Ohio officials seize 40 pounds of fentanyl, an amount close to ‘chemical warfare’
By: Joshua Rhett Miller
November 1, 2019
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.
Editor’s Note – Obama considers himself a Constitutional expert, yet, when it fits his ideals, he is quite anti-constitutional. Like his fellow liberals throughout the last few years at least, their positions are always made for political gain first, and certainly not for the good of the country but they couch it in pretty words to make you think so. They rely on sound bites at critical moments that they know will be parroted by the main stream media, and the fact that the public has a very short memory and is shy to examine details.
When you look at their words from the past, as Scott Johnson at Powerline does below, the President just skips over the facts and employs politically charged speech to hide behind his own ink. In Ohio yesterday, (Remember, Ohio is a huge ‘swing state’ Obama desperately needs to win to get re-elected.) he deftly moved his rhetoric to a position that he knew would feed his supporters and make it difficult to fight against, even if it is totally illegal and anti-constitutional. He said (from WH transcript):
And to help us do that, I’m joined by somebody you might recognize — Richard Cordray. (Applause.) Son of Ohio; a good, good man. (Applause.) Today I’m appointing Richard as America’s consumer watchdog. (Applause.) And that means he is going to be in charge of one thing: looking out for the best interests of American consumers.Looking out for you. (Applause.)
His job will be to protect families like yours from the abuses of the financial industry. His job will be to make sure that you’ve got all the information you need to make important financial decisions. Right away, he’ll start working to make sure millions of Americans are treated fairly by mortgage brokers and payday lenders and debt collectors. In fact, just this week, his agency is opening up a simple 1-800 number that you can call to make sure you’re getting a fair deal on your mortgage, and hold banks and brokers accountable if you’re not. (Applause.)
Now, I nominated Richard for this job last summer, so you may be wondering why am I appointing him today. It would be a good question. (Laughter.) For almost half a year, Republicans in the Senate have blocked Richard’s confirmation.
This reminds us of an old quote:
“He that uses many words for explaining any subject, doth, like the cuttlefish, hide himself for the most part in his own ink.” – John Ray, naturalist (1627-1705).
Of course, all this ink hides what is truly taking place, he is by-passing the Senate because the discussions on that floor would reveal his true intentions – further entrenching his socialist agenda upon our open-market, all under the guise of helping the little guy – the middle class – in his class warfare campaign for re-election. When you understand the details, and getting past the political rhetoric and lies, its very clear – he and his allies will say and do anything to get their way, please read their own words:
Responding to President Obama’s putative recess appointments yesterday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell distributed the following collection of quotes to provide a little context:
THEN-SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL): Recess appointments ‘the wrong thing to do.’ “‘It’s the wrong thing to do. John Bolton is the wrong person for the job,’ said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., a member of Foreign Relations Committee.” (“Officials: White House To Bypass Congress For Bolton Nomination,” The Associated Press, 7/30/05)
OBAMA: A recess appointee is ‘damaged goods… we will have less credibility.’ “To some degree, he’s damaged goods… somebody who couldn’t get through a nomination in the Senate. And I think that that means that we will have less credibility…” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)
SEN. HARRY REID (D-NV): ‘An end run around the Senate and the Constitution.’ “I will keep the Senate in pro forma session to block the President from doing an end run around the Senate and the Constitution with his controversial nominations.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.15980, 12/19/07)
REID: ‘They are mischievous.’ “Also, understand this: We have had a difficult problem with the President now for some time. We don’t let him have recess appointments because they are mischievous, and unless we have an agreement before the recess, there will be no recess. We will meet every third day pro forma, as we have done during the last series of breaks.” (Sen. Reid, Congressional Record, S.7558, 7/28/08)
REID: Recess appointments an ‘abuse of power.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)
REID: A recess appointee will have ‘a cloud hanging over his head.’ “Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) denounced the appointment as ‘the latest abuse of power by the Bush administration,’ adding that Bolton would arrive at the UN ‘with a cloud hanging over his head’ because he could not win confirmation.” (“Bush Puts Bolton In UN Post,” Chicago Tribune, 8/2/05)
SEN. DICK DURBIN (D-IL): ‘Troubling.’ “When you have an appointment that is this critical and this sensitive, and the president basically says he’s going to ignore the will of the senate and push someone through, it really is troubling.” (“Bush Sends Bolton To U.N.” The State Journal-Register [Springfield, IL], 8/2/05)
DURBIN: ‘Could easily be unconstitutional.’ “I agree with Senator Kennedy that Mr. Pryor’s recess appointment, which occurred during a brief recess of Congress, could easily be unconstitutional. It was certainly confrontational. Recess appointments lack the permanence and independence contemplated by the Framers of the Constitution.” (Sen. Durbin, Congressional Record, S.6253, 6/9/05)
SEN. JOHN KERRY (D-MA): Recess appointments an ‘abuse [of] the power of the presidency.’ “‘It’s sad but not surprising that this White House would abuse the power of the presidency to reward a donor over the objections of the Senate,’ Kerry said in a statement …” (“Recess Appointments Granted to ‘Swift Boat’ Donor, 2 Other Nominees,” The Washington Post, 4/5/07)
SEN. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D-NJ): “…bends the rules and circumvents the will of Congress.” (“President Sends Bolton to U.N.; Bypasses Senate,” The New York Times, 8/2/05)
SEN. MAX BAUCUS (D-MT): “Senate confirmation of presidential appointees is an essential process prescribed by the Constitution that serves as a check on executive power and protects Montanans and all Americans by ensuring that crucial questions are asked of the nominee — and answered…” (“Dem Baucus Joins GOP In Blasting Obama CMS Recess Appointment,” The Hill, 7/7/10)
Several of these quotes arose from Democratic opposition to President Bush’s recess appointment of the great John Bolton as Ambassador to the United Nations, an appointment which raised none of the legal or constitutional issues that yesterday’s appointments by Obama did. Senator McConnell issued the following statement yesterday afternoon regarding Obama’s “unprecedented” recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board:
“Just hours after he circumvented the American people by ‘recess’ appointing Richard Cordray to the CFPB, the President has upped the ante by making several additional recess appointments, this time to the NLRB. Although all of these appointments potentially raise legal and constitutional questions, the NLRB appointments are particularly egregious. Because the President waited to nominate Sharon Block and Richard Griffin until just two days before the Senate was scheduled to adjourn last month, neither has undergone a single confirmation hearing or a single day of debate by the representatives of the American people. Congress has a constitutional duty to examine presidential nominees, a responsibility that serves as a check on executive power. But what the President did today sets a terrible precedent that could allow any future President to completely cut the Senate out of the confirmation process, appointing his nominees immediately after sending their names up to Congress. This was surely not what the framers had in mind when they required the President to seek the advice and consent of the Senate in making appointments.”
Please support our non-profit work at SUA
JOIN/SUBSCRIBE: Please join our team and receive periodic newsletters and announcements securely. (Your information will never be sold or transferred – Opt-out anytime.)
VOLUNTEER: If you are unable to donate your money, your time is just as valuable.
DONATIONS: Please consider a recurring monthly or a one-time donation.