Wow! The Entire State of Ohio…

 

Invasion USA Operations Plan

Ohio officials seize 40 pounds of fentanyl, an amount close to ‘chemical warfare’

 

A drug task force in Ohio seized more than 40 pounds of fentanyl — an amount akin to “chemical warfare” that could kill every person in the state, authorities said.

The suspected fentanyl — a powerful, synthetic opioid that’s up to 100 times more potent than morphine — was seized last late month along with 3 pounds of methamphetamine, a pound of heroin, three guns and more than $30,000 in cash, Ohio’s Regional Agencies Narcotics & Gun Enforcement Task Force announced Tuesday.

“The quantity of fentanyl in this case amounts to chemical warfare and a weapon of mass destruction,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost said. “I applaud the work of our task force and our law enforcement partners — this is an enormous amount of deadly drugs that will no longer be on our streets.”

Vance Callender, Homeland Security Investigations’ special agent in charge for Michigan and Ohio, said the seized fentanyl alone is “enough to kill the entire population” of the Buckeye State — roughly 11.69 million people as of last year — many times over.

Three men from Dayton were charged in the investigation and are facing charges including possession with intent to distribute 400 or more grams of fentanyl and possession of a firearm as a felon, authorities said.

The suspects were identified as Shamar Davis, 31, Anthony Franklin, 30, and Grady Jackson, 37.

“These illegal drugs ruin lives, destroy families, fuels violence, drives up property crime, and wrecks neighborhoods,” Montgomery County Sheriff Rob Streck said. “Anyone associated with it — especially those who sell and traffic it — are doing violence to people and causing harm in our communities.”

Fentanyl is often mixed with heroin or cocaine without the user’s knowledge, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

But a government report released last month found that meth is actually the bigger killer, despite fentanyl driving up drug overdoses in the United States overall. In 2017, meth was the drug most frequently involved in deaths in 19 states west of the Mississippi, according to the data.

Article

 

Recognition of Reality by MG Paul E. Vallely, U.S. Army (ret.)

Editor’s Note: While the DNC engages in sabotage and treason to cover for The Deep State within our government agencies…As it was before 9 11 in “protest of an election” to add delay…The sabotage of the White House computers by Clinton staffers…The Aviation Security Agent’s report and warning concerning Logan Airport…what was the D.I.A. investigating and what personnel records were involved within that side of The Pentagon… and much more…History repeats itself.


“Recognition of Reality”

By: MG Paul E Vallely, US Army (Ret)

November 1, 2019

 

 

Several years ago, I had the opportunity to co-chair a delegation to Cairo, Egypt to meet with General El-Sisi and his staff regarding the removal of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Morsi from office of the President. The first revolution was the removal of President Mubarak and the second revolution being the removal of Morsi. It was a tumultuous time in Egypt with a failing economy, chaos throughout the country, and a future election to elect a new President. As it turned out, General El-Sisi was elected the new President and formed a new government.

During our conference with the General Officer staff, El-Sisi and the Generals on his staff expressed that they were quite disturbed and upset with the United States, Obama, and Congress, for denying military aid and supplies to Egypt for overthrowing Morsi. General El-Sisi turned to me in his office and said, very emphatically, why does America and its political leaders always make their decisions looking through a “political prism” and not through a “reality prism”? I thought about his statement and I said to myself, yes, we do that in the US. We tend in Washington to make all our decisions through, particularly Congress, in a partisan, political way. El- Sisi said, “I cannot function that way as I have to look at the reality of our region: troubled countries like Libya to our west, Somalia to our south, the Suez Canal, the Sinai.” Well, it was a renaissance moment for me as I pondered and came to the realization, if you analyze and solve a countries issues, the country is best served by solving its problems by looking through a “reality prism” and not attempt to solve its problems through a dreaded “political prism” that tends to distort the issues and come to no logical conclusions.

Definition of reality:

 

“Reality is the sum or aggregate of all that is real or existent, as opposed to that which is only imaginary. The term is also used to refer to the ontological status of things, indicating their existence. In physical terms, reality is the totality of the universe, known and unknown. Philosophical questions about the nature of reality or existence or being are considered under the rubric of ontology, which is a major branch of metaphysics in the Western philosophical tradition. Ontological questions also feature in diverse branches of philosophy, including the philosophy of science, philosophy of religion, philosophy of mathematics, and philosophical logic. These include questions about whether only physical objects are real (i.e., Physicalism), whether reality is fundamentally immaterial (e.g., Idealism), whether hypothetical unobservable entities posited by scientific theories exist, whether God exists, whether numbers and other abstract objects exist, and whether possible worlds exist. the world or the state of things as they exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.”

 

Well, then,  what do the citizens of the United States do about this dilemma and the system of governing by our partisan, elected, political leaders and how do we as a country start solving our problems based on reality and not partisan politics?

Rise of Partisan Politics

Even during George Washington’s first administration it was evident that partisan factions had emerged within the cabinet as well as within the country at large. The forces favoring a strong federal government were led by Alexander Hamilton and would become known as the Federalist Party. The advocates of strong state governments were led by Thomas Jefferson and became known as the Jeffersonian Republicans.

There is no unbroken descent from the early political factions to today’s parties. Hamilton would no doubt be attracted to the pro-business inclinations of the current Republican Party, but his preference for direct government intervention in the economy would fit better with the Democrats. Similarly, Jefferson’s emphasis on individual rights would be welcomed by today’s Democrats, but his insistence on a small federal government would be viewed today as a Republican concept.

In the United States, the meaning of the term “partisan” has changed dramatically over the last 60 years. Before the American National Election Study (described in Angus Campbell et al., in The American Voter) began in 1952, an individual’s partisan tendencies were typically determined from their voting behavior. Since then, “partisan” has come to refer to an individual with a psychological identification with one or the other of the major parties. Candidates, depending on their political beliefs, may choose to join a party. As they build the framework for career advancement, parties are more often than not the preferred choice for candidates. Wherein there are many parties in a system, candidates often join them as opposed to standing as an Independent, if that is provided for.

In the U.S., politicians have generally been identified with a party. Many local elections in the U.S. (as for mayor) are “nonpartisan.” A candidate may have a party affiliation, but it is not listed on the ballot. Independents occasionally appear in major contests but rarely win.

President Dwight D. Eisenhower was nonpartisan until 1952, when he joined the Republican Party and was elected president. According to David A. Crockett, “Much of Eisenhower’s nonpartisan image was genuine, for he found Truman’s campaigning distasteful and inappropriate, and he disliked the partisan aspects of campaigning.”[1] With little interest in routine partisanship, Eisenhower left much of the building and sustaining of the Republican Party to his vice president, Richard Nixon.[2] With Eisenhower uninvolved in party building, Nixon became the de facto national GOP leader.”[3]

Eisenhower’s largely nonpartisan stance allowed him to work smoothly with the Democratic leaders Speaker Sam Rayburn in the House, and Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson in the Senate.

Jean Smith says that:

“Disagreement among Republican and Democratic voters on a range of political issues has risen sharply in recent years, a political divide that intensified during the first year of President Trump’s administration, according to a new report from the Pew Research Center.”

“The divisions between Republicans and Democrats on fundamental political values—on government, race, immigration, national security, environmental protection, and other areas—reached record levels during Barack Obama’s presidency,” Pew’s report states. “In Donald Trump’s first year as president, these gaps have grown even larger.”

Since the widening of the partisan opinion gap is a continuation of a trend, Trump’s presidency hasn’t ushered in a new era of intense political polarization so much as it marks a new chapter in an increasingly polarized political time. Public opinion remains more divided along partisan lines than along the lines of race, religion, age, gender, and educational background, Pew finds.

As the country’s partisan divide has increased in recent years, hostility between Republicans and Democrats has remained high. Perhaps surprisingly, Pew’s data shows a slight decline in the share of Democrats and Republicans who say they have a “very unfavorable” view of the opposing party relative to one year ago. Overall, though, the numbers don’t represent a major change, and aren’t enough on their own to say that partisan hostilities are lessening. The vast majority of Republicans and Democrats, at 81 percent for both parties, say they have an unfavorable view of the other side.

 

Released and distributed by: The Stand Up America US Foundation.

A Presidents’ Day Message

Patriots or Fools?

Who Will Decide the Future of America 

By: Charles Jones BG (USAF Ret) and Paul Valley MG (U.S. Army Ret.)
February 18, 2019

Members of the armed forces, police and all elected government officials take an oath, not to the government, but to the Constitution of the United States.

Article I, Section I clearly states – “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.” Each branch of government has predetermined responsibilities. The Legislative Branch passes laws while the Executive Branch’s duty is to carry out and enforce those laws. 

No where in the Constitution does it say that the Executive Branch has the right to enforce some laws and ignore others. President Washington clearly stated during the Whiskey Rebellion (1791-1794), “It is my duty to see the Laws executed: to permit them to be trampled upon with impunity would be repugnant to that duty.”

Many have said that President Trump cannot deport illegal aliens just because they are here. President Roosevelt deported over 2 million people during what is known as the Mexican Repatriation Act. Truman deported over 3.4 million illegal aliens. Eisenhower deported around 2.1 million people. President Kennedy recognized the need for limitations on immigration…“There is a legitimate argument for some limitation upon immigration…we do not seek to make over the face of America.”

Today, the United States of America faces an illegal alien invasion of between 25 to 35 million illegal border crossers living inside our borders (no one knows the exact number and there could be more). We the People face additional thousands marching in Caravans toward our southern border between the US and Mexico. We cannot solve the Border national security threat by just playing defense on the border but must adapt an offensive plan as well. 

Congress has not only failed to take necessary action to recognize that an invasion exists nor take necessary responsibility and action to repel this illegal, this overt and covert invasion. Today, the ‘Deep State”, Socialist Democrats, Globalists and meek Republicans are fighting our President from taking the necessary action. This is truly a “crisis” at the Border.

·      How many more American citizens are going to be terrorized and murdered by the illegals?

·      How much more of our tax money will be confiscated by the elected and appointed politicians to support the illegals in food stamps, housing, schooling (K-12), hospital emergency room, kidney dialysis, hospital admittance, many identified disease and sanctuary cities? 

·      How many more Governors’ are going to give illegals drivers licenses that allow voter fraud in all elections?

We are witnessing the eventual destruction of America! Thousands of illegals have been encouraged to apply for voting registration rights, check the American citizen block, mail in and received voting authorization which leads to fraudulent voting as witnessed in the 2018 election results. Registration Policy quietly tips the outcome of elections in heavily populated locations where the illegals take refuge. 

Mystery antibiotic resistant diseases and health ailments appearing in the U.S.

Patriots and Fools, all, must quickly come to understand that the Congress of the United States has failed in many ways their Constitutional responsibility in National Security matters. Many of our Representatives fail to highlight human trafficking, gangs and the drug cartels and the impact on America. 

Fools, you must know and understand the facts and from that knowledge come to understand that your vote at the next election will stand as a vote for your country and its future. The highest levels of technology, increased manpower and the support of our Army and National Guard have not stopped the cross-border invasion from Central America, other foreign country and agents and Mexico. The new Caravans are under way as we publish this article. There are common sense solutions to help correct and stop this ongoing illegal alien invasion. The President is correct that more barriers, and extensions of the wall are required at those vulnerable crossing sites to complement the secure border entry points.

America now has a President who, for the first time since President Reagan, is willing to stop this illegal activity invasion. We must take care of this national security issue as it will affect our children’s future and that of America. Please contact your US House Representative and your two Senators and demand that they support President Trump’s solutions.

Released and Distributed by Stand Up America US Foundation

Contact Information: chairmanstandupamericaus@gmail.com www.standupamericaus.org

"Pander-bear" Audio Emerges, Clinton Flip-Flops

Editor’s Note – The Clintons and their advisors sure are cocky, or is it dense, to think they could walk out “Hillary-2015 talk,” knowing full well, her “Hillary-2003 talk” is diametrically opposed. Who is she now? What will “Hillary-2016” be, or the following versions in later years?

The are cocky, because they think America will forget the 90’s scandals, and the Benghazi scandal, and the Missing Emails, and the “home-brew” server, and the Clinton Foundation, and Bill’s speaking fees, and Bill’s libido and shady friends…etc., etc., etc, well maybe the Democrats will.

Just a week ago, before the audio clip was found, she was already being called a “Pander-bear“:

If a candidate reverses a long-held position is it a “flip-flop” or someone who is “not afraid to run as her own woman?” That seems to depend on who’s doing the flopping. In the three weeks since the official launch of her second presidential campaign, Hillary Clinton, has been moving left in a hurry. (Read more at Fox News here.)

Read on about the audio uncovered and then read a tongue-in-cheek op/ed on it below with two videos:

Though you wouldn’t know it from her remarks earlier this week, Hillary Clinton was once “adamantly” against illegal immigration and was for erecting a border fence similar to one that protects Israel.CDW_lwBVAAAzkkW

“I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” then-Sen. Clinton said on the John Grambling radio show in Feb. 2003. “Certainly we’ve got to do more at our borders,” she said, adding that, “people have to stop employing illegal immigrants.”

The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday.  Notably absent from her remarks this week was the issue of border security.

In 2006, she told the New York Daily News that while she favored a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, she also wanted to build a fence in some areas along the southern border. “A country that cannot control its borders is failing at one of its fundamental obligations,” she told the New York Daily News in April 2006.

“There is technology that would be in the fence that could spot people coming from 250 or 300 yards away and signal patrol agents who could respond,” she continued, while suggesting that the U.S. could model its fence after the one protecting Israel.

But Clinton did not utter the words “border” or “fence” during her remarks Tuesday. She also did not speak of opposing “illegal immigrants” or “illegal immigration” as she did in 2003. The interview was unearthed and released by the Republican National Committee on Thursday.

“Come up to Westchester, go to Suffolk and Nassau counties,” Clinton continued. “Stand in the street corners in Brooklyn or the Bronx. You’re going to see loads of people waiting to get picked up to get yard work, and construction work, and domestic work.”

Those remarks are remnants of a distant political past for Clinton, who unveiled her new stance on immigration at a roundtable discussion at a Las Vegas high school on Tuesday. Clinton called for a path to citizenship for all and said that she would act unilaterally to extend amnesty to many more undocumented immigrants in the country. (Read the rest here at the Daily Caller by Chuck Ross.)

%CODE%

That pretty much wraps up the huge flip-flop that even out does Obama’s change in stance on same-sex marriage that he took to get elected, and then to stay elected.

As usual, the Democrats will say and do anything to get elected – its about the power, not the good deeds. If America elects someone willing to go further left than Obama, say goodbye to what is left of the once grand and powerful USA.

Will switch to this direction now, then we will go over that way... Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes part in a roundtable of young Nevadans discussing immigration as she campaigns for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, May 5, 2015. (REUTERS/Mike Blake)
Will switch to this direction now, then we will go over that way…
Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton takes part in a roundtable of young Nevadans discussing immigration as she campaigns for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination at Rancho High School in Las Vegas, May 5, 2015. (REUTERS/Mike Blake)

No for a little tongue in cheek explanation of what may happen from AllahPundit at Hot Air:

Audio: “I am adamantly against illegal immigrants,” says … Hillary Clinton

Via Jeff Dunetz, a time capsule from 2003 rescued from the memory hole by GOP oppo researchers. We already knew she said this, but knowing it and having it available as a soundbite for attack ads are two different things.

It’ll come in handy next summer when she’s busy trying to convince Latinos that our inevitably pro-amnesty Republican nominee, who may well himself be Latino or have children who are Latino and who’ll probably have a Latino running mate, hates illegals because many are Latino.

The attack ads won’t work, though. The whole point of Tuesday’s pander-monium with DREAMers in Nevada was to assure amnesty fans that she’ll say or do virtually anything to make Latinos show up for her the way they did for O. Legal status for parents of young illegals? Consider it done, even though the Obama White House says the president lacks the authority to do that. (Seriously. Watch the [second] clip below.)

Legal status for adult illegals who don’t even have kids? No word on that yet, but all immigration activists have to do is ask. If anything, this soundbite is useful leverage for the open-borders left to extort even bolder campaign promises from her. “How can we trust someone who once said she adamantly opposes illegal immigrants unless she promises to unilaterally legalize America’s entire illegal population as president?”

PanderBear

I wonder if there’s any old position of Hillary’s, in fact, that will be held against her by the left despite her furious attempts to get right with them before Warren 2016 gains real momentum. Your best bet is her opposition to gay marriage, partly because it’s achieved the status of a moral litmus test on the left that immigration reform hasn’t and partly because Hillary can always point out that Obama has also disappointed liberals on immigration. (Executive amnesty made them happy but a comprehensive immigration bill passed when he had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate would have made them happier.)

The irony is, while SSM fans can tell themselves, correctly, that Hillary will do more for them as president than a Republican would, it’s actually not necessarily true that she’d do more for them on immigration than a Republican would. If you’re eager to see fragile executive action replaced with durable statutory solutions, President Jeb Bush is probably more likely to broker a compromise in Congress than President Hillary Clinton is.

Republicans in Congress might oppose a Hillary White House on immigration simply to land a blow against a new Democratic president; with a Bush White House, they’d be inclined to hand him a major victory to start his term. But there’s no point trying to argue strategy on this. Hillary will pull 65 percent of the Latino vote at a minimum, “adamant” opposition to illegal immigrants or not.

%CODE2%

Drones – Coming to the sky near you

SUA Staff – It appears there is not a square inch of land anywhere in the world that is exempt from a drone flying overhead. Drones are used for comprehensive surveillance and to drop missiles in targeted areas of known terror cells and networks. This makes sense because it means less soldiers are in harm’s way. It’s not an easy job either; it has effects on those who ‘drive’ them:

Researching his new book, Kill or Capture: The War on Terror and the Soul of the Obama PresidencyDan Klaidman at The Daily Beast talked to the State Department’s legal advisor Harold Koh.

In preparation for a speech, Koh spent hours in CIA headquarters at Langley interrogating drone pilots. Koh wanted to find out everything he could about their job, their lives, and the mentality behind all the ‘unmanned’ airstrikes and peppered the pilots with statements like: “I hear you guys have a PlayStation mentality.”

The drone pilots are now civilians, but most were former Air Force pilots who took offense at the notion they were armchair warriors so far removed from their mission that they felt nothing at all about the death and destruction they caused.

Klaidman says the lead pilot blew up on Koh and said:

“I used to fly my own air missions. I dropped bombs, hit my target load, but had no idea who I hit. Here I can look at their faces. I watch them for hours, see these guys playing with their kids and wives. When I get them alone, I have no compunction about blowing them to bits. But I wouldn’t touch them with civilians around. After the strike, I see the bodies being carried out of the house. I see the women weeping and in positions of mourning. That’s not PlayStation; that’s real. My job is to watch after the strike too. I count the bodies and watch the funerals. I don’t let others clean up the mess.” (Read more here.)

But what about at home?

Sure, there are reasons to use drones for surveillance in high risk areas like at the Southern border, however, using them over Nebraska and Iowa farms that are not high risk areas skirts the rights of the people living there. Now police departments are looking to employ them as well. In fact, the first recorded use of a drone to help police make an arrest occurred in North Dakota:

Drone-Aided Arrest Raises Questions About 4th Amendment

The story of the North Dakota man who was arrested by a SWAT team aided by a Department of Homeland SecurityPredator Drone has caught the public’s imagination. Approximately a year ago, Rodney Brossart got into a tussle with police over the ownership of six cows that had wandered onto his land.

As the situation escalated — there were reports that Brossart chased officers off his farm at gunpoint — the Grand Forks SWAT team called in a favor to the Department of Homeland Security.  Essentially, they asked the DHS if they could use its predator drone, located at a nearby Air Force Base to survey Brossart’s property, to ensure it was safe to apprehend him.

Without a hitch the unmanned aircraft was sent to Brossart’s property.  Once it arrived, SWAT used its high-tech surveillance cameras to check if the coast was clear – it was, so SWAT, with guns drawn, swarmed in on the disgruntled farmer.  Brossart was tasered, cuffed and subsequently charged for, among other crimes, terrorizing a sheriff.

He became the first American citizen to be arrested with the help of a Predator drone (something tells me, he won’t be the last). (Read the rest here.)

Is this within our fourth amendment rights?

DHS is not satisfied either. They are ordering more than they can use:

The Homeland Security Department ordered so many drones it can’t keep them all flying and doesn’t have a good plan for how to use them, according to a new audit that the department’s inspector general released Monday.

In a blunt assessment, investigators said Customs and Border Protection’s Office of Air and Marine has a fleet of nine “unmanned aircraft systems” and is awaiting a 10th — though it doesn’t have enough ground support and doesn’t have a good plan for prioritizing missions.

“CBP procured unmanned aircraft before implementing adequate plans,” the investigators said.

The Defense Department uses armed drones overseas in the war on terrorism, but American law enforcement agencies are increasingly turning to them for use in detecting or preventing crimes at home.

At the same time, they are butting heads with civil libertarians who worry about intrusion into innocent citizens’ private lives. (Read the rest here.)

How did we get here America and why are we allowing these illegal searches without a whimper?