Relatives of the Coptic Christians beheaded last month by jihadists in Libya – their deaths immortalized in a gory video set against the backdrop of a Mediterranean beach – are facing new extremist-Muslim violence as they seek to build a church to honor their murdered loved ones.

An angry mob in the Upper Egyptian village of Al Our – the proposed site of the church because it was home to 13 of the 21 Christians murdered in the mass “beachfront” decapitation – descended on the community’s current church after the midday Islamic prayer Friday and chanted that they’d never allow construction of the new place of worship to begin, witnesses told Egyptian activists in the U.S.

“There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.” – Mina Abdelmalak, Coptic Christian

Things turned far uglier after nightfall, the witnesses said, as a smaller number of individuals threw Molotov cocktails and stones at the church, injuring several people, and setting cars ablaze, including one that belonged to a relative of one of the victims of the Libyan massacre.

“The police came, but after the attack,” said Mina Abdelmalak, a Coptic Christian living in Washington who is in close contact with the witnesses to the events in Al Our. “There were already cars on fire. People had been bloodied. Stones and bricks had been thrown.”

Some protesters also appeared at the family home of massacre victim Samuel Alham Wilson, but, in a gesture that provided some hope, were chased off by Muslim neighbors when the protesters started throwing stones.

Copts are the native Christians of Egypt, accounting for about 10 percent of the country’s 88 million people.

While they have traditionally faced varying levels of persecution in the mainly Muslim country, the Copts of Al Our — a village on the Nile about 125 miles south of Cairo — have additionally been in deep mourning since the Islamic State released its video Feb. 15 showing the beheading of the Christians — 20 of them Copts, the other from Ghana.

The 13 from Al Our – like their fellow Christians with whom they died – had gone to Libya to seek work because their poverty-stricken home communities offered none or little that was viable.

Abdelmalak told FoxNews.com that the Al Our Copts had sought permission from Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi to build a church to honor the loss of their loved ones and the others who died with them.

Until recently, such high-level permission was necessary to carry out even minor repairs on churches in Egypt, while similar permissions are not necessary for the building of mosques.

But the Friday attacks on the Copts have driven a further wedge between the village’s Christian and Muslim communities — and are seen as particularly insensitive in light of the losses suffered because of the massacre in Libya.

“This is a classic issue in Egypt,” said Abdelmalak. “Even after you struggle to get permission from the president to build a church, you still have to face the mob, which rejects the idea of having a church built in their neighborhood.”

A Coptic news Facebook page displays pictures of men with facial injuries it says they suffered during the attack on the church.

“I fear that the security [services] will as usual issue a report saying that the situation in the village [is so bad] that [they] will not [now] allow us to build a new church,” says the author of the entry, according to a translation from Arabic.

After receiving presidential permission for construction, the Coptic community bought some land, but local Muslims objected to its positioning at the entrance to the village, according to Daily News Egypt, which publishes in English.

A new location outside the village is now eyed following a meeting between Muslim and Coptic residents that the regional governor brokered.

“This has been effectively imposed on the Coptic residents,” Abdelmalak said. “Dictates to the Christian community are always presented as agreements.”

A report in Arabic in the al-Masry al-Youm newspaper said “tens of residents” protested against the building of the new church, despite presidential approval for the project.

“Witnesses from the village said protesters repeated chants saying, ‘Whatever you do, there won’t be a church on the ground.’”

Abdelmalak said the words in original Arabic rhymed and would have instilled fear by sounding like the aggressive chants heard in European soccer stadiums.

He added that police arrested several members of the mob, but released them a few hours later.

By Steven Edwards

The New Testament of the Bible contains the story of the life of Jesus Christ. Within its pages is recounted how He was crucified on Friday, and his body was hastily removed from the cross and placed into a tomb hewn into the rock, with very little time to appropriately prepare the body for final burial before the Jewish Sabbath started at sunset.

It was early Sunday morning when Mary Magdalene and other women disciples arrived at the tomb to enter the sepulcher and prepare His body. Suddenly there was a great earthquake and an angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat on it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow.

The angel said, “Fear not: for I know that you seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is arisen. Come, see the place where the Lord lay.” He then instructed the women to go and tell Jesus’ disciples that He was risen from the dead and that He would go before them to Galilee; and there they would see Him.

The others ran to tell the Apostles what they had seen and heard, but Mary stood at the door of the sepulcher weeping. As she wept, she stooped down, and looked into the sepulcher, and saw two angels in white sitting, one at the head and the other at the feet where the body of Jesus had lain.

They said to her, “Woman, why are you weeping?”

She said, “Because they have taken away my Lord, and I know not where they have laid him.”

And when she had spoken she turned back, and saw Jesus standing, but knew not that it was Him. He spoke to her and said, “Woman, why are you crying? Whom do you seek?”

She, supposing him to be the gardener, said, “Sir, if you have borne him away, tell me where you have laid him, and I will take him away.”

Jesus said, “Mary.”

Suddenly recognizing His voice, she turned herself and said to him, “Rabboni,” which is to say, Master.

Jesus said to her, “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say to them, ‘I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.’”

What is the significance of this story nearly 2,000 years later? Each of us must decide its implications and importance for ourselves, and apply its lessons in our own lives as we interpret the message for ourselves. John, the Apostle who recorded this version of the incident gives us his own explanation of why he recorded it: “But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, ye might have life through his name.”

PUBLIUS

As the deadline for an agreement draws near, it is looking more and more like the proposed nuclear deal with Iran is a really bad deal.

Not that we didn’t already know this, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has warned about a bad deal, as has a majority of Congress.

But now comes confirmation of just how one-sided the negotiations have been, straight from a top Iranian official in Switzerland for the nuclear talks who has defected to the West.

“The US negotiating team are mainly there to speak on Iran’s behalf with other members of the 5+1 countries and convince them of a deal,” said Amir Hossein Motaghi, exposing U.S. President Barack Obama’s seeming obsession with reaching any sort of deal with Iran.

Motaghi was a close media aide for Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and was the head of his public relations team and social media efforts during his 2013 election campaign.

But now, according to The U.K. Telegraph, Motaghi has sought asylum in Switzerland, denouncing both the government of his home country and the ongoing nuclear talks.

Motaghi said that he quit his job with the Iran Students Correspondents Association, having become disillusioned with his job as a reporter due to the fact that he was only allowed to write about what he was told to write about.

“My conscience would not allow me to carry out my profession in this manner any more,” said Motaghi, as he went on to reveal that a number of so-called “journalists” at the nuclear talks are only there to ensure that all news makes it back to Iran through the proper channels.

This man took a courageous step to expose the ongoing nuclear talks and can likely never return to Tehran, as he would probably be arrested and forgotten in prison.

Hopefully, as more information surrounding the one-sided horribleness of the impending nuclear deal leaks out, it will prove too much.

It seems that the best possible outcome now would be for the talks to fall apart, dashing Obama’s hopes for his legacy moment — proclaiming peace in our time while Iran celebrates nukes in no time.

Senate Republicans are renewing efforts to learn why Huma Abedin, a top assistant to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, was allowed to keep working at the agency under a special, part-time status while also being employed at a politically-connected consulting firm.

The new requests are being made by Iowa GOP Sen. Chuck Grassley, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, following revelations that both women used a private Internet server and email accounts for State Department correspondence.

Grassley says the earlier requests to the department have been largely ignored, so the new ones have gone to the department’s inspector general and to Secretary of State John Kerry, seeking their involvement.

Grassley’s probe started in 2013, when he requested all communications between Abedin, after she switched from a full-time deputy chief of staff for Clinton to a part-timer, then started working for Teneo, a consulting firm that says it “brings together the disciplines of government and public affairs.”

A July 2013 letter from the department to Grassley, provide by the senator’s office, states Abedin worked full-time from January 2009 to June 2012. It also states Abedin did not list outside employment upon ending her full-time employment and that the department retained her as an adviser-expert at the hourly rate of a SGA GS-15/10.

The most recent available federal documents show the rate as $74.51 with a maximum pay of $155,500 annually.

“A number of conflict-of-interest concerns arise when a government employee is simultaneously being paid by a private company, especially when that company (is) Teneo,” Grassley said in the March 19 letter to Kerry that also raised concerns about Abedin and other department employees appearing to have been “improperly categorized” as special government employees, or SGEs.

Grassley says he specifically wants to know “what steps the department took to ensure that … Abedin’s outside employment with a political-intelligence and corporate-advisory firm did not conflict with her simultaneous employment at the State Department.”

The letter to department Inspector General Steve Linick also questions whether the department’s “excessive” use of SGE designations undermines ethics standards and if Clinton and Abedin’s private emails have the potential to impede the department from fulfilling Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, requests, over which the upper chamber’s Judiciary Committee has legislative jurisdiction.

Grassley says the department’s answers have so far been “largely unresponsive” and points to a November 2014 response that in part states “an individual may receive an SGE designation if he or she is joining the department from the private sector or is coming from another government position.”

However, Abedin came neither from the private sector nor another government position, Grassley argues.

“She converted from a full-time employee … with seemingly little difference in her job description or responsibilities,” he wrote.

Grassley also argues that the purpose of the SGE program is to help the government get temporary services from people with special knowledge and skills whose principal employment is outside the government.

However, Abedin essentially kept the same job and was subsequently hired by Teneo and the Clinton Global Initiative.

“It is unclear what special knowledge or skills Ms. Abedin possessed that the government could not have easily obtained otherwise from regular government employees,” Grassley wrote.

The State Department says Abedin was an SGE until February 2013, essentially doing the same job that she did as a full-time employee, advising on Clinton’s schedule and travel. It also states she reviewed department ethics guidelines but was allows to work part-time without a new security clearance.

Grassley also says the department’s current use of the SGE designation “blurs the line between public and private sector employees” and that department employees getting full-time salaries for what appears to be part-time work is “especially troubling.”

“The taxpayer deserves to know,” Grassley wrote.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid announced Friday he will retire at the end of his term, closing a long and controversial career in Congress that spanned four decades.

The five-term Nevada Democratic senator announced the decision in a YouTube video message.

Appearing with bruises on his face from a recent at-home exercising accident, Reid, 75, said the injury has allowed him and his family to have a “little down-time,” giving him time to think.

“We’ve got to be more concerned about the country, the Senate, the state of Nevada than us. And as a result of that, I’m not going to run for reelection,” the senator said in the video.

Reid, ribbing his Republican counterpart, added: “My friend, Senator McConnell, don’t be too elated. I’m going to be here for twenty-two months.”

Reid has been a controversial figure, and during his tenure as majority leader was blamed by Republicans for much of the dysfunction in the chamber. Republicans won the majority last fall.

“On the verge of losing his own election and after losing the majority, Senator Harry Reid has decided to hang up his rusty spurs,” National Republican Senatorial Committee Director Ward Baker said in a statement welcoming the announcement.

Praise from fellow Democrats, meanwhile, was effusive.

“Harry is one of the best human beings I’ve ever met,” Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said. “His character and fundamental decency are at the core of why he’s been such a successful and beloved leader.”

First elected to the Senate in 1986, Reid previously served in the House. He has endured tough re-election battles in 1998, 2004 and most recently 2010 — against Tea Party-backed candidate Sharron Angle.

Among other decisions, Reid will be remembered for allowing the so-called “nuclear option” in late 2013, when he unilaterally moved to change Senate rules to allow a simple majority vote to overcome filibusters for certain nominations. While procedural, the change was significant because it meant the Senate no longer needed the usual 60 votes to advance on controversial nominations.

Republicans quickly gloated that his seat would be a prime pickup opportunity in 2016. GOP figures ranging from Nevada Gov. Brian Sandoval to Rep. Joe Heck and others could be interested.

Though Reid plans to serve out his term, his departure also touches off a leadership battle among Democrats. Schumer, Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin, D-Ill., and others would likely be in contention.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report. 

It didn’t take long for the major media to attack Senator Ted Cruz. In fact, they started before his Monday announcement that he’s running for president. On Sunday, “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd teased an interview with California Governor Jerry Brown who said Cruz is “unfit” to be president. His reason? Cruz doesn’t agree there is sufficient scientific evidence proving climate change.

Monday morning, the commentators at MSNBC were after Cruz. One compared him to 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain and his “9-9-9 plan” and another compared him to Sarah Palin. Can’t win. No chance, some of them said.

Next for Cruz is the discovery of a first name he wasn’t given at birth: “extremist.” The media love to label conservatives, but rarely do they label liberals. To them no liberal is “extreme,” or extreme enough.

In our age of identity politics, you might think the media would mention Cruz’s Latino background, but you would think wrongly. Neither have they mentioned the comments by liberal professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School, who said this about the Texas Republican Senator: “He had brilliant insights and was clearly among the top students, as revealed by his class responses.” Cruz graduated magna cum laude from the law school.

Cruz’s coming out speech at Liberty University hit all the right notes, especially when he called for elimination of the hated IRS reform of the tax code and stronger support for Israel. He has a great personal story, which will resonate well with the conservative and especially evangelical Christian base.

Can he win the nomination and the general election with less than one full term as a senator? The current one did – twice.

Cal Thomas is America’s most widely syndicated op-ed columnist. His latest book is “What Works: Common Sense Solutions for a Stronger America” is available in bookstores now. Readers may email Cal Thomas at tcaeditors@tribune.com

ESPN host Stephen A. Smith says that if every African-American voted Republican for one election, it would send a strong message to the GOP that their vote is important.

“What I dream is that for one election, just one, every black person in America vote Republican,” Smith said Tuesday during an appearance at Vanderbilt University, according to audio published by Breitbart.com.

During the 2012 presidential election, an overwhelming 93 percent of black voters supported President Barack Obama, while just 6 percent voted for Republican challenger Mitt Romney.

“Black folks in America are telling one party, ‘We don’t give a damn about you,’” Smith said. “They’re telling the other party, ‘You’ve got our vote.’ Therefore, you have labeled yourself ‘disenfranchised’ because one party knows they’ve got you under their thumb, the other party knows they’ll never get you and nobody comes to address your interest[s].”

Smith compared voting with “shopping around” to let store owners know they have to cater to you to win your business.

“We don’t do that with politics, and then we blame white America for our disenfranchisement,” he said.

TV personality Stephen A. Smith attends ESPN the Party at WestWorld of Scottsdale on January 30, 201 …

The “First Take” commentator is known for being outspoken.

Earlier this month, Smith suggested that Philadelphia Eagles coach Chip Kelly was racist for trading away black players like LeSean McCoy, DeSean Jackson and Jeremy Maclin while keeping Riley Cooper, a white receiver who was fined by the team in 2013 for using the N-word at a Kenny Chesney concert.

“Chip Kelly makes decisions over the last couple of years that, dare I say, leave a few brothers feeling uncomfortable,” Smith said. “I think that’s fair to say. I mean, we’re sitting here looking at some of the decisions that Chip Kelly makes, and I’m like, what is up? What’s up with that? I mean, it’s like you’ve got to be his kind of guy, you know? And I’m like, well, Riley Cooper’s your kind of guy?”

Last year, Smith was suspended by ESPN after he made controversial comments suggesting that Janay Palmer, the wife of Baltimore Ravens running back Ray Rice, could have done something to prevent the domestic violence incident that was caught on tape in an Atlantic City elevator.

Smith later apologized.

“I made what can only amount to the most egregious error of my career,” Smith said. “My words came across that it is somehow a woman’s fault. This was not my intent. It is not what I was trying to say.”

Related video:

By Dylan Stableford

A federal judge sharply scolded a Justice Department attorney at a hearing on President Obama’s immigration executive actions, suggesting that the administration misled him on a key part of the program — and that he fell for it, “like an idiot.”

The testy court hearing was held Thursday in Texas by U.S. District Judge Andrew Hanen. The judge suggested he could order sanctions against the administration if he finds they indeed misrepresented the facts.

At issue is whether the DOJ misled the judge into believing that a plank of the Obama program — giving deportation reprieves to thousands of young illegal immigrants brought to the U.S. as children — would not go forward before he made a ruling on a request to halt it. In fact, federal officials had given more than 108,000 people three-year reprieves before that date and granted them work permits under the program.

Obama’s executive actions would spare from deportation as many as 5 million people who are in the U.S. illegally. Many Republicans oppose the actions, saying only Congress has the right to take such sweeping action. Twenty-six states led by Texas joined together to challenge them as unconstitutional. Hanen on Feb. 16 sided with the states, issuing a preliminary injunction blocking Obama’s actions.

Hanen chided Justice Department attorney Kathleen Hartnett for telling him at a January hearing before the injunction was issued that nothing would be happening with regard to one key part of Obama’s actions, an expansion of the 2012 Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, known as DACA, until Feb. 18.

“Like an idiot I believed that,” Hanen said.

A flustered Hartnett repeatedly apologized to Hanen for any confusion related to how the reprieves and work permits were granted.

“We strive to be as candid as possible. It truly became clear to us there was confusion on this point,” she said.

Hartnett continued to insist that the 108,081 reprieves had been granted under 2012 guidelines, which were not stopped by the injunction, and that government attorneys hadn’t properly explained this because they had been focused on other parts of the proposed action.

But Hanen pointed out that the 2012 guidelines only granted two-year reprieves and that three-year reprieves are being proposed under the program now on hold.

“Can I trust what the president says? That’s a yes or no question,” Hanen asked.

“Yes your honor,” Hartnett replied.

The states asked that Hanen consider issuing sanctions because Justice Department attorneys had made “representations (that) proved not to be true or at a minimum less than forthcoming,” said Angela Colmenero, a lawyer with the Texas Attorney General’s Office, the lead attorney for the states.

Colmenero said the three-year reprieves that were granted might have caused the states economic harm as the states may have already issued various benefits, including driver’s licenses, to immigrants who received a reprieve.

“There is absolutely no basis for sanctions here,” Hartnett said. “The government is absolutely trying to do the right thing.”

Hanen said he would issue a ruling “promptly” on what action, if any, he will take against the Justice Department.

The federal government has asked the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans to lift Hanen’s injunction while the case is appealed.

The other states seeking to block Obama’s orders are Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

While discussing money in politics on Wednesday, President Obama broached a topic normally confined to academic circles: A law requiring people to vote.

“In Australia, and some other countries, there’s mandatory voting,” Obama said while taking questions at the City Club of Cleveland. “It would be transformative if everybody voted. That would counteract money more than anything.”

Over the years, a variety of political scientists have mused on the idea of requiring people to vote, citing the consistently poor turnout in U.S. elections. Critics have questioned the practicality of passing and enforcing such a requirement; others say that freedom also means the freedom not to do something.

As Obama noted, however, other countries to do have mandatory voting laws.

In addition to Australia, the Associated Press reported that “at least two dozen countries have some form of compulsory voting, including Belgium, Brazil and Argentina. In many systems, absconders must provide a valid excuse or face a fine, although a few countries have laws on the books that allow for potential imprisonment.”

During his Cleveland remarks, Obama noted that many young people, minorities, and low income workers tend not to vote, and that some lawmakers want to discourage them from doing so.

Getting more people to vote would “completely change the political map in this country,” Obama said.

Also reports the Associated Press:

“Less than 37% of eligible voters cast ballots in the 2014 midterms, according to the United States Election Project. And a Pew Research Center study found that those avoiding the polls in 2014 tended to be younger, poorer, less educated and more racially diverse.”

USA TODAY

Obama Administration poured millions of US taxpayer dollars into Israeli elections, busing thousands of Arabs to Polls, but Netanyahu wins anyway.

Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu began working Wednesday to form a coalition government with nationalist and ultra-Orthodox Jewish parties after his conservative Likud party scored a resounding and surprising victory following a fractious election campaign.

Netanyahu said that he had spoken with the heads of five other parties that he hoped to bring into his government, adding that he hopes to complete the delicate task in “two to three weeks.”

“The reality isn’t waiting on us,” Netanyahu said in a statement. “Reality isn’t taking a break. The citizens of Israel expect us to quickly put together a leadership that will work for the sake of the country’s security, economy, and society as we promised to do, and that is what I will do.”

Netanyahu’s main rival — Isaac Herzog of the centrist Zionist Union — confirmed Wednesday that he had called the incumbent to congratulate him on his victory.

“I wished him luck, but let it be clear, the problems are the same problems, nothing has changed,” said Herzog, who attempted to make economic and social issues the focus of the campaign in contrast to Netanyahu’s focus on security. Herzog also vowed that his party would serve as “an alternative in every area” to Likud.

According to official results reported in Israeli media early Wednesday, Likud had won at least 29 seats in the 120-member Knesset, five more than Herzog’s centrist Zionist Union. No other party had more than 14 seats, and a party or coalition must have at least 61 seats to form a government. A key bloc that could sew up Netanyahu’s premiership is Kulanu, another centrist party lead by former government minister Moshe Kahlon that was projected to earn 10 seats in the latest figures.

Kahlon, whose campaign focused almost entirely on bread-and-butter economic issues, refused to take sides.

“I am loyal to my way,” he told his supporters, saying he would work to form a government committed to social justice.

Likud significantly outperformed all the polls in the run-up to the election, all of which had predicted a second-place finish for the party behind the Zionist Union. Netanyahu claimed victory early Wednesday in a speech to cheering supporters at party headquarters in Tel Aviv.

“Against all the odds we obtained a great victory for the Likud,” Netanyahu told the gathering. “Now we must form a strong and stable government that will ensure Israel’s security and welfare,” he added, in comments aimed at Kahlon.

At a rally of his supporters, Herzog had vowed to do his utmost to form a government and said he too had reached out to potential coalition partners. However, his effort to build a coalition was complicated by the possibility of having to rely on support from a new Arab alliance that was projected to capture 14 seats. But Arab parties have never sat in an Israeli coalition before.

Stav Shaffir, a leader of the Zionist Union, called the results a “clear vote of no confidence in Netanyahu.”

Netanyahu had ruled out a “unity” government with the Zionist Union that would give him a broader coalition, and Herzog had also been cool to the idea without explicitly dismissing the prospect.

President Reuven Rivlin will now spend the next few days consulting with the various parties, whose leaders will all offer recommendations for who should be prime minister.

The final weeks of the campaign had become a referendum on Netanyahu, a towering figure in Israeli politics who has spent more time as Prime Minister than anyone except the country’s founding father, David Ben-Gurion.

Netanyahu, who already has a testy relationship with President Barack Obama, took a sharp turn to the right in the final days of the campaign, staking out a series of hard-line positions that will put him at odds with the international community.

In his most dramatic policy reversal, he said he now opposes the creation of a Palestinian state — a key policy goal of the White House and the international community. He also promised to expand construction in Jewish areas of east Jerusalem, the section of the city claimed by the Palestinians as their capital.

Netanyahu infuriated the White House early this month when he delivered a speech to the U.S. Congress criticizing an emerging nuclear deal with Iran. The speech was arranged with Republican leaders and not coordinated with the White House ahead of time.

In Washington, White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Obama was confident strong U.S.-Israeli ties would endure far beyond the election regardless of the victor.

The Palestinians, fed up after years of deadlock with Netanyahu, are now likely to press ahead with their attempts to bring war crimes charges against Israel in the International Criminal Court.

“What Netanyahu is doing and stating are war crimes and if the international community wants peace it should make Netanyahu accountable for his acts,” said Palestinian official Saeb Erekat. He said the Palestinian leadership will meet Thursday to discuss its next steps.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned Monday that a potential nuclear deal with Iran “could threaten the survival of Israel,” as he kicked off a contentious visit to the United States meant to build the case against such an agreement.

The centerpiece of his visit will be an address to Congress on Tuesday. But speaking first to The American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Washington, the Israeli leader underscored the dangers he said are posed by Iran, which he called the world’s “foremost sponsor of state terrorism.”

“Iran envelops the entire world with its tentacles of terror,” he said, displaying a map showing various connections between Iran and terror groups. He warned Iran could pursue Israel’s destruction if it obtained a nuclear weapon.

“We must not let that happen,” Netanyahu said.

Both the Obama and Netanyahu administrations, as a matter of policy, agree that Iran must not be able to obtain a nuclear weapon. But the Israeli leader has concerns that the framework of the current diplomatic talks could lead to an ineffective deal.

His address to Congress on Tuesday has meanwhile become the source of immense tension between the two governments. The speech was arranged at the invitation of House Speaker John Boehner, but without the involvement of President Obama. Some Democrats plan to boycott that speech, and the U.S. president has no plans to meet with the prime minister — though the White House insists this is out of a desire not to appear to be influencing upcoming Israeli elections. On Sunday, Secretary of State John Kerry said in an interview with ABC’s “This Week,” before he arrived in Switzerland for talks with Iran’s foreign minister, that the administration did not want the event “turned into some great political football.”

But it appeared too late for that. With accusations flying on Capitol Hill, Netanyahu’s visit has plunged the rocky Obama-Netanyahu relationship to perhaps its lowest point.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., told Fox News on Monday this is the “worst” he’s ever seen the U.S.-Israel relationship. He claimed critics are acting “in such a hysterical fashion” because they’re concerned Netanyahu will make a “compelling argument” against the pending Iran agreement.

Netanyahu, though, stressed Monday that the alliance is “stronger than ever” despite the current disagreement, as he gently mocked the recent media coverage.

“Never has so much been written about a speech that hasn’t been given,” he said. Netanyahu also said he meant no “disrespect” to Obama or his office in agreeing to address Congress. He said he “deeply” appreciates all Obama has done for Israel and did not intend to “inject Israel into the American partisan debate.”

But he said he had a “moral obligation” to speak up about the dangers Israel faces, and stressed that these dangers are, for his country, a matter of “survival.”

The prime minister’s address was to be bracketed by speeches from two senior U.S. officials: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National Security Adviser Susan Rice.

Power, who spoke Monday morning, tried to ease tensions and offer assurances of the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. She said that partnership “transcends politics” and always will.

She stressed that diplomacy with Iran is the “preferred route” but the U.S. will keep its security commitments.

“The United States of America will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, period,” she said. “There will never be a sunset on America’s commitment to Israel’s security.”

In Washington, Netanyahu has positioned himself squarely against the Obama administration on the issue of the Iran talks. The Israeli leader is expected to press his opposition to a diplomatic accommodation of Iran’s program in his speech Tuesday to Congress.

“We are not here to offend President Obama whom we respect very much,” said a Netanyahu adviser, who was not authorized to be identified. “The prime minister is here to warn, in front of any stage possible, the dangers” of the agreement that may be taking shape.

The adviser, who spoke shortly before the delegation touched down in Washington, said Israel was well aware of the details of the emerging nuclear deal and they included Western compromises that were dangerous for Israel. Still, he tried to lower tensions by saying that Israel “does not oppose every deal” and was merely doing its best to warn the U.S. of the risks entailed in the current one.

The Obama administration apparently is concerned about the details Netanyahu might discuss. An Associated Press journalist traveling with Kerry in Geneva tweeted Monday that Kerry said the U.S. is concerned by reports that “selective details” of the talks may be revealed.

Netanyahu considers unacceptable any deal that does not entirely end Iran’s nuclear program. But Obama is willing to leave some nuclear activity intact, backed by safeguards that Iran is not trying to develop a weapon. Iran insists its program is solely for peaceful energy and medical research.

The invitation to speak to Congress extended by Boehner, R-Ohio, and Netanyahu’s acceptance have caused an uproar that has exposed tensions between Israel and the U.S., its most important ally.

By consenting to speak, Netanyahu angered the White House, which was not consulted in advance, and Democrats, who were forced to choose between showing support for Israel and backing the president.

Netanyahu’s visit comes as Congress weighs legislation to trigger more sanctions against Iran if talks fail. Obama adamantly opposes that bill, but supporters could use Netanyahu’s expected warnings to build their case for it.

FoxNews.com / The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Reports of possible deal on DHS funding reignites chatter about Boehner ouster

Multiple reports that House Speaker John Boehner has cut a deal to pass a long-term funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security without ties to rolling back President Obama’s executive action on immigration has reignited rumblings about a Boehner coup.

The deal was purportedly struck as the House agreed late Friday night to fund the agency for seven days to avoid a partial shutdown.

At least one congressional aide said the deal between Boehner and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi was to get enough Democratic votes in the Republican-led chamber to avoid the shutdown at midnight Friday, in exchange for Boehner’s promise to allow a vote next week on a long-term funding bill “clean” of the immigration issue.

Boehner spokesman Mike Steel told Fox News that such a deal doesn’t exist. Pelosi’s office has neither confirmed nor denied such a deal.

The calls for Boehner’s ouster appear to be coming mostly from the 50-plus, most-conservative members who formed the new Freedom Caucus. And they appear to be growing more restless.

The number of House Republicans who voted Friday night against the 7-day funding for DHS was 55, compared to 52 who voted against the failed 3-week funding bill earlier in the evening.

The party’s most conservative wing tried unsuccessfully in January, at the start of the 114th Congress, to replace Boehner.

A dozen House Republicans either voted for somebody else or didn’t cast a vote.

Ousting a House speaker is unprecedented. Electing a House speaker and thus trying to remove one is a “privileged” effort in the lower chamber. Privileged resolutions can skip to the front of the legislative line and not be sidetracked by leadership.

Jefferson’s Manual, crafted by Thomas Jefferson and still used today as one of the main sources for House operations, says the following:

“A Speaker may be removed at the will of the House and a Speaker pro tempore appointed.”

But it’s unclear how that process happens since no speaker has ever faced a challenge in the middle of the Congress.

Boehner opponents could write a “privileged” resolution declaring that the speakership is vacant. The House would then vote on that motion or possibly vote to table or kill it.

The closest the House ever got to this scenario came during the failed coup attempt in July 1997 on House Speaker Newt Gingrich, R-Ga.

They tried to bring forth such a privileged “vacancy” resolution, but the coup fizzled after Gingrich learned of it and those who tried it realized they didn’t have the votes.

Fox News’ Chad Pergram contributed to this report.