https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/08/freedom-protests-cuba-and-us-john-stossel/
John Stossel exposes the truth about the lies and propaganda being told by progressives, BLM and the mainstream media about massive freedom protests by Cubans who have rallying against oppression and suffering under Communism.
https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2021/08/where-are-feminists-jason-d-hill/
Freedom Center Shillman Fellow Bruce Bawer’s excellent Frontpage article “Where Are the Gays?” paints a chilling portrait of the imminent torture, execution and amputations that await gay men under Taliban rulership in Afghanistan. And, of course, western gays are silent. Many are too busy hooking up on multiple sex apps. Many have never been concerned with rights that extend beyond the erogenous zones of their genitalia, and several are too busy celebrating the pedophilia presented in the best-selling young adult pornographic novel, Jack of Hearts (and Other Parts), as a moral victory over heteronormative patriarchy.
The majority of sex-addicted gay men live in a curated silo where drugs, hook-ups, flaunting open relationships, and chasing youth and beauty supersede condemning the horrific agenda of the Taliban — an agenda that will no doubt transport Afghanistan back to the Dark Ages.
A reader suggested that a better article would be named: “Where Are All The Feminists?” Given the plight of women under the Taliban when they ruled Afghanistan from 1996-2001, feminists should be concerned about the repression of the rights of individual women in that country. This concern should extend to the current resurgence of child marriage of young teenage girls to Taliban soldiers.
No, feminists in America will not be criticizing the Taliban, just as neither they nor gays in America have dared criticize the brutal treatment of women and gays under the governance of Hamas in Gaza. Feminists in this country are too consumed with another task: the destruction of the American male, who is seen as the producer of imperialism, “racist capitalism,” and systemic racial and gender oppression. This is their obsession. The destruction of the American male supersedes moral concern for the wanton annihilation of human lives in other countries. They will not speak out against the Taliban because they hate America and American men more than they care about the rights of any individual singled out as a target for discrimination based on membership in a demonized group.
As we hurtle towards a possible post-American future, this new breed of feminists, a phalanx of zealots, has forged fourth-wave feminism, and it’s far more rabidly anti-male than previous iterations of the ideological movement. You’d think because of its petty maliciousness and deranged radicalism, its appeal would be narrowly limited to the faculty lounges of liberal arts colleges. Yet since the inception of the #MeToo movement, the crazed foot soldiers of fourth-wave feminism managed not only to take their worldview mainstream, but also to put a headlock on the commanding heights of American culture. This is as impressive as it is terrifying.
These new man-haters are seething with toxic feminism, and the further spread of their noxious sentiment could likely spell the death of our country as we know it. Increasingly prevalent is their practice of exploiting female agency and identity to make blanket attacks on men, to neuter manliness, and to advocate for the end of masculinity. These goals are being achieved while simultaneously promulgating the dual concepts that men are by nature nefarious and that female advancement can only come through the wholesale annihilation of heteronormative constructs of maleness. The destructive consequences for relationships at every level of society—from the simple couple to the community to the nation—will be vast and irreparable.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2021/08/director_of_the_national_institutes_of_health_grossly_misstates_the_science_on_vaccination_vs_natural_immunity.html
“A sad state of affairs when you can’t trust the data from the top public health official in the United States.”
On the August 12, 2021 Special Report, Bret Baier asked NIH Director Francis Collins: “Can you definitely say to somebody that the vaccine provides better protection than the antibodies you get from actually having had COVID-19?”
Dr Collins replied to Bret and the almost 2 million viewers of Special Report:
“Yes, Bret, I can say that. There was a study published by CDC just ten days ago in Kentucky, and they looked specifically at people who had had natural infection and people who had been vaccinated and then ended up getting infection again. So what was the protection level? It was more than two-fold better for the people who had had the vaccine in terms of protection than people who had had natural infection. That’s very clear in that Kentucky study. You know that surprises people. Kind of surprised me that the vaccine would actually be better than natural infection. But if you think about it, it kinda makes sense…That’s a settled issue.”
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/08/teaching_critical_race_theory.html
As irate parents and taxpayers turn up in large numbers at school board meetings across the nation to express their opposition to Critical Race Theory (CRT), school districts are backpedaling as fast as they can, claiming “we don’t teach Critical Race Theory in our district.” Although districts are not teaching classes titled “Critical Race Theory,” they are incorporating CRT ideology into programming and curricula, and hiring people whose job is to insert CRT into every aspect of school life.
The following is one example of how CRT principles and practices are being supported by Pennsylvania’s Downingtown Area School District (DASD), where earlier this year the board hired Director of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI), Jason Brown, who wrote a book, Ugh! Not Another Diversity Book in which he misrepresents the history of Thanksgiving to portray all early European immigrants as bad. Please note, the disparagement of people based on their skin color (white), and ethnic background (European), is a key aspect of CRT ideology.
At DASD public meetings, the Board does not allow community members to make comments about DASD employees. Speakers are silenced when they attempt to provide personal experiences and observations of how CRT ideology is being implemented — as was this woman and this woman — making it very difficult to reveal the CRT/DEI agenda. Therefore, it is vital for DASD residents to communicate beyond the bounds of school board meetings to the broader public.
In Ugh! Not Another Diversity Book Brown plays fast and loose with history to promote an anti-white narrative about the origins of Thanksgiving. To elucidate both what Brown is doing and what the DASD Board considers acceptable scholarship for a member of the “Senior Leadership Team,” it is helpful to look first at the historical record. The passage below is one of the only two existing firsthand accounts of the first Thanksgiving in America, written in 1621 by Edward Winslow.
Our harvest being gotten in, our governor sent four men on fowling, that so we might after have a special manner rejoice together after we had gathered the fruit of our labors; they four in one day killed as much fowl, as with a little help beside, served the company almost a week, at which time amongst other recreations, we exercised our arms, many of the Indians coming amongst us, and among the rest their greatest King Massasoit, with some ninety men, whom for three days we entertained and feasted, and they went out and killed five deer, which they brought to the plantation and bestowed on our governor, and upon the captain, and others. And although it be not always so plentiful as it was at this time with us, yet by the goodness of God, we are so far from want that we often wish you partakers of our plenty. We have found the Indians very faithful in their covenant of peace with us…
https://www.nationalreview.com/news/the-taliban-havent-changed/
“The Taliban haven’t changed. The West’s sense of moral clarity about their wickedness and confidence in its ability to defeat them has.”
For the first time in nearly two decades, the Taliban control most of Afghanistan, including the capital city of Kabul.
As the self-destruction of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan continues apace and the Biden administration haphazardly races to evacuate U.S. citizens and allies from the war-torn country ahead of its self-imposed deadline of August 31, an odd line is emerging: Maybe the Taliban aren’t so bad.
Experts such as Mustapha Ben Messaoud, the chief of field operations at the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), claim to be “optimistic” about the Taliban’s return to power, citing “ongoing discussions.” Reuters reported that officials at UNICEF have “cited some Taliban local representatives as saying they were waiting for guidance from their leaders on the issue of educating girls, while others have said they want schools ‘up and running.’” A spokesman for U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights Michele Bachelet at least had the decency to acknowledge that the concerns of Afghans were “thoroughly understandable,” in what nevertheless may qualify as the understatement of the century.
The president of the United States and his team have also hypothesized that the Taliban may turn over a new leaf. In an interview with ABC News’s George Stephanopoulos last Wednesday, Biden responded to a question about whether the Taliban had changed:
“No. I think — let me put it this way. I think they’re going through sort of an existential crisis about do they want to be recognized by the international community as being a legitimate government,” he said.
The claim that the Taliban were facing an existential crisis echoed White House press secretary Jen Psaki’s assertion from earlier this month that “the Taliban also has to make an assessment about what they want their role to be in the international community.”
It appears that they have made that assessment already.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2021/08/bidens-appalling-trust-in-the-taliban/
The president has been resigned for years to the Taliban’s takeover of Afghanistan.
I t is becoming increasingly difficult to draw any conclusion other than that President Biden knowingly and willfully surrendered Afghanistan to the Taliban.
To be clear, this is different from concluding that Biden committed to a recklessly premature date for withdrawing all U.S. forces (which, practically speaking, would necessitate NATO’s departure, too) while being aware that the Taliban were capturing territory and that the Afghan security forces might be unable to hold them off over the ensuing months.
That would be bad, but not as damning as what I am deducing.
I now believe Biden long ago reasoned that the Taliban were going to take over the country inevitably and decided to treat them as the de facto government. Consistent with this — and with the progressive Democratic orientation that American military power is needlessly provocative, and that concessions are the preferred way to inspire rogues into good behavior — Biden determined back in the spring that he would set a firm deadline to pull our forces out, and then demonstrate to the Taliban that the deadline was real.
This, he calculated, would accomplish two things. First, on the domestic political front, the president could claim he was “ending America’s longest war.” Second, Biden could assure the Taliban that he was irreversibly committed to military withdrawal, even though he was extending the Trump administration’s irresponsible May 1 deadline (negotiated with the Taliban in an agreement that cut out, and thus nullified, the ostensibly U.S.-backed Afghan government in Kabul, releasing 5,000 prisoners at the Taliban’s demand).
Biden saw the Taliban as the regime in waiting, with whom his administration was energetically negotiating. If he proved to the Taliban that the U.S. really was leaving no matter what, then he figured the Taliban would allow — even facilitate — the evacuation of thousands of American civilian workers, contractors, and diplomatic personnel. Biden would pull out American troops and trust the Taliban, thus appeased, with the fate of the remaining Americans.
This is mind-boggling, but not the half of it. Biden was also effectively administering the coup de grâce to the Afghan government, and not only by elevating the Taliban to the sole Afghan party with which his administration would negotiate the terms of the U.S. departure. Biden would also pull out in a manner that undermined the Afghan security forces’ capacity to fight the Taliban. After all, if U.S. troops and contractors continued providing technical and logistical support to the Afghan ground and air forces, the Taliban might interpret that as an American commitment to continue the war. Biden would make sure the jihadists had no cause for doubt.
https://issuesinsights.com/2021/08/24/taliban-under-the-bed/
After the fall on Kabul, our elitists raced to Twitter and other forums to equate the Taliban to conservatives and Republicans in the U.S. What kind of country are we becoming, in which a significant part of it cannot, or will not, distinguish the difference between terrorism and political differences?
Duplici-mentarian Michael Moore, as he often is, was an early arrival at the buffet table of buffoonery. While so many of us were wondering just how things could have gone so wrong, even under Joe Biden, he tweeted “their Taliban, our Taliban, everybody’s got a Taliban,” complete with a photo of a few of the Jan. 6 Capitol intruders. Of course it was met with great approval.
Actress Rosanna Arquette, who has declared she will never again stand for the American flag and will kneel when she hears the national anthem, apparently couldn’t help herself, either. She tweeted that “the Taliban extremists” in the U.S. go by “a different name.” She wants the world to know that “the GOP right wing extremists who support destroying democracy are the terrorists in America and will continue to terrorize America until they are stopped and pay for their crimes against Americans Jan 6.”
“Late Show” host Steven Colbert, dance partner of New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, used his national forum to wonder “why should our soldiers be fighting radicals in a civil war in Afghanistan” since “we’ve got our own on Capitol Hill.” MSNBC’s Joy Reid called the Taliban’s takeover of Kabul a “true cautionary tale for the U.S., which has our own far religious right dreaming of a theocracy.”
And then there’s Ahmed Tharwat, host and producer of some Arab-American television show who “writes for local and international publications.” Last week, the Minneapolis Star Tribune allowed him to rant about “the American Taliban,” which “stormed the Capitol to reinstall their cult leader to office after he lost the election and launched the stop the steal movement.” It was, he said, a “hillbilly coup.”
Much of the effort to link America’s political right to the Taliban is nothing more than pathetic virtue signaling. It’s the screeching of attention-hungry media personalities and celebrities who desperately need to show the world they’re on the right side of history, and are morally and intellectually superior than most of their fellow Americans.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/biden-afghanistan-withdrawal-taliban-resistance-ahmad-massoud-panjshir-amrullah-saleh-islamist-national-security-11629728994?mod=opinion_lead_pos5
Ahmad Massoud is in a remote base in Afghanistan’s Panjshir province. He is the son and successor to the legendary commander Ahmad Shah Massoud, a resistance leader against both the Soviets and the Taliban until the latter assassinated him on Sept. 9, 2001.
As Kabul fell to the Taliban again, the young Mr. Massoud issued a resounding call for resistance. “We Afghans find ourselves in the situation of Europe in 1940,” he said on Aug. 16. “Except in Panjshir, the debacle is near total, and the spirit of collaboration with the Taliban is spreading among the vanquished, who lost this war by their own failings. Only we remain standing. And we will never yield.”
I visited Mr. Massoud in Panjshir last year and spoke with him by phone on Saturday. His voice was clear and resonant but choppy. I asked about rumors circulating in Europe and the U.S. that he was preparing to give up. “That’s propaganda,” he says. “Apparently, there are defeatists among you who mistake their wishes for realities. So, no. Make this known: There is no question of giving up the fight. Here in Panjshir, our resistance is just beginning.”
What about Taliban leader Sirajuddin Haqqani’s claims that Mr. Massoud was “withdrawing?” “I repeat that this is disinformation. We will never accept an imposed peace, and we will resist until we achieve justice and freedom. . . . No surrender, of course. I would prefer to die than to give up. I am the son of Ahmad Shah Massoud. Surrender is not in my dictionary.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/police-thin-blue-line-shootings-black-homicide-crime-proactive-policing-blm-defund-11629750911?mod=opinion_lead_pos7
The village of Mount Prospect, Ill., prohibited its police officers earlier this month from wearing a “thin blue line” patch on their uniforms. The patch consists of a black-and-white U.S. flag with one blue stripe. It honors fallen cops and recognizes the role police play in protecting society from anarchy. Detractors insist the symbol makes people of color feel unsafe. Police chiefs and elected officials in San Francisco, Middletown and Manchester, Conn., and elsewhere have banned it.
While Mount Prospect was grappling with threatening police patches, in nearby Chicago the police were dealing with actual violence—against officers and civilians. Three days before the anti-patch vote, Officer Ella French was killed by a bullet to her head during a traffic stop. French and her two partners had pulled over an SUV for expired registration tags. One of the SUV’s occupants, 21-year-old Emonte Morgan, allegedly fought with the officers and opened fire, killing French and critically wounding one of her partners with bullets to the brain, eye and shoulder. Mr. Morgan was on probation for a recent robbery conviction, which a Chicago Tribune story characterizes as not a “serious” crime. His brother Eric, who was driving the SUV, was on probation for a theft conviction.
French and her partner were among the 78 people shot in Chicago over the Aug. 7-8 weekend, 11 of them fatally. Typical of the post- George Floyd urban mayhem, a child—this time a 4-year-old girl—was among the victims. Over Fourth of July weekend in Chicago, a 5-year-old girl, a 6-year-old girl, a 12-year-old girl and a 13-year-old boy were shot, along with 104 others. On July 1, a 1-month-old infant was critically wounded in a mass shooting. Three young men emerged from a Jeep Cherokee spraying bullets in several directions. A 15-year-old and six other victims were also shot, along with the baby. Hours earlier, a 9-year-old girl was shot in the head.
Chicago is no outlier. In Minneapolis, six children 10 and younger have been shot since late April, including two girls, 6 and 9, who were killed; two boys, 10 and 3, both critically wounded; and an infant. None of these Minneapolis children were shot by a cop; they were killed by criminals who, like them, are black.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-agony-of-the-centrist-democrats-nancy-pelosi-infrastructure-house-spending-11629754803?mod=opinion_lead_pos1
With the House back in town, the debate for Democrats is which colossal plan they should pass first: President Biden’s $1 trillion infrastructure package? Or Bernie Sanders’s $3.5 trillion budget outline? The media is covering it as a real showdown but, if history holds, this will turn out to be Kabuki theater.
Nine Democrats, including several from swing districts, say the infrastructure bill should be passed before any budget vote is taken, and so far they have held their ground. “We are firmly opposed,” they wrote recently, “to holding the president’s infrastructure legislation hostage to reconciliation, risking its passage and the bipartisan support behind it.”
The left is demanding the opposite. Do the $3.5 trillion spending binge first, the argument goes, and then reward the Democratic centrists with the infrastructure goody bag. Speaker Nancy Pelosi doesn’t want to lose either faction, and her narrow majority means she has only three votes to spare. She’s trying to accommodate both sides with a rule that lets her claim the two proposals are moving forward more or less simultaneously.
This is mainly about process, not substance. The nine Democratic holdouts want to vote on infrastructure now, but tomorrow they’re prepared to roll over for $3.5 trillion in spending and new entitlements, which is what really matters. “I’ve literally said to my colleagues, ‘Let’s vote on the infrastructure bill, and then, like, 15 minutes later we can start debate on the budget resolution and vote on it the next day,’” Rep. Josh Gottheimer told a reporter.
Top Stories @ Fox News