Context Matters 
Twenty-four hours later, the extent of Obama's nuclear sellout is becoming obvious. Keep in mind who we are dealing with. On the one hand you have the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism, whose leaders vow to wipe Israel off the map, refer to America as "the great Satan" and have repeatedly cheated on existing international agreements. On the other hand, we have a president who traded five Taliban leaders for one deserter, who makes red lines and then erases them, who underestimated the threat from ISIS, calling it "junior varsity," and who has repeatedly misled the American people on issues like marriage, taxes and Obamacare. Now we're being asked to accept a deal -- involving nuclear weapons -- that these two sides have negotiated! I wouldn't be surprised if somewhere buried in the pages of this deal is an agreement to trade the Brooklyn Bridge for Aladdin's magic lamp. Used car dealers have more credibility. 

Obama's Bad Deal 

With that bit of context, let's back up a few months to the conclusion of the previous round of talks that gave us the "framework" for this deal. When the "framework" talks concluded at the beginning of April, the Washington Post editorial board wrote this:

"The 'key parameters' for an agreement on Iran's nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration."

Let's be clear about that: The Washington Post told us months ago that the "key parameters" for the deal Obama announced yesterday were "well short" of his own goals. So we had plenty of warning that this would be a bad deal. That is what the Post was telling us in April. 

And it is a bad deal. Michael Rubin, a former Pentagon official and expert on the Middle East, writes that "Obama and Kerry crossed every one of their own red lines." 

For example, two years ago Secretary Kerry declared, "There is no right to enrich." But under the agreement Obama announced yesterday, Iran will have at least 5,000 centrifuges spinning away. Pakistan needed fewer than half that number to develop its nuclear weapons. 

Two years ago, Obama said, "They don't need to have an underground, fortified facility like Fordo in order to have a peaceful nuclear program." But this deal allows the Fordo facility to keep functioning. 

According to another report, international inspectors must "come from nations that have diplomatic relations with Iran." That means there will be no American inspectors allowed into Iran. Why would we agree to that? 

Speaking of inspections, we know that the Obama Administration's strategy in selling this deal will be to mislead the public just as it did with Obamacare. The idea that Iran can be trusted with a massive nuclear infrastructure is beyond absurd, but a number of left-wing politicians are already making the case. 

For example, Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) says he supports the deal because: 

"Iran's nuclear program will be under lock, key and camera 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. The eyes of the international community are on every centrifuge, every ounce of uranium, in all of Iran's nuclear facilities."

Really? According to ABC News: 
 

"UN inspectors can demand access to nuclear facilities on Iran military sites, but they aren't immediate or even guaranteed. Any inspections at those sites would need to be approved by a joint commission. . . The process for approving those inspections could take as many as 24 days. . ."

In other words, far from being under lock and key, we have to ask permission to inspect a site and then the Iranians have more than three weeks to scrub it. That's not exactly the "anywhere, anytime" inspections that the administration was demanding in April. 


Coddling Criminals 

The extent of Obama's left-wing ideology has been on full display in recent days. When he wasn't cozying up to the tyrants in Tehran, he was busy coddling criminals. 

Last week, Obama sent personal letters to 46 drug offenders whose sentences he commuted, even though drugs are a scourge afflicting minority communities. Meanwhile, the Obama Administration has said nothing about the brutal murder of Kathryn Steinle. 

We have marveled before at who the president thinks is worthy of his attention. When Sandra Fluke testified that American people needed to pay for her contraception, Obama called to say how proud he was of her. 

When certain shootings occur under sketchy circumstances, he calls the victims' families and sends administration officials to the funerals. But when a woman is gunned down by an illegal immigrant, there is silence. Why the double standard? 


House Demands Answers 

House Speaker John Boehner demanded a congressional investigation of Planned Parenthood today. Speaker Boehner issued the following statement in response to reports that the nation's largest abortion provider is trafficking in baby body parts: 
 

"Nothing is more precious than life, especially an unborn child. When anyone diminishes an unborn child, we are all hurt, irreversibly so. When an organization monetizes an unborn child -- and with the cavalier attitude portrayed in this horrific video -- we must all act. As a start, I have asked our relevant committees to look into this matter. I am also calling on President Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell to denounce, and stop, these gruesome practices."

That is a start. The House should also pass legislation cutting off all tax dollars to Planned Parenthood.