Monday, January 13, 2025

Scholar who overhyped climate change’s role in wildfires weighs in on LA blazes


Jennifer Kabbany - Fix Editor 

Remember Patrick Brown? He’s the scientist who overemphasized climate change’s role in wildfires to help get his paper published in Nature.

Brown admitted as much. He was a whistleblower, who sounded the alarm on the nation’s top science journals for what he contends is their bias for preferring papers that support the narrative that human activity is the primary cause of extreme climate change while ignoring other factors.

His paper, “Climate warming increases extreme daily wildfire growth risk in California,” was trumpeted by mainstream media outlets.

But to get published, Brown wrote in the Free Press at the time in Sept. 2023, researchers must produce findings “that the effects of climate change are both pervasive and catastrophic and that the primary way to deal with them is not by employing practical adaptation measures like stronger, more resilient infrastructure, better zoning and building codes … or in the case of wildfires, better forest management or undergrounding power lines—but through policies like the Inflation Reduction Act, aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

Brown, co-director of the Climate and Energy Team at the Breakthrough Institute and an adjunct faculty member in the Energy Policy and Climate Program at Johns Hopkins University, offered a dose of common sense as he recently weighed in on the wildfires that have ravaged Los Angeles this past week.

Writing in City Journal on Jan. 9 Brown pointed out that certainly “well-resourced firefighting (personal as well as air and ground equipment), as well as high-quality fire-weather forecasting, are critical to slowing down and ultimately containing fires like these.”

But, he added in his Jan. 9 piece:

Devastating events prompt people to search for villains, but reality is more complicated. Climate change may be making fires more dangerous, but it isn’t meaningfully affecting California’s high winds and drought. In any case, the effects of global emissions reductions on fire activity are indirect and will not be realized in the short term. While fire suppression and reducing flammable material are unlikely to be as important in Southern California’s brush landscapes as they would in Northern California’s forests, vegetation reduction would still appreciably reduce fire danger in these landscapes.

We live on a planet that is often hostile to our well-being no matter what we do. Southern California has been fire-prone throughout human history, and it will continue to be. Devastation from natural disasters cannot be completely avoided, and we are often left with partial measures that can only reduce risk, not eliminate it.

MORE: Scientist says he left out ‘full truth’ to get climate change paper published

IMAGE: NBC News / YouTube screenshot




Don't Forget to Recommend
and Follow us at our

W3P Homepage


When Your Kid Turns Left


My 19-almost-20-year-old son is a good kid. He’s kind, intelligent, hard-working, responsible, and has a crap-ton of empathy that he clearly got entirely from his mother. Sadly, that empathy can be a double-edged sword, especially when it comes to shaping a young person’s political views. I probably should have seen it coming, but I didn’t. In the transition from middle-school to high school, he went from an athlete who wore a camo-cap, hunted with his grandpa, and agreed with me and his mom on pretty-much everything to a left-leaning, long-haired musician-type who seemingly wanted to debate every word that came out of my mouth.

I’ll never forget him sitting in our living room in 2020 trying to explain his newfound knowledge about how socialism could be the answer to all of society’s ills. I truly thought aliens had captured our son and replaced him with some sort of AI-powered cyborg. It was surreal. I also particularly remember one quite heated argument in our van when, during the height of Covid, he tried to make the case that masks ‘work.’ To ME. I’m ashamed to admit I lost my temper on that one. To say I felt like a failure, especially as a conservative writer and columnist who supplements my income by spouting opinions that at least a few other people outside my family and friends take seriously, is an understatement. It felt like a personal affront.

But, after the initial shock wore off and the dust settled, I realized that he was still the same good kid he always was. I also often thought of the old saying, “If you're not liberal when you're young, you don't have a heart; if you're not conservative when you're old, you don't have a brain,” and decided to TRY to take the whole thing in stride. He did have his mother’s heart, even if misguided. But, I wasn’t about to give up. And if you are in this predicament as a parent, neither should you. 

Here are a few lessons I’ve learned along the way about parenting a child who doesn’t agree with you politically. Some of these have been easy, some have been much harder. Some have been works in progress that I forget, then remember again the hard way. All have been important.

Family comes first

The left gets this wrong so much, but we conservatives shouldn’t. No matter what my children and I disagree on, we will always be family. I will always be their dad and they will always be my son and daughters (yeah, we have three of those, God help us). Nothing will ever change that, and my love for them isn’t conditional on what they believe. They need to know this without question.

Maintain the relationship

Beyond just love, it’s important to maintain a relationship with our kids that transcends politics, religion, or any other element we may disagree on over the years. Take vacations together. Go fishing. Watch and talk sports. Have family dinner. They need to feel safe and accepted when they’re with their parents, even if their parents think some of their views are completely absurd. 

I do feel like I did well making these first two factors clear from the beginning, and I know my son feels it. It has made for a solid foundation for any discussion, no matter the subject.

Choose your battles

At first, I wanted to ‘discuss’ (well, argue) all the time. It got under my craw that he couldn’t see obvious truths, and I thought if I hammered him enough he’d eventually see the light. Needless to say, that was a horrible strategy, just as any approach steeped in frustration is bound to be. I learned to pick my battles and not make every interaction with him a chance to get a jab in. That eased the tension and allowed for less frustration and more productive discussions when we did have them.

Stay calm

This should go without saying, but for some people (me!) it’s harder than it seems. What may seem obvious to us, through decades of wisdom and experience, isn’t always so obvious to young, idealistic teenagers. When discussing things, it’s important to maintain composure and, if we feel like we’re losing our composure, to disengage and live to fight another day. Remember, no argument should never get in the way of the relationship.

Tone down the rhetoric

This is as much for myself as anyone else, but it's important to remember that X isn't real life. It's easy to toss around words like sh*tlib, libtard, and other derogatory names online when referring to and combating anonymous political enemies, but when it's our own family it's important to not just maintain composure, but be polite. Don't say anything you have to take back.

Be prepared

Your kids will challenge you in ways other people won't, precisely because they're your kids. They know - or will find - the weaknesses in your arguments like nobody else, and they will press them until it hurts. Know your stuff, and if you don't know your stuff, avoid the subject until you do.

Focus on common ground and build from there

Especially given the massive political realignment that has come with Donald Trump getting reelected with the help of the likes of Robert F. Kennedy, Joe Rogan, and Tulsi Gabbard (all people who my son respects, by the way), there are plenty of opportunities to find common ground with young left-leaning people who just want to make the world a better place. 

There’s a reason, after all, that most of the billionaire-class supported Kamala Harris. There’s also a reason Democrats have become the War Party and Republicans under Trump have abandoned the neocons in favor of non-interventionism. 

There are countless opportunities to do this, depending on your situation. Look for them. One recent example for me was all of us listening to Rogan interview Rod Blagojevich on a family trip. We each found more agreement than disagreement throughout the interesting and entertaining discussion between two former leftists who both, for different yet similar reasons, came to support Donald Trump.

Acknowledge their good points

When arguing with anyone, it’s much more effective to acknowledge when a good point is made than to ignore or dismiss it. It shows good faith and intellectual honesty, and it will make it easier for them to acknowledge your good points when you make them. My son is super smart, and over the years as we’ve explored subjects I’ve learned a lot from him just as I hope he’s learned from me. I can honestly say that having open dialogue with him has made me better informed and more well-rounded as a writer and thinker. Rather than merely towing the ‘party line,’ I now take things issue by issue and on some issues I may even agree more with the ‘left’ than the traditional, pre-realignment right.

Bribe them

I write that tongue-in-cheek, of course. But if you want your kid to read a book, watch a movie, or listen to a podcast they wouldn’t otherwise listen to, offer them a reward that’ll make them want to do so. You’ll want to use this sparingly, but it can help for certain issues and certain situations depending on your child. I remember doing this with Bret Baier’s socialism series and “What is a Woman” by Matt Walsh, shows he wouldn’t have watched otherwise.

Be patient

Change, especially when it comes to worldview, is incremental, if it happens at all. We have had some great discussions over the past few years that have changed both of us and brought us closer together. I’ve even come to enjoy having him and his approach as a sounding board for topics I might not understand completely. I’ve also seen him come around, albeit slowly, on some issues. For example, his ‘gap’ year of working in the restaurant industry before college seemed to do a lot to teach him that not everyone is capable of equal outcomes. To put it mildly, he is no longer a socialist.

Oh, and he no longer thinks masks or the jab ‘worked’ to stop or even hinder Covid, so I guess I’ll let him live.



X22, And we Know, and more- Jan 13

 



\

If Californians Don’t Fire Newsom, He’ll Burn What’s Left Of Their Home To The Ground

                           


As I watched aerial clips the terrain I and family called home for part of 70+ years, tears streamed down my face. Covered in grey smoke, the west side was unrecognizable, as were the devastated territories of Pacific Palisades, Malibu, and parts of Topanga Canyon. I left Los Angeles and moved to Orange County decades ago, but a lot of friends remain there and I have rental properties there (not in fire areas thank God). My heart is still in a lot of these areas there.


The area that is currently burning to the ground has been a playground, for me and many others much of their adult life. The trees, trails, and beaches, a constant companion. At my lowest points, the mountains and the oceans were always there to save me. A hike to reduce your anxiety. A swim to wash away ny cares. The cold salt water and sand would sooth my sore, aching body from one too many workouts. I always slept like a baby after an ocean dip. I am so grateful for this place and all it has taught me. I prayed, “God if it is your will, bring me back here.”


The fires haven’t changed that sentiment. If anything, they have reinforced my love for this state. For all the complaints about California (and there are plenty), it is my home. Despite the high cost of living and complete mismanagement of the state, the heart cares nothing for economics.

For much of my earlier life in Los Angeles, I was blissfully unaware of politics. People could afford to be. There is a reason there are so many homeless people here. It’s a lot easier to be “unhoused” when it’s 75 degrees and sunny almost every day of the year. Life never seemed hard here in La La Land. But California living, even at its worst, used to be pretty darn sweet. You didn’t need to be a millionaire to live in SoCal. It was nice if you were, but it wasn’t a prerequisite when I was a kid. Many people, like me, sacrificed a lot for the outdoor, healthy, hippy lifestyle.


Then Covid hit. All of a sudden, I became un-blissfully aware that the bad policies of an egomaniacal tyrant have serious, devastating consequences. California had become unsustainable both financially and politically.

Blame Gov. Newsom

Officials here had some help during Covid. They had the backing of Dr. Anthony Fauci and many other “experts” who, for their own personal gain, insisted that the virus was something it wasn’t. However, the blame for the tragedy currently destroying the lives of thousands of people lies at the feet of one person only — Gov. Gavin Newsom.

This man has single-handedly destroyed the state with his Green New Deal policies and emphasis on “environmental, social, and governance” (ESG), diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), and any other acronym initiative you can think of. He has wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on useless, ineffective projects — from a train that no one wants to alphabet soup education — instead of doing what he should have to ensure this fire didn’t inflict the damage it did.


Lacking Preparation

For those unfamiliar with the territory, the mountains that surround the greater Los Angeles area — primarily the Santa Monica and San Gabriel ranges — make it extremely vulnerable to wildfires. Particularly during times when what’s known as the Santa Ana winds — dry, rapid, and often warm air that whips in from Nevada and Utah to Southern California at up to 100 mph — start to blow. That, combined with low rainfall and extremely dry conditions, makes it a ripe target for rapidly spreading fires.

What happened a week into 2025 is not unique. What is unique is the leadership of the state. Newsom has failed to manage the conditions properly. Brush should have been consistently cleared. Controlled burns should have been initiated to clear floor areas. For crying out loud, a sufficient supply of water should have been available in fire hydrants! Everyone who lives here knows this. Many constituents voted for this. In 2014, Californians approved the Proposition 1 Water Storage Investment Program (WSIP), which allocated $2.7 billion for water storage projects. Those projects have largely gone unrealized, and the abundance of rain the state received over the past two years that could have been stored with larger reserves was wasted.

Yet Newsom, along with the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, failed to listen. Rather, L.A.’s fire chief was focused on inclusivity and making the fire department “more diverse.”


Fires care nothing for sexual preferences or diversity. They destroy everything in their path — the homes of the wealthy and the homes of the poor. Small businesses and bougie boutiques. Nothing is sacred to fire. Only those well-qualified and equipped to fight fire should be doing so.

While many are no doubt perplexed by why anyone would want to stay in L.A., much less move there (again), ironically, the events of the past week have only made me more intent on staying in California. As the saying goes, you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone.

It’s time to remove Newsom for all of those who love California. If we don’t stop him, we won’t have to wait for untenable economics to drive citizens out of the state — he will continue to burn what’s left of it to the ground.



Russia Invades Ukraine: The Inside Story


The Russian invasion of Ukraine is profoundly changing strategic relationships globally, due to worldwide solidarity coalitions. Its origins, strategies and possible resolution are intensely studied. A significant contribution to this analysis is the recently published Collisions: The Origins of the War in Ukraine and the New Global Instability (Oxford University Press, 2024) by Michael Kimmage, Ukraine adviser from the Obama Administration. 

Kimmage starts off with a description of the Obama policy of democracy promotion. In 2014, it led to the Maidan protests in Kiev but due to a political embarrassment by the KGB, Obama abandoned it. He outsourced western policy regarding Ukraine to Germany and France. They signed the one-sided Minsk Agreements with Russia, which required Ukraine to negotiate with its own breakaway provinces, forcing it to qualify its sovereignty. Despite far-reaching compromises, Moscow was always dissatisfied and would not withdraw from the occupied territories. In 2019, Vladimir Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine as a peace candidate. 

Donald Trump become the President of the United States in 2017 and was the first to provide $250 million in lethal aid to Ukraine, instead of modest humanitarian assistance. This became the subject of impeachment of Trump in July 2019 when he threatened to delay this aid, allegedly for political reasons. Despite this stiffening of policy, Kimmage claims that Trump contributed to the subsequent outbreak of the war. He calls Trump “an American Nero” and “mafia boss.” He claims that Trump “abandoned democracy… had no patience for human rights …and was a Putinist…”

However, it was the inauguration of President Biden resulted in a change of U.S. foreign policy to one of restoration of relations with Europe and Russia, similar to Obama reset. Kimmage described it as putting a limit on conflicts, so-called guardrails. Immediately, Biden signed the START II arms control agreement and restored cooperation in public health and climate change with Russia. Biden also gave permission to Germany for completion of the Nordstream 2 pipeline to provide Russian natural gas to Germany and Europe, which Trump vetoed. Support for Ukraine was lowered to $100 million but it continued to participate in NATO exercises in March, June, and September 2021.

In April 2021, U.S. intelligence observed a buildup of Russian troops near the Ukraine border. In response, Biden held up aid to Ukraine and initiated talks with Russia, which led to the Geneva summit of June 2021. In its aftermath, two working groups were established: on cybersecurity and on maintaining stability. Despite the seemingly successful outcome of the summit, Putin gave a speech on July 12, 2021 disparaging Ukraine. In August, Biden engaged in the disastrous withdrawal from Afghanistan. Putin’s belligerence toward Ukraine increased markedly after the Afghanistan debacle. 

In October 2021, U.S. intelligence again reported a 100,000-man Russian military buildup near Ukraine. In response, William Burns, head of Central Intelligence, threatened sanctions on Russia if it invaded. The U.S. started to inform the public about Russian actions but no new arms were provided to Ukraine. 

On December 7, 2021, President Biden held a hastily arranged video conference with Putin but it did not stop his aggressive demands. Just the opposite: Putin took further escalatory steps. On 17 December, Putin issued an ultimatum to the U.S. government with the following demands: first, that “Ukraine be rendered neutral and demilitarized…” second that “NATO itself would have to be shrunk, walking back dozens of agreements that had been made since 1998.” Kimmage does not mention the third demand that the United States withdraw its nuclear weapons from Europe.

Despite the insulting nature of the Russian ultimatum, the Administration started negotiating and considered making far-reaching concessions. According to Kimmage, “…Russia might have won real concessions, possibly including neutrality for Ukraine and limitations on troop and missile deployments in the European territory Putin claimed to be worried about.”

Kimmage says: “the Biden Administration had tasks other than deterrence. One was to prevent Russia from gaining the upper hand in the global public sphere.” Biden decided to make U.S. intelligence warnings public and engaged in intelligence sharing with Ukraine. He thought that Putin presented his moves as a means to avoid war; however, it turned out to be a distraction to westerners and a prelude to an actual invasion. 

After the invasion started, the Biden Administration offered President Zelensky an evacuation to a safe country. Ironically, this would amount to the achievement of Putin’s perhaps most significant goal: a change in the government and a probable collapse of Ukrainian defense. Zelensky refused to leave.

Kimmage does not mention that Zelensky allied Ukraine with Poland and other East European countries. The presidents of Poland and Lithuania were in Kyiv the night of the invasion. Poland already started to transfer virtually its whole military arsenal to Ukraine: 340 tanks, hundreds of armored vehicles, anti-aircraft launchers, artillery, guns, ammunition, gasoline, MiG aircraft, and numerous other items. This equipment allowed Ukraine to withstand the initial Russian assault.

It was only on 25 March 2022 when Biden came to Warsaw to sign the necessary agreements that American military aid started flowing to Ukraine through Poland. First guns were provided in April and military equipment in May 2022. Biden decided to assist Ukraine only after it withstood the initial Russian attack with the help of East Europeans and was successfully defending itself “not with a certainty of victory but with the certainty that Ukraine would not give up…”

In conclusion, the author makes observations about war origins and blame for failure of peace efforts, which will impact the postwar settlement. He clearly states that the Russian invasion was caused by a failure of deterrence in Europe, in Ukraine, and in the United States. In Europe, he points to the Minsk agreements and how they demonstrated that France and Germany were limited as European powers and how they assumed that Russia was a necessary partner in European affairs.

Ukraine had a reputation as a corrupt and divided country and its military was underestimated by all sides due to its 2014 defeat. Zelensky himself was unpopular. However, once the war started these assumptions were proven wrong. The government and citizens were united defending their country. No Ukrainians want to live under Putin’s boot.

But perhaps the most significant failure was on the part of the United States. The author describes policies of Obama and Biden administrations of a virtual lack of military aid, pushing the problem on the Europeans deeply compromised by political and business ties with Russia, and flights of rhetoric about liberal international order but no consideration about how to actually defend it. When Putin threatened the invasion, the U.S. announced weak sanctions for after the invasion and engaged in “ceaseless diplomacy.” The U.S. did not arm Ukraine and did not threaten to use its own military power, therefore it was not taken into consideration by Putin in his decision to invade. Kimmage admits: “Had Putin factored the U.S. role in, he might not have invaded…” Another weakness was that the Biden Administration was ready to make significant concessions to Russia.

The only thing that changed Biden’s attitude was the successful initial defense of Ukraine due to a resolute, cohesive leadership, impressive military performance by Ukrainian forces, and massive initial military, humanitarian, and diplomatic support by countries of Eastern Europe. Once successful defense was mounted and inaccurate political judgements about Ukraine, Russia and Europe were discarded, Biden decided to support the Ukrainian war effort.



There Is No Bottom For Blue California


After a fire that never should have happened burned thousands of houses to the ground in a liberal enclave of Los Angeles through a combination of Democrat incompetence and more Democrat incompetence, you might ask yourself whether the deep blue people of Los Angeles are ever going to come to their senses and start electing people who aren’t a bunch of communist morons more concerned with Ghana junkets and lesbian representation at the fire department then with actually doing their jobs. Don’t bother asking. The answer is “No.” They’re never going to change. They can’t change. They’re going to keep on electing the same brand of Democrat mediocrities who got them into this mess, but they do have a plan. They’re going to blame the weather, insurance companies that don’t want to lose money, Donald Trump, and anything but themselves for the chaos they voted for.

If California’s Democrats didn’t have their incompetence, they wouldn’t have any kind of competence at all.

People ask me if California has finally hit bottom, but there’s a problem with that premise. The problem is that it assumes that there is a bottom and that hitting the bottom would result in some sort of directional change in the downward trajectory of what was once the greatest state in the Union. But there is no bottom, not for them. You need to understand that. These Democrats are not concerned with governing, so their complete inability to do it is utterly irrelevant to the analysis. Being competent and governing wisely was never the objective. Instead, the elite is concerned with power, and the leftists who vote for them – whose houses are now all burned down – are only concerned with the failures of government when it comes and bites them on the fourth point of contact. 

Now, you need to understand that experiencing the true fallout of government incompetence is not something that the kind of people who live in Pacific Palisades often experience. Instead, they are usually insulated from the consequences of their choices. Do you think bums, losers, and scumbags wander around in Pacific Palisades like they do in the rest of LA? Oh no. The LAPD has instructions to actually enforce the law in rich neighborhoods like the Palisades. They are disconnected from the utter chaos of the social pathology that the rest of the city experiences. They rarely have to face it, so they don’t really care about it. But now the fires have come, and you think they might care about it, but they won’t care about it for long. They’ll get over it. They’re going to cry and complain a little bit about Governor Hairstyle and Mayor Dumb Bass, and then on Election Day, they’re going to look at their ballots, and they’re going to mark somebody with a D.

It’s not that they can’t learn. They’re not stupid in the sense that they don’t understand that the people they’re voting for are blithering idiots. It’s that human nature prevents them from accepting the fact that they’ve been wrong so that they can change. They are emotionally invested in the liberal project that they grew up in, and to vote against it now would require introspection and an admission that everything they believed in was baloney. Most of them can’t do that. Most of them won’t do that. And nothing’s going to change.

I don’t want to be pessimistic, but I’ve lived here 50-odd years, and I know the score. I got here when California was the Golden State, and now it’s the Charred Black State. It was a middle-class state in the 70s and 80s, but today’s California is a feudal society with an affluent aristocracy – their castles and keeps were the ones burned in this fire – lording over a huge caste of serfs. The middle class is either gone or leaving. That’s OK with the Democrats because it was the middle class that made California a Republican state for so long. They were the ones who demanded good government. Most of them are now in Texas or Idaho. 

That leaves a bunch of really poor people and a few really rich ones. The poor people vote Democrat because the Dems feed them scraps, and the rich people vote Democrat because it makes them feel that they’re not the complete scumbags that, in many cases, they are. Have you noticed how it’s always the worst people who seem to be the most vocally liberal? Paging Harvey Weinstein – he probably worked with half the people whose houses burned down, and he probably tried to score with the other half.

The thing you must understand about the rich Californians who vote for Democrats – and not only vote for them but actively campaign for them and donate to them – is that this kind of leftism isn’t just a belief system. It’s their religion. Well, more accurately, it’s a substitute for religion. There’s an empty space inside every human being that normal people fill up with things like faith, family, and patriotism. The rich blue voters of California fill it up with commie gobbledygook. They add some wokeness, a dash of climate change, and a heaping helping of smug self-satisfaction. The resulting dog’s breakfast is what passes for their souls.

So, to ask them to look at the reality in front of them, that the people that they’ve diligently insured were running the city were never actually running the city, is to ask them to do a 180° turn away from the liberalism that has been their core identity all their lives. A few can. Have you noticed that a significant number of us conservatives are former leftists, but few leftists are former conservatives except the Never Trumpers who get paid to be? The most you get are people who grew up in Middle America, came to LA, and decided to crap all over where they came from for social cachet. They weren’t really conservative. They were just teenagers mad because their parents wouldn’t let them be trashy back in their small towns.

In any case, it’s very hard to ask somebody to admit they were wrong about everything they ever believed. It’s much easier to blame someone else. See, it’s not the total ineptitude of the California Democrats who run everything that is the problem. The problem is Donald Trump pointing it out and not being nice when he does it. It’s childish, and it’s stupid, and they don’t believe it, but it’s human nature. It’s much easier to blame someone else instead of looking at yourself in the mirror and realizing that you were looking at the cause of your own misfortune. And the cause of California’s misfortune is Californians.



🎭 π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓

 


Welcome to 

The π–πŸ‘π π““π“π“˜π“›π“¨ 𝓗𝓾𝓢𝓸𝓻, π“œπ“Ύπ“Όπ“²π“¬, 𝓐𝓻𝓽, π“žπ“Ÿπ“”π“ 𝓣𝓗𝓑𝓔𝓐𝓓 

Here’s a place to share cartoons, jokes, music, art, nature, 
man-made wonders, and whatever else you can think of. 

No politics or divisive posts on this thread. 

This feature will appear every day at 1pm mountain time. 


Jake Sullivan Tries to Spin Biden Afghanistan Fiasco as a Win


Becca Lower reporting for RedState 

How many times during the past four years have we shown readers video of the Biden administration and outspoken figures in the legacy media fawning over President Joe Biden's

It ratcheted up of course to insane levels after the presumed Democrat nominee--after the primary campaign had wrapped up--stepped aside for VP Kamala Harris to assume the mantle at the party's 2024 convention over the summer. That gross parade of sycophants--proclaiming that the Emperor actually has clothes--has not abated in the months since.

Just the latest example can be found Sunday, when dutiful White House toady, national security adviser Jake Sullivan, was trotted out to, as incredible as it might sound, boast about Biden and Afghanistan.

As I wrote in early December 2024, Sullivan was happy to smear newly announced FBI Director nominee, Kash Patel with a purpose-built book excerpt, around the time many of the usual suspects on the left were using the Bill Barr passage as an undisguised cudgel against Trump. One of the Republicans who gave the narrative some solid pushback was Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN), who bravely went on air with the progressive tail-waggers on NBC News' "Meet The Press."

As I said, Sullivan took another wide swing at advocacy for Team Biden on Sunday, appearing on CNN’s “State of the Union" with host Jake Tapper. The cognitive dissonance here is off the charts:

There was a somewhat revealing part, in which Sullivan essentially answered the question by refusing to answer the question:

Sullivan declined to respond to reports that he had offered to resign after the Afghanistan withdrawal, saying he would not divulge details of his personal conversations with the president.

Read into that what you like, readers. Later, he threw out a lifeline to Biden's wrongheaded mismanagement of the Afghanistan troop withdrawal, while trying to diminish former President Trump's first administration with a false equivalence:

“Now, the FBI will continue to look for foreign connections. Maybe we’ll find one, but what we’ve seen is proof of what President Biden said, which is that the terrorist threat has gotten more diffuse and more metastasized elsewhere, including homegrown extremists here in the United States who have committed terrorist attacks. Not just under President Biden, but under President Trump in his first term.”

“And that is part of why we had to move our focus from a hot war in Afghanistan to a larger counterterrorism effort across the world."

It would be funny, if it weren't so maddening that these people simply do not care about the truth of what happened--or cannot stop themselves from insulting the intelligence of the American people with the "homegrown" white supremacist terrorists line; This shows their only concern remains how it reflect on them retaining influence and power, and mouthing the right words for overseas pals on the left.

Switching channels to another Sunday morning show, CBS News' "Face The Nation" had as a guest former Speaker Newt Gingrich, who was invited on this week to (ostensibly) promote his PBS documentary on some notable legal immigrants to the U.S.

Host Margaret Brennan, unsurprisingly, had other plans:

MARGARET BRENNAN: In this documentary, you tell the stories of these individuals who immigrated to the US, and they were very successful, people like Albert Einstein. You know, when you look at Einstein and you look at Henry Kissinger, they were refugees to this country. Donald Trump set refugee admissions at very low levels first term. He's talking about blocking refugee admissions this term. Is that a mistake?

FORMER SPEAKER GINGRICH: Well, I think, I think we're going through a period of, frankly, reacting to an extraordinarily disastrous immigration policy. So you're going to have some twists and turns. In the long run, we do want to have an ability to allow legitimate refugees to come here. We also, and part of the reason Calista and I made this documentary for PBS, is- we really believe strongly that legal immigrants are a major contribution to America's success and to its exceptional nature. And we want to make sure that, you know, as many Americans favor legal immigration as opposed to illegal immigration–

A few minutes later, the host opened up a can of worms by bringing up--of all things--Biden's record on Afghanistan, and it swiftly disintegrated into a discussion on not only that debacle perpetrated by the current administration, but the border crisis. The back-and-forth is lengthy, but it tells the tale the most efficient and interesting way. [emphasis mine]

It began with Gingrich questioning the legitimacy of so many illegal aliens claiming asylum to get access to the country, but you'll see Brennan quickly flails and loses control of the interview:

FORMER SPEAKER GINGRICH: –or is that just their way of getting into the United States? To claim asylum, I think there's a big- there's a big difference between somebody who genuinely faces a potential loss of life or freedom and somebody who simply wants to come to America and decides to claim that status

MARGARET BRENNAN: Economic migrants, there. Let me ask you, someone else you feature in here, Zalmay Khalilzad. Very prominent Afghan American who brokered Trump's deal with the Taliban to exit Afghanistan. As you know, with that chaotic exit, there were tens of thousands of Afghans scattered, some of them still separated from their families. Many of them worked for the U.S. government. Should Mr. Trump extend the legal process of this program and bring those Afghans here, and would you ask Congress to raise the current cap they have on the number of them coming?

FORMER SPEAKER GINGRICH: You know, I think the Afghan refugees who actively fought on the side of Americans, saved American lives, tried to help win against the Taliban- I think they deserve an unusual level of support and treatment. And I worked all during the period of President Biden's insanely disastrous withdrawal. I tried to work with various people and did podcasts with people who were trying to get folks out of Afghanistan who should legitimately have been helped by the U.S. government. So, when somebody is totally your ally- and this happened with the Vietnamese and the Vietnamese War, when somebody is totally your ally and they risk their lives side by side with you, you shouldn't abandon them. That's a pretty straightforward rule.

MARGARET BRENNAN: Well, one of the things that Biden administration blamed the Trump administration for was the difficulty in making those fast arrangements to bring those Afghans here, and that's a story for another day, but the person they put their finger on as making it more difficult is Stephen Miller, who is now the top policy adviser to Mr. Trump. He did add new requirements to visas, other things that made it harder to legally come here. Have you spoken to him about some of your concerns?

Newt put that attempted trap move quickly to bed--in essence, he said nay:

FORMER SPEAKER GINGRICH: No, I know Stephen very well. Look, Stephen was responding to a disastrous level of immigration that's not sustainable. And I think that's- I think virtually every American agrees you can't have an open border. You can't have Venezuelan gangs, for example, or El Salvadorian gangs. I mean, there are a lot of good reasons, and you're going to get some overreaction, but it's an overreaction, frankly, caused by people like President Biden, who were totally irresponsible in allowing people into this country by the millions in a way that was totally illegal. It was outside the law.

Nailed it. That's the overriding concept we'll be returning to with Trump back in the White House in one month-and-one-day from now--respect for and enforcing the rule of law. Of course, the Democrats and their media friends likely won't stop heaping on the accolades and whitewashing of Pres. Biden's record in public office. No one here will be surprised by that statement.