The Trump administration was right to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. But it’s inaccurate to say the U.S. is scrapping the treaty. Russia scrapped it years ago.

Russia has flagrantly violated the treaty for at least the past three years and utterly rejected demands to return to compliance. Not only that, Russia also rejected repeated NATO requests to verify its claims that the illegal weapons, the Novator 9M729 intermediate-range cruise missile system, actually complied with INF strictures.

So Russia was not merely violating the treaty on substance, but it was also refusing to go through the charade of trying to fool its enforcement mechanisms.

But America’s withdrawal is no small matter, and it has costs. It will hinder our ability to monitor Russian missile deployments, and it will probably prompt Russia to increase its production and deployment of missiles. Such things matter, especially when we’re talking about the world’s deadliest weapons.

Yet Russia’s flagrant violations are about more than a single treaty. If the U.S. did not withdraw, we’d be signaling American weakness to Russian President Vladimir Putin, spurring him to further international outrages. Abiding by our treaty obligations while Russia flouted its own would show the Kremlin it could get away with anything without Washington making a fuss.

All NATO’s 28 member states agree that Russia is “in material breach” of its obligations under the INF Treaty. Speaking to the Washington Examiner last Sunday, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg explained that Moscow’s deployment of the Novator is designed to split the U.S. and Europe.

On Friday, he tweeted that “Russia is in material breach of the #INFTreaty and must use next 6 months to return to full and verifiable compliance or bear sole responsibility for its demise. #NATO fully supports the US suspension & notification of withdrawal…”

President Trump’s suspension of the treaty, then, is no tantrum. It helps the NATO alliance. The U.S. sought Russia’s permission to analyze the Novator system forensically but was rebuffed. Instead, Putin put on a Potemkin demonstration of the Novator in which foreign military attaches were shown a mock-up of the system from a distance. That sounds like a joke, but it’s a sick one.

Putin’s antics are intended to tell European powers that Russia can strike its interests without risking nuclear retaliation from the United States. If Trump were to let that pass, how could NATO trust the U.S. to come to a member’s aid in the event of conflict? Credibility matters, and it is measured in moments such as this one.

This was a complicated decision, and we hope Russia will soon behave in such a way as to make the treaty more than a worthless piece of paper. But that’s what it is now. Trump didn’t kill it; Putin did.

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday described third-trimester abortions as something done “in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.” Later that day, Northam’s Communications Director Ofirah Yheskel tried to clarify that Northam was referring to the fact that women seek third-trimester abortions only “except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.”

Northam’s clarification isn’t much of an improvement, it’s more of a double-down: Rather than just choosing to end the life of any baby, he would advocate or support women who play God and only choose to give birth to healthy babies. This is wrong. Yet he’s not alone in proposing to eradicate from society those who seem like they would pose problems for parents and society alike. The humane, moral thing to do is encourage parents and society to value life in all its forms and try to help parents raising children with special needs.

Northam’s comments do not represent a new concept. From ancient Sparta to the Holocaust, people with abnormalities, deformities, and diseases have been targeted and eradicated. When men give their moral compass over to the need to become like God (truly the oldest, darkest lie of all time) they lose their sense of justice, humanity, equality, and humility. In mankind’s quest to control the human population through power or or greed, dispelling of people who are deformed or “less than,” he pulls society downward through a maze of moral quagmires, bringing destruction — and with it, the spirit of humanity.

For people born with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, or any other myriad of diseases and problems, simple tasks life presents do pose tremendous challenges, to say nothing of the things that overwhelm other members of society. However, people with special needs also bring a unique kind of joy, peace, and light to many people. Watch this quick clip to get a glimpse of what I mean.

Occasionally, some people shine a light on these incredible people. When Gerber chose a Down syndrome boy in Feb. 2018 to be its “Gerber baby” poster boy that year, how could you not help but cheer? Who among us really would look at his smiling face and say abortion would have been better?

Still, the convenience of abortion perpetuates the myth that society is better off without people who might struggle — whether from autism, Down syndrome, or something else. New York offers, and perhaps Virginia will offer, abortion on demand: dangling the carrot of last-minute infanticide in front of parents who would undoubtedly be aware of the struggles raising a baby with special needs will present and choose to balk.

While political officials might tout abortion as some kind of “final solution,” many parents are tempted to choose, or do choose, abortion because they truly do fear the challenge of raising a child with needs. They worry they will be unable to withstand the emotional, physical, financial, and marital pressures. In this video on Upworthy, Christine Grounds and Jonathan Mir describe how difficult it has been to raise their son Nicholas, who was born with microcephaly. “We had no idea that, in utero, there was anything wrong with Nicholas,” Grounds recalled. “I’m pretty sure no one would have been able to say conclusively that he has microcephaly,” she said. “But I would have terminated the pregnancy.”

While it’s tempting to lash out or point fingers at parents like this, that too is a reactive solution full of the kind of righteous indignation the Left hates. We must rise up to help these parents. We must connect them with nonprofit organizations, religious organizations, pregnancy resource centers, healthcare providers, and any physical or emotional support we can offer. ( Here’s one such list to start with.) Conservatives cannot continually advocate for a culture of life without also tangibly stepping alongside those same parents who choose life, and who then must endeavor to raise a child under difficult circumstances. We must continue to call out people like Northam for advocating such a selfish, heinous “solution” to children with special needs and help parents who choose life instead.

Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.

In a tweet on Friday morning, national security adviser John Bolton effectively confirmed that Nicolas Maduro is paying Russia to guarantee his regime’s survival.

There’s a simple way to stop Maduro from using these lifelines. The U.S. should ask Juan Guaido whether he wishes for the U.S. to interdict Maduro’s money planes. When Guaido says yes, and he almost certainly will, the U.S. Air Force or Navy can intercept the money planes and force them to land at Guantanamo Bay or another U.S.-friendly air base.

This wouldn’t be that complicated. The Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group could be diverted south of its present Atlantic position to provide this air role, or other fighters could be flown from the U.S. and refueled in the air. Regardless, this legal action authorized by executive consent and international law would allow Venezuela’s gold reserves to be kept safe for Guaido once he finally takes power.

This speaks to a broader point: While the U.S. is actively facilitating Guaido’s constitutionally vested empowerment via a means of overt and covert political and financial support, we can do more. And we can do more short of using military force in any lethal sense. That’s because the U.S. has the capacity to outmatch Russian support for Maduro. In financial terms, military terms, and political terms (Maduro is an evil leader, and the region’s big players are aligned against him), we hold more cards of influence than Moscow. We should use these instruments of national power to deter and degrade Maduro’s control over power. Let the Russians and Chinese complain.

Let us empower the rightful leader of Venezuela to bring his people out of the abyss in which Maduro has them imprisoned.

In a tweet on Friday morning, national security adviser John Bolton effectively confirmed that Nicolas Maduro is paying Russia to guarantee his regime’s survival.

There’s a simple way to stop Maduro from using these lifelines. The U.S. should ask Juan Guaido whether he wishes for the U.S. to interdict Maduro’s money planes. When Guaido says yes, and he almost certainly will, the U.S. Air Force or Navy can intercept the money planes and force them to land at Guantanamo Bay or another U.S.-friendly air base.

This wouldn’t be that complicated. The Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group could be diverted south of its present Atlantic position to provide this air role, or other fighters could be flown from the U.S. and refueled in the air. Regardless, this legal action authorized by executive consent and international law would allow Venezuela’s gold reserves to be kept safe for Guaido once he finally takes power.

This speaks to a broader point: While the U.S. is actively facilitating Guaido’s constitutionally vested empowerment via a means of overt and covert political and financial support, we can do more. And we can do more short of using military force in any lethal sense. That’s because the U.S. has the capacity to outmatch Russian support for Maduro. In financial terms, military terms, and political terms (Maduro is an evil leader, and the region’s big players are aligned against him), we hold more cards of influence than Moscow. We should use these instruments of national power to deter and degrade Maduro’s control over power. Let the Russians and Chinese complain.

Let us empower the rightful leader of Venezuela to bring his people out of the abyss in which Maduro has them imprisoned.

Democratic Virginia Gov. Ralph Northam on Wednesday described third-trimester abortions as something done “in cases where there may be severe deformities or there may be a fetus that’s not viable.” Later that day, Northam’s Communications Director Ofirah Yheskel tried to clarify that Northam was referring to the fact that women seek third-trimester abortions only “except in the case of tragic or difficult circumstances, such as a nonviable pregnancy or in the event of severe fetal abnormalities.”

Northam’s clarification isn’t much of an improvement, it’s more of a double-down: Rather than just choosing to end the life of any baby, he would advocate or support women who play God and only choose to give birth to healthy babies. This is wrong. Yet he’s not alone in proposing to eradicate from society those who seem like they would pose problems for parents and society alike. The humane, moral thing to do is encourage parents and society to value life in all its forms and try to help parents raising children with special needs.

Northam’s comments do not represent a new concept. From ancient Sparta to the Holocaust, people with abnormalities, deformities, and diseases have been targeted and eradicated. When men give their moral compass over to the need to become like God (truly the oldest, darkest lie of all time) they lose their sense of justice, humanity, equality, and humility. In mankind’s quest to control the human population through power or or greed, dispelling of people who are deformed or “less than,” he pulls society downward through a maze of moral quagmires, bringing destruction — and with it, the spirit of humanity.

For people born with Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, or any other myriad of diseases and problems, simple tasks life presents do pose tremendous challenges, to say nothing of the things that overwhelm other members of society. However, people with special needs also bring a unique kind of joy, peace, and light to many people. Watch this quick clip to get a glimpse of what I mean.

Occasionally, some people shine a light on these incredible people. When Gerber chose a Down syndrome boy in Feb. 2018 to be its “Gerber baby” poster boy that year, how could you not help but cheer? Who among us really would look at his smiling face and say abortion would have been better?

Still, the convenience of abortion perpetuates the myth that society is better off without people who might struggle — whether from autism, Down syndrome, or something else. New York offers, and perhaps Virginia will offer, abortion on demand: dangling the carrot of last-minute infanticide in front of parents who would undoubtedly be aware of the struggles raising a baby with special needs will present and choose to balk.

While political officials might tout abortion as some kind of “final solution,” many parents are tempted to choose, or do choose, abortion because they truly do fear the challenge of raising a child with needs. They worry they will be unable to withstand the emotional, physical, financial, and marital pressures. In this video on Upworthy, Christine Grounds and Jonathan Mir describe how difficult it has been to raise their son Nicholas, who was born with microcephaly. “We had no idea that, in utero, there was anything wrong with Nicholas,” Grounds recalled. “I’m pretty sure no one would have been able to say conclusively that he has microcephaly,” she said. “But I would have terminated the pregnancy.”

While it’s tempting to lash out or point fingers at parents like this, that too is a reactive solution full of the kind of righteous indignation the Left hates. We must rise up to help these parents. We must connect them with nonprofit organizations, religious organizations, pregnancy resource centers, healthcare providers, and any physical or emotional support we can offer. ( Here’s one such list to start with.) Conservatives cannot continually advocate for a culture of life without also tangibly stepping alongside those same parents who choose life, and who then must endeavor to raise a child under difficult circumstances. We must continue to call out people like Northam for advocating such a selfish, heinous “solution” to children with special needs and help parents who choose life instead.

Nicole Russell (@russell_nm) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. She is a journalist who previously worked in Republican politics in Minnesota.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., has offered a private apology to the Cherokee Nation for publicizing the results of a DNA test showing she might have distant Native American ancestry, the Tulsa World reported.

“We are encouraged by this dialogue and understanding that being a Cherokee Nation tribal citizen is rooted in centuries of culture and laws, not through DNA tests,” Julie Hubbard, the tribe’s executive director of communications, told Tulsa World. “We are encouraged by her action and hope that the slurs and mockery of tribal citizens and Indian history and heritage will now come to an end.”

The reason for the apology? Warren is at most 1/1024th American Indian according to the DNA test. But she had made plenty of hay from her supposed Native American heritage for decades before that.

Before embarrassing herself with her 23andMe stunt last October, Warren submitted recipes to the Pow Wow Chow cookbook, claimed Native American heritage on her Harvard Law School job application, and even fundraised off being nicknamed “Pocahontas” by the president.

It was that mockery that inspired Warren to take the DNA test. It didn’t go well.

The Cherokee Nation was one of the first to condemn Warren’s actions as “inappropriate and wrong.”

“It makes a mockery out of DNA tests and its legitimate uses while also dishonoring legitimate tribal governments and their citizens, whose ancestors are well documented and whose heritage is proven,” Cherokee Secretary of State Chuck Hoskin Jr. said last year. “Senator Warren is undermining tribal interests with her continued claims of tribal heritage.”

Warren has made amends for that mistake. Whether Warren can convince primary voters her judgment is sound is another question. The apology is a start.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito has temporarily blocked abortion restrictions in Louisiana from going into effect, pushing off the question for another week as to whether the high court will soon be forced to weigh in on the issue of abortion rights.

Alito stayed the law until Feb. 7, saying that filings were only completed on Friday and that justices needed more time to review them.

“This order does not reflect any view regarding the merits of the petition for a writ of certiorari that applicants represent they will file,” Alito said. The justice handles emergency requests from the 5th Circuit and can therefore act alone on the case, but may refer it to the full court to make a final determination.

The Louisiana law requires doctors who provide abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital in case anything goes wrong during an abortion. The Supreme Court in 2016 struck down similar laws in Texas in Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, but the 5th Circuit upheld Louisiana’s law.

The ruling was handed down 5-3 because the Supreme Court was short-handed following the death of the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Since then, President Trump has appointed Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, tilting the court more conservative.

The Supreme Court has appeared reluctant to take up controversial cases this term following the bruising confirmation battle Kavanaugh faced regarding allegations of sexual assault when he was in high school.

Plaintiffs in the Louisiana case filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court on Jan. 25 to halt the 5th Circuit’s ruling.

Anti-abortion organizations and lawmakers who support restrictions such as the Louisiana law say they are necessary to protect women’s health, but abortion rights advocates contend that they effectively shutter clinics, placing abortions out of reach, and that they are not necessary.

In September, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit ruled in Louisiana’s favor, saying that the law was different from the one the Supreme Court Struck down. The 5th Circuit then rejected the request for a rehearing en banc, or by all the judges that sit on the court.