President Whizzing-Contest is at it again. This time, retired four-star Admiral William McRaven has entered Trumpster-Fire's crosshairs by calling Trump's attacks on the media as "the greatest threat to democracy" he's ever seen.

Trump responded by asking rhetorically, "And frankly, wouldn’t it have been nice if we got Osama bin Laden a lot sooner than that?" (McRaven, of course, led the operation that killed Bin Laden.)

If Trump wants someone to blame for the fact that bin Laden eluded us for the entire Bush presidency, I would start with Orrin Hatch.

On September 11th, 2001, almost immediately after the attacks, Orrin Hatch (who, ironically enough, is a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee) told reporters, "Everything is pointing in the direction of Osama bin Laden. They have an intercept of some information that includes people associated with bin Laden who acknowledged a couple of targets were hit."

Without naming Hatch specifically, a visibly perturbed Rumsfeld said that when officials blab state secrets, "the effect is to reduce the chances that the United States government has to track down and deal with the people who have perpetrated the attacks on the United States and killed so many Americans."

Thanks, Orrin.

Forgot the link! Silly me! Here it is!

Forgot the link! Silly me! Here it is!

The left's current attitude, summed up in one tweet -

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsVxesBUUAIWTbi.jpg

Libertarianism: expectation versus reality

https://twitter.com/RuleDonaldTrump/status/1064365681901268992

Mexican protestor today in Tijuana on the caravan: "Donald Trump was right, this is an invasion! What Donald Trump said was correct: this is an invasion!"

Crowd chants: "Get out Hondurans, we do not want you here. Get out Hondurans, we do not want you here."

https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1064330909329936384

Hey everybody, let's take a trip to a stark, remote, yet beautiful land, with a population just north of 50,000.

Steady your sea legs, because your boat is about to dock at the Faroe Islands.

Hillary has reporter removed from a book signing. Should she sue? is this also a threat to democracy, Admiral McRaven?

https://twitter.com/LauraLoomer/status/1063486803951452160

Would the Admiral like to comment on a representative's idle threat to nuke constituents who might disobey laws they believe to be unconstitutional? in case you missed it:

https://lidblog.com/eric-swalwell-nuke-them/

Wouldn't that constitute a war crime?

Instapundit has a Rolling Stone update.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/313446/

Wenner’s Gulfstream II jet seated ten people and featured a dining table, four overstuffed couches, and a foldout bed. It cost $ 6 million. Wenner loved it so much he put the factory-issued model in his office on Fifth Avenue and dreamed of ways to take his Rolling Stone salon of celebrities and suitors to the air. “Then it became ‘What can we do to fly this thing? Where can we go? How can I take it in the air?’  ” recalled Wenner. “I would just circle over LaGuardia to have lunch.”

Admiral McRaven hardest hit.

https://twitchy.com/jacobb-38/2018/11/18/dan-crenshaw-has-a-simple-but-brutal-question-for-media-who-say-trump-undermines-democracy/

It wasn’t because the Founders thought local groups of armed citizens could prevail in combat against the full resources of the central government. Even in a world without A-10s, armored tanks, networked surveillance, and over-the-horizon targeting of precision weapons, the Founders didn’t expect that. ~ from a link by I R A Darth Aggie at November 19, 2018 6:11 AM

People today think that the only difference, in colonial days, between a militia and an army was the uniform. Not at all so.

This stems from the belief that the primary weapon of the British infantry in the Revolution was the Brown Bess musket. In reality, the primary weapon of the British infantry at that time was the bayonet. The musket just made opposing soldiers duck while the Redcoats moved close enough to stab them with their bayonets.

Our founding fathers spent an entire war using militia alongside trained professional soldiers. Militia were essentially worthless in a pitched battle, often breaking and running without firing a shot at the enemy.

At Cowpens, Daniel Morgan lined his militia up in the front two lines of battle, knowing it would lull the British into a false sense of confidence, seeing amateurs opposing them. He urged his militiamen to fire "just two shots" before they broke and ran. His third line of battle, hidden by a rise from the British, consisted of professional Continental soldiers.

The British line laughed when the militia broke and ran, many without firing a shot, having seen it so often before. The Redcoats gave chase. This chase broke up their disciplined line. Many of the British soldiers had not bothered to reload their muskets during the chase, anticipating finishing off the fleeing militia with bayonets.

At the third line, Morgan's professional soldiers met what was now a Redcoat mob and, along with snipers hidden in the trees to the sides, routed the British with close-range musket fire.

Morgan's tactic was so effective that Nathaniel Greene would repeat it at Guilford Courthouse, the battle that sent Cornwallis retreating toward Yorktown and the Revolution hurtling toward its end.

If the Revolution didn't disabuse our Founding Fathers of the myth that amateur soldiers defending their homes would always prevail against professional soldiers fighting for pay, the War of 1812 certainly did. Between militia units refusing to obey Army orders and breaking and running at Bladensburg, organized militia units proved worthless in that war, too.

So, no, our Founding Fathers did not expect a militia to prevail in a pitched battle against a professional army. They did, however, expect that an armed citizenry would make a government think twice about overstepping its Constitutional bounds; that with hit-and-run tactics, a militia could create a Revolution.

Such armed Resistance organizations would prove to be thorns in the sides of the Nazi occupation armies throughout Europe in World War II; and never once did those Resistance cells try to stand toe-to-toe with Nazi tanks in a pitched battle.

Conan and IRADA, that's all very well and good, but I must add that today, an enormous number of Americans have served in our professional forces and know what their strengths and weaknesses are.

"On the matter of “anti-Jewish oppression,” the Jewish penetration of European society was a risky venture but one that Jewish populations evidently felt was worth the gamble. No Jews were ever forced to settle in a European country, but still they came and still they expanded. They were aware that as non-Christians and as masters of debt they would generate hostility in the general population. Indeed, these considerations formed an important aspect of their bargaining for charters — agreements drawn up between Jews and European elites that laid down the terms of residence, levels of protection, and financial rewards that would make it worthwhile for Jews to settle. For example, in 1084, Jews were given a defensive wall around their settlement quarter in the Rhineland town of Speyer in fulfillment of promises made in their charter."

https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2018/11/16/reply-to-danya-ruttenberg-on-jews-and-usury/

an enormous number of Americans have served in our professional forces and know what their strengths and weaknesses are.

Agreed. I think this is a very small limb to climb out on, but I suspect that their number is larger than the number currently serving. And even if a sizable portion of them are no longer fit for field duty, there is nothing stopping them from training younger people in the fine art of being a soldier.

There's always room for a talented von Steuben to look after the "small things".

Give the Cleveland Browns some props for thinking out of the box, and I know she's a big football fan and all that. But I still don't see this working.

Now, do the angry progressive/socialist nephew/niece!!

Train for Thanksgiving With Our Angry Uncle Bot

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/11/18/opinion/thanksgiving-family-argue-chat-bot.html

Give the Cleveland Browns some props for thinking out of the box, and I know she's a big football fan and all that. But I still don't see this working.

Only if one is OK with a manager as your head coach, relying on the expertise of the coordinator positions and their position coaches. I think that's a bit of a stretch. The head coach should set the agenda and enough of a free hand to hire the coaching staff on all sides of the ball.

Now, as a GM, leaning on the head coach, the coordinators, the scouts and the rest of the organization to make the right deals, find the right players to draft, or trade, that might be OK. Can't be any worse than Matt Millen.

I was assured snowfalls were a thing of the past.

An incredible sight danced over the city’s glistening skyscrapers of Houston this morning and likely caused many to rub their eyes and shake their heads. No, it wasn't your lying eyes but rather the earliest snowfall ever observed in the city of Houston and surrounding areas.

https://www.khou.com/article/news/local/snow-vember-the-earliest-houston-snowfall-ever-just-happened/285-614153347

I R A Darth Aggie: Hillary has reporter removed from a book signing. Should she sue? is this also a threat to democracy, Admiral McRaven?

To answer your question, no. And the two situations aren't comparable.

Like it or not, giving press passes is a government function. Nothing the government does can be revoked without due process. Hillary Clinton is a private individual on private property. As such, the owners of the establishment can remove anyone they care to. If they choose to honor Hillary's request to remove a particular individual, they can do that. No due process required.

If your question is "Can the reporter sue?" the answer is yes. You can sue for anything. If the question is "Should the reporter sue?" the answer is no, unless a crushing defeat in court is a tactical move intended to make Hillary look like a bully who harasses reporters for asking questions.

Donald Trump revoking Jim Acosta's press pass must be a real danger to democracy and a free press, just listen to all the media and people squawking about it.

CNN was not banned from White House press conferences, Jim Acosta was. CNN was free to send a less egomaniacal reporter to the White House at any time.

And I'll agree with Patrick's assessment on Hillary booting a reporter from a book signing. It's not the same thing. Trump is the president, an elected position answerable to the people (sometimes through the press). Hillary is a private citizen.