Charles Krauthammer

Bibi vs Obama, and how Obama lost Israel’s elections

Charles Krauthammer comments on Obama losing the Israeli elections and the petulance of Obama.

There was a big victory for Netanyahu personally and I think the reaction of the administration is now reaching levels where it has become unseemly, the pettiness and the petulance with which they are discussing the election. A presidential spokesman congratulates Israel on holding an election rather than, as did the prime minister of Canada, of the UK, congratulating the winner.

Look, it is clear that Obama loathes Netanyahu more than any other world leader meaning more than the Ayatollah in Iran or Putin in Russia. And he did everything he could to unseat him but he failed. I think the message here is this was an election between Bibi and Obama. That was on the ballot because Obama was essentially saying if you want to reconcile with the United States, if you want your ally behind you you are going to have to get rid of Bibi. ? Read more »

‘Intrinsic insincerity’ is the best description of Cunliffe’s problem with voters

Charles Krauthammer explains what the problem is for Hillary Clinton with American voters.

His comments are also valid for David Cunliffe.

Read more »

Krauthammer on Israel and Gaza

Charles Krauthammer discusses”moral clarity in Gaza” and educates the slow of learning or those unable to search for themselves the true facts about Gaza and the actions of Hamas.

Israel accepts an Egyptian-proposed Gaza cease-fire;?Hamas keeps firing. Hamas deliberately aims rockets at civilians; Israel painstakingly tries to avoid them, actually telephoning civilians in the area and dropping warning charges, so-called?roof knocking.

?Here?s the difference between us,??explains the Israeli prime minister. ?We?re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they?re using their civilians to protect their missiles.?

Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent ?cycle of violence.? This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d?etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.

Apologists for Hamas attribute the blood lust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was?less than 10 years ago?that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens,?withdrew its military?and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza.

And there was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its?3,000 greenhouses?that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.

The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that, simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel?s desire to leave the West Bank as well and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution.

This is not ancient history. This was nine years ago.

Read more »

Charles Krauthammer on the the totalitarian instincts of the Left

Charles Krauthammer comments on the Mozilla case where they sacked?their chief executive?for having donated $1000 to a lobby group against same-sex marriage more than six years ago:

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: One of the sound bites you had earlier, someone saying this is a kind of intolerance entering into the culture. I think it’s narrower than that. This is the culture of the left not being satisfied with making an argument or even prevailing in an argument, but in destroying personally and marginalizing people who oppose it, in the same way that proponents of climate change declare the issue closed. It’s over. There’s no debate. It is settled science.? Read more »

More from Krauthammer on Climate Change and ‘settled science’

Yesterday I posted a video from Charles Krauthammer…today we can read a bit more from his Washington Post article.

I?repeat: I?m not a global warming believer. I?m not a global warming denier.?I?ve long believed?that it cannot be good for humanity to be spewing tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. I also believe that those scientists who pretend to know exactly what this will cause in 20, 30 or 50 years are white-coated propagandists.

?The debate is settled,? asserted propagandist in chief Barack Obama in his?latest State of the Union address. ?Climate change is a fact.? Really? There is nothing more anti-scientific than the very idea that science is settled, static, impervious to challenge. Take a non-climate example. It was long assumed that mammograms help reduce breast cancer deaths. This fact was so settled that Obamacare requires every insurance plan to offer mammograms (for free, no less)?or be subject to termination.

Now we learn from?a massive randomized study?? 90,000 women followed for 25 years ? that mammograms may have no effect on breast cancer deaths. Indeed, one out of five of those diagnosed by mammogram receives?unnecessary radiation, chemo or surgery.

So much for settledness. And climate is less well understood than breast cancer. If climate science is settled, why do its predictions keep changing? And how is it that the great?physicist Freeman Dyson, who did some climate research in the late 1970s, thinks today?s climate-change Cassandras are hopelessly mistaken?

The science is never settled…as we learn more we discover more.

They deal with the fluid dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans, argues Dyson, ignoring the effect of biology, i.e., vegetation and topsoil. Further, their predictions rest on models they fall in love with: ?You sit in front of a computer screen for 10 years and you start to think of your model as being real.? Not surprisingly, these models have been ?consistently and spectacularly wrong? in their predictions, write atmospheric scientists?Richard McNider and John Christy?? and always, amazingly, in the same direction. ? Read more »

Krauthammer: The Idea That Climate Change Is A Closed Issue Is “Arrogant And Anti-Scientific”

Syndicated Columnist Charles Krauthammer weighs in with his perspective on the comments issued by ?Interior Secretary?Sally Jewell regarding her position on climate change.

She said:

?”I hope there are no climate change deniers in the Department of Interior.”

Krauthammer’s response is brilliant. I hope Peter Gluckman is reading and watching this. Read more »

Whale Week What Was

QC7kkThe blog started Saturday by having a look at a number of Christchurch?people taking pictures up women’s skirts?at malls. ?And wouldn’t you know it? ?A teacher was arrested as well. ?Iain Lees-Galloway shows he is a slimy git by opening a Burger King and then refusing to take a bite, preferring to preach sensible food choices. ?Cam then called for nominations for Worst Political Journalist, and Barry Soper and John Campbell appeared hot favourites. ? Next we had a vote on Best Political Journalist, which Larry Williams took out with a massive 47% of the vote. ?Graham McCready withdrew?litigation?against John Banks because it made no sense to anyone – as in – they couldn’t understand what it said. ?Whale then claims a win on his Hekia Parata predictions and wonders why Key has let this train wreck happen. ?We raise our eyebrows about Nelson looking for a scooter riding bottom pincher and then watch a video of what happens to a pig at the bottom of the sea over 7 days. ?Next a post where Greens are fighting Greens over the Google solar plant. ?On the one side: solar energy. ?On the other? Turtles. ? Charles Krauthammer explains why gun control alone isn’t the solution to mass shootings. ? A MENSA spokesperson calls people with low IQs carrots and the BBC feels they have to apologise. ?There is a property for sale next to Kim Dotcom‘s place. ?Cam suggests the GCSB or the US should have bought it to set up spying operations. ? WOBH is calling for The Whale Army to send in their holiday snaps, in a new feature called Snapped! ?Cam takes a brief look at who will enter parliament if Tim Groser leaves for the WTO. ?To close the day, a?WhaleTech post looks at a the cull-de-sac that’s the QII roll-up keyboard. Read more »

Tagged:

Gun Control alone won’t work

Charles Krauthammer explains why gun control alone won’t work:

Every mass shooting has three elements: the killer, the weapon and the cultural climate. As soon as the shooting stops, partisans immediately pick their preferred root cause with corresponding pet panacea. Names are hurled, scapegoats paraded, prejudices vented. The argument goes nowhere.

It goes nowhere because no politician has the stones to actually call out American society for their ills. Krauthammer examines the role of gun control:

(1)?The Weapon

Within hours of?last week?s Newtown, Conn., massacre, the focus was the weapon and the demand was for new gun laws. Several prominent pro-gun Democrats remorsefully professed?new openness to gun control. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is introducing a?new assault weapons ban. And the president emphasized guns and ammo above all else?in announcing the creation?of a new task force.

I have no problem in principle with gun control. Congress enacted (and I supported) an assault weapons ban in 1994. The problem was: It didn?t work. (So concluded?a University of Pennsylvania studycommissioned by the Justice Department.) The reason is simple. Unless you are prepared to confiscate all existing firearms, disarm the citizenry and repeal the Second Amendment, it?s almost impossible to craft a law that will be effective.

Feinstein?s law, for example,?would exempt 900 weapons. And that?s the least of the loopholes. Even the guns that are banned can be made legal with simple, minor modifications.

Most fatal, however, is the grandfathering of existing weapons and magazines. That?s one of the reasons the ?94 law failed. At the time, there were 1.5?million assault weapons in circulation and 25?million large-capacity (i.e., more than 10 bullets) magazines. A reservoir that immense can take 100 years to draw down.

Studies show gun control doesn’t work, and the logistics preclude grandfathering as a solution. What about the nutters themselves?

(2)?The Killer

Monsters shall always be with us, but in earlier days they did not roam free. As a psychiatrist in Massachusetts in the 1970s, I committed people ? often right out of the emergency room ? as a danger to themselves or to others. I never did so lightly, but I labored under none of the crushing bureaucratic and legal constraints that make involuntary commitment infinitely more difficult today.

Why do you think we have so many homeless? Destitution??Poverty?has?declinedsince the 1950s. The majority of those sleeping on grates are mentally ill. In the name of civil liberties, we let them die with their rights on.

A tiny percentage of the mentally ill become mass killers.?Just about everyone?around Tucson shooter Jared Loughner sensed he was mentally ill and dangerous. But in effect, he had to kill before he could be put away ? and (forcibly) treated.

Random mass killings were three times more common in the 2000s than in the 1980s, when gun laws were actually weaker. Yet a?2011 University of California at Berkeley study?found that states with strong civil commitment laws have about a one-third lower homicide rate.

Locking the nutters up would work but for the civil liberties weirdos.

(3)?The Culture

We live in an entertainment culture soaked in graphic, often sadistic, violence. Older folks find themselves stunned by what a desensitized youth finds routine, often amusing. It?s not just movies. Young men sit for hours pulling video-game triggers, mowing down human beings en masse without pain or consequence. And we profess shock when a small cadre of unstable, deeply deranged, dangerously isolated young men go out and enact the overlearned narrative.

That is a pretty good summary of the issues, and why the focus on gun control alone won;t stop the shootings.

If we?re serious about curtailing future Columbines and Newtowns, everything ? guns, commitment, culture ? must be on the table. It?s not hard for President Obama to call out the NRA. But will he call out the ACLU? And will he call out his Hollywood friends?

The irony is that over the last 30 years,?the U.S. homicide rate has declined?by 50 percent. Gun murders as well. We?re living not through an epidemic of gun violence but through a historic decline.

Except for these unfathomable mass murders. But these are infinitely more difficult to prevent. While law deters the rational, it has far less effect on the psychotic. The best we can do is to try to detain them, disarm them and discourage ?entertainment? that can intensify already murderous impulses.

But there?s a cost. Gun control impinges upon the Second Amendment; involuntary commitment impinges upon the liberty clause of the Fifth Amendment; curbing ?entertainment? violence impinges upon First Amendment free speech.

Interesting to know that the homicide has decreased as guns have increased…funny that…but then again it isn’t so funny if you know and understand that of you act like a prick in a society where guns are?prevalent?then you might just get capped for your troubles.

Unions kill jobs

Charles Krauthammer explains why it is that unions kill jobs:

The fact is that in the right-to-work states, unemployment is 6.9%. And in the other stays the non-right-to-work, it’s 8.7. So you can choose to have fewer workers who enjoy higher, inflated, unnatural, if you like, wages, uncompetitive wages. Or you can have competitive wages and more people employed, more people with the dignity of a job and less unemployment, more taxation and more activity. I think it’s it the right choice but I understand how it’s a wrenching choice.