RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/editorials/bidens-return-to-the-paris-accord-is-a-gift-to-china

President Biden’s decision to rejoin the Paris climate accord immediately delivered on a campaign promise, fulfilled a top priority of the Left, and delighted our European allies. But most of all, it was a gift to China.

Federal action to reduce the world growth of carbon emissions, particularly action as ineffective as that embodied in the Paris accord, should not be taken at the expense of U.S. citizens in relation to foreigners. Yet that is exactly what an immediate return to the Paris accord means. It commits the United States to reductions that will entangle American businesses and jobs in new lengths of red tape, and will also probably increase electricity prices.

Supporters of the Paris climate accord underplay or ignore these concerns. But it is a simple fact that renewable energy mandates have driven up household energy bills in states where they have been introduced. Democrats like to boast that they are lifting up struggling families, but this first step in their energy policies does nothing of the kind. Republicans should scrutinize Biden’s energy policies closely.

America has already reduced its carbon emissions significantly since the Paris accord was signed and has outstripped the achievements of its closest allies, which, on carbon emissions, mostly preach but do not practice. No international climate accord can work unless it considers seriously the emissions of the rapidly growing East. The Paris accord does nothing of the sort.

India emits roughly half as much carbon each year as the U.S. but will become a far worse polluter as its economy grows. China, which emits twice as much carbon each year as we do, has given the rest of the world nothing by empty promises and has been allowed to continue emitting greenhouse gases unabated.

Chinese dictator Xi Jinping says China will be carbon neutral by 2060. He is willing to discuss doing more in furtherance of what China calls “win-win” cooperation with the world. Yet there is a great divergence between Xi’s sweet words and what China’s communist-run government is actually doing — that is, bringing online hundreds of new and very dirty coal plants.

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2021/01/beware_of_president_bidens_call_for_a_return_to_americas_role_in_the_world_stage.html

This week saw the inauguration of the 46th President of the United States, Joseph R. Biden, and the return of the Democrat party to the White House and full control of Congress. Inevitably, most of the coverage by the media has been positive about the new President and the change coming to the White House. Chris Wallace called Biden’s inauguration speech, “the best inaugural address, I ever heard” while throughout social media; many are fawning about the speech, that emphasize the need for unity in America.

However, much of the focus has been with the domestic side of the speech, the speech directed to the world and especially to America’s allies called for a return to America’s role as a leader in the world stage. The new president declared:

“We will repair our alliances and engage with the world once again. Not to meet yesterday’s challenges, but today’s and tomorrow’s challenges”

Given, President Biden history in foreign affairs, we need to be beware of calls for a return to the American leadership role in the world stage. As Obama-Biden Defense Secretary Robert Gates noted, Biden has “been wrong on nearly every major foreign policy and national security issue over the past four decades.” 

https://lidblog.com/robert-malley-iran/

Per Jewish Insider, President Biden is considering adding another Israel hater to his team. Robert Malley, who shared his anti-Israel views as part of the Clinton and Obama administrations, an adviser to Bernie Sanders, and grew up with a socialist dad who was a close friend of terrorist Yasser Arafat. According to the report, Malley will be joining the re-Obama administration as Biden’s special envoy to Iran. 

The potential appointment of Malley comes as members of the Biden transition team have begun to lay out the president-elect’s vision for diplomacy with Iran following the Trump administration’s 2018 withdrawal from the 2015 nuclear agreement.

The Biden transition team declined to comment and noted that they do not presently have any personnel announcements.

A source familiar with the Biden team’s approach on Iran told JI, “The president-elect has said that if Iran resumes strict compliance with the JCPOA, the United States would return to the agreement as a starting point for follow-on negotiations. But Iran is a long way from returning to compliance, and there are many steps in the process to getting there that we will need to evaluate once in office. Our first order of business will be consulting with Congress and our allies on the path forward.”

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/16974/popular-nuclear-mythology

While one looks with alarm at the massive Russian nuclear modernization effort now nearing completion, the disarmament lobby — such as Ploughshares and Global Zero — views such modernization as simply a reflection of how the American threat is perceived by the Russians.

There is also little doubt that the Russian Federation’s priority investment in nuclear weapons was — and remains — aimed primarily to checkmate the United States’ conventional weapons superiority, and give Russia a free hand to use its own military power for hegemonic purposes. The same could be said of North Korea and Iran’s decisions to go along their respective paths to nuclear breakout.

What brings the issue to the forefront today is that many luminaries of previous administrations who may now be staffing the incoming administration still hold these historically inaccurate views.

A commitment to a “sole-purpose” posture — or to its equivalent, a “no-first-use” stance — not only undermines the US nuclear umbrella upon which America’s allies have relied for 70 years, it also invites a Russian first strike. Moscow’s conventional and nuclear forces are configured for just that kind of operation and are ultimately restrained only by the American nuclear deterrent.

If the United States wrongly assumes that Russia’s deterrent serves no offensive purpose, we would be ignoring recent and authoritative evidence to the contrary…. Russia’s military posture is fundamentally offensive…. “active defense.”

Russia’s ability to initiate conventional strikes against its rivals and adversaries is closely backed up by nuclear weapons.

Iran would undoubtedly see even partial unilateral US disarmament as a green light for its nuclear quest. One can imagine what that would lead to in the Middle East.

Moreover, US unilateral acts of altruism, designed to lead by example, will not be reciprocated: states in general, and certainly Russia and China, are, to quote Charles De Gaulle, “cold monsters.”

There is a widespread belief, especially among advocates of nuclear disarmament, that a country with nuclear weapons is primarily interested in self-protection. The narrative continues with another belief — really more of a wish — that nuclear weapons should never be used to deter anything other than a nuclear attack from an adversary and, if that can be agreed upon, nations would then be willing to get rid of nuclear weapons altogether.