Aronoff Responds to Shameful HuffPo Attack On Adm. Lyons

Editor’s Note – Stand Up America US (SUA) is in complete agreement with Roger Aronoff from Accuracy in Media (AIM) regarding the malfeasance of the left in media as witnessed in a column written by Sam Stein at the Huffington Post.

Aronoff responds to his slam of Admiral James “Ace” Lyons in a very thorough manner.

We would add that Admiral Lyons is also a SUA Kitchen Cabinet member and long time friend and colleague of MG Paul Vallely’s (SUA Chairman) and the staff at SUA. We take great umbrage to Stein’s screed.

In addition, the Admiral is also a co-founder and integral part of the Legacy National Security Advisory Group with MG Vallely.

US-Admiral-James-Ace-Lyons-on-IslamThis group is comprised of highly experienced command and flag officers, now retired, who are accompanied by seasoned veterans of the intelligence community. Each of these members are proven, stellar leaders, and to belittle one is to belittle them all.

Stein has also committed a fatal journalistic sin in his attempt to besmirch the 240 flag officers (each a proven leader in their own right) who signed onto the letter to Congress opposing the Iran Deal because he simply did not do his research. Not on the Admiral’s exemplary record, nor the members of the Legacy Group, nor on the Citizens Commission on Benghazi.

Also, Stein obviously did not read the detailed and well-documented work produced in the “Betrayal Papers” that completely bolsters the Admiral’s proven claims of Obama’s ties and fealty to the Muslim Brotherhood. Then again, they would just tend to marginalize that too!

Facts trump arrogant ignorance and blind allegiance to ideology; so dishonest to the American public it purports to serve. This is just another shining example of how the left does not seek truth, just success for their leftist team at any price. The “do anything, say anything to win crowd” strikes again and America loses once more.

It is utterly shameful for the ‘lame stream media’to minimize and attempt to marginalize one of America’s TRUE PROVEN LEADERS at a time when leadership is most lacking at the highest levels. Stein owes the Admiral a formal apology.

Huffington Post Attack on Admiral Lyons is Based on Willful Ignorance

By Roger Aronoff – Accuracy in Media

roger_aronoffToo often members of the mainstream media are content to marginalize those with whom they disagree, and mock experts as dark conspiracy theorists rather than rebutting their points. When the Citizens’ Commission on Benghazi (CCB) held its first conference exposing the Benghazi scandal, The Washington Post’s Dana Milbank followed this derogatory playbook to the letter.

Now, it seems, The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein is also content to emulate Milbank’s distortions, and to simply mock that which he knows little about. His August 18 column, “AIPAC Chose A Peculiar Admiral For Its Memo Against The Iran Deal,” calls esteemed CCB member Admiral James “Ace” Lyons a figure who “hasn’t operated at the heights of political power,” and casts it as “peculiar” that Admiral Lyons’ name would be listed among other national heavyweights.

Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Stein
Actual Huffington Post title and tweet from Writer Sam Stein

Lyons is a retired four-star admiral who was Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, which at that time was the largest single military command in the world. “As the Deputy Chief of Naval Operations from 1983 to 1985, he was principal advisor on all Joint Chiefs of Staff matters.”

He also served as the senior military representative to the United Nations, and is far from a babe in the woods when it comes to navigating the politics of power. Following the Marine Barracks bombing in Lebanon in 1983, the first military person that then-CIA Director William Casey sent for was Ace Lyons. Admiral Lyons was clearly a major player at the highest levels of government.

But facts don’t matter to Stein—he has a phony narrative to sell. “Instead, he [Admiral Lyons] has spent his time peddling dark conspiracy theories that probably explain why he doesn’t support the deal with Iran,” writes Stein.

“In particular, Lyons is of the firm belief that the Obama administration has been infiltrated by the Muslim Brotherhood,” he argues. “Elsewhere, he said the Muslim Brotherhood has ‘carte blanche entry into the White House’ and in effect has ‘become an effective cabinet member.’”

The Investigative Project on Terrorism has provided a detailed analysis of several members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) who are official advisors to the White House or various agencies within the Executive branch. The question for Stein, and for the public in general, is whether or not we should care about the influence of the MB on this and other administrations.

Stein must not be aware that earlier this year President Barack Obama invited a number of radical Muslim leaders to the White House to discuss “‘anti-Muslim bigotry’ and banning Muslim terrorist profiling by federal law enforcement,”according to Investor’s Business Daily. The IBD editorial board wrote about several of those visitors:

  • “Imam Mohamed Magid, who preaches at a fundamentalist Northern Virginia mosque that has listed a number of trustees and major donors whose offices and homes were raided after 9/11 by federal agents on suspicion of funding terrorists.”
  • “Azhar Azeez, president of the Islamic Society of North America, a known radical Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas front group that remains on the Justice Department’s list of unindicted terrorist co-conspirators.”
  • “Hoda Hawa, national policy adviser of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, which was founded by known members of the Muslim Brotherhood, a worldwide jihadist movement.”

MPAC’s “leadership praised Hezbollah and Islamist leaders like [Hassan] al-Banna in the 1990s, opposed the designations of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups in 2003, and promoted the [Muslim] Brotherhood as a moderate force and potential U.S. ally in 2010,” wrote Ryan Mauro for The Clarion Project in 2013.

muslim-brotherhood-white-house“It remains unclear why President Obama remains a stalwart believer that the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates should be treated as legitimate political entities, when history reveals the organization as one with radical goals,” reported Breitbart last February. “Both Former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden and ISIS ‘caliph’ Abu Bakr Al Baghdadi were members of the Brotherhood.

Its current spiritual leader, Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, has a knack for bashing Jews and praising Nazis. The Muslim Brotherhood’s motto remains: ‘Allah is our objective. The Prophet is our leader. Qur’an is our law. Jihad is our way. Dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.’”

President Obama has been unduly influenced by this radical group during both terms in office. “And I remind you that as [President Obama] was giving that [2009 Cairo] speech, two very important things that people forget about it,” said journalist Ken Timmerman at our Benghazi conference last year.

“First of all, he was in Cairo, Cairo University, and there was an important person who was not even invited—not just not there, but wasn’t even invited.”

That person was then-Egyptian President, Hosni Mubarak. “And sitting behind the President of the United States as he’s giving this speech, so they’re pictured in all of the news footage of it, are top members of the Muslim Brotherhood—at that point still an outlawed group, although tolerated by the Mubarak regime,” continued Timmerman.

As the CCB Interim Report exposed, “The U.S. facilitated the delivery of weapons and military support to al Qa’eda-linked rebels in Libya.”

“With allegiances like these, Lyons seems to think, it’s no wonder Obama struck such a bad deal [with Iran]—indeed, it’s a shock he pursued any concessions at all,” writes Stein.

As we have reported, it was President Obama—not Iran—who made concession after concession as part of the flawed Iran deal. This disastrous arrangement will guarantee that Iran acquires nuclear weapons.

It is Admiral Lyons’ historical memory that shines a light on the danger of President Obama’s decision to give in to this totalitarian regime’s demands.Obama-Muslim-Brotherhood

Lyons explained at last year’s conference how the U.S. had plans to take out the Islamic Amal, the “forerunner to Hezbollah,” immediately after the 1983 Beirut Barracks bombing.

“We had the photographs. We were going to make it look like a plowed cornfield in Kansas. We had the planes loaded,” said Admiral Lyons, then Deputy Chief for Naval Operations.

“And, at the meeting they go around the table, they brief [Ronald] Reagan, and it gets to [Caspar] Weinberger and he says, ‘I think there are Lebanese army troops in those barracks,’” said Admiral Lyons. “And okay, lo and behold, come back, and no, there are no Lebanese army troops in those barracks.

But this time, and I get this direct from Bud McFarlane, who is the National Security Advisor, Weinberger starts waving his arms and so forth: ‘We’re going to lose all our Arab friends if we go ahead with this strike.’”

“We never got the orders to strike,” said Admiral Lyons. “And of course, what was the message? The message became Osama bin Laden’s rallying cry: ‘The Americans can’t suffer casualties. They will cut and run.’”

President Obama recently excused the concession to let Iran enrich uranium during an August 9 appearance on Fareed Zakaria’s CNN show. “And we did not have the support of that position among our global allies who have been so critical in maintaining sanctions and applying the pressure that was necessary to get Iran to the table,” Obama said. Apparently that was the same reason for all of the other concessions as well.

Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute noted that “Obama and Kerry crossed off every one of their own red lines” in pursuit of this deal..

Like Weinberger, Obama is clearly more concerned about his international legitimacy, and legacy, than standing up to Iran. His continuing support for the Muslim Brotherhood agenda also undermines our national security.

This could serve as a “teachable moment.” Should the Muslim Brotherhood be viewed as some benign, moderate organization? Or instead as the organization that spawned Al Qaeda and other significant terrorist organizations?

Each and every candidate from both parties should be asked whether he or she believes the United States government should receive counsel from the Muslim Brotherhood or entertain their influence. And that is especially true for Hillary Clinton, whose top aide and confidant, the controversial Huma Abedin, has strong family ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Iraq War Veterans Disagree Mr. Obama – Bad Deal!

Editor’s Note – StandUpAmericaUS.org (SUA) stands by all veterans and especially the “Veterans Against the Deal” and we agree with their message.

Our Chairman and Founder, MG Paul Vallely has been very out spoken on the Iranian Deal and was one of the speakers at the ‘Stop Iran Rally’ in Times Square, NYC and lauds this fine group of heroes.

We stand with SSgt. Robert Bartlett and the veterans always!

The real cost of this deal will be lives lost through out the world and future generations of our warriors will be called upon to fix Obama’s mistakes undoubtedly. Obama longs for a legacy, he may just get that, as history will surely not reflect well upon him, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton.Veterans Against the DealObamaRouhani

All three began on this quest long before originally known, during Hillary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State, something all voters need to know in this campaign season.

Releasing billions of dollars to Iran is is insane; this deal is insane!

This money will be used to financially support terrorists to attack the United States, Israel, and whomever they find themselves at fault with as Iran spreads their tentacles across the globe beyond the wide scope already in play.

Iran’s Mullah’s haven’t changed and never will, and Obama and Kerry negotiated with terrorists more than a few times, to the detriment of humanity. Iran means what they say – “Death to America.”

Iraq Vets Take On Obama Over Iran Deal

By Josh Rogin – Bloomberg View

A group of Iraq war veterans is launching a million-dollar effort to oppose President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, trying to counter the president’s argument that those who are against the deal are in favor of war.

Obama has said recently that there are only two camps: those who support the deal versus those who would prefer a bloody and costly war like the conflict in Iraq. 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.

Veterans Against the Deal

The group, Veterans Against the Deal, was founded last month as a 501(c)(4) nonprofit, and it does not disclose its donors. Its national campaign starts today, including television ads in states whose members of Congress are undecided on the Iran deal. Lawmakers will vote on it in September.

The first of the group’s videos features retired staff sergeant Robert Bartlett, who was badly injured by an Iranian bomb while serving in Iraq in 2005.

“Every politician who is involved in this will be held accountable, they will have blood on their hands,” he says in the ad. “A vote for this deal means more money for Iranian terrorism. What do you think they are going to do when they get more money?”

%CODE%

The first ad will go up in Montana, aimed at Democratic Senator Jon Tester. Subsequent ads will air in North Dakota, West Virginia and elsewhere. The group will also send veterans to speak at events in key states.

“We are going to challenge those people who are on the fence,” Executive Director Michael Pregent, a former intelligence adviser to Gen. David Petraeus and Gen. Ray Odierno who served in Iraq, told me. “Our main argument is that veterans know Iran better than Washington, D.C., does.

You’ve got a lot of veterans out there who are pretty upset about this, so we are looking to capture their voices and make sure they are heard.”

The campaign does not actually dwell on the nuclear issue, but on a more immediate threat: When Iran receives up to $100 billion of its frozen assets as part of sanctions relief, it could use that money to increase its nefarious activities all over the region.

Top officials including Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have testified that Iran is likely to use at least some of this cash to fund violence in places like Iraq, Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon.

According to Dempsey, Iran was directly responsible for the deaths of at least 500 American service members during the Iraq war.

The Obama administration has said that the nuclear deal is separate and distinct from Iran’s regional mischief and officials are not counting on any positive change in Iran’s behavior abroad — although as recently as this morning, Obama has said he hopes that Iran might moderate its behavior.

The president has also said most of the money is likely to go toward fixing the Iranian economy.

At his speech at American University last week, the president said those opposed to Iran deal were the same people who supported going to war in Iraq in 2003 — implying that deal opponents are hoping for a similar approach to Iran.

He also said Iranian hardliners were making common cause with Congressional opponents, leading top Republicans like Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell to call on the president to tone down his rhetoric when accusing deal opponents of being pro-war.

Pregent said his campaign will point out that U.S. soldiers who were victims of Iranian bombs aren’t inclined to ally with Iranian hardliners. The group has recruited U.S. service members who were victims of the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Marine Corps barracks in Beirut, when 241 U.S. troops were killed by Iranian-backed Hezbollah forces.

Their efforts will also feature parents and children of service members who were killed in the war in Iraq.

“Do they fall into the category of those aligned with the hardliners in Iran,” Pregent asked, “because they oppose this deal?”

Pregent told me that the group’s donors include Democrats, Republicans and veterans who oppose the deal.

The board of the group includes Pregent, retired Marine Corps Lt. Col. Brian Sanchez, retired Marine Corps Col. Stephen Robb, and Iraq war veteran Pete Hegseth, the chairman of the group Concerned Veterans for America. That group was financed by the Koch brothers’ donor network.

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

He said the veterans and families who are involved are motivated only by their own experiences and views.

“These guys want to be heard. They know this enemy. They have a constant reminder of permanent loss because of Iran,” he said.

“If someone said to me, ‘Aren’t you exploiting these veterans and families?’ I would say, ‘No, aren’t you ignoring these veterans and families?’”

Retired Gen. Mike Flynn, director of the Defense Intelligence Agency from 2012 to 2014, is an adviser to the group.

He said soldiers by and large weren’t advocates of the war in Iraq, but were simply called on to serve and did their duty. But now, many of those individuals are veterans, and they want to have a say.

“They have a right and a responsibility to speak up,” Flynn said.

This new campaign pales in size and scope to some of the other efforts to influence the debate over the Iran deal. AIPAC has raised tens of millions to oppose the deal, and pro-deal lobbying groups have raised several million to convince lawmakers to support the pact.

But those efforts have been largely based on technical arguments; this one could be uniquely powerful because it puts a human face on the issue.

President Obama keeps trying to frame lawmakers’ decision as war without the deal or peace with it. The new ads will make that harder to do, showing veterans who oppose the deal without supporting war — who in fact believe the deal will lead to more war, not less.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

Obama and Israel Video – "Anon" takes down AIPAC Site

Editor’s Note – The committed Jewish leaders supporting Israel in America and globally have established a Political Action Committee that have mobilized an effort that speaks to the truth of President Obama’s shallow friendship/relationship with Israel.

Released today to coincide with the opening of the AIPAC Conference in Washington, D.C., the video posted here was formally launched and published and will be supported by a series of advertizements and billboards.

This is a profound effort by ‘real’ friends of Israel and Jews themselves to publish tangible facts about the Obama administration’s hidden and often public disdain and isolation objectives of Israel. At the same time, it reveals Obama’s approval of and for the Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas.

Clearly, Abbas is a closer ally to Obama than Netanyahu, it can no longer be denied.

At the time of this posting, the AIPAC web site has been knocked out by ‘Anonymous’!

Daylight: The Story of Obama and Israel