President Putin’s Ban of Religious Freedom, Should American’s Be Concerned?


July 18, 2016

Silent SoldierBy Lorra B.

Many American’s are aware, and should be concerned, that President Vladimir Putin recently placed severe restrictions on religious freedoms in Russia making any evangelism or religious speech outside of churches forbidden. Any Christian wishing to share their faith outside of a designated worship center will be breaking the law.

This so-called anti-terrorism legislation not only attacks religious liberty, it demolishes free-speak and makes it a crime. “This new situation,” according to Dr. Haukka, President of Great Commission Media Ministries, “resembles the Soviet Union in 1929. At that time confession of faith was permitted only in church. Practically speaking, we are back in the same situation. These anti-terrorist laws are some of the most restrictive laws in post-Soviet history.”

Suppressing the rights of assembly, speech and the press, to name a few, seem routine in Moscow but many believe this has gone too far. This new legislation strikes fear among Christian Russians believing that unregistered congregations and house groups will be targeted and persecuted, according to Christian Today.

“According to Forum 18, which monitors religious freedom in Russia and former Soviet republics, the amendments to the Religion Law restrict those who can share beliefs to people with permission from members of state-registered religious groups and organizations…They also prohibit even the informal sharing of beliefs, for example responding to questions or comments.”

Any breach of this new law, effective July 20, will lead to substantial monetary penalties.

U.S. Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE) wrote an article at The Daily Signal stating the new law is “an affront to free people everywhere.”

“We need to begin telling the truth about an increasingly aggressive actor in global affairs,” he said. “This Russian law would be an affront to free people everywhere—at home and abroad—who believe that rights of conscience—the rights to free speech and to freedom of religion—are pre-political.”

As of yet “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

U.S. Constitution, First Amendment

Suppressing speech and the media, not to mention Political Correctness, seems to be the growing trend in America. Should American’s have reason for concern that this “anti-terrorist” law someday be our reality?

By Lorra B.






Four Fort Hood Army Soldiers Convicted For Illegal Immigrant Smuggling

Border Patrol Checkpoint

Border Patrol Checkpoint

August 27, 2015

By Lorra B.

In Brownsville, Texas a fourth Fort Hood Army soldier has plead guilty to helping smuggle illegal aliens into the United States. She is one of four to be convicted for smuggling undocumented aliens north of the Texas Boarder checkpoints.

Going before U.S. district Judge Andrew Hanen on Wednesday, 25-year-old Yashira Marie Perez-Morales admitted to the human smuggling charge. Perez-Morales, according to prosecutors, drove through Sarita’s Boarder Patrol Checkpoint with immigrants hidden in her vehicle.

Three other soldiers, 20-year-old Brandon Troy Robbins, 21-year-old Christopher David Wix, and 20-year-old Eric Alexander Rodriguez were also convicted for their roles in the human smuggling scheme which began in the Spring of 2014. These three soldiers, convicted in the city of Harlingen, on several occasions hid the illegals under their military gear.

“On three separate occasions,” according to RGVproud, “occurring on April 13, June 21 and Sept 11, 2014, authorities discovered the aliens with Robbins, Wix, and Rodriguez, respectively. That prompted Homeland Security Investigations (HIS) to further the overall investigation which led to the identification of Gracia and Perez-Morales.”

While Rodriguez and Robbins await sentencing, last month Wix was sentenced to a year and one day in federal prison.

Another civilian man, Arnoldo Gracia, was charged with provided immigrants to the four soldiers and has pleaded guilty. Gracia is awaiting sentencing on smuggling-related count.

By Lorra B

War Journalists Labeled Spies, Unprivileged Belligerents. That’s What A New Pentagon Manual Calls Some War Reporters

imageedit_3_4673052415August 26, 2015

By Lorra B. 

US defense Secretary, Ash Carter, is being asked by Reporters Without Borders (RWB) to amend a new Pentagon manual that is labeling war journalists as spies, unprivileged belligerents and saboteurs.

Is this new manual an indication the U.S. government is openly marking journalists who challenge Washington’s objectives?

An open letter was published by RWB to Carter about the Law of War Manual. The manual has infuriated reporters “for saying war reporters may be held liable for ‘engaging in hostilities’ or spying, sabotage and similar acts behind enemy lines’,” according to The Guardian.

The War Manual, was published on June 24 and is 1,176 pages of revisions, the first revisions since 1956.

The revisions include terminology marking journalists stating “in general, journalists are civilians,” and that in some instances these reporters may be viewed as “unprivileged belligerents.”

But what does unprivileged belligerents really mean? Well, ‘unprivileged belligerents,’ according to veteran war corresponded Don North, simply replaces the term ‘unlawful combatants’ and that journalists, therefore are looked upon as nothing more than those in the ranks of Al Qaeda.

Based on this assessment, broad interpretation and hazy wording, journalists could not only be asked to leave military bases but they could also be detained for perceived wrongdoings.

Secretary General Christophe Deloire of Reporters Without Borders stated, “This terminology leaves too much room for interpretation, putting journalists in a dangerous position.”

“Liking journalistic activity to spying is just the kind of ammunition certain repressive countries like Iran, Syria and China would seek out to support their practices of censorship and criminalization of journalists.”

Columbia Journalism Review’s managing editor, Vanessa Gezari, stated, “It’s very threatening. I believe it contradicts at least the spirit of customary battlefield relationships, if not the letter. The relationship between journalists and combatants has always been complicated. The way the language about spying is placed in there is alarming to me in that is says, ‘journalism is a lot like spying’ and then it leaves that to people to make up their own mind. It gets at the commonalities but not the differences.”

The craftily worded manual sets journalist in a whole new category. Journalists will not be classified as either civilian or soldier and therefore have no protections. The manual states that ‘like other civilians, civilian journalists who engage in hostilities against a State, may be punished by that State after a fair trial.”

The “relaying of information,” according to the new manual, may be construed as such an act.

Governments, according to the manual, “may need to censor journalists’ work or take other security measures so that journalists do not reveal sensitive information to the enemy.”

Censor journalists’ work? Really? This does not sound like the ‘America The Free’ I remember. Press freedoms are vitally important to America remaining free. Without them we will become no better than a dictator state.

When the Pentagon begins to crack down and round up all journalistic work to be reviewed and possibly censored then we will be playing in a whole new ball game and not one for the betterment of American citizens.

Will we become nothing more than the New China or New Russia? When we begin to censor and impede on journalistic freedoms then we start chipping away at the very fabric this great nation was built on. Just where that chipping will lead is a road I, for one, don’t wish to travel.

By Lorra B.

Exposed: Obama’s Secret Side Deals With Iran

dAugust 20, 2015

By Lorra B. 

In A move that has raged the GOP, President Obama has made secret side deals with Iran.

According to the Associated Press, a side deal was made between Iran and the U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency allowing Iran to use its own inspectors to inspect a location accused of building nuclear arms. It is usually the U.N. who inspects such sites, so why not this site?

“International inspections should be done by international inspectors,” stated Ed Royce, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman. “Period.”

It was a document seen by AP that brought this issue to light and that has the Republican lawmakers angered. Already very critical of Obama’s Iran Deal because it is basically built recklessly on trust alone with the Iranians, the GOP finds this new development imprudent.

It was the Obama Administration who insisted it would depend on reliable scrutiny over the Iranian sites in question. Not only the GOP but many of us want to know why, then, are the Iranians inspecting their own sites?

House Speaker John Boehner stated, “President Obama boasts his deal includes ‘unprecedented verification.’ He claims it’s not built on trust. But the administration’s briefings on these side deals have been totally insufficient—and it still isn’t clear whether anyone at the White House has seen the final documents.”

“Worse,” according to ESHRAF, “Obama didn’t even reveal the existence of these secret side deals to Congress when he transmitted the nuclear accord to Capitol Hill. The agreements were uncovered, completely by chance, by two members of Congress — Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) and Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) — who were in Vienna meeting with the U.N.-releated agency.”

It was President Obama who signed into law The Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act. This law unequivocally states that all materials and ‘annexes’ associated with the Iran Deal must be transmitted by the president to Congress. Well, it seems that the president has broken the law, one in which he wrote.

All of this aside, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi is not sure what the disclosure has to do with the Iran Deal because, according to her, the disclosure relates to pastmilitary efforts and not any nuclear efforts moving ahead.

Pelosi stated, “I truly believe in this agreement.” If there were a vote today “the president’s veto would be sustained. But I feel very confident about it…We will sustain the veto.”

Before voting on the Iran deal Congress should be adamant about seeing the side deals. How many of us would buy a piece of land site unseen and just take the sellers word for it that the land was fertile, especially when that seller has a bit of a track-record for embellishments?

It will take a two-thirds vote in both houses to override the president’s veto, 45 House Democrats and 13 Senate Democrats.

Pompeo stated, “My mission in the next 45 days is to convince 45 House Democrats to override the veto. It’s a long climb, but this is important.”

Iran is getting ready to come into $150 billion dollars in sanctions relief. These relief moneys are based on negotiated agreements between Iran and IAEA that not one U.S. representative has viewed.

Is this wise, Mr. President? You may very well be putting our national security at great risk. “We need to see these documents in order to evaluate whether or not verification is ample to make such a big concession to the Iranians,” Pompeo said.

“No member of Congress should be asked to vote on an agreement of this historic importance absent knowing what the terms of the verification process are.”

By Lorra B.

Sen. Bob Menendez, Second Democrat To Openly Oppose The Iran Deal

Sen. Bob Menendez

Sen. Bob Menendez

August 19, 2015

By Lorra B.

Sen. Bob Menendez of New Jersey, the senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is the second of perhaps a growing list of Democrats to openly appose President Obama’s Iran Nuclear Deal which would grant Iran liberation from economic sanctions in exchange for Iran tightening its belt on their nuclear agenda.

Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York was the first Democrat to openly oppose Obama on the deal.

Like many Americans, Menendez is troubled by Iran’s past record of violating a variety of different U.N. Security Council resolutions while at the same time moving forward with their nuclear agenda.

Menendez “says that he is concerned that the agreement doesn’t require Iran to dismantle its nuclear infrastructure,” reports the Associated Press. “He says it’s not an issue of whether he supports or opposes President Barack Obama, who has pledged to veto a congressional resolution of disapproval.”

In a speech on Tuesday, Menendez stated, “Let’s remind ourselves of the stated purpose of our negotiations with Iran: Simply put, it was to dismantle all—or significant parts—of Iran’s illicit nuclear infrastructure to ensure that it would not have nuclear weapons capability at any time. Not shrink its infrastructure.”

Menendez went on to say, “We must send a message to Iran that neither their regional behavior nor nuclear ambitions are permissible. If we push back regionally, they will be less likely to test the limits of our tolerance towards any violation of a nuclear agreement.”

Unlike California’s Nancy Pelosi, who is certain of the ability to pull in all the votes needed to pass this deal, Menendez and Schumer are openly striving to convince others that this Iran deal is not the way to go.

President Obama uses a message of hope to convince Americans of the Iran deal and Menendez isn’t having any of that message.

“Whether or not the supporters of the agreement admit it, this deal is based on ‘hope’—hope that when the nuclear sunset clause expires, Iran will have succumbed to the benefits of commerce and global integration,” stated Menendez. Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”

By Lorra B.

Veterans Against The Iran Deal: Are You Listening Mr. Obama?

Veteran Robert Bartlett

Veteran Robert Bartlett

August 14, 2015

By Lorra B.

A group of war veterans, including wounded Iraq war veteran Robert Bartlett, is opposing President Obama and the Iran nuclear deal by the initiation of a million dollar campaign.

The effort is geared toward contradicting the president’s assessment that to be against the Iran deal is to be in favor of war. The veteran’s message is that Obama’s argument couldn’t be further form the truth.

“Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who support the deal verses those who would prefer a bloody and costly war like the conflict in Iraq,” reports BloombergView. “The new ad campaign complicates that, asserting that the deal itself will lead to more war. And the voices putting forth that case do not prefer war; they are soldiers who have had enough of it.”

The states running these ads are states whose lawmakers are on the fence about the Iran Deal. “The deal calls for Iran tamping down its nuclear program,” states Fox11 News. “If the terrorist nation does, the U.S. agrees to ease sanctions which will free up to $100 billion of frozen Iranian assets.”

Veterans Against The Deal (VATD) is funding the ad.

The executive director of VATD, Michael Pregent, stated “As military veterans, we want Congressmen and Senators to know that we know this enemy. We know what it has done, and we know what it is doing, and we know what it will do with more funding.”

Retired staff sergeant Bartlett, who was badly injured while serving in the Iraq war in 2005, is the first featured veteran in the group’s videos. “Every politician who is involved in this will be held accountable; they will have blood on their hands. A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism. What do you think they are going to d when they get more money?

Bartlett, to many Americans, posses a good question, a question that is sure to hurt the Obama Administrations push for the Iran Deal.

The only incentive these veteran’s have, according to Preget, is to be heard and that the only motivating factor for the videos is to share their views and personal experiences.

“We don’t want to make this a partisan issue. We’ll have Democratic vets who voted for Obama participating in this as well.”

Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn

Retired Army Lt. Gen Michael Flynn

Mike Flynn, Retired Gen. and director of the Defense Intelligence Agency (2012-2014) said the troops were called on to serve their country during the war in Iraq, and they did just that. Their call to service did not mean they were advocates of the Iraq war but rather simply doing their duty. 

“They have a responsibility to speak up,” stated Flynn, and they did. Flynn is an adviser to the VATD.

Are you listening America…are you listening Mr. President?

By Lorra B.

ISIS’s New Hit List: Over 1,500 Military Personnel and Government Officials Personal Information Leaked Online

(Islamic State shares Australian 'hit list' targeted in widespread hack - Screenshot Credit, Yahoo News)

(Islamic State shares Australian ‘hit list’ targeted in widespread hack –
Screenshot Credit, Yahoo News)

August 12, 2015

By Lorra B.

Hackers connected with terror militant group ISIS have leaked information that could put over 1,500 military personnel and government staff members at risk.

According to these hackers, ISIS has released a list of personal information, including photographs, addresses and even the credit card information of Army, Navy, and State Department figures,” reports CBS News.

ISIS urged attacks to be carried out based on this information.

Listen to Jim Sharp From ‘What Have We Learned TodayBreaking News: ISIS Hacked Dept. of Defense: (Skip to 6.7)

The claim could not be authenticated nor the accuracy of the leaked information, according to a global security firm and there is no way of telling how old the information is.

“The data was published on a website and advertised on social media by the self-proclaimed ‘Islamic State Hacking Division,’ supposedly a group of hackers working for the radical Islamist group,” stated RT.

“It includes a spreadsheet with names, emails, passwords and contact information of some 1,500 people. There are also alleged bank card numbers and screenshots of what appear to be private Facebook conversations between serving US military personnel discussing operations.”

There is some doubt over the validity of this latest list of personal information because it includes, according to the Register, disconnected phone numbers and “The emails listed include a worker in an Israeli magistrates’ court, someone in a college in Mississippi, a person in the Australian National Audit Office, and a UK council worker,” reports RT.

Even if the information provided is deemed garbage, eventually ISIS will get it right. Perhaps an understatement, military personnel and their families have reason for alarm. This is not the first incident of military personnel’s information being stolen and then made public.

In March of this year, personal information was leaked by the Islamic State Hacking Division of 100 military members saying their posting of it on social media was “so that our brothers in America can deal with you,” reports CBS. Those words are enough to drive shivers down the spine of most Non-Muslim Americans.

A spokesperson for the Department of Defense stated in an email, “We are aware of the report but cannot confirm credibility at this time. The safety of our service members is always a primary concern.”

Of course, the military and their families are not the only ones on the hit list. Several U.S. State Department Official’s credit card information has also been thrown in the mix and they have reason for concern as well.

The fear of lone-wolf attacks could be rising as officials admit ISIS has advanced digitally and have been using different social media outlets to recruit new members to their vicious crusade and to spread propaganda throughout the world.

Military personnel have been advised by United States Central Command to treat all threats as real and to “maintain a heightened sense of vigilance.” They emphasize the warning that the ISIS ‘hit list’ should be treated as a cyber threat, that we are “operating in a new norm in which cyber threats are real’ threats.

Watch:  New call for social media sites to censor terror, ISIS propaganda

Screenshot Credit, Yahoo News

Screenshot Credit, Yahoo News

by Lorra B.

Obama Refusing To Hand Over Judge-Ordered Seal Team 6 Documents [Video]

Seal Team 6 - Extortion 17 (Screenshot Credit, News Channel 3)

Seal Team 6 – Extortion 17
(Screenshot Credit, News Channel 3)

August 7, 2015

By Lorra B.

It has been four years since the shooting down of a United States helicopter that killed members of Seal Team 6 in Afghanistan and a watchdog group is charging the Obama administration with not turning over documents of the incident.

The Seal Team 6 helicopter was shot down on August 6, 2011 and the judge-ordered documents have yet to be handed over by Obama.

What really happened, American’s may be wondering? Why wouldn’t the Obama Administration happily comply with the judge’s orders, turn over the documents and put to ease and rest the many families who have suffered no knowing the answers they deserve?

According to RedFlag, the families of the Seal Team 6 may have died because of an inside job.

The Washington Times reports:

The investigative file made available to The Washington Times shows that the helicopter’s landing zone was not properly vetted for threats nor protected by gunships, while commanders criticized the mission as too rushed and the conventional Chinook chopper as ill-suited for a dangerous troop infiltration.

Larry Klayman, who runs the nonprofit watchdog group Freedom Watch, has filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against the Pentagon, as well as the Air Force, Army and Navy. He wants a judge to order the military to turn over an array of documents under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act. He said the Defense Department stonewalled his written requests, so Freedom Watch went to court last month and succeeded in forcing the government to turn over records.

For the first time, Mr. Klayman allowed The Washington Times to view the military’s investigative files turned over to family members two years ago.

“The families of our fallen heroes, who I am proud to represent, need closure to this tragedy,” Mr. Klayman said. “There are many unanswered questions and the military’s explanations of the causes of the crash do not add up.”

He said families also want changes to the military’s restrictive rules of engagement that made it more difficult for U.S. helicopter pilots to fire back at the Taliban fighters they believed brought down the Chinook.

“The families also want our military’s rules of engagement to be changed, as a testament to and in honor of their dead sons,” Mr. Klayman said. “When our nation enters into battle, it must be to win the battle, not the ‘hearts and minds’ of the Islamic jihadist enemy and the Muslim civilian population it uses as human shields.”

He also wants to know the identities of Afghan soldiers onboard, and why the aircraft’s black box, washed away in a fierce rainstorm, was never found — even though it has a homing device.

“We want to make sure our fallen heroes are respected and that answers are provided,” he said.

About a possible insider betrayal, he says: “We’re not saying that happened, but it needs to be explored because increasingly Americans are being killed at the hands of Afghans.”

The Families are not alone in their thoughts. In fact, Many American’s believe the Team had been set up… 

Watch:  SEAL Team 6 Was Murdered

There were 30 U.S. Soldiers on board the CH-47 Chinook helicopter and one American K-9 soldier. In just one day, America endured the greatest single life loss since the war began in 2001.

“Fifteen Navy Seals from Naval Special Warfare Development Group’s Gold Squadron and five U.S. Naval Special Warfare support personnel based in Virginia Beach were Among the Victims,” reports NewsChannel 3.

This is a list of the names of Seal Team 6 Soldiers killed.

The following sailors assigned to an East Coast-based Naval Special Warfare unit were killed:

Lieutenant Commander (SEAL) Jonas B. Kelsall, 32, of Shreveport, Louisiana

Special Warfare Operator Master Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Louis J. Langlais, 44, of Santa Barbara, California

Special Warfare Operator Senior Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Thomas A. Ratzlaff, 34, of Green Forest, Arkansas

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Senior Chief Petty Officer (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist) Kraig M. Vickers 36, of Kokomo, Hawaii,

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Brian R. Bill, 31, of Stamford, Connecticut

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) John W. Faas, 31, of Minneapolis, Minnesota

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Kevin A. Houston, 35, of West Hyannisport, Massachusetts

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Matthew D. Mason, 37, of Kansas City, Missouri

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Stephen M. Mills, 35, of Fort Worth, Texas,

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Chief Petty Officer (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist/Diver) Nicholas H. Null, 30, of Washington, West Virginia

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Robert J. Reeves, 32, of Shreveport, Louisiana

Special Warfare Operator Chief Petty Officer (SEAL) Heath M. Robinson, 34, of Detroit, Michigan

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Darrik C. Benson, 28, of Angwin, California

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL/Parachutist) Christopher G. Campbell, 36, of Jacksonville, North Carolina

Information Systems Technician Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist/Freefall Parachutist) Jared W. Day, 28, of Taylorsville, Utah,

Master-at-Arms Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist) John Douangdara, 26, of South Sioux City, Nebraska

Cryptologist Technician (Collection) Petty Officer 1st Class (Expeditionary Warfare Specialist) Michael J. Strange, 25, of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL/Enlisted Surface Warfare Specialist) Jon T. Tumilson, 35, of Rockford, Iowa,

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Aaron C. Vaughn, 30, of Stuart, Florida, and

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jason R. Workman, 32, of Blanding, Utah.

The following sailors assigned to a West Coast-based Naval Special Warfare unit were killed: 

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 1st Class (SEAL) Jesse D. Pittman, 27, of Ukiah, California, and

Special Warfare Operator Petty Officer 2nd Class (SEAL) Nicholas P. Spehar, 24, of Saint Paul, Minnesota

The soldiers killed were: 

Chief Warrant Officer David R. Carter, 47, of Centennial, Colo.  He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), Aurora, Colorado

Chief Warrant Officer Bryan J. Nichols, 31, of Hays, Kan.  He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas

Staff Sgt. Patrick D. Hamburger, 30, of Lincoln, Neb.  He was assigned to the 2nd Battalion, 135th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), Grand Island, Nebraska
* Sergeant Hamburger was posthumously promoted to Staff Sergeant.

Sgt. Alexander J. Bennett, 24, of Tacoma, Wash.  He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas; and

Spc. Spencer C. Duncan, 21, of Olathe, Kan.  He was assigned to the 7th Battalion, 158th Aviation Regiment (General Support Aviation Battalion), New Century, Kansas

The airmen killed were: 

Tech. Sgt. John W. Brown, 33, of Tallahassee, Florida

Staff Sgt. Andrew W. Harvell, 26, of Long Beach, California; and

Tech. Sgt. Daniel L. Zerbe, 28, of York, Pennsylvania

We stand and Salute every single one of you and thank you for your sacrifices though it simply will never be enough…. God hold and protect you and your families.

By Lorra B.

List Credit, NewsChannel 3

Obama Has Harsh Words For Iran Deal Critics And Many Americans May Take Offence [Video]

dAugust 6, 2015

By Lorra B.

President Obama boldly informs Israeli Leaders and Republicans serving in Congress that rejecting the Iranian nuclear deal will surly lead to war.

This statement may have been his most forceful ‘pitch’ yet to gain public support and portrayed the political deal as “the strongest non-proliferation agreement ever negotiated,” according to Tribune News Service.

Obama went on to say that if Congress votes this down next month “they will not only pave Iran’s way to a bomb, they will accelerate” Iran’s capability to do so more efficiently.

Pulling no punches, Obama tries to discredit his opponents stating, “Between now and the congressional vote in September, you are going to hear a lot of arguments against this deal backed by tens of millions of dollars of advertising. If the arguments sound familiar, they should. Many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran deal,” and would weaken not only international harmony but the United States credibility as well.

He continually stated that the ones opposing the Iran deal are the ones responsible for Americans being sent to war in 2003 with Iraq and listening to them would only lead the U.S. down that same path.

The Iran deal would put boundaries on Iran’s nuclear capabilities over the next 10 years and in “exchange for easing of energy and trade sanctions and release of more than $50 billion in Iranian funds frozen in overseas accounts,” reports, Stars and Stripes.

Will Obama’s speech thwart efforts by House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy and House foreign affairs committee Mitch McConnell from voting on a resolution of disapproval, intended to keep Obama from implementing the Iran deal? As of Tuesday, they both have vowed to vote no on the deal.

Almost unanimously, Republicans are against the Iran deal leaving Obama to rely mainly of Democrats for the votes needed to pass the bill. Democrats, however, have been guarded when speaking publicly on whether they will back Obama.

“Obama has aggressively courted Democrats in recent weeks, hosting the entire House Democratic caucus at the White House last week and dispatching secretary of state John Kerry, energy secretary Ernest Moniz, and treasury secretary Jack Lew to provide numerous briefings—both closed and public—on Capital Hill,” reports The Guardian.

Behind the resistance to the Iran deal are ‘exaggerated threat,’ according to Obama. “Those who say we can walk away from this deal and maintain sections are selling a fantasy. Walk away from this agreement and you will get a better deal: for Iran.”

Using his tongue like a whip, Obama went on stating that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was dead wrong in his resistance to the Iran deal charging that Iranians would be benefited more should the deal fail.

Obama’s sharp-tongued speech may not only injure his rapport with American Jewish groups but with many American people in general.

Perhaps Cory Fritz, press secretary to House Speaker John Boehner, reveals what most American’s are truly thinking as he stated, “As Congress and the American people review this deal, President Obama’s rhetoric is raising far more questions than answers.”

Listen to the full speech from Obama:

By Lorra B.