"Fundamental Misjudgment" 

During an interview with National Public Radio this morning, President Obama attempted to explain why he opposes linking the Iranian nuclear deal to formal recognition of Israel's right to exist. Obama said:
 

"The notion that we could condition Iran not getting nuclear weapons . . . on Iran recognizing Israel is really akin to saying that we won't sign a deal unless the nature of the Iranian regime completely transforms. And that is, I think, a fundamental misjudgment. . . . We want Iran not to have nuclear weapons precisely because we can't bank on the nature of the regime changing."

Obama just admitted that the Iranian regime is so radical there is no chance it would ever concede the right of Israel to exist. He is right, of course. This regime promises another Holocaust after all. 

Given that, how can Obama or anyone else trust that regime to keep its promises in a nuclear deal, even if the deal were good, which it isn't? 

In what world does this make any sense? 

Post Pans Pact 

Yesterday I noted how some media outlets were commenting on the concessions President Obama made to Iran just to get it to keep talking about its nuclear program. Underscoring that concern, theWashington Post editorial board also blasted the deal, writing that the details announced last week "fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration" in 2012. 

The Post editors continued: 
 

"None of Iran's nuclear facilities -- including the Fordow center buried under a mountain -- will be closed. Not one of the country's 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. . . . In effect, Iran's nuclear infrastructure will remain intact. . . . When the accord lapses, the Islamic Republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state."

Even Obama acknowledges this. In the same interview with National Public Radio, Obama admits that "in Year 13, 14, 15, they have advanced centrifuges that enrich uranium fairly rapidly, and at that point, the breakout times would have shrunk almost down to zero." His deal, at best, buys us time and nothing more. 

The Washington Post editors concluded their column by urging the White House to recognize "Congress's legitimate prerogative to review" the deal. And they added, "We hope Mr. Obama will make as much effort to engage in good faith with skeptical allies and domestic critics as he has with the Iranian regime." 

Democrats Demand A Say 

Not all of the president's "domestic critics" are conservatives. Senator Charles Schumer (D-NY) is joining his Republican colleagues in supporting legislation authored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) that requires congressional review of any deal with Iran. 

Schumer's support of the Corker bill is important because he is already a member of the Democratic leadership team. Moreover, it is widely assumed that he will succeed Harry Reid as the Senate Democratic leader in 2017. 

With Schumer on board, nine Senate Democrats are now co-sponsoring the Corker bill, which may be just one vote away from the 67 needed to override a veto. 

Sleeper Issue: Illegal Immigration 

Amid reports that a new surge of illegal immigration is now hitting our southern border comes a new Rasmussen poll finding that large majorities of voters are frustrated with Obama's quasi-amnesty and other so-called "magnet" policies. 

According to the poll: 
 

• 54% of voters do not believe that "anchor babies," children born to an illegal immigrant mother in the United States, should automatically qualify for citizenship. 
   
• 62% of voters believe the government is "not aggressive enough in deporting" illegal immigrants. Only 16% believes the government is "too aggressive" in enforcing our immigration laws. 
   
• 83% of voters (No, that's not a typo) believe that someone should be required to prove they are legally in the United States before receiving taxpayer-funded services.

  The American people want the border secured and they want our laws enforced. When 83% of Americans agree on something, how is it possible that there is not a serious political party in America making the case for their views? 

  Rand Paul Jumps In 

  Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) officially kicked off his presidential campaign today with a speech to a raucous crowd in Louisville, Kentucky. His supporters cheered when Paul said, "We have come to take our country back" and "The Washington machine must be stopped." That is, of course, vintage conservative rhetoric that will be regularly used by virtually all Republican contenders.

  Paul's challenge will be in those areas where his views over the years have been outside the GOP mainstream. Paul is trying to capitalize on his "outsider" status, even labeling himself a "different kind of Republican candidate." 

  But his views are drawing criticism. A conservative group, the Foundation For a Secure and Prosperous America, launched a $1 million TV ad campaign today quoting Senator Paul ridiculing the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would be a threat to the U.S.

  Given the headlines of the day, national security, radical Islam, Iran and the U.S./Israel alliance will be key issues in 2016. Hillary Clinton could be perceived as having a tougher image than Senator Paul. In fact, Paul once even accused Hillary of being a "war hawk."