Impossible to have predicted that the current world situation would have devolved into something quite as vile as it has. The more we know about that Iran deal, the greater our understanding of how truly awful it is.
The concessions to Iran have been mind-boggling, but in the end, a demand that the US should have made was not made:
Iran holds four Americans. Not only did Obama’s negotiating team not tell Iran that there would be no sanctions relief until they were released – Obama has chosen not to speak about them or their plight. The four are:
Jason Rezaian, a Washington Post correspondent who disappeared a year ago and is accused of “subverting” the Islamic State.
Saeed Abidini, a Christian pastor converted from Islam, he was in Iran to establish an approved orphanage. Has been held for three years, convicted of being “a threat to Iran’s national security.” His health has deteriorated.
Amir Heckmati, a former US marine of Iranian heritage, who was in serving as a language and cultural liaison to US military in the Middle East. He had gone to Iran – for the very first time – to visit family, and was grabbed and ultimately convicted of “treason.” He has been held for four years.
Robert Levinson, with the FBI for 33 years, and after retirement a private investigator. Was detained while in Iran eight years ago, charged with being on a CIA mission. There is some confusion here – as different sources are checked – as to whether this is so, or he was operating as a private investigator when grabbed on Kish Island, an Iranian free-trade zone which is visa-free.
It is no accident that three of the four are Iranian Americans. The first question to be asked is why every American is not familiar with these names.
When challenged three days ago at a press conference by reporter Major Garrett, as to why the release of the Americans was not demanded by the US, Obama was very coy. Tying the release of these Americans to the deal would have given the Iranians an advantage, he claimed – they might have demanded even more.
But Obama has it exactly backwards, and the fact that he said what he did is one more indication that the Iranians called the shots in the negotiations. What if the US had played hardball, and had tied sanctions to the release of the Americans? Sanctions relief was at the heart of why Iran stayed at the table.
I may have alluded to this before, but I also wanted to mention here the clause in the agreement – in article 10, page 142 – that Western nations signing will offer “cooperation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to, nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.”
Israel has relied to some extent on sabotage to slow down Iranian nuclear development. The US will now be party to making this more difficult. But what is more, reference to physical protection systems” might mean that a military attack on Iran will now also be more difficult.
“Sources privy to the negotiations said Article 10 did not appear in the interim deal inked between world powers and Iran in April, but was added to the final agreement at the last minute.”
Israeli officials call this “inconceivable.” In a sane world, indeed. But that’s not where we are.
The clock is now ticking on the 60 days Congress has to review the terms of the accord with Iran and indicate acceptance or rejection of its terms. This is in accordance with the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 – frequently referred to as the “Corker Bill,” for Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, who co-sponsored the bill with Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ).
This bill provided a major concession to the president – we might say a caving to the president – because of how it is structured. The Iran deal is not being regarded as a treaty, which would – according to Article II of the US Constitution – require 2/3 of the Senate for approval. Rather, the White House is treating the accord as matter of “executive prerogative.”
Thus, a simple majority of the Congress can reject the accord, but then a 2/3 vote is required to over-ride that veto. This is the reversal of what would be the case were the agreement being treated as a treaty.
In an act of blatant disregard for the will of the American people and disrespect for the people’s elected representatives, Obama brought the agreement to the Security Council of the UN, where it passed unanimously. My information is that the American government proceeded here under pressure from Iran and other nations involved in the negotiations, but it has acted in the face of multiple calls from key members of Congress that he not proceed with this.
Credit: Jewel Samad/AFP
The resolution formally endorses the Iran deal and paves the way for lifting UN (not US) sanctions against Iran.
The big question now is whether this resolution is binding on the Congress in the short term, and whether it will be binding on future US presidents. This is what Iran claims; Kerry has made similar claims, although this is not the official position of the Obama administration.
The answer is not so simple. One international lawyer with whom I consult calls the situation “complicated,” and right now there is no consensus on this.
I point out here that the UN resolution reads so that the “adoption date” comes 90 days after the Security Council endorsement vote — presumably so that Congress has time to complete its review before the resolution kicks in.
But this fact, offered in multiple articles I’ve now read, does not seem to me to address the core question. OK, the UN resolution gives Congress time to review the agreement. But if Congress rejects it, and the resolution kicks in, then what?
“Some international legal experts say that…the UN resolution doesn’t make adhering to the entire nuclear pact obligatory for all parties. [That is, the US could sustain its sanctions on Iran if Congress so decides.] At the same time, they said the resolution would require all signatories to the deal — including United States and Iran — to comply with key provisions like the lifting of the UN arms embargo and ballistic missile ban in five and eight years, respectively.”
Consider this: The deal with Iran was supposed to be unanimous – that is, it was not supposed to kick in unless all parties (P5 + 1) agreed. The US agreement at this point, however, is only tentative, because the administration has signed off on a Congressional review of the deal. In theory, if Congress rejected the accord – and was able to override a veto by Obama – then the deal should have been considered failed, because then the US would then not be on board.
But Obama – who was not about to sit still for this possibility – has done an end-run around it. Now that the deal has been endorsed by the Security Council, it exists in international law. It may well be that Congress will still have options regarding whether to lift US sanctions on Iran, but its clout has now been considerably reduced.
What I know with certainty is that many members of Congress are infuriated, enraged, by what is going on. From a key Senatorial aide, with whom I remain in touch, I received this today: “We are brainstorming right now as to what creative things we can do. We are NOT just rolling over and giving up. We will fight!”
Walter Russell Mead, writing before the Security Council vote, had this to say (emphasis added):
“…Dissing Congress is a risky move for American presidents. There have been widespread reports that many Democrats on Capitol Hill would like to support the President’s Iran policy, but are worried about the political fallout among voters back home. In the end, many of these waverers would probably support the President on the Iran deal in a straight up Congressional vote, but if the President does an end run to the Security Council, the waverers could—and many will—oppose him on procedural grounds. Both the Senate and the House are jealous of their Constitutional prerogatives, and voting to uphold the powers of Congress is a much easier vote for Democrats than voting against the President on an important foreign policy issue…
“This is not likely to end well. President Obama was stretching both his Constitutional powers and his political mandate when he decided to short circuit the treaty process for one of the most important decisions that American foreign policy has taken in many years. There is precious little doubt that the Founders would have considered this a threat to the system of checks and balances they wrote into the Constitution…”
Andrew McCarthy, in a speech reproduced by Frontpage Magazine, says:
“So the two checks that the Framers essentially gave to Congress to reign the president in were the power of the purse [blocking funding] and impeachment.”
Is Congress sufficiently furious, at long last, to consider impeachment?
The US Secretary of Defense is in Israel now, but I will close here and write about this next time.
By: Izzy Lyman
Great Lakes state residents and lawmakers are reacting angrily to an undercover video shot by citizen journalists affiliated with the Center for Medical Progress. The 8-minute videotape features Dr. Deborah Nucatola seeming to affirm that Planned Parenthood (Nucatola’s employer), the reproductive rights organization, participates in the illegal trafficking of aborted fetal body parts and tissue for scientific research.
Paul Chatfield, the brother of state representative Lee Chatfield, R-Levering, took to the streets of Petoskey, Michigan in protest this past weekend. About sixty people joined his demonstation, which was held outside the offices of Planned Parenthood of Northern Michigan. Most protestors bore signs, like “Life – the first Inalienable Right.”
Chatfield, who describes himself as a college student with a conscience, said that his initial response to news about the shocking disclosures on the videotape was a flip one.
“I thought it was a joke. We’re not that bad,” he said.
But when Chatfield heard the comments made by Nucatola – who quotes a price of $30-$100 per part to a pair of actors pretending to be representatives of a human biologics company – he realized it wasn’t the stuff of science fiction.
“We’re that bad!” exclaimed Chatfield.
“[The comments on the video] go against everything America stands for,” complained George Horniman of the Emmet County Right to Life organization.
The non-profit, which was the branchild of Margaret Sanger and is controversial for its abortion counseling services, has received federal dollars since 1970. Planned Parenthood’s Annual Report for 2012-2013 reports that the group was awarded over $540 million in government grants for FY 2013.
“It is sad that the government keeps funding Planned Parenthood,” noted Rachel Evans a 22-year-old woman who is pregnant with her first child (whose mother is pregnant with her 11th child), who heard about Chatfield’s protest via local talk radio.
Mitten state lawmakers have also weighed in on the videotape controversy without mincing words. State Senator Phil Pavlov, R-St.Clair issued a press release: “I am calling on the Michigan departments of Health and Human Services and Licensing and Regulatory Affairs to launch formal investigations into Planned Parenthood affiliates across Michigan to determine whether or not any Michigan-based facilities have participated in the horrifying sale of babies’ body parts.”
“We must make sure this is not happening in Michigan, and that if it has, those responsible are brought to justice,” added Pavlov.
Congressman Fred Upton, R-St. Joseph, chair of the U.S. House panel on Energy and Commerce, has promised to investigate the claims made by Planned Parenthood’s Nucatola, describing the video as “abhorrent.”
Paul Chatfield injected a spiritual perspective into an already heated debate.
“Government should reflect God’s laws; this is in direct defiance of the Bible,” he said.
It’s time once again for the Watcher’s Council’s ‘Weasel Of The Week’ nominations, where we pick our choices to compete for the award of the famed Golden Weasel to a public figure who particularly deserves to be slimed and mocked for his or her dastardly deeds during the week. Every Tuesday morning, tune in for the Weasel of the Week nominations!
Here are this week’s nominees…
Don Surber: Donald Trump (Mustela badhairus) decided that a Silver Star recipient who spent 5 1/2 years as a tortured POW isn’t a hero.This comes from a man who ducked Vietnam. Thank you DT for raising the issue of defending the border, now kindly slither back under the rock you came from.
Media Mongrel Andrea Mitchell!
The Noisy Room: My nomination this week is Andrea Mitchell. Andrea Mitchell is an unmitigated media hack. She simply hates the Constitution and abhors the Second Amendment and guns. Naturally, she would spin it that the Chattanooga military massacre has nothing to do with this murdering scum being a radical Islamist. Oh, no… she tried to twist it into Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez being a Southern redneck, gun-toting nut. I’m surprised she didn’t throw in the Confederate flag for good measure. Typical Marxist bull crap. Mitchell’s Progressive, lying tactics are legendary. You know what? This dirt bag’s only known acquaintance with guns was the fact that just weeks before the shooting, he went to a gun range with three other bearded Islamists to practice shooting an AR-15. And I’ll bet it wasn’t for hunting practice, unless of course you count hunting infidels as sport. Which, I’m sure he did.
From The Washington Free Beacon:
MSNBC host Andrea Mitchell went fishing for a better angle Friday when she asked a former classmate of Chattanooga mass murderer Mohammad Youssuf Abdulazeez whether he enjoyed “hunting” and other “small-town Tennessee activity.”
“Were guns a big part of activities—social or other activities?” Mitchell asked her interviewee abruptly.
“What?” her interviewee responded.
“Did he hunt, did he shoot?” Mitchell prodded. “Was that just part of small-town Tennessee activity?”
“Um, he actually wasn’t one of the guys I heard about going hunting,” Abdulazeez’s classmate responded. “He wasn’t really that kind of guy.”
Mitchell is a vocal opponent of the widespread availability of firearms.
Mitchell blathers on about how painful it must have been for the terrorist’s friends. What about the families and loved ones of the four Marines and the one Navy officer he gunned down? Hmmm? Where’s your crocodile tears for them, Andrea? Who cares what the scum was like in high school or in everyday life. Normal? Really? He was so nice… he murdered a bunch of people and Mitchell can’t wait to blame it on the evil black guns! Even the terrorist’s school chum was taken aback by Mitchell asking about guns and his ‘Tennessee lifestyle.’ How insulting. How condescending. Focusing on the creep’s looks and personality, while the blood of our warriors seeps into the ground crying for justice. It’s grotesque, just like fascist, elitist Andrea Mitchell is. A Southern redneck does not an Islamic Jihadist make and a washed up hack from MSNBC does a lousy job of not only reporting and doing a political spin job, but in feigning humanity. For this and a million other crappy things she has pulled over the years on MSNBC, Mitchell gets my nod as a weasel supreme.
Jihadist Murderer Mohammed Yousuf Abdulaziz
GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD: Mohammed Yuosef Abdulazziz.
Planned Parenthood’s Head Baby Killer And Organ Harvester, Dr. Deborah Nucatola!
Puma By Design: My nomination for
scuzzbucket Weasel of the Week award is Dr. Deborah Nucatola, senior director of medical research, Planned Parenthood. The thought of aborting innocent babies is horrific enough but to perform such an act in a way that preserves specific body parts for profit is even more unethical. The ability of this woman to discuss the sale of aborted baby body parts and the method of fulfilling the transaction while sipping wine and munching on a salad is evil as is the mindset of those who believe that what they do is for the greater good.
Well, there it is. What a despicable group of Weasels… ANY OF THEM COULD WIN! Check back Thursday to see which Weasel walks off with the statuette of shame!
Make sure to tune in every Monday for the Watcher’s Forum.
And remember, every Wednesday, the Council has its weekly contest with the members nominating two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council. The votes are cast by the Council and the results are posted on Friday morning.
It’s a weekly magazine of some of the best stuff written in the blogosphere and you won’t want to miss it… or any of the other fantabulous Watcher’s Council content.
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
Friday, July 17th, marked the 19th anniversary of the deaths of 230 people on TWA Flight 800. There remain unaddressed questions about how this jet mysteriously exploded off the coast of Long Island. But the mainstream media aren’t interested in providing the public with much needed answers, pursuing this scandal, or even, really, marking the anniversary of the victims. Instead, recent coverage of this anniversary has been confined to some local news reports. I’m sure there will be much more coverage next year, for the 20th anniversary.
But the media continue to do a disservice to America and the memories of those lost, by ignoring this enduring scandal and its many victims. They are not interested in re-litigating the facts because the facts overwhelmingly point to an administration cover-up, and to expose this scandal would implicate the Clintons in yet another scandal.
Andrew Danziger, a 28-year airline veteran, spoke out this past April about the transparent government cover-up that took place nearly two decades ago.
“This investigation smelled like bull all those years back, and time has done nothing to soften that stench,” wrote Danziger for the New York Daily News. “I don’t believe the findings, and neither do hundreds of other pilots that I know.”
That might be because the FBI, he says, took the “lead” in the investigation, an “unprecedented” step. In particular, Danziger wrote, one of the lead investigators representing the interests of the TWA pilots at the time told him that “the mechanics and their representatives were denied access, in the early going, to the hangar where all of the recovered material was stored and being re-assembled.”
His colleague also told him that “During the investigation, the FBI periodically required everyone to leave the hangar due to ‘national security issues.’”
“Only after they ‘sterilized the area’ were folks allowed back in to continue where they left off (that is, if what they were examining was still there),” writes Danziger. In addition, eyewitnesses were not allowed to testify, and their words were only summarized in FBI reports which they could not personally review.
“Lots can go wrong with an airplane,” he wrote. “But jets do not explode in midair.”
“…Hank Hughes, an [National Transportation Safety Board] NTSB investigator who headed up the reassembly of the wreckage in a hangar in Calverton, New York, had been telling what he knew since early in the investigation,” I recalled for Accuracy in Media two years ago. “He told a Senate committee in 1997 that he witnessed evidence being tampered with, and some being destroyed.”
I still believe that “the evidence remains overwhelming that the plane was brought down by a missile or missiles.”
AIM conducted a detailed investigation of the downing of Flight TWA 800 to attempt to expose the truth. We examined the evidence supporting each of the three leading theories of what caused the plane to explode, and then crash into the Atlantic, 19 years ago this week. Our award-winning documentary, “TWA 800: The Search for the Truth,” can be viewed here.
By: Cliff Kincaid
Accuracy in Media
In a Sunday column in The Washington Post, “Stop laughing at Donald Trump,” a liberal analyst from the Brookings Institution tries to warn the Washington, D.C. beltway elites that they should take the businessman seriously because he has figured out how to win a national election—by taking the white vote. This is the “silent majority.”
While it is true that minorities and other groups helped elect President Obama twice, “the white portion of the electorate, which votes strongly Republican, underperformed in support of John McCain in 2008, and white turnout was down in 2012,” when Mitt Romney was the Republican presidential nominee, notes William H. Frey, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a population studies professor at the University of Michigan.
In other words, if McCain and Romney had only come across in a more conservative and assertive manner, and had appealed to more white voters, they probably would have won.
Frey comments that Trump “appeals to a vein of the U.S. electorate that will remain a significant voting bloc for several election cycles to come: older whites.”
Yet, GOP politicians and Fox News commentators such as George Will and Charles Krauthammer have been attacking Trump and his policy positions. McCain went further, smearing Trump supporters as “crazies,” before Trump fired back, in comments on McCain’s war record. Veteran reporter Sharyl Attkisson said Trump’s comments were taken out of context and distorted by The Washington Post.
It appears that the “crazies” include a lot of ordinary Americans who are sick and tired of politics as usual. Trump, in contrast to McCain and Romney, has figured out a way to fire them up and tap their anger and frustration.
A 2014 study by Professor Marisa Abrajano on the coming backlash to immigration policy not only explains the Donald Trump phenomenon, but also why the liberal media are so determined to destroy him. The media know that Trump’s appeal threatens the ability of the Democratic Party to continue to fool white voters into embracing liberal policies that destroy their own communities.
Her academic paper, published by the Brookings Institution, was clearly designed to warn liberals about how a “broad backlash” to immigration could damage the Democratic Party. She said a backlash could not only “shift the balance of power between Democrats and Republicans” but benefit “rightward leaning candidates throughout the country” who want to do something about it.
The paper was based on the book, White Backlash: Immigration, Race, and American Politics. co-authored with Zoltan L. Hajnal.
“Immigrants may be arriving in historically high numbers,” she noted, “but they account for only a relatively small fraction of the nation’s population. Native-born whites still represent 63 percent of the population and, perhaps more importantly, some 75 percent of its voters.”
Hence, the key to Democratic Party success lies in manipulating the minority groups and immigrants into voting for Democrats in overwhelming numbers, as they currently do, while also conning a significant number of whites into voting Democrat. This is a con because the Democratic Party has no interest in protecting the interests of white people as a political or special interest group.
The Abrajano report has some interesting comments about media coverage of the issue that may help explain the reaction to Donald Trump. It says, “At the aggregate level, we find that when media coverage of immigration uses the Latino threat narrative, the likelihood of whites identifying with the Democratic Party decreases, and the probability of favoring Republicans increases.”
Of course, the liberal media never use the “Latino threat narrative,” and the phrase is meant to suggest that concerns about immigration are somehow racist or improper. Our media have done their best to play down the problem, through such maneuvers as banning the term “illegal alien” and substituting “undocumented worker.”
What Trump has done is bring the issue to the fore, making it out to be the threat that it is. The Trump surge, plus the murder of a young American in San Francisco by a Mexican illegal alien and the prison escape in Mexico of a drug cartel leader, have put the dangers on the front pages of our newspapers in a manner that has garnered the attention of the nation. Our media have been forced to cover the issue in a way that captures the peril our nation currently faces. As a result, the Democrats and their liberal media allies fear that white voters have now been dramatically educated about the political stakes and may vote accordingly in favor of their own interests.
The media have no problem with blacks and Hispanics voting for Democrats in large numbers and affirming and protecting their own racial identities. But when whites do it, it suddenly becomes racism. That charge has carried a lot of sting in the past, but with illegals streaming across the border and Middle Eastern Muslims creating enclaves in places like Tennessee, it looks more and more like members of the “silent majority” are deciding to be silent no more. They are realizing that the lives of their family members and the cultural identity of their nation are at risk.
“Immigration and other factors appear increasingly to be pitting the declining white majority against the growing non-white minority,” she wrote. That majority may have found its voice in Trump, a man unafraid of the liberal media and the GOP establishment, which wants to continue the losing strategy of pandering to the minorities who overwhelmingly vote Democrat.
Abrajano also wrote, “The conventional view of pundits and prognosticators and maybe even most social scientists is that the dramatic growth of the minority population and its strong ties to the Democratic Party portend the demise of the Republican Party.” She adds, “That may be true in the long term. But that prediction ignores the white population and the possibility of a widespread white backlash in the short term.”
It appears that “short term” has now arrived. His name is Donald Trump.
Abrajano’s co-author, Hajnal, a professor of political science at the University of California, San Diego, recently wrote that Republicans’ “opposition to immigration reform actually represents a winning strategy, not a losing one.”
Of course, the term “immigration reform” is code for amnesty for illegals.
That aside, he acknowledges that “Republicans win or lose largely depending on white voters. Whites still make up the vast majority of voters—some 75 percent in 2014—and whites tend to favor the Republican Party by large margins. Republican congressional candidates garnered 60 percent of the white vote in 2014. All told, 89 percent of all Republican votes in 2014 came from white voters. Put simply, the Republican Party doesn’t really need the minority vote.”
Since the Republicans have a winning strategy, what holds them back from using it? It’s called political correctness, which holds that appealing to people based on their fears of immigration destroying their country is racist and wrong. Trump didn’t care what the media thought and decided to address the issue anyway. The response speaks for itself.
It’s not surprising that GOP presidential candidates like Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio would go after Trump. For whatever reason, perhaps because they want to appear “inclusive,” they are desperate to appeal to Hispanics, a voting bloc that is essentially owned by the Democrats.
This is not to say that some Hispanics do not agree with Trump.
Maria Espinoza launched the group America First Latinos, in order to “prove, once and for all, that the majority of Latino citizens are solidly behind the U.S. Constitution and a secured national border.” Espinoza also launched the Stolen Lives Quilt project, whose members appeared with Trump at his July 10 news conference. The group remembers the victims of illegal alien crimes in the U.S. and is coming to Washington, D.C. this week to press their case against criminal aliens coming across America’s open borders.
By Hannah Szenes
Col. Tom Snodgrass accused Obama of unconditional surrender to Iran a few days ago. I completely agree. The same thought popped into my head when I heard the news last week that the US and Iran had reached an “historic” agreement on Iran’s nuclear program. I’m sure many of you have the same thoughts on the issue.
Time to speak out – loudly
It’s time to stop thinking and start speaking – loudly. It’s time to call out our so-called leaders and demand that they totally repudiate this “deal”, a “deal” that betrays everything we believe our nation stands for. It’s past time for a public shaming.
Our lying leaders
It‘s appalling to see our elected officials make promises they never intended to keep. Time and time again, we were assured. We were promised. Is our government filled with the worst negotiators in history or is this the result they desired all along? I believe it is the latter. And what do you call such people? I call them craven, conniving miscreants chasing their own illusory notion of personal legacy because they think they know what’s best.
It’s insulting to see them continue to misrepresent the facts when those facts are obvious to everyone. They want us to believe them and not our own lying eyes even as the facts prove otherwise. Do they think we do not see? What do you call such people? I call them liars and deceivers who will say anything, do anything to get us to follow them like sheep to the slaughter.
Aiding and abetting the enemy
It’s embarrassing to see grown adults run from their responsibilities. It’s like seeing your parents drunk in public, the laughter of strangers ringing in your ears. We witnessed this week our leaders on their knees in submission to their new Persian masters as they assure us that this is the best they can do. They will do anything, say anything to secure their positions of leadership, their jobs, their standing in their party. What do you call such people? I call them quislings, collaborators and traitors who give aid and comfort to the enemy while endangering the peace and freedom of the entire world to save their own skins.
Abandoning our friends
It’s shameful to see our country offer a nation 1/50th as a sacrificial offering to a common enemy. As our nation turns away from her duty to protect and defend freedom, we see a much smaller, besieged people assume the mantle of world leadership. And do our leaders actually believe that the bloodlust of this modern-day scourge will be sated at the sea’s edge? Any security they obtain with this human sacrifice will be temporary. Since when do we leave others to fight our battles for us? What do you call such people who abandon others to do their fighting and dying for them in an attempt to save themselves? I call them cowards.
They want to secure their legacy and be forever remembered as great diplomats and peace makers. They will be remembered, but not as they would like.
Craven, Conniving Miscreants
Liars and Deceivers
Quislings, Collaborators and Traitors
We will not forget you
Oh, yes. Anyone who presents this “deal”, anyone who advocates for this “deal”, anyone who votes for it or does not vote against it, anyone who does not do everything in their power to prevent this “deal” will be remembered so.
And they better get used to the smell of blood. There will be so much of it that they will never be rid of the stench.
We will remember. We will not forget. And we will not forgive.
About Hannah Szenes
Hannah Szenes “A voice called and I went.” Emigrated from Hungary to Palestine at the beginning of World War II and volunteered for an airborne mission behind enemy lines into Hungary via Yugoslavia. Her official mission was to organize partisan actions against the Nazis in Hungary on behalf of the Allied forces. Her personal mission was to find her mother and to bring hope to her people. Captured and sentenced to death as a spy by the Nazis, she defied her captors throughout and was executed by firing squad on November 7, 1944. She was 23 years old. Israeli poetess and national heroine, Hannah was re-interred in Israel with full military honors in 1950. I use Hannah as an avatar to honor her sacrifice and to bring hope to my nation and to my peoples.
Trevor Loudon will address meetings in Florida, New Jersey and Iowa over the next few weeks.
Monday, July 20, Tri-County Tea Party, The Villages, Florida, 6.30-9pm Contact Pam Dahl, 352-804-9593
Tuesday, July 21, Greater Orlando Tea Party, Eastmonte Civic Center, 830 Magnolia Drive, Altamonte Springs, 6.30-9pm
Saturday, July 25, Liberty and Prosperity, Shore Diner, 9.30am to 11.30am, 6710 Tilton Road, Egg Harbor New Jersey
Monday, July 27, North Jersey Regional Tea Party, Wayne Public Library, 475 Valley Road Wayne, New Jersey, 7pm-9pm
Tuesday, July 28, West Bergen Tea Party, Event Center, 380 Godwin Ave, Wyckoff, New Jersey, 7pm-9pm
Friday, August 7, Benton County Republicans, 5-10pm, Van Horne Community Center, 115 Main Street, Van Horne, Iowa
See you there!!!