Klaus Rohrich is senior columnist for Canada Free Press. Klaus also writes topical articles for numerous magazines. He has a regular column on RetirementHomes and is currently working on his first book dealing with the toxicity of liberalism. His work has been featured on the Drudge Report, Rush Limbaugh, Fox News, among others. He lives and works in a small town outside of Toronto.
We just witnessed the swearing in of America’s 45th president, Donald Trump, a man who has never run for public office, yet who managed to tap into the hearts and minds of the American people with his message that he will make America great again.
Think about any other country wherein this might be possible, as most Western Democracies see their peoples’ representatives in terms of being anointed, much like an arcane priesthood, and in many ways whomever is elected doesn’t matter because all the candidates stem from similar trees.
The restrictions on free speech in today’s universities are nothing less than the attempt to take control of language to prevent the free exchange and discussion of ideas.
It all starts innocuously enough; who doesn’t want to end racism? And if the use of certain pejoratives becomes socially unacceptable, then let’s all pitch in! However, the progressive mind is never satisfied unless it is able to impose its will on everyone else.
It’s interesting to note that the majority of my friends find President-Elect Donald Trump offensive. Over the Christmas Season I was asked numerous times by friends and acquaintances what I thought about Donald Trump. I knew up front that these were set-up questions to force me to defend someone they thought morally, ethically and intellectually wanting. And I took a good run at them in efforts to explain the concept of ‘creative destruction,’ an idea initially conceived by Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, that postulates its necessity as an integral part of healthy capitalism.
All the theoretical scenarios being bandied about regarding the 2016 Presidential race are based on the assumption that Hillary Clinton will be the Democrats’ candidate for president. I believe this is a case of wishful thinking mixed with intellectual torpor, as I think Hillary Clinton will not be the Democrats’ candidate.
First of all, her negatives and public personae are such that many voters would just as soon eat their ballots than vote for her.
I have become extremely sceptical of all that takes places in modern culture and am thus looking at the sudden death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia with more than a hint of suspicion. How convenient that one of the most conservative members of the Supreme Court, the one that’s been an open sore to the Obama administration throughout its tenure, just lies down and dies, thus creating a vacancy on the court that could have ramifications for America’s future too depressing to contemplate.
What’s more, the decision by Texas judge Cinderela Guevara that an independent autopsy was ‘unnecessary’ stinks to high heaven, given what’s at stake
With just a soupcon more of its traditional insensitivity, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), ended its ruefully named “Conference of the Parties 21” (COP21) in Paris on Saturday. I’m sure COP21 was indeed a conference of parties, wild parties, featuring only the best of everything for everyone there. Oysters, pate d’foie gras, Dom Perignon, Courvoisier, hmmm.
After spending nearly two weeks (and gazillions of dollars) at Le Bourget, just, a few miles northeast of Paris, one can only imagine the debaucheries that must have led to the gout & hangovers, which in turn led to the aching heads and blurred vision at the morning conclaves, which furthermore led to the “Agreement” the IPCC has so jubilantly touted.
The last two days have demonstrated that no one in the chattering classes, from the White House down to the editorial board of the Gnarled Gulch Post-Sentinel, seems to be overly concerned with actually finding a solution to the threat of terror facing the West. A case in point is The Donald’s latest proposal to temporarily prohibit all Muslims (politically correct pronunciation: ‘moo·Slims) from entering the United States to discourage further terror acts within our borders.
While, admittedly this appears to be an extreme solution to the problem, at least Trump is willing to recognize there is a problem and not attempting to sugar coat the issue in politically correct banalities. Furthermore, the proposal deserves consideration, given the fact that the West has been under some sort of assault by Islamic radicals for over 3 decades. But then, I don’t think that our progressives realize that the definition of insanity entails constantly doing the same things in the same way and expecting different results.
It’s interesting how a theoretical question set off an avalanche of weaseldom from all the usual suspects, as well as a welcome display of principled philosophy on the part of two GOP presidential hopefuls.
The first arose with Donald Trump, following his failure to correct a questioner at a town hall meeting who referred to Barack Obama as both non-American as well as Muslim. Trump maintained that he was not obliged to issue a “correction” on behalf of the man who called Obama a Muslim.
And who could blame him for not doing so? When one reviews the history of this president’s foreign policy, the majority of which is favourable to America’s enemies and hostile to many of America’s long-time allies it raises more than a few questions about Mr. Obama’s loyalties.
There are few things more irritating or destructive than a self-righteous liberal with self-endowed moral authority. The current refugee crisis in the Middle East, arguably the result of policies propagated by a smug, self-righteous American president is a case in point. This crisis has been festering for upward of a half decade and has already displaced millions of people in the Middle East and resulted in several hundred thousand deaths. Yet none of the liberal brain trust has thought that allowing the crisis to mutate into ever more savage dimensions would have consequences for the rest of us.
For those who drank the hope and change Kool-Aid, here’s some bad news: the ‘fundamental transformation of America’ is in full swing and as they used to say in show biz, “you ain’t seen nothin’ yet!”
That’s because the last 18 months of this corrupt narcissist’s rule will make the first six-and-a-half years look like a high school civics lesson in good governance. I have always found it ironic that the son of a Kenyan Muslim Marxist and disaffected white liberal woman should grow up to become President of the United States. What’s more, the way in which he arrived at the presidency is shall we say, unusual.
I am a long-time admirer of American Exceptionalism, as I understood America to be the very first society in history to recognize that our freedoms arise from something innate within us and not from the government. Or as the Founders put it, “We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
It appears State Department Spokeswoman Jen Psaki has been promoted to the position of Director of Communications at the White House, or as I like to think of it, the Witless Protection Program. Don’t get me wrong, I think Psaki is a perfectly capable individual and it may be wrong to blame the stupid statements for which she is well-known on her, as she was merely fulfilling the mandates of her job by parroting the Administration line.
You really know the world is wonky when top-level US Government officials like Marie Harf, the State Department’s deputy spokesperson, suggest that America is unable to stop terrorism and that instead we need to examine the “root causes” that create this turmoil in the first place. Harf stated that, “We cannot kill every terrorist around the world, nor should we try.” Why not? I’m reasonably certain that ISIS is taking a polar opposite view and would be delighted to kill each and every non-believer on the planet.
Last week Gallup CEO Jim Clifton took issue with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) claim that unemployment in America was now hovering somewhere in the vicinity of 5.6%. Clifton said these numbers were “totally misleading” and maintains that the real percentage of unemployed Americans is closer to double the BLS figure.
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement