By: Terresa Monroe-Hamilton
I didn’t catch Ted Cruz’s speech in New York last week at a candidate’s forum. But Rush Limbaugh listened to it and was shocked with what he heard, or didn’t hear as the case may be. He said it was literally the best dirty trick he’d ever seen. Limbaugh has been in this game a long time, so that’s saying something. First Trump spoke and there were no issues… then Kasich came on and that went smoothly… finally, Cruz spoke and it started out fine. But after a few minutes, his audio went loud and then was drowned out by people eating and clinking silverware.
The dinner was a New York Republican black-tie event. Rush was watching Fox News where this happened. According to other listeners, the audio was fine on CNN. It took Limbaugh about 30 seconds to figure out what was going on. Cruz’s microphone had been cut at the podium and they had replaced it with what sounded like microphones at five or six tables. All you could hear were people eating and the clinking of knives and forks on plates. People were drinking and chatting. You could even hear them smacking their lips while eating. That wasn’t a technical glitch… that was on purpose.
At first Limbaugh thought it was an audio glitch and waited for Fox News to fix it. But that didn’t happen. Rush waited and waited and it never got fixed. Finally there was silence and then the same noise came back. Ted Cruz had no idea all this was going on. He sounded normal to the audience and from what I heard, they were riveted by him. All that could be heard was normal eating and waiters bustling around.
By: Renee Nal | New Zeal
“It is interesting to me that in every primary or caucus where Ted Cruz won, we have certified, proven, sworn evidence of massive voter fraud.” – Trump surrogate Roger Stone blatantly lying about voter fraud. Stone is calling for massive demonstrations at the Republican convention in Cleveland in July. Stone also threatened to disclose hotel names and room numbers of pro-Cruz delegates.
Donald Trump warned that his supporters would respond with “riots” if he fails to secure the nomination at July’s convention in Cleveland. “I think you’d have riots, I think you’d have riots. I’m representing a tremendous many, many millions of people.” Donald Trump, March 17, 2016
There is a rumor circulating on social media that chairman of the Republican National Committee Reince Priebus is rigging electronic voting machines in New York, ensuring that presidential candidate Donald Trump will get below 50% during the April 19 primary. The lie is so incredibly moronic that one would think it would not gain legs, but it inexplicably has been shared numerous times on social media so we will address it here
Have you noticed that the passive voice — as in “Mistakes were made,” or “The YouTube video caused the attack,” — has become ubiquitous in American political discourse?
Leave aside instances in which its usage reflects an unwillingness or inability for individuals to take responsibility for failure. There is another set of circumstances in which it is used to pernicious effect.
Exhibit A comes to us courtesy of the New York Times, in an article written about the declining popularity of Warren Wilhelm, aka New York Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Now I will not hold the use of the passive voice in the Times’ headline “New Poll Shows Mayor de Blasio’s Support Has Eroded” against The Grey Lady, but I do take issue with her usage in explaining just why it is that de Blasio’s poll numbers have declined so precipitously.
The Times writes:
Mr. de Blasio has encountered a series of difficulties in recent months, including the tussle with Mr. Cuomo, also a Democrat, over a disappointing legislative session in Albany, and distressing headlines about a rising murder rate — even as city officials have noted that overall crime continues to fall.
The mayor was also recently the subject of negative ads from the car-hailing company Uber, which opposed a proposed cap on its growth that the mayor had promoted. (The city has, for now, backed away from the proposal.)
Administration officials were quick to connect the increase in disapproving voters — a four-point uptick since May — to the Uber campaign, noting that the mayor’s numbers also suffered for a time last year during a public dispute with advocates of charter schools.
You see, for the progressive Times, Mayor de Blasio is a hapless victim. He has “encountered difficulties” through no fault of his own.
Were it not for those damn “distressing headlines about a rising murder rate,” or “negative ads from the car-hailing company Uber” or “a public dispute with advocates of charter schools,” de Blasio would be held in the same esteem as Hizzoner Koch.
What the Times fails to note is that headlines about the murder rate — and “the bad old days” returning to New York more generally — are not being written in a vacuum. Mayor de Blasio has opposed his predecessors’ law enforcement policies (and attacked their enforcers), policies that coincided with plummeting crime rates and an infinitely more pleasant and livable city. Had Mayor de Blasio maintained the law enforcement status quo to the same effect of rising murder rates and savage attacks, cop killings and squeegee men, then perhaps the Times would be justified in making de Blasio a victim of sorts. In light of his own words and actions, we cannot.
As for Uber, the company’s highly effective anti-de Blasio ads came in direct response to a policy the mayor pushed that would have impaired Uber’s ability to grow. Again, these ads did not occur in a vacuum. And what made them particularly bruising was that they illustrated the hypocrisy inherent in a “progressive,” “inequality”-busting mayor siding with entrenched interests against an upstart competitor providing opportunity for thousands of New Yorkers and convenience for hundreds of thousands if not millions more.
On those “charter school disputes,” again disputes are not the proximate cause of de Blasio’s waining political support. In fact, the public loves a spat when a politician is perceived to be looking out for them. Rather, de Blasio’s opposition to school choice in favor of public schools and the politically powerful public teachers’ union — and apparent unwillingness to expend political capital in support of charter schools in the rare instance when he does champion one — reflects a controversial position. Rightly, many in progressive New York are able to set aside their ideology when it means a better education for their children. The “dispute” is not the issue for Mayor de Blasio. The issue is the issue for Mayor de Blasio.
Bill de Blasio has not “encountered difficulties.” He has created them through his own policies. He is not a victim of chance. He is merely paying a political price for the disastrous outcomes of his own progressive agenda.
The real victims are New Yorkers who must live with him. Next time they ought to choose their mayor more wisely.
Featured Image: YouTube screengrab/Uber.
By: Roger Aronoff
Accuracy in Media
President Barack Obama’s disastrous deal with Iran paves the way for this totalitarian regime to attain nuclear weapons, ones which Iran’s dictators could then aim squarely at the United States, Israel, and our allies. But the complicit media repeatedly join the administration in championing the deal, which both falsely claim is the only viable alternative to war.
In order to stifle opposition to this narrative, the mainstream media have mostly offered the public misleading information and punditry. After an estimated 12,000 people gathered in New York City’s Times Square on July 22 to fight the Iran deal, the media did what they do best in the face of inconvenient truths—marginalize the opposition, or ignore the facts.
“Speakers, including Republican politicians, called on Congress to throw it out, whipping up the crowd that included supporters of right-wing Jewish and evangelical Christian groups,” reported AFP about the Times Square rally. Similarly, the widely distributed Associated Press article reported that “The event…consisted mainly of pro-Israel supporters, though organizers said it represents Americans of all faiths and political convictions.”
In other words, move along, nothing to see here but a bunch of right-wing crazies who want war with Iran. There’s no popular protest against the Iran deal, we are told, and opposition to the deal is not actually bipartisan. Yet notable Democrats who spoke at the rally included liberal Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz and former CIA Director James Woolsey.
The complete list of speakers included:
- John Batchelor, Radio Host WABC-AM
- Anne Bayefsky, President of Human Rights Voices
- David Brog, Executive Director, Christians United for Israel
- Monica Crowley, Political Commentator
- U.S. Congressman Trent Franks (R-AZ)
- Steven Emerson, Founder of The Investigative Project on Terrorism
- Frank Gaffney, Founder of the Center for Security Policy
- Caroline Glick, Deputy Managing Editor of The Jerusalem Post
- Kasim Hafeez, Christians United for Israel’s Outreach Coordinator
- Pete Hoekstra, Former Chair of the House Intelligence Committee
- Richard Kemp, Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan
- Tony LoBianco, Actor and Activist
- Herbert I. London, President London Center for Policy Research
- Clare M. Lopez, Center for Security Policy
- U.S. Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons, Former Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet
- Kevin McCullough, Radio Host from WMCA and 970 The Answer
- Robert Morgenthau, Manhattan District Attorney from 1975 to 2009
- George Pataki, former Governor of New York
- General Paul Vallely, Chairman of Stand Up America
- Col. USA (Ret.) Allen West, former Congressman
- Genevieve Wood, The Heritage Foundation
- Mortimer Zuckerman, Chairman and Editor-in-Chief of U.S. News & World Report
The New York Times’ decision to report on a minimum wage protest with far fewer attendees, and to splash that article onto the front page, reflects the cursory, feigned ignorance adopted by many in the media about this protest. The thousands of attendees apparently weren’t “enough people to catch the attention of The New York Times, who feature a $15 an hour minimum wage protest of a couple of dozen people on the front page, but not thousands rallying against the Iran deal,” notes Rick Moran for The American Thinker.
That pro-minimum wage hike article by the Times was titled, “Push to Lift Minimum Wage Is Now Serious Business,” and featured on page A1 of the July 24 issue. Instead of covering the Iran protest, and doing some genuine reporting on what was happening on their own doorstep, the Times instead featured the widely cited Associated Press article.
Clearly, the media aren’t going to tell the public the truth about the Iran deal—which is actually between the P5+1 nations and Iran—or why people oppose this debacle.
The many speakers at the rally provided compelling insights into why this is such a bad deal, and the video of this three-hour-plus rally can be viewed online. Speaker after speaker explained why this deal with Iran is inherently flawed and should be rejected.
One consistent theme throughout this powerful and emotional rally was urging people to contact their congressmen and women to try to get them to vote against the deal when it comes time for Congress to vote. Congress has 60 days to consider their vote, and that period began on July 20th.
The main focus of the event was on Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY). Schumer hasn’t committed either way, and is in a difficult position. He hopes and plans to succeed Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) as the Senate Minority Leader (and eventually Majority Leader), and wants to be loyal to President Obama, and the party. But this conflicts with his longstanding support for Israel, which strongly opposes this deal.
The message from many of the speakers was that this is a moment of truth for Schumer. It won’t be good enough, they said, to wait until enough Democrats are lined up to assure that President Obama’s anticipated veto won’t be overridden, and then be able to make a safe vote against the deal. This crowd expects Schumer to lead the fight against the Iran nuclear agreement, which may be the only way for Congress to be able to defeat it. Even then, with the United Nations having already voted to lift its sanctions on Iran, based on certain conditions, it may not matter anyway. But it would definitely send a message.
There were too many great speeches to document here. I attended the event to be there in person, and to support my fellow members of the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB). Below are the speeches of the six CCB members who spoke there, providing the story that the media refuse to tell.
“The reality is this arrangement, this deal with Iran is the worst negotiation the United States has conducted in history. … This agreement will actually free known terrorists who have killed Americans, Israelis, Europeans, Westerners and Muslims. An agreement that doesn’t give anything to the United States except the fact that it levels the playing field for Iran to dominate the Middle East, equate itself as a superpower, and ultimately become a power that has the ability to destroy all of its neighbors in the Middle East.”
“We stand united in believing that this is a bad agreement for America and the rest of the world, and we stand united knowing that America is strong. And in our history when we see evil we will confront it, contain it, and we will defeat it. … We have never, and we will never, accommodate it.”
“We know what’s in a good agreement, and people and this president say, ‘But it’s all we could get.’ It’s a sign of weakness.”
“This is the simple message that we should be sending to Iran. When Iran stands up and they chant, ‘Death to America!’ all we need to say is, ‘You first!’ … Well let me tell you something, the United States of America is about victors. The United States of America is about champions. The United States of America does not surrender to a bunch of black-robed crazed clerics that want to see us destroyed.”
“This traitorous group traded our national honor. … They humiliated this great nation before our friends, our allies, and most importantly our enemies. This surrender document must be thoroughly rejected by Congress, and then Congress must exercise its authority to start impeaching executive officials, starting with Secretary Kerry and following [with] President Obama for his illegal and unconstitutional acts.
“There’s only one sure way to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon capability and that’s with a military strike—and you can take that to the bank.”
“And, oh by the way, we just learned there are two new side deals to this deal with Iran, and those deals have to do with a place called Parchin, where Iran was testing explosives for its nuclear warheads, says the IAEA. And the other one [is] about the ‘possible’ military dimensions of Iran’s nuclear weapons programs. These two side deals—not going to be made public, not going to be shared with Congress, not going to be shared with the American people or anybody else.”
“The last thing that Iran gets to keep, they’re keeping four American citizens hostages. … Until these hostages are set free we should not be having one word of negotiations with this Iranian regime.”
“I am tired of the deception, I am tired of the lies that come out of the White House and our government. …Let’s stick together, stand up, and kill this deal!”
As the news keeps coming with regard to the horrors of the Iran deal – and the horrors of how Obama and Kerry are conducting themselves – I have no choice but to continue to write on the subject.
This issue remains number one in importance for Israel, and for the Western world. It must be taken with dead seriousness, and yet the the unfolding of revelations has become something of a self-parody. One is tempted to respond, “Nah, this cannot be happening…” But it is.
During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing last week, a mind-boggling issue was raised by Senator James Risch (R-Idaho) and then pursued by Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ). The question at hand: Does Iran get to collect its own soil samples from the military site at Parchin for analysis by IAEA? Senator Risch’s understanding was that the IAEA will be monitoring Iran’s soil collection by video.
As Fred Fleitz, “a former intelligence analyst experienced in the collection of environmental samples for investigations of weapons of mass destruction,” explained in National Review (emphasis added):
“The revelation that Iran will collect samples concerning its own nuclear-weapons-related activity makes the whole agreement look like a dangerous farce. This is not just an absurd process; it also goes against years of IAEA practice and established rules about the chain of custody for collected physical samples.”
From where I sit, there could have been only one acceptable response by Kerry to these queries on process: “Of course Iran will not collect its own samples.” But instead Kerry let it be known that this issue was covered in a side agreement and was confidential. Would confidentiality be necessary if it were a straight up process structured with integrity and an eye to keeping Iran accountable?
Kerry then followed up with a statement on Friday at the Council of Foreign Relations in NY that was a pathetic mix of attempted intimidation and postured self-pity (All emphasis following here added):
As to intimidation, he said: “[if Congress rejects the Iran agreement] our friends in Israel could actually wind up being more isolated, and more blamed.”
MK Michael Oren (Kulanu) responded thus:
“If American legislators reject the nuclear deal, they will do so exclusively on the basis of US interests. The threat of the secretary of state who, in the past, warned that Israel was in danger of becoming an apartheid state, cannot deter us from fulfilling our national duty to oppose this dangerous deal.”
While Minister Yuval Steinitz (Likud) countered that:
“Israel will make its views clear on the Iranian nuclear issue, which is relevant to its security and its existence, and no one has the authority to intimidate us.” What is more, Steinitz pointed out, objections are not coming exclusively from Israel: “Criticism of the agreement in the United States in general and Congress in particular is due to the serious flaws and loopholes displayed in the deal.”
I have a strong aversion at this point to having Kerry refer to Israelis as “our friends in Israel.” I think not. His statement is a follow-up to an earlier one – that any military action by Israel would be an “enormous mistake.”
But this argument by Kerry as to why Congress had to vote to accept the accord perhaps wins the prize for offensive and ludicrous positions (emphasis added):
“…it would be embarrassing to him and a blow to US credibility on the world stage if Congress rejects the deal.
“It would be a ‘repudiation of President Obama’s initiative and a statement that when the executive department negotiates, it doesn’t mean anything anymore because we have 535 secretaries of state.’
“’I mean please. I would be embarrassed to try to go out. What am I going to say to people after this as secretary of state.’”
Tears out your heart, does it not? The prospect that John Kerry might be embarrassed before the ayatollahs.
For members of Congress not already angry, this statement should make them furious. Kerry is negating the Congressional role mandated by the Constitution, and claiming unilateral prerogative to make earth-shaking agreements. What would he say to people? That the US is a democracy, and has a due process by which he must abide. That it was understood when he got up from the negotiating table that agreements would not be final until after a Congressional review.
Kerry’s attitude here is a reflection of that of his boss. Obama behaves in an autocratic fashion that is not consistent with the role of the president of a democracy.
“A top adviser to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei vowed Saturday that the Islamic Republic would deny International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors any access to the country’s military sites, contradicting remarks by US officials following the signing of a nuclear agreement with Tehran last week.
“’The access of inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency or from any other body to Iran’s military centers is forbidden,” Ali Akbar Velayati, Khamenei’s adviser for international affairs, said in an interview with Al-Jazeera satellite TV. Velayati further stressed that the directive will be enforced regardless of interpretations by the P5+1 world powers to the contrary.’”
Two points to make here: First, and most importantly, this signals the futility of striking an agreement with Iran – for Iran will not adhere by it in any event, as its leaders will do as they please.
And then, the refusal to allow inspectors into Iranian military centers rather confirms the charge that at Parchin Iran will be doing its own soil collection.
I want to share here a video of Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX). The Senator was speaking at a rally against the Iran deal – and for the release of American hostages held by Iran – in front of the White House last week and was harassed by leftists calling themselves “Code Pink.” The senator’s method of handling the hecklers is a pleasure to watch – a class act. But I am sharing this because he responds rationally to their charges, and this is precisely what we need: rational answers when all sorts of off-the-mark charges are leveled against those battling the Iran accord.
There is, to provide one example, the charge that those for the accord, which offers a “diplomatic resolution,” are for “peace,” while those against it are “for war.” The critical point that the Senator makes is that peace comes with strength, and that the accord makes war more likely. (More on this below.)
What was left out of mainstream media coverage of this rally was background on who the Code Pink hecklers are. Code Pink is an NGO led by women, which claims to be “pro-peace.”
According to Gateway Pundit:
“Code Pink co-founder Jodie Evans was an early fundraiser and bundler for Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign. Evans has met with several times over the years with President Obama and his most trusted White House adviser Valerie Jarrett. Code Pink has acted as a messenger between terrorists and Obama.
“Code Pink travels to Iran as guests of the regime. Code Pink leaders are regulars on the Iranian government’s PressTV propaganda outlet. Code Pink did Iran’s bidding in an effort to undermine the government of U.S. ally Bahrain in 2012.”
This is information that ought be shared.
Let me close with this outrageous exchange between a journalist and White House spokesman Josh Earnest, held right after that rally (shared by The Gateway Pundit, with my emphasis added):
“Q Secondly, I wondered if you were aware that, just before the briefing, Senator Cruz was across the street at Lafayette Park. It was a protest against the nuclear deal. Among other things, he was very vocal about how, because of the sanctions being lifted eventually, that there would be so much money flowing into the country that the country would use the money to ‘kill Americans.’ Do you have any thoughts about that?
“MR. EARNEST: Well, Anita, I was aware that Senator Cruz was planning to hold a pro-war rally in front the White House today. I didn’t see actually how many people turned out for the rally, but it doesn’t sound like he said anything there that he hasn’t said anywhere else.
“Q Pro-war rally? Is that what you just called it?
“MR. EARNEST: I did.
“Q You have no other thoughts about it?
“MR. EARNEST: I think that pretty much says it all.”
Really low. It is what happens when there is no good argument for a position one has embraced: Rely on insults and innuendoes. Senator Cruz’s rally was NOT “pro-war.”
David Greenfield, writing in FrontPage, described part of the exchange between Cruz and Code Pink – with regard to being “pro-war” – this way:
“One CODEPINK member responded to Cruz by saying that he does not like ‘war mongers’ and asking Cruz, ‘Why are you so aggressively violent?’
“’I recognize that the folks in CODEPINK like to hold up signs saying, “Peace with Iran.” You know who doesn’t reciprocate those views? Iran,’ Cruz said, to cheers.
“’In the midst of this negotiation, the Ayatollah Khamenei led thousands of Iranians in chanting death to America while they burned American flags and Israeli flag,’ Cruz continued to more applause. ‘Iran has stated its objective to murder as many Americans as possible. They are not seeking peace with us.’”
In response to Barack Hussein Obama’s unprecedented capitulation to Iran, the world’s most prolific sponsor of terrorism, more than 12,000 people gathered in Times Square to protest the deal.
Holding signs that read “No Nukes for Iran,” “Don’t Trust Iran,” and “Urge Congress to Stop Iran from Going Nuclear,” protesters were sounding the alarm bell for a deal that does effectively nothing to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. Indeed, it encourages the rogue nation to develop ever more destructive methods of killing innocents.
The civilized and respectful crowd gathered for more than six blocks, from 42nd St into the Fashion District. With the exception of a single counter-protest that was intentionally provocative, there was no detectable acrimony in the crowd. Instead, they focused their concerns and anger at Senator Chuck Schumer, who could potentially prove the decisive vote to approve, or derail, the deal.
The rally featured an all-star cast of speakers, including retired military, national security experts, politicians, and journalists. Among the speakers were Admiral James ‘Ace’ Lyons, Center for Security Policy’s Frank Gaffney and Clare Lopez, Major General Paul E. Vallely, Colonel Allen West, and Caroline Glick, who presented via television from Israel.
Col. West’s speech, delivered without notes, electrified the crowd as he spoke from the heart about the greatness of America and the smallness and treachery of Obama and Kerry. This deal is yet another betrayal to the military veterans who fought in Iraq, only to have Obama intentionally lose the war and hand over parts of the country to ISIS.
Gaffney ended his speech calling this “deal” with Iran what it actually is – “TREASON!”
If it Walks like a Duck, and Quacks like a Duck…
Why would Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry hand a carte blanch deal to Iran? A deal that allows inspections only after a lengthy appeals process and 24 days between inspection requests and actual inspections?
Extensive research has shown conclusively that the Obama administration is filled with agents of the Muslim Brotherhood, the mothership of all Islamic terrorism. In Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and Syria, the United States backed Muslim Brotherhood rebels to overthrow stable governments. This plan was made explicit in a secret presidential directive, PSD-11.
Once the Muslim Brother Mohamed Morsi was elected President in Egypt, he traveled to Tehran to establish a closer relationship with the terror master Mullahs.
Kerry, who like Obama is desperate for a legacy, is personally close to the Iran because his daughter is married to an Iranian man with family there. Moreover, Obama’s Senior Advisor Valerie Jarrett, who many believe to be the true force behind this calamitous presidency, was born in Shiraz, Iran.
The rally was organized by a large and diverse coalition of organizations that included activists and concerned citizens who are anti-terrorism, pro-Israel, and for a strong national defense of America and American values.
NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Times Square Wednesday evening in protest over the recent landmark nuclear deal with Iran.
As CBS2’s Jessica Schneider reported, some 10 thousand are rallying in solidarity with signs and voices raised against the nuclear deal.
Protest organizers proclaim: “Washington is prepared to give Iran virtually all that it needs to get to the bomb. To release $150 billion to Iran will result in the expansion of worldwide terror.”
Former New York Governor, and Presidential contender, George Pataki joined the chorus of voices urging lawmakers to block the deal.
“Reject this deal. Protect America. Protect Israel and protect the world from freedom,” Pataki said.
The Stop Iran Rally Coalition — which claims to be a bi-partisan group — is also calling out Sen. Charles Schumer, saying he “has the votes as presumptive leader to override this deal….If this deal is not stopped, New York voters will know whom to blame.”
Sen. Schumer said in a statement Wednesday that he wasn’t ready to make a decision on the deal yet.
“I’ve read the agreement and I’m seeking answers to the many questions I have. Before I make a decision, I’m going to speak at length with experts on both sides,” the lawmaker said.
In Washington, Secretary of State John Kerry led back-to-back, closed-door briefings, trying to sway lawmakers to approve the deal to curb Iran’s nuclear program.
“We are convinced that the agreement that we have arrived at with world powers is an agreement that will prevent Iran from the potential of securing a nuclear weapon. It will make the region, our friends and allies safer, it will make the world safer,” Kerry said. “And we are convinced that the absence of any viable alternative absolutely underscores that fact.”
Meanwhile, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. is fiercely lobbying lawmakers to reject the deal. And Republicans are pledging to do just that.
“Because a bad deal threatens the security of the American people, and we’re going to do everything possible to stop it,” said Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner.
And many at the rally said more people in the country need to start listening and speaking out as well.
“I’m very concerned about what our situation is here. Nobody wants this deal to go through and we’re hoping that Obama will hear the voice of the American people and we’re hoping that Congress will listen to what we have say. And hopefully we can do something about that,” said one protester.
“I feel people really don’t understand the main issue. To me the main issue is not what happens 10 years from now, but what happens as soon as the sanctions are removed from Iran,” another protester told Schneider. “Which is the main terrorist regime in the world, which spreads terrorism all around the world, which is responsible for the deaths of Americans as well as Israelis.”
Several academic, military, and political leaders will speak to the crowd Wednesday night. All of them urge that this is an issue that transcends politics and they’re urging Congress to keep sanctions against Iran, even if it means overriding President Barack Obama’s likely veto on any legislation against the deal, Schneider reported.
Congress has 60 days to approve or reject the deal. The Senate will hold a hearing on the deal Thursday.