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.

GSA plays, Soldiers and Vets get cuts

Editor’s Note – If you are not afraid of this administration yet, you are not paying attention. When was it declared that our soldiers are second-class federal employees?

With GSA employees making idiotic videos on our dime, wining and dining at a regional conference in Las Vegas, and the list just goes on and on…this administration is an unmitigated disaster. Its ideologically un-Americanism is truly stark and clear – to those who pay attention. , and/or did not drink the “Fool-Aid”.

The Center for American Progress, Media Matters, and their ilk drive side-by-side with the Obama Administration – Code Pink style!

Universal sign of distress!

The Center for American Progress’ War on Veterans

Posted by Daniel Greenfield – Front Page Magazine

The shameful treatment of Vietnam veterans is one of the ugliest chapters in our history and it is a chapter that the Obama Administration appears eager to revisit under the guiding inspiration of the Center for American Progress.

While spending under Obama has dramatically increased, the only part of the budget that the radical administration appears to be willing to cut is military spending. But cuts to military spending don’t just involve hardware, but also target human beings. The most shameful cuts involve dramatic increases to health care costs for veterans.

Tricare provides medical benefits to active duty personnel and their families, as well as veterans. With military salaries that are below average for Federal workers, those who serve and have served their country depend on it. After ten years of war and fifteen thousand wounded men and women, Tricare is a small payment on the debt that can never be repaid.

Unfortunately the Party of Treason, not satisfied with stabbing soldiers in the back while they were fighting, has refused to cease its campaign against them even after they have come home. The Center for American Progress, the leftist think-tank that has been described as the brains of the Democratic Party, has made Tricare into a target.

Time Magazine has described the Center for American Progress as “Obama’s Idea Factory” and it is clearly the source of the idea that responsible spending involves cutting health care benefits for veterans while pumping another 1.3 billion dollars into a Muslim Brotherhood run Egypt. The Tricare cuts are supposed to save 1.8 billion dollars, which we could just as easily save by eliminating aid to Egypt and Pakistan.

In 2011 the Center for American Progress issued a special paper deceptively titled, “Restoring Tricare” calling for higher premiums to “encourage responsible use” of Tricare benefits by veterans. CAP’s war on veterans was spearheaded by Lawrence Korb. Korb is a senior fellow at CAP and a senior adviser at the Center for Defense Information. Both are Soros linked organizations.

Korb has boasted that he has been pushing the kinds of drastic defense cuts since 2003 and indeed many of his proposals are part of the massive budget cuts. But while he had called for scrapping systems, he had not originally been an advocate of Tricare cuts. Instead in 2006, his defense review paper actually called for increasing Tricare costs by 1.8 billion by allowing reservists to join. This is identical to the savings from the current proposed Tricare premium hikes.

Only in the age of Obama did Korb shift from calling for Tricare increases in 2006 and 2007 to warning that rising Tricare costs were a serious problem and suggested that as a consequence of low fees, veterans “tend to use the program more heavily than civilians utilize typical HMOs.” The possibility that veterans had higher health costs because of their service was not mentioned.

But if Tricare was such a drain, then why hadn’t Korb proposed those same cuts earlier, why indeed had he called for bulking up Tricare costs only a year earlier? The shift came with Obama’s victory and it was only then that CAP began beating the drum for Tricare cuts and now it is close to getting its way.

As part of the ax, enrollees will see a 400 percent health care premium increase over the next five years leading to hundreds or thousands more in expenses for veterans who are already facing a bad economy. Veterans on a fixed income with medical problems will face the worst of it at the hands of a government that has made it clear that it doesn’t care what happens to them.

Veterans Day March – The Oath and a 'Call to Action'

Will Those Who Took an Oath Save Our Republic?

“MILLIONS OF PARTICIPANTS CAN CHANGE THE COURSE OF HISTORY”

By JB Williams

Veteran Defenders/Patriots Union, Cross Posted at The Post and Email

As conditions in America worsened over the last few years, in particular the time frame since an illegal and unconstitutional man from nowhere with a blank resume seized the White House and started installing unvetted and unelected Czars at the helm of the people’s government, I heard the same single question asked over and over again with increasing regularity and desperation –

What does an oath mean anymore?

“Where’s our military and law enforcement? Isn’t anyone who took an oath to protect and defend against all enemies, going to do something?”

Amid an endless stream of conspiracy theories, a real conspiracy was underway and well-founded concerns for the true state of our union led many to one question surfacing repeatedly with increasing anxiety –

“Why are our soldiers allegedly fighting for freedom and liberty abroad while we are being stripped of our freedom and liberty at home? Why isn’t anyone doing anything to stop it?”

It’s quite clear that our nation is speeding towards the cliff. Even after the Tea Party success in the 2010 mid-term elections, the rush towards the cliff is only accelerating. Totally shut out from the legal system with no political solution in sight, what started out as an obvious question was fast becoming a national plea for men and women who had taken an oath, to stand up for the American people and live by that oath.

The Oath for Enlisted Service Members

“I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.” (Title 10, US Code; Act of 5 May 1960 replacing the wording first adopted in 1789, with amendment effective 5 October 1962).

What if the orders of an illegal President are at odds with the orders of officers appointed over the enlisted?

The Oath for Officers of the US Military

“I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God.” (DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)

Note that unlike the enlisted oath, the language requiring one to follow the orders of the President is missing from the officers’ oath. An officer has a sworn duty to the Constitution of the United States with no stated loyalty to the President of the United States, just in case we ever have a President who is himself, a domestic enemy.

When the orders of a President are at odds with the orders of the Commanding Officer, the enlisted must decide which orders to follow, which orders are legal and constitutional. While every officer is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution alone, each enlisted is faced with a dilemma – following the orders of the President, or the orders of their Commanding Officers.

Such would be the case if a domestic enemy in the White House was to ever order American troops to guns on American citizens, which is only legal in a true “state of emergency.” Of course, a domestic enemy operating from the White House, has the power to create a “state of emergency” and many are speculating these days that this is exactly what Obama and his Czars are doing.

The Oath of Congress

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

The Oath of Justices and Judges

“I, ________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as ________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.”

Once again we see that Congress, Justices and Judges do not swear any oath of loyalty to a sitting president and there is a reason for this. This is due to the three branches having separate and equal powers under the Constitution.

The Oath of Every Federal Employee

“I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.” – 5 U.S.C. §3331

Note that every federal employee also takes a civil servants oath, not to whoever might be president at any given time, but solely to the United States Constitution. Like Military officers, there is no conflict of loyalty in their oath. They have but one obligation, and that obligation is to uphold and defend the Constitution against all enemies, even if that enemy resides in the people’s White House.

Notice something else in common with every oath — they all end with “So help me God.”

Every member of Law Enforcement also takes a similar oath to protect and defend with no allegiance to whoever might occupy the office of president at any given time.

Violating Their Oath

Our Federal Government currently has more than 21 million employees (aka civil servants). All of them have taken one or more of the above oaths. Refusing to live by their oath places them in direct violation of their oath, in every case.

Violating their oath is not just cause for immediate dismissal and removal from office, it is a federal crime.

Federal law regulating oath of office by government officials is divided into four parts along with an executive order which further defines the law for purposes of enforcement. 5 U.S.C. 3331, provides the text of the actual oath of office members of Congress are required to take before assuming office. 5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”.

Where are our soldiers on the matter?

A veterans groups called The Veteran Defenders of America has now answered that question. In a documented Call-to-Action titled a – A Declaration to Restore the Constitutional Republic – former Military and Law Enforcement Officers have come together to demand that all oath-takers immediately execute their oaths in preservation of the Constitutional Republic.

At present, every member of the Military, Law Enforcement, Justice, Congress and federal employment is in direct violation of their oaths. As they stand idly by allowing an anti-American transformation of our constitutional form of government, they do so in direct violation of the oaths they have each taken. This is not just an act which justifies their immediate removal from office — it is in fact a federal crime punishable by extreme measures.

As a result, an undisclosed number of veterans across the country have joined forces to demand that every individual who has ever taken an oath to the Constitution immediately and without reservation, begin to adhere to that oath.

They have put out an open Call-to-Action for every oath-taker and every true American patriot to join them in Washington D.C. on Veterans Day, November 11, 2011 at the Washington Monument to demonstrate the will of the people and the resolve to protect and defend our Constitution and the free Republic for which it stands.

Those who refuse to live by their oath will confirm their intent to continue violating their oaths.

As you would expect – forces in the country and in particular on the Internet have worked around the clock to keep word of the veterans’ declaration from reaching critical mass. Only a few online publications have mentioned the event and no main stream media outlet or personality has uttered a word in support of these veterans. They do this at their own peril, as John F. Kennedy stated so well years ago – “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”

The veterans have set a course to peacefully restore the Constitutional Republic, going so far as to release a Code of Conduct for participants in the 11.11.11 event at the Washington Monument.

America can be protected and defended, and restored to a Constitutional Republic peacefully, but only if all oath-takers immediately begin to act on their oaths. That is a really big if…

To date, there are no signs that anyone in Washington D.C. intends to keep the oaths they have taken to the Constitution and the people of the United States. Instead, they seem quite disinterested in protecting the Constitution and are instead, directly engaged in subverting every principle and value stated in all of our founding documents.

The current call by veterans to alter that course may be the last peaceful means available to the people of the United States. After November 11, 2011 – if all oath-takers refuse to act upon those oaths, in the interest of the Constitution and the American people, there will be no peaceful solutions left to consider.

What if oath-takers refuse to keep their oaths?

The American people are key to the questions with no answers…

Thousands of participants on November 11th will have little or no real impact. But millions of participants can indeed change the course of history and they can do it peacefully if they do it soon, say, November 11th.

But once again, that’s another big if… Now that the soldiers have drawn a line in the sand and taken a firm stand, how many so-called patriots are ready to stand with them?

We will get the answer to that question on November 11, 2011. May God bless their efforts and have mercy on a people unwilling to stand with them.

Meanwhile, the veterans have established a citizen lobby opportunity where citizens can send information on their Declaration directly to elected officials at no charge. A sample copy of the message is available here and everyone can send it to your elected officials here.