Jamie Raskin's Low Opinion of Women
Thank You, GOD!
The War on Warring
Federal Judge Sentences Abilene Drug Trafficker to Life for Fentanyl Distribution
The Turning Point Halftime Show Crushed Expectations
Jeffries Calls Citizenship Proof ‘Voter Suppression’ as Majority of Americans Back Voter I...
Four Reasons Why the Washington Post Is Dying
Foreign-Born Ohio Lawmaker Pushes 'Sensitive Locations' Bill to Limit ICE Enforcement
TrumpRx Triggers TDS in Elizabeth Warren
Texas Democrat Goes Viral After Pitting Whites Against Minorities
U.S. Secret Service Seized 3 Card Skimmers in Alabama, Stopping $3.1M in Fraud
Jasmine Crockett Finally Added Some Policy to Her Website and It Was a...
No Sanctuary in the Sanctuary
Chromosomes Matter — and Women’s Sports Prove It
The Economy Will Decide Congress — If Republicans Actually Talk About It
Tipsheet

Headline of the Day

From today's New York Times:

Photobucket

It would probably be a fruitless endeavor to attempt to convince the Times that the (lamentably few) Republicans who oppose New START are
Advertisement
not merely posturing to deny President Obama a fleeting political victory.  In truth, the provenance of their recalcitrance stems from legitimate concerns over safeguarding America's unimpeded ability to protect herself, and her allies.  This includes the right to pursue and develop any and all defense systems we see fit.  In spite of countless assurances from the treaty's defenders, the question of whether this pact satisfies those concerns remains open, at best.  For that reason alone, the treaty ought not be rushed through a discredited Congress during a Christmastime lame duck session.

This is not about "victories" for individual politicians.  It's about whether the United States of America's most crucial interests are advanced, or at a minimum, protected.  The Times' rank political spin cheapens this debate.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement