90 Miles From Tyranny

Monday, August 30, 2021

Joe Biden Has Been Derelict In His Duty. He Is Unfit To Lead. He Should Be Impeached

The deadly attacks in Afghanistan should be the final straw for Biden, whose incompetence has now cost the lives of at least a dozen American soldiers.

Joe Biden is not capable or competent to hold the office of the presidency. If there were any doubt on this point, his press conference Thursday evening in the wake of a pair of coordinated suicide bombings in Kabul should put the matter to rest.

The first blast Thursday killed 13 U.S. soldiers at a Kabul airport gate, along with scores of Afghans. Another bomb at a nearby hotel killed dozens more. Between the two blasts, as many as 170 people perished, not counting the U.S. service members. Hundreds more were injured, and according to U.S. officials there may be more attacks coming.

Whatever the final body count is, Thursday was the deadliest day for U.S. troops in Afghanistan since 2011, and the first time since February 2020 that any U.S. service members have been killed in action there. When the smoke finally clears, one thing is certain: Biden has been derelict in his duty, he is unfit to lead, and he should be impeached.

At his press conference Thursday evening, the president was slow and appeared at times to be confused, his answers rambling and unclear. When the time came to take questions, he said he’d been given a list, and had “been instructed” to call on certain reporters. It was a moment of quiet dread when we all saw confirmed again, before a gaping world, that although Biden is the president, he’s not actually running the country.

Of course Biden’s bizarre behavior at the press conference, although deeply disturbing, does not alone justify impeachment. Rather, it’s his fecklessness and incompetence, his failure to protect Americans in the evacuation of Afghanistan, and his inability to speak clearly and honestly about the situation, that justifies impeachment at this point.

Throughout this crisis, Biden and his White House have been evasive, defensive, and cruelly indifferent to a disaster entirely of...

Judge Strips Mother of Custody After Surprising Her with COVID Vaccination Question

A Chicago mother has been stripped of all rights to her son after she told a Cook County judge she has not been vaccinated against the coronavirus.

WFLD-TV reported that a woman named Rebecca Firlit has been divorced from her husband for seven years. Despite the ending of the marriage, she and her former husband shared custody of their 11-year-old son.

Following a virtual custody and child support hearing earlier this month, Firlit told WFLD she hasn’t seen her son in nearly three weeks. The mother lost her custody rights on Aug. 10, the day the court found her unfit to raise the child due to her vaccination status.

Apparently, the stripping of Firlit’s right to raise and care for her son came down to only her COVID-19 vaccination status. Per WFLD, the judge found out she did not wish to receive the vaccine, and so he took away her parental rights until she agrees to get the shot.

Stop the censors, sign up to get today's top stories delivered right to your inbox

The outlet reported during the cold support hearing, Cook County Judge James Shapiro out of the blue asked Firlit if she had been vaccinated. Firlit told the court that she had avoided getting the vaccine because she has a history of adverse reactions to vaccines.

The court responded by telling the mother she would lose custody of her child until she gets vaccinated. The mom is allowed to call her son, but she cannot go near him.

“I miss my son more than anything. It’s been very difficult. I haven’t seen him since August 10th,” she told the outlet.

“I think that it’s wrong. I think that it’s dividing families,” she said. “And I think it’s not in my son’s best interest to be away from his mother.”

The mom accused the judge of forcing his own political views on her and her family. She is appealing the decision which bars her from...

Team Joe will have to answer for this but we can already guess what that answer will be. There was no way logistically to get enough American troops into Kabul quickly enough to secure a city with more than four million people, they’ll say. And maybe that’s true. It wouldn’t have taken many soldiers to provide checkpoints for the roads into Kabul, I assume, but how many would it have taken to keep order on the streets as the city fell into a panic over the impending Taliban takeover? And to process evacuees at the airport? And to conduct counterterrorism ops in Kabul? Even if Biden were willing to commit those troops, how soon could they have been deployed?

Was it feasible to secure Kabul temporarily? That’s what strategic planners, notably Lloyd Austin and Mark Milley, will be asked at the upcoming congressional hearings over our great Afghan bugout. Maybe the truth is that it wasn’t.

Or maybe this was the most costly example yet of Biden’s refusal to insert more troops into Afghanistan, even if only temporarily to ensure a more orderly withdrawal. He ended up having to do that anyway to secure the airport, an operation that ultimately led to tens of thousands of Afghan friendlies being abandoned because they couldn’t be processed in time. How many more soldiers would it have taken to secure the city, which presumably would have led to many more Afghans getting out safely?

In a hastily arranged in-person meeting, senior U.S. military leaders in Doha — including McKenzie, the commander of U.S. Central Command — spoke with Abdul Ghani Baradar, head of the Taliban’s political wing.

“We have a problem,” Baradar said, according to the U.S. official. “We have two options to deal with it: You [the United States military] take responsibility for securing Kabul or you have to allow us to do it.”

Throughout the day, Biden had remained resolute in his decision to withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan. The collapse of the Afghan government hadn’t changed his mind.

McKenzie, aware of those orders, told Baradar that the U.S. mission was only to evacuate American citizens, Afghan allies and others at risk. The United States, he told Baradar, needed the airport to do that.

On the spot, an understanding was reached, according to two other U.S. officials: The United States could have the airport until Aug. 31. But the Taliban would control the city.

Fast-forward two weeks and here’s the message that’s reportedly being received by some NATO helpers in Kabul, three days before the withdrawal is supposed to conclude:

The Taliban established extra checkpoints around the airport perimeter yesterday, partly to provide extra security against ISIS attacks but party too to seal it off so that no more Afghans could depart. France and the UK are now scrambling to propose a resolution at the UN that would...