All around the world, politicians are stepping back from Net Zero
The Net Zero debacle has become such a deadweight for the UK Labour Party, that Tony Blair, Former Labour Prime Minister has dropped a second bombshell on the Environment Minister, blaming renewables for high electricity prices and telling him to abandon Net Zero targets and green levies.
This is good news, but before anyone think he has seen the light, be aware the light his team are watching is mostly the rising star of Reform UK. What he’s really afraid of, apparently, is that the horrid “Right-wing populists” might win more elections. It’s a thought so awful, even a Labour stalwart is willing to give up the Net Zero incantation. Imagine how much damage Nigel Farage might do to the Blob if Reform UK romped home?
This then, is damage control to stop an electoral wipe-out:
Sir Tony Blair has urged Ed Miliband to abandon his clean power targets and slash expensive green levies.
The Tony Blair Institute (TBI), the former prime minister’s think tank, warned that a pledge to decarbonise UK electricity by 2030 was destroying industry and damaging households.
The target to ditch fossil fuels puts Labour at risk by pushing voters towards Reform UK before next year’s crucial Scottish, Welsh and English regional elections.
Ryan Wain from the TBI urged the Energy Secretary to instead focus on making electricity much cheaper to stop “Right-wing populists” undermining support for net zero.
One wonders if Tony Blair would have said a single word about the poor suffering victims of Net Zero, if Reform wasn’t streaking far ahead in the polls, and the Conservatives were still cheering on the plan too. Where was Blair in last year’s elections?
This is a do or die point for Sussan Lee and the Liberals
If Lee was brave enough to hold a torch against the trillion dollar bullies and their quest to control the weather, she would already know half the nation is skeptical. And after she shone the light on the storm-stopping witchcraft, many more would see the light. It would be a whole new national conversation.
As long as the Liberals pander to Net Zero, they’ll never know the passion and strength of the millions of skeptics who are fed up with bullying, namecalling, secret costs and hidden taxes on pagan quests.
Tony Blair is just mapping out the escape path for the Labour Party — how they sell their retreat:
They’ll never say they were wrong, they’ll just rebrand the mission. Tony’s Blair’s personal thinktank (TBI) has put out a report called “Cheaper Power 2030 … Resetting the UK’s Electricity Strategy for The Future”. Like a true Blob production he still wants to electrify everything so all the minions can be tracked. He still wants to pander to the hobgoblins and waste money on Carbon Capture and Storage, and decarbonisation, but the TBI is pro-nuclear, at least and talks about energy security as a strategic concern.
The Labour Party, he thinks, should still fight climate change, but they can turn off the tap to more wind and solar power, and cut out the subsidies, and ahem, even call it a day on any more emissions reduction:
At the same time, the global context is changing. Addressing climate change is an increasingly pressing imperative, as extreme weather is felt more and more around the world. The efforts of the global community to curb emissions have been substantial but insufficient. Technological progress offers hope of easing this transition, but we are reaching a stage where further reduction of emissions carries a higher and higher economic and political cost.
NetZeroWatch says this is good news but the TBI still doesn’t get the physics of affordable high density energy:
Where it falls short is in its prescription. It treats electrification as the route to abundance rather than the outcome of it, focusing on technical market tweaks and “flexibility” while ignoring the physical foundations of any affordable system – density and reliability.
The first and second laws of thermodynamics are not policy choices. Replacing dense, controllable sources like gas, coal and nuclear with diffuse, intermittent ones such as wind and solar increases entropy across the system — more infrastructure, more storage, more loss. The result of the renewables-based grid the TBI assumes is a structurally higher-cost, lower-efficiency system. Since 2005, when Britain’s generation peaked, firm power has fallen from 95 per cent to less than half. In two decades, we have de-densified our grid and made the supply of electricity more volatile.
The consequences are clear: soaring policy and systems costs (which total £17 billion today), collapsing industrial competitiveness, and stagnant productivity. No amount of flexibility or subsidy can offset low energy density. Neither cheaper finance nor higher gas prices will alter that physical reality.
… The TBI’s calls for a delay will reduce this burden, but will not reduce bills.
For the record, there is a new party in Australia called Reform. Check them out…
The State of Climate Action for 2025 is out, looking like a kindergarten report with red and orange stickers for all the areas the world is failing in, which is everything. Show this report to any MPs who tell you Australia is in danger of being left behind.
Ten years after the Paris Agreement even The Guardian notices that despite the bonanza in new wind and solar power, coal use hit a record high last year.
It’s a bizarre report, surely a product of an industry oozing too much spare cash. It has finger-wagging lectures, chumpy predictions, and cutsie stamps. But who is supposed to be impressed by this (apart from The Guardian) — political staffers in the third world? No one is going to look at forty graphs of failure and think “we have to double our efforts”.
Progress is marked with school teacher lingo like “Well off Track” or “U Turn needed”. As if the world is waiting to hear, and can just, ‘bing’, make planes fly on pumpkin seeds.
The graph of zero-carbon sources in electricity generation rather sums it all up — the outstanding hell-for-leather uptake of renewables is almost a flat line, but in their dreams renewable power is about to launch into space. (“S-Curve likely” they say, which is code for a slow start but with great news just around the corner.)
These kindy-totalitarians have big plans. Wow.
For some inexplicable reason the share of wind and solar power is a key outcome in and of itself, as if the world needs windmills and photovoltaic panels to be whole, or fix holes in its Chakra.
This graph is the wet-dream of the renewables industry…
Heat pump sales in the EU are not headed in the right direction:
It’s almost like hundreds of thousands of people tried a heat pump and didn’t like it.
Meanwhile direct carbon capture is… a wasteland:
The acceleration required in direct carbon capture is “greater than tenfold”, they say, on a graph that shows a that what they really want is a 400-fold increase.
It was brave of the team to include global aviation. Especially given that the lifespan of an electric battery in a plane is about three weeks. But look at the fantasy…
Who knew, Climate Action means we’re not supposed to drive our passenger cars as far (even if it’s an EV charged by a nuclear plant?) They are still dreaming of 15 minute cities, saying — “planners and developers must redesign cities to being foods and services closer to where people live and avoid the need for motorized passenger travel…”
…
And this is the current progress on Green hydrogen production, as written by renewables fans:
They don’t say it, but production needs to ramp up by a factor of 662 by 2030.
If anything, the report proves that the world has no chance of meeting its Net Zero target and that the government boondoggles, NGOs and tech giants (like Bezos Earth Fund) have far too much money to waste.
Even the US Democrats have realized that times have changed and talking about “climate change” has become toxic to voters, but the Australian conservatives can’t figure it out.
Even as Sussan Ley, the Opposition Leader, contemplates taking a baby step away from “Net Zero” targets (pushing it back to 2060), the latest advice for Democrats is “Don’t say Climate Change”.
The Democrat leaders say they’ve seen the light because of a recent Searchlight poll, but polling numbers have been the same for the last ten years. Voters have always said climate change is a catastrophe, because it was social-death to say anything else, but they also rank climate change near the bottom of their ToDo lists. They never cared, and it didn’t matter — not until their electricity bills caught fire, and the smelters started closing. Then it mattered, but in a bad way.
The field is ripe for a real opposition to pick up this dissatisfaction, instead the Australian Liberals tinker with a different shade of pagan fantasy, while the world moves on, and the left gear up for a flanking manouver.
Don’t expect to hear a nano-quark of a mea culpa, or any lessons learned — the people at the front of this political wagon are not admitting they were wrong, they’re just agreeing to hide their obsession with weather-changery, and then lie about how the Republicans are making electricity expensive.
They’re still patting themselves on the back, and telling themselves they’re smarter than the voters. Listen to Rep Sean Casten (D) as he softens the bad news for the genius Democrats:
“There’s no obvious electoral upside in being really smart on energy and climate policy.”
Nearly a year after the 2024 election, Democrats are still trying to figure out what went wrong. In the midst of this soul-searching, a new piece of advice has appeared: “Don’t say climate change.”
Having hammered us with righteous Climate Fear for twenty years, the Democrats are just starting to realize that the voters know the party cares more about the climate than it does about the voters…
That’s the takeaway from a recent poll by the Searchlight Institute, a new Democratic think tank. Americans said they see climate change as a problem, but it’s rarely one of their top issues — voters in battleground states are more concerned with affordability and health care. But when asked which issue they think the Democratic Party prioritizes, climate change was number one.
The Searchlight poll shows that half the population will still call climate change a serious sort of crisis, but only a pitiful 1 to 6% actually think it’s the top issue.
If only US Democrats had been reading skeptical blogs they would have known this years ago.
SearchLight
So this is a win for skeptics, but gird your loins, the battle is just shifting to a new front — “cheap” energy:
Advocacy groups are on board, too, with the League of Conservation Voters, Climate Power, and others running an ad blitz this summer blaming Republicans for increasing energy costs.
Australian conservatives still think they need a “Net Zero” policy to impress the voters, but as Barnaby Joyce says, it’s the liability that cost them the last two elections.
This is just another public service announcement so nobody misses out on finding out just how far the media will prostitute themselves to trick the voters.
Two policemen were put in hospital at the March for Australia rally, but it was by rabid left leaning protestors throwing rocks, and bottles filled with broken glass. Despite that, the ABC didn’t even think it was worth mentioning at all and SBS used the violence to suggestively imply that both sides of the anti-mass-immigration protest were badly behaved.
The ABC said not one word about mass protests in every capital city, but they had time to tell Australians about anti-Trump No Kings March on the other side of the world and a tour of Japanese lamb-chop chefs. Even bunkers in Finland were more important. Priorities mate…
If a dozen people had turned up to protest climate change, they would have been on the news.
Victorian Police were understandably fed up. Commander Wayne Cheeseman was blunt — the violence was all from the left and the March for Australia crowd were peaceful and well behaved.
His words, from The Australian:
Bottles filled with shards of glass were being thrown at police. Rotten fruit, bins and flags were set on fire. People came to pick a fight with police.
“The people that came to pick the fight with police were the issue-motivated groups on the left,” he said.
“The March for Australia group – they were peaceful, engaging and followed instructions. The others came with masks, hoodies and umbrellas, throwing rocks and hiding behind barriers. They came to harm our members, and it’s got to stop.”
— by Mohammed Alfares, Joanna Panagopolos, and Mackenzie Scott at The Australian:
…
It was like a parallel universe on SBS
The Blob is very afraid these protests against mass immigration will grow.
The point of news stories like this one below, by the publicly funded SBS is to scare middle Australia away from attending these rallies. The last thing the Blob wants is for people to bring out their kids to wave the Australian flag? Oh No! That’s the wrong kind of pride…
SBS has a long write up of the protests but does not use the word “left” even when quoting the Police Commander. Should we call that misinformation, or malinformation?
Just ask, would SBS staff get bigger salaries if the message in the protests spread and Australians voted in a cost cutting government?!
The violence becomes the story, like a smoke flare, to hide the real topic — look a squirrel!
The violent lefties provide the performance the Blob-Media needs to tar, feather and confuse ordinary Australians. But equally as important, the violence itself fills the news cycles like a smoke bomb, hiding the real topic. Most Australians won’t go to bed tonight thinking about a pithy comment made by a speaker at a rally, because they didn’t hear the speakers. The whole topic was reduced to barely one word, anti-immigration.
If we had an honest media, people would be talking about this protest at the watercoolers tomorrow…
The next big protest rally will be Australia Day January 2026. Get ready. Spread the word.
_______________________________________
UPDATE: Reports from commenters who were there at the Melbourne rally include a report that an ebike was deliberately ridden into the crowd injuring an older lady.
March for Australia Against Mass Immigration will be held in every major city as well as Grafton, Wodonga, Rockhampton, Townsville, Mackay, and Yeppoon. Take your Australian Flag!
People who want to print and drop flyers in letterboxes can find the PDF files here.
From their flyer: The questions that Australians should be able to discuss without ill-will:
What are you passing on to your children?
A NATION WITHOUT FAIR WAGES
Not Enough Nurses? Instead of raising wages to attract more Australians, the government imports nurses from the third
world – who are happy to work for less! Fair wage demands get ignored. This applies to any and all industries. Don’t
count on unions, because diverse workplaces are less likely to unionise1.
More Migration = Bigger Labour Pool = Weaker Bargaining Power for Australian Workers
A NATION WITHOUT HOUSING
What do you think adding 7 million people to Australia’s population in 20 years does? Our housing shortfall is not a
supply issue – it’s a mass migration issue. We will never meet demand, when demand is infinite.
A NATION WITHOUT SAFETY
In Victoria, we’ve seen Africans murdering 12-year-olds by cutting their hands off with machetes2.
In Queensland, we have grandmas being stabbed to death in front of their own grandchildren3.
Widespread home invasions mean that Australian families don’t even feel safe in their own homes. Did you always lock your doors?
A NATION WITHOUT COMMUNITY
Make no mistake, when housing in your community is sold to foreigners, those foreigners are directly displacing your
own children. What is ‘community’, when your children need to move hours away from where they grew up. What is
‘community’ when you don’t even speak the same language as your neighbours?
A nation without identity
The Liberals and every other established party refuse to call for migration policy that preserves our demographics.
Australia could become 95% Indian and they wouldn’t care. If Australia became 95% Indian, would it still be Australia?
What does it mean to be ‘Australian’, when supposedly all it takes is stepping off a plane?
YOU OWE IT TO YOUR CHILDREN
Join hundreds of thousands of Australians, in marching for Australia, across all capital cities nationwide.
Meet at Hyde Park, [Sydney]*, at the water fountain on October 19th at 12PM.
[Melbourne, Parliament House Steps | Brisbane, Emma Miller Place | Adelaide, Light Square, Currie st | Perth, Langley Park | Canberra, Captain James Cook Memorial | Hobart, Salamanca Gardens | Grafton, Grafton Tafe | Rockhampton, Central Park | Yeppoon, Central Park | Townsville, Anzac Park | Darwin, “TBA” | Wodonga, Les Stone Park | Mackay, Bluewater Quay. ]
The ABC won’t let you know about this, so I’m passing it on as a public service. Share it with a friend, eh?
It’s time to move the goalposts to rescue some reputations
We always knew this day would come. The moment when history gets rewritten so The Blob can pretend their life and death battle for climate change was not scientific Voodoo, and a total waste of twenty years and a thousand billion dollars.
If we move all the goalposts, the Paris Agreement is looking good, even though man-made emissions are rising, and almost no one is meeting their targets.
Watch the agitprop in action — firstly they pretend this is about maths — “the numbers are in” as if they have evidence and can count to four. But every number is completely invented, totally elastic and all of it was modeled, and none of it has happened. They’re just saying (and lying) that things could have been a lot worse, but phew, the Paris Agreement is working:
As global heat records keep tumbling, a new analysis shows the Paris climate treaty is having an impact, with warming on track to reach 2.6 degrees if nations meet their commitments, rather than 4 degrees as was predicted before the agreement was signed in 2016.
O’Malley is trying to gaslight the audience into thinking that the IPCC was “predicting 4 degrees C” as the most likely outcome when the range stretched from 0.3°C up to 4.8°C, and all the talk at the time was about staying below 2 degrees with an aspirational target of 1.5°C.
The 4 degree extreme predictions came only from the absurd “RCP 8.5 scenario” — where the whole world flew Concordes to work every day and CO2 reached 936ppm. (But even die-hard modelers like Gavin Schmidt and Zeke Hausfather now agree this was an unlikely and unrealistically extreme outcome.)
But nine years later, after coal use hits record highs and renewables projects are collapsing, there’s not even a hint that global CO2 levels have slowed at all — yet The Blob cheer-squad hails a modeled 2.6 degrees future as a success (if everyone keeps their word which they never do).
And since the 2.6 degree “future” is calculated with models we know don’t work, every single part of this might as well be chicken entrails.
If man-made emissions mattered at all, this is not what “success” looks like:
Back in 2016, the goal was 2 °C. Later, when it looked like the disasters weren’t coming in fast enough, they decided that 1.5 °C of warming was still a terrible thing. Now they’re celebrating 2.6 °C. Only in climate politics can every miss be a win.
A Climate Oracle hath spoken and the ABC soaked it all up, no questions asked
In research believed to be “the first of its kind” badly trained scientists have gone where no respectable scientist dared to go. They have “attributed” some deaths that haven’t happened to a specific fossil fuel project.
This opens the door (they think) to a legal bonanza.
Australian researchers have linked a single fossil fuel project to climate impacts, modelling that Woodside’s Scarborough project will cause 484 heat-related deaths in Europe.
It is the first time a scientific paper has attributed the climate impacts of a specific fossil fuel project.
It also found that the incremental rise in global temperatures from that one project would result in an additional 16 million corals lost in every bleaching event on the Great Barrier Reef, and expose an extra 516,000 people around the world to unprecedented heat.
The whole 30 year Scarborough project will only warm the world 0.00039 degrees
Even according to their exaggerating skillless models, the entire effect of Scarborough emissions will supposedly raise global temperatures by all of four ten-thousandths of a degree. Frankly, this analysis will have the exact opposite effect the researchers hope. It’s going to reassure Australians that it would be crazy to stop this project going ahead.
In the new paper published in the Nature journal Climate Action, researchers found Scarborough’s 880 million tonnes of emissions over its lifetime — including emissions when the gas was burnt — would increase global temperatures by 0.00039 degrees.
If only it had been peer reviewed by a respectable journal, the editors would have sent them packing…
Firstly, if emissions could warm the world, it would save lives. Death rates from the cold, swamp any paltry losses to heat theoretically imagined in 50 years time. Cold weather is not just 10% more deadly, it’s 600%, 1000% or 2000% more likely to kill. Any reduction in cold weather will save lives. Plus heatwaves tend to kill people who were going to die in the next six weeks anyway.
Secondly, cheaper gas saves lives immediately, (what’s the discount rate on a theoretical death in 2100?). Gas heats homes, fertilizes food, cooks food, and makes cheap clothing. If Scarborough was not approved, all these things would be slightly more expensive, thus hurting the poorest of the poor.
Thirdly, if Scarborough were shut down the gas would just be dug up somewhere else. Most countries are not banning gas exploration or extraction, and are not adopting suicidal taxes in a quest to change the weather. The authors don’t even consider this “leakage of carbon emissions” which is an industry standard in this sort of analysis.
The Scarborough Gas project will save so many lives, it would be a crime to stop it
The researchers claim they took the beneficial effects of warming into account and say magically “The increase in temperatures would result in fewer cold deaths in some parts of Europe, but even accounting for those deaths, the study estimates that 118 more people would die in Europe overall.”
So the 484 deaths in the headline is really 118 extra deaths even in their own paper. Are they here to serve Australians or deceive them?
Cold weather kills 6, 10, or 20 times as many people
The largest study across 13 countries found cold deaths were twenty times more common than heat deaths. In richer European cities, with gas stoves and coal fired power stations *only* ten times as many people will die of the cold. (Mazzelot et al) Even in warm sunny Brisbane, Australia, six times as many people die in mild cold weather as in the heat of summer. (Cheng et al).
Abram et al (this new paper) uses the Gasparrini data set, but extrapolated far outside what it was intended for.
a/ The new modeling assumes the warming-death trend is linear even down to fractional tiny increments of a degree which is “brave” given that daily temperatures vary in any given city by 20,000 times as much.
b/ They assume that only temperature matters and ignore changes in wealth, unemployment, or healthcare.
c/ They assume if Scarborough was shut down the emissions are not just emitted elsewhere, which they almost certainly will be.
If climate modelers were paid to show windmills and solar panels kill people, it would be easy
If the Greens think they can stop projects with “attribution lawfare” they could get a nasty surprise. Once the doors are open on this scientific swamp of dubious extrapolation, the crocodiles will eat their own favourite projects alive.
We all know that modelers can find any answer they want if they have enough free parameters to toss their salad with.
Obviously, when it comes to deaths due to unreliable energy and higher electricity costs modelers have plenty of gears to turn. Senior citizens and the poor will die in cold rooms they can’t afford to heat. Food prices will rise, so families will run out of money to pay for healthy food and have to feed the kids cheezels for breakfast. Et Voila, there is obesity and diabetes to add to the funeral pyres. Sooner or later, a proper blackout will kill people on operating tables and in train tunnels. As electricity prices rise, businesses and factories will fail, so jobs will be lost, which raises suicide rates, homelessness, poverty and divorce.
And of course, there’s always the big one, that nations with no industrial strength are sitting ducks for foreign invasion and takeover. Could unreliable energy and pagan quests to control the weather with electrical generators break a civilization? Don’t get me started. You want mortality?
Someone could ask Lee Zeldin, Administrator of the US EPA, if he could fund that modeling?
REFERENCES
Abram, N.J., Maher, N., Perkins-Kirkpatrick, S. et al. Quantifying the regional to global climate impacts of individual fossil fuel projects to inform decision-making. npj Clim. Action4, 92 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44168-025-00296-5
Masselot et al (2023) Excess mortality attributed to heat and cold: a health impact assessment study in 854 cities in Europe, The Lancet, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/S2542-5196(23)00023-2
At the top of the Magic Faraway Tree, the cheapest form of energy needs more subsidies. Just keep pouring the money…
The Australian Energy Market Commission (AEMC) has finally quietly admitted that they’ve given up on wind and solar power becoming cheaper than coal. Instead, renewables are so uncompetitive they will need another ten years of subsidies, or however long it takes until the last coal plant shuts off.
It’s so revealing. Once upon a time they might have thought (or at least pretended) that subsidies were there to get the unreliable generators ‘over the development hump’ so they could compete in a free market. But after 20 years of subsidies, there are no new economies of scale left to wait for. We got to the bottom of the cost efficiency curve and we’re going up the other side. Costs are now rising as the new projects have to go to far flung fields and wait for impossible transmission towers to appear. Windmills kept getting bigger until there was a nasty surprise in the maintenance bills that wiped 36% off Siemens shares in a single day.
AEMC opine about getting back to a free market once the coal plants are forced off the grid by the Big Government subsidies. They might as well be telling the world that wind and solar will never be as cheap as coal is.
How could the new unfree market, post coal, possibly be cheaper than the old one?
Australia’s official energy policy adviser says government subsidies for renewables will likely be kept in place for as long as coal-fired power generation keeps operating, locking in underwriting schemes for at least another decade.
It’s not renewables fault, it’s because we need “an orderly transition” (to a forced, fixed, and unfree market):
The Australian Energy Market Commission said underwriting mechanisms were needed to ensure there was an orderly transition to green energy as coal generation exited the nation’s power grid.
Sorry, did we say the subsidies would end? We meant “maybe”.
“Are we going to get past this at some point when we won’t have governments underwriting new capacity. Maybe once we’ve seen coal exit and we’ve built out this phase of the transition,” AEMC commissioner Tim Jordan told the Citi Australia and New Zealand Investment Conference on Tuesday.
All the talk of free markets is just an illusion:
“We can then return to a more market-led approach where underlying demand growth will determine whether new capacity enters.”
Mr Jordan said the industry and government should aim for “market principles to take over again” once the transition from coal to renewables was complete.
What do we call a free market when the cheapest competitor is banned?
If the green subsidies can’t end until coal power is gone, it looks more like their primary goal was not to help renewables so much as to destroy coal…
With the climate olympic-junket just weeks away in Brazil, the race is on for word-salad-catastrophes flavored with science-incense to shake down more cash and concessions from the rich democracies.
And thus the University of Exeter proffers the first round of this year’s “on the brink” specials.
The first tipping point is almost upon us, just like it was every year for the last 29 years in a row:
The world faces a “new reality” as we have reached the first of many Earth system tipping points that will cause catastrophic harm unless humanity takes urgent action, according to a landmark report released today (13 Oct) by the University of Exeter and international partners.
With ministers gathering today ahead of the COP30 summit, the second Global Tipping Points Report finds that warm-water coral reefs – on which nearly a billion people and a quarter of all marine life depend – are passing their tipping point. Widespread dieback is taking place and – unless global warming is reversed – extensive reefs as we know them will be lost, although small refuges may survive and must be protected.
We are on the brink of more tipping points, with devastating risks for people and nature: the irreversible melting of polar ice sheets, the collapse of key ocean currents and the dieback of the Amazon rainforest – where COP30 will be held.
With global warming set to breach 1.5°C, the report – by 160 scientists at 87 institutions in 23 countries – argues that countries must minimise temperature overshoot to avoid crossing more tipping points. Every fraction of a degree and every year spent above 1.5°C matters.
It might as well be straight out of the Neolithic Sorcerers Cookbook — How to wind up the crowd before you ask for the goats and girls:
Pick things the audience likes but mostly won’t have any direct experience of, like, say, corals 100km off the coast and under 10 meters of water. Even in the unlikely event a single critic dives on one reef, the real crisis will turn out to be in the 100,000 reefs they didn’t visit.
Use vague, ill defined terms, like “climate change” which can mean long term, short term, man-made, natural, or a thing that dropped in for the weekend.
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.
If Lee was brave enough to hold a torch against the trillion dollar bullies and their quest to control the weather, she would already know half the nation is skeptical. And after she shone the light on the storm-stopping witchcraft, many more would see the light. It would be a whole new national conversation.
Seen at the last rally:
Recent Comments