The Scarlet Woman And The Scarlet Letter (Revelation 17:4)

HILLARY CLINTON’S STANCE ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS UNDERMINED BY HUSBAND BILL’S SEX SCANDALS 

JANUARY 21, 2016
Val Powell

Hillary Clinton is facing another speedbump in her presidential campaign following the comments made by Republican candidate Donald Trump in an interview last week.

The billionaire told Fox News in an interview last week that Clinton worked with her husband, former U.S. president Bill Clinton, in keeping his women out of the public’s lens.

“She’s not a victim. She was an enabler,” Trump, 69, said. “Some of these women have been destroyed, and Hillary worked with her husband.”

During Mr. Clinton’s campaign back in 1992, several accusations were thrown at him by women who claim that they had been sexually abused or were romantically involved with the presidential candidate.

In the report, Hillary Clinton thought that right-wing forces were using the testimonies to tarnish her husband’s campaign. As a natural response to protect her husband’s political ambitions, Mrs. Clinton supported an effort to “push back” on the women’s stories and disprove them.

The now-presidential candidate reportedly asked for help from longtime Clinton loyalist Betsey Wright in order to defend her husband against the accusations.

There are accounts of these instances in the book The Seduction of Hillary Rodham, which is written by David Brock. Interestingly, Brock is now a supporter for Clinton’s cause.

Another writer, Mark Paoletta, recently wrote an article for Real Clear Politics and took some excerpts from Brocks’ book to support Trump’s claims that Bill Clinton was a womanizer and that his wife, Hillary, tried to cover up the stories and defame the female victims.

In the book, Brock mentioned that Hillary Clinton kept “fighting behind the scenes to keep the press from exposing the unseemly aspects of life with her husband.”

The 68-year-old Democratic presidential candidate was described as “ruthless” in the book. The author also cited former political editor of the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette Rex Nelson, who said that the “women were called and told they’d make them look like whores if they came forward.”

In addition, Mrs. Clinton also hired two private investigators to conduct background checks on the female complainants. The surveillance of these investigators and the fear of becoming involved in a scandal intimidated the victims.

The alleged victims include Juanita Broaddrick, who claimed that she was raped by Bill, and Kathleen Wiley, who said the then-president “fondled” her just days after her husband committed suicide.

Perhaps the most well-known scandal is the story of Monica Lewinsky, an intern in the White House who allegedly had a sexual relationship with the commander-in-chief.

The book The Seduction of Hillary Rodham is definitely a must-read for people who want to know more about what happened during those scandalous years of the Clintons.Filled with statements from former Clinton apprentices and supporters, it is a source material that could turn the tide against Hillary Clinton.

In the two times that Mrs. Clinton campaigned for presidency, including this one, she has continually presented herself as a protector and upholder of women’s rights. As a result, her candidacy could get in really bad shape if such a cause is stained by her family history.

Trump knows this and has launched several subtle attacks and warnings against Clinton.

“Be careful Hillary as you play the war on women or women being degraded card,” the billionaire and TV personality posted on Twitter last month.

Now that the younger generation of women are beginning to know more about what happened in the past and how the Democrat candidate acted on it, they might just reconsider their choice.

Two weeks before the Iowa caucus, the Hillary Clinton campaign began to be threatened by the sudden surge of rival Senator Bernie Sanders in the polls.

The Great Oxymoron: American Political Ethics (Ezekiel 17)

Iran’s Khamenei Says Senators’ Letter Reflects Collapse Of US Political Ethics

March 14, 2015

By Iran Review

Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei has urged the Iranian negotiators in the nuclear talks with the P5+1 group of world powers to exercise vigilance over the subterfuge of the other side.

“The team assigned by President Hassan Rouhani to attend the talks constitute good, reliable and sympathetic individuals who are trying to secure the country’s interests,” said the Leader.
Nevertheless, the Leader expressed misgivings over potential duplicity by the P5+1 in the negotiations.

“Of course, I’m concerned because the other side is into deception, trickery and backstabbing,” Ayatollah Khamenei underlined.

The Leader also noted that the letter sent by US senators to Iranian officials revealed the collapse of political ethics in the US system.

Ayatollah Khamenei then underlined that the other parties to the talks, particularly the US, adopt a harsher tone whenever the deadline for reaching a comprehensive deal approaches.

“This is part of their ploys and tricks,” said the Leader.

Ayatollah Khamenei then lashed out at the White House for accusing Tehran of terrorism, dismissing the accusation as “ludicrous, cheap and disgusting.”

Elsewhere in the remarks, the Leader took a swipe at efforts aimed at tarnishing the image of Islam, saying “Islamophobia will backfire” and, instead, put Islam at the center of attention for people around the world.

Ayatollah Khamenei then noted that pure Islam, which supports the oppressed and is against oppression and reactionary attitudes, should be introduced and promoted.

Iran Review

Iran Review is a Tehran-based site that claims to be independent, non-governmental and non-partisan and representing scientific and professional approaches towards Iran’s political, economic, social, religious, and cultural affairs, its foreign policy, and regional and international issues within the framework of analysis and articles.

Dark Days Ahead For The White House (Ezekiel 17)

G.O.P. Senators’ Letter to Iran About Nuclear Deal Angers White House

By PETER BAKERMARCH 9, 2015

WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”
The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.

While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.

The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.
Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.

The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.

“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”

The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.

Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.

“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.
The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.

Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats, drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.

Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman, who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”

Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.

A Sign Of The End: Babylon Is Divided (Ezekiel 17)

G.O.P. Senators Write to Iran About Nuclear Deal

By PETER BAKERMARCH 9, 2015

WASHINGTON — The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to “leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president “with the stroke of a pen.”

The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it. Mr. Obama, working with leaders of five other world powers, argues that the pact would be the best way to keep Iran from obtaining a nuclear bomb. But critics from both parties say that such a deal would be a dangerous charade that would leave Iran with the opportunity to eventually build weapons that could be used against Israel or other foes.

Republicans sent an open letter to the leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran stating that if the nuclear weapons program was not approved by Congress, the Republican party would not acknowledge an agreement.

OPEN Document

While the possible agreement has drawn bipartisan criticism, the letter, signed only by Republicans, underscored the increasingly party-line flavor of the clash. Just last week, the Republican House speaker, John A. Boehner, gave Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel the platform of a joint meeting of Congress to denounce the developing deal, and Senate Republicans briefly tried to advance legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit it to Congress, alienating Democratic allies.

The letter came as Secretary of State John Kerry’s office announced that he would return to Switzerland on Sunday in hopes of completing the framework agreement before an end-of-March deadline. Under the terms being discussed, Iran would pare back its nuclear program enough so that it would be unable to produce enough fuel for a bomb in less than a year if it tried to break out of the agreement. The pact would last at least 10 years; in exchange the world powers would lift sanctions.

Whether the Republican letter might undercut Iran’s willingness to strike a deal was not clear. Iran reacted with scorn. “In our view, this letter has no legal value and is mostly a propaganda ploy,” Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran’s foreign minister, said in a statement. “It is very interesting that while negotiations are still in progress and while no agreement has been reached, some political pressure groups are so afraid even of the prospect of an agreement that they resort to unconventional methods, unprecedented in diplomatic history.”

A senior American official said the letter probably would not stop an agreement from being reached, but could make it harder to blame Iran if the talks fail. “The problem is if there is not an agreement, the perception of who is at fault is critically important to our ability to maintain pressure, and this type of thing would likely be used by the Iranians in that scenario,” said the official, who spoke anonymously to discuss the negotiations.

The White House and congressional Democrats expressed outrage, calling the letter an unprecedented violation of the tradition of leaving politics at the water’s edge. Republicans said that by styling it as an “open letter,” it was akin to a statement, not an overt intervention in the talks.

“It’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hard-liners in Iran,” Mr. Obama told reporters. “It’s an unusual coalition.”

Other Democrats were sharper. Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, called it “just the latest in an ongoing strategy, a partisan strategy, to undermine the president’s ability to conduct foreign policy.” Senator Harry M. Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said the “Republicans are undermining our commander in chief while empowering the ayatollahs.”

The letter, drafted by Senator Tom Cotton, a freshman from Arkansas, and signed by all but seven members of the Senate Republican majority, warned Iran that a deal with Mr. Obama might not stick. “The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen, and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time,” said the letter, whose existence was reported earlier by Bloomberg News.

Mr. Cotton said he drafted the letter because Iran’s leaders might not understand America’s constitutional system. He also said the terms of the emerging deal were dangerous because they would not be permanent and would leave Iran with nuclear infrastructure. He noted that four Republican senators who may run for president signed his letter and added that he tried without success to get Democrats to sign.

“The only thing unprecedented is an American president negotiating a nuclear deal with the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism without submitting it to Congress,” he said on CNN.

The letter revived an old debate about what role Congress should have in diplomacy.

Jim Wright, the Democratic House speaker during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, was accused of interfering when he met with opposing leaders in Nicaragua’s contra war. Three House Democrats went to Iraq in 2002 before President George W. Bush’s invasion to try to head off war. And Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, went to Syria in 2007 to meet with President Bashar al-Assad against the wishes of the Bush administration, which was trying to isolate him.

An agreement with Iran would not require immediate congressional action because Mr. Obama has the power to lift sanctions he imposed under his executive authority and to suspend others imposed by Congress. But permanently lifting those imposed by Congress, as Iran has sought, would eventually require a vote.

Rather than wait, Republicans, joined by several Democrats drafted legislation aimed at forcing Mr. Obama to submit the agreement to Congress. But when Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican majority leader, moved to advance that legislation for a vote, Democrats who support it balked at taking action before the talks with Iran concluded. Mr. McConnell backed off, but the bill may be revived if a deal is reached.

Among the Republicans who declined to sign Mr. Cotton’s letter was Senator Bob Corker of Tennessee, the Foreign Relations Committee chairman who has been working with Democrats on Iran legislation. “We’ve got a bipartisan effort that’s underway that has a chance of being successful, and while I understand all kinds of people want to weigh in,” he said, he concluded that it would not “be helpful in that effort for me to be involved in it.”

Some Democrats, like Representative Brad Sherman of California, said the letter and other moves risked making it a party-line issue, in which case it would be impossible to muster a two-thirds vote to override a presidential veto. “The number of Democrats not willing to follow the president’s lead is reduced when it becomes a personal or political issue,” he said.

Obama Gets A Valentine’s Card From Khamenei (Ezekiel 17)

Report: Iranian leader Khamenei sent Obama a secret letter

Citing an Iranian diplomat, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Iranian cleric had written to Obama in recent weeks in response to a presidential letter sent in October.

By Sandra Maler Feb. 14, 2015 | 2:41 AM | 5

REUTERS – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has responded to overtures from U.S. President Barack Obama amid nuclear talks by sending him a secret letter, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

Citing an Iranian diplomat, the paper said the Iranian cleric had written to Obama in recent weeks in response to a presidential letter sent in October.

Obama’s letter suggested the possibility of U.S.-Iranian cooperation in fighting Islamic State if a nuclear deal was secured, the paper said, quoting the diplomat.

Khamenei’s letter was “respectful” but noncommittal, it quoted the diplomat as saying.

Both the White House and the Iranian mission at the United Nations declined to comment on the report.

Khamenei said this week he could accept a compromise in the nuclear talks and gave his strongest defense yet of Iranian President Hassan Rohani’s decision to negotiate with the West, a policy opposed by powerful hardliners at home.

The nuclear talks with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are aimed at clinching an accord that would ease Western concerns that Tehran could pursue a covert nuclear weapons program, in return for the lifting of sanctions that have ravaged the Iranian economy.

Negotiators have set a June 30 final deadline for an accord, and Western officials have said they aim to agree on the substance of such a deal by March.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is due to address the U.S. Congress on Iran on March 3 – to the annoyance of the Obama administration – has vowed “to foil this bad and dangerous agreement.”

Obama Gets A Valentine’s Card From Khamenei (Ezekiel 17)

Report: Iranian leader Khamenei sent Obama a secret letter

Citing an Iranian diplomat, The Wall Street Journal reports that the Iranian cleric had written to Obama in recent weeks in response to a presidential letter sent in October.

By Sandra Maler Feb. 14, 2015 | 2:41 AM | 5

REUTERS – Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has responded to overtures from U.S. President Barack Obama amid nuclear talks by sending him a secret letter, the Wall Street Journal reported on Friday.

Citing an Iranian diplomat, the paper said the Iranian cleric had written to Obama in recent weeks in response to a presidential letter sent in October.

Obama’s letter suggested the possibility of U.S.-Iranian cooperation in fighting Islamic State if a nuclear deal was secured, the paper said, quoting the diplomat.

Khamenei’s letter was “respectful” but noncommittal, it quoted the diplomat as saying.

Both the White House and the Iranian mission at the United Nations declined to comment on the report.

Khamenei said this week he could accept a compromise in the nuclear talks and gave his strongest defense yet of Iranian President Hassan Rohani’s decision to negotiate with the West, a policy opposed by powerful hardliners at home.

The nuclear talks with the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany are aimed at clinching an accord that would ease Western concerns that Tehran could pursue a covert nuclear weapons program, in return for the lifting of sanctions that have ravaged the Iranian economy.

Negotiators have set a June 30 final deadline for an accord, and Western officials have said they aim to agree on the substance of such a deal by March.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is due to address the U.S. Congress on Iran on March 3 – to the annoyance of the Obama administration – has vowed “to foil this bad and dangerous agreement.”

Not A Good Precedence

Foreign Policy: The Case for Writing to Khamenei

Breitbart
 
by Joel B. Pollak 10 Nov 2014

At Foreign Policy, Trita Parsi makes the best case possible for President Barack Obama’s recent letter to Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Parsi’s argument proceeds on the assumption–we cannot know for sure, since no one outside the White House has seen the text, apparently–that Obama was offering to trade a nuclear deal for cooperation in fighting the Islamic State terror organization. She mocks those, like John McCain, who object.

It is worth pointing out that the Obama administration itself has insisted there is no linkage at all between the nuclear issue and the Islamic State question–so they are denying the deal Parsi is defending. But suppose that they are obfuscating to protect whatever negotiations are ongoing. Parsi’s point is that both the U.S. and Iran have an interest in defeating the Islamic State, and that even George W. Bush worked with Iran on Al Qaeda.

However, if both have that shared interest, surely Iran would want to fight ISIS even absent a nuclear deal? It is not clear, in Parsi’s analysis, why Obama should want to trade away nuclear concessions, or what he might hope to gain in a deal that he would not otherwise receive.

Our allies also consider a nuclear Iran to be a greater threat–a fact Parsi sidesteps by casting it as a question over whether Obama should have consulted Israel.

Nuclear concessions, if they are even on the table, ought to buy far more than a war against ISIS that Iran is already fighting, and which it possibly believes it can win, at least to its own satisfaction, without us.

Obama ought to demand Iranian withdrawal from Syria, a complete end to support for terror groups, political freedom for dissidents inside Iran–in short, concessions that will weaken the regime instead of strengthening it.

It is also unclear why Obama, who presumably is in the stronger bargaining position (according to Parsi), would perform the odd gesture of circumventing his own diplomatic team, as well as the new “reformist” Iranian president, to offer what appears to be a kind of supplication, offering yet another opportunity for the regime to humiliate the U.S. (Khamenei’s effective response was to tweet a plan for Israel’s destruction.)

Parsi also fails to address the substance of a proposed nuclear deal, or whether the regime can be trusted to abide by one. She ends by accusing Obama’s critics of bad motives–of wanting war at any cost. “Iran is simply too valuable of an enemy,” she says, accusing (implicitly) the pro-Israel lobby of believing that “a peaceful Middle East is something to avoid at all costs.”

Parsi might, more plausibly, be accused of wanting peace at any price.

Senior Editor-at-Large Joel B. Pollak edits Breitbart California and is the author of the new ebook, Wacko Birds: The Fall (and Rise) of the Tea Party, available for Amazon Kindle.
Follow Joel on Twitter: @joelpollak

Dealing With The Devil

Obama Betrays The United States In Secret Letter To Iran

L. TODD WOOD — NOVEMBER 7, 2014

The letter to Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei supposedly went something like this: you help us in the fight against the Islamic State and we will look the other way in your effort to develop and acquire a nuclear weapons capability.

This letter was from the President of the United States.

In short, Obama is willing to sell out our national security in the process of making himself look good in fighting the new terrorist entity in Iraq. (Yes, the Iraq where he removed troops to get reelected, the consequences to America’s security be damned.)

Now the American public, and his Rasputin advisor, has told Obama that ISIS is a problem. They have told him that he will go down in history as the president who lost the Middle East, who maybe was a terrorist himself. He cannot afford this in his legacy, so he will do anything to prevent this narrative.

This includes allowing a forsworn enemy of Israel and America to get the atomic bomb. Iran has declared multiple times in recent memory that their goal is the destruction of Israel, the Jewish State. They have supported terrorism all around the world, not just the Middle East.

The Islamic state is a jihadist state that wants nuclear weapons. Iran IS a jihadist state that WILL SOON HAVE nuclear weapons.

Many experts are now voicing the fact that the existence of Obama’s letter destroys all chances of Iran being pressured into halting the development of nuclear weapons. Obama doesn’t care about this. He never cared about this.

This was his plan all along. Just like Iran, he delayed, he looked the other way, he negotiated, and now he has dealt with the devil himself. The only problem is he just got caught.

I don’t think the existence of this letter was meant to be public. Now, he will scramble to deny, obfuscate, and generally just ignore the weak mainstream media as they make feeble attempts to hold him accountable.

This episode is just another example of the treasonous nature of this administration. I have said multiple times that he is the Manchurian president, not concerned with the security of our country. No, he has a much darker agenda.

We will not understand the full evil of his presidency until long after he is gone and the truth comes out. That is, IF he leaves office in 2016.

The Four Letter Word For Obama Politics … NUKE

Source says reported letter from Obama to Ayatollah ‘f***s up everything’

 
Published November 06, 2014

 

FoxNews.com

President Obama reportedly penned a secret letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month discussing their shared interest in fighting the Islamic State — a development one congressional source told Fox News “f***s up everything.”

The Wall Street Journal reported Thursday that, according to people briefed on the letter, Obama wrote to Khamenei in the middle of last month and stressed that any cooperation on dealing with the Islamic State, or ISIS, was tied to Iran striking a deal over its nuclear program. The U.S., Iran and other negotiators are facing a Nov. 24 deadline for such a deal.

A senior congressional source told Fox News that there is not anything definitive as to whether the letter even exists. But the source indicated they don’t doubt that it’s true because “we’ve seen [the president] do it before, so there is [a] precedent.”

According to the Journal, Obama has written to Khamenei four times now since taking office.

The congressional source told Fox News that the letter would upset the inroads they’ve tried to make with “the Sunni league,” noting that the president should have informed Congress of this back-channel if it was in fact going on.

“This f***s up everything,” the source said.

Iran’s government is Shiite-led, while the Islamic State is a Sunni terror group. The source was apparently referring to efforts to rally support among Sunni-led Arab states to confront ISIS.

Republican Senators John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina issued a joint statement Thursday night saying it was “outrageous that, while the cries of moderate Syrian forces for greater U.S. assistance fall on deaf ears in the White House, President Obama is apparently urging Ayatollah Khamenei to join the fight against ISIS.

Asked about the reported letter, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest would not confirm the report.

“I’m not in a position to discuss private correspondence between the president and any world leader,” he said.

However, he said the U.S. policy toward Iran “remains unchanged.”

“The United States will not cooperate militarily with Iran in that effort [against ISIS]. We won’t share intelligence with them,” he said. “But their interests in the outcome is something that’s been widely commented on … and something that on a couple of occasions has been discussed on the sidelines of other conversations.”

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.