This Clown looks suspiciously similar to Democrat House Rep Jack Maforaskin of Merryland. Maforaskin is the liberal dipshit who has co-sponsored a bill that would require a medical evaluation of President Trump, in the hopes of having him removed from office by reason of insanity. This repulsive lunatic MOC-DIC with an ass-hair toupee and a nose not unlike an infected pork sword dares accuse our President of suffering damaged mental faculties?
So what do you think? Same guy or what?
Update: Correction: We have erroneously reported the Representative’s name as Jackie / Jack or Jerkie Maforaskin. The Member of Congress from Maryland’s actual name is Jamie Raskin. We apologize, we regret the error and we have sent our sincerest condolences to his mother.
“In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
“Political language…is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”
– George Orwell
In Churchill And Orwell, Thomas E. Ricks does an apt job of juxtaposing two of history’s pillars of freedom – Winston Churchill and George Orwell, whose real name is Eric Arthur Blair.
The author follows the lives of these men through the 30s and 40s with lucidity, while comparing and contrasting key elements of these stalwarts of critical thought and independence.
Though both men were incisive writers that did not overlook the power of the written word, each man went through his own trials and tribulations that helped mold who they became. Those life lessons they learned helped each become staunch supporters of freedom and…
Since the early retirement of the USS Enterprise (CVN-65), the Navy has struggled to meet tasking demands with the ten supercarriers it has in its inventory, and the USS Gerald R. Ford’s date of entry into operational service is a question mark due to technological issues and delays. With all these things in mind, the call for smaller, cheaper and more flexible aircraft carriers to add extra capacity to the Navy’s carrier force have grown louder in recent months.
This has been one of the key ideas I have talked about and pushed for over the years (like here and here), and it is a controversial topic to say the least. But clearly I am not alone when it comes to identifying a need to field smaller carriers and a more nimble aircraft carrier force than the Navy’s rigid, all supercarrier-based strategy that exists today. Most recently, I put this among the top of the list of things the Navy could do to revolutionize its war fighting capabilities in the pieceSeven Revolutionary Hardware Changes The Navy Should Make In The Trump Era, stating:
“The supercarrier still has its place in America’s arsenal, but naval aviation and naval warfare have changed since its genesis during the early decades of the Cold War. Since then, the supercarrier has become grossly expensive to construct, with the first of the new Ford class supercarriercosting roughly $13 billion, without research and development included. The second carrier in the class, the USS John F. Kennedy (CVN-79), is slated to cost roughly $11.5 billion.
This is a hard-headed and strategic analysis of political, military, and economic reasons why the US should not wade further into the Syrian morass, and in fact should start pulling away from it. From David Miller and Richard Sokolsky at strategic-culture.org:
The idea du jour circulating inside the Trump administration and among terrorism experts and Syria watchers alike is that ISIS cannot be destroyed in Syria unless Bashar al-Assad is removed from power and Iran’s presence and influence are drastically curtailed. And in a perfect world, this indeed would be the best possible outcome to prevent ISIS and other jihadi groups, including Al Qaeda, from ensconcing themselves there. But needless to say, the Middle East isn’t a perfect world. U.S. retaliation against another chemical-weapons attacks, as the White House threatened late Monday, would be both necessary and justified. (Assad and his military would “pay a heavy price,” the statementread.)
There are answers to the title question, but none that a rational person would find satisfactory. From Paul Craig Roberts at paulcraigroberts.org:
For sixteen years the US has been at war in the Middle East and North Africa, running up trillions of dollars in expenses, committing untold war crimes, and sending millions of war refugees to burden Europe, while simultaneously claiming that Washington cannot afford its Social Security and Medicare obligations or to fund a national health service like every civilized country has.
Considering the enormous social needs that cannot be met because of the massive cost of these orchestrated wars, one would think that the American people would be asking questions about the purpose of these wars. What is being achieved at such enormous costs? Domestic needs are neglected so that the military/security complex can grow fat on war profits.