But one of Biden's many problems can be traced back to his former boss, Barack Obama. That problem is the now leadership of the Taliban in Afghanistan. Quote: "Obama: The Taliban’s Man in America. Dinesh reveals how Obama has become the Taliban’s man in America, supplying at least four senior ministers for the new radical Islamic regime. Yes, you read that right. Obama traded the Taliban Five prisoners from Guantanamo Bay in exchange for a U.S. prisoner. The swap may have sounded good at the time, but not now. Four of the Taliban Five have now been appointed as key leaders in Afghanistan’s new radical government. Yes, 20 years after 9/11 the nation is being led by radicals who want to bring death to the U.S. It’s not like it had to be this way. Trump didn’t swap prisoners. He demanded Americans back who were in jail in other countries. Biden has gone the opposite direction. Instead of demanding, he has been begging the Taliban not to hurt Americans left in Afghanistan. He agreed to leave by Aug. 31 so as not to trigger the Taliban, leaving many Americans behind, with some still seeking a way out. But it’s not just Biden. Dinesh showed even Twitter is in on the game. They have permanently banned Trump, along with many other conservative voices that have been censored. Twitter gladly hosts an account for the Taliban’s English speaking spokesman. Not sure how that works, but it’s clearly working for the Taliban. Watch to see all the details now." Obama: The Taliban's Man in America - American Right Tv
The people of the political left apparently really believe they are the greatest people on the face of the earth. They rewrite history to satisfy their made up narratives, change the meaning of words on a whim to their liking, think their every thought is insightful enough to share with others as a display of their absolute brilliance. This links to that last notable self-selected attribute they believe belongs solely to them and therefore the rest of us need to abide their absolute brilliance. But in reality if reveals just how stupid they really are.
Quote: "The politically correct write the three-word mantra “diversity, equity and inclusion” with capital letters and refer to it in acronym form as DEI. This is a distinction never accorded to such familiar triads as “duty, honor, country,” “faith, hope and charity,” or “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” You’ve never seen any of the latter set forth as DHC, FHC, etc. Despite having elevated its linguistic status, the acolytes of this political religion haven’t been thinking deeply about their Holy Trinity’s components. Start with “inclusion.” Realistically, exclusion is just as necessary, just as important as inclusion. This isn’t difficult to comprehend. If you’re preparing the ingredients for a chicken dinner, you’ll likely exclude whipped cream. If you want to learn Chinese (not a bad idea these days), you must exclude French from your studies. If you want to play baseball, you have to exclude those who lack the physical ability to play the game or the mental balance to engage in a collective activity in accordance with a certain set of rules. If not, you may be doing therapy, and that’s fine, but you’re not playing a competitive game of baseball, which has its own benefits. [...]
Move on to “equity.” Equity goes a step beyond inclusion. As a sociological talking point, it requires that all groups be represented relative to their percentages in the overall population. In practice, it really means allocating rewards to favored groups while withholding considerations from other people who earned them on the merits. Has a coherent argument ever been made to Asian-Americans parents why their most deserving children are deemed too over-represented to be admitted to Harvard, Stanford, or the Bronx High School of Science? But if equity, which sounds fair and square, actually displaces fairness, it can also get in the way of achieving one of the social justice advocates’ legitimate goals, which is helping truly needy people. For example, every non-profit organization has a board of directors. If your non-profit applies to a foundation for a grant, you may be asked to provide the demographic breakdown of the board so that the review panel can determine if it duly represents the community being served. [...]
And now to “diversity,” which is reputedly “our strength.” Every epoch seems to elevate a certain notion to the level of a universal truth cherished and accepted without close examination. One hundred years ago, the patron saint of American progressives, President Woodrow Wilson, propounded the doctrine of self-determination. The idea was that nationality, and political and geographic boundaries should match up with geometric precision. The world’s ethnicities, Wilson decreed, were entitled to be governed by a state encompassing the territory within which the nation had traditionally resided. As usual in mortal affairs, grim reality failed to conform to utopian theory. The region to be aligned in accordance with the principle of nation-state-territory—the Baltics—was a bedlam of mutually loathing ethnicities formerly constrained to live within multinational, multicultural borders. [...] Lieutenant Colonel Warwick Greene, a U.S. military observer dispatched to reconnoiter the situation, was aghast at what he saw and heard. “We have poured the wine of ‘self-determination’ into these rotten old bottles,” he said. “They have all burst and the mess stinks to Heaven.”*