Editor’s Note: From our great friend and regular SUA contributor former Congressman Pete Hoekstra. Pete represented Michigan for 18 years in Congress as chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee and as a leading bipartisan voice on policy and oversight of national security, education, labor, and economic issues.





By Pete Hoekstra

Nuclear weapons are in the news multiple times each day, with unsettling events in North Korea, China, Iran, and Russia escalating the concern that the United States is entering an era of growing instability and uncertainty.

While there are serious and gathering nuclear threats facing the United States and our allies, there is no need to panic, nor believe that doomsday is just around the corner. But we do need to get on with the task of modernizing our nuclear deterrent, enhancing our ballistic missile defenses and working effectively to stop the proliferation of such weapons.

This essay addresses the question of how best to maintain nuclear deterrence. Critics of the current US modernization plan urge the US to exercise restraint by curtailing the modernization of significant portions of our nuclear deterrent under the assumption that if the United States unilaterally stops “arms racing”, our adversaries such as Russia and China will as well.

My conclusion is three fold: (1) recent history shows restraint does not work; (2) nuclear modernization is absolutely required; and (3) a renewed “peace through strength” policy will both reduce nuclear dangers and restore some stability in international affairs.

First, let’s review the facts of the nuclear landscape.

The United States has deployed in its strategic nuclear forces under 1600 nuclear warheads, at least 1000 warheads less than the Russians. [The Russians have to reduce these numbers to the New Start level by February 2018].

Second, the United States has a few hundred tactical or theater nuclear weapons, less than the 2000-5000 such weapons held by Russia.

Third, the Russians are on a pace to modernize at least 90% of their nuclear deterrent force by the turn of the decade, no later than 2021 it appears. By contrast, the US modernization begins with the deployment of a new bomber, submarine and land based missiles no earlier than from mid-2027 through 2031, so US modernization restraint is hardly called for.

Fourth, and just to be clear, current forces are capable but in need of significant investment. Most of the US forces were fielded 30 or more years ago and are at the end of their service lives. They are thus actually way past due for modernization, and that is the only way they can remain credible and capable as the foundation of our deterrent. Four senior USAF and Navy nuclear commanders underscored this point in HASC testimony on March 8, 2017.

In that context, how should we treat calls for major US restraint in rebuilding our nuclear arms? Perhaps it would be instructive to review the impact of US nuclear unilateral restraint just before and following the 1990 collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now to be clear, the US and the Soviet Union and then Russia jointly agreed to the INF (1987), START I (July 1991) and START II (January 1993) nuclear weapons treaties. But unlike in the post 1990 period, we significantly invested in a simultaneous modernization of our entire nuclear deterrent during the Reagan administration while also seeking arms control. Peace through strength worked as we secured major reductions in Soviet-era nuclear weapons and the end of the Soviet Union.

It was only after the collapse of the Soviet Union did our nuclear investments markedly decline. The US went beyond the joint treaties with Moscow and took a large number of additional unilateral actions in both the Bush 41 and Clinton administrations, many of them codified in the 1994 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). This restraint included a US nuclear policy which:

“Created no new mission or scenario for nuclear-weapon use and articulated the premise that nuclear weapons play a smaller role in U.S. security today than at any other time in the nuclear age.

“Codified that the United States no longer targets any country with strategic nuclear forces on a day-to-day basis.

“Specified that U.S. strategic bombers were taken off alert. Further, more ballistic missile submarines now patrol on “modified alert” out of the range of their targets than on an “alert” status. The U.S. airborne command and control posts now operate at a reduced tempo.

“Called for continued reduction of defense expenditures for strategic nuclear forces and in the number of associated personnel. The levels for FY 97 were roughly one-third those of FY 88.

“Terminated U.S. ground-force nuclear capability and training for nuclear missions. By FY 97, the number of U.S. nuclear weapons deployed in Europe was down from a peak of 7,000 to ‘hundreds.’

“Mandated that all nonstrategic nuclear weapons, including nuclear cruise missiles, depth charges, and torpedoes, be removed from surface ships, multipurpose submarines, and land-based naval aircraft bases. The capability to deploy such weapons on U.S. surface ships has now been eliminated.

“Continued the reduction of the overall U.S. nuclear stockpile–a 59 percent reduction from FY 88 to FY 97. Ninety percent of the nonstrategic nuclear stockpile was eliminated.

The NPR also assumed such unilateral reductions were safe to undertake because the Russians would not brandish for diplomatic or military purposes its nuclear weapons. The study further assumed the Russian leadership was intent on fully joining the “international community of market economies”, and that the Russian nuclear arsenal would not pose a serious threat to the United States. Overall, the report generally foresaw a relatively benign future nuclear environment. (1)

What happened?

In fact, after the American unilateral exercise of nuclear restraint, these serious and adverse nuclear developments followed:

  • The Russians in 2000 turned down START II arguing that Moscow would not agree to the treaty’s ban on multiple warhead land based missiles. Russia insisted that all US work on missile defenses had to be contained within the laboratory with strict adherence to the ABM Treaty. Those conditions were not acceptable to the Clinton administration nor the Congress and thus the treaty never went into effect.
  • North Korea worked to produce nuclear weapons fuel in violation of the 1995 Agreed Framework that purported to end Pyongyang’s pursuit of nuclear weapons. Eventually, in 2006 North Korea tested an actual nuclear weapon while advancing its ballistic missile delivery systems.
  • Iran went forward with its nuclear work, both increasing its capacity to make enriched nuclear fuel and seeking help to design warheads.
  • The Khan network out of Pakistan, what I have termed the “Nukes ‘R Us” outfit, expanded its work of distributing nuclear weapons technology and scientific nuclear know-how to North Korea, Libya, and Iran.
  • Pakistan and India, as well, exploded nuclear devices and made plans to sharply increase their inventory of nuclear weapons.
  • China, too, expanded its nuclear capability, and began the construction of what appears to have been $50 billion (my estimate) in missile tunnels and train tracks that would come to house mobile land based missiles, as part of a modernization of all elements of their nuclear deterrent.

In addition, Russian aggression in Ukraine and Crimea went unchecked, and China unilaterally seized atolls and reefs in the South China Sea on which it is building military bases.

In just the past decade, Russia and China together have rhetorically brandished nuclear weapons three dozen times, threatening to use such weapons in the conduct of their foreign policy, and rhetorically threatening to push the US and its allies to give up important international security objectives or risk nuclear attack.

Recently, both Norway and Denmark, for example, were added to the Russian nuclear target list said the Kremlin, for the “provocative” one for protecting its territorial sea from the incursion of Russian submarines and the other for planning to put a missile defense capability on its Navy Aegis cruisers.

The gathering nuclear threats today cannot be tied to any notion that the US has not evidenced sufficient restraint, including unilateral gestures of nuclear arms control.

China, Russia, North Korea and Iran, seek to replace a rules based civilized order with one of blackmail, coercion, terror and aggression. Acting with restraint in the fact of such aggression is not a policy but it is a faith based hope. Nuclear dangers arose in part because we exercised excessive restraint, what one senior Air Force official described as a “nuclear procurement holiday”created a security vacuum that over a period of the past two decades the bad “hombres” filled.

President Trump has argued that the United States must maintain its nuclear deterrent forces at “the top of the heap” when compared to our adversaries. He has also repeatedly noted that our forces are in need of repair and modernization as Russia and China fully modernize their nuclear forces.

Here the disarmament advocates appear to trying to have it both ways—the claim nothing is wrong with our deterrent as it still is better than the Russians but simultaneously they argue we need to kill large segments of that same force so the Russians don’t engage in an arms race!

For example, former Secretary of Defense William Perry and former defense logistics staffer Lawrence Korb both advocate a massive unilateral 97% reduction in America’s nuclear assets plus a one-third reduction in our warheads, arguing that maintaining nuclear parity with the Russians is unnecessary.

If we don’t try to retreat our way to nuclear safety, isn’t the alternative unaffordable? Can we really increase the defense budget adequately to fully modernize the nuclear deterrent?

Again, let us look at the facts. The United States now spends in the neighborhood of 5% of the defense budget on nuclear modernization. At the peak of this effort next decade, we will be spending 6% but only one half of one percent of the Federal budget. That means for every $100 Uncle Sam spends, the nuclear deterrent gets 50 cents.

Looked at another way, this is the equivalent of a household with a $52,000 income—the national per capita GDP average—spending on auto, fire, life, and homeowners insurance $22 a month.

Ok, it may be cheap the critics might admit, but what does it matter if we underfund our defense? What if we simply gamble and spent less?

Well, let’s look at some history.

Prior to World War II and the Korean War, the US defense budgets were dramatically curtailed or sustained at levels incompatible with our security.

We know that the US and its allies were woefully unprepared for both conflicts.

Defense spending in the US was $700 million in 1933; it remained at that level for every year of that decade up to Pearl Harbor.

After WWII, from 1945-50, US defense budgets declined markedly, from near $90 billion at the war’s end to under $10 billion. Just a year prior to the Korean War, the US defense secretary was urging Congress to cut the defense budget down to no more than $7 billion a year.

On December 7th, 1941, and June 25, 1950, respectively, Japan bombed Pearl Harbor and North Korea invaded the Republic of Korea. These wars killed a combined 81 million people, out of a world population of roughly 2.4 billion, or three percent of all the people alive at the time.

These wars were fought almost entirely without the use of nuclear weapons, with the exception of the bombing of two Japanese cities which historians agree saved the lives of millions of people by ending the war in the Pacific.

Spending $26 billion annually now on nuclear deterrence, increasing to $35 billion by the middle of next decade, is a prudent insurance policy that will annually cost $9 billion more next decade than today.

These are the projected nuclear investments now planned in budgets approved by Congress.

By contrast, Americans spent $11 billion in 2016 just going to the movies.

Today’s investment is with treasure and yes the amount is a lot of money.

But if we get this wrong, tomorrow will be paid in blood.

Just to save $9 billion a year or $28 for every American living today, think of what we are willing to risk. As the advertisement says, you can pay me today, or you can pay me tomorrow.

World War II and the Korean War were fought with conventional weapons. And upwards of 84 million people perished.

The next war could be fought with nuclear ones. And we are willing to take that risk just to save each American $28 a year?





America First Million Member Sign-Up

Please join us in our commitment to promote American exceptionalism, freedom, our Constitution,  our American way of life, and our safety and security by making a donation and subscribing to our periodic newsletters and messages by donating below.

Sign Up


Paul Vallely, MG USA (ret) RBTH Interview: Trump won’t take a confrontational approach with Russia.

U.S. General: Trump won’t take confrontational approach with Russia


What would Trump’s reaction to Crimea have been, and what will the U.S. President discuss with Russia’s Vladimir Putin at their first, as yet unscheduled, meeting? In an exclusive interview with RBTH, retired U.S. Army Major General Paul Vallely and Michael Maloof, a former senior security policy analyst for the Secretary of Defense, share their views on these and other issues in U.S.-Russia relations.

Trump, Crimea and the meeting

RBTH: General, imagine that Crimea happened today. How would Trump have reacted?

Paul E. Vallely: I think he would have wanted to talk to Putin and say “Hey, what’s going on? What’s happened, there’s got to be a reason for this, would you let me know?” Obama could never do that. If you read Trump’s book, The Art of the Deal, you find out how he does it.

It’s difficult to guess what he would have done, but we know what his thinking is, and it’s very different from Obama’s. Now, if Russia takes some action somewhere, he is not going to overreact. And if it’s not in the interests of the U.S., if it’s not a threat to the U.S., he is going to think very hard about getting involved.

RBTH: What do you expect from the first meeting between Trump and Putin?

Paul E. Vallely: Putin is going to meet with Trump sooner rather than later. That’s very important. A long time has passed since Mikhail Gorbachev met Ronald Reagan and we are in a very different environment now that looks almost like a new Cold War. But this happens because the media and the Democratic Party blame Russia for everything, which is just ridiculous. There is absolutely no evidence that the Russians affected the U.S. elections by hacking or by any other means.

I think Trump and Putin will discuss issues related to energy, economics. They will talk about the situation in Syria, extremism and how to deal with it. Trump is likely to bring up North Korea as a subject of the discussion too. He will see to it if to bring Crimea and Ukraine as part of the discussion, but he will not be fixated on that. In general, I think Putin respects Trump. I know Trump respects Putin. I would say rather sooner than later we will be surprised about the way things happen.


Misunderstanding Russia

RBHT: There are many military representatives in Trump’s inner circle. Do they see Russia as a challenge, a threat, or a potential ally?

Paul E. Vallely: We have a couple of guys who do not understand the new Russia. We still have a contingent of old CIA types who regard Russia as a main threat. I have one person in mind. But I don’t want to name him only because of the transition period. If you quote me on that, he is going to say “Why did he say this about me, I’ve been here for only a week.”

RBTH: Is it true that, among the military members of Trump’s team, Secretary of Defense James Mattis has the most influence with the President?

Paul E. Vallely: Yes, Mattis has an upper hand in pushing his agenda with the White House. Mattis certainly has more power than the other military within the Trump team to shape policy.

RBTH: Does James Mattis see Russia as a threat?

Michael Maloof: Yes, Mattis still regards Russia as a threat, but at the same time he says we can work with Moscow. But it’s important that it was Trump who has brought these people in, knowing what their positions are. And he made it very clear that he wants their opinions, but the ultimate decision remains with him.

Paul E. Vallely: And Trump is very positive about Russia. He does not have any preconceptions that Russia is a threat.

RBTH: Some saw former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn’s resignation as the closure of an opportunity for Moscow. Was Flynn indeed the Kremlin’s window into the Trump administration?

Is McMaster’s appointment as national security adviser bad news for Moscow?

Paul E. Vallely: Flynn indeed was a window into the Trump administration for Russia. And this was particularly important in light of the legacy Obama had left. Obama never knew how to develop a relationship with Russia. Flynn, on the other hand, has been very proactive in engaging Russia. But even though he had to resign, Trump will still reach out to Moscow.

Trump’s line in the sand

RBTH: Trump seems to be under significant pressure on issues related to Russia. Is it true he has been pressured by the Washington political establishment and the military to change his rhetoric on Russia?

Michael Maloof: To a point. Trump has been more forthcoming about expressing the desire to work with Russia than the old Cold Warriors had. And that’s a part of the changes that are happening in the U.S. now. The country is being mentality oriented into a new direction by the new president. And this is pretty hard when you have old CIA types who are still in their positions and the media, which has been very anti-Russian.  But if Trump makes a decision to cooperate with Russia, they will stand up and salute.

Paul E. Vallely: Definitely, they will stand up and salute. An important thing is that the soldiers are very happy to have Trump as president. And this is what is really important. From that stand point we get a new spirit within the armed forces now.

RBTH: If the military has Trump’s ear, does it mean Trump is going to pursue a more assertive policy towards Russia if he fails to find common ground with Putin?

Paul E. Vallely: No, I don’t think Trump is going to take that approach. Trump and Putin will get along well, and they will make a deal. Trump is not going to take a military confrontational approach to Russia at all.

RBTH: In Syria, what does the U.S. military think about a prospect of cooperating with the Russian military?

Michael Maloof: There is already some level of cooperation. They have video conferences. There was one episode when the U.S. bombed Syrian troops. A serviceman left his post on the U.S. side, and that created the problem. That episode helped establish new procedures to be followed from then on. They are trying to make it work, but that’s the level of cooperation for now.

There is substantial internal resistance within the military against cooperating with the Russians in Syria. There is reluctance on part of the military to share the intelligence, because of the perceived notion that Russia remains the primary threat.

But the whole Syrian thing might change this mindset. From our personal meeting with Russia’s Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov, we have an impression that Russia is willing to achieve it too. And this is one of the messages we are bringing back to the U.S.

RBTH: Obama was criticized for drawing a line in the sand on Syria and then not acting upon it. Would Trump be more decisive to act in a similar situation?

Paul E. Vallely: I don’t think Trump will draw any lines to begin with. For Trump, if there’s a threat to the U.S., then we are going to go and take it out. If, in the meantime, we have to work with the Russians to eliminate that threat, then we will. That’s the attitude. Trump is not that kind of person who wants to draw lines. He wants to identify a problem and work with everyone he can to solve it.

Paul E. Vallely is a retired U.S. Army Major General, Chairman of Stand Up America, Scott Vallely Soldiers Memorial Fund and NEMO ARMS Inc. He is senior military analyst for Fox News.

Michael Maloof  is a contributing writer for national security affairs for WND and G2Bulletin, a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, and the author of A Nation Forsaken.

Paul Vallely and Michael Maloof both came to Moscow for a series of events organized by the Valdai Discussion Club, including a private meeting with Russia’s deputy foreign minister Mikhail Bogdanov.

Nikolay Shevchenko is a foreign correspondent for Russia Beyond The Headlines and an editor at the Global Ethics Network.

Article here


Stand Up America US Foundation Newsletter February 25, 2017

February 25, 2017


SUA Alert! 


News You Can Use

For The Record

Say What?

In Case You Missed It

Comedy Break

Soldiers Memorial Fund

Timeless Quotes



Stand Up America US Foundation s a network of patriotic Americans who wish to return America to its Constitutional roots.

General Paul Vallely and the SUA staff are committed to educating their followers and assisting pro-active groups in righting the ship of state.  Your donation is important to us and will assist in this historic effort.  Please join us today.

Editor: Ray DiLorenzo


Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely served 32 years in the Army, having retired as Deputy Commanding General, US Army, Pacific.



Guest Submission


To Those With Ears, Let Them Hear


As you well know, the would-be Bolshevik Left has gone out of their collective hive mind over President Trump.  I’ve spent most of my cognizant life studying politics and I’ve never seen the likes of this.  It’s my off-campus newspaper experience gone mad, and with access to virtually unlimited resources.  Need I say there is no factual basis to the madness?

We are witnessing pure, emotional disturbance, a genuine Nineteen Eighty Four style “Two Minute Hate” directed by very evil actors who are insane with furious rage at being denied Hillary Klinton’s ascendance to the throne, securing the end of heritage America.

After careful observation of everything I could find in detailed, painstaking research in person, on the Internet, and in the context of history, I am convinced their goal is CIVIL WAR, attendant MARTIAL LAW, in order to affect an immoral COUP D’ETAT and severe REPRESSION of normal, ordinary, actual blood Americans like you and me.

Trump is a genius backed by one of the smartest teams ever assembled. There are reports that “White Hat” elements of the so-called Deep State recruited Trump many years ago, carefully planning this bold and audacious RESTITUTION of HERITAGE AMERICA with Trump as the front man.  God help them for they face devilish forces of the kind we cannot imagine.  However, I’ve seen their public postings on YouTube, Instagram, assorted web pages/blogs and you can take my word on it: they are devil spawn and what I saw haunts me today, four months later.

We recommend a PRAYER OFFENSIVE in support of President Trump.  This is a winning strategy because, as St. Paul warned us in Ephesians VI, this is not a battle of men born of women but rather spiritual forces of evil, from beyond our normal realm.  We must put on the full armor of God if we are going to prevail.

Pray for our President who risks his life and the lives of his children, grandchildren, and anyone close to him on our behalf.  Pray for your own families that they be granted strength to do what must be done if this continues on its present course, and for the guidance from the Light from Above that took us through the second World War (see the lyrics to “God Bless America”).



Editor’s note:  Some might think some of the statements made in this article are exaggerations.  We think not. What President in modern American history had calls for his impeachment almost immediately after inauguration? What President has received such expressions and demonstrations of hate so soon after taking office as Donald Trump? What former President, in little more than a month after leaving office, setup 250 Organizing For Action offices staffed by 32,000 organizers, 25,000 of them trained anarchists? What former President during his first presidential campaign called for a Civilian National Security Force, “just as powerful, just as well-funded as the U.S. military”? But, where is Hillary Clinton?  Ms. Clinton is keeping her mouth shut, probably at the behest of her attorneys so as to keep her out of jail.  Make no mistake, Clinton is not the head of the Democrat Party, Obama is and remains.


We purposely left out the name of the author by request.







Stand Up America US Foundation depends on your support to help the many organizations that work tirelessly to preserve our nation as founded


Notice To Subscribers

Some subscribers have complained that they were mistakenly taken off the mailing list.

If you forward this newsletter, be aware that the recipient could cancel your subscription if they click the ‘unsubscribe’ button at the end of the newsletter.  It is our suggestion that you inform your recipients to just delete the newsletter if they find it objectionable, or simply copy and paste the newsletter removing the bottom portion where ‘Unsubscribe’ is located.


News You Can Use

Maxine Waters Calls Trump’s Cabinet: “A Bunch of Scumbags” 


U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters took her calls for the impeachment of Donald Trump one step further on Tuesday. In an interview on MSNBC, Waters said, “I just think the American people had better understand what’s going on. This is a bunch of scumbags. That’s what they are.”  Breitbart

Editor’s note:  Maxine Waters is famous for going off half cocked and then trying to step back from expressing her true feelings.  In 2008, Waters was lecturing oil company executives at a congressional hearing when she plainly stated: “Guess what this liberal would be all about?  This liberal would be about socializing…uh, ummm, ahhh, basically taking over, and the government running your companies.”  The government taking over the oil companies? The government (IRS) couldn’t even run a cat house in Reno after they took it over.


Universities Encourage Turning Students In for Offensive Speech

230 universities are encouraging students to report their peers for offensive speech, according to a report by the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE). Through a bias-report system, universities are encouraging students to report their peers for offensive thoughts. Bias is defined by universities to include any speech, protected or not, that subjectively offends anyone.  Breitbart

Editor’s note:  To deflect attention of what they are doing, the left will always accuse their opponents of what they are doing (classic Lenin tactic). Marxism, fascism, socialism is never about truth, it’s about power and control.  And the left accuses Trump of being a fascist?!  In today’s political climate, parents and students need to be very cautious about what college they choose.


Gov. Brown Cuts Middle Class Scholarships, But Not For Illegals

Facing a $2 billion deficit this summer, California’s Gov. Brown decided to cut funding for middle class U.S. citizens enrolled in higher education schools–but increase funding for illegal alien students. Daily Caller

Editor’s note:  The Democrat Party owns California. Their No. 1 mission is to make more democrats.  Helping middle class students with scholarships will not accomplish that end.  California is in crisis, certainly a crisis of leadership. While his state’s infrastructure is literally falling apart, Gov. Brown is concentrating on climate change and transgender bathrooms. Having lived in California for over thirty years, I watched as what was once the finest freeway system in the world crumble to dust with potholes and garbage spread everywhere. Levees in much of California have breached, forcing homeowners to evacuate. During the recent drought, water was at record shortages because there is no adequate system in place to hold the runoff from the winter snows, allowing trillions of gallons of fresh water to spill into the Pacific.

Marine Le Pen Extends Lead in French Presidential Poll

Trump-like French Presidential candidate, Marine Le Pen is now comfortably positioned to win first round of voting.  Breitbart

Editor’s note: Like Trump, Le Pen’s lead, according to the ‘experts’ is not expected to hold.  We shall see.


Getty Images


Prayer of Thanks at the White House

Quite a contrast to the riots, street protests, hateful rhetoric and media mania against President Trump.  Fox News

Editor’s note:  The photo was taken January 31, 2017 showing President Trump, his two oldest sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, Vice President Mike Pence and his wife and daughter, U.S. Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch and his wife, Trump’s Chief of Staff, Reince Priebus, Maureen Scalia, the wife of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, and their son, Fr. Paul Scalia, a Roman Catholic priest, praying together at the White House. Our national motto: In God We Trust!



For The Record

“Our democracy is in peril.”

“We need to protect our democracy.”

Typical complaints from ignorant, mostly liberal, voters. It sounds so right, except it is totally wrong.  We do not live in a democracy!..

We live in a Constitutional Republic!!

A democracy is a government that is ruled by the will of the majority. A republic is a representative form of government that is ruled according to a charter or constitution which limits the power of the government and protects the rights of the individual against the majority.

In a true democracy, the majority rules in all cases, regardless of the consequences to any individual or group. The individual or group has no protections against the majority.

In a republic, the majority is controlled to protect the individual’s God-given unalienable rights.

Democracy = Mob Rule

Republic = Everyone has a voice – Brilliant

Democrats want you to believe we have a democracy because they are, after all… ‘Democrats.’

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.  Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Widely attributed to Benjamin Franklin


Say What?

Immigration Facts

  1.  950,000+ illegal immigrants had deportation orders as of May, 2016.
  2.  1% of illegal immigrants with deportation orders are in custody.
  3.  There are currently 542,000 pending deportation cases in Federal courts.
  4.  Backlog of deportation cases up 142% since Fiscal Year 2009.
  5.  FY13-FY15 – 86,000+ criminal illegal immigrants released from custody.
  6.  FY10-FY14 – 121 criminal aliens charged with homicide following release.
  7.  FY16 – 58% of all ICE removals were previously convicted of a crime.
  8.  FY16 – 2,057 ICE removals were suspected or confirmed gang members.
  9.  FY15 – 15,715 immigration offenders were convicted of illegal reentry

Fox News


In Case You Missed It

The Cost of Health Care


Fox’s Tucker Carlson Breaks the Health Care Industry Secret

Everyone today is concerned about the cost of health insurance, their deductables, their exclusions, their co-pays, but no one is asking what the cost of health care is.  No one would take a major item to a store cashier without knowing what the price of the item is, but in health care we do it every day.

The United States has the highest health care cost in the world…spending 17.9% of its gross domestic product on health care…61% higher than the next-highest nation, yet we rank 27th in life expectency.

Several weeks ago we talked about hospitals that charge enormous differences in price for procedures depending on whether you paid cash or had insurance.  Now, Tucker Carlson on Fox News has finally exposed the health care industry for what it is…a giant lobby effort to bleed (no pun intended) as much money as they can from the public.

This short video will educate you on what the real health care problem is…



Comedy Break…Sort Of




The New Math?


What Say You?

Obama Holdover Government Plotting – 2/18/2017

“Great open.  Agree with retired Lt. Col. Tony Schaffer’s assessment of Clapper and Brennan.  In my opinion, they can add McCain to the list, in view of his comment he made at the Munich Security Conference about the Trump administration being in “disarray.”  He is still pissed that Trump did what he couldn’t do…become President. Thanks for a great read!!”  AEH

“My prediction:  Soon after Trump appoints a new head of the IRS, someone in the IRS will leak Trump’s tax return.  Then the s**t will really hit the fan.”   GH

Any chance we can indict the former president in the months ahead for treason or high crimes????  When is Senator McCain going to admit he is a Democrat?”  RWB

If you would like to comment, just respond to this newsletter.


Visit Our Website


Soldiers Memorial Fund


Stand Up America US Foundation







Visit Our Archives


Your donation is important to Stand Up America US Foundation.  It helps us support the many worthy organizations that help restore this great nation.  Thank you!   


Timeless Quotes

Kaiser Wilhelm 


Before World War I, Kaiser Wilhelm of Germany was asked what the most important political fact for the new century was.  His answer:

“The Americans speak English”



Copyright 2010 -2017 Stand Up America US Foundation, All Rights Reserved


Our Mailing Address is:

P.O. Box 1596, Bigfork, MT  59911