Is Hollywood Unwokening?
Columbia University's Pro-Hamas Activists Vow to Defend Camp Against Police Action
Capitalism Versus Racism
Groupthink Chorus Emerges at Trump Trial
Anti-Censorship Group Canceled by Pro-Hamas Authors
Mike Johnson Is a Hero
City Where Emergency Response Time Is 36 Minutes Wants to Ban Civilians Carrying...
There's No Right to Sleep Outdoors
State Department: Ukraine Has 'Significant' Human Rights Issues
The Alarming Implications of Trump's Immunity Claim
In Every Generation They Try to Destroy Us
Love to See It: Cathy McMorris Rodgers, Ted Cruz Fight to Protect Public...
1968 Returns as Biden’s Nightmare
The Greatest Challenge to DeSantis' Legacy in Florida
Senate Passes Foreign Aid Package, Sending It to President Biden to Sign
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