Western nations that negotiated last year’s nuclear deal with Iran have sent a letter to U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki Moon declaring that the Islamic Republic’s recent ballistic missile tests are violations of U.N. Resolution 2231.

In their letter, officials from the United States, Great Britain, France and Germany warn that the missiles Iran launched were “inherently capable of delivering nuclear weapons.” As a result, the launches were “inconsistent with” and “in defiance of” U.N. resolutions, and the various countries are demanding that the Security Council consider “appropriate responses.”

That’s a big deal, right? Well, maybe not so much.

According to Reuters, “Western officials say that although the launches went against [Resolution] 2231, they were not a violation of the core nuclear agreement between Iran, Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States.”

The fact that Iran can continue to test ballistic missiles without violating the nuclear deal is a good indication of just how bad Obama’s deal really is. Common sense would seem to dictate that any deal covering Iran’s nuclear weapons program should have included its ballistic missile program, the purpose of which is to deliver nuclear warheads!

Only a few weeks ago, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified before Congress, saying that Iran “would choose ballistic missiles as its preferred method of delivering nuclear weapons.”

Clapper added, “Iran’s ballistic missiles are inherently capable of delivering [weapons of mass destruction], and Tehran already has the largest inventory of ballistic missiles in the Middle East.”

[Wednesday], Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, had this to say about his country’s missile tests, “Those who say the future [of Iran] is in negotiations, not in missiles, are either ignorant or traitors.”

It is painfully obvious to everyone, except the Obama Administration, that the Iranian regime is not interested in peace. It is doing everything it can to develop its nuclear weapons program — testing its delivery systems while waiting for the day when it can rush to a “breakout” point.

Court Struggles For Compromise

The Supreme Court is struggling with the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia. No doubt many of the justices deeply miss their friend. Scalia’s absence on the court has resulted in at least one 4-to-4 decision already.

That case involved forced union dues for public school teachers. The court’s split decision leaves a pro-union ruling from the left-wing Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals intact.

But an even bigger split may be emerging when it comes to religious liberty. The justices have ordered new arguments in the case involving Obamacare’s contraception mandate and the Little Sisters of the Poor.

Other religious non-profit organizations are also involved in this case, which arrived at the Supreme Court when different appeals courts reached different conclusions in their respective cases. In other words, a split decision in this case would result in different standards around the country.

The order for new arguments is an unusual move, suggesting the justices may not be able to reach a decision and yet are eager to avoid the ensuing legal chaos that could result if they fail to reach a compromise.

Here’s the bigger point. The president and the left are saying now that the Supreme Court is not a political entity and should be above the partisanship that dominates Washington. But, of course, the court is political.

Four liberals on the court and three conservatives plus Kennedy are looking at the exact same Constitution and coming to diametrically opposed views. That is why the justices are split 4-to-4 on forced union dues and the issue of religious liberty.

Some on the left are pointing to these splits as evidence of the urgent need to confirm Judge Merrick Garland. Their faux concern for the judicial confirmation process is pathetic. All they want is a five-vote majority in favor of their left-wing views.

A Tale Of Two Governors

Here’s tale of two governors. One is a tale of courage. The other is a tale of cowardice.

Governor Pat McCrory of North Carolina recently signed legislation that overturned a Charlotte city ordinance that allowed men who claimed to be women to use women’s restrooms. The new law creates a uniform policy that protects privacy rights and upholds common sense in public facilities.

It is sad that we even have to debate this issue today. But this is what happens when a culture can’t even get something as simple as marriage right.

The ACLU is vowing to sue the governor and, Roy Cooper, North Carolina’s attorney general, is refusing to defend the new law. Senate President Phil Berger is demanding Cooper resign. If he doesn’t, I suggest Senator Berger launch impeachment proceedings.

Where did Cooper get the idea that public officials in this nation of laws can pick and choose which laws they want to defend? Perhaps he got it from the Obama Administration, which routinely ignores laws it doesn’t like.

Needless to say, the left has come down on North Carolina like a ton of bricks. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo banned all non-essential state travel to North Carolina. Talk about hypocrisy! Cuomo is eager to go to Cuba, but not North Carolina.

Thankfully, Governor McCrory isn’t backing down, and is boldly defending the values and common sense of the people of North Carolina.

Meanwhile, Governor Nathan Deal of Georgia recently vetoed a religious liberty bill that would have protected pastors and faith-based organizations from being forced to participate in activities that violated their deeply held beliefs.

Corporate elites, including the NFL and Disney, threatened to pull business from Georgia if the legislation passed. So, compromise language was negotiated and sent to the governor’s desk.

Sadly, Governor Deal was unable to stand up to Hollywood and big business. He vetoed even that weakened bill, suggesting it was a solution in search of a problem.

I recommend that Governor Deal introduce himself to former Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran.

Notice the instincts of two officials involved here. North Carolina’s attorney general feels so strongly about his position that he throws caution to the wind and refuses to enforce the law.

The governor of Georgia goes in the exact opposite direction and refuses to allow the legislators of his state to enact a law that reflects the values of the citizens of his state.

If one side refuses to fight in a war, it’s called surrender.