New York protesters slam ‘incredibly dangerous’ Iran deal

10,000 demonstrators urge Congress – and NY Senator Chuck Schumer – to vote against nuclear agreement

By Cathryn J. Prince July 23, 2015, 4:27 am 107

Supporters react to a speech by Republican presidential candidate former New York Gov. George Pataki at the 'Stop Iran' protest Wednesday, July 22, 2015, near Times Square in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

More on this story

• Iran deal sparks geopolitical tussle over Pakistan pipeline
• Hundreds of Iranian teachers arrested amid protest
• IDF soldiers shoot, kill Palestinian during arrest raid
• Top Egypt jihadist urges holy war against Sissi
• Netanyahu says ‘better’ Iran deal can still fix ‘historic mistake’
• Israel fears ‘major escalation’ by Iran-backed terror groups after deal
• Obama, Erdogan seek ‘deeper cooperation’ against IS
• After hard-liners push back, Rouhani rebukes nuke deal critics
• ‘Side deals’ cast shadow over Congress Iran review
• Republicans challenge Obama on Iran accord

NEW YORK – The last time Dr. Arnold Berlin held a sign at a protest he was a student at Tulane University and it was 1967, the height of the Vietnam War. And while many US foreign policy decisions have since irked the physician, it took the recent nuclear deal with Iran to convince him to take to Times Square Wednesday night as part of the “Stop Iran Now” rally.

“I am very much against this deal. It’s incredibly dangerous. I had to come,” said Berlin, who came from Williamsburg, Brooklyn, so he and a friend might hold his nearly 8-foot-long banner high above the crush of people.

An estimated 10,000 people converged on Times Square, from 42nd Street all the way to 40th Street. People came in buses and caravans from Charlotte, North Carolina, from Chicago, Columbus and Philadelphia. In addition to Times Square, there were also similar demonstrations in Ft. Lauderdale, Phoenix, Los Angeles and Toronto, Canada.

Police repeatedly instructed people to keep sidewalks clear to no avail; the sidewalks were impassable.

Jeffrey Wiesenfeld, a financial expert who has also held senior positions in government, organized the rally to alert Americans to the dangers of the nuclear agreement recently reached between Iran and the so-called P5+1 group of world powers, he said.

“We came to the conclusion that we must educate the public, in the most strident language, that this is a farce, this is a threat – not just to Israel but for America and for the world. A failure to ‘Stop Iran Now’ could necessitate a military response later,” Wiesenfeld told The Times of Israel.

Supporters line Seventh Avenue during the ‘Stop Iran’ protest Wednesday, July 22, 2015, near Times Square in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

The result of years of negotiations, the deal aims to curb Iran’s nuclear ambitions in return for sanctions relief. But opponents of the deal say it leaves Iran’s nuclear infrastructure intact, including centrifuges and research facilities, and does not offer sufficient guarantees of transparency to ensure Tehran does not cheat on the agreement.

Wiesenfeld hopes the bipartisan rally will convince members of the US Congress to reject the deal. He called on New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, to lead the way. Many of the signs held aloft at the rally addressed Schumer, alongside chants of “Where is Chuck?” from the crowd.

Schumer has said he has not yet decided how he will vote. His spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“The public will not be fooled again; Americans will not stand for another North Korea. If this deal is not stopped, New York voters will know who to blame,” Wiesenfeld said.

In a telephone interview before the rally, former New York governor and 2016 GOP presidential candidate George Pataki said US President Barack Obama violated his oath of office when he took the deal to the United Nations Security Council last week before giving Congress a chance to review the document. Under the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, Congress has 60 days to review the deal, and can seek scuttle it with legislation that would prevent the White House’s planned rescinding of some of the sanctions placed on Iran.

Republican presidential candidate, former New York Gov. George Pataki greets supporters at the ‘Stop Iran’ protest Wednesday, July 22, 2015, near Times Square in New York. (AP Photo/Frank Franklin II)

“That showed tremendous disrespect for the US Congress and it was an active betrayal of Israel, our strongest ally in the Middle East,” Pataki said of the UN vote.

The deal threatens American security, Pataki said.

“In no way does this deal change Iran’s attitude to America. During the negotiations it was calling for ‘Death to America,’” he noted. “There are dozens of legitimate reasons to reject this deal. It allows for hundreds of billions in [sanctions] relief, the lifting of sanctions on conventional arms, all while Iran keeps supporting terror around the world.”

Weisenfeld is the head of the Jewish Rapid Response Coalition, JRRC, which he founded in 2014 to protest the Metropolitan Opera staging of the controversial opera “The Death of Klinghoffer.”

“Clearly Iran is a much greater threat to the world than an opera,” Wiesenfeld said.

Dozens of organizations were represented at the rally, including Christians United for Israel (CUFI), Israeli American Council, New York State Federation of Republican Women, Simon Wiesenthal Center, StandWithUs and the Zionist Organization of America.

Speakers included Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, “The Israel Campaign” founder and an outreach coordinator for CUFI Kasim Hafeez, former Manhattan district attorney Robert Morgenthau, journalist Caroline Glick and former CIA director James Woolsey.

“I was personally in favor of a negotiated agreement if it’s an airtight deal, if Obama kept his promise. But the deal is not airtight,” Dershowitz told The Times of Israel. “The opposition to the deal that many have expressed made it difficult for Kerry to back down any more. The rally is important because it’s always helpful to add pressure.”

Beth Chesir came to the rally on her way home to New Jersey.

“I don’t want to face the mirror someday and say I didn’t do everything possible to stop this deal,” Chesir said. “I’m fearful that it can’t be stopped now that Obama threatens to veto any resolution Congress passes, plus the fact that the Europeans support it. But if this can help, then that’s good.”

According to a recent Monmouth University poll, 55 percent of Americans said “not at all” when asked if they trusted Iran to honor the agreement’s terms.

Organizers estimated about 10,000 people attended the event.

Obama's Iran deal falls on ominous Bible date

Note from the blog author: These verses are very appropriate to the present context of prophetic events taking place. The city of Susa was part of both the Persian and Babylonian Empires.

1 When the Lord will have compassion on Jacob and again choose Israel, and settle them in their own land, then strangers will join them and attach themselves to the house of Jacob. ² The peoples will take them along and bring them to their place, and the house of Israel will possess them as an inheritance in the land of the Lord as male servants and female servants; and ^[a]they will take their captors captive and will rule over their oppressors.

³ And it will be in the day when the Lord gives you rest from your pain and turmoil and harsh service in which you have been enslaved, ⁴ that you will take up this ^[b]taunt against the king of Babylon, and say,
“How the oppressor has ceased,
And how ^[c]fury has ceased!
⁵ “The Lord has broken the staff of the wicked,
The scepter of rulers
⁶ Which used to strike the peoples in fury with unceasing strokes,
Which ^[d]subdued the nations in anger with unrestrained persecution.

 

 

 

This is the plan ^[m]devised against the whole earth; and this is the hand that is stretched out against all the nations. ²⁷ For the Lord of hosts has planned, and who can frustrate it? And as for His stretched-out hand, who can turn it back?” Isaiah 14:1-6, 26-27.

 

                 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Reblogged from  World Net Daily 

When it looks as if there's no deliverance for the Jewish people, the hand of God begins to move'

Published: 13 hours ago

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2012/07/jackmino_avatar.jpg
Jack Minor About | Email | Archive

Jack Minor is a journalist and researcher who served in the United States Marine Corps under President Reagan. Also a former pastor, he has written hundreds of articles and been interviewed about his work on many TV and radio outlets.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/01/Obama-frown.jpg

When President Obama announced a “framework” nuclear agreement with Iran – which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warns threatens the very existence of his nation – few noticed the significance of the date.

  On the Jewish calendar this year, April 1 coincided with Nisan 13, the date in history when a Persian king signed an agreement calling for the destruction of the Jews.
“King Obama has issued his decree putting the Jewish nation at risk of annihilation on the very same day that King Ahasuerus’ scribes came together and issued their statement to the rulers of every people of every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language and sent letters by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to kill, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day.”

The ominous historical reference comes from Mark Biltz, pastor of El-Shaddai Ministries in Bonney Lake, Washington, and author of “The Feasts of the Lord,” “Blood Moons” and “Studies in our Hebrew Roots.”

The Obama administration’s negotiations with Iran have been shrouded in secrecy for months, and even now, only the broad outline of a proposed agreement has been disclosed. At one point the administration suggested there was not even a written agreement in place but rather a “gentlemen’s agreement.”

Already, another development in the attempt to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons has fallen on a significant date in Jewish history.
On the eve of the Purim holiday, March 3, Netanyahu addressed a rare joint session of Congress to discuss the Iran deal, warning it could lead to the destruction of Israel.
He told Congress that in just a short time the Jewish people would begin the celebration of a holiday established while they were in captivity to a Persian king.

“We’re an ancient people. In our nearly 4,000 years of history, many have tried repeatedly to destroy the Jewish people. Tomorrow night, on the Jewish holiday of Purim, we’ll read the Book of Esther,” Netanyahu told Congress. “We’ll read of a powerful Persian viceroy named Haman, who plotted to destroy the Jewish people some 2,500 years ago. But a courageous Jewish woman, Queen Esther, exposed the plot and gave for the Jewish people the right to defend themselves against their enemies.”

After Netanyahu’s speech, the Obama administration strongly rebuked the prime minister and concerned Congress members, insisting that a deal would take place by March 31.
At the last minute, the administration announced the deadline would be postponed for a day. On April 2, President Obama announced in a ceremony from the Rose Garden that a tentative deal had been reached the day before, Nisan 13.

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2015/02/netanyahu.jpeg

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

The book of Esther declares, in Esther 3:12, 13, that on Nisan 13 the Persian king Ahasuerus was tricked by a viceroy by the name of Haman into signing an agreement to destroy all the Jews in the land at a future date.
Coincidental?

Joel Richardson, author of “End Times Eyewitness,” “When a Jew Rules the World,” “The Islamic AntiChrist,” “Mideast Beast” and more, said it might be a message from God.
“The God of Heaven and Earth frequently orchestrates world events in such a way as to demonstrate His perspective,” Richardson explained. “Those who are quick to brush aside the correspondence of profound global events, particularly as they affect the state of Israel, with important biblical dates often miss what may very well be purposeful thunderclaps from heaven.

“It is the cynic that dismisses the possibility of a divine hint as mere coincidence. I think we need to be looking at this very seriously and asking ourselves what it is indicating.”
Jonathan Cahn, author of “The Harbinger,” the inspiration behind “The Isaiah 9:30 Judgment,” and the creator of “The Mystery of the Leper King,” “The Hanukkah Endtime Mystery” and more, told WND that while the conflict between Iran and Israel is not new, it is noteworthy that America has chosen to intervene at this time and appears to be on the side of the Iranians.

“It’s an ancient war that begins when the Hebrews emerge out of Egypt and are attacked by the armies of Amalek,” Cahn said. “The war has continued down through the centuries through the Book of Esther and Haman and, amazingly, into modern times, even right now.
“Again we find the existence of the Jewish people is in jeopardy, and there are forces plotting their destruction. Again, the powers that be seem oblivious to the existential danger. And, amazingly, again, it all focuses on the land of Haman, Persia, and Iran. Only this time, America is involved and, unfortunately, it appears as if our government is placing Israel in danger.”

Franklin Graham, president of both the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association and the Samaritan’s Purse relief organization, confirmed as much.
In a Facebook posting, he said: “In an interview with the New York Times, President Barack Obama said he is committed to seeing that Israel maintains a military edge over Iran. With the possibility of nuclear weapons at stake, there’s a lot more to this than a military edge. Iran does not recognize the right of Israel to exist. In previous speeches their mullahs have said they would burn Tel Aviv. One nuclear weapon can wipe out this city of 400,000+ people. It’s not about maintaining a military edge, Mr. President; it’s about keeping nuclear weapons out of the hands of people who have said they would use them.”

Graham noted Iran already has its soldiers in southern Lebanon serving with Hezbollah on Israel’s northern border and in Syria on Israel’s northeastern border.
“Iran already has its soldiers serving with the Iraqi army and now has controlling influence in much of the Iraqi government. Mr. President, the Iranian government is in many ways as brutal as ISIS and to give them an opportunity to possibly produce nuclear weapons would be devastating, not only to Israel, but to the Iranian people who would suffer their own nuclear holocaust when Israel would be forced to retaliate in their own defense. I pray that you will listen to Israel on this issue.”

image: http://www.wnd.com/files/2014/02/christian_israel1.jpg

Critics contend Obama’s deal only delays Iran from getting the bomb.
Nevertheless, Netanyahu told Congress that despite the agreement to destroy Israel in Esther’s time, the “plot was foiled.”
“Our people were saved,” he said.
Cahn had similar sentiments.
“We must remember, that the war is an ancient one, and God has sworn to be involved. As in the Book of Esther, when it looks as if there’s no deliverance for the Jewish people, the hand of God begins to move.”
Blitz told WND that the outcome may already be written down.
“History repeats itself, so may we keep the nation of Israel in our prayers!”

The Bible records Haman was hanged on the very scaffold he had prepared for Mordecai, a Jew, and the king dispatched a letter exposing Haman’s plot, instructing Jews to defend themselves.
The result, the site explains, is that 75,000 enemies of the Jews were slain.

Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/obamas-iran-deal-announced-on-ominous-bible-date/#WylbGHGG4Sbm12po.99

State Department rejects call for Iran deal to affirm Israel's 'right to exist'

Reblogged from  www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/04/04/state-department-rejects-call-for-iran-deal-to-affirm-israel-right-to-exist/

Published April 04, 2015

FoxNews.com

Facebook657 Twitter889 livefyre21182 Email Print

April 1, 2015: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a press conference in Jerusalem. (AP)

A State Department official dismissed a plea Friday from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the Iran nuclear agreement include clear recognition of his nation's "right to exist," declaring negotiations are "only about the nuclear issue."

State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf, in a terse response to a question about Netanyahu's concerns, told reporters, "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue" -- a comment that indicates the Obama administration is not looking to enshrine Israel's security into a final agreement. 

Harf, for her part, suggested the talks are complicated enough already.
"This is an agreement that doesn't deal with any other issues, nor should it," she said.
Obama administration officials have insisted all along that despite their public disagreement with Netanyahu over the Iran deal framework, the U.S. commitment to Israel's security is unwavering. Further, White House spokesman Eric Schultz told reporters on Air Force One on Friday that the U.S. would not agree to any deal that would threaten Israel.

The Israeli prime minister, though, made the call for the "right to exist" measure during brief remarks early Friday. He blasted the Iran framework deal and said his Cabinet is uniformly opposed to it. He closed his brief address by demanding that any final agreement include "a clear and unambiguous Iranian recognition of Israel's right to exist." 

The statement was prompted by reported statements from a top Iranian military official, who was quoted saying "erasing Israel" off the map is "non-negotiable." 

To that, Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable." 
Israel's objections promise to be a major hurdle for the Obama administration as its representatives huddle with those from Iran and five other world powers in pursuit of a final deal by a June 30 deadline.

Last month, Netanyahu railed against the pending agreement in an address before the U.S. Congress. He repeated many of those concerns again, on Thursday and Friday, after the framework was unveiled. 
Netanyahu said it would not shut down a single nuclear facility or destroy a single centrifuge. 
"The deal would legitimize Iran's illegal nuclear program," Netanyahu said. "It would leave Iran with a vast nuclear infrastructure." 

President Obama and Netanyahu spoke by phone late Thursday. 
In a statement on that conversation, the White House said Obama "underscored that progress on the nuclear issue in no way diminishes our concerns with respect to Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and threats towards Israel and emphasized that the United States remains steadfast in our commitment to the security of Israel. " 

According to the White House, Obama told his Israeli counterpart he has directed his national security team to "increase consultations with the new Israeli government about how we can further strengthen our long-term security cooperation with Israel and remain vigilant in countering Iran's threats." 

Read more: http://thelightseed.blogspot.com/#ixzz3WRN2Yqe0

Sowell on Iran Nuke Deal: “The Most Catastrophic Decision In Human History”

Reblogged from:
http://pamelageller.com/2015/04/iran-nuke-deal-the-most-catastrophic-decision-in-human-history.html/
Thomas Sowell is a national treasure. An intellectual’s intellectual, he is one of, if not the, most clear-eyed, brilliant American thinker.
I, too, am stunned that even now, even still, the media and cultural elites wield totalitarian-like power in the information battle-space. We have suffered non-stop coverage of a non-starter of a religious freedom law in Indiana (currently law in other states, a law once championed by Democrats), and yet little to no mention of the worst deal ever made by America — Obama giving Iran nukes.

 

Etiquette Versus Annihilation
Thomas Sowell | Apr 01, 2015
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history.

Recent statements from United Nations officials, that Iran is already blocking their existing efforts to keep track of what is going on in their nuclear program, should tell anyone who does not already know it that any agreement with Iran will be utterly worthless in practice. It doesn’t matter what the terms of the agreement are, if Iran can cheat.

It is amazing — indeed, staggering — that so few Americans are talking about what it would mean for the world’s biggest sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, to have nuclear bombs, and to be developing intercontinental missiles that can deliver them far beyond the Middle East.

Back during the years of the nuclear stand-off between the Soviet Union and the United States, contemplating what a nuclear war would be like was called “thinking the unthinkable.” But surely the Nazi Holocaust during World War II should tell us that what is beyond the imagination of decent people is by no means impossible for people who, as Churchill warned of Hitler before the war, had “currents of hatred so intense as to sear the souls of those who swim upon them.”

Have we not already seen that kind of hatred in the Middle East? Have we not seen it in suicide bombings there and in suicide attacks against America by people willing to sacrifice their own lives by flying planes into massive buildings, to vent their unbridled hatred?
The Soviet Union was never suicidal, so the fact that we could annihilate their cities if they attacked ours was a sufficient deterrent to a nuclear attack from them. But will that deter fanatics with an apocalyptic vision? Should we bet the lives of millions of Americans on our ability to deter nuclear war with Iran?

It is now nearly 70 years since nuclear bombs were used in war. Long periods of safety in that respect have apparently led many to feel as if the danger is not real. But the dangers are even greater now and the nuclear bombs more devastating.
Clearing the way for Iran to get nuclear bombs may — probably will — be the most catastrophic decision in human history. And it can certainly change human history, irrevocably, for the worse.

Against that grim background, it is almost incomprehensible how some people can be preoccupied with the question whether having Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu address Congress, warning against the proposed agreement, without the prior approval of President Obama, was a breach of protocol.
Against the background of the Obama administration’s negotiating what can turn out to be the most catastrophic international agreement in the nation’s history, to complain about protocol is to put questions of etiquette above questions of annihilation.

Why is Barack Obama so anxious to have an international agreement that will have no legal standing under the Constitution just two years from now, since it will be just a presidential agreement, rather than a treaty requiring the “advice and consent” of the Senate?

There are at least two reasons. One reason is that such an agreement will serve as a fig leaf to cover his failure to do anything that has any serious chance of stopping Iran from going nuclear. Such an agreement will protect Obama politically, despite however much it exposes the American people to unprecedented dangers.

The other reason is that, by going to the United Nations for its blessing on his agreement with Iran, he can get a bigger fig leaf to cover his complicity in the nuclear arming of America’s most dangerous enemy. In Obama’s vision, as a citizen of the world, there may be no reason why Iran should not have nuclear weapons when other nations have them.
Politically, President Obama could not just come right out and say such a thing. But he can get the same end result by pretending to have ended the dangers by reaching an agreement with Iran. There have long been people in the Western democracies who hail every international agreement that claims to reduce the dangers of war.

The road to World War II was strewn with arms control agreements on paper that aggressor nations ignored in practice. But those agreements lulled the democracies into a false sense of security that led them to cut back on military spending while their enemies were building up the military forces to attack them.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of The Housing Boom and Bust.