Uh Oh: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Be Coming For Your Favorite Christmas Rom-Coms Or Something

By William Teach December 16, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Why am I doubting that most Warmists watch these types of shows, since they are positive and upbeat and tend to discuss God and Christianity and Christmas and Jesus, all those things the climate cultists do not like. But, the cultists want to attempt to scare the heretics

Is climate change coming for the Christmas rom-com?

It’s December, which means ‘tis the season for drinking giant mugs of hot cocoa, making piles of gingerbread cookies, and lots and lots of ice-skating – at least, it does if you’re a character in one of this season’s many holiday rom-coms. Even in 2020, the end of the year still brings a deluge of festive romances, complete with totally believable plot lines (in The Princess Switch 2: Switched Again, Vanessa Hudgens plays not two but three (!) identical women romping through a fictional European country) and final-act kisses under the mistletoe.

Oh, and snow. Piles and piles of snow.

Despite our overheating planet, the weather forecast in most holiday-themed movies remains largely unchanged. Couples meet cute while wrapped in layers of flannel and cashmere. Nevermind the fact that the world has already warmed 1.2 degrees Celsius since pre-industrial times and 2020 is on track to be the third-hottest year on record: In the world of Christmas Town, Holidate, and Christmas Ever After, romance – and snowy winters – are alive and well.

Personally, I’d prefer a good zombie or horror or scifi movie or TV show, some Survivor and The Amazing Race, but, that’s me. Lots of people, let’s be honest, mostly the ladies, like the movies on Hallmark and such, right?

Granted, Christmas rom-coms provide escapism in more ways than one. Hallmark, Lifetime, and Netflix are already selling a fantasy in which small-town America is thriving, most women work as novelists or bloggers, and the worst personality trait possible is to be a Christmas “grinch.” Climate change adds yet another dimension: While these movies’ fanciful, snowy backdrops might have once faded into the, well, backdrop, they’re increasingly hard to ignore in a time when so much of our lives are defined by extreme weather events.

According to an analysis by the nonprofit research group Climate Central earlier this year, rising temperatures are shrinking snowfall in many areas of the country, particularly during fall and spring; Chicago, a snowy bastion of the Christmas genre, now sees around 4 fewer inches of winter snow than in the 1970s. Sledding, skiing, and outdoor ice-skating — the best activities to do with a romantic partner who looks like a J. Crew model! — may all be in jeopardy as temperatures rise.

You mean back when the media hysterics were scaremongering about a coming ice age?

As the climate warms, these fake snow-making techniques will be on the rise — and so will the chasm between our treasured festive romances and reality. Granted, it can feel kind of good to travel into a winter wonderland that’s as devoid of climate change as it is of the restrictions (and masks!) of COVID-19. (Amid today’s lockdowns, just a quick scene of an indoor, poinsettia-filled holiday party filled me with aching wistfulness.) But will we still be watching these blizzard-filled flicks in 2030? Or 2050? Or will they start to feel too much like fantasy — a nostalgic imprint of the world that came before?

Read: Uh Oh: Climate Crisis (scam) Could Be Coming For Your Favorite Christmas Rom-Coms Or Something »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Christmas, Global Warming | 2 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 16, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…are glaciers which will soon disappear due to the climate crisis, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Raised On Hoecakes, with a post on the Christmas Star being visible for the first time in 800 years.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in If All You See | 6 Comments | Trackback URL

Good News: You’ll Still Need To Wear A Mask Even With The Vaccine

By William Teach December 16, 2020 – 10:30 am

Is anyone starting to get the idea that mask mandates are less about health than about forcing compliance, which makes people more susceptible to more forced compliance mandates? Is that more conspiracy theory, theory, or reality? Because Progressives/Modern Socialists are very much about government controlling people’s lives

A COVID-19 vaccine doesn’t mean that you can stop wearing a mask

Shipments of the Covid-19 vaccine are arriving, with frontline health care workers getting immunized — some for the cameras — across the United States Monday.

While these developments mark a historic moment and hold much promise, that doesn’t mean Americans can stop wearing masks anytime soon. CNN Medical Analyst Dr. Leana Wen, an emergency physician and visiting professor at George Washington University Milken Institute School of Public Health, explains why.

CNN: Does the vaccine protect people from getting Covid-19? If so, how come I still have to wear a mask?

Wen: This is a good question! It’s important to be clear about what we know and what we don’t know about what the vaccine does. What we know is that the Pfizer vaccine is very effective at preventing symptomatic illness and severe disease. That means the vaccine appears to prevent people from getting sick enough that they develop symptoms, and very importantly, it prevents people from becoming so severely ill that they end up in the hospital. This is really great news.

Here’s what the studies don’t yet show. They haven’t looked at whether the vaccine prevents someone from carrying Covid-19 and spreading it to others. It’s possible that someone could get the vaccine but could still be an asymptomatic carrier. They may not show symptoms, but they have the virus in their nasal passageway so that if they’re speaking, breathing, sneezing and so on, they can still transmit it to others.

This is the main reason why we can’t stop wearing masks right after we get the vaccine. The vaccine will protect you from getting ill and then ending up hospitalized. But it’s possible that you could still carry the virus and be contagious to others. So those who get the vaccine should still be wearing masks and practicing physical distancing.

But, if we all have the vaccine, why would we need to wear masks?

CNN: Does that mean we will need to wear masks in public from now on?

Wen: No, not forever, but for a while longer. It’s estimated that about 70% of Americans must be vaccinated before we get to herd immunity through vaccination. That’s the point where enough people have the immune protection that the virus won’t spread any more.

But, even after 230 million Americans receive one of the vaccines (thank you, President Trump!), they’re still hedging that people will need to wear masks. They will continue to find reasons to force mask compliance, because, again, that makes others easier, because it’s just a mask, right? No biggie.

Meanwhile, how about some SJW virtue signaling?

California May Consider ‘Historical Injustice’ When Allocating Coronavirus Vaccine

When Virginia Hedrick first heard about the coronavirus circulating on cruise ships off the coast of California back in March, it made her think back to some of the first ships of European settlers that arrived on American shores centuries ago, also teeming with disease.

Oh, good grief

Various outbreaks and epidemics spread across the continent in the following centuries, particularly measles and smallpox, and Indigenous people suffered hugely disproportionate rates of illness and death.

“So some would say that it was an unintentional spread of infectious disease upon contact. Others would say it was absolutely intentional,” says Hedrick, a member of the Yurok tribe who grew up on a reservation in Humboldt County. Now, during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, American Indians are 4 times more likely to be hospitalized for COVID-19 than white people, and more than twice as likely to die. For all these reasons, past and present, Hedrick says, Indigenous people should be moved toward the front of the line to receive a vaccine.

“When we think about the historical injustice of this nation, of California, isn’t now the time to say that for the first time we prioritized Indigenous people?” she says. “We started to make reparations in the way that we handled and treated the Indigenous people of this continent?”

It doesn’t get better after that.

Read: Good News: You’ll Still Need To Wear A Mask Even With The Vaccine »

Posted in Bat Soup Virus | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Say, What Would China Joe’s Net Zero World Look Like?

By William Teach December 16, 2020 – 8:26 am

What hyper-Warmist Chris Mooney fails to mention is that all the elites will continue to fly their fossil fueled jets, cruise in their fossil fueled yachts, and drive in their fossil fueled limos while living in their mega-mansions with their manicured lawns while eating expensive, imported food, all while the non-elites will suffer

Biden wants the U.S. to stop contributing to climate change by 2050. Here’s what that would actually take.

The year is 2050, and everything in your home — perhaps in your entire life — is electric.

Your car runs on battery power. Your home heating runs through a highly efficient heat-pump system that has long since replaced the gas furnace. Not even the burners on your stove produce combustion or flames any longer.

And all of it is powered by an array of solar and sometimes distant wind installations, which route electricity across the country thanks to a gargantuan network of power lines that triples the scale of the United States’ current transmission infrastructure. You see them — the panels, the turbines, the lines — everywhere you drive, everywhere you go.

By 2050, in President-elect Joe Biden’s vision of the country — even more ambitious than what the Obama administration proposed — the United States would no longer be putting greenhouse gases into the air. And for that to happen, it is likely that our world would have to look a lot like what was just described.

And what, exactly, is the cost of all this? What’s the cost of that heat-pump system? Unless you can afford almost $40k and up for a vehicle, you won’t be driving. You can essentially kiss goodbye all those in the gig-economy doing deliveries and rides, because they won’t be able to afford those vehicles. Perhaps we’ll all be taking long commutes on battery powered scooters, or those little electric vehicles like they make tourists use in Bermuda.

Of course, unemployment will be sky high, so, a huge percentage won’t have to worry about going to work. Huge sectors of the economy will be put out of work, some forcibly.

In Joe’s World all those suburban and rural areas will be forced to slap up wind turbines and solar farms all over, ruining property values and destroying the landscape. Warmists, of course, do not want this stuff near them and ruining their views.

That is the gist of what an extremely detailed study from energy experts at Princeton University describes in 344 exacting slides outlining what it would take for the United States to be “net zero” in 30 years — meaning any remaining greenhouse gas emissions would be offset by subtractions through forests, agriculture or perhaps directly sucking carbon from the air.

“The costs are affordable, the tool kit is there, but the scale of transformation across the country is significant,” said Jesse Jenkins, a Princeton professor and one of three leaders of the study, along with the university’s Eric Larson and Christopher Greig. “This is a major national undertaking that will only happen if we have the right national commitment.”

So, let me ask: what if 49% of us do not want to participate with this? Will we be force? What say those who are Believers start by changing their own life? What about China Joe and his people, oh, and the Washington Post, start using pure electric vehicles for their operations?

And hands will be tied not only by national politics, Tierney noted. There could be all kinds of “friction” that energy system modelers say they’re not able to include in their scenarios, she said: Legal issues. Permitting issues. Changes in consumer behavior, or resistance to changes. People wanting to keep their gas burners on their stoves, for instance, or not wanting to buy an electric car.

You will not be allowed a choice, Comrades.

Read: Say, What Would China Joe’s Net Zero World Look Like? »

Posted in AGW Socialism, Energy, Global Warming, Joe Biden | 10 Comments | Trackback URL

Senator Ron Johnson To Hold Election 2020 Hearings

By William Teach December 16, 2020 – 7:52 am

This is making those folks at CNN who totally avoided Russia Russia Russia totally upset. How dare Ron investigate the election!

After Electoral College affirmed Biden win, Ron Johnson to hold hearing to probe 2020 election

China Votes BidenOne day after Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said plainly that Joe Biden was the President-elect, Wisconsin Republican Sen. Ron Johnson is holding a controversial hearing Wednesday to probe the 2020 election.

Johnson, who chairs the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, has invited two Trump campaign lawyers who tried to overturn the election results in Nevada and Wisconsin and a Republican Pennsylvania state representative, as well as former independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was part of President Donald Trump’s impeachment defense.

Senators in both parties have raised concerns that the hearing is promoting debunked conspiracy theories about the election, and one Republican senator is not participating. It comes as Trump has continued to spread baseless and false claims about fraud in the election and ignored Monday’s Electoral College vote that affirmed Biden as the winner of the presidential election, 306 electoral votes to 232. (snip)

Asked Monday whether Biden was President-elect, Johnson said it was “certainly walking down that path, isn’t it?” But Johnson defended his decision to hold his election fraud hearing, saying there’s “a large percentage of the American population that just don’t view this as a legitimate result for a host of reasons.”

Johnson said Tuesday in an interview with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that he considered the election “legitimate.”

“Yes. I haven’t seen anything that would convince me that the results — the overall national result — would be overturned,” Johnson said.

Democrats, including the lunatics at CNN, spent four years claiming that the 2016 election was stolen due to Russian interference, and that Trump and his people were Russian assets. That turned out to be a bunch of mule fritters, yet, the Trump deranged continued to bang the drum and spin things even after the Mueller report said “nope, didn’t happen, just stop.” What’s wrong with a look to see what happened for 2020, considering how many irregularities occurred? Perhaps a hearing will solve most of what happened. Or not. Because there were too many things that were rather, let’s say, funky, not too mention the number of election laws and rules that were arbitrarily changed without the legal approval of state legislatures

Democrats charge Wednesday’s hearing provides a forum to spread the unproven conspiracies that were roundly rejected in courts in all of the battleground states where Trump challenged the result. One of the witnesses, James Troupis, represented the Trump campaign in its unsuccessful court challenges in Wisconsin. Another witness, Jesse Binnall, who was Trump’s attorney in Nevada, baselessly claimed on November 17 that Trump had won the state. The campaign’s Nevada challenge was also dismissed.

After four years of Russia Russia Russia, Democrats can kiss my hairy ass. They have zero leg to stand on

Read: Senator Ron Johnson To Hold Election 2020 Hearings »

Posted in Constitution, Democrats, Elections, GOP | 4 Comments | Trackback URL

Bummer: Parts Of Arizona Could Be Uninhabitable Within 30 Years

By William Teach December 15, 2020 – 3:00 pm

Yup, parts of Arizona that are pretty much hot deserts could maybe possibly we think a carbon tax could solve this become even worse

6 Arizona counties may be uninhabitable in the next 30 years due to climate change, study shows

Six of Arizona’s counties are at-risk of being uninhabitable in the near-future due to climate change, a ProPublica and Rhodium Group study found.

The study predicted which counties in the U.S. would face climate change issues to the point of having an uninhabitable climate for humans in the next 20 to 40 years by combining multiple metrics.

The Arizona counties listed, which included Pinal, Graham, Cochise, Mohave, Yuma, and Maricopa, were in the top 100 most at-risk counties in the United States. For context, there are 3,700 counties in the nation.

The study’s findings listed Pinal County in Arizona as the second most at-risk county in the United States of being uninhabitable.

And this is all from our old pal ‘climate change’!

The study projects that rising temperatures will only become more commonplace in the state, threatening the state’s agriculture production. Some Arizona counties will experience temperatures above 95 degrees for more than half the year, according to the study’s findings.

The average for Phoenix, in Maricopa County, is 87 degrees yearly. May through October are the hottest months, and already average 99F for the six month period, so, does this mean that the temps will go down due to you driving a fossil fueled vehicle and keeping the AC at 71?

Anyhow, if you’re living in what is essentially a desert area, it will get hot. And, what happens in 30 years when this study fails? Is there any punishment for that?

Read: Bummer: Parts Of Arizona Could Be Uninhabitable Within 30 Years »

Posted in AGW Scaremongering, Global Warming | 18 Comments | Trackback URL

If All You See…

By William Teach December 15, 2020 – 1:00 pm

…is a horrible world killing dog causing extreme weather, you might just be a Warmist

The blog of the day is Jihad Watch, with a post on Ted Cruz submitting legislation designating the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist group.

Read: If All You See… »

Posted in Uncategorized | 9 Comments | Trackback URL

Van Jones Knows How To Unify America Or Something

By William Teach December 15, 2020 – 10:30 am

Nothing like CNN allowing a highly polarizing guy like Van Jones to yammer about unity, eh?

The surprising ways we could unify America

Since his first speech as President-elect, Joe Biden has maintained a consistent message: He is committed to unifying the growing divides in America. For the Americans exhausted by the chaotic rhetoric of the Donald Trump era, the sentiment comes as a welcome reprieve. But, in a time when the lack of consensus seems to be the only thing there’s consensus about, is healing even possible? And, if so, how do we get from here to there?

Before we can find the right solutions to our present pain, we must properly define the problem. Across our country, the accents might change and the skin colors may differ, but the major problems we’re seeing are the same: soaring Covid-19 rates, an ongoing opioid crisis, high rates of poverty and a broken criminal justice system.

Well, hey, we can all agree on defunding the police, releasing stone cold criminals from jail, and giving illegal aliens unfettered access to the U.S. to fix the broken justice system, right? I’m sure Liberals will agree that we need to fix the 2 tiered justice system, the one which gave Hillary and her cohorts a free pass when you or I would have been in jail, right?

If we are going to mend these ideological fissures, we cannot continue to play into the current “us vs. them” dynamic. We need to invest in an alternative. That alternative will arise from a solution-oriented, positive kind of populism — one that puts truth above tribalism, results over rhetoric, and people over partisanship.

Which is funny, since Democrats, and CNN, are all about putting people in neat little identity boxes and playing them off against those who believe differently.

We need a “bipartisanship from below” approach. We need the kind of alliances that ordinary people discover when they reach out to solve the deadly serious problems that land on their doorsteps. That kind of solidarity emerges — however conditionally — when good people help one another as neighbors, as Americans, as human beings.

Kinda hard to do this when Democrats believe in Government telling us what to do. In the primacy of Government. Except when government conflicts with their Progressive (nice Fascist), Statist beliefs, then they run riot in the streets and create “autonomous zones”, which have dictatorial leaders.

Bipartisanship today is different from the top-down bipartisanship of the 1990s and early 2000s, which, for many, left a bad taste. Both parties were overly influenced by moderates and centrists, some of whom had no strong ideological commitment — except to do the bidding of their private and/or corporate donors, which contributed to the signing of NAFTA, prisons everywhere and endless wars.

Interesting, since Trump was all for doing away with things like NAFTA and renegotiating deals for the betterment of America, he did a big justice system reform, and, last I checked, he didn’t start a war, even a small one, and was working hard to pull us out of wars and create actual peace in the Middle East.

As a result, many people of strong political conviction on both the right and the left came to distrust anyone who talked about “compromise” and “reaching across the aisle.” And the grassroots movements — from Black Lives Matter to the Tea Party, from Bernie Sandernistas to the MAGA-hat crowd — revolted against the traditional dealmakers in both parties. The resulting partisan division has convinced much of the public that the parties can never cooperate on anything.

Van doesn’t offer any sort of specific policies below that paragraph on what we can agree on, and, let’s face it, the beliefs sets between the parties are very, very different. Even in cases where we might agree on the end goals, the ways to get there are far, far different. Conservatives have zero problem with cleaner energy, but, we want market forces to drive it, and a heavy reliance on next generation nuclear power. Democrats want government to force Everyone Else to comply, slap up tons of barely useable wind turbines and solar plants, and restrict people’s lives, which saying “nyet” to nuclear.

I’m sure you can think of 10 things we disagree on in just a couple of minutes.  And, remember, these same Democrats were calling for #Resist from the moment Trump was elected in 2016. They didn’t want to unify and work together and do bipartisan things and reach across the aisle. So, screw them.

Read: Van Jones Knows How To Unify America Or Something »

Posted in Current Affairs, Democrats, Politics | 3 Comments | Trackback URL

Democrats Slip Green New Disaster Language Into Take It Or Leave It Spending Bill

By William Teach December 15, 2020 – 7:09 am

Republicans should slip language into a bill that says that all members of Congress who vote for climate crisis scam legislation should no longer be given any travel reimbursements when they take fossil fueled trips, and that the heat will be set to 65 and AC set to 82 in their Congressional offices. For a start (via Watts Up With That?)

The Stealth Green New Deal

As negotiations continue on a year-end government funding bill as well as a new round of coronavirus relief spending, bad energy policy is looking to hitch a ride. The zombie Manchin-Murkowski energy bill, which we call the American Energy Bureaucracy Act, has staggered back into the picture. In the fall, the bill got even worse after an agreement was reached to enrich big corporations at the expense of small businesses and individual consumers. A marriage of corporate bootleggers and green Baptists, with regular Americans forced to foot the bill.

The word on the street is that there are negotiations taking place to try and jam a pre-negotiated energy bill into the year-end spending bonanza. AEA obtained a page from the discussion draft that appears to include a provision from the House Green New Deal lite version of energy legislation, H.R. 4447, making is a “Sense of Congress” that calls for 100% of power demand to come from “clean, renewable, or zero-emission” energy sources. While these terms are conveniently not defined, from the wider messaging of environmental activists we know what they mean by that: replace electricity from natural gas and coal with expensive, unreliable wind and solar power. If included, this amounts to a backdoor 100% renewables mandate, snuck into a huge omnibus spending bill that they hope no one notices.

Forcing renewables onto the grid raises electricity costs and makes the grid less reliable. We only have to look at what has happened repeatedly this year in California to see the 100% renewable future: rolling power cuts at times of high demand and low renewable generation. And the California disaster is with a grid that is only partially renewable. Imagine facing power shortages because of dependence on renewables and deciding that we should become even more dependent on renewables.

This 100% provision “Sense of Congress” makes no sense whatsoever. Putting Congress on record supporting 100% renewables is a major statement of policy. It cannot be tacked onto a massive spending bill with no discussion or debate. Perhaps the drafters (and we call on you to reveal yourselves) wanted to make it sound bland, but the very vagueness of the language is especially dangerous. This provision basically gives the Secretary of Energy a blank check authorization from Congress to impose 100% renewables in whatever way he can.

Let’s require all the Congressional buildings in D.C. and their offices across the country to operate on 100% renewable within 1 year. Let’s see how well they do. Let’s see if they can operate using only non-fossil fueled means of transportation. Should be fun driving back to California and Oregon in a plugin electric vehicle, right? But, hey, #Unity, right?

Anthony Watts also notes

Thomas Pyle, President of the American Energy Alliance, issued the following statement:

“While most Americans are eagerly looking for news about access to a COVID-19 vaccine, or juggling their expenses and schedules this holiday season, some unnamed Members of Congress are making a last-minute attempt to to sneak bad energy policy into a take-it-or-leave it spending bill before checking out for the year. It’s shameful and should be rejected outright.

“Members of the House of Representatives and the Senate are negotiating behind closed doors to jam a a stealth Green New Deal provision into a massive year-end bill to fund the entire federal government. Language uncovered in a “discussion draft” would give the Secretary of Energy the authority to effectively change the Department of Energy into the Department of Climate Policy.

The Democrat controlled House hasn’t bothered to vote on Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal. They haven’t even bothered discussing in committee. Now the question becomes “will they keep the provision, or remove it?” Because department heads already have way too much latitude to just create policy out of thin air due to being given that latitude by Congressional legislation, when that power should remain with the Legislative branch.

Read: Democrats Slip Green New Disaster Language Into Take It Or Leave It Spending Bill »

Posted in Democrats, Energy, Global Warming | 5 Comments | Trackback URL

Unity Joe Forgets About The Real Unity In Electoral College Vote Win Speech

By William Teach December 15, 2020 – 6:51 am

China Joe made a few patronizing calls for unity, but, his speech was mostly highly partisan. And kinda gross

Pollak: Biden’s Phlegmatic, Divisive Speech Burns Bridges to Trump’s America

President-elect Joe Biden delivered an angry, partisan speech Monday evening upon being voted the winner of the 2020 election by the Electoral College.

Biden did not just acknowledge victory; he taunted his defeated opponent, President Donald Trump. Rather than celebrate the result and reach out to Trump and his supporters, Biden — coughing up phlegm throughout his speech — attempted to rub salt in the wound, continuing to argue the case after he had already won it.

Biden seemed annoyed that Trump had contested the results at all. He has no right to be offended.

Biden was one of the Obama administration officials who “unmasked” Michael Flynn, as part of an effort undermine the incoming administration. On the campaign trail in 2019, Biden agreed eagerly with a voter who called Trump an “illegitimate president.” He called Trump a Nazi sympathizer and compared him to Joseph Goebbels and Adolf Hitler. Biden has never apologized for that.

In his speech, Biden declared that the election was “free and fair” — a dubious claim, which I have disputed elsewhere. He  expects Americans to overlook a year of political violence, almost entirely by the left; unprecedented censorship by the mainstream media and Big Tech to cover up stories damaging to Biden’s political prospects; a debate commission stacked against Trump; and — most of all — a shift to vote-by-mail that was often pushed by Democrats over Republican objections.

There really was nothing of substance that could be considered “reaching across the aisle” included in the speech

Coughing and spluttering, Biden went on an extended rant against Trump’s effort to challenge the election results in court. There was no need to do that. The fact that the Electoral College voted the way it had was evidence enough that Trump’s legal efforts had failed.

Yeah, it is rather nasty, and rather shocking that his handlers would let him speak in such a condition.

At the end of his petulant address, Biden called on Americans to “unite and heal.” But evidently he expects unity and healing to flow in one direction.

Biden is, and always has been, one of the most divisive politicians in America. He is personally to blame for the fact that Supreme Court confirmations are fights to the death, for example.

Pollock goes on to say that Biden burned bridges. But, hey, Democrats set the stage with their Russia Russia Russia stuff, saying that the “campaign to impeach Trump has begun” on inauguration day 2017 without even giving him a chance, all the opinion pieces on hoping Trump fails and resisting Trump, 4 years of unhinged “resistance”,  and, you know the rest. I wonder if resistance will suddenly be unfashionable, that it will suddenly be un-patriotic, now that China Joe is sure to be installed as, to use the word Dems used for George W. Bush, pResident?

Read: Unity Joe Forgets About The Real Unity In Electoral College Vote Win Speech »

Posted in Joe Biden | 6 Comments | Trackback URL
Pirate's Cove