Democrat Denounces Deal, Obama AWOL
[Tuesday], Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced his opposition to President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran. So too did Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the previous chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Key Democrat Denounces The Deal
[Tuesday], Senator Bob Corker (R-TN), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, announced his opposition to President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. So too did Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ), the previous chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
The opposition to this deal by the current Republican chairman and the previous Democratic chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee speaks volumes. In fact, the only bi-partisan aspect of this deal is the opposition to it. Twelve House Democrats are also against the deal.
Senator Menendez delivered a thoughtful and powerful speech at Seton Hall University denouncing the deal. Below are some excerpts of his remarks. Please share them with friends and family members so that they understand that opposition to this terrible deal is bi-partisan.
“For twenty three years as a member of the House Foreign Affairs and Senate Foreign Relations Committees, I have had the privilege of dealing with major foreign policy and national security issues. Many of those have been of a momentous nature. This is one of those moments. …
"This is one of the most serious national security, nuclear nonproliferation, arms control issues of our time. It is not an issue of supporting or opposing the president. This issue is much greater and graver than that. …
"What do we get from this agreement in terms of what we originally sought? … This deal grants Iran permanent sanctions relief in exchange for only temporary — temporary — limitations on its nuclear program — not a rolling-back, not dismantlement, but temporary limitations. …
"Frankly, in my view, the overall sanctions relief being provided … along with the lifting of the arms and missile embargo well before Iranian compliance over years is established, leaves us in a weak position, and to me [that] is unacceptable…
"The agreement that has been reached failed to achieve the one thing it set out to achieve — it failed to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear weapons state at a time of its choosing. In fact, it authorizes and supports the very road map Iran will need to arrive at its target.
"Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’… Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.
"The Iranian regime, led by the ayatollah, wants above all to preserve the regime and its Revolution… So it stretches incredulity to believe they signed on to a deal that would in any way weaken the regime or threaten the goals of the [Islamic] Revolution.
"I understand that this deal represents a trade-off, a hope that things may be different in Iran in 10 to 15 years. Maybe Iran will desist from its nuclear ambitions. Maybe they’ll stop exporting and supporting terrorism. Maybe they’ll stop holding innocent Americans hostage. Maybe they’ll stop burning American flags. And maybe their leadership will stop chanting, ‘Death to America’ in the streets of Tehran. Or maybe they won’t. …
"I know that the editorial pages that support the agreement would be far kinder, if I voted yes, but they largely also supported the agreement that brought us a nuclear North Korea … but if Iran is to acquire a nuclear bomb, it will not have my name on it.
"It is for these reasons that I will vote to disapprove the agreement and, if called upon, would vote to override a veto.”
Obama AWOL On Christian Persecution
President Obama rarely misses an opportunity to promote Islam or criticize Christianity. He tells us that the jihadists cutting off heads or blowing up buses in the name of Allah have nothing to do with Islam and cuts nuclear deals with the Islamic Republic of Iran while he lectures Christians about the Crusades.
Meanwhile, even the New York Times is warning that Christianity is on the verge of extinction in the Middle East. What is Obama doing about Christian persecution? Not much.
How often has he used the bully pulpit of the presidency to raise the issue? Not often.
He did not make religious liberty or human rights a priority when he agreed to normalize relations with communist Cuba.
He did not even demand the release of Pastor Saeed Abedini when he cut a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic of Iran. That should have been the bare minimum Iran gave us in return for $100 billion in sanctions relief.
Then again, this is the same man who traded five Taliban leaders for one deserter.
But to fully appreciate the president’s seeming lack of interest in the plight of Christians overseas, consider this: [Tuesday] the White House announced the appointment of its first transgendered employee. Valerie Jarrett said the appointment “demonstrates the kind of leadership this administration champions” and “reflects the values of this administration.” I won’t dispute that.
In stark contrast to those values and that kind of leadership, CNS News reports that President Obama has refused to appoint a special envoy to promote religious freedom in the Middle East and South Central Asia. The position was created by Congress more than a year ago in response to the atrocities being committed by ISIS and other Islamic terrorist groups.