A Really Bad Deal 

U.S. and Iranian diplomats may be on the verge of a breakthrough in talks over Iran's nuclear program. According to the Associated Press, this "breakthrough" would reportedly "let Iran keep much of its uranium-enriching technology but reduce its potential to make nuclear weapons. . . .the proposal could leave most of Iran's nearly 10,000 centrifuges in place but reconfigure them to reduce the amount of enriched uranium they produce." 

If accurate, it would be a really bad deal. The point of these negotiations should be to prevent Iran from going nuclear and threatening the United States, our allies and particularly Israel. 

This deal could make Iran a "threshold nuclear power." As the AP acknowledges, "Experts warn that any reduction in centrifuge efficiency is reversible more quickly than a straight decrease in the number of machines." 

This AP report explains why Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu jumped at the opportunity to address Congress. It also explains why Barack Obama and his left-wing allies in Congress are doing everything they can to prevent Netanyahu from speaking. Sadly, anti-Israel sentiment on the political left is spreading quickly. Politico reports that "dozens" of congressional liberals are threatening to boycott Netanyahu's address. 

Meanwhile, Obama and Kerry have been negotiating with themselves, making concessions to the mullahs day after day after day. A year ago, experts said that a serious deal would require Tehran to reduce the number of its operational centrifuges to 2,000. After months of negotiations, it appears we're getting next to nothing and that Iran has prevailed. 

For the United States, a nuclear-armed Iran significantly complicates our relations in the Middle East. Sunni Arab nations like Egypt and Saudi Arabia will undoubtedly feel the need to develop their own nuclear weapons programs. But for Israel, a nuclear-armed Iran is an immediate existential threat. 

Jordan Responds 

Jordan responded yesterday to the brutal murder of its pilot who was burned alive by ISIS jihadists. As promised, the kingdom executed two Al Qaeda-linked terrorists this morning, including Sajida al-Rishawi. 

Rishawi, a female suicide bomber, participated in a 2005 attack in Amman, Jordan, that targeted hotels frequented by Israelis and Westerners. She and her husband walked into a hotel ballroom during a wedding, but her suicide vest didn't work. Her husband's did and 38 people were killed. 

I doubt the release of yesterday's video was a coincidence. King Abdullah II was in Washington meeting with President Obama. The video was likely meant to embarrass the king. Instead it enraged him.

While speaking to members of Congress, King Abdullah reportedly quoted Clint Eastwood's character in "Unforgiven." According to Representative Duncan Hunter, Jr., the king vowed to launch more airstrikes than ever before, saying, "The only problem we are going to have is running out of fuel and bullets." 

Good for him! That is how we defeated Hitler's Germany and Hirohito's Japan. You cannot negotiate with an evil like ISIS. (Or Hamas or Hezbollah or Boko Haram for that matter.) ISIS intends to murderhundreds of millions of "infidels." No concessions by the West will satisfy its murderous intentions. 

Principles Or Parties? 

I mentioned in yesterday's report that Senate liberals filibustered legislation aimed at defunding Obama's executive amnesty. Yet many of them know Obama overstepped his authority. But party loyalty appears to have trumped the Constitution. 

Given the history of this controversy, it was depressing to see that the vote essentially broke along party lines. As you will recall: 
 

• President Obama repeatedly said that he did not have the power to issue unilateral amnesties. 
• Numerous Senate Democrats expressed outright opposition, if not serious reservations, about the idea of executive amnesty.
• And when Obama did it, even the liberal Washington Post editorial board blasted his action as "unprecedented" and slammed White House talking points as "indefensible." 

  Responding to the vote, Senator Jeff Sessions (R-AL) said:

  "We took an oath to defend the Constitution, not a political party. . . . Today's vote, however, is only the very beginning of the effort to reverse the president's action. This is day one. What is needed now is a sustained . . . effort to rally the nation against an imperial edict erasing our immigration laws. . . . 

  "For decades, the American people have begged and pleaded for a lawful system of immigration that puts their needs first. They are worried, justly, about the impact of uncontrolled immigration on their jobs, wages, schools, hospitals, and communities. Politicians can only ignore those demands for so long before the dam breaks."

  Misinformed Millennials? 

  Conservatives are worried about appealing to the millennial generation (Americans between 18 and 34) because polling suggests they are more liberal than other generational groups. Church leaders are worried because millennials appear to be more secular than other generational groups. Maybe it's just a lack of information or a matter of too much misinformation. 

  A new poll finds that 77% of millennials could not name one of their state's two U.S. senators. I was shocked by that result. While they may not be able to name their senators, an equal percentage (77%) said they were "absolutely certain" or "very likely" to vote in 2016.

  Most millennials I know are very bright. But the poll is evidence of the dumbing down of our culture. How do you get out of high school and college, gain the right to vote, and not have any idea whom or what you are voting for? 

  My friends, please take time to talk to your children and grandchildren about the issues confronting our country. Parents and family members have tremendous influence over millennials -- the vast majority of them claimed to share the political leanings of at least one parent.