringing, Cassidy’s Tardiness

‘We’ve Got to Enforce the Law’: ICE Director Lays Out Hard Line on Illegal Immigration

View original post here:

‘Degradation of the Presidency’: Krauthammer Blasts Scaramucci’s Foul Language – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

‘This is Not How You Run a Railroad’: Krauthammer Questions Trump’s Transgender Military Order – Fox News Insider

Ryan Praises Trump: ‘A Great Day for American Manufacturing’

‘It Shouldn’t Be Announced via Twitter’: McCain Blasts Trump’s Transgender Military Directive

Charles Krauthammer questioned President Trump’s decision to bar transgender individuals from serving in the military.

He said the defense department is reviewing the new policy.

The Washington Examiner reported Trump’s move may have been made to appease some Republicans to support border wall funding.

“Was there a crisis that [this] suddenly had to be withdrawn?” he said of the allowance of trangender people to serve.

He said Trump didn’t offer any answers on whether current trangender servicepeople must be discharged, similar to how the travel ban caught people transiting to the U.S. in a bind at J.F.K.

“This is not how you run a railroad,” he said. “This is really bizarre.”

Watch more above.

‘A ‘For Sale’ Sign at City Hall’: FBI Indicts 2 PA Dem Mayors in Pay-to-Play Probe

Bolton: Trump Admin Must Convince China to Eliminate North Korea

Read this article:

‘This is Not How You Run a Railroad’: Krauthammer Questions Trump’s Transgender Military Order – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Dems Have Been ‘Living Off Glory Years for Decades’ – Fox News Insider

Turley: Firing Mueller Would Create ‘Biggest Jam Since Taft Got Stuck in WH Tub’

Lara Trump: Nobody in Russia Probe ‘Used BleachBit or Destroyed Cell Phones With Hammers’

Charles Krauthammer said Democrats have “been living off their glory years” for decades.

Krauthammer said Democratic successes in the mid-20th Century have led them to be somewhat complacent in finding a new defining message in recent years.

He noted they “invented” social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and came up with the New Deal and Great Society.

However, he noted that by the late 1970s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) recognized that “the party of ideas” began to run out of ideas.

Krauthammer said the Democrats’ new concentrated messaging – on display at a joint leadership speech in Clarke County, Va. – is still just the “stuff at the margins.”

Democrats “have been living off their glory years for the last 20 or 30 [years],” he said.

Democratic leaders Charles Schumer of New York, Nancy Pelosi of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Hakeem Jeffries of New York laid out their “better deal” earlier Monday.

As FoxNews.com reported:

As Democrats tried to rebrand as the party offering “a better deal” for voters, Republicans panned the effort as little more than “recycled” talking points.Their new slogan — formally titled A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future — also has faced criticism from Democratic speechwriters.

But many Democrats are now acknowledging their party failed to communicate a winning message to voters last year, and the broader point behind Monday’s relaunch is to focus more on jobs and other kitchen-table issues.

Sen. Schumer was joined at Monday’s event by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, and other rank-and-file Democrats from the House and Senate.

We must have a strong middle class, Pelosi said. Essential to the strength of the middle class is the financial stability of the working family. And essential to that are bigger paychecks.

Democrats held the event in GOP Rep. Barbara Comstocks district, a seat that’s a top target in the party’s bid to retake the House next year.

Krauthammer said ideas like a $15 minimum wage may not be appetizing to conservatives, but are messages popular in western Europe.

He said the message is a more coherent platform than Trump-Russia accusations and the like.

“[Western Europe] is not a hellhole, but it’s not America,” he said, discussing how well Democrats’ new “Better Deal” may play in parts of the country.

Watch more above.

Gutierrez: Trump a ‘Major Criminal’ Who Must Be ‘Eliminated’ From Office

Repeal ObamaCare or ‘You’re Fired’: Trump Warns Price at Boy Scouts’ Jambo

Read the original here:

Krauthammer: Dems Have Been ‘Living Off Glory Years for Decades’ – Fox News Insider

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: What to do for little Charlie Gard – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON One cannot imagine a more wrenching moral dilemma than the case of little Charlie Gard. He is a beautiful 11-month-old boy with an incurable genetic disease. It depletes his cells’ energy-producing structures (the mitochondria), thereby progressively ravaging his organs. He cannot hear, he cannot see, he can barely open his eyes. He cannot swallow, he cannot move, he cannot breathe on his own. He suffers from severe epilepsy and his brain is seriously damaged. Doctors aren’t even sure whether he can feel pain.

For months he’s been at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. His doctors have recommended removing him from life support.

His parents are deeply opposed. They have repeatedly petitioned the courts to allow them to take Charlie for experimental treatment in the United States.

The courts have denied the parents’ petition. They concluded that the proposed treatment has no chance of saving the child and would do nothing but inflict upon him further suffering. They did, however, allow the American specialist to come to London to examine Charlie. He is giving his findings to the court. A final ruling is expected on Tuesday.

The Telegraph of London reports Charlie’s doctors remain unconvinced by the American researcher. Indeed, the weight of the evidence appears to support the doctors and the courts. Charlie’s genetic variant is different and far more devastating than the ones in which nucleoside bypass therapy has shown some improvement. There aren’t even animal models for treating Charlie’s condition. It’s extremely unlikely treatment even can reach Charlie’s brain cells, let alone reverse the existing damage.

What to do? There is only one real question: What’s best for Charlie? But because he can’t speak for himself, we resort to a second question: Who is to speak for him?

The most heartrending situation occurs when these two questions yield opposing answers. Charlie’s is such a case.

In my view, two truths must guide any decision: (1) The parents must be sovereign, but (2) the parents sometimes are wrong.

I believe in this case, the parents are wrong, and the doctors and judges are right. Charlie’s suffering literally is unimaginable and we simply are prolonging it. This is a life of no light, no sound, no motion, only moments of physical suffering (seizures? intubation?) to punctuate the darkness. His doctors understandably believe allowing a natural death is the most merciful thing they can do for Charlie.

As for miracle cures, I share the court’s skepticism. They always arise in such cases, and invariably prove to be cruel deceptions.

And yet. Despite all these considerations, I would nevertheless let the parents take their boy where they wish.

The sovereignty of loved ones must be the overriding principle that guides all such decisions. We have no other way. The irreducible truth is these conundrums have no definitive answer. We thus necessarily fall back on family, or to put it more sentimentally, on love.

What is best for the child? The best guide is a loving parent. A parent’s motive is the most pure.

This rule is not invariable, of course. Which is why the state seizes control when parents are demonstrably injurious, even if unintentionally so, as in the case of those who, for some religious imperative, would deny their child treatment for a curable disease.

But there’s a reason why, despite these exceptions, all societies grant parents sovereignty over their children until they reach maturity. Parents simply are more likely than anyone else to act in the best interest of the child.

Not always, of course. Loved ones don’t always act for the purest of motives. Heirs, for example, might not the best guide as to when to pull the plug on an elderly relative with a modest fortune.

But then again, states can have ulterior motives, too. In countries where taxpayers bear the burden of expensive treatments, the state has an inherent incentive (of which Britain’s National Health Service has produced notorious cases) to deny treatment for reasons of economy rather than mercy.

Nonetheless, as a general rule, we trust in the impartiality of the courts and the loving imperative of the parent.

And if they clash? What then? If it were me, I would detach the tubes and cradle the child until death. But it’s not me. It’s not the NHS. And it’s not the European Court of Human Rights.

It’s a father and a mother and their desperate love for a child. They must prevail. Let them go.

See original here:

Charles Krauthammer: What to do for little Charlie Gard – Kankakee Daily Journal

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Witnessing a wrenching moral dilemma – Omaha World-Herald

One cannot imagine a more wrenching moral dilemma than the case of little Charlie Gard.

He is a beautiful 11-month-old boy with an incurable genetic disease. It depletes his cells energy-producing structures (the mitochondria), thereby progressively ravaging his organs.

He cannot hear, he cannot see, he can barely open his eyes. He cannot swallow, he cannot move, he cannot breathe on his own. He suffers from severe epilepsy and his brain is seriously damaged. Doctors arent even sure whether he can feel pain.

For months hes been at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. His doctors have recommended removing him from life support.

His parents are deeply opposed. They have repeatedly petitioned the courts to allow them to take Charlie for experimental treatment in the United States.

The courts have denied the parents petition. They concluded that the proposed treatment has no chance of saving the child and would do nothing but inflict upon him further suffering.

They did, however, allow the American specialist to come to London to examine Charlie. He is giving his findings to the court. A final ruling is expected July 25.

The Telegraph of London reports that Charlies doctors remain unconvinced by the American researcher. Indeed, the weight of the evidence appears to support the doctors and the courts.

Charlies genetic variant is different and far more devastating than the ones in which nucleoside bypass therapy has shown some improvement. There arent even animal models for treating Charlies condition. Its extremely unlikely that treatment can even reach Charlies brain cells, let alone reverse the existing damage.

What to do? There is only one real question. Whats best for Charlie? But because he cant speak for himself, we resort to a second question: Who is to speak for him?

The most heartrending situation occurs when these two questions yield opposing answers. Charlies is such a case.

In my view, two truths must guide any decision: (1) The parents must be sovereign, but (2) the parents are sometimes wrong.

I believe that in this case the parents are wrong, and the doctors and judges are right. Charlies suffering is literally unimaginable and we are simply prolonging it.

This is a life of no light, no sound, no motion, only moments of physical suffering (seizures? intubation?) to punctuate the darkness. His doctors understandably believe that allowing a natural death is the most merciful thing they can do for Charlie.

As for miracle cures, I share the courts skepticism. They always arise in such cases and invariably prove to be cruel deceptions.

And yet. Despite all these considerations, I would nevertheless let the parents take their boy where they wish.

The sovereignty of loved ones must be the overriding principle that guides all such decisions. We have no other way. The irreducible truth is that these conundrums have no definitive answer.

We thus necessarily fall back on family, or to put it more sentimentally, on love.

What is best for the child? The best guide is a loving parent. A parents motive is the most pure.

This rule is not invariable, of course. Which is why the state seizes control when parents are demonstrably injurious, even if unintentionally so, as in the case of those who, for some religious imperative, would deny their child treatment for a curable disease.

But theres a reason why, despite these exceptions, all societies grant parents sovereignty over their children until they reach maturity. Parents are simply more likely than anyone else to act in the best interest of the child.

Not always, of course. Loved ones dont always act for the purest of motives. Heirs, for example, may not the best guide as to when to pull the plug on an elderly relative with a modest fortune.

But then again, states can have ulterior motives, too. In countries where taxpayers bear the burden of expensive treatments, the state has an inherent incentive (of which Britains National Health Service has produced notorious cases) to deny treatment for reasons of economy rather than mercy.

Nonetheless, as a general rule, we trust in the impartiality of the courts and the loving imperative of the parent.

And if they clash? What then? If it were me, I would detach the tubes and cradle the child until death. But its not me. Its not the National Health Service. And its not the European Court of Human Rights.

Its a father and a mother and their desperate love for a child. They must prevail. Let them go.

Link:

Charles Krauthammer: Witnessing a wrenching moral dilemma – Omaha World-Herald

Fair Usage Law

July 23, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Lessons from Sessions – The State Journal-Register

Transparency, thy name is Trump, Donald Trump. No filter, no governor, no editor lies between his impulses and his public actions. He tweets, therefore he is. Ronald Reagan was so self-contained and impenetrable that his official biographer was practically driven mad trying to figure him out. Donald Trump is penetrable, hourly. Never more so than during his ongoing war on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Trump has been privately blaming Sessions for the Russia cloud. But rather than calling him in to either work it out or demand his resignation, Trump has engaged in a series of deliberate public humiliations. Day by day, he taunts Sessions, attacking him for everything from not firing the acting FBI director (which Trump could do himself in an instant) to not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. What makes the spectacle so excruciating is that the wounded Sessions plods on, refusing the obvious invitation to resign his dream job, the capstone of his career. Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance. Dominance is his game. Doesn’t matter if you backed him, as did Chris Christie, cast out months ago. Or if you opposed him, as did Mitt Romney, before whom Trump ostentatiously dangled the State Department, only to snatch it away, leaving Romney looking the foolish supplicant. Yet the Sessions affair is more than just a study in character. It carries political implications. It has caused the first crack in Trump’s base. Not yet a split, mind you. The base is simply too solid for that. But amid his 35 to 40 percent core support, some are peeling off, both in Congress and in the pro-Trump commentariat. The issue is less characterological than philosophical. As Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard put it, Sessions was the original Trumpist before Trump. Sessions championed hard-line trade, law enforcement and immigration policy long before Trump rode these ideas to the White House. For many conservatives, Sessions’ early endorsement of Trump served as an ideological touchstone. And Sessions has remained stalwart in carrying out Trumpist policies at Justice. That Trump could, out of personal pique, treat him so rudely now suggests to those conservatives how cynically expedient was Trump’s adoption of Sessions’ ideas in the first place. But beyond character and beyond ideology lies the most appalling aspect of the Sessions affair reviving the idea of prosecuting Clinton. In the 2016 campaign, there was nothing more disturbing than crowds chanting “lock her up,” often encouraged by Trump and his surrogates. After the election, however, Trump reconsidered, saying he would not pursue Clinton who “went through a lot and suffered greatly.” Now under siege, Trump has jettisoned magnanimity. Maybe she should be locked up after all. This is pure misdirection. Even if every charge against Clinton were true and she got 20 years in the clink, it would change not one iota of the truth or falsity of the charges of collusion being made against the Trump campaign. Moreover, in America we don’t lock up political adversaries. They do that in Turkey. They do it (and worse) in Russia. Part of American greatness is that we don’t criminalize our politics. Last week, Trump spoke at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Ford was no giant. Nor did he leave a great policy legacy. But he is justly revered for his decency and honor. His great gesture was pardoning Richard Nixon, an act for which he was excoriated at the time and which cost him the 1976 election. It was an act of political self-sacrifice, done for precisely the right reason. Nixon might indeed have committed crimes. But the spectacle of an ex-president on trial and perhaps even in jail was something Ford would not allow the country to go through. In doing so, he vindicated the very purpose of the presidential pardon. On its face, it’s perverse. It allows one person to overturn equal justice. But the Founders understood that there are times, rare but vital, when social peace and national reconciliation require contravening ordinary justice. Ulysses S. Grant amnestied (technically: paroled) Confederate soldiers and officers at Appomattox, even allowing them to keep a horse for the planting. In Trump World, the better angels are not in evidence. To be sure, Trump is indeed examining the pardon power. For himself and his cronies. Charles Krauthammer’s email address is letters@charleskrauthammer.com.

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Chain of Command Will Determine Gen. Kelly’s Success – Fox News Insider

Trump: MS-13 ‘Transformed Peaceful Parks into Killing Fields’ ‘He Never Laid Out Principles’: GOP Rep Says Trump Shares Blame for Repeal Failure Charles Krauthammer said that the departure of Reince Priebus and appointment of Gen. John Kelly as White House chief of staff reflects how Trump runs the White House writ large. He said it makes it clear that Trump “runs a very personal presidency.” “He never had the personal relationship with Reince that he has with others,” Krauthammer said. The syndicated columnist added that Trump respects military officers and needs a point man with “discipline.” Krauthammer said Trump’s business-executive style is to run a “chaotic” firm, but that the same operational method doesn’t transfer well to politics. He added that it will be key to see whether new Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci reports to Trump or Kelly. “[That] will determine the success of Kelly’s tenure,” he said. Bret Baier added that when President Richard Nixon ran into turbulent times, he replaced Chief of Staff H.R. Haldeman with a general – Al Haig. Watch more above. Long Island Sheriff Cites Gang Eradication Progress Under Trump Schumer: ‘We Aren’t Celebrating’ ObamaCare Repeal Fail; Celebrates With Selfie

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Scaramucci’s Profane Tirade ‘Disgraceful’ – Newsmax

Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer condemned as “disgraceful” an expletive-loaded tirade by incoming communications director Anthony Scaramucci against White House rivals Reince Priebus and Steve Bannon. In remarks on Fox News’ “Special Report” with Bret Baier, scolded the Wall Street financier that “being a New Yorker is no excuse.” “This is the degradation of the presidency,” Krauthammer said, calling out President Donald Trump for not restraining the new top aide, who will become White House communications director in August. “This is where we have come to. None of us have ever seen this. The reason is that it is not to be done. That kind of language is not be used, particularly when it’s infighting in the White House.” “The fact that the president is allowing all of this to go on means that it rests with him,” he added. “He’s the only one who can actually restrain this. He appears not to. Perhaps he believes that Scaramucci is the guy who will clear the swamp in the White House, but this is really disgraceful.” Scaramucci tweeted Thursday night would “refrain” from using “colorful language,” but said he would remain “passionate” about Trump’s agenda. 2017 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Fair Usage Law

July 29, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Sessions lessons – Boulder Daily Camera

Charles Krauthammer Washington Post WASHINGTON — Transparency, thy name is Trump, Donald Trump. No filter, no governor, no editor lies between his impulses and his public actions. He tweets, therefore he is. Ronald Reagan was so self-contained and impenetrable that his official biographer was practically driven mad trying to figure him out. Donald Trump is penetrable, hourly. Never more so than during his ongoing war on his own attorney general, Jeff Sessions. Trump has been privately blaming Sessions for the Russia cloud. But rather than calling him in to either work it out or demand his resignation, Trump has engaged in a series of deliberate public humiliations. Day by day, he taunts Sessions, attacking him for everything from not firing the acting FBI director (which Trump could do himself in an instant) to not pursuing criminal charges against Hillary Clinton. What makes the spectacle so excruciating is that the wounded Sessions plods on, refusing the obvious invitation to resign his dream job, the capstone of his career. Trump relishes such a cat-and-mouse game and, by playing it so openly, reveals a deeply repellent vindictiveness in the service of a pathological need to display dominance. Dominance is his game. Doesn’t matter if you backed him, as did Chris Christie, cast out months ago. Or if you opposed him, as did Mitt Romney, before whom Trump ostentatiously dangled the State Department, only to snatch it away, leaving Romney looking the foolish supplicant. Yet the Sessions affair is more than just a study in character. It carries political implications. It has caused the first crack in Trump’s base. Not yet a split, mind you. The base is simply too solid for that. But amid his 35 to 40 percent core support, some are peeling off, both in Congress and in the pro-Trump commentariat. The issue is less characterological than philosophical. As Stephen Hayes of The Weekly Standard put it, Sessions was the original Trumpist — before Trump. Sessions championed hard-line trade, law enforcement and immigration policy long before Trump rode these ideas to the White House. For many conservatives, Sessions’ early endorsement of Trump served as an ideological touchstone. And Sessions has remained stalwart in carrying out Trumpist policies at Justice. That Trump could, out of personal pique, treat him so rudely now suggests to those conservatives how cynically expedient was Trump’s adoption of Sessions’ ideas in the first place. But beyond character and beyond ideology lies the most appalling aspect of the Sessions affair — reviving the idea of prosecuting Clinton. In the 2016 campaign, there was nothing more disturbing than crowds chanting “lock her up,” often encouraged by Trump and his surrogates. After the election, however, Trump reconsidered, saying he would not pursue Clinton who “went through a lot and suffered greatly.” Now under siege, Trump has jettisoned magnanimity. Maybe she should be locked up after all. This is pure misdirection. Even if every charge against Clinton were true and she got 20 years in the clink, it would change not one iota of the truth — or falsity — of the charges of collusion being made against the Trump campaign. Moreover, in America we don’t lock up political adversaries. They do that in Turkey. They do it (and worse) in Russia. Part of American greatness is that we don’t criminalize our politics. Last week, Trump spoke at the commissioning of the USS Gerald R. Ford aircraft carrier. Ford was no giant. Nor did he leave a great policy legacy. But he is justly revered for his decency and honor. His great gesture was pardoning Richard Nixon, an act for which he was excoriated at the time and which cost him the 1976 election. It was an act of political self-sacrifice, done for precisely the right reason. Nixon might indeed have committed crimes. But the spectacle of an ex-president on trial and perhaps even in jail was something Ford would not allow the country to go through. In doing so, he vindicated the very purpose of the presidential pardon. On its face, it’s perverse. It allows one person to overturn equal justice. But the Founders understood that there are times, rare but vital, when social peace and national reconciliation require contravening ordinary justice. Ulysses S. Grant amnestied (technically: paroled) Confederate soldiers and officers at Appomattox, even allowing them to keep a horse for the planting. In Trump World, the better angels are not in evidence. To be sure, Trump is indeed examining the pardon power. For himself and his cronies. Email: letters@charleskrauthammer.com

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

‘Degradation of the Presidency’: Krauthammer Blasts Scaramucci’s Foul Language – Fox News Insider

Is Reince Priebus the White House Leaker? Conway Responds to Scaramucci Tweet Eboni Williams: Sanctuary Cities Endanger the Immigrant Community Charles Krauthammer blasted White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci for breaking decorum and reportedly using colorful language. According to the New York Post, Scaramucci told New Yorker reporter Ryan Lizza that Chief of Staff Reince Priebus is a “f–king paranoid schizophrenic.” Turning his ire to adviser Stephen Bannon, Scaramucci reportedly said he is not similar to the former Breitbart News chief, making a reference to a lewd sex act. “I’m not trying to build my own brand off the f–king strength of the president. I’m here to serve this country,” Scaramucci continued, according to Lizza’s record of their phone call. Scaramucci was outraged at the leak of his financial disclosure paperwork, and heightened observers’ attention when he added Priebus’ twitter handle to a related tweet. That tweet was later deleted, but followed by a second message: Bret Baier asked Krauthammer if the fact Scaramucci and Trump are from New York City – where people tend to use colorful language – had anything to do with the former trader’s word choice. “Being a New Yorker is not an excuse,” Krauthammer, a Big Apple native, said. “This is the degradation of the presidency.” Krauthammer said the fact Scaramucci can get away with using those words means President Trump tacitly approves of it. “[It] rests with him,” he said. “Perhaps he believes Scaramucci is the guy who will clear the swamp in the White House.” Watch more above. WATCH: McCain Riffs on Graham’s Phone Ringing, Cassidy’s Tardiness ‘We’ve Got to Enforce the Law’: ICE Director Lays Out Hard Line on Illegal Immigration

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

‘This is Not How You Run a Railroad’: Krauthammer Questions Trump’s Transgender Military Order – Fox News Insider

Ryan Praises Trump: ‘A Great Day for American Manufacturing’ ‘It Shouldn’t Be Announced via Twitter’: McCain Blasts Trump’s Transgender Military Directive Charles Krauthammer questioned President Trump’s decision to bar transgender individuals from serving in the military. He said the defense department is reviewing the new policy. The Washington Examiner reported Trump’s move may have been made to appease some Republicans to support border wall funding. “Was there a crisis that [this] suddenly had to be withdrawn?” he said of the allowance of trangender people to serve. He said Trump didn’t offer any answers on whether current trangender servicepeople must be discharged, similar to how the travel ban caught people transiting to the U.S. in a bind at J.F.K. “This is not how you run a railroad,” he said. “This is really bizarre.” Watch more above. ‘A ‘For Sale’ Sign at City Hall’: FBI Indicts 2 PA Dem Mayors in Pay-to-Play Probe Bolton: Trump Admin Must Convince China to Eliminate North Korea

Fair Usage Law

July 28, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Krauthammer: Dems Have Been ‘Living Off Glory Years for Decades’ – Fox News Insider

Turley: Firing Mueller Would Create ‘Biggest Jam Since Taft Got Stuck in WH Tub’ Lara Trump: Nobody in Russia Probe ‘Used BleachBit or Destroyed Cell Phones With Hammers’ Charles Krauthammer said Democrats have “been living off their glory years” for decades. Krauthammer said Democratic successes in the mid-20th Century have led them to be somewhat complacent in finding a new defining message in recent years. He noted they “invented” social security, Medicare and Medicaid, and came up with the New Deal and Great Society. However, he noted that by the late 1970s, Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-N.Y.) recognized that “the party of ideas” began to run out of ideas. Krauthammer said the Democrats’ new concentrated messaging – on display at a joint leadership speech in Clarke County, Va. – is still just the “stuff at the margins.” Democrats “have been living off their glory years for the last 20 or 30 [years],” he said. Democratic leaders Charles Schumer of New York, Nancy Pelosi of California, Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Hakeem Jeffries of New York laid out their “better deal” earlier Monday. As FoxNews.com reported: As Democrats tried to rebrand as the party offering “a better deal” for voters, Republicans panned the effort as little more than “recycled” talking points.Their new slogan — formally titled A Better Deal: Better Jobs, Better Wages, Better Future — also has faced criticism from Democratic speechwriters. But many Democrats are now acknowledging their party failed to communicate a winning message to voters last year, and the broader point behind Monday’s relaunch is to focus more on jobs and other kitchen-table issues. Sen. Schumer was joined at Monday’s event by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, of California, and other rank-and-file Democrats from the House and Senate. We must have a strong middle class, Pelosi said. Essential to the strength of the middle class is the financial stability of the working family. And essential to that are bigger paychecks. Democrats held the event in GOP Rep. Barbara Comstocks district, a seat that’s a top target in the party’s bid to retake the House next year. Krauthammer said ideas like a $15 minimum wage may not be appetizing to conservatives, but are messages popular in western Europe. He said the message is a more coherent platform than Trump-Russia accusations and the like. “[Western Europe] is not a hellhole, but it’s not America,” he said, discussing how well Democrats’ new “Better Deal” may play in parts of the country. Watch more above. Gutierrez: Trump a ‘Major Criminal’ Who Must Be ‘Eliminated’ From Office Repeal ObamaCare or ‘You’re Fired’: Trump Warns Price at Boy Scouts’ Jambo

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: What to do for little Charlie Gard – Kankakee Daily Journal

WASHINGTON One cannot imagine a more wrenching moral dilemma than the case of little Charlie Gard. He is a beautiful 11-month-old boy with an incurable genetic disease. It depletes his cells’ energy-producing structures (the mitochondria), thereby progressively ravaging his organs. He cannot hear, he cannot see, he can barely open his eyes. He cannot swallow, he cannot move, he cannot breathe on his own. He suffers from severe epilepsy and his brain is seriously damaged. Doctors aren’t even sure whether he can feel pain. For months he’s been at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. His doctors have recommended removing him from life support. His parents are deeply opposed. They have repeatedly petitioned the courts to allow them to take Charlie for experimental treatment in the United States. The courts have denied the parents’ petition. They concluded that the proposed treatment has no chance of saving the child and would do nothing but inflict upon him further suffering. They did, however, allow the American specialist to come to London to examine Charlie. He is giving his findings to the court. A final ruling is expected on Tuesday. The Telegraph of London reports Charlie’s doctors remain unconvinced by the American researcher. Indeed, the weight of the evidence appears to support the doctors and the courts. Charlie’s genetic variant is different and far more devastating than the ones in which nucleoside bypass therapy has shown some improvement. There aren’t even animal models for treating Charlie’s condition. It’s extremely unlikely treatment even can reach Charlie’s brain cells, let alone reverse the existing damage. What to do? There is only one real question: What’s best for Charlie? But because he can’t speak for himself, we resort to a second question: Who is to speak for him? The most heartrending situation occurs when these two questions yield opposing answers. Charlie’s is such a case. In my view, two truths must guide any decision: (1) The parents must be sovereign, but (2) the parents sometimes are wrong. I believe in this case, the parents are wrong, and the doctors and judges are right. Charlie’s suffering literally is unimaginable and we simply are prolonging it. This is a life of no light, no sound, no motion, only moments of physical suffering (seizures? intubation?) to punctuate the darkness. His doctors understandably believe allowing a natural death is the most merciful thing they can do for Charlie. As for miracle cures, I share the court’s skepticism. They always arise in such cases, and invariably prove to be cruel deceptions. And yet. Despite all these considerations, I would nevertheless let the parents take their boy where they wish. The sovereignty of loved ones must be the overriding principle that guides all such decisions. We have no other way. The irreducible truth is these conundrums have no definitive answer. We thus necessarily fall back on family, or to put it more sentimentally, on love. What is best for the child? The best guide is a loving parent. A parent’s motive is the most pure. This rule is not invariable, of course. Which is why the state seizes control when parents are demonstrably injurious, even if unintentionally so, as in the case of those who, for some religious imperative, would deny their child treatment for a curable disease. But there’s a reason why, despite these exceptions, all societies grant parents sovereignty over their children until they reach maturity. Parents simply are more likely than anyone else to act in the best interest of the child. Not always, of course. Loved ones don’t always act for the purest of motives. Heirs, for example, might not the best guide as to when to pull the plug on an elderly relative with a modest fortune. But then again, states can have ulterior motives, too. In countries where taxpayers bear the burden of expensive treatments, the state has an inherent incentive (of which Britain’s National Health Service has produced notorious cases) to deny treatment for reasons of economy rather than mercy. Nonetheless, as a general rule, we trust in the impartiality of the courts and the loving imperative of the parent. And if they clash? What then? If it were me, I would detach the tubes and cradle the child until death. But it’s not me. It’s not the NHS. And it’s not the European Court of Human Rights. It’s a father and a mother and their desperate love for a child. They must prevail. Let them go.

Fair Usage Law

July 25, 2017   Posted in: Charles Krauthammer  Comments Closed

Charles Krauthammer: Witnessing a wrenching moral dilemma – Omaha World-Herald

One cannot imagine a more wrenching moral dilemma than the case of little Charlie Gard. He is a beautiful 11-month-old boy with an incurable genetic disease. It depletes his cells energy-producing structures (the mitochondria), thereby progressively ravaging his organs. He cannot hear, he cannot see, he can barely open his eyes. He cannot swallow, he cannot move, he cannot breathe on his own. He suffers from severe epilepsy and his brain is seriously damaged. Doctors arent even sure whether he can feel pain. For months hes been at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London. His doctors have recommended removing him from life support. His parents are deeply opposed. They have repeatedly petitioned the courts to allow them to take Charlie for experimental treatment in the United States. The courts have denied the parents petition. They concluded that the proposed treatment has no chance of saving the child and would do nothing but inflict upon him further suffering. They did, however, allow the American specialist to come to London to examine Charlie. He is giving his findings to the court. A final ruling is expected July 25. The Telegraph of London reports that Charlies doctors remain unconvinced by the American researcher. Indeed, the weight of the evidence appears to support the doctors and the courts. Charlies genetic variant is different and far more devastating than the ones in which nucleoside bypass therapy has shown some improvement. There arent even animal models for treating Charlies condition. Its extremely unlikely that treatment can even reach Charlies brain cells, let alone reverse the existing damage. What to do? There is only one real question. Whats best for Charlie? But because he cant speak for himself, we resort to a second question: Who is to speak for him? The most heartrending situation occurs when these two questions yield opposing answers. Charlies is such a case. In my view, two truths must guide any decision: (1) The parents must be sovereign, but (2) the parents are sometimes wrong. I believe that in this case the parents are wrong, and the doctors and judges are right. Charlies suffering is literally unimaginable and we are simply prolonging it. This is a life of no light, no sound, no motion, only moments of physical suffering (seizures? intubation?) to punctuate the darkness. His doctors understandably believe that allowing a natural death is the most merciful thing they can do for Charlie. As for miracle cures, I share the courts skepticism. They always arise in such cases and invariably prove to be cruel deceptions. And yet. Despite all these considerations, I would nevertheless let the parents take their boy where they wish. The sovereignty of loved ones must be the overriding principle that guides all such decisions. We have no other way. The irreducible truth is that these conundrums have no definitive answer. We thus necessarily fall back on family, or to put it more sentimentally, on love. What is best for the child? The best guide is a loving parent. A parents motive is the most pure. This rule is not invariable, of course. Which is why the state seizes control when parents are demonstrably injurious, even if unintentionally so, as in the case of those who, for some religious imperative, would deny their child treatment for a curable disease. But theres a reason why, despite these exceptions, all societies grant parents sovereignty over their children until they reach maturity. Parents are simply more likely than anyone else to act in the best interest of the child. Not always, of course. Loved ones dont always act for the purest of motives. Heirs, for example, may not the best guide as to when to pull the plug on an elderly relative with a modest fortune. But then again, states can have ulterior motives, too. In countries where taxpayers bear the burden of expensive treatments, the state has an inherent incentive (of which Britains National Health Service has produced notorious cases) to deny treatment for reasons of economy rather than mercy. Nonetheless, as a general rule, we trust in the impartiality of the courts and the loving imperative of the parent. And if they clash? What then? If it were me, I would detach the tubes and cradle the child until death. But its not me. Its not the National Health Service. And its not the European Court of Human Rights. Its a father and a mother and their desperate love for a child. They must prevail. Let them go.

Fair Usage Law

July 23, 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."