UPDATED: Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has yet again vowed to his people that Israel will be annihilated in the near future.
“Firstly, you will not see next 25 years — God willing, there will be nothing as Zionist regime by next 25 years,” Khamenei Tweetedto the leaders and people of Israel. “Secondly, until then, struggling, heroic and jihadi morale will leave no moment of serenity for Zionists.”
This, even as President Obama tries to prevent Congress from voting against his nuclear deal with Iran, a deal that even top Senate Democrats say will lead to nuclear weaponization.
A fascinating new poll commissioned by “Secure America Now” (different from the Pew poll) shows the American people dead-set against the President’s dangerous Iran treaty and ready to retaliate against Members of Congress who support it.
69% of all voters believe that Congress should be required to vote on the Iran deal.
Only 34% of Americans would support a presidential veto if Congress votes against the deal.
56% support a Congressional override if the president does veto the deal, including 25% of Democrats.
78% say their Congressman and Senators should oppose the Iran deal because it lifts sanctions and gives Iran $100 billion to finance terror.”
88% say Congress should not approve a deal that let’s Iran inspect its own nuclear sites — this includes 79% of Democrats. Only 7% support allowing Iran to inspect their own sites without international inspectors being involved.
65% say that it’s so important to vote on this agreement that if their Senators tried to stop a vote in Congress they would never vote for them again.
54% say if their Senators or Congressman support they deal, they’re never voting for them again
62% say this deal will make Iran a “more dangerous enemy” of the United States, while only 17% believe it will make Iran more of a “friend” to the U.S.
“This poll underscores what we’re already seeing in the presidential race.” says GOP pollster John McLaughlin. “Americans are angry about Washington. They see it as dishonest and corrupt. Now our President wants to allow the most important security agreement in our lifetime to go into effect without a majority vote of Congress. If even a portion of the voters who told us they would never again vote for a Senator or Congressman who supported this deal stick to that view, there will be severe retribution in November 2016 and 2018. They don’t trust Iran and are going to hold their representatives accountable for American security.”
The survey, conducted jointly by Caddell Associates and McLaughlin & Associates on September 2nd and 3rd, also found that 78 percent wanted Congress to oppose the deal on the grounds that it lifts sanctions and would provide Iran with $100 billion that it can use to finance terror activities.
“As Congress prepares to vote on the nuclear agreement with Iran, public support for President Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement has plummeted, with just 21 percent of Americans polled by the Pew Research Center now saying they back the deal,” reports an article by the Washington Examiner.
“On a day when the 42nd Senate Democrat came out in favor of the deal, raising the possibility that a resolution to disapprove the deal may never make it to Obama’s desk to veto, the new poll suggests that he is losing the public relations battle.
“Back in July, shortly after the deal was reached, Pew found 33 percent supported it, compared with 45 percent who opposed it.
“But after a summer of ads and speeches by supporters and opponents and an aggressive PR push from the White House, the same poll now finds that 21 percent approve compared to 49 percent who disapprove….
“Among those who say they have heard at least a little about the agreement, 57 percent disapprove compared to just 27 percent who disapprove — a more than two-to-one margin of disapproval.
“Support for the deal declined across the ideological spectrum.
“Even among Democrats, support fell from 50 percent to 42 percent over the summer. Though that’s higher than the 29 percent of Democrats who say they oppose the deal, it’s still striking that Obama couldn’t even muster majority support for the deal among Americans who identify with his party….”
On the table is the most dangerous agreement with an avowed enemy of the United States and our most faithful allies to come before the U.S. Senate in a generation. In the White House is a President who fundamentally believes that the apocalyptic Iranian regime can be trusted to keep their word. At stake is no less than the national security of the American people today and throughout future generations.
History will remember what Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does right now.
Or will he surrender and allow this insane agreement to be implemented without a real fight?
In recent days, Andrew McCarthy of National Review, among others, has laid out the case for exactly why and how the leadership of the Senate can and should deem this agreement as a treaty and move forward with an immediate vote.
Now that President Obama has rounded up at least 41 votes to defend his deal, no other option other than handling the agreement as a foreign treaty is truly available to the Senate.
So this now comes down to who Sen. McConnell really is, and how seriously he takes the Constitution and the national security of the American people.
What’s particularly interesting to me as a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen, as I watch this debate unfold from my home in the State of Israel — on the front lines of the war with Radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam — is how clear four leading Senate Democrats have been about why this Iran deal is so dangerous, and why they believe it must be blocked.
“Ultimately, it depends on how one thinks Iran will behave,” Sen. Chuck Schumer, the New York Democrat and next leader of the Senate Democrats, recently explained. “If one thinks Iran will moderate, one should approve the agreement. But if one feels that Iranian leaders won’t moderate and their unstated but very real goal is to get relief from the onerous sanctions, while still retaining their nuclear ambitions and their ability to increase belligerent activities in the Middle East and elsewhere, then one should conclude that it would be better not to approve this agreement.”
I don’t usually say this about statements by Sen. Schumer, but on the Iran issue I couldn’t agree more. This comes down to a question of motive and behavior. I don’t for a moment believe the Iranian regime can be trusted, for reasons I have explained at length in books, articles and on this blog over the years. Thus, I believe this treaty is not just dangerous but insane.
Set aside my arguments for the moment and the arguments of the Republicans
Read the arguments four leading Democrat Senators are making as they oppose the deal.
Share their views with others.
Then contact Senate Majority Leader McConnell and insist that he handle the Iran accord as a foreign treaty and bring it to an immediate vote of the Senate as a treaty.
NOTE: I have written this column and similar ones in recent days as an individual, private citizen, not in my capacity as Chairman of The Joshua Fund. TJF is a non-profit organization and does not involve itself in political or legislative issues whatsoever.
HERE IS WHY FOUR LEADING SENATE DEMOCRATS NOW OPPOSE THE IRAN DEAL:
“The JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan Of Action] legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program. After 10 to 15 years, it would leave Iran with the option to produce enough enriched fuel for a nuclear weapon in a short time.
“The JCPOA would provide this legal path to a country that remains a rogue state and has violated its international nonproliferation obligations for years. It would provide Iran with international endorsement of an industrial-scale nuclear program. Worse, Iran would be economically strengthened by frighteningly quick relief from sanctions and international economic engagement. If Iran violates the agreement, building international support for new sanctions would take too long to be effective. A military response in this scenario would be more likely, although disastrous.
“The agreement talks about normalization of economic relations with Iran and states that the parties shall “implement this JCPOA in good faith . . . based on mutual respect.” But there cannot be respect for a country that actively foments regional instability, advocates for Israel’s destruction, kills the innocent and shouts ‘Death to America.’
“This agreement leaves resolution of the possible military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear program to the IAEA. The bottom line is that we know Iran was developing a nuclear weapon, and we must understand how far it went down the weaponization path before we can move forward with the JCPOA. After numerous hearings and briefings, I am still not confident that we will fully resolve outstanding concerns on this topic.
“What happens if Congress rejects the JCPOA? No one can predict with certainty the consequences. Our European partners understand that they cannot effectively act without the United States. Iran understands that if it accelerates its nuclear program it will ignite international action against it. And Iran needs U.S. sanctions relief. Ultimately, it is in everyone’s interest to reach a diplomatic solution….
“We must stand firm in our determination to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. We must agree to counter Iranian support for terrorism and confront Iranian violations of ballistic missile protocols and international human rights obligations. Congress and the administration cannot dwell on past disagreements; together we must find a functional, bipartisan approach to Iran. I stand ready to work with my colleagues and the administration to achieve such a result.”
UPDATED: It’s late, but not too late, for the Senate to stop President Obama’s dangerous Iran dealfrom becoming U.S. law and putting the American people and our Arab and Israeli allies in grave danger jeopardy from an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
We need to urge the Senate leadership immediately to:
Declare that the President has not fulfilled the terms of Corker-Cardin.
Declare the President’s Iran deal a foreign treaty, as per the Constitution.
Hold a vote immediately on the treaty.
When the treaty fails to gain 67 votes, declare it null and void.
Please also send them to each of the Presidential candidates. We need them to read these analyses, absorb them, and act decisively to block implementation of the Iran deal.
Here’s some context:
Last week, I explained in this column that President Obama is doing an end-run around the U.S. Constitution. He is refusing to submit his Iran nuclear deal to the Senate as a formal foreign treaty, even though he is required to do so by the Constitution.
Only a two-thirds affirmative vote of the Senate (67 votes) would allow the President’s Iran deal to be ratified and have the force of U.S. law.
Unfortunately, by passing the deeply flawed Corker-Cardin bill, Congress has — thus far — allowed the President to ignore the Constitution. That said, there is a way for Congress to correct its mistake, do the right thing, and protect the American people.
As Andrew McCarthy explains in detail in this excellent analysis on National Review Online, the President has not fulfilled the terms of Corker-Cardin. For example, the President has not fully disclosed every element of the agreement, including all the side deals with the IAEA, as Corker-Cardin explicitly required him to do. Thus, Congress and the American people still do not have a full idea of what this treaty would obligate us — and the Iranians — to do.
As McCarthy notes: “The Corker legislation — formally known as the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 — is crystal clear. In its very first section, the act requires the president to transmit to Congress ‘the agreement. . . . including all related materials and annexes.’ It is too late to do that now: the act dictates that it was to have been done ‘not later than five days after reaching the agreement’ — meaning July 19, since the agreement was finalized on July 14.
What’s more, McCarthy notes that, “in conjunction with providing Congress the entire agreement, including any and all ‘side deals’ between Iran and the IAEA, the act mandates that Secretary Kerry provide a ‘verification assessment report.’ In it, the Obama administration must demonstrate not only how it (i) ‘will be able to verify that Iran is complying with its obligations and commitments’ and (ii) will ensure the ‘adequacy of the safeguards and other control mechanisms’ to ensure that Iran cannot ‘further any nuclear-related military or nuclear explosive purpose.’ The administration must further explain: the capacity and capability of the International Atomic Energy Agency to effectively implement the verification regime required by or related to the agreement, including whether the International Atomic Energy Agency will have sufficient access to investigate suspicious sites or allegations of covert nuclear-related activities and whether it has the required funding, manpower, and authority to undertake the verification regime required by or related to the agreement.”
Yet, the Obama administration has not done this either.
Since the President has not fulfilled these essential terms of the law, Congress is not obligated to fulfill the rest of the terms of Corker-Cardin.
Thus, the Senate is now free to declare the dangerous Iran agreement a foreign treaty, hold a vote on the treaty, and vote the treaty down.
Here, too, I agree with McCarthy: “Congress must scrap the Corker process and treat Obama’s Iran deal as either a treaty or proposed legislation….[T]he Senate should regard the deal as a treaty and vote it down decisively — as I’ve pointed out, senators don’t need the president’s cooperation to do this; their authority to review international agreements as treaties comes from the Constitution, not from Obama….The reason to reject the Iran deal as a treaty is to lay the groundwork for the next president to abandon the deal. That involves putting other countries on notice, immediately, that the U.S. statutory sanctions are still in effect; that Obama is powerless to lift them permanently; that the next president is likely to enforce them; and that countries, businesses, and individuals that rely on Obama’s mere executive agreement as a rationale for resuming commerce with Tehran do so at their peril.”
It is late, but it is not yet too late. The Senate can still do the right thing by following the Constitution, blocking implementation of this dangerous Iran deal.
That said, let’s be clear: Blocking the Iran deal in the Senate is just the first step. We will still need a wise, experienced, tough new President to implement a bold new policy towards Iran — more sanctions, stronger and more principled diplomacy, significantly increased military spending, and a clear determination to neutralize the Iran nuclear threat no matter what it takes, even if this means military strikes.
But blocking the Iran deal in the Senate is the next step. It’s the right step. It’s a doable step. And the time is now.
This final Iran deal is clearly an international treaty. It should be handled as such.
The President could also have submitted the deal to Congress as a “binding executive agreement.” That would have required a simple-majority vote of both the House and the Senate to approve it. Instead, the President is handling the final Iran deal as a “non-binding executive agreement” which does not requires Congressional approval.
A non-binding agreement on a matter of such supreme importance as the national security of the American people and our allies? What world are we living in?
What’s more, the President did an end-run around the American people and their representatives in Congress by submitting the deal to the U.N. Security Council and securing a unanimous vote before even approaching the American people’s representatives in Congress.
Yet the Republican Congressional leadership — most of their Members — are not fighting back. The leadership seriously erred by passing the Corker-Cardin bill in the first place. They should never have created a mechanism for the President to take any other path than the one prescribed by the Constitution.
The Corker-Cardin bill passed 98 to 1. All the presidential candidates from the Senate voted “yes” — including Senators Cruz, Rubio, Paul and Graham.
Only Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark) voted against the bill, and he did so on solid Constitutional grounds. “A nuclear-arms agreement with any adversary – especially the terror-sponsoring, Islamist Iranian regime – should be submitted as a treaty and obtain a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate as required by the Constitution,” Cotton said. He’s right.
This is the most significant — and dangerous — treaty the U.S. has prepared to enter into in my lifetime. The Senate should not be allowing the President to circumvent the Constitution. It should deem the Iran deal as a treaty. It should hold a vote in accordance with the Constitution. If 67 Members of the U.S. Senate do not ratify the Iran deal, then the deal should not have the force of U.S. law. Then, neither this President nor the next will be allowed to enforce or abide by it.
The threat posed by the Iranian leadership — which holds to an apocalyptic, genocidal End Times theology — possessing long-range missiles and such a robust nuclear program must not be appeased, or papered over, or ignored. It must be neutralized, and soon.
NOTE: The Obama administration explained why it is not handling the Iran deal as a treaty — it simply does not believe the deal could pass with a bipartisan, two-thirds majority.
REP. REID RIBBLE (R-WI): For 228 years, the Constitution allowed treaties to [pass] with the advice and consent of 67 U.S. Senators. Why is this not considered a treaty?
SECRETARY OF STATE JOHN KERRY: Well Congressman, I spent quite a few years trying to get a lot of treaties through the United States Senate, and it has become physically impossible. That’s why. Because you can’t pass a treaty anymore. It has become impossible to schedule, to pass, and I sat there leading the charge on the Disabilities Treaty which fell to basically ideology and politics. So I think that is the reason why.
President Obama’s nuclear pact with Iran: echoes of Chamberlain’s Munich Pact with Germany.
(Central Israel) — Despite President Obama’s insistence that his nuclear deal with Iran will make the world safer and more secure, it is already driving Iran’s leaders into a “massive military shopping spree”in Russia that will make the Mideast and the world far more dangerous.
This raises a sobering question. Does the Israeli government consider the procurement and imminent deployment of the S-300 system in Iran a “red line”? That is, would such a development force Israel’s hand by persuading her leaders to launch a massive preemptive strike before the S-300 could become operational?
Recent news reports indicate Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Security Cabinet have come close to authorizing such strikes as many as three times in the past, but concluded in each instance that the time wasn’t right. Last week on Fox News, I said I hoped Israel wouldn’t have to strike any time soon, but could wait to see if a new President is elected in November 2016 that was a far more faithful friend. If so, Israel might not have to strike at all. It could hopefully trust a new American President to nullify the Iran deal, re-impose economic sanctions, strengthen the American military option, and take whatever action became necessary to decisively neutralize the Iran nuclear threat.
Yet the intensification of the Russian-Iranian alliance, the massive purchase of arms, and the deployment of the S-300 could change the equation. The Israeli Prime Minister and Security Cabinet may rapidly face a dynamic not entirely dissimilar to the Cuban Missile Crisis when President Kennedy and his top advisors felt they had to prepare for a massive preemptive strike on Cuba before Soviet nuclear missiles there could be made operational.
Thank God that in the end the Soviets backed down and Kennedy did not have to order the attack in 1962. Yet today, the arrival of Russian missiles in a highly volatile environment is once again raising the threat of war.
WHAT’S HAPPENING IN WASHINGTON?
Congress should be requiring President Obama to follow the U.S. Constitution and submit the Iran accord to the Senate as a foreign treaty. If it did in the current environment, the treaty would not win 67 votes. It would thus not become law. It would thus be dead-on-arrival.
However, Congress is not following the Constitution.
So the President is poised to get what he wants — a free hand to implement his nuclear deal against the will of the majority of the American people and their representatives in Congress.
But the President will not make the world safer. He is refusing to learn the lessons of history, and appears to be doomed to repeat them. Let me explain.
On July 14th, President announced his “historic” nuclear deal with Iran, assuring the American people of confidence that after engaging the Iranian leadership he was, in fact, making the world safer and more peaceful.
“Today, after two years of negotiations, the United States, together with our international partners, has achieved something that decades of animosity has not — a comprehensive, long-term deal with Iran that will prevent it from obtaining a nuclear weapon,” insisted the President.
“This deal demonstrates that American diplomacy can bring about real and meaningful change — change that makes our country, and the world, safer and more secure,” Mr. Obama added. “This deal offers an opportunity to move in a new direction….a different path, one of tolerance and peaceful resolution of conflict.”
To many, the President’s remarks echoed those of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain who struck a deal with Adolf Hitler — the “Munich Pact” — claiming to have “solved” the challenge of the rising Nazi threat to Czechoslovakia and Europe, and to have secured “peace for our time.”
“The settlement of the Czechoslovakian problem, which has now been achieved, is in my view only the prelude to a larger settlement in which all Europe may find peace,” Mr. Chamberlain declared on September 30, 1938. “This morning I had another talk with the German Chancellor Herr Hitler and here is the paper which bears his name upon it as well as mine. Some of you, perhaps, have already heard what it contains, but I would just like to read it to you. ‘We, the German Fuhrer and Chancellor, and the British Prime Minister have had a further meeting today and are agreed in recognizing that the question of Anglo-German relations is of the first importance for the two countries and for Europe. We regard the agreement signed last night, and the Anglo-German naval agreement, as symbolic of the desire of our two peoples never to go to war with one another again.”
“My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor,” Mr. Chamberlain added. “I believe it is ‘peace for our time.’ Go home and get a nice quiet sleep.”
Less than a year later, however, on March 15, 1939, Adolf Hitler and his Nazi forces invaded Czechoslovakia.
Very rapidly, all of Europe — and soon all the world — was engulfed in a horrific, deadly, catastrophic war.
What went wrong? Chamberlain fundamentally misread Hitler’s intentions. The “Munich Pact” did not represent Hitler’s “desire…never to go to war.” Rather, it represented the Fuhrer’s calculated effort to buy time and lull the West into a false sense of security until he and his war machine were built up and ready to strike with full fury.
Today, President Obama either cannot or will not properly assess the apocalyptic, genocidal intentionsof Iranian Ayatollah Khamenei and his senior leadership. The Iranian leaders hold to a deeply dangerous End Times theology. They have candidly and repeatedly vowed to annihilate the United States and Israel. They have declared these goals official Iranian policy. And they are now using this insane nuclear deal to buy time and lull the West into a false sense of security and their war machine is built up and they are ready to strike with full fury.
The following article was published on by a South African newspaper, The Citizen, based on an interview I did last month.
Thought you might be interested in what interests reporters and readers in other countries.
STORIES THAT MATTER: AUTHOR PENS ANOTHER CAPTIVATING POLITICAL DRAMA
By Genevieve Vieira, The Citizen, August 12, 2015
Joel C Rosenberg’s popularity is a result of two equally compelling elements. Firstly, he’s a talented fiction writer, brilliant at narrating thrilling political debacles that will make you squirm. But even more exhilarating is his ability to predict future events before they happen.
No, he does not claim to be psychic or have any supernatural ability, but rather, as a former communications adviser, Rosenberg has worked with a number of US and Israeli leaders – including Steve Forbes, Rush Limbaugh, Natan Sharansky and Benjamin Netanyahu – observing the ins and outs of political culture and current events.
“One of the things I love to do is write novels about worst case scenarios that could happen in the not-too-distant future,” he says.
“I’m not specifically trying to predict the future. But as darkness falls upon this world and the forces of freedom seem to be in retreat, I am trying to imagine what could be coming just over the horizon.”
His aim is to encourage readers to think about how they should live in such dark and dangerous times.
“Are you going to live fearful, passive, hidden lives or are you going to act with great courage to do the right thing, to warn people of danger and get them safety?” he asks.
As a result, his characters often wrestle with profound moral and spiritual questions. “Evil, unchecked, is a prelude to genocide,” he says.
Rosenberg’s latest offering, The Third Target, tells the story of a New York Times foreign correspondent who hears rumours that an al-Qaeda splinter cell, Islamic State, has captured a cache of chemical weapons inside Syria – a story he wants to pursue at all costs.
Knowing terrorist forces are already trying to bring down two Arab governments in the region – Iraq and Syria – will he obtain the information and needed forces to prevent such calamity?….
His aim is twofold – to both entertain and educate.
“My first objective is to entertain you,” he says, “to thrill you, keep you up all night reading my books so at 5am you finally send me an angry Facebook message or Tweet cursing me for keeping you up all night when you really have to go to work or school in a few hours.
“My second objective is to intrigue you, educate you, take you into a world you never imagined going before, and perhaps even on an intellectual and emotional and spiritual journey you weren’t expecting. I want people to see the world differently when they’ve finished reading one of my books. I want them to ask questions they never thought of asking before – of themselves, of others, of God.”
One fascinating observation is the wide variety of people who read his books. These include former generals, former CIA directors, current and former ambassadors, business leaders, religious leaders and so forth.
“I have to make sure my books are carefully researched,” he says.