Open Letter to President Donald J. Trump: Military Tribunals For Terrorists

From Michael Ingmire, Uncle of Benghazi Victim Sean Smith


Special thanks fo Michael Ingmire & for this contribution. 


This letter is written to request a change in the structure of future trials for captured terrorists. To articulate my point, future terrorist trials should return to a Military Tribunal structure. As an uncle of Benghazi victim Sean Smith, I cannot fathom why we are trying terrorists in a Federal District Court system. It appears that this is a misguided holdover from the tenure of the Eric Holder Justice Department.

If captured, on a field of battle, why are we affording enemy combatants the same civil rights as those that you or I should receive as citizens? Terrorists should face the full weight of Military Justice for their crimes. A Military Tribunal is an efficient and more appropriate venue to try terrorists captured on the battlefield.

In recent years an Obama appointed Judge, Christopher “Casey” Cooper, has handed down lenient sentences to two convicted Benghazi terrorists, Ahmed Abu Khattala and Mustafa Al-Imam. The 22 years given to Khattala in 2018 and the 19 and a half years given to Mustafa in January 2020 are an insult to the four Benghazi victims and their families. At most, with Khattala, the sentences came to 5.25 years per murder victim.

These convictions are unacceptable to the memory of the four brave men of Benghazi and their loved ones. In the Summer of 2018, I created at a petition asking for future terrorist trials to be held in a military tribunal structure.  The petition was a moderate success.  In addition, for Politichicks, I wrote a July 31, 2018 article entitled Call to Action: White House Petition, Military Tribunals for Terrorists.

Without any doubt, no Judge appointed during the eight years of the Obama Administration can fairly judge any issue related to Benghazi. That was proven in 2017 with Judge Amy Berman Jackson.  Judge Jackson, who  threw out the wrongful death suit against Hillary Clinton. This lawsuit was filed by Benghazi victim parents, Charles Woods and Pat Smith. Now that same fallacy of judgement, has been proven again with Judge Christopher Cooper and his flimsy sentences for two unrepentant Benghazi terrorists.

Judges with liberal leanings seem to be too busy considering the terrorist as a “victim.” Not enough time is spent considering the real victims. In this case, the Benghazi Four. This soft soap judicial process was instituted, in full force, by the Holder Justice Department. This travesty was first enacted with the trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammad in 2009 in a Federal District Court.

President Trump, your Executive Orders have been articulated well and have appropriately addressed the particular matter at hand. I urge you to consider instituting an Executive Order changing the structure of future terrorist trials. Please consider this for the sake of justice and for the sake of history.

If the United States Congress and the American media had been doing their due diligence, Barack Hussein Obama would have been justifiably and constitutionally impeached for his very real high crimes and misdemeanors.

Those crimes include the illegal regime changes in the North African region that helped lead to the Benghazi attack in Libya. Also for criminal consideration, Fast and Furious, Uranium One, Extortion-17, vast FISA and 4th Amendment abuses. Legally, Barack Obama should have never been elected to a second term.

We have all witnessed the Constitutional malpractice that Speaker Pelosi has inflicted upon you and your family and the American people. While two Benghazi terrorists, enemies of the United States, murderers of American citizens, were granted the right to a due process and a fair trial a sitting American President was denied due legal protection in a unconstitutional impeachment process. Speaker Pelosi abused her power as did other members of the United States Congress and decided to use a constitutional process as a political weapon. They refuse to accept that they lost in 2016 and know they can’t beat you in 2020.

The behavior of the United States House of Representatives, the media, and the Obama administration’s co-opted Justice Department are a blight on the freedoms that we as Americans should cherish. Truly shameful behavior by all involved.

Thank you for everything you have done and continue to do so for the American people. Additionally, there is a Bill in the House and a Bill in the Senate that are both related to Benghazi. They are H.R. 587 and S.2054. H.R. 587 and it’s Senatorial twin, 2054, seek to posthumously honor the four Benghazi victims with the Congressional Gold Medal. H.R. 587, despite a unanimous voice vote in 2018, died on a vine with the Senate.

Please call House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, and ask them to put these bills to a voice vote among their members.

Ultimately, it is also time for some actual accountability for the real crimes of the Obama Administration.

Thank you Mr. President for keeping your campaign promises. I agree that with you that “Our spirit is still young; the sun is still shining; and my fellow Americans, the best is yet to come!”


Michael Ingmire

From Permanent Wars To Permanent Impeachment


by: Harley Schlanger


Dec. 30 — The frenzied process by House Democrats to pass two articles of impeachment against President Trump was justified by them with the argument that speed was essential, because every day he remains in office is a danger to a.) U.S. national security and b.) fair and legitimate elections.  The Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, argued that Trump’s threats to withhold aid to Ukraine unless the government there investigated Joe and Hunter Biden, weakened that country in the face of Russian aggression; and amounted to a demand that they intervene on his behalf in the upcoming presidential election, as he was accused of doing in colluding with President Putin to insure his election in 2016, through the fairy tale of Russian “meddling.”


Put aside for a moment that there was no actual evidence presented which demonstrated that Trump threatened or bullied Ukraine’s President Zelensky for his own personal benefit; or that the net effect of Trump’s strategic intervention with Ukraine has been that there has been progress in reducing tensions between Russia and Ukraine, through talks between Putin and Zelensky, with Trump’s backing; or that the charge that Russia did intervene on Trump’s behalf in 2016 was never proven by the Mueller report.


If Pelosi and her hit team were so convinced that the future of America was urgently imperiled if Trump were not immediately removed from office, why did she then decide to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate, thereby postponing a trial there?  Further, Pelosi’s operatives are calling for continued hearings into alleged Trump misdeeds, with some saying that there could be two, three, or more impeachments, as new articles are invented.  Some constitutional scholars, such as Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that not moving ahead with a trial, out of fear that he will be acquitted in the Senate, violates the Constitution!  More significant was the comment from Helga Zepp LaRouche, that the intent behind Pelosi’s actions is to tie Trump’s hands over the last year of his present term, and use the destabilization of his presidency to defeat him in 2020. 


This latter point is obvious from examining the strategic initiatives of Trump, which include decisive efforts to break from the Bush-Obama-Hillary Clinton policies of regime change and war, which had put the U.S. on a collision course with Russia and China.  Trump continues to work with Putin to resolve a number of issues, including Ukraine and Syria, as well as moving towards a new strategic arms agreement, whiuch he discussed recently with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov, and with Putin on a phone call on December 29.  On China, Trump and Xi have agreed on a Phase I approach toward a new trade deal, which would benefit both sides, while he has rejected Congressional efforts to support violent terrorists who are attempting to carry out a regime change in Hong Kong, which is being run by the same networks who made the coup in Ukraine in February 2014.  


The decision to proceed to impeachment without any evidence of a crime, and to announce that impeachment efforts will not be stopped by the failure to convict in the Senate, means that those in the Military Industrial Complex, acting through their stooges in both parties, will stop at nothing to continue their dangerous geopolitical machinations, even if it leads to a nuclear World War III.  The supporters of “permanent war” are now backing “permanent impeachment.”  What is urgently needed is not more fabricated charges against Trump, but a full release of the evidence being compiled by the Barr-Durham investigation, which will expose the criminal behavior of the collaboration between British intelligence and the Obama team, headed by Brennan and Clapper, which launched the regime change coup against Trump.  


The Horowitz report was a good first step, documenting the fraud of the FBI/DOJ in getting repeated warrants from the secret FISA Court to conduct surveillance against the Trump campaign.  It is now necessary that this criminal gang, which is destabilizing the U.S. and trampling on the Constitution, in its desperate effort to stop Trump’s peace offensive, be put on trial immediately.         

Trapped by the Ghosts of Corrupt Administrations Past

Special thanks to Thaddeus G. McCotter for this contribution


It’s little wonder sane people have taken the Left’s messaging strategy regarding impeachment and the Justice Department inspector general’s new report as mere political inanity and mendacity. Government officials, past and present, who fear potential indictment for abuse of power for personal and partisan gain, their legal “experts” at Lawfare, their collusion media cohorts, and social media’s rabid pack of regressive mouth-breathers who do little more than parrot them are not advancing a typical political argument. They are proffering a preemptive legal defense.

For the Left, preparing briefs for a prospective court of law rather than making good faith arguments in the court of public opinion is a necessary gambit, due to U.S. Attorney John Durham’s probe into the Russia-gate lie. Think of it this way:  These Obama administration officials, both in and out of government, are out on karaoke night croaking out their mashup of Warren Zevon’s classic, “send Lawfare, guns, and money!”

Specifically, the Left is pursuing a legal strategy common in criminal trials: In order to distract from and/or prejudice the trier of fact against the evidence of the accused’s guilt, the defense endeavors to put the government on trial. (In the case of the House Democrats’ sham impeachment, it is doing this quite literally.)

It’s understandable the Left’s ulterior motive might be missed as one merely aimed at gaining votes and, though they do hope that will be a collateral benefit, that’s not all that’s going on here. Still, they are using their shopworn bag of despicable “politricks”: baseless personal attacks; veiled threats to intimidate; and, of course, accusing others of what the Left is doing.

This is routine by now, so it’s easy to miss what’s actually going on.

In the instance of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report on FISA abuses, the potential criminal defendants and their cohorts view it—rightly—as a prospective legal exhibit. Hence, their imperative to construct a false narrative of its findings for the collusion media to gaslight the juror pool—i.e., the American people. Some narrative attempts have been comically inept, such as that of former FBI Director James Comey claiming the report exonerated him; or that the report found only “mistakes” made by “low-level” employees.

Other attempts, however, have been far more insidious and effective—namely, claiming the report found “no bias” motivating the FISA abuses or in commencing the counterintelligence investigation.

Horowitz’s report specifically said it would not second guess the discretionary judgments of the FBI in the FISA process. In other words, he would give individuals the benefit of the doubt as to the purity of their motives. Only direct evidence of bias—say, a memo or a person admitting bias—would change the inspector general’s presumptive conclusion. This is a difficult standard, given that those knowingly engaged in criminal malfeasance are loath to implicate themselves in word or deed; moreover, even if such evidence exists, Horowitz’s limited investigatory powers and scope would have rendered it almost impossible for him to obtain.

Horowitz is well aware of the limits on his investigatory powers. So it makes total sense for him to continually state why, despite the overwhelming evidence indicating bias in the FISA process, he cannot conclude there was bias. Conversely, it is also why Horowitz always uses the disclaimer that, though his report found no direct evidence of bias, he cannot rule out the possibility there was bias in the murky FISA process.

As for the counterintelligence investigation’s predicate, Horowitz is more emphatic there was no bias in launching it, because the threshold is so low as to be almost nonexistent. (Apparently, while Horowitz is reluctant to second guess the FBI’s discretionary judgments, there are times he is more than happy to affirm them without a second thought at all.)

Yet this finding also requires the same disclaimer: Although his report found no direct evidence of bias, he cannot rule out the possibility there was bias in the launching the counterintelligence investigation.

Why? Because while it is sad but true that the FBI can legally launch a counterintelligence probe based upon the thinnest of hearsay, that does not mean that the FBI should launch a counterintelligence investigation based upon information agents know to be false, especially if they know that information was manufactured.

It is akin to an FBI agent knowingly lying by omission or commission to manufacture information to obtain a FISA warrant. Not that such a horrible abuse of power would ever happen . . . Again.

It is a mistake to assume there could be bias on the part of individuals who lied to spy when fraudulently obtaining a FISA warrant, but somehow there could not be any bias coming from the same individuals when it came to commencing the counterintelligence investigation, which was required first and foremost before they could even consider applying for said FISA warrants to spy. Therefore, if the FBI agents involved knew the investigation’s predicate was bogus  and proceeded anyway, that would certainly constitute bias.

This is a question—among many others—the Durham probe must ultimately answer. Yet for Obama Administration officials fearful of legal jeopardy due to the findings in Durham’s probe, they and their cohorts want to gaslight the public—i.e., prospective jurors—into believing that Horowitz’s FISA report “debunks Trump’s conspiracy theories” about the “deep state” sabotaging his candidacy and presidency.

If this gaslighting prevails, these potential defendants, their legal teams, and the collusion media will argue there can be no malfeasance—let alone criminality—in the absence of bias; just routine misfeasance by somebody, anybody, but not them.

In sum, then, the collusion crowd wants Americans to believe the Horowitz report is the end.

But, unfortunately for them, it is just the beginning. And the Left knows it, for they are painfully aware the Durham probe into the origins of the Russiagate lie is grinding away toward the truth. In consequence, from the Left come the personal attacks, threats, and false accusations of doing what the Left, in fact, has been doing all along and is doing still.

How else to explain, after the Horowitz FISA report revealed some of the gravest abuses of the surveillance power of the state, the collusion media condemns not the miscreants who did it, but U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr?

How else to explain Eric Holder slithering forth and, in an acute failure of self-awareness, sliming Barr and issuing veiled threats to U.S. Attorney Durham for conducting an inquiry into the origins of the Russiagate scam—you know, an investigation to root out federal government corruption and safeguard the civil liberties of the American people?

Given the acute stupidity and abject lack of self-awareness that must have gone into his penning this fast and furious smear, one cannot help but wonder if Holder is reprising his role as former President Obama’s “wing man” to perpetuate the risible myth the previous administration was “scandal-free.”

How else to explain why the House Democrats’ clown show impeachment hearing’s key talking point is the patently false allegation that President Trump “abused his power for political gain in 2020,” when that is precisely what the Democrats did in 2016?

In a nutshell, the Left’s messaging remains a shot of “Orange Man Bad” with a chaser of “Barr sucks, too.” As the polls now unmistakably show, for Democrats and the Left impeachment is not a winning political argument. Yet, trapped by the ghosts of the corrupt administrations past, the Left cannot change tactics or tack to political messaging that might salvage a short-term electoral advantage. Instead they must persist in their legal messaging, due to the long-term damage that will be done to regressive political fortunes should Obama Administration officials be indicted and possibly convicted for abusing their powers.

Two words to the wise, then. First, when exposed to the Left’s mendacity regarding Barr and Durham and his investigation into government corruption, suffice to remember: the Left is lying not to beat Republicans but to beat the rap. Then, as the Durham probe drops and justice is meted, let us pause to enjoy the Left’s discordant strains:

I’m hiding in Honduras
I’m a desperate man
Send Lawfare, guns, and money
The sh– has hit the fan . . .


October 8, 2019

By Mary Fanning and Alan Jones  |

Ten days after Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah A. Curtis abruptly stepped down from her position as the lead attorney prosecuting former Trump national security adviser Lieutenant General Michael Flynn (Ret) and left the Department of Justice on September 27, 2019, The Wall Street Journal reported today that “some of the Fed­eral Bu­reau of In­ves­ti­gation’s elec­tronic sur­veillance ac­tiv­i­ties vi­o­lated the con­sti­tutional pri­vacy rights of Amer­icans swept up in a con­tro­ver­sial for­eign in­tel­li­gence pro­gram,” citing a secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court finding made last year.

CIA contractor-turned whistleblower Dennis Montgomery asserts that “THE HAMMER,” a super surveillance system he designed and built as a foreign surveillance tool to spy on terrorists and other foreign adversaries, was commandeered by John Brennan and James Clapper to unlawfully wiretap Michael Flynn and Donald Trump.

Brennan and Clapper also used “THE HAMMER” to unlawfully spy on Supreme Court justices, FISA court judges, other government officials, Montgomery contends.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Curtis, assisted by FBI Special Agents William Barnett and Walter Giardina, debriefed Montgomery inside of a Secure Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI Washington DC Field Office on December 3, 2015 for three and a half hours, according to CIA/FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower Montgomery.

Montgomery asserts that during that debriefing he testified under oath before Curtis and FBI agents Barnett and Giardina, while being videotaped, that Brennan and Clapper had turned the foreign surveillance tool “THE HAMMER” against the Obama administration’s political enemies, including Michael Flynn and Donald Trump.

If Curtis was in receipt of the information that Montgomery asserts he provided to Curtis about illegal wiretaps on Flynn and Trump, that would be considered exculpatory evidence in the Flynn case. If Curtis did not turn over any and all information she received from Montgomery about wiretaps on Flynn, that would be considered a Brady violation.

As lead attorney for the prosecution, Curtis would be legally and ethically obligated to provide that information to Flynn’s defense team, led by attorney Sidney Powell.

It remains unclear whether the surveillance system referenced by The Wall Street Journal is the onetime foreign surveillance tool “THE HAMMER” that Montgomery says Brennan and Clapper had commandeered, or another surveillance program.

Montgomery asserts that Robert Mueller’s FBI provided computers for “THE HAMMER” and that surveillance data collected by “THE HAMMER” was transmitted to the FBI.

Former FBI General Counsel James Baker amended his own testimony before Members of Congress during a closed-door session last year, and admitted that the FBI received evidence from Montgomery that proves, according to Montgomery, that U.S. government officials unlawfully spied on Americans, including other government officials.

The Wall Street Journal reported on October 8, 2019:

The in­tel­li­gence com­mu­nity dis­closed Tues­day that the For­eign In­tel­li­gence Surveillance Court last year found that the FBI’s pur­suit of data about Amer­i­cans en­snared in a war­rant­less in­ter­net-surveillance pro­gram in­tended to tar­get for­eign sus­pects may have vi­o­lated the law au­tho­rizing the pro­gram, as well as the Con­sti­tu­tion’s Fourth Amendment pro­tec­tions against un­rea­son­able searches.

The court con­cluded that the FBI had been im­prop­erly search­ing a data­base of raw in­tel­li­gence for in­for­ma­tion on Amer­i­cans—rais­ing con­cerns about over­sight of the pro­gram, which as a spy pro­gram op­erates in near to­tal se­crecy.

On August 19, 2015, under an immunity deal struck between U.S. Assistant  Attorney Deborah Curtis with whistleblower Dennis L Montgomery, Montgomery turned over to now-fired Director James Comey’s FBI Miami Field Office 47 computer hard drives of evidence. The 600 million documents of evidence stored on those hard drives, when placed one atop another, would measure as astronomical thirty miles high. Montgomery asserts that the hard drives he provided to FBI officials, including Comey and Baker, include proof that Brennan and Clapper illegally spied on General Flynn and Donald Trump.

CNN anchor Jim Sciutto recently asked Clapper whether he was worried that the Trump administration’s investigation into the origins of the FBI’s Russian Collusion investigation, an international international investigation currently being conducted by Attorney General Barr and U.S. Attorney John Durham, will discover any wrongdoing on the part of Brennan and Clapper, Clapper responded:

I know, for my part, my main concern was with the Russians and the threat posed by the Russians to our very political fabric and uhhhh, the message I’m getting from all of this is apparently what we were supposed to have done was to ignore the Russian interference, ignore the Russian meddling and the threat that it poses to us, and oh, by the way, blown off what the then commander-in-chief, President Obama, told us to do, which was to assemble all of the reporting we could, that we had available to us.

According to whistleblower Dennis Montgomery, under the Obama administration, John Brennan and James Clapper were running the illegal domestic surveillance system known as “THE HAMMER.”


By Mary Fanning and Alan Jones  |  September 30, 2019


Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper repurposed the foreign surveillance system “THE HAMMER” to illegally wiretap General Michael Flynn. That evidence was contained on 47 computer hard drives and in sworn testimony provided to the FBI and to Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis by Dennis Montgomery, the CIA contractor-turned whistleblower who designed and built “THE HAMMER,” according to Montgomery.

The Obama administration also used the privatized, illegal, domestic super surveillance system “THE HAMMER” to illegally wiretap Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, Roger Stone, 156 Article III judges, Supreme Court justices, FISA court judges, Members of Congress, business leaders, Wall Street executives, and Donald Trump, according to Montgomery.

“There was a wiretap on Trump” for years, according to Montgomery.

Montgomery provided information on “THE HAMMER” to Curtis, FBI General Counsel James Baker, FBI Director James Comey, and FBI Special Agents Walter Giardina and William Barnett.

Montgomery turned over the hard drives to the FBI Miami Field Office on August 19, 2015, and provided sworn testimony during classified debriefings inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) at the FBI Washington Field Office on December 3, 2015. The FBI videotaped Montgomery as he was debriefed under oath by Curtis, Giardina, and Barnett.

In February 2009, at the start of President Obama’s eight years in office, John Brennan and James Clapper commandeered “THE HAMMER,” the foreign super surveillance system Montgomery had designed and built, turning it into a far more powerful, illegal domestic surveillance system according to Montgomery. Brennan and Clapper relocated “THE HAMMER” to Fort Washington, Maryland, a mere hop, skip and a jump from the Obama White House.

FBI Director Robert Mueller provided the computers for “THE HAMMER” Montgomery says.  After Montgomery turned over the 47 hard drives to the FBI, FBI Director James Comey buried Montgomery’s whistleblower case and the 47 hard drives of evidence. It is not clear if Comey is guilty of spoliation of evidence or exactly what he did with the 47 hard drives that the FBI received from Montgomery under an immunity agreement.

“THE HAMMER” turned America into an Orwellian, Soviet-style police state where American’s Fourth Amendment Rights were negated.

The Obama administration’s political enemies had been under attack with the weaponization of the IRS and more.

Not only did President Obama’s cohorts Brennan and Clapper use “THE HAMMER” to illegally wiretap Trump, but they also collected surveillance data on individuals who years later would work with the Trump campaign, the Trump transition team, and the Trump administration.

According to Montgomery, Brennan and Clapper were using domestic surveillance data illegally harvested by “THE HAMMER” for “blackmail” and “leverage.”

General Michael Flynn, who left the Defense Intelligence Agency in 2014 and later became President Trump’s national security advisor, was, according to Montgomery, targeted by “THE HAMMER.”

In other words, the Obama administration was illegally spying on Flynn.

U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis was well aware of that information.

Deborah Curtis, as lead counsel, while having taken possession of illegally-harvested materials on General Flynn, Paul Manafort, and Rick Gates, was violating the “Fruit Of The Poisonous Tree” doctrine, and had a clear conflict of interest. Curtis was also withholding documents, which is a clear Brady violation.


— The American Report —

Over a year before President Trump won the 2016 election, senior FBI and DOJ officials received evidence and testimony from Montgomery about “THE HAMMER” and specific information about the targets of that surveillance, Montgomery says — including evidence that Flynn, Manafort, Gates, and others had been illegally spied on by Brennan and Clapper.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis Received Evidence Obama Administration Spied On General Flynn, Says Montgomery; Curtis Then Led Prosecution Of Flynn Before Leaving DOJ On September 27, 2019

In 2015, Assistant U.S. Attorney Deborah Curtis, FBI General Counsel James Baker, and FBI Director James Comey received that classified information under two immunity agreements that Curtis granted to Montgomery in exchange for 47 computer hard drives and Montgomery’s sworn testimony. Montgomery says that Curtis and the FBI buried that evidence.

General Flynn recently retained a new attorney, Sydney Powell, whose strategy centers on exposing that the DOJ hid exculpatory evidence from her client. For example, the DOJ has continued to refuse to release unredacted text messages between Peter Strzok and Lisa Page to Flynn’s defense team.

Strzok and Page have their own connections to the Montgomery case and “THE HAMMER” — the pair exchanged a text message specifically mentioning Dennis Montgomery on March 19, 2019, following a live radio interview earlier that evening during which Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerny (Ret.) and Navy Admiral James A. “Ace” Lyons took the American Report’s expose on Montgomery and “THE HAMMER” to America’s airwaves. The following morning, Director Comey lied to Congress by saying that the FBI had no evidence that the Obama administration wiretapped Trump, and, the same morning, launched the FBI’s hoax Trump Russian collusion investigation.

Until this past weekend, Deborah Curtis was running the DOJ’s prosecution of Flynn. This was a huge conflict of interest.  Curtis had access to Montgomery’s data and his classified testimony. Flynn’s prosecution was never advised that whistleblower Montgomery had presented evidence to the FBI that, according to Montgomery, proves that the Obama administration illegally spied on Flynn.

Two FBI special agents, Walter Giardina, and William Barnett, who were also involved in debriefing Montgomery, are both connected to General Flynn’s case. 

That Curtis, Giardina, and Barnett were also all involved in Montgomery’s whistleblower case before being assigned to Robert Mueller’s hoax Trump Russian Collusion investigation is also a conflict of interest. 

DOJ Prosecutor Zainab Ahmad And Andrew Weissmann Worked with Bruce Ohr’s Back Channel Between Christopher Steele, Fusion GPS, and FBI Before Joining Mueller’s Special Counsel Team With Deborah Curtis; Ahmad And Curtis Were Assigned To Flynn Prosecution

Another DOJ prosecutor who was previously assigned to the Flynn Case, Zainab Ahmad, was also part of Mueller’s Special Counsel team, despite the fact that she had been in touch with Bruce Ohr and part of the secret back channel that passed information from Christopher Steele and Nellie Ohr of Fusion GPS and the CIA to FBI officials.

In the spring of 2016, Ahmad was granted a leave of absence from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York to work for Attorney General Loretta Lynch. Ahmad’s leave of absence continued through April 2017. During Ahmad’s tenure under Lynch, Lynch on January 3, 2017, changed the rules for intelligence sharing, allowing the FBI, CIA, and DEA to access raw NSA surveillance data.

Curtis suddenly left the DOJ this past weekend. Attorney  Powell tweeted The American Report’s article on Friday afternoon that connected Curtis’s lead role in Flynn’s prosecution. There is no evidence that the two events are connected.

Ahmad left the DOJ earlier this year.

This scandal covering up Curtis’s involvement in burying the FBI’s whistleblower investigation of THE HAMMER is a case of massive prosecutorial misconduct, that is grounds for General Michael Flynn’s case to be dismissed. Other cases could be dismissed as well.


It’s Not China – Time To Learn The Lesson of August 15, 1971

by: Harley Schlanger

Aug. 15 — With legitimate warning signs that a “significant correction”, or even a global financial collapse is imminent, the usual gaggle of idiots pontificating in mainstream media venues are madly pointing fingers at President Trump.  He is wrong, some proclaim, for focusing on the Federal Reserve and interest rates, while others point to launching a trade war against China as the cause of the present deepening crisis.  They blather on about the danger of “inverted yields” on bond markets, while they argue about whether the U.S. or China is “winning” the trade war, putting forward a blizzard of talking points which are minimally confusing, and ultimately designed to convince listeners that there is no alternative but to “batten down the hatches,” and “stay the course.”


These pundits, and the politicians who cite them for their own opportunistic purposes, should rather take a moment, before they run their mouths, to study the real history of the last five decades, familiarizing themselves with the works of the preeminent economist of that period, Lyndon LaRouche.  The starting point for that study should be an event which occurred 48 years ago today — August 15, 1971 — when Richard Nixon broke with the Bretton Woods financial system of President Franklin Roosevelt, by taking the dollar off a gold-reserve basis, thereby ending the fixed exchange rate system which had been largely responsible for the extraordinary post-World War II economic expansion.  Nixon’s action, taken under pressure, from London, against the dollar, and under the advice of London-Wall Street operatives such as Arthur Burns, Paul Volcker, George Shultz and Henry Kissinger, ushered in the era of the speculator-friendly floating exchange rate system which continues today.  


LaRouche, who had forecast that such an action was coming, warned that Nixon’s decision would lead to the deindustrialization of the advanced sector, demands for brutal austerity, which would require fascist enforcement to be realized, and genocidal depopulation of the developing sector, under the direction of the International Monetary Fund and the central banks, which rejected any notion of sovereign control over national economies by governments.  


Time has proven that LaRouche was right.  The series of economic shocks in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s, the bubbles which ballooned and then popped in 2000-01 and in 2008, were the direct result of the neoliberal monetarist policy imposed following Nixon’s decree.  The seeds for the collapse today were likewise planted following Nixon’s folly, as the same swindling bankers who created the speculative bubble economies of the last 50 years, were allowed to continue their radical monetarist practices after the 2008 crash, with increasingly disastrous results.  



The net effect of these policies has been an accelerating deindustrialization of the Trans-Atlantic economies, as the goods-producing sectors have been shipped offshore, in search of ever-cheaper labor costs, under the guise of “free trade”, in which the productivity of labor in the developed sector has been sacrificed.  As the machine tool sectors and heavy industry were replaced by a “service” economy — sometimes called “consumer society” — a parallel “greening” was imposed, through targeting first nuclear energy, and now the use  of all forms of “fossil fuels.”  As early as the late 1960s, LaRouche identified the “limits to growth” movement as green fascism, a policy of radical population reduction sold under the guise of “saving scarce resources”.  As the engine of prosperity of the real economy, scientific and technological advance, realized through increases in the Energy Flux Density of power generation, was replaced by “sustainable” energy production — i.e., less efficient means, such as windmills and solar power, which required large government subsidies to function — western nations were driven into a post-industrial world, characterized by extreme wealth inequality, and dependence on cheap goods produced by U.S. corporations, employing low-wage workers in poorer countries.  


Under this post-industrial regime, the wealth production of manufacturing was replaced by “trading”, characterized by “financialization,” a fancy name for betting in a casino economy.  New “financial instruments” were created, and a slew of legislative and regulatory changes diverted credit from goods-production to the buying and selling of these new instruments.  Under slogans which were justified by the academic fraud of Modern Monetary Theory, and new rules of trade dictated by the free trade agreements enforced by the World Trade Organization, the historic model of the American Economic System, based on directed credit into physical production, was trashed, replaced by speculative swindles, fueled by cheap credit flowing to the swindlers.  The banking reforms of the 1980s accelerated this process, capped by the repeal of Glass Steagall banking separation in 1999.  These “reforms” were pioneered by City of London bankers during the Thatcher era, then imposed in the U.S. by both parties, and enforced in Europe after the fall of Communism by the European Union, through its banker’s dictatorship in Brussels.


The net effect of these reforms in the U.S. has been a loss of between five and six million industrial jobs since 2001, resulting in a substantial reduction of purchasing power by American workers.  The median hourly wage, which in 1973 was $22.07, measured in 2014 purchasing power, had fallen to $20.74 in 2014.  The loss of purchasing power has been minimized to some extent by the extension of consumer credit, but this bubble has been stretched to the limit, and default rates are increasing.  Similarly, large volumes of student debt, mortgage debt and automobile debt, are moving into default, threatening the whole system.  Further, the shutting down of manufacturing in the once-industrial heartland of the Midwest created a “Rust Belt”, inducing city and state governments to impose austerity due to declining tax revenues, reducing investment in infrastructure, education, health care and public safety.  


Despite the efforts of President Trump, who promised to reverse this process if elected, the latest figures show that the small gains in manufacturing and wage growth from 2017-18 have levelled off.  Instead of introducing a policy, as advised by Lyndon LaRouche in his Four Laws, which would have re-established a Hamiltonian, national banking credit system, to provide flows of low-interest credit to rebuild industry and develop new platforms of infrastructure, the President has been reduced to cheerleading a stock bubble, demanding that interest rates be lowered to assure a flow of funds to speculators, feeding a new, bigger stock bubble, which he touts as a sign of “prosperity” — something which he had properly ridiculed during the 2016 campaign, when it was hyped as the basis of the “Obama recovery.”  This bubble has been further inflated by corporations borrowing to buy their own stock, thereby increasing their debt to levels reported to be 60% higher than in 2008, while meaning that no funds are available for investment in research and development, new plant and equipment, job retraining, etc.  


One result of this process has been a growing trade deficit with China.  In 2017, when U.S. firms sold $130 billion in goods to China, the U.S. imported $505 billion in goods from China.  This imbalance, the result of the nearly-fifty year shift away from a competent U.S. economic policy, is behind the efforts of the President to get a new trade deal with China.  While Trump has properly said that this growing deficit is not the fault of China, but of his predecessors, whose free trade agreements and economic policies made America increasingly dependent on replacing lost goods-production with the importation of products manufactured in China, the use of tariffs alone will not lead to a rebirth of American manufacturing.



At every point in this devolution, Lyndon LaRouche offered solutions, which began with scrapping the failed monetary theories which starved the physical economy while feeding the cancerous bubbles.  An important example of this, for understanding the present financial and strategic crises resulting from this radical transformation, was presented in speeches he delivered on January 4, 1997, and again to a Schiller Institute conference on February 15, 1997, “Toward a New Bretton Woods Conference.”   (FOOTNOTE 1.)  In this speech, and in subsequent interventions, LaRouche developed the concept of a Four Power agreement, between the U.S., Russia, China and India, as the basis for reversing the process underway of global economic collapse.  These four nations possess the capabilities needed to move the global economy to new platforms of development, he said, especially through emphasis on advances in “science-driver” projects, such as nuclear fusion and space exploration.  A rapid transition away from monetary speculation to Hamiltonian credit policies would not only allow for improvements in living standards for the entire world population, but would offer the added benefit of putting an end to the power of the financier oligarchy of the City of London and Wall Street, thus eliminating their ability for destabilizations based on neo-liberal economic/financial policies, and geopolitical maneuvers, such as regime change, in the strategic realm.


The global rebellion against these British Empire policies of neoliberalism and geopolitics has dominated world politics in the last three years, with Brexit and the election of Trump as the two most significant, among many, developments.  Trump’s stated intention to pursue peaceful, mutually beneficial relations with Russia and China, and his overtures to establish cooperative relations with both Putin and Xi, represented an existential threat to the Empire.  With China’s adoption of the Belt-and-Road Initiative as the means for “globalizing” the process of scientific industrialization which lifted hundreds of millions out of poverty in China, the British and their allies reacted with a fury.  


This is what was behind the Russiagate fraud, with its anti-Russian McCarthyism, and the continued anti-Trump hysteria among U.S. politicians and media.  It is also the source of the escalations in hot spots around the world, with Color Revolutions being attempted in Hong Kong and Moscow, and threats from U.S. war hawks Bolton, Pompeo and Pence, against China and Russia, as well as targeting North Korea, Iran and Venezuela.  The seemingly sudden recognition of the outbreak of a full global economic/financial crisis, and the prospect of support from many nations for the science and infrastructure policies of China, has also fueled this drive for confrontation and provocations.  


To some extent, President Trump, despite his good intentions, has been swamped by this dynamic.  While working with President Xi, for example, on denuclearization of North Korea, his subordinates, such as Bolton, continue to fan the geopolitical flames, while his trade team, especially Trade Representative Navarro, has undermined his efforts to finalize a trade deal with China.  This confused dynamic has been evident in recent days.  Trump rejected the counsel of those anti-China hawks, who insisted that he deliver a stern warning to China over the riots in Hong Kong, praising Xi, tweeting that he has “ZERO doubt that if President Xi wants to quickly and humanely solve the Hong Kong problem, he can do it.”  He was immediately attacked for “coddling authoritarian leaders.”  As Trump issued such statements, State Department officials were meeting with leaders of the Hong Kong rioters, and many in Congress demanded that he make threats against China.


And on the trade front, while Navarro insisted that he should move ahead with new tariffs against $300 billion of imported Chinese goods, Trump postponed them from September 1 to December 15, citing both concerns about increasing costs to American consumers, as well as his hope to revive the trade deal.  He said that an August 12 phone conversation between U.S. and Chinese negotiators was a “very, very productive call,” adding “I think they want to do something dramatic….They really would like to make a deal.”


But despite good intentions, no such deal is possible within the constraints of the presently collapsing global system.  While volatility in stock markets reflect the economic uncertainty resulting from the shift to a speculative economy, the combined effects of lost physical economic capability in the advanced sector, and the unsustainable volume of debt in the banking and financial sector, mean that no amount of “tweaking” will work.  More low-interest credit, and Green financial swindles, will only provide a short-term prop to the bubble, as the whole paradigm which created it is rotten, and cannot survive without inflicting mass murder, through both the effects of austerity and war.    


As President Trump undoubtedly knows, it is not China that caused this problem, but the commitment to his predecessors, especially the Bushes, Clintons and Obama, to carry out the marching orders of the City of London and Wall Street, which is responsible for this existential crisis.  His personal relationship with President Xi offers a crucial opportunity for the President to move away from geopolitics and neoliberalism, into full collaboration with China and its allies, on the Belt-and-Road Initiative, and in cooperation in space.  LaRouche’s prescience, as seen both in his forecasts pinpointing the causes of the crisis, and his solutions, embodied in his call for a New Bretton Woods, to be enacted through collaboration with the Four Powers, and his Four Laws of economics, based on the scientific principles of Leibnizian dynamics and Hamiltonian credit, offers the only viable option for the future.




  1. “LaRouche Calls for New Bretton Woods System” (Executive Intelligence Review, January 17, 1997).




Alien Smugglers Exploit Infants

Special  thanks to Michael Cutler for this contribution. 


While the Left declares there is no crisis on the border.

May 21, 2019   Michael Cutler
On February 27, 2019 Newsmax published my article, The Truth About Immigration Can Unite All Americans
On November 15, 2014 I was honored to join three true leaders in the United States Congress in a panel discussion on immigration- then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressmen Louis Gohmert and John Fleming.  A video of this panel discussion has been posted on the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s website under the title,  IMMIGRATION WARSAn all-star panel takes on America’s immigration crisis at Restoration Weekend.”
The video has also been posted on YouTube under the title- Immigration Wars.
The perspectives of these true leaders are well worth listening to.
To provide you with a bit of additional material, during my remarks at the panel discussion, I referenced my June 22, 2007 Op-Ed for the Washington Times, Immigration bill a ‘No Go that focused on my concerns about the previous attempt to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted from my commentary, on three separate dates, from the floor of the U.S. during the contentious floor debates in 2007 when Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation was under consideration..  In my piece I recommended that Comprehensive Immigration Reform be given a more honest and descriptive title, I suggested that it be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act!”  
Discussions about immigration almost invariably focus on the lack of integrity to the border that is supposed to separate the United States from America.  Clearly that border lacks integrity and represents little more than a speed bump to smugglers who transport illegal aliens and contraband including record quantities of dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine into the United States.
However, there are many more components to the immigration system including systems by which aliens are granted visas to enter the United States and various immigration benefits such as conferring employment authorization to aliens in the United States and also include the adjudications process by which aliens are granted lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.
All of these systems of the immigration system lack integrity.  Aliens who have gone on to commit crimes and even participate in terrorist attacks have often been dissevered to have successfully gamed the immigration benefits program in order to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.
The findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission must be the starting point for any discussion about immigration legislation.  That commission determined that a lack of border security, including the visa process. and fraud in the immigration benefits program, enabled terrorists to enter and embed themselves in the United States, as they went about their deadly preparations.
Immigration is not a single issue but a singular issue that impacts nearly every challenge and threat confronting the United States today!  Simply stated, the immigration laws were enacted to save lives and protect the jobs of American workers.  In point of fact, our borders and our immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.
It is not “Anti-Immigrant” to be “Pro-American”  it is also not “Anti-Immigrant” to be pro-immigration law enforcement!
Our armed forces are charged with securing America’s borders externally while the DHS is supposed to secure those same borders from within.  The failures of the DHS to live up to its half of the equation are undermining the efforts, valor and incredible sacrifices of Americas men and women who serve in our military!
If our government’s failures to protect American jobs by securing our nation’s borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional “Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation! 
All I ask is that you make it clear to our politicians that we are not as dumb as they hope we are!
We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.



Special thanks to Harley Schlanger for this contribution.


As the second Belt and Road Forum opened in Beijing on April 25, the defenders of the collapsing London-directed Trans-Atlantic system have stepped up their rhetorical assault and financial/military activities against the New Paradigm, which is emerging around President Xi Jinping’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).  While engaging in endless repetition of bogus charges, such as that of an “aggressive and escalating Chinese military threat”, “state-sponsored spying”, “imperial ambitions” and “currency manipulation”, these war party operatives display the same lack of regard for truth that characterized their use of discredited charges of “Russian hacking” and “Trump collusion” to target President Donald Trump’s outreach to Russia and President Putin.  And just as their continuing assault against Trump and Putin has been revealed to be a regime change coup organized by top elements of the British Empire—including their operatives in the Obama intelligence community and their Bush League neocon allies—there is no evidence to back the claims they now are making against China’s President Xi Jinping and his BRI.

But these attack dogs are not concerned with truth, nor evidence.  Instead, they wish to create a hostile environment against improved U.S.-Chinese relations, to prevent Trump from succeeding in bringing the U.S. into a coordinated relationship with the BRI, based on his often-expressed friendship with Xi.  This friendship has provided a basis for productive U.S.-Chinese cooperation in addressing the North Korean nuclear threat, and has survived a rough patch of trade talks, in which the U.S. has imposed tariffs aimed at addressing the continued existence of a large trade deficit with China.  The resolve of both leaders to succeed in these talks has resulted in progress, as a new round of trade negotiations begins April 30 in Beijing, with both sides saying they are nearing an agreement, which Trump has repeatedly tweeted will be “historic”.

For their part, the Chinese have continued to express a desire for the U.S. to be partners in the BRI process.  On the eve of the event, China’s Ambassador to the U.S., Cui Tiankai, appealed to the U.S., to accept this challenge.

“Imagine the potential of China and the United States,” he said, “the world’s two largest, most vibrant economies, collaborating on the most ambitious development project in history. The scenario is no fantasy: China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which kicked off almost six years ago, will eventually connect a vast swath of the world, creating huge yields in economic activity, and wiring the world together as never before. However, the United States remains on the sidelines, and this has implications not only in terms of missed opportunities for growth in the U.S., but for the cause of global development which needs the ingenuity and the industry of the U.S.”


The unwillingness of the anti-China mob in the U.S. to respond positively to this challenge has nothing to do with fears that the Chinese are about to establish a new global empire, to threaten U.S. hegemony.  Instead, it is an explicit rejection of an earlier offer made in August 2018 by President Xi, in discussing the goal of the BRI.

“The Belt and Road,” he stated, “is an initiative for economic cooperation, instead of a geopolitical alliance or military league, and it is an open and inclusive process rather than an exclusive or ‘China club.'”

In language which directly echoes the Schiller Institute’s Helga Zepp LaRouche, who has defined the New Paradigm as one in which “geopolitics” has been eliminated, Xi is clear that he sees the threats against achieving peaceful cooperation as coming from the geopolitical doctrines developed at the end of the 19th century by British imperial strategist Halford Mackinder.  A staunch defender of the British Empire, Mackinder argued that the greatest threat to continued British world domination would be the development of new trade routes over land, utilizing rail, which would diminish greatly the dominant position in world trade, based on British sea power.

Mackinder’s doctrine defined the emergence of rail connections, such as the Trans-Siberian railroad, or the Berlin-Baghdad line, as  existential threats to the Empire.  The precedent of Lincoln’s Transcontinental railroad in the U.S., connecting the east and west coasts of the U.S. by land, which was seen as a danger by Britain’s imperial predators, was viewed as a positive precedent by leaders in Europe.  To prevent this, the British orchestrated regional wars—such as the Russo-Japanese war, and the 1912-13 Balkan Wars—and employed divide-and-rule tactics, to undermine the strategic cooperation between nations required to achieve peaceful commercial and cultural ties.  The geopolitical intervention by the Empire was directly responsible for both World Wars of the twentieth century.  Their heirs in today’s anti-Russia, anti-China policy gaggle are pushing a course leading toward a possible World War III, a horrific potential result, but one which does not at all deter them from provocative actions.


What is not surprising is that many of those spouting nonsense about China are the same as those who previously—and still are—using Russiagate to control, or remove President Trump.  A leading anti-Trump figure in the U.S. Senate, Republican Marco Rubio, is a point man against China, using his Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship to spread lies about China.  This committee just released a report, “Made in China 2025 and the Future of American Industry”.  In introducing the report, Rubio accuses China of “blatant industrial espionage and coercion”, adding that China intends to “steal and cheat their way to world dominance.”  In an op ed he wrote on April 25, he accused the U.S. of being “stunningly naive” in pursuit of a trade partnership, a direct attack on Trump’s effort to negotiate with China.  He branded the BRI as part of “an unprecedented effort to supplant America’s role as the leading economic and military power,” and warned nations not to fall into China’s “debt trap.”  Note that Rubio led the Republican attack on Trump’s negotiations with Russia’s Putin at Helsinki, and has defended the FBI from charges of engaging in a coup against Trump: I have seen “no evidence” that the FBI spied on the Trump campaign, he said on multiple occasions.

Rubio’s effort has bipartisan support, with Democratic Party presidential candidate Elizabeth Warren chiming in that China “has weaponized its economy” in its effort to overtake the U.S.  This line, which is heard from many Democrats with ties to Hillary Clinton, is coherent with the G.W. Bush era geopolitical dogma of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which held that, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. must remain the unilateral power in the world.  It is also reflected in the reconstitution of the Cold War Committee on the Present Danger (CPD), this time focusing on China rather than Russia.  CPD-China, as it is known, held an event in Washington on April 9, featuring Sen. Ted Cruz, a former Trump opponent, Newt Gingrich, an occasional spokesman for Trump, and Steve Bannon, who worked for the Trump campaign and presidency as a “strategist”, but was later fired.  Cruz said that China is “the greatest long term geopolitical risk that the U.S. faces”, while Gingrich accused the U.S. of “sleepwalking” while China asserts its new-found power.  Bannon has a long history of anti-China posturing, claiming that we are in “an economic war with China”, one which “China foisted on us.”

The CPD-C was set up to “inform America about the existential threat” of China.  While its personnel are mostly recycled neocons from the Bush era, such as Frank Gaffney, its vice-chair, more concerning is the chorus of voices from within the Trump administration attacking China.  These include Vice President Pence, who has accused China of “economic aggression”, having an “unparalleled surveillance state”, and using “‘debt diplomacy’ to expand its influence”; and Secretary of State Pompeo, whose mid-April tour of four nations of Latin America included harsh rhetoric and threats against those wishing to collaborate with China.  While in Chile, Pompeo claimed that China deploys its companies abroad to “enter the house, set traps, ignore the rules and propagate disorder.”  Pence, Pompeo and special Venezuela envoy Eliot Abrams have taken the point in threatening both Russia and China over what they say are unwelcome intrusions into “our hemisphere”, with their support of the Maduro government in Venezuela, which the British faction has targeted for regime change.

Will such absurdly provocative allegations and threats stop China from succeeding with their “win-win” economic and strategic diplomacy?  As Mrs. LaRouche has emphasized, China’s efforts are “unstoppable,” except by war, as they address needs in many nations, for infrastructure and development aid, which is not available elsewhere.  This was evident in an April 20 article in “Foreign Policy” magazine, “Catching China by the Belt (and Road)”, which wrote about the newly-established U.S. government agency, the International Development Finance Corp. (IDFC), as a plan to counter the BRI.  The IFDC was created, the authors posit, to prevent the developing world from falling “under China’s sway,” to “help Washington push back against Beijing’s sweeping BRI.”

However, they admit that the IFDC has offered a paltry $60 billion in capital, compared to the more than $1 trillion already pledged by China.  Further, the aid comes with the requirement that the IMF and World Bank be involved in overseeing the fund disbursement.  Saying this is necessary to prove that China is violating “well-established norms with its lending policies”, and to “draw attention to the corruption of the BRI”, it is well known that one of the reasons so many nations have welcomed the BRI is their rejection of IMF/World Bank conditionalities, which have prevented real development from occurring, while maintaining the colonial lending practices favorable to the financial institutions controlled by the British empire.

As Russiagate has crumbled, brought down by its blatant lies and increasingly transparent evidence that it was nothing but a coup, run by a foreign power—Britain—to overturn the result of the 2016 election, “Chinagate” will ultimately fail.  The potential benefits of peaceful cooperation between the U.S. and China, recognized by both Presidents Trump and Xi, in light of the great success of the BRI, are a preferred outcome to trade war and military confrontation.  The media may hide from the American people the dynamic story of China’s BRI, but, if the truth becomes known, it is likely that Americans would reject the McCarthyite scare mongers, as they have in the past, and embrace the possibilities in a “win-win” relationship with China.

Michael Ingmire: Progressive Privilege

Special Thanks To Mike Ingmire of for this contribution! 


Tom Petty wrote in the song, “The Last DJ,” the following line that reads in part: “As we celebrate mediocrity…”

Petty was writing about the death of real American radio. However, the celebration of mediocrity is inherent in the gaping holes in our current popular and political culture.

Never have so many been lauded for accomplishing so little. Never before have the most selfish felt themselves to be the most entitled, whether it be for money, fame or power. They straddle their own egos in the path of making love to the individual that they feel to be the most deserving, themselves.

While we can apply this discussion to our popular culture it is far more interesting to apply our conversation to some of the Freshman Class of the Congress of 2019. The cast of characters in Congress today remind me of something out of the Federico Fellini film, “Amarcord.” In the film Amarcord, the characters seemed to be trapped in a perpetual state of adolescence.

To the casual observer, it would seem that some of the 2019 Freshman Class of Congress is inflicted with a case of callow youthfulness or perhaps the “Amarcord syndrome.” Turning my analytical eye on some of the new faces in the Congress, I see a broader danger in some of the personalities of our privileged progressives.

I see agendas being executed without any real skill set or experience. I see many of the new faces of Congress behaving and speaking irresponsibly without any consideration of the possible consequences, much less basic manners or decorum.

Face it, many new members of Congress are an embarrassment to any of the real principles of the United States Constitution. The behavior of some of the more bratty faces of the 116th Congress is not merely anarchy for the hell of it, it is applied and calculated insurrection. It is a movement by the Democrat Party towards some strange mutation of Socialism and Sharia law. Time to get serious folks. Any thinking American should take pause and pay attention.

Let us examine one of the most ridiculous in our crop of new Congressional representatives, namely Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aka AOC. She is a member of the Democrat Party and was elected to be the U.S. Representative for New York’s 14th Congressional District. This district includes the Eastern part of the Bronx and portions of North Central Queens in New York City. At 29, she is youngest elected member of Congress in history.

Now, the mainstream press would have you believe that Representative Ocasio-Cortez is a political force of nature and the new “star” of the Democrat Party. In reality, her responses vacillate between the scripted and the insipid. Her behavior is closer to what she is, a former bartender who allegedly stole the tips she should have shared with her co-workers. She obviously has a difficult time sharing the spotlight. Somebody mistakenly sold her a bill of goods early, they forgot to say no occasionally. You often see this behavior from spoiled brats screaming in a fit of rage until they get the toy or candy they want. Remember she’s the boss and she has a list. (Try not to split your side laughing at that notion.)

Her “Green New Deal” is ridiculous and costly and bears uncanny resemblance to the old United Nations Agenda 21 disaster. Her unwarranted interference in the New York Amazon deal cost the state potentially millions in tax revenue and individual income.

I was raised by an intelligent woman, I am married to an intelligent woman and I cherish intelligent women. However, when I hear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speak, I find that the abbreviation AOC is highly appropriate. To me it signifies an “Absence Of Cortex” (as in cerebral).

There are allegations that AOC may have committed campaign finance fraud. If these allegations prove to be true I would hope the investigation would be as complete as it would be for any conservative Representative.

Participating in what appears to be the beginning of a Caliphate in Congress are Representatives Rashida Tlaib (13thDistrict, Michigan-D) and Ilhan Omar (5th District, Minnesota-D). Recently, Representative Tlaib claimed that there were elements of Islamophobia “very present” on both sides of the aisle.

Really, Representative Tlaib? Let me get this straight: You ran and won unopposed in your district. On January 3, 2019, you were sworn in with your hand on an English-translation copy of the Quran. You wore a traditional Palestinian Robe (thobe) to the swearing in ceremony, you got away with publicly calling a sitting United States President a m***** f****r (without any censure) and you participated in racial stereotypes during the testimony of Mark Meadows, again without any real censure.

Life sure is hard in Congress, eh? What prejudice has Rep. Tlaib faced on her unfettered climb?

With Representative Tlaib, many Americans have significant reason to fear the public and private face of Islam. From 9-11 to Benghazi, and beyond, I have done my homework and have no illusions about the infiltration of an enemy or the massacre of the innocent. We must not allow political correctness to destroy America from within.

If there is a “moderate” face of Islam, Representative Tlaib, you are not it. Representative Tlaib and Representative Ocasio-Cortez are both members of the organization Democratic Socialists of America. No real surprise there. Additionally, Tlaib, like Ocasio-Cortez, is under investigation for alleged misuse of campaign contributions. As with Ocasio-Cortez, I hope the investigation is thorough.

Representative Ilhan Omar is on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Her statements about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict and Israel’s settlement policy should have had her removed from her position on the Foreign Affairs Committee. There currently appears to be a movement to do so. Omar and Tlaib both fund raised for a designated terrorist group that supports Hamas. Tell me that’s not worth investigating.

Where is Nancy Pelosi when her new “progeny” ride roughshod over the constitution and decorum? Strangely silent. This is like something from a 1940’s MGM casting, a film in progress. It could be titled, “How to Destroy America From Within.” Somebody fire the Casting Director in this farce, please.

To use some slightly crude street parlance, it comes down to this:

The Democrat Party is lawless and the Republican Party is ball-less.

Had enough America? I have.

Pro War Democrats Seek to Overthrow Constitution

Special thanks to Harley Schlanger for this contribution!

March 8—A narrative for the deluded now dominates the nation’s media.  The story goes that Democrats in the House of Representatives, flush from their victory last November, are now acting to re-impose the “rule of law” and to put an end to the corruption within the Trump Presidency.

This entirely fictional account bears such little resemblance to the truth, that if the physical laws which governed Pinocchio were to be imposed, most news commentators, reporters, and Democratic Congressmen would now be walking around with noses growing down to the ground.

In reality, an entirely different agenda – and a set of entirely different motives – is at work.  What is at stake, what is central to the current political assault on Trump, is the determination by Donald Trump to pursue a policy of global peace.  This commitment, which Trump already clearly enunciated in his 2016 campaign, is what has brought on Trump the hatred of the British monarchy and their Anglophile allies in the United States.  The British goal to is sabotage all of Trump’s current efforts toward peace, remove him from office, and to reverse all of the actions he has taken to extinguish the axioms of the 2001-2017 war regimes of the Bush/Obama presidencies.

Now, Democratic Party leaders in the U.S. Congress have unleashed a new firestorm of assaults against Trump.  The actions taken so far by Congressional Democrats signal not only their collective determination to go for impeachment;  their actions also are intended to sabotage the current initiatives Trump is taking defuse crisis situations throughout the world.

Many of these Congressional Democrats are now flirting with crossing the line into an open insurrection against the U.S. Constitution.  They are dipping their toes into the pool of outright treason.  Make no mistake.  The current anti-Trump offensive is replete with lies, dishonesty and unlawful actions, all grounded in an intention to return U.S. policy to an aggressive anti-China anti-Russia war stance.  That is the intention.  Any contrary narrative, such as can daily be seen on display in the establishment media, is simply fodder for the uninformed and credulous.


Storm over Asia


Let us look at the current situation within the context of global events during the recent decades.

As presented by Elliot Greenspan at the March 2 Manhattan meeting of LaRouche PAC, to understand what has transpired in the world since September 11, 2001, it is necessary to “go back to 1991, ‘92, and examine the policy proposals of British intelligence, of Chatham House, of the Royal Institute of International Affairs, to develop what they called a unipolar world.”

The 1989-1991 dissolution and dismemberment of the Soviet Union created an historic opportunity for initiating a new era of peace and global economic development.  This is precisely what was addressed in the proposals by Lyndon and Helga LaRouche for a European Productive Triangle, and what ultimately became known as as the World Landbridge and New Silk Road perspective. At the same time, however, the British monarchy and their American lap-dogs viewed the Soviet collapse as an opportunity to secure absolute Anglo-American hegemony.  This is precisely what the 1989-1992 actions of Thatcher, Mitterrand and George H.W. Bush were intended to accomplish.

In 1999 Lyndon LaRouche produced the video presentation “Storm Over Asia,” wherein he forecast that, if not stopped, these London-centered provocations against Russia and China would lead to a danger of World War III.  Rather than heeding LaRouche’s warnings, after 9/11 the war drive went into high gear, with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the policy of regime change, NATO expansion, the coup d’etat in the Ukraine, the U.S. withdrawal from the ABM treaty, and similar actions.  George W. Bush and Barack Obama were equally guilty in committing these crimes.

The election of Trump interrupted this war drive, and his subsequent – courageous – actions have put him at the center of a frenzied uprising to stop him.


Democratic Jacobins


With the long‑awaited conclusion of special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation in sight, Democrats in the Congress have begun a series of hearings in at least three House Committees.  They have unleashed a “subpoena storm,” a demand for documents in preparation for what they intend will be the filing of one or more bills of impeachment.  Though they piously intone that they are proceeding based on their commitment to “restoring the rule of law,” to counter what Representative Jerrold Nadler (Dem., New York) called Trump’s “near‑daily attacks” on the rules and norms of “our system,” their actions confess a different agenda, and are themselves a deadly assault on the Constitution.  The goal of these investigations is to destroy the Constitutional power of a duly‑elected President to make policy, particularly foreign policy.  The implications of this may be lost on the casual observer, but it is precisely the “Presidential” system, established at the Constitutional Convention, in 1788 which is under assault.  As Harvard law professor and constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz has concluded, Congressional investigators are going beyond the “legitimate function of Congress,” and they are “going too far” in their use of the “oversight function.”

In particular, the intention of Nadler and his allies is to take away from Trump his right to pursue agreements for cooperation with Russia and China, in a decisive break with the geopolitical dogma which has kept the United States engaged in wars for the last eighteen years.  Among the subpoenas issued by Nadler, who is the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, is the demand for all public and private communications between Trump and Russian President Putin.  Nadler argues that these may show that Trump “is not acting in the national interest” in his effort to establish a mutually beneficial relationship between the U.S. and Russia.

What is driving the Democrats in Congress into a frenzy is their fear that Mueller has not produced any evidence that Donald Trump was “colluding” with Putin.  The anti‑Trump media is filled daily with accounts of those who have been indicted by Mueller, and have pleaded guilty, but none of those alleged crimes relate to the mandate he was given, to find evidence of “meddling” and “collusion.”  Some were prosecuted for actions which occurred long before the election of Trump, and are unrelated to Russiagate, as in the case of his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort.  At his sentencing on March 8, the presiding Judge Ellis specified that Manafort was not convicted “for anything to do with Russian colluding in the presidential election.”

Other Mueller-obtained convictions are for so‑called process crimes, such as lying to the FBI, which occurred during the investigation, often having to do with misstatements based on a prosecutorial tactic known as the “perjury trap.”  Again, none of these convictions nor indictments proves collusion or obstruction of justice, the other charge Mueller has been pursuing.

The testimony of Trump’s former attorney Michael Cohen, which was initially hailed as filled with “bombshells” implicating Trump in multiple crimes, has also been a flop.  When asked by Congressional interrogators if he had any evidence of collusion with Russia by Trump or his campaign, Cohen admitted, “I do not….But I have my suspicions.”   In the U.S. legal system, “suspicion” is not the basis for either indictment or conviction of a crime, particularly when the accuser is clearly biased.  The corrupt U.S. news media, however, has treated Cohen’s malignant fantasies as a smoking gun of Trump’s guilt.


Congress Unleashes Mayhem


Following the Democratic takeover of the House of Representatives in November 2018, Trump challenged the Democrats: ‘You can either choose to tie the country up in endless investigations, or we can cooperate on matters of bipartisan concern, such as infrastructure investments, lowering the cost of prescription drugs, trade deals, border security, etc.’  As it has become clear that leading Democrats have no desire to cooperate, with their launching of the “subpoena storm,” Trump tweeted on March 5, “So the campaign begins,” referring to his intent to make their efforts to sabotage his legislative and strategic agenda a campaign issue.

The destructive agenda of the Democrats was on full display in comments made on Sunday talk shows on March 3.  Nadler told the interviewer on ABC News that his inquiry will cover “alleged obstruction of justice, public corruption and other abuses of power.”  Accusing Trump of evading accountability for his actions, he implied that the hearings will be conducted as show trials to open the door to impeachment.  “Before you impeach someone,” he said, “You have to persuade the American public that it ought to happen.”  He added, showing he has already reached the conclusion that he will go for impeachment, “It’s very clear that the president obstructed justice,” citing the firing of FBI Director Comey, – an action which the President is legally and constitutionally empowered to do – as well as Trump’s allegedly trying to protect Michael Flynn from prosecution, attacking the Mueller investigation, and intimidating witnesses, as examples.

When he was asked, “Why not go for impeachment now?” Nadler responded that despite the accusations he just made, “we don’t have the facts yet.  Impeachment is a long way down the road.”  He then said that, before going for impeachment, it is necessary to persuade Trump voters “that you’re not just trying to steal—to reverse the results of the last election.”   His pause after the word “steal” was an indication that he revealed more than he intended, exposing his true thoughts, that impeachment would amount to stealing the election from Trump and his voters!  The day after this interview, Nadler released his demand for documents from 81 agencies, entities and individuals, including from Trump’s family members, businesses, the White House and the Justice Department.

A second set of hearings is planned by Rep. Adam Schiff, the vehemently anti‑Trump chair of the House Select Intelligence Committee.  In preparation for the hearings, Schiff hired Daniel Goldman, a former Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Southern District of New York (SDNY), to serve as a “senior adviser and director of investigation” for the committee.  Goldman’s specialty at the SDNY was cases involving racketeering, gambling and money laundering, including targeting Russian organized crime.  Schiff, who told CBS News on March 3 that “There is abundant evidence of collusion,” said he intends to pursue that charge, looking into whether Putin was paying off Trump through Russian organized crime figures investing in Trump properties in New York City!   Charges were brought against Cohen by prosecutors of the SDNY, which led to his guilty pleas.

A third committee investigating the Trump administration is the House Oversight Committee, under the chairmanship of Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Both Nadler and Schiff warned they would subpoena Mueller’s report, if the Attorney General does not make it public.  The laws governing the special counsel leave the decision whether to release the report to the Attorney General, to avoid damaging those who were investigated, but were not charged with any crime.


Billionaires for Impeachment


In addition to these hearings, there are now sixteen Democrats running for their party’s nomination in 2020, almost all of whom insist that Trump must be removed from office, the sooner the better.  Further, several billionaires recently have ruled out campaigns, but will make large contributions to either impeach Trump, or defeat him.  One, Michael Bloomberg, spent $100 million to support Democrats in the 2018 midterm election.  In announcing his decision not to run, he said he would “spend freely to build the resistance movement to Trump.”  Tom Steyer, a Silicon Valley mogul, will also unleash torrents of money, to fund a “grass roots campaign to impeach Trump.”  Both Bloomberg and Steyer are fanatic proponents of the fake science theory of “man‑made climate change,” and attack Trump for his rejection of the fraudulent “climate change” policies which are a cover for a drastic depopulation of the planet.

In response to the unleashing of the subpoena storm and their impeachment frenzy, Trump tweeted that the Democrats “have gone stone cold crazy.”  He attacked them for the timing of the Cohen hearings, which occurred as he was engaged in crucial but delicate negotiations with North Korean leader Kim Jong‑un.  Trump has emphasized that these negotiations have been facilitated by cooperation with him from Russia, China, Japan and South Korea.  His opponents do not want him to succeed in the effort to achieve a long‑term peace agreement with North Korea.

When asked what he thinks of the investigations by Congressional committees, he responded that they represent “a big, fat fishing expedition desperately in search of a crime.”  Further, he added that despite the chaos unleashed by his opponents, he intends to continue to work for the voters who elected him.

Trump has called the current Congressional insurrection “presidential harassment,” and it is precisely in that phrase that the illegal assault on the Constitution’s delegation of Presidential authority to conduct foreign policy must be seen.


Sanctuary Cities Support Corporate Welfare

Hi Gang:

My latest article appears in the February 26, 2019 edition of FrontPage Magazine:


More vicious hypocrisy from the Left.

Kindly forward this e-mail to your senators and congressional representatives and to as many folks as you can and then ask that those to whom you send this forward it along to everyone they can- I am attempting to create a “Bucket Brigade of Truth!

Please remember to listen to my radio show, “The Michael Cutler Hour” on BlogTalk Radio on Friday evenings at 7:00 PM, Eastern Time, and find podcasts of my previous programs at:

USA Talk Radio

My article for FrontPage Magazine today is predicated on statements made by the new “darling” of the increasingly radicalized Democratic Party, newly elected Congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.  She used the accusation of “Corporate Welfare” to describe the massive tax deal offered by NYC to entice Amazon to establish its second headquarters in Queens, New York.  She crowed when Amazon cancelled the deal when it encountered opposition from New Yorkers who had been kept in the dark by the “backroom deal” concocted by Amazon and New York’s politicians, most notably Governor Andrew Cuomo and NYC’s Mayor Bill de Blasio.

The point is that while Alexandria railed against corporate welfare concerning the Amazon deal, she and her fellow Democrats encourage a far more pervasive and widespread form of corporate welfare, the importation of millions of foreign workers who displace American workers.  Furthermore, Alexandria has called for dismantling ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) the sole agency that is charged with the investigation of employers to make certain that they abide by our immigration laws and not hire illegal aliens.

Alexandria and her fellow politicians are nothing if they are not massively hypocritical!

Ignorance is not bliss.  Knowledge is power, so my article provides some cold hard facts for you to consider and hopefully share with others.

If you like my article I ask that you make a point of posting it on FaceBook and other social media and forward this e-mail to as many folks as you can.  It is important to dispel the lies and nonsense about the true nature and significance of effective immigration law enforcement in this particularly perilous era.

Being “Pro-Enforcement” is not “Anti-Immigrant.”  Indeed, advocates for immigration anarchy are actually taking an “Anti-Immigrant” position by obfuscating the line that separates lawful immigrants from illegal aliens.  To provide a bit of clarity, while we are indeed a “Nation of immigrants” America is not a nation of trespassers.  The difference between an immigrant and an illegal alien is comparable to the difference between a houseguest and a burglar.

Americans must be willing to stand their ground and not be intimidated by the false accusations- far too much hangs in the balance!  We must speak out against mayors and governors who create “Sanctuary Cities” and “Sanctuary States.”

Many people have come to complain that we have become too “Politically Correct” to speak the truth about important issues.  My view is that the artful use of language that has been described as examples of political correctness are in fact, examples of Orwellian “Newspeak.”

Having invoked George Orwell, it is appropriate to consider a couple of his brilliant quotes:

Political language — and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists — is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.

In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

I addressed the way that control of language leads to thought control and ultimately a loss of our freedoms in my article for The Social Contract:

Language Wars: The Road to Tyranny Is Paved with Language Censorship


More vicious hypocrisy from the Left.

February 26, 2019

Michael Cutler

Archive of My Articles for FrontPage Magazine

On November 15, 2014 I was honored to join three true leaders in the United States Congress in a panel discussion on immigration- then-U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions and Congressmen Louis Gohmert and John Fleming.  A video of this panel discussion has been posted on the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s website under the title,  “IMMIGRATION WARSAn all-star panel takes on America’s immigration crisis at Restoration Weekend.”

The video has also been posted on YouTube under the title- “Immigration Wars.”

The perspectives of these true leaders are well worth listening to.

To provide you with a bit of additional material, during my remarks at the panel discussion, I referenced my June 22, 2007 Op-Ed for the Washington Times, Immigration bill a ‘No Go that focused on my concerns about the previous attempt to enact Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Then-Senator Jeff Sessions quoted from my commentary, on three separate dates, from the floor of the U.S. during the contentious floor debates in 2007 when Comprehensive Immigration Reform legislation was under consideration..  In my piece I recommended that Comprehensive Immigration Reform be given a more honest and descriptive title, I suggested that it be renamed the “Terrorist Assistance and Facilitation Act!”

Discussions about immigration almost invariably focus on the lack of integrity to the border that is supposed to separate the United States from America.  Clearly that border lacks integrity and represents little more than a speed bump to smugglers who transport illegal aliens and contraband including record quantities of dangerous drugs such as heroin and cocaine into the United States.

However, there are many more components to the immigration system including systems by which aliens are granted visas to enter the United States and various immigration benefits such as conferring employment authorization to aliens in the United States and also include the adjudications process by which aliens are granted lawful immigrant status and even United States citizenship.

All of these systems of the immigration system lack integrity.  Aliens who have gone on to commit crimes and even participate in terrorist attacks have often been dissevered to have successfully gamed the immigration benefits program in order to embed themselves in communities around the United States as they went about their deadly preparations.

The findings and recommendations of the 9/11 Commission must be the starting point for any discussion about immigration legislation.  That commission determined that a lack of border security, including the visa process. and fraud in the immigration benefits program, enabled terrorists to enter and embed themselves in the United States, as they went about their deadly preparations.

Immigration is not a single issue but a singular issue that impacts nearly every challenge and threat confronting the United States today!  Simply stated, the immigration laws were enacted to save lives and protect the jobs of American workers.  In point of fact, our borders and our immigration laws are America’s first line of defense and last line of defense against international terrorists and transnational criminals.

It is not “Anti-Immigrant” to be “Pro-American”  it is also not “Anti-Immigrant” to be pro-immigration law enforcement!

Our armed forces are charged with securing America’s borders externally while the DHS is supposed to secure those same borders from within.  The failures of the DHS to live up to its half of the equation are undermining the efforts, valor and incredible sacrifices of Americas men and women who serve in our military!
If our government’s failures to protect American jobs by securing our nation’s borders and effectively enforcing our immigration laws concerns you or especially if it angers you, I ask you to call your Senators and Congressional “Representative. This is not only your right- it is your obligation!

All I ask is that you make it clear to our politicians that we are not as dumb as they hope we are!

We live in a perilous world and in a perilous era. The survival of our nation and the lives of our citizens hang in the balance.

American Lives Matter!

This is neither a Conservative issue, nor is it a Liberal issue- simply stated, this is most certainly an AMERICAN issue!

You are either part of the solution or you are a part of the problem!

Democracy is not a spectator sport!

Lead, follow or get out of the way!

-michael cutler- 

Please check out my website: