Three new dangers have emerged in the last few days alone that should scuttle any nuclear deal with the Iranian regime. If President Barack Obama were truly concerned about American security, he would have ended negotiations, told Congress to pass new sanctions, and prepared the armed forces for military action as a last resort. Instead, out of narcissism and a fear of war at all costs, he is pursuing a peace at any price--one that guarantees war in the future on unfavorable terms.
Desalinization has emerged as an answer to the state's chronic water shortages. As the Orange County Register notes, desalinization would provide a near-infinite supply of water at only twice the price. The main objection of environmentalists is that desalinization uses up to 50% more electricity, meaning more fossil fuels might be burned to make water, setting back efforts to fight climate change. It is an objection that is looking less and less serious.
President Barack Obama appeared to yield Friday to Iran's insistence that sanctions be removed immediately when a nuclear deal goes into effect, rather than over time. Rather than lifting sanctions only when Iran is shown to be complying with the agreement, Obama now wants sanctions to be able to "snap back" when Iran is found to be in violation of the deal.
Adm. Mike Mullen, former Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has offered what he admits is a rather weak defense of the Iran deal: he hopes it will lead to regime change by strengthening reformists within the Tehran government. In an op-ed for Politico Magazine, Mullen claims that "Iranian reformists...support a nuclear deal because it would be a first step in the evolution they would like to see." He also rules out a military option and says that Obama's deal is the best deal possible.
I can't pretend to have read all 64 of the amicus briefs filed by outside parties in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court's upcoming case on whether there is a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But I have read one brief closely--the one filed by "same-sex attracted men and their wives" against federalizing gay marriage. The logic is compelling, the stories riveting--and that is why the left is terrified of it, calling it "the worst" of "terrible" arguments against gay marriage.
Syndicated columnist George Will told the inaugural "Disinvitation Dinner" of the William F. Buckley, Jr. Program at Yale that "93 members of the California legislature have never had sex." Will was referring to the fact that 93 legislators in the California Senate and Assembly voted to pass last year's SB 967, the so-called "yes means yes" or affirmative consent law, which requires students at state-funded colleges to obtain permission from each other for every stage of sexual contact.
If you still wonder why our nation’s politics are so divided, look no further than Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank’s half-witted attempt to accuse Republicans—and Israelis—of hypocrisy in opposing the Iran deal. The same neocons and Likudniks who opposed any Iran deal, Milbank says, now want to stick with the interim deal, or argue for a “better deal” than the one President Barack Obama is proposing. Conclusion: they are liars, warmongers, and above all, Obama-haters.
Defying threats of a presidential veto, critics of the Iran deal reached a bipartisan compromise on Tuesday that will allow the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--the "Corker-Menendez bill"--to proceed to a vote with a veto-proof two-thirds majority. The White House has backed down, fearing the embarrassment of a veto override on a key foreign policy issue. Yet the conditions that critics of the Iran deal had to accept will, in fact, make the deal easier to pass in its current form.
President Barack Obama met on Monday with a group of Jewish leaders at the White House in an effort to win their support for the Iran deal--and for passing that deal without approval from Congress. The details of the meeting were not posted, but The Hill reports that the Obama administration sees the outreach as a key part of its effort to prevent the Corker bill, which would require congressional approval of an Iran deal, from reaching the two-thirds majority threshold.
A series of polls makes the case that voters support President Barack Obama's Iran deal, despite the objections of Republicans in Congress. The latest is the Quinnipiac swing state poll, which finds that voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia support a deal with Iran by a 3-to-1 margin. They also support letting Congress decide by a 3-to-1 margin, so the case against the administration's position is solid. But the poll's support for the deal is entirely dependent on bad wording that covers up what is actually going on.
Russia announced Monday that it will sell Iran advanced S-300 surface-to-air missiles. The decision, which ends an embargo dating back to 2010, shows that President Barack Obama is rapidly losing control of the international consensus on Iran.
On Sunday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made public suggestions as to how a "bad deal" on Iran's nuclear program could be improved. He suggested shutting down all of Iran's underground facilities, and lifting sanctions only when Iran stops carrying out terror and aggression in the region. It was at least the fourth time Netanyahu had proposed clear alternatives to the Iran deal--though U.S. President Barack Obama persists in pretending he has never proposed any.
Hollywood executives are opening their checkbooks--and new Super PACs--for Hillary Clinton as she makes a second run at the presidency. Ted Johnson and James Rainey report for Variety that Hollywood is far more unified behind Clinton than they were in 2008, when Barack Obama successfully split the liberal donor base. This time, heavyweights such as Jeffrey Katzenberg are joining Clinton loyalists like Haim Saban to provide the big money to fuel her 2016 campaign.
California Governor Jerry Brown has received support from an unusual source as he defends the state's farmers from the charge that they overuse water. The Wall Street Journal editorial page defended California's farmers in a weekend editorial that takes both liberals and conservatives to task for using agriculture as a "scapegoat." Brown, meanwhile, visited with farmers north of Sacramento this weekend in a show of solidarity with farmers against accusations of water-wasting.
In its lead editorial Sunday, the New York Times plays the race card, accusing Republicans of criticizing President Barack Obama’s foreign policy because he is black. The editors, like many on the left, refuse to acknowledge that it is Obama’s own radical policies,
President Barack Obama attempted on Saturday to dismiss harsh criticism by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who had accused the American president last week of "lying" about the terms of the nuclear framework reached in Lausanne, Switzerland earlier this month. Obama tried to explain that Khamenei's remarks were intended for domestic political purposes: "Even a guy with the title 'Supreme Leader' has to be concerned about his own constituencies," Obama said.
The Castro brothers haven't survived in power without being canny politicians as well as ruthless tyrants. And they have President Barack Obama pegged: they know that his ego trumps all other priorities, and are willing to flatter him to win concessions. Raúl Castro used his country's debut at the Summit of the Americas to deliver an hour-long rant against the U.S. role in the region--then excused Obama: "I apologize to him because President Obama had no responsibility for this."
Iranians living in California are deeply skeptical of the emerging nuclear deal announced last week by the Obama administration. Many fled Iran for Southern California during and after the 1979 revolution--some after suffering human rights abuses, and many leaving property and relatives behind in uncertain circumstances.
The left has a convenient explanation for California's severe drought: climate change. Though scientists have yet to make a direct connection, and have suggested instead that the drought is the result of a wind anomaly not related to overall global warming, that has not prevented politicians from putting on their lab coats and declaring their conclusions, demanding not only (sensible) water restrictions but also (irrational) controls on the use of fossil fuels, as if less coal equals more rain.
A war of words--and fundraising emails--has erupted between Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) over the Iran deal. The fight began when Schakowsky objected to Kirk's remark to Politico that "Neville Chamberlain got a lot of more out of Hitler than [U.S. negotiator] Wendy Sherman got out of Iran." Schakowsky said it was "appalling" for Kirk to "equate the Obama administration’s diplomacy with Nazi appeasement." Kirk then used her attack in a fundraising email.
The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act appears to be the most effective way for Congress to stop President Barack Obama from appeasing the Iranian regime with a bad nuclear deal. The "Corker-Mendez-Graham" bill, or the "Corker Bill," would require President Obama to submit the final Iran deal to Congress. Yet the text of the bill now before Congress would actually make an Iran deal easier to approve--and would do so by gutting the Senate's constitutional power over treaties.
On Wednesday, David Horovitz, the liberal editor of the Times of Israel called the emerging Iran deal: "A bad deal. Far, far worse than no deal at all." Also on Wednesday, the liberal editorial board of the New York Times called the Iran framework "a very serious and potentially groundbreaking deal," and claimed that Israel had offered "offers no workable options." In order to arrive at that conclusion, however, the Times had to rely on a different set of facts from Horovitz--facts it invented.
Rand Paul may be "closest to Obama in his view on foreign policy," as Dr. Charles Krauthammer put it on Tuesday, but he is facing stiff competition from Jeb Bush in that category.The former Florida governor praised Obama's initial negotiating efforts with Iran on Tuesday, telling an audience in Denver that "we need to give him credit" for "bringing other people along and making it tougher." The puzzling statement suggests the influence of James A. Baker III on the Bush campaign.
The judge presiding over a case involving billionaire and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein has thrown out accusations against lawyer Alan M. Dershowitz, who once represented Epstein but was not named in the lawsuit brought by Bradley Edwards and Paul Cassell on behalf of "Jane Doe #3." The judge cited Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which allows a court, on its own volition, to strike portions of pleadings that are "redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous."
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), who is a candidate to succeed retiring Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as Senate Minority Leader, has reiterated his support for a bipartisan proposal to require President Barack Obama to submit to Congress any nuclear deal with Iran. Because President Barack Obama has promised to veto the legislation--known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act--Schumer's position is seen as a rare moment of dissent. However, there may be less here than meets the eye.