You’d think Secretary of Defense James Mattis was as concerned with man-made climate change as the head of Greenpeace based on reporting of leaked written statements he sent to lawmakers in January.
“U.S. Defense Secretary James Mattis says climate change is already destabilizing the world,” the UK Independent reported from a leaked questionnaire obtained by ProPublica. The Huffington Post reported Mattis said “climate change is real and threatening global stability.”
ProPublica spun it as “Mattis’ unpublished testimony before a Senate panel recognizes a threat others in the administration reject or minimize.”
But the media is painting the wrong picture about his comments.
The Department of Defense has viewed climate change ‚Äìwhether man-made or natural — as a national security concern for at least a decade.
His boilerplate remarks reflect the highly risk-averse thinking of officials in both the Bush and Obama administrations that climate change is one of many scenarios the military may need to adapt to.
Here’s what Mattis wrote in his answers to New Hampshire Sen. Jeanne Shaheen:
Shaheen: “I understand that while you were commander of U.S. Joint Forces Command you signed off on a document called the Joint Operating Environment, which listed climate change as one of the security threats the military will face in the next quarter-century. Do you believe climate change is a security threat?”
Mattis: “Climate change can be a driver of instability, and the Department of Defense must pay attention to potential adverse impacts generated by this phenomenon.”
Shaheen: “General Mattis, how should the military prepare to address this threat?”
Mattis: “As I noted above, climate change is a challenge that requires a broader, whole-of-government response. If confirmed, I will ensure that the Department of Defense plays its appropriate role within such a response by addressing national security aspects.”
In a reply to another question, Mattis said:
“I agree that the effects of a changing climate — such as increased maritime access to the Arctic, rising sea levels, desertification, among others — impact our security situation. I will ensure that the department continues to be prepared to conduct operations today and in the future, and that we are prepared to address the effects of a changing climate on our threat assessments, resources, and readiness.”
Mattis also said “[c]limate change is impacting stability in areas of the world where our troops are operating today.”
“It is appropriate for the Combatant Commands to incorporate drivers of instability that impact the security environment in their areas into their planning,” he said.
Mattis’s remarks reflect the thinking of the Pentagon for at least a decade, so they should come as no surprise. Mattis never assigns blame for climate change to humans or nature, nor does he call for the abandonment of carbon dioxide-emitting fuels. That’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of the “97 percent” consensus we often hear from liberals.
The Pentagon has considered climate change a national security concern for at least a decade, in part, for its potential to open up new shipping routes and resources in the Arctic. A shrinking Arctic, for example, presents new security challenges no matter what the root cause.
If the U.S. military were operating during the “Dust Bowl” of the 1930s, the climate would certainly be a consideration, but pinning down the cause of those historic droughts is not in the military’s purview — anticipating and mitigating risk are.
That’s a huge difference from what liberals argue.
Democrats turned that concern into a talking pointing in 2009 to convince Republican senators to support cap and trade legislation.
President Barack Obama took the issue to new partisan heights. Obama made fighting global warming a major part of his foreign policy strategy and even told U.S. Coast Guard Academy graduates it was “an immediate risk to our national security.”
Obama and then-Secretary of State John Kerry suggested global warming “contributed” to the Syrian civil war and rise of Islamic State.
It shouldn’t really be surprising that reporters hyped up Mattis’s remarks. The media drudged up similar reports when President Donald Trump first nominated Mattis to head the Defense Department back in December.
“THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT !”
Well JayPeeIdiot, the 1,700,000 hits on Google seem to disagree with you.
Google hits? Seriously?
In that case ghosts, vampires and werewovles are also real.
To a true (or paid) believer, anything can be real. Thankfully the majority of us require proof.
But it only exist in a greenhouse! Soooo! Yep it exist! LMAO!
ANDRZEJEWSKI
No one is expecting you to understand
but
The principle reason your idiotic consensus drivel means NOTHING is that
THERE IS NO GREENHOUSE EFFECT !
G…. Thanks for summarizing those quotes . They say it all . I wonder who is in the Club of Rome these days ?
The fact Maurice Strong, former Secretary General for the UN , stating the UN has a responsibility to bring about the collapse of industrial nations says a lot about the lengths to which globalists in green cloaks will go . Strong retired to China seems
fitting .
President Trump is absolutely right to question the absurd disproportionate USA funding of the UN and the agenda to work against the USA.
The former global warming juggernaut is now the half-dressed climate change emperor. It was a big lie that became a white lie ,a leftie cause du jour. Americans kicked the tires on the Volvo, hated the price and walked away. Go lick your wounds in private, blahblah.
You know “Me”, that is the PERFECT video for you. So in sync with your personality.
Awe, Now it is biting you in the arse! LMOA! Now yer gonna be grabbed by the pussy Too! ROTFLMAO!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q5HK9HsBSU
For Drewski, cause ya know!
Just a few climate change quotes from the leaders of the left:
“In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that… the threat of global warming.. would fit the bill… the real enemy, then, is humanity itself… we believe humanity requires a common motivation, namely a common adversary in order to realize world government. It does not matter if this common enemy is a real one or… one invented for the purpose.”
– Club of Rome (a global think tank publicly dedicated to the New World Order)
“Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized nations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
– Maurice Strong, Head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and Former Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of Secretary General of the UN.
“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we’ll be doing the right thing…”
-US Senator Tim Wirth, 1993, Under Secretary of State for Global Affairs, key advisor for Al Gore
“We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy… Basically it’s a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization… One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. That has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore.”
– Ottmar Edenhofer, top IPCC official, German Economist (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
No Amber, you are spouting mindless stupidity.
Military men take an oath to uphold the Constitution, NOT the President and they take their jobs of protecting America very seriously. And you should look at the list I provided — mostly BUSH officers.
You are right about the models, they have severely under predicted the loss of global sea ice, however, temperatures continue to rise just as predicted.
Finally, there was no list of 300 scientists on any list sent to Trump — at least not one that can be found on the internet (very very unusual). And the 30,000 people on the Oregon Petition FROM LAST CENTURY has been so thoroughly and repeatedly debunked, I am amazed there are still people like you around to try and resurrect it. BTW, did you know the headquarters for the group behind the Oregon Petition is a run down shed on an unused piece of property? That is the only structure at their address.
I will say one thing about you Amber, you are gullible.
ANDRZEJEWSKI
“Mindless stupidity ” would not only be your perfect epitaph, but
your perfect and concise biography.
You’ve won us over with your infantile need for recognition.
Go ahead.
We all know you need to have the last word.
Jeff Jacoby promoted the Oregon Institute petition as delegates convened for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1998. Jacoby, a columnist for The Boston Globe, said event organizers “take it for granted” that global warming is real when scientists do not agree “that greater concentrations of CO2 would be harmful” or “that human activity leads to global warming in the first place.”[18] George Woodwell and John Holdren, two members of the National Academy of Sciences, responded to Jacoby in the International Herald Tribune, describing the petition as a “farce” in part because “the signatories are listed without titles or affiliations that would permit an assessment of their credentials.”[19] Myanna Lahsen said, “Assuming that all the signatories reported their credentials accurately, credentialed climate experts on the list are very few.” The problem is made worse, Lahsen notes, because critics “added bogus names to illustrate the lack of accountability the petition involved”.[20] Approved names on the list included fictional characters from the television show M*A*S*H,[21] the movie Star Wars,[20] Spice Girls group member Geri Halliwell, English naturalist Charles Darwin (d. 1882) and prank names such as “I. C. Ewe”.[22] When questioned about the pop singer during a telephone interview with Joseph Hubert of the Associated Press, Robinson acknowledged that her endorsement and degree in microbiology was inauthentic, remarking “When we’re getting thousands of signatures there’s no way of filtering out a fake”.[21] A cursory examination by Todd Shelly of the Hawaii Reporter revealed duplicate entries, single names lacking any initial, and even corporate names. “These examples underscore a major weakness of the list: there is no way to check the authenticity of the names. Names are given, but no identifying information (e.g., institutional affiliation) is provided.”[23] According to the Petition Project website, the issue of duplication has been resolved.[24] Kevin Grandia offered similar criticism, saying that, although the Petition Project website provides a breakdown of “areas of expertise”, it fails to assort the 0.5% of signatories who claim to have a background in Climatology and Atmospheric Science by name, making independent verification difficult. “This makes an already questionable list seem completely insignificant”.[25]
In 2001, Scientific American took a random sample “of 30 of the 1,400 signatories claiming to hold a Ph.D. in a climate-related science.”
Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages. Crudely extrapolating, the petition supporters include a core of about 200 climate researchers – a respectable number, though rather a small fraction of the climatological community.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
So they have identified roughly a couple of dozen names that were bogus (and since removed) out of over 31,000.
That still leaves over 30,000 skeptical scientists.
Please produce your list of over 30,000 scientists who believe in CAGWBS,
And while we are at it…
1- List all climate forcings, order them from most to least effective, and then quantify them.
2- Please provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
There is nothing unusual or unprecedented about our climate, or how we got here. For 4,500,000,000 years climates have always changed, naturally. This means there has been a set precedent, and the burden of proof falls on natural climate change deniers like yourself.
Gator, good post! You are correct there is nothing unusual about our climate. Globalist powermongers started the entire scam. NOTHING the warmists want to do to us will have any measurable effect on climate.
The adherents to this false religion don’t realize every weather effect we’ve seen has happened before–all within the bounds of natural variability.
I find it amazing that sCeptics continue to try and validate such an obviously flawed survey from LAST CENTURY. A bit like Trump turning to Fox news to validate his wiretap allegation.
Basically, the Oregon Petition is an unverifiable mess put together with the help of a tobacco scientist, Fred Seitz, whose own company, Philip Morris, said this in 1989 (8 years previously): “Seitz is quite elderly and not sufficiently rational to offer advice.”
And then there is the fact that the Petition was purposely made to look like it came from the National Academy of Science who were not pleased and they responded with this: “The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of climate science.”
Can’t get more clear than that. In fact, the Petition contains very little information about those who signed the petition but according to the Petition Project’s own website, “experts” in climate science breaks down like this:
Atmospheric Science (113)
Climatology (39)
Meteorology (341)
Astronomy (59)
Astrophysics (26)
WOW! Рapparently only 0.1% of 30,000+ signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. And if we add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, the total percentage of signatories blows out to a whopping 0.5%, however, as their page does not actually name these “experts” in Climatology and Atmospheric Science, even that .5% number is questionable. DOUBLE WOW!
Here is an example of the “quality” of this hokum petition:
“Munawwar M. Akhtar” Рno info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Fred A. Allehoff” Рno info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Ernest J. Andberg” Рno info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Joseph J. Arx” Рno info other than the fact that he is a signatory on the petition.
“Adolph L. Amundson” Рa paper by Amundson on the “London Tunnel Water Treatment System Acid Mine Drainage.” [PDF]
“Henry W. Apfelbach” Рan Orthopedic Surgeon
“Joe R. Arechavaleta” Рruns an Architect and Engineering company.
And this is only names picked from the “A’s.”
This ANCIENT Petition is so ridiculously devoid of all credibility yet it continues to bounce around ideological and non-scientific websites and then get regurgitated time and again by the most desperate and confused of sCeptics.
BTW, has anyone else noticed JayPee’s continues to spout disgraceful anti-semetic rants? He should be banned.
ANDRZEJEWSKI
Even if the Petition Project is somewhat flawed,
It is nowhere near as flawed as the much debunked
97% consensus LIE
Which 97% consensus lie would that be JayPee? There are 4 separate studies done at different times by different people using different methodologies and data that come it at a 97% consensus.
There is also another study at coming in at 91% and another at 98%. theses also use different methodologies and data.
I would be happy to both cite and explain any of them to you as soon as you can cite some evidence to your own. You know it has been like 5 years and you have yet to produce any evidence for your (giggle, chuckle, giggle) albedo climate theory.
I find it amazing that you have been banned so many times and yet here you are still allowed yo spew your verbal garbage Drewski, when if any of us were to go over to a believers website our comments wouldn’t be allowed? And yes it’s still the same at all the alarmist websites! Fight fire with fire, and remember Coolwhip, what goes around comes around. Ya can only go so far and then it crashes down, and you will be one of then holding the bag, and you know it is going to happen but believe just not to you!
What you call “verbal garbage”, I call evidence. Evidence supported with studies, observational data, citations, actual quotes and the opinions of EVERY Earth, space and atmospheric science organization on the planet.
And what I call “verbal garbage” are things like the pathetic Oregon Petition, JayPee’s albedo theory, Steven Goddard’s non-reviewed science or Amber’s belief that military and intelligence agencies twist their opinions on global warming based on who is President.
See the difference?
Naa, you morons would call it oral working and claim victory among yer selves! You Orally work each other err somethang!
Drewski, I posted the valid criticism’s of the Oregon Petition in my post, your nonsense is unsubstantiated and alarmist claptrap. The petition stands, and has over 30,000 verified working scientists’ signatures. I know that destroys your side’s consensus BS, and that is why you returned with your lies once again.
There is no 97% consensus.
As for “EVERY Earth, space and atmospheric science organization on the planet”, well their memberships do not agree. And I do ot base my knowledge on the opinions of others anyway (becuse I am not weak minded like you), I go straight to the science, which clearly states that natural variabilty has never been refuted.
So…
#1- You cannot list all climate forcings, cannot order them from most to least effective, and cannot then quantify them.
#2- You cannot provide even one peer reviewed paper that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes.
And lastly, you cannot disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent.
Impressive!
You arte a known liar. Would you like me to repost some of your classic prevarications?
Gator,
No matter how much lipstick you want to put on that 20 YEAR OLD pig of a petition, it is still a pig. However, the SEVEN (I had said six before – my bad) climate consensus studies is an animal of a different stature.
And NOW you may be interested to know that the authors of these seven climate consensus studies have co-authored a NEW paper (that makes EIGHT now) which should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:
1) Depending on the study, between 91% and 100% agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of the studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists (4 of the 7 previous studies come in at 97%).
https://static.skepticalscience.com/graphics/studies_consensus.jpg
2) The greater the climate EXPERTISE among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming (so I guess it is understandable sCeptics don’t understand — just look at your level of expertise).
Abstract
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%‚Äì100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Authors include Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
So Gator, what is your take on JayPee’s anti-semetic comments?
Drewski, I don’t follow Jaypee’s comments, so I have nothing to offer there.
So still no refutation of NV. Just what is it that you guys are spending trillions on?
Really Drewski, after all these years I expected more.
Not.
The military officials were well aware of what song to sing just like scientist’s
reliant on government funding but the fear of retribution is now gone .
Over 300 scientists , many of them top climate experts from all over the world recently wrote the new President encouraging him to revisit climate change issues. More will come forward as the threat to their careers dissipates and a return to
the scientific method is free of reprisals . Over 30,000 already sighed the Oregon Petition , including 9000 with PhD’s .
Now you can believe some threatened military people if you wish but the real issue is the public has heard enough chicken little scary global warming stories and over exaggerated climate model doomsday predictions that they are no longer drinking the cool-aid because a non-scientist like Al Gore says the science is settled .
If anything the climate models proved how false the hypothesis is . If you can’t accurately estimate the effects of natural variables that dominate climate then forcing assumptions about a trace gas and expecting reliable outcomes is a scientific farce.
So all those military opinions are as accurate and meaningless as Iraq having all those nukes .
Pathetic. The desperation of socialists to pull out their last hope of illegitimate world domination based on publicly financed fraud.
Tick, tick, tick…
The jig is up…
People see the fraud…
You don’t control the public purse strings to fund your leftist scam any longer…
Reality sucks.
Thomas Fingar, former chairman of President Bush’s National Intelligence Council: “We judge global climate change will have wide-ranging implications for US national security interests over the next 20 years … We judge that the most significant impact for the United States will be indirect and result from climate-driven effects on many other countries and their potential to seriously affect US national security interests.”
Brig. General Steven Anderson, USA (Ret.), former Chief of Logistics under General Petraeus and a self-described “conservative Republican”: “Our oil addiction, I believe, is our greatest threat to our national security. Not just foreign oil but oil in general. Because I believe that in CO2 emissions and climate change and the instability that that all drives, I think that that increases the likelihood there will be conflicts in which American soldiers are going to have to fight and die somewhere.”
Leon Panetta, Secretary of Defense: “[T]he area of climate change has a dramatic impact on national security: rising sea levels, to severe droughts, to the melting of the polar caps, to more frequent and devastating natural disasters all raise demand for humanitarian assistance and disaster relief.”
Robert Gates, former Secretary of Defense: “Over the next 20 years and more, certain pressures-population, energy, climate, economic, environmental-could combine with rapid cultural, social, and technological change to produce new sources of deprivation, rage, and instability.”
General Gordon Sullivan, USA (Ret.), former Army chief of staff: “Climate change is a national security issue. We found that climate instability will lead to instability in geopolitics and impact American military operations around the world.”
Vice Admiral Dennis McGinn, USN (Ret.): “If the destabilizing effects of climate change go unchecked, we can expect more frequent, widespread, and intense failed state scenarios creating large scale humanitarian disasters and higher potential for conflict and terrorism … The Department of Defense and national intelligence communities recognize this clear link between climate change, national security, and instability and have begun strategic plans and programs to both mitigate and adapt to the most likely and serious effects in key areas around the globe.”
General Anthony Zinni, USMC (Ret.), former Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Central Command and special envoy to Israel and Palestine under President George W. Bush: “It’s not hard to make the connection between climate change and instability, or climate change and terrorism.”
Admiral Joseph Lopez, USN (Ret.): “Climate change will provide the conditions that will extend the war on terror.”
General Chuck Wald, USAF (Ret.), former Deputy Commander of U.S. European Command under President George W. Bush: “People can say what they want to about whether they think climate change is manmade or not, but there’s a problem there and the military is going to be a part of the solution. It’s a national security issue because it affects the stability of certain places in the world.”
Brig. General Bob Barnes, USA (Ret.): “While most people associate global warming with droughts, rising sea levels, declining food production, species extinction and habitat destruction, fewer connect these impacts to increasing instability around the globe and the resulting threats to our national security. But the connection – and the threat it poses – is real and growing.”
Vice Admiral Richard Truly, USN (Ret.), former NASA administrator: “The stresses that climate change will put on our national security will be different than any we’ve dealt with in the past.”
General Paul Kern, USA (Ret.), Commander of the United States Army Materiel Command under President George W. Bush: “Military planning should view climate change as a threat to the balance of energy access, water supplies, and a healthy environment, and it should require a response.’
Lt. General Lawrence Farrell, USAF (Ret.): “The planning we do that goes into organizing, training, and equipping our military considers all the risks that we may face. And one of the risks we see right now is climate change.”
Admiral John Nathman, USN (Ret.), former Commander of the U.S. Fleet Forces Command under President George W. Bush: “There are serious risks to doing nothing about climate change. We can pay now or we’re going to pay a whole lot later. The U.S. has a unique opportunity to become energy independent, protect our national security and boost our economy while reducing our carbon footprint. We’ve been a model of success for the rest of the world in the past and now we must lead the way on climate change.”
Vice Admiral Lee Gunn, USN (Ret.): “The national security community is rightly worried about climate change because of the magnitude of its expected impacts around the globe, even in our own country … Climate change poses a clear and present danger to the United States of America. But if we respond appropriately, I believe we will enhance our security, not simply by averting the worst climate change impacts, but by spurring a new energy revolution.”
George Carlin did an album “Class Clown”. One of his best routines was where he replaced the word “kill” with “f**k” . Re-read Amberblahblah’s post, substituting “bullsh*t” in place of “climate change.”
“bullsh*t”?!?
How is it ‚Äúbullsh*t‚Äù to use direct quotes from the heads of America’s intelligence and military agencies? BTW, most of these quotes come from people who were in the BUSH Administration.
I agree that George Carlin was a funny guy — have you seen his skit on God?
The stupid stuff humanity has done in God’s name (name your god) would fill the oceans with BS. If you’ve chosen Gaia, why have you demonized carbon dioxide?
Heads of America’s intelligence and military agencies? What???
The same agencies that perpetrated the lie about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq resulting in the needless deaths of 10’s of thousands? THAT intelligence? Bold faced lies from government agencies to support an agenda. Credible no. Bullsh#t yes.
Sadam Hussain bluffed that he had WMD. All he had was a monster stash of black gold. Bad move.
Desperation would be those who rely on ideological NON-experts for their information and reject the opinions of EVERY earth, space and atmospheric science organization on the planet.
BTW, it looks like 2017 has set a record for the LOWEST Arctic maximum, LOWEST Antarctic minimum and LOWEST GLOBAL sea ice minimum.
Ignoring those inconvenient facts would be the very definition of “desperation”.
So you’re talking about the “ULTIMATE NON-IDEOLOGICAL EXPERT”, Al Gore? Didn’t he write the book on this? Or maybe Bill Nye the comedian? Or perhaps Leonardo DiCaprio or any large number of Hollywood leftists?
The list of ideological socialists who proclaim to be “experts” in science goes on forever…
And of course, none of their proposed “solutions” has much anything to do with science… Instead it’s all about the forced redistribution of political power and personal wealth. Very scientific.
The thing about Al Gore is that he doesn’t argue against the prevailing and very well supported climate theory WITHOUT EVIDENCE to the contrary but he actually PROMOTES it .
See the difference?
Oh yes Mad Cow global warming causes everything … like a $20 trillion dollar debt for example . The military was told to sell scary climate stories or the brass got fired .
Does anyone miss John Kerry ?
Of course climate changes and surprise it’s warming as we exit the recent ice age .
Does anyone think humans are going to regulate the rise and fall of sea levels by tweaking a trace gas or alter sun spot activity . We can’t even stop the annual massacre of over 700 people per year in Chicago, former President Obama’s home town . But oceans … yep we are just going to set them tour liking and protect those Hollywood actor homes . Fix some real problems for a change . Besides the expected next “big one ” is going to take out more than a few Malibu homes regardless if we all drive a Prius .
Yep. And Obama is a Kenyan. There were 3 million fraudulent votes for Hillary. There were NOT 10,000 votes cast against Trump. Hundreds of Muslims cheered 9/11. Trump will provide health coverage for everyone, AND at lower costs. And the moon is made of green cheese, but buried by the lyin’ media.
Simply brilliant Mike. Keep sniffin’ your Birkenstocks…