Prayer zone for a better, empowering, inspiring, promoting, prospering, progressing and more successful life through Christ Jesus

Posts tagged ‘Charles Krauthammer’

Krauthammer: Democrats Will Run From Obamacare Next Summer.

Democratic support of Obamacare is a “pretense” that will change next summer, at which time they’ll they “run for their lives,” syndicated columnist and Fox News contributor Charles Krauthammer said Thursday.

“[Support] is a pretense they’re going to have to maintain, probably until midsummer, at which point everybody is going to run for their lives. And the Democrats, individually in their races, are going to run away from this as hard as they can,” Krauthammer told “Fox & Friends.”

Democrats will have no choice but to watch as Obamacare unfolds. Those facing re-election could call for changes to the healthcare law sometime next year, Krauthammer predicted.

“The Democrats are going to have to watch this without any recourse unless they decide they’re going to jump ship. And I think that by mid-year, it’s likely that some of the vulnerable Democrats in the Senate are going to move for a delay or even a repeal,” he said.

Democrats facing midterm elections in 2014 are increasingly viewed as vulnerable, due to the problems facing Americans from Obamacare. Passed on a purely partisan vote, Krauthammer said Democrats “decided in 2009 and 2010 for a huge experiment on one-sixth of the American economy.”

Krauthammer maintained Democrats used the issue of people without healthcare insurance to “revolutionize all of American medicine.” Now that Obamacare has been implemented, it is “not stoppable, in the absence of repeal,” he said.

Related Stories:

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
By Wanda Carruthers

Obama’s Handling Of Syria Crisis Viewed As ‘Amateur Hour’.

Immediately following his statement from the Rose Garden on Saturday, which President Barack Obama said he would delay a strike on Syria until seeking authorization from Congress, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer took to Fox News to slam the president.


Krauthammer criticized Obama for the way he has handled the unfolding of events surrounding the crisis in Syria.

“The most astonishing thing is the lack of any urgency,” Krauthammer said. “As you say, Congress will be back in a week. He says, ‘I can strike in a day or a week or a month,’ as if he is a judge handing down a sentence and the execution can be any time in the future. There is a war going on. Do you think everybody is going to hold their breath, hold their arms, step aside until Obama decides when he wants to go to Congress?

Look, I think he should go to Congress,” he continued. “I think it is absolutely necessary. But he has done no preparation. What they should have done — I mean, this is sort of amateur hour. When there were the first attacks six months ago or if you like, when we had the current attacks, he should have immediately have called in the Congress the way the prime minister of Britain had called in the parliament, had a debate and got a resolution and then went out and told the world we are going do x or we are not going to do x.”

“But the idea that you make the case, you leak the details, you tell the world that this has to be done and then you say, ‘Well, I will take my time. I’ll go to Congress and we’ll see,’” Krauthammer said. “This should be done in three days. It isn’t as if people are not aware of the arguments. You should go out there, bring them in [and] have it done by the end of the week. And the world, I think, will have higher respect. But this looks as if you are a cynic, meaning if you are sitting Syria, Iran, Moscow, it looks like a president who boxed himself into a corner and is looking for a way out.” source – Daily Caller

by NTEB News Desk

Krauthammer: Doing Nothing on Benghazi Caused Threat to Embassies.

The United States’ lack of response to the attack on its diplomatic facility on Sept. 11, 2012 spurred the current threat that has embassies closed throughout the Muslim world, says conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer.

The attack in Benghazi, Libya, left Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans dead, and no one has been held accountable 11 months later, Krauthammer said Monday on Fox News Channel’sSpecial Report.”

“This is the fruits of being in Benghazi, having our ambassador attacked, and nothing happening to the bad guys,” he said. The United States also warned Russia there would be consequences to aiding NSA leaker Edward Snowden, but there were none after they granted him temporary asylum last week.

There is no sense that if you “stick a finger in its eye,” America will do anything about it, Krauthammer said. Terrorist groups feel they can move and strike anywhere and be “relatively unmolested.”

Urgent: Is Obama Telling the Truth on IRS, Benghazi Scandals? 

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

By Greg Richter

Krauthammer: National Gay Marriage Coming.

Nationally syndicated columnist and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer says Wednesday’s Supreme Court rulings striking down the Defense of Marriage Act and Proposition 8 will “inevitably lead to the overturning of all the laws in all the states that disallow gay marriage.”

Referring to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion, Krauthammer said, the court essentially is “nationalizing gay marriage in the way Roe nationalized and abolished all the abortion laws.”

Urgent: Supreme Court Right on Gay Marriage? Vote Here Now 

If Kennedy had only cited federalism, said Krauthammer, the decision could be called a conservative victory. But because Kennedy said depriving benefits for gay couples is discriminatory, there is no reason the same logic shouldn’t apply to the states that don’t allow gay marriage in the first place.

© 2013 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Some Conservatives Voice Petraeus Conspiracy Theories.

It’s the soap opera that shocked official Washington and ensnared a previously squeaky clean CIA director at a time when he was supposed to play a role in the accounting for a possible security misstep in Libya.

We don’t know all the facts of why the FBI started investigating David Petraeus‘ biographer and how it ultimately led to his resignation.

But a growing number of conservative commentators contend that the resignation of former CIA Director David Petraeus is more than simple amends made for a personal wrong.

Charles Krauthammer, the Fox News and Washington Post commentator, believes the Petraeus’ sex scandal is linked to a closed briefing that he gave two days after the attack that killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens, in Benghazi, Libya.

Petraeus is set to speak about circumstances surrounding the tragedy again before a House committee on Friday and possibly at a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing, as well.

Petraeus’ resignation from his post at the CIA in light of his extramarital affair raised the possibility that he would not testify. But on Wednesday morning, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., told ABC News Petraeus had agreed to do so.

Krauthammer said on Fox News Tuesday that ties he sees between what Petraeus’ told the Congress in September and his fear for his future at the CIA make his affair with biographer Paula Broadwell important to the public.

“The reason that it’s important is here’s a man who knows the administration holds his fate in his hands, and he gives testimony completely at variance with what the Secretary of Defense had said the day before, at variance with what he heard from the station chief in Tripoli and with everything that we had heard,” Krauthammer said. “Was he influenced by the fact he knew his fate was held by people in the administration at that time?”

Krauthammer’s comments seemed to imply that the man who wrote the book on the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq lied to the House Intelligence Committee to save his skin when he said that the attack was a spontaneous mob spurred by the film, “The Innocence of Muslims.”

At the time of his briefings, no one in the White House was aware of the FBI investigation into Petraeus’ relationship with Broadwell.

As ABC News’ Martha Raddatz reported on “World News with Diane Sawyer,” the FBI got involved around May or June tracing emails from Broadwell to Jill Kelley in Tampa, Fla., but President Obama was not informed about Petraeus’ indiscretions until November

Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote an op-ed for the Washington Times Wednesday in which he said Petraeus was clearly forced to resign his post in an effort to keep him quiet.

“In the modern era, office-holders with forgiving spouses simply do not resign from powerful jobs because of a temporary, non-criminal, consensual adult sexual liaison, as the history of the FDR, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ and Clinton presidencies attest. So, why is Gen. Petraeus different?” Napolitano wrote. “Someone wants to silence him.”

Napolitano offered no guesses as to what those pressuring Petraeus might be hoping to suppress.

Rudy deLeon, senior vice president for national security and international policy at the Center for American Progress, said the American people should allow Petraeus to “speak for himself.”

“Anyone who knows Gen. Petraeus, and I’ve known him since my Pentagon days, knows that his integrity comes first, that he’s not a political guy, and that being straightforward is what his considerable reputation has been based on,” deLeon said.

In late October, Petraeus personally traveled to Libya to investigate the CIA personnel who were in Benghazi on the night of the attack.

Read more about that trip  HERE.

On the night Petraeus first announced his resignation, Krauthammer said the affair would spur the mainstream media to dig deeper into what transpired in Benghazi.

“It will now become the hottest story around and you can be sure that even the mainstream papers, which did not show any interest whatsoever in this story up to and into the election, are going to get on it,” Krauthammer said. “It will unravel.”

Implications that Petraeus was covering for the White House play into a larger theory floating around conservative circles that Obama administration officials like Petraeus and U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice purposely misled the American people following the attack in Benghazi.

Sens. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and John McCain, R-Ariz., told ABC’s Jon Karl Wednesday that they would oppose Obama’s hypothetical nomination of Rice to Secretary of State, with Graham saying he didn’t “trust her.”

President Obama responded to this opposition Wednesday at his first press conference since taking reelection, defending the U.N. ambassador.

“She made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her,” Obama said. “If Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me.”



Who Won the Vice Presidential Debate?.

Paul Ryan
Paul Ryan

Regardless who you were pulling for in this year’s vice presidential debate, one thing is clear: The medium is just as important as the message.

In one discussion afterwards, commentator Charles Krauthammer put it best. When asked who won the debate he said it depended on how you encountered it.

If you read the transcript, it was probably even. Both candidates had their facts, both had done their homework and it was pretty evenly matched. However, if you heard it on the radio, you probably assumed Joe Biden won. On the radio, he sounded commanding, was bold and to the point. But if you watched it on TV, Ryan clearly won.

By seeing Joe Biden’s rude sneers, condescending tone and dismissive attitude, he will be perceived as an out-of-control bully. Indeed, by unofficial media counts, he interrupted the Republican some 80 to 100 times. Ryan finally pushed back with, “Mr. Vice President, I know you’re under a lot of duress to make up for lost ground, but I think people would be better served if we don’t keep interrupting each other.”

How you encountered the debate had a significant impact on how you perceived the winner. So now the question turns to you and your message. How are you best perceived and what medium is best to deliver it? Should you be writing books, launching a blog, hosting a radio program, producing a movie or creating a online or broadcast TV series?

Does your style hurt you visually? Are you an articulate and passionate writer? The truth is, too many politicians, pastors, nonprofit leaders, artists, and  creatives spend years working in a medium that doesn’t help them express their story.

Think about it. Ask for advice. Before you invest your life in sharing your message, decide which medium will share it best.


Phil Cooke is a media consultant focused mainly on the Christian market, as well as a vocal critic of contemporary American and American-influenced Christian culture. Click here to visit his website.


Politicians are people, too: the tragedies that shaped Biden and Ryan.

Sometimes I suspect that at least 85 percent of our political gridlock is driven by a failure of empathy, a failure to imagine what it might be like to believe something else. And I mean that for everyone–citizen, candidate, pundit, and office-holder alike.

Like most people on the left, I spent the years 2000 to 2008 in a state of more or less constant indignation. I got mad when I looked at George W. Bush, when I heard George W. Bush, and when I thought about George W. Bush. The conservative commentator Charles Krauthammer coined a phrase to diagnose this liberal malady, Bush Derangement Syndrome, which he described as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency–nay–the very existence of George W. Bush.”

My own personal Bush Derangement Syndrome, while chronic, turned out to be manageable, all things considered. Among my liberal friends, though, things got pretty gnarly. When Bush endorsed the surge in Iraq, I remember listening to a few of my friends dismiss the whole plan as doomed. The glee with which they voiced their alarming predictions disgusted me, because it meant they were tacitly wishing failure on our nation, and more death and pain to our soldiers and the Iraqi people, all because they couldn’t stand to see Bush succeed. I’d been to Iraq as an embedded journalist, and wrote a book about the Vietnam War, and thus had pondered the American responsibility to Iraq quite a bit. My personal view of the Iraq war was that it was a grievous error, but I nevertheless believed that pulling out of Iraq in 2007 would have served only to transform a stupidly, tragically bad call into an even bigger catastrophe.

What allowed me some measure of empathy and compassion for Bush was an apocryphal story widely shared among political journalists. The story went that members of the Bush clan were so stunned that feckless, temperamental George was on the verge of capturing the highest office in the land that they’d barely been able to contain their bafflement when he showed up with his hand on a Bible at an inauguration. The presidency was an office the Bush clan had long assumed the more reasonable and even-keeled Jeb was born to inhabit–and who knows? Maybe he was. George W., intimately familiar with his family’s regard for him, is said to have used this tacit, gentle disdain as one of his chief wellsprings of motivation in the second half of his life. Among other things, this would go some way toward explaining Bush’s decision to finish what his father left unfinished–namely, the continued existence of Saddam Hussein’s odious regime.

Now, I have no idea how true any of this is, but there’s considerable anecdotal evidence to back it up, some of which can be found in Jacob Weisberg’s excellent book, “The Bush Tragedy.” Viewing Bush as a man humanly trapped in a complicated web of family tension and expectation, as someone who spent much of his 20s and 30s prodigiously screwing up, only to assume the most powerful position on the planet … well, I’ll tell you what: with such a rich lode of psychological material, Shakespeare would have gone to town.

This stuff never made me like or admire Bush, but it certainly–and usefully–kept me from hating him. There is nothing so poisonous to the tree of antipathy than an honest effort to imagine the how and why of another human being. Except for Dick Chaney, since I fail to see how understanding the mindset of the alien Skrull race who carved him from space rocks and rocketed him to planet Earth would in any way enrich my understanding of the former vice president.

We have a new syndrome now, of course, Obama Derangement Syndrome, though, curiously, Dr. Krauthammer has yet to formally diagnose it. I will go out on a limb and say that Bush Derangement Syndrome is to Obama Derangement Syndrome what a sore throat is to the Ebola virus. Judging from their Facebook posts, I have otherwise intelligent, rational family members who appear to believe that Barack Obama dropped out of Satan’s womb at an all night abortion party. And judging from last week’s conservative effort to remind America that it elected a black president, it would appear that there’s literally nothing certain citizens among us will forgive President Obama, not even using a so-called black accent when speaking to a predominantly black audience. (To my conservative pals: That people change or modulate their speaking style depending on the audience and occasion is something you learn in Toastmasters 101, as it’s one of the oldest rhetorical tricks in the book. “To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.” That’s Paul of Tarsus, a man I suspect most conservatives think was an OK dude.)

Believe me, all sorts of things irritate me about President Obama, especially after his snoretastic debate performance last week, but when I imagine him as a young stoner in Hawaii, pining for a father he didn’t know–a father, no less, who appears to have been a notably crummy human being–struggling with his racial identity, struggling with his ambition, struggling with the weirdness that is growing up Hawaiian, struggling his entire sense of self, I see that his careful adulthood modulations and infuriatingly cool temper are the arc of something recognizable and even something grand: the first black American doing his best to survive within the incomparably severe pressure cooker of the modern presidency. Even if you don’t agree with his policies or politics, looking at President Obama as a hateful creature fished from the ponds of a global Islamist-Marxist conspiracy probably suggests more about your basic goodness and humanity than his.

In light of that, I’ll tell you what I’ll be thinking about on the day of our vice-presidential debate: the tragic and cruelly shaping backdrop looming behind both candidates.

One day, a 16-year-old Paul Ryan walked upstairs in his Janesville, Wis., bedroom to tell his father he was late for work. But Ryan’s still-young father was dead of a heart attack. Looking at Congressman Ryan, I’ve often thought about the dreadful moments that followed his 911 call. Did he sit at his father’s bedside? Did he pray? Did he run outside and weep? In thinking about that, I feel closer to him, and less willing to dislike him, and I actually get a little amazed by how clearly I imagine I can trace that heartbroken teenage boy to the fiercely assured and rugged-individualist Midwestern conservative he became.

As for Vice President Joe Biden, in 1972 he suffered what I think we would all accept as one of the most nightmarish turns of fate imaginable. His wife and daughter were killed in a car crash in Delaware only weeks after he was elected to the Senate. And from here, too, I imagine I can trace the growth of Biden’s strange fusion of goofball serious-mindedness, his tendencies toward grandiosity (and carelessness), his apparently sincere concern for the down and out, the lost, and the broken.

It may or may not be true that people are stronger at the broken places, but the broken places are absolutely where people are most compelling. This is true for your accountant, your spouse, your children, and your presidential candidates.
I’m almost 40 years old, and one life truism I’ve discovered is that it’s virtually impossible to hate someone you bother to get to know well. Our national discourse would be far better off if we made an honest effort to think of our politicians as men and women with verifiable histories and complicated humanness rather than as phantasms of ideologies we hate. Doing so might also make us more willing to see the best in one another, which would be nice, seeing that habitually assuming the worst in others remains a fine way to ruin what’s best in oneself.


Tom Bissell

How Obama’s Immigration Decision Will Lead to Tyranny.

COMMENTARY | Politico notes that by announcing the government will no longer deport young illegal aliens under certain conditions, he is following a policy strategy of ignoring the law. He has also established a precedent for President Mitt Romney.

To be sure, as the Daily Caller relates, there are some curmudgeonly folks like Charles Krauthammer who think the president ought to obey and enforce the law. But Obama has cast aside the tired, obsolete model of governing. Now enforcement “discretion” is the order of the day. After all, it is not as if Congress was going to impeach the president for violating the law and his oath of office.

Suppose Romney has been elected president. On his first day in office, between the swearing in and the inaugural parties, he can enact a tax cut by executive fiat. John Yoo, writing in National Review, cheekily suggests President Romney could lower taxes by announcing the IRS will no longer prosecute people who refuse to pay their capital gains taxes. One would go further and suggest a blanket amnesty for people who are less than $20,000 in arrears to the IRS, something that would also have the salutary effect of putting those fly-by-night companies that promise they will “fix” things with the IRS for people in tax trouble out of business.

Yoo goes further to suggest Obamacare, should the Supreme Court decide to keep it around, could be rendered null and void by using the same enforcement discretion Obama has used on immigration laws and just refuse to enforce it.

There is no limit to the amount of power a president has if he chooses to follow in Obama’s footsteps in deciding what laws to enforce and which ones not to. Congressional appropriations will become mere suggestions. If the Defense Department feels it should spend money in other ways than Congress has dictated, a future president perhaps won’t stop it from doing so. The Department of Education could ignore its appropriations bill and block grant a school voucher program. NASA could spend money going back to the moon — or not — no matter what Congress says to the contrary.

That road leads to a president ruling more like a king than elected head of a republic. That is what makes what Obama has done so pernicious.


Yahoo! Contributor Network

By Mark Whittington | Yahoo! Contributor Network 

Tag Cloud