Two of this year's initiatives involved Supreme Court intervention to be on the ballot (photo from Eyman v. Wyman earlier this year which resulted in I-940 making the ballot)
To receive the latest news from We the Governed delivered straight to your inbox

There are four initiatives on the ballot this year.  Three are terrible, destructive and deserve zero support from voters.  One is worth supporting.  Here is the short list followed by more details:

I-1634 (No Tax on Groceries) – YES, we don’t need more taxes

I-1631 (“Pollution fees” aka Carbon Dioxide Tax) – NO, because it is a scam and will cost everyone billions.  Even supporters admit it will destroy jobs.

I-1639 (Anti-Gun bill) – NO, because it has nothing to do with safety, everything to do with harming and criminalizing gun owners.  Billionaires who won’t be affected funded this mess.

I-940 (Anti- Law Enforcement) – NO, because it is poorly written and will reduce public safety (see below)

For more in depth details on the reasons:

I-1634 – No tax on groceries (Support)

This is the only initiative that we support this year.  While Washington State doesn’t charge sales tax on groceries, local jurisdictions have seen an opportunity to extract more cash.  Seattle, as usual, is always keen to tax everything using any excuse necessary.  The city is happy to hand out needles, let people defecate in parks and on the sidewalk, and they want to make it easy to shoot up heroin throughout the city. However, they sure don’t want people to drink sugary drinks, so they put a tax on soda and other beverages.  Theoretically, this tax is for our own good, of course, because Seattle Councilwoman Kshama Sawant knows best.

This is one of the videos the supporters of I-1634 have funded

The beverage producers didn’t like this idea much since it penalized their product and probably cut their sales, so they managed to raise plenty of cash to get the signatures and put this initiative on the ballot.   The original text of the initiative can be found here.  You can see who funds the initiative here.  Top contributors are – no surprise – Coke, Pepsi, Dr. Pepper, Red Bull, etc.  They have raised over $20 million so far to support this initiative.

some of the sponsors of I-1634

The initiative is mostly opposed by Newspaper editorials written by the Seattle Times (linked here), Olympian (linked here), and others like the Tri-City Herald (linked here).  Their opposition is mostly that the initiative reduces local control to increase taxes and that it should be clearer that it is a soda tax opposition rather than grocery tax opposition.

The initiative prevents local jurisdictions from imposing copycat taxes on any grocery items like soda or meat or whatever food strikes their fancy.  The state currently doesn’t charge sales tax on these items, so the initiative doesn’t address state taxes, but it does prevent the contagion of dumb Seattle tax ideas from spreading elsewhere.  This initiative doesn’t provide any relief to Seattleites because it allows the existing tax to fester, but it does prevent Seattle’s tax from increasing and spreading into other food categories.  It is unfortunate that this initiative is even necessary, but it is worth your vote.

This is another video the supporters of I-1634 have funded.  It features the author’s friend and fellow Thurston County Farm Bureau member and local rancher Rick Nelson

Interesting Background – The title of this initiative is less clear than the initiative language would suggest, but that is only because the AG staff and the opponents of the initiative colluded during the ballot title challenge process to make it fuzzy and less clear.  It helps when Pacifica Law Group is your law firm because they have such a cozy relationship with the AG’s office, and open collusion like this is not uncommon between Pacifica Law Group and the AG’s office.  The sponsors of the initiative didn’t intervene in time (so they could maybe have a say), so they had to instead watch the ballot title get botched up by this collusion (it doesn’t change the content of the initiative, but it can make it more confusing for the voters).

In hindsight, it would have been better law and a cleaner title for the initiative to poach Eyman’s much better initiative ballot title for a similar law (linked here), and run with that one instead – it had stronger, clearer language and would have also rolled back Seattle’s tax.  However, the sponsors of this initiative have plenty of cash to get this one across the finish line.

I-1631 – The Carbon Dioxide Tax (euphemistically called “pollution fees”) (Vote No!)

After the first Carbon Tax initiative (I-732) failed in 2016, in part due to a fight amongst environmental groups – some of whom thought it wasn’t destructive enough to the economy, this initiative goes whole hog and has united all the Gang Green grifters behind it.  Unless you are planning to profit from the billions of dollars in political kickback cash this scheme will extract, there is no good reason to vote for it.

The Author filed a ballot title challenge to I-1631, and this video was the argument presented

The sponsors of Carbon Dioxide taxes can never tell the truth

This author filed a ballot title challenge to this initiative (see article here), however, that challenge was unsuccessful in convincing Thurston County Superior Court Judge Dixon to force the AG to honestly call it a “tax” so the AG and the sponsors of the initiative were able to keep their dishonest, misleading and Orwellian title of “pollution fees”  (The entire ballot title challenge hearing can be viewed here)

The sponsors of this initiative mostly consist of Gang Green  (Nature Conservancy, Conservation Voters, etc) and the grifters who hope to profit from the pain they inflict on the regular people who will be forced to pay higher gas taxes and energy costs.  Plus they got a few billionaires to play.  The grifters don’t care about the harm they will inflict on the rest of us and they even admit that this initiative will destroy jobs.  So far they have raised $11 million including donations from some billionaires who won’t feel the financial pain.

The escalating tax burden this initiative imposes on the average voter is significant, and the punishment is the goal.  The sponsors want to hurt people’s pocketbooks so they stop driving their cars and start wearing sweater’s inside their homes (Jimmy Carter flashback here), and if the costs get high enough, maybe they can be forced to ride light rail to work.  They also claim this will somehow “help” the environment, but the only real Green the sponsors care about are the buckets of cash they plan to extract to line their own pockets and launch other grifter schemes.

The clear and obvious clue exposing the true priorities of the sponsors is the fact that most of the language of the initiative (22 of the 38 pages) is about how they want to spend the cash they plan to extract.  There is no language about measuring any reduction of carbon dioxide or requirements that anyone achieve anything of significance.

The distribution of this cash will be by a 15 person appointed board who will have the ability to review and essentially approve their own “audits.” They will be unaccountable to anyone except maybe the Governor if they don’t kick enough cash to his donors friends.  There will be no accountability, no transparency, no auditability, and predictable problems with this scheme (if you care about transparency or good government).  As Washington Policy Center’s Todd Meyers has pointed out, this fund could also be swept by the legislature next time they get a whim and want more cash for themselves as well (these “dedicated funds” get “swept” by the legislature on a regular basis to spend on whatever strikes their fancy), so the only real guarantee is that they will extract the cash from the rest of us suckers.

Of course, they plan on doing so by going after “Big Oil,” which means raising the price of fuel for the rest of us, but don’t worry, we can trust these guys.

The campaign against I-1631 has largely been funded by oil companies (see here), and they have raised over $21 million to oppose it so far.  However, they have spent too much time focused on the fact the initiative exempts many other big carbon dioxide emitters like the Transalta Power plant in Lewis County, paper mills, Boeing, and others.  This is true, but not as significant to the average person as the increasing cost of living this initiative imposes and the dishonest grant grifter kickback scheme that the initiative creates to reward the Gang Green crowd.

This is one of the better ads against 1631 because it points out the costs to average people

This is just an ugly, destructive initiative which will hurt most people for no good reason.  This initiative has become the classic example of how special interests can invent a tax that hurts everyone so that they can give themselves the cash they extract.  Vote no to this Gang Green Grifter scheme.  We don’t need to tax plant food (CO2).

I-1639 – Anti Gun (Really ugly one) (Vote NO!)

Signs like this are being posted by 2nd Amendment Activists around the state

Initiative 1639 is a combination of nearly every anti-gun piece of legislation conceived by Billionaire Michael Bloomberg, crammed into one scrambled bill and funded by other billionaires who won’t be affected by any of its provisions.  This initiative also is on the ballot exclusively because of a corrupt ruling by the Washington State Supreme Court which inexcusably abandoned their responsibility to the people of the state.

Of all the initiatives this year, this is the one that has generated the most controversy and angst.  Controversy exists not just because it is a full frontal assault on the second amendment, but because the sponsors had to break the law in order to get it on the ballot, and the Washington Supreme Court had to intervene in a politically motivated and corrupt manner to enable the lawbreaking, setting a terrible precedent for all future initiatives.

This initiative is also the one most likely to motivate otherwise apathetic voters to vote this November because it has a real negative and harmful impact on gun owners.  Despite the cloud that Seattle’s image might cast across the rest of the state, Washingtonians have a very high rate of gun ownership and conceal-carry permits.

This author recently participated in a debate representing opposition to this initiative.  My opponent was the sponsor of the initiative.  You can see it yourself on the Seattle Channel (linked here).

Here is just a few of the things this initiative does:

  • Punishes gun owners if someone steals their guns and use them in a crime – the gun owners are first victimized by the criminal, then the gun owners are charged with a felony and victimized again. This is called “safe storage” (meanwhile the criminal who commits the crime gets no additional penalties)

    In the 1960s, there was a national campaign to lower the voting age to 18. If you could fight, you could vote, but now they don’t want you to own firearms for protection.
  • Removes 2nd Amendment rights from 18-21-year old adults. They would not be allowed to own any semi-automatic rifles of any kind.  They can join the military, vote, run for public office, get married, have children, but they can’t exercise their second amendment rights.  The initiative sponsors say their brains are “undeveloped,” but the sponsors do want their “undeveloped brains” to vote for the initiative.
  • Creates a de-facto gun registry for all gun owners by requiring the Dept. of Licensing to keep a list of all firearms sold so they can run annual, repetitive background checks. The annual background checks are required of the Dept. of Licensing, and the only way they can do this is if they keep these lists.  They can eventually use these lists for future confiscation efforts, which is convenient.

    Poll taxes were used to prevent poor African-Americans from voting in the South. In I-1639 they want to impose gun taxes (no limit) to ensure poor people eventually can’t exercise their 2nd Amendment rights
  • Implements the equivalent of a poll tax and literacy test for new gun owners. This went out of style in the South in the 1960s as applied to voting rights, but in Washington State the supporters of this initiative believe it is fair to impose both restrictions on those who wish to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights.  The tax is called a “fee” and it starts at $25 per firearm and can escalate with no defined cap – this will be one tool to keep firearms out of the hands of lower income people – just like the Jim Crow laws of the 1870-1960s South, which used gun control for similar purposes.  The test will be styled as vaguely defined “training” program – with plenty of room to complicate and exclude the people they don’t want to own firearms.
  • Makes gun purchasers health records public and accessible to Dept of Licensing employees so they can conveniently misuse their access to these health records.
  • Creates a waiting period for semi-automatic rifles (of any caliber)
  • Requires a duplicative background check (they call it “enhanced,” but it used the same NCIS system currently used. The initiative will start to fund a bureaucracy that can bloat and expand itself to manage the annual check-up background checks (this will also be the excuse to escalate the gun tax referenced above).  Rather than deny criminals access to firearms, this is designed to find excuses to seize the firearms you already own.
  • This initiative does nothing to punish criminals who misuse firearms
  • This initiative does nothing to enhance the safety of anyone who uses a firearm in self defense, but it might punish people who use the “wrong” type of firearm to defend themselves.
  • This initiative only targets, harasses and punishes legal gun owners. Criminals get another free pass because it has never been about reducing gun crime.

There is a reason so many law enforcement organizations in Washington State have come out in opposition to this poorly written initiative.  Here are just a few who are opposed to it, and you can read their statements here, here, here, and here.

Insider Note:  When this author challenged the ballot title to this initiative, the process was delayed by about four weeks due to scheduling problems.  The sponsors of this initiative had started late, and since they had plenty of billionaire cash, they were unconcerned about the increased cost to the professional signature gatherers they would hire ($5-9 per signature was ultimately paid).  However, this process did result in the ballot title being changed by Thurston County Superior Court Judge Murphy (to her credit).  This change forced the sponsors to reprint all their signature sheets.  When they did so, they failed to proof-read the back (or they didn’t care) and they failed to print the actual language of the initiative on the back of these sheets (which is required in both the State Constitution and in the law).  They also printed it in font size so small that nobody could read it without a magnifying glass.

The sponsors of the initiative were warned by the Second Amendment Foundation, but the sponsors ignored the warning.  A lawsuit was brought against the sponsors of the initiative after they turned in their signatures.  Both the Secretary of State and Thurston County Superior Court Judge Dixon agreed that the sponsors of the initiative violated the law and this initiative was thrown off the ballot (see video of the hearing linked above).  The sponsors appealed to the supreme court, and the supreme court issued a bizarre and widely mocked political ruling at 5pm on a Friday (they usually issue opinions on Thursdays or earlier in the week) to avoid media scrutiny.  Based on the sponsors’ attitudes – they knew the fix was in.  The Supreme Court ruled that they were not the proper arbiter of constitutional challenges to initiatives, which defies logic or the history of this court.  Many observers have noted Billionaires may not be able to buy competency with these political consultants, but they obviously can influence the Supreme Court.

I-940 – Anti police bill (Recommend a NO vote)

Signature sheets for I-940 (photo source: Q13)

I-940 began as an initiative to the legislature, and the legislature had an opportunity to properly address this referendum during the legislative session, however, just like I-1639, this measure is on our ballot this year due to a court case, and a supreme court ruling.

The shame of this initiative is the fact that both the sponsors of the initiative and both the Republicans and Democrats in the legislature were able to address the deficiencies with this proposed legislation by coming up with a compromise bill that generally addressed the sponsor’s concerns and the concerns of law enforcement. (See HB 3003 linked here).  However, in a sharply divided partisan decision, the Democrats in both the house and the senate decided to ignore the state constitution and break the law under the assumption that nobody would call them on their failure to follow the rules.

Washington State Senator Padden

According to the State Constitution, the legislature has only three options with a referendum like I-940.  They can 1) Pass it as is.  2) Reject it and let the voters vote on it in November, or 3) provide an alternative to the referendum and put both the original and the alternative on the ballot in November.  The legislature is explicitly NOT allowed to modify the initiative and then make the modified version of the law final without a vote of the people on the original.  A bi-partisan consensus existed for the Democrats to follow option #3 and let the voters decide which version they wanted to support.

The Republicans, particularly in the Senate, led by Senator Padden were unusually unified in pointing out that the Democrats were breaking the law by failing to follow the state constitution, etc.

The Democrats decided they would roll the taxpayer dice and break the law under the assumption nobody would do anything about it.

Tim Eyman is often referred to as the “initiative king” of Washington State

However, Tim Eyman, the long time initiative guy saw the danger in letting this precedent stand (he is currently collecting signatures for his $30 car tab referendum to the legislature). Tim Eyman filed a lawsuit – originally pro se, but eventually picked up by attorney Joel Ard pro bono, and in Eyman v Wyman (the Washington State Secretary of State is always named in these types of lawsuits), Eyman managed to prevail.  The Supreme Court issued a confusing plethora of decisions, but the majority of them recognized that the State legislature clearly violated the state constitution, and this final decision is what put I-940 on the ballot this fall without an alternative.

Tim Eyman (right) and his attorney Joel Ard at the Supreme Court after arguments earlier this year about the legislature’s failure to follow the constitution or the law.

We believe had the Democrats not tried to get away with breaking the law, they could have proposed the final version of this law as an alternative (Eyman tried, but failed to attain this during the case), so instead we have the poorly written version of the law on the ballot.

The sponsors of this initiative clearly touched a nerve with the citizenry in regard to police shootings in our country.  This concern is not just one from Black Lives Matter, but also one expressed by conservative authors like this one here, here, and here.  However, the way I-940 was drafted, it goes too far and is more likely to result in a blizzard of frivolous litigation against law enforcement officers while discouraging police from intervening to stop serious crime.

Law Enforcement opposes I-940

From a legislative standpoint, there was an opportunity to properly address these concerns in the legislature and the Democrats amateurish decision to break the law botched the opportunity.  Instead of decent, thought-out alternative legislation, voters got this poorly worded initiative.  Vote No and send a message to the Democratic party legislators to follow the law next time.

Voting is critical this year.  Apathy is the easiest path for us to lose our freedoms and make our communities worse for future generations.  As civically engaged citizens we must remain vigilant and at least spend a few minutes to fill out our ballots and mail them in.  Don’t delay.  Don’t wait.



Background articles:

The Progressive Voter’s Guide Suggestions on how to vote for these initiatives (hint:  just the opposite of this site)


Original Complete Text of Initiative 1634 – also original link to document on Secretary of State site here

Original Complete Text of Initiative 1635 (not on ballot), what would have been stronger alternative to 1634.  Download from Secretary of State site here.

Direct link to Public Disclosure Commission (PDC) detailing campaign funding and expenditures by Yes to I-1634 Committee

Direct link to Public Disclosure Commission detailing campaign funding and expenditures by only funded No to I-1634 Committee


Why I’m challenging the AG’s misleading ballot title for I-1631 – the Carbon Tax

Thurston County Superior Court #18-2-01614-34 – “A Challenge to the ballot title – statement of subject, concise description –  and ballot measure summary for initiative 1631, an initiative to the people” – submitted by Glen Morgan pro se – filed March 26, 2018

Full Text of Initiative 1631

March 20, 2018 – Letter from AG to Secretary of State providing final ballot title and description for Initiative 1631

March 27, 2015 – Letter from AG to Secretary of State providing final ballot title and description for Initiative 732

Full Text of Initiative 732 – failed 2016 Carbon Tax initiative

Alliance for Jobs and Clean Energy – “An Equitable Climate Action Policy” 2017 (exhibit E)

Video – Complete Ballot Title Challenge hearing for I-1631

Direct Link to Public Disclosure Commission detailing campaign funding by Pro-1631 PAC – “Clean Air, Clean Energy”

Direct Link to Public Disclosure Commission detailing campaign funding by Anti-1631 PAC


Supreme Court – Order – Forcing I-1639 back on the ballot and overturning lower court ruling

Four Billionaires can’t buy competency for Anti-Gun initiative – now multiple legal challenges in court

The Olympian – July 16,2018 – “I-1639 Initiative flaw – can anyone fix it?”

The Union Bulletin – July 31, 2018 – “The signature gathering for gun initiative seems to have been flawed”

August 2, 2018 – Opening Brief by Second Amendment Foundation against I-1639 – Thurston Superior Court Case #18-2-03747-34

July 27, 2018 – SAF – First Amended Application for Citation and Injunctive Relief against I-1639 – Thurston Superior Court Case #18-2-03747-34

July 27, 2018 – NRA Writ of Mandamus & Injunctive Relief suit – Thurston Superior Court Case #18-2-03747-34

Washington Secretary of State – July 6, 2018 – press release

AG’s ballot title for I-1639 issued May 9, 2018

Final Text of proposed Initiative 1639

Judge Murphy – final order to change ballot title for I-1639 – June 7, 2018

The Billionaire’s anti-gun initiative (I-1639) and why I’m challenging the AG’s ballot title

Q13-Fox – “Secretary of State: ‘Significant’ constitutional concerns raised over petition format for gun measure I-1639” – Todd Herman – “Gun control initiative puts Sec. of State Wyman in awkward position”

Safe communities safe schools PAC C1PC (filed with PDC)

Tacoma News Tribune – “Second Amendment group asks court to block gun initiative from the ballot”

Everett Herald – “Editorial:  Reject procedural challenge of gun-control measure”

Union Bulletin – “Initiative petitions must strictly follow the law”

My – Todd Herman – “I-1639 gun initiative reaches required signatures; opponents launch lawsuit”

AG Ferguson – donations from Pacifica Law Group – 2012 & 2016 campaigns – simple list not including spouses or relatives

Glen Morgan’s Filed Ballot Title Petition – I-1639- 18-2-02564-34 – May 16-2018

Ballot Title Challenge to I-1639 – Consolidated Case Schedule Order (under Case #18-2-02506-34)

Agreed Motion To Consolidate ballot title challenges to I-1639

Glen Morgan – Opening Brief – Ballot Title Petition – I-1639 18-2-02564-34 – May 21, 2018

AG response to petitioners ballot title challenge – I-1639 – May 24, 2018

I-1639 -Sponsors’ Response Brief to ballot title language challenge – May 24, 2018

Joe Wilson challenge to ballot title  – I-1639 – May 16, 2018

Opening Brief of Joe Wilson, Pro Se – I-1639 Ballot Title challenge – May 21, 2018

Sponsors – Petition to Appeal Ballot Title – I-1639 – May 16-2018

NRA’s Opening Brief – Ballot Title Challenge I-1639 – May 21-2018

Liberty Park Press – May 17, 2018 – “Ballot Title Challenges Filed v. WA Gun Control Initiative”

The Conservative Firing Line – May 17, 2018 – “WA initiative battle heats as gun control measure challenged”

Ammoland – May 26, 2018 – “West Coast Plutocrats target Washington State gun owners again”

Seattle Times – May 21, 2018 – “Paul Allen, Nick Hanauer give $1M each to Washington state initiative pushing new firearms regulations” – May 22, 2018 – “Nick Hanauer hates big money but just donated $1 million to anti-gun initiative”

GunMag – May 22, 2018 – “Anti-Gun Billionaires Pour Money Into WA Gun Control Initiative”

NRA-ILA – May 17, 2018 – “Washington: NRA Files Legal Challenge Against Misleading Ballot Title for Gun Control Initiative”

Washington State Wire – April 25, 2018 – “AG Ferguson announces support of gun-related initiative”

NW News Network – April 23, 2018 – “In Unusual Move, Washington Attorney General Endorses Gun-Related Ballot Measure”

Washington State Secretary of State – website tracking proposed initiatives 2018

Why I’m challenging the AG’s misleading ballot title for I-1631 – the Carbon Tax

Secretary of State’s 2017 initiative and referenda handbook (page 6 was exhibit D)


De-Escalate Washington – sponsors of I-940

Link to TVW video of entire Eyman v. Wyman Thurston Superior Court hearing

I-940 – original text submitted to Secretary of State’s office (you can also find it here)

HB 3003 (2018)  (final session law – HB3003 linked here)

Eyman v. Wyman – Final Amended Motion for Summary Judgement – Thurston Superior court #18-2-01414-34

Closing Arguments by Ard (Eyman Attorney) & DeWolf (Padden Attorney) in Eyman v. Wyman – Thurston Superior Court #18-2-01414-34

Secretary of State Response in Eyman v Wyman – Thurston Superior Court #18-2-01414-34

Case Law Reference:  Parker v. Wyman (2012) – “The Man Who Saved the Evergreen Constitution”

Q13 – Fox News – “Judge rejects Legislature’s change to deadly force measure, orders I-940 be put on ballot”

Seattle Times – “Washington lawmakers violated state constitution when rewriting police deadly force laws, judge says”

KOMO News – “Legislature sued over how it changed police deadly force law”


Seattle Times – “Tim Eyman sues Washington state over how it changed police deadly-force law”

Seattle Times – “Washington House OKs compromise on police deadly force bill”

Seattle Times – “I-940 campaigners deliver signatures to Olympia, seeking easier prosecution of police in deadly force cases”

Seattle Times Editorial – “Deadly force law needs to change – but not like this”

Everett Herald – “Editorial: Eyman right to fight lawmakers’ initiative maneuver”


  1. Nothing you say about 1631 is even remotely accurate. 1631 is not a tax, it is a fee. Taxes go to a general fund and can be spent in whatever manner the government decides. The funds for a fee are directed for explicit purposes. The revenue for 1631, estimated to be around $9 billion in the first 5 years (and creating 40,000 jobs annually), will be spent on Green Energy, environmental mitigation, and social equity campaigns. The bill recognizes that the most marginalized members of our communities face the greatest risk to climate change and therefore actively seeks to protect these communities. The board is comprised of union leaders, envrionmentalists, tribes, and others. 200 organizations were involved in the drafting of this process. BIG OIL can afford the very modest $15 per unit cost, but they are threatening us with raising prices at the pump. They have raised $22 million in opposition. It is their choice to raise prices, they can afford it, but they want to punish us for trying to protect our land. This is a good initiative and a good first step towards addressing climate impacts.

    • Matthew, if anything, I have understated the total corruption of I-1631 and the grifter scheme it creates. These “dedicated funds” get swept by the legislature all the time (almost every session, in fact), so it is a tax, not a ‘fee” and while that may seem like semantics, we can at least all agree it is a scam.

    • Matthew, business never pay anything, they can only pass these taxes or as you prefer fees on to the consumer. Unlike government, they cannot take money by force, they have to earn their money, they do not get to steal it.

      • you are thinking about it all wrong. first of all, business makes the choice of maximizing their personal profits. Instead of passing the fees on to consumers, they could be more equitable with their profit distribution and buy one less yacht. Second, and most importantly, these businesses have had a long legacy of polluting the earth and therefor degrading our environment and communities. We the people are the ones who then have to pay to mitigate the catastrophic damages of their actions. We, the taxpayers, bear the responsibility of cleaning up their mess. This includes the physical mitigation of our environment and also the health care and quality of life costs that we suffer as a result of their pollution. How is this not a form of theft? They steal my ability to live a healthy life, to leave a habitable planet for my children. That is the biggest form of theft there is!!

  2. I cannot disagree with any of your choices here Glen. Good article, a bit long maybe, but very well done.

Comments are closed.