All right. Admiral McRaven, who I mistakenly called General McRaven in the tweet, Admiral McRaven wrote an op-ed in the New York Times in which he was saying that the president should be removed or should leave office sooner than later. But he doesn't mention impeachment per se. He doesn't mention an election per se. And he's an admiral. What does it mean when an admiral writes that the president of the United States needs to leave sooner or later without mentioning how? Well that's a pretty dangerous thought, isn't it?

Now do you think that the military is getting ready for a coup? Well I think not because there's just no way it would work out. But does it help the hypnosis? Cue the coup that will have no... but rather people will be brainwashed into thinking, oh yeah we have to replace this president. Does it help to have an admiral, retired admiral, come out on the side of the hypnosis? Of course it does. So part of the brainwashing that's brainwashing at least half of the country into thinking that the president needs to be changed in a non-election way is really helped by this admiral.

Now there's some bad news here. I don't know if you read between the lines. There's really some bad news with this Admiral McRaven coming out against the president. And really that's just the symptom. The real problem is one of the odds. Now that we've stopped supporting the Kurds, how are the Kurds ever going to support us against Antifa when the civil war happens and we need the Kurds to come over and fight with us to defend against Antifa? Are they going to do it? I don't think so. I think the Kurds will say, hey you didn't help us against ISIS. We're not gonna help you against Antifa. Good luck with that, America.

So yes, there's a lot we're losing here. According to Admiral McRaven, this president has damaged our standing with other leaders and our credibility so much so that how can we depend on them in the future? For example, let's say we got into a big war. Do you think we could depend on Greece coming to our rescue? No. Greece would look at the situation and say, well look what they did to the Kurds. We're not coming to help them militarily. How are we going to win a war without the Greeks? I don't see how. What if Russia sends a nuclear weapon our way and starts a nuclear war? We're not going to have the Kurds on our side. So how are we going to defend against a thermonuclear war with Russia if we have no Kurds? No Kurds at all. Like not even one Kurd is going to help us. What are we gonna do? Well I would say we're in pretty bad shape in that case.

So Admiral McRaven has got a good point here. Who is ever gonna help the United States? Who is going to help us? Because before this, you could see that other countries were forming a line to give us money and military aid. And my God, other countries wanted to help the United States so much that we almost couldn't handle all the help they were giving us. But now that this current situation is happening, there's no line. Nobody is offering us free money. Nobody is offering to help us in any way. It's so different than it was two weeks ago. Very different.

So here's the question that I ask for all those nervous Nancys such as Admiral McRaven who are sure that America is grievously wounded by the actions of this impulsive president with his lack of strategy and all that. What would be an example of that? Even a speculative example. I would guess that we don't have any examples of things that have already happened. It's more of a speculative imaginary future problem. But could somebody describe that for me? For example, what would we want to do in the future that we can't do because of the current situation? I don't really see an example.