68°Rain

Del. Ken Plum: The Climate is Changing

by Del. Ken Plum — August 27, 2014 at 11:00 am 1,574 62 Comments

Del. Ken Plum/File photo“Climate change, once considered an issue for a distant future, has moved firmly into the present,” according to a report, Climate Change Impacts in the United States, that was released this year and that includes the findings of 300 experts affiliated with the National Climate Assessment and Development Advisory Committee .

Their findings are the same as I heard discussed last week at the National Caucus of Environmental Legislators National Issues Forum in which I participated. A couple of speakers brought unique backgrounds and insights into the issue of climate change. Retired Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn is a widely recognized energy and national security expert. He insists that climate change is a threat to our national security.

Dr. James Hansen, formerly Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and currently an adjunct professor at Columbia University’s Earth Institute, started in the 1980s raising awareness of global warming and speaks forcefully today of the need to take action to protect the future of young people and all species on the planet.

In legislative chambers in Virginia and throughout the country, climate change continues to be debated by politicians some of whom question whether or not climate change is actually occurring and whether humans have anything to do with causing it. Meanwhile, there is a clear conclusion among scientists as expressed in the Climate Change report:

“Evidence for climate change abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans. Scientists and engineers from around the world have meticulously collected this evidence, using satellites and networks of weather balloons, thermometers, buoys, and other observing systems. Evidence of climate change is also visible in the observed and measured changes in location and behavior of species and functioning of ecosystems. Taken together, this evidence tells an unambiguous story: the planet is warming, and over the last half century, this warming has been driven primarily by human activity.”

Climate change means hotter and more erratic weather, warmer oceans and fresh water sources, heavy downpours, global sea level rise, and reductions in glaciers and sea ice, among other changes. Shrinking land ice along with an expansion of the ocean as it warms and natural land subsidence that occurs along the coast will result in areas being inundated with increased episodic flooding. The Virginia coastline will be especially hard hit.

Actions can and should be taken by legislators to protect our communities, children and future generations from the dangers of climate change. We need to reduce harmful emissions for sure, and
I have put a lot of emphasis in my work on renewable energy. We need to deal with big polluters some of whom receive government subsidies recognizing that alternative energy sources are becoming increasingly available to us from rapidly growing clean industries.

Above all, however, politicians need to be honest with the public in acknowledging that the climate is changing, and we can do something about it!

Ken Plum represents Reston in Virginia’s House of Delegates

  • Bah

    This is not science. This is making sht up so they can make a grab for our wallets.

  • FreeMarketFan

    You do realize that the issue right now is not the United States but countries like China and 3rd world countries that are just now starting to become industrialized. But of course facts always confuse liberals…..

  • Mike M

    Ken, forgive me if I see the irony in your statement being made in the middle of one of the coolest Augusts I can remember. Yes, I noticed that you have adopted the left wing term “Climate Change” to guard against such pesky indicators. Well done.

    Last time I checked, you were my Delegate to the state government in Richmond. So, once again, i ask you what specifically you plan to do. Your short last paragraph is the only place you even intimate what might be done but only in the vaguest terms.

    Consequently, I dub this article another one of your buckets of chum aimed specifically at a segment of your constituency. “Hey, I’m Ken Plum! Think of me when you think Green! I’m PC on the issue of Global Warming” That is basically your message here. Once again, i am hungry for specifics. Why do you never have specifics?

    I agree with the poster who reminds us to be suspicious of politicians who want to save us from the ways of the world (and ourselves). They usually propose expensive measures that deliver nothing in the end.

    As for your National Security expert, I know some stuff in that realm too. And I know enough to ask what about the dissenting view on this crystal ball reading? What opportunities might change bring? I learned long ago in the military that military folks also want more money and new programs and LOVE to fear monger.

    Once again, Ken. How is your feel good position relevant to Virginia and proposed legislation? And is there anything really that can be done in Richmond? Really?

    • Just the Facts Mam

      Mike is the stupidest person on the internet. While it may be cold where his ass is, the rest of the planet has been hot. Australia, Europe.

      http://www.weather.com/news/science/environment/could-2014-become-warmest-year-record-20140624

      • Mike M

        Wow. I guess I am pretty stupid. I mean, I disagreed with you, and then you called me that.

        So, are there any opportunities associated with “Climate Change?” And, as I asked, what precisely does Ken propose that the state government do about it? I’ll bet you vote for Ken!

        And do you see credibility problems that might stem from calling people who question you”The stupidest person on the Internet?” There’s an awful lot of that coming from your side of the “debate,” and frankly, it just doesn’t help your credibility.

        By the way, I am mindful that the climate today is different than 1200 years ago, and I suspect it will change some between now and 1200 years hence. I just don’t respect the zealous alarmism based on one side of the argument.

        • Hambone

          “Facts” presented facts. Mike M. didn’t.

          • Mike M

            Facts? I am the stupidest person on the Internet? He also presented a weather channel link.
            My facts: Change = opportunity. Many scientists disagree with the alarmists. Ken Plum offered nothing but empathy.

          • Dum Duh-Dum Dum

            Facts: ” While it may be cold where his ass is, the rest of the planet has been hot. Australia, Europe”. A link was provided showing the temperature patterns for 2014. Some areas: colder, like the midwest. More areas: hotter. Mike M provided no facts or sources that challenge the accuracy of this data. In fact, he provided no facts. “This is the coolest August I can remember”. Yes. that is a stupid statement. It wouldn’t be the coolest if you were in other parts of the world. Duh!

          • Mike M

            Facts:
            – This has been a cool August here. We had a remarkably cool and snowy winter here too. (If it was warmer somewhere else, does that mean only that data that supports your alarmism shall be considered?)
            – The climate has always been changing.
            – Many scientists are not on the alarmist bandwagon.
            – Calling climate change a National Security Threat is alarmist BS, since all prospective international adversaries face the issue.
            – All change brings opportunity. Only screamin’ greenies see the sky falling.
            – Most emissions problems emanate from Third World countries and NOT the US.
            – Ken Plum said nothing about solutions and the role of the state government. (That is where this all started.)
            – Global Warming mongers always call names and ignore facts as presented by those who question them.
            – In the 1970s the same political faction was warning us of Global cooling.

            Does anyone question my facts? Or shall you just declare them non-facts?

          • Science Man

            – This has been a cool August here. We had a remarkably cool and snowy
            winter here too. (If it was warmer somewhere else, does that mean only
            that data that supports your alarmism shall be considered?)

            To your question, no it doesn’t. You continue to miss the point. The fact that it for vast parts of the globe was warmer is used to disprove the relevancy of your statement. Empirical data was supplied against your feeble observation.

            – The climate has always been changing.

            What a useless platitude. It proves nothing, one way or the other.

            – Many scientists are not on the alarmist bandwagon.

            Many? How about using a real number? I will. Ninety-seven percent of researchers support the tenent that ‘anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for “most” of the “unequivocal” warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century ‘

            http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.abstract

            They may or may not be correct. But that is not what your statement is about. It is about there being “many”.

            – Calling climate change a National Security Threat is alarmist BS,
            since all prospective international adversaries face the issue.

            Tell that to the Army. They take it seriously. Canada has been increasing “war games” on their northern coast.
            http://www.globalresearch.ca/top-of-the-world-nato-rehearses-for-war-in-the-arctic/30508

            As to the part about all “prospective international adversaries face the issue”, how does that make it less a national security threat, it seems to me it would make it more.

            – All change brings opportunity. Only screamin’ greenies see the sky falling.

            Another useless platitude.

            – Most emissions problems emanate from Third World countries and NOT the US.

            Which, if true, would not spare anybody from the results of emmisions.

            – Ken Plum said nothing about solutions and the role of the state government. (That is where this all started.)

            Tell Ken to write a column about them, then.

            – Global Warming mongers always call names and ignore facts as presented by those who question them.

            Oh the horror, the horror. And aren’t they bunch of screamin’ greenies?

            – In the 1970s the same political faction was warning us of Global cooling.

            Nice try of a “bait and switch”. “political factio?”. We are talking about scientific consensus. Your statement fails.

          • Mike M

            My original point was that Ken offered up nothing but alarmism. I was telling Ken to tell me something about it relates to his office. He won’t. Because as I stated his article was about stoking his base.

            I missed nothing else. I made the original point. You responded with a bunch of links about climate change. So, the climate is changing? So what? It always has been. That is a fact.

            But you won’t admit my facts. Like all screamin greenies you declare my facts as useless platitudes. Simply because you said.

            I don’t know how many scientists believe what. Neither do you. Your count was done by alarmists looking to support their alarm. Ninety seven percent of researchers. You buy that? It reminds me of the old Dentyne commercial, 3 out 4 dentists surveyed prefer Dentyne for the patients who chew gum.

            I know quite a it about National Security. I was once a war planner for the Army. But on a common sense level I can tell you this. International threats change all the time. This change, if real, is very slow, and affects everyone. When your general comes to you and says “Eeek! That place has desert! How are we EVER gonna fight in the desert! Throw money at me!” You fire that General. You don’t treat terrain and weather as though they are all conspiring against you. They are conspiring with and against all.

            Opportunity abounds in climate change, if it’s real. That is a fact. Yet the screamin greenies only see doom and gloom. Why is that? I attribute it to the psychosis of Liberalism but who knows. Maybe you can tell me.

            For example, if there is global warming, does Canada not stand to gain a great deal more useful land and farming opportunity? Why would climate change be only bad? By the way, scientist. The globe has warmed before. We survived. Thrived even.

            In the 1970s, there was a global cooling scare. Fact. I remember it. Sorry if you don’t like my facts.

          • Bob English

            Ken said this:
            “Actions can and should be taken by legislators to protect our
            communities, children and future generations from the dangers of climate
            change. We need to reduce harmful emissions for sure, and

            I have put a lot of emphasis in my work on renewable energy. We need to
            deal with big polluters some of whom receive government subsidies
            recognizing that alternative energy sources are becoming increasingly
            available to us from rapidly growing clean industries.”

            You may think it will not be effective, and you can present facts to prove your case. But don’t say he came up with no solution.

          • Mike M

            I don’t see any solutions there. In my work I’d get fired for coming up with platitudes such as this instead of solutions. Ken is a law maker. And laws have to be specific or they fail. He is doing nothing in the article but empathizing with his Liberal base. Is he a man of action? Or a cheerleader. He wrote like a cheerleader.

          • Frank Stein

            Oh, you learned the word “platitude” in this thread. Too bad you don’t know what it means. Plum’s statement may be about a good policy or not, but it is not a platitude. “The climate has always been changing”. That is a platitude because it too shallow to deal with the causes.

          • Mike M

            Actually, that the climate has always been changing is a simple fact. Is it not?
            Ken’s entire article was platitudinous. Most of his articles are.

          • Grandma McCoy

            And it was full of errors in logic and reasoning. Weak on science.

          • Screaming Greenie

            1+1=2

          • Mike M

            Well done. I was wondering about you.

          • Bob Roe

            When Ken discussed it being a national security issue, far from being an alarmist, he was quoting retired Vice Admiral Dennis V. McGinn. Given the resources that the armed forces devotes to climate change issues, it is a reasonable position to take.

            By the way, if you are going to complain about name calling, you should not indulge in it yourself.

          • Mike M

            As I said above, the Admiral wants new money and so new “compelling” needs and new programs are a great way to get that. Budgets are shrinking. He is playing to the hearts of many Liberals in Congress who are pleased that the Army is being shrunk down to pre-WW2 levels. But they will gladly throw money at Climate Change.

          • Rene Chevelle

            Your proof for this is?

          • Mike M

            I’ve been inside the system. I know how it works. I’ve seen it. And you, doctor? Your “proof that I am wrong?

            Again take a look at the timeline of even the worst scenarios. Very, very distant. Yet the Russians are encroaching on Ukrainian territory today! We could stop it, but we dare not – for political reasons. ISIL is ranging across the Euphrates basin today! Two mech brigades could erase ISIL from the area. But we only go where the stakes are low, because THAT is the nature of our “leadership.” Instead we dabble in politically correct concepts. No one gets hurt.

          • Gin Rummy

            no doubt we would be greeted as liberators.

          • Mike M

            Good question Ginny. The goal would not be to liberate the people. The goal would be to destroy the physical manifestations of ISIL all the way into northern Syria. Most of the region in contention is very sparsely populated. We may well be treated like liberators, but who cares. Not the point in this would-be operation.

          • Monument Man

            A the red herring about the “global cooling” from the 1970s. The science supporting that conclusion was thin. Unlike today. That matters.

          • Orson Lamb

            ” This change, if real, is very slow, and affects everyone. When your
            general comes to you and says “Eeek! That place has desert! How are we
            EVER gonna fight in the desert! Throw money at me!” you fire that
            General. You don’t treat terrain and weather as though they are all
            conspiring against you. They are conspiring with and against all.”

            no. the army is gaming for famines, displacements of vast levels of population, energy resource scarcity, massive civil unrest, and more. you simply don’t know what you are talking about.

          • Mike M

            The Army spends money on lots of things. Famine? Well there was Somalia. There was the earthquake in Haiti. It pays to look ahead. But if the Army is planning on catastrophe due to global warming, then maybe they have the wrong commander-in-chief right now.

            Can you answer my question about why you folks can’t see anything positive coming from climate change.? Why must it be all doom and gloom? You folks sound like bible thumpers at times.

          • Lenny

            Irrelevant. If it was a useless endeavor, the would have reported it as such.

          • Mike M

            The left wing press reports nothing but truth, right? And they would view planning for climate change as useless. Look, I used to be involved in this nonsense. It goes like this, the Office of the Secretary of Defense gins up scenarios, then the services game them. The whole process is spring-loaded to generate “requirements.” That means new programs. Do you really believe the Army never does anything wrong? Do you really believe the press is the champion of pure truth? No one has a Crystal ball for viewing the future. I was involved in looking at some of the scenarios in the 1990s. You should have seen some of the nonsense they predicted about 2010. The Air Force had a “Futures” project. Their predictions were ludicrous. In the Spring of1990 at George Washington University, I heard a Defense Department consultant state that the US was foolish to maintain forces oriented on the CENTCOM area of responsibility because NOTHING was EVER going to happen there. In August I was deployed to Saudi Arabia where I worked on offensive plans to kick the Iraqis out of Kuwait. No one KNOWS the future. As for climate change there are those who point to several self-regulating aspects of the global system that have kept our climate relatively stable – moving back and forth between its extremes over the millions of years. No one knows the truth about the future. And Ken Plum was engaging in platitudes to tease empathy out of his base. It’s all he does.

          • Mike M

            By the way, Lenny . . . in 1990 as I was deploying to Saudi Arabia for Desert Shield, a Washington Post reporter named Molly Moore published an scandalous expose of the type to which you alluded above. Her editors gave her front page coverage! Her point was all about how the US military was completely unprepared to fight in the desert. I remember my jaw dropping as I read. I knew that the US Army, US Air Force, and US Marine Corps at the time did an enormous amount of training in deserts, primarily becasue bases like Fort Irwin, Nellis AFB, Twenty-Nine Palms etc is where in the US is there is the open space required. My point is when the press does report scandal, they are often wrong. Experts are too. Go back and read the forecast of the outcome of the first Gulf War. An “expert” who consults with the Pentagon was predicting we would have up to 20,000 dead. When I read that, we barely had 20,00 people in theater and I don’t think we even had plans at the time for more than 100,000. No one knows the future. Not the press, not the experts. Although some experts spend a lot of capital trying to get attention with doom and gloom predictions. Take Climate Change for example.

          • John Thomas

            and the point? the fact remains, the armed forces take climate change as a national security issue. you can deny it, but it remains so.

          • Mike M

            I didn’t deny it. I am saying it doesn’t mean much. They have motives for playing along. I think i was pretty clear about that.

          • Samuel Martin

            I doesn’t matter what you believe. What matters are the facts.

          • Mike M

            I’ve stated facts. I’ve demonstrated my point with Ken’s words. I am amazed at how you militant greenies get so dismissive of those who would dare to disagree with you.

  • David

    Hmm, the former Director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies vs. a bunch of internet trolls that think taking care of our planet is a political issue. I’m going to have to side with the smart guy on this one

    • LOL

      LOL ya mean the renowned scam artist Hansen?

      You don’t have to be all that smart to be a government propaganda shill – and he’s not.

      As S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service
      and University of Virginia professor emeritus stated:

      “Many would place the beginning of the global warming hoax on the Senate testimony delivered by James Hansen of NASA during the summer of 1988.
      More than anything else, this exhibition of hyped alarm triggered my
      active skepticism about the man-made global warming scare. This
      skepticism was amplified when I acted as reviewer of the first three
      IPCC reports, in 1990, 1996, and 2001. Increasingly claims were made for
      which there was no evidence; in some cases the ‘evidence’ was clearly
      manufactured. For example, the 1966 report used selective data and
      doctored graphs. It also featured changes in the text that were made
      after the scientists had approved it and before it was printed.”

      • Mike M

        Hey LOL, don’t you be honing in on my “stupidest person on the Internet” domain! I earned it the old fashioned way. I disagreed with a Global Warming zealot.

  • Mother Nature

    This meteorologist (link below) frequently explains how climate change works, but it falls on deaf ears because he’s not part of the consensus of global scientists. What I can’t stand is how the consensus rule turns into “fact” even though there are some extremely valid explanations against human-caused global warming. The oceans, the earth, the sun, amongst other things have so much greater weight than what humans contribute to the climate. Here’s one example of such a compelling argument right here:

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/08/24/a-single-meteorologist-explains-what-165-billion-in-government-funded-climate-science-couldnt/

  • Carter Newton

    Too bad all the experts havent read this piece from the IPCC via BBC news http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-23409404
    What is an activist/expert to do? Let’s fight J-walking instead, at least we can all agree that is a health risk and it is real problem.

  • BassMasterson

    Who cares

  • Jefe

    Wow, those liberals must really be powerful if they can get the world’s scientific community to fake all recorded data on ocean pH, measured weather intensity, storm frequency and worldwide sea level.
    But all you have to do is ignore those elitists with phD’s in the field, right? And elect bozos who pander to your delusions instead of Ken Plum, who’s actually paying attention to the people who know. What the heck, you’ll all be dead when your great-grandchildren contend with the consequences of your short-sightedness.
    What echo chamber are you in that you think scientific consensus takes partisan sides?
    Not a scientist myself, but I don’t pretend to be either.
    Jefe

    • Bah

      The scientific community is profoundly corrupt because it relies on government handouts. You are profoundly deluded if you think they are non-partisan.

      I am more concerned that my great grand-children will have their political and economic freedom dramatically constrained than I am that they’ll have to deal with so-called “climate change”.

    • Mike M

      Jefe, you fell right into Ken’s trap. He offered nothing of value to your cause. Nada. He is just empathizing with the greenie weenie segment of his base. Is your vote THAT cheap?

    • Michael Crichton

      “I want to pause here and talk about this notion of
      consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I
      regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that
      ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of
      consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid
      debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear
      the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for
      your wallet, because you’re being had.

      “Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to
      do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on
      the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right,
      which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference
      to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant
      is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great
      precisely because they broke with the consensus.

      “There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

      “… Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is
      invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is
      not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E =
      mc². Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles
      away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way.”

      • Grandpa Jones

        Mike Chrichton is dead. Were he alive today it would be interesting to hear his interpretation of current events and commentary.

        “I can tell you that second hand smoke is not a health hazard to anyone and never was, and the EPA has always known it.” – M. Chrichton

        Subsequent studies confirmed second hand smoke and cancer. Would Mike have still, in 2014, pounded fist to table and argued against all evidence? I’d like to think not.

        • Mike M

          I think he would.

  • Doran

    The sky is falling – our climate is changing!!! Run for cover and panic!!! Oh yeah, it changes a lot over time and always has. OK, breaking alert is over for now. Maybe humans aren’t god afterall.

  • bobbobwhite

    Now we will hear from all the deniers of human caused climate change…….all those who are gaining something from their denial, such as their job, friends, clubs, homes, cars, boats, and other energy-wasting fun stuff that releases massive amounts of carbon and other pollutants into the atmosphere……… energy that would support 100 less wasteful people. Here they come, I can hear their mad roars already…………………………truly mad.

    What will it take to ever convince them? Nothing, as their refusal to be convinced or even analyze the issue is cast in stone………………..why? Admitting that they are gross wasters of energy could affect their wasteful lifestyle. And, forget about that!

    • Mike M

      Funny. Most of the people I know who squawk about climate change as a massive threat drive SUVs and live in very large houses.

  • Hanna

    The last time it was “well settled” by the scientific community they had proven the world is flat. Those few nutcases that disagreed were rounded up and burned at the stake if they didn’t fall in line with the wishes of those in power. Since global warming wasn’t working according to sceintific projections, the banner was changed to climate change, so a new set of metrics could be developed to explain how things are changing – for the worse of course. This is about power grab and money. Don’t be so easily taken in.

  • vdiv

    Ok, so what are we doing about it? Where is the appeal for each individual to make a change? Where is the list of ideas and suggestions of what we can do?

    • Rational Reston

      This is a key point. Delegate Plumb, an elected “leader” says we can do something about it. How about some ideas or direction? While I don’t agree with his regurgitation of talking points without understanding, I’m open to hearing ideas (who doesn’t like clean air and water?). But since Delegate Plumb only seems to echo points of his party without any free thought of his own we’re left to wonder.

      The key point to this piece (and his others) is that we should not be sending him back to Richmond. Let’s get someone who thinks for his or her self and offers solutions instead of just pointing fingers.

  • Brennan

    We Christians have been saying it for years: you can believe or disbelieve in God and Heaven, and death will either prove you right or wrong, with painful or pleasant consequences.

    Climate Disruption is the same thing: you can believe it’s man-made and do something about it or you can sit idle, and the future will either prove you right or wrong . . . but this time with somewhat painful or REALLY painful consequences.

    As the most powerful nation on Earth, we have a responsibility to play this one cautiously and do something about it . . . even if the future proves us wrong.

    • Rational Reston

      True. But we can be smart about it, yes?

      Some solutions don’t seem to be entirely thought out and are merely pushing issues down the road or converting one problem into another.

      Take hybrid cars. Hybrid technology is great, though a small hybrid car is a farce. Small lightweight vehicles are capable of high gas mileage and very low emissions with a gas engine. But putting a hybrid motor system and batteries increases the weight for a relatively small increase in mileage. Also is the penalty of emissions to create and dispose of the system. But put that technology into larger cars, SUV’s and trucks, and we all benefit.

      We must be careful to find solutions that don’t just satisfy our vanity.

  • Delsin Rowe

    Virginia and the United States may pass and enforce many laws, some might even be positive; but unless China, India, and developing nations change their practices, it will not make much of a difference.

  • Rational Reston

    So, you say it’s something like trickle-down economics then.

    I wasn’t aware that “Proud Liberals” believed that existed.

  • mikeandle

    If there’s a single man-made global-warming prophecy that the climate fortune-tellers have gotten correct, no one seems to know what it is.

  • Consis Tently-Wright

    the real issue, climate change or not, we are not prepared for significant decreases in our water supply. The water table is being reduced year over year and runoff is increased with each new development being undertaken. experts say by 2018 the water supply will be extremely limited and so be prepared for rationing. so lets talk about that instead, because the threat is real and not just perceived.

    • Mike M

      Where does this water go? Mars?

  • FreeeMarketFan

    Good luck telling a 3rd world nation trying to industrialize to listen to us. In global economy it’s a race to the bottom and anything that hampers their competitive edge will be seen as a negative, therefore they aren’t going to do it.

    Maybe you can just raise the tax rates again and get more people on the government plantation. That’ll fix it.

  • Mike M

    Yes! It’s all up to us!

    Is that arrogant or naive, or both?

    China will follow our lead? Russia will folow our lead. The desperado Third World will follow our lead. Perhaps ISIL and the extremists will follow our lead.

    Proud you are!

  • Adam Smith
×

Subscribe to our mailing list