Menu Close

America’s Trilogy - Faith, Family, Freedom

Newsletter | October 13, 2022

Faith, Family, Freedom

Try as they might – the woke maniacs, fake news stenographers, lying politicians and pundits, corrupt bureaucrats and D.C. operatives– they will never overcome the force of strength that has guided and shaped our way of life for over two centuries – faith, family, and freedom. America is built not on political gamesmanship or rumors and lies, rather its foundation rests on the trilogy of blessings bestowed on the citizens of this country. And, these blessings will never be surrendered.

In our newsletters of late, we’ve been raising concerns and addressing issues that undermine our individual rights and threaten our self-governance as part of our mission to educate our fellow Americans. In this edition, we turn inward to put the spotlight on the three connected powerlines that energize Americans and make this nation great.

Think of the triangle.  Geometrically, triangles are comprised of three components or elements making all sorts of everyday structures strong and stable, from the humble stool to the majestic sail. Our political system is kept in balance by three branches — executive, legislative, and judicial. The family is made strong by its three elements, mother, father, and children. The core strength of America comes from three blessings — faith, family, and freedom.

These pillars have guided Americans from the start, beginning with our Founding Fathers.

They had faith in God, of course. Their correspondence and published writings are scored with their devotion to our Creator. Our founding documents are elevated by it. But they also had faith in the new country they envisioned, and the idea that generated it — a free nation – governed by, of, and for the people.

Family is our constant inspiration. How much will parents suffer and sacrifice to build a future for their children, their children’s children, and generations after.  Love of family and our family’s love give us courage to carry on when faced with adversity.

And for Americans, freedom is our natural state, God’s blessing on all men, whom He created in his image. Generations have fought for freedom, theirs and ours. What a remarkable gift we have from men and women who gave their lives for our freedoms; young men and women who had just barely begun to dream of their future hopes, loves, families, careers, communities. Their love for, and faith in this country was so great that they gave their lives for it before having a chance to live their dreams.

We owe all who came before us, from the Founding Fathers to the men and women who have heroically served our country with bravery and courage, from the Revolutionary War in the 18th century to the Middle East warzones over the last two decades. And we acknowledge our gratitude living by the powerful and meaningful strength in these words, America’s trilogy — faith, family, and freedom.

Here at America’s Future, we urge you to keep these cornerstones of our great nation top of mind when you step into the voting booth in a few short weeks.

Please take this week’s Reader’s Survey. We read all the comments and gain insight into Americans thoughts on the topics discussed in our newsletters. We appreciate our readers’ thoughtful comments and are thankful for all the responses we receive. And please join our Executive Director, Mary O’Neill, every Monday at 9 a.m. on America’s Mondays With Mary to hear some of our readers’ responses and other news about America’s Future activities. Thank you!


“America” Book Ready For You

The first printing of America’s Future first in a series of educational books, “Exploring America’s Founding Documents,” is on its way from the printer. We are excited to share the book with our newsletter readers. We are preparing orders that have already been placed, however, if you have not yet ordered your free copy, please click the button below and complete the form to receive the book at your home.

The “America” book is filled with visuals and original content, covering the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution with the Bill of Rights – the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Each amendment is highlighted in its entirety with accompanied insights into its origination and meaning.

For some, this book will be a refresher about our vital founding documents. For families, it provides a great way to learn together and share information about the birth of our nation. For homeschoolers, it will add value to your teaching tools and curriculum about American history, civics or social studies. To view “Exploring America’s Founding Documents” digitally, click here. To order a free print copy, submit the form in the button below.


America’s Future Files Amicus Brief Supporting Citizens First Amendment Rights

The First Amendment

On Friday, October 7, 2022, America’s Future along with four other amici nonprofit organizations, submitted an Amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) supporting the relief requested by the Petitioners Melissa and Aaron Kein in Klein v Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Dkt. No. 22-204.

Petitioners, Mr. and Mrs. Klein, are a married Christian couple who are the owners of a specialty cake shop in Oregon called “Sweet Cakes by Melissa.” In 2015, the Kleins declined to design and create a cake that would celebrate a same-sex wedding. Asserting their God-given constitutional rights under the First Amendment free speech and free exercise of religion clauses, the Kleins refusal was predicated on their deeply and sincerely held religious belief that non-traditional marriages, such as same-sex marriages, violate God’s design for the institution of marriages. The sincerity of the Kliens’ beliefs is not in dispute.

At some point after the Kleins declined the request for their services, the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) was notified of their declination. BOLI investigated the matter and subsequently penalized the Kleins with a fine in the amount of $135,000.00 for a violation of Oregon Revised Statute 659A.403, a public accommodation law prohibiting refusals of services that are otherwise offered to the public if the refusal is based on “race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age.”

The Kleins presented three questions to the SCOTUS in their petition, two of which are easily resolved based upon prior SCOTUS rulings as we note in the brief. The remaining question presented to the SCOTUS by the petitioners, however, we propose the SCOTUS resolve the following variant of the question presented:

“May Oregon sanction individuals who refuse to participate in or facilitate “same-sex” marriages, which they sincerely and deeply believe to be immoral and in violation of their faith and teachings of the Holy Bible, consistent with the First Amendment’s protection of the Free Exercise of Religion?”

Our brief recommends the SCOTUS rule on this crucial constitutional question, which is at the heart of this case.  We prompt the SCOTUS to review their prior rulings speaking to this issue to verify the fatally flawed reasonings that have permitted an intolerable “jurisdictional divide between a citizen’s civil obligations to the state, and his religious obligations to God.”

We argue that “whether the state is free to regulate particular conduct is determined by the original definition of ‘religion’ in the free exercise guarantee itself.”  Our brief looks back at written records from our Framers, particularly James Madison, who was the primary drafter of the First Amendment, in order to assist the SCOTUS with their analysis so there can be a proper resolution to this critical constitutional issue.  Our brief explains,

“As its chief architect, Madison understood (as did Jefferson) that the First Amendment erected a jurisdictional barrier between matters that belonged to church government and matters that belonged to civil government of the state, the latter having absolutely no jurisdiction over duties owed to the Creator which, by nature, are enforceable only “by reason and conviction.”

We, at America’s Future, believe that the Kleins should not have been placed in a position that compels them to chose between practicing their religious beliefs faithfully or complying with state law.

Keeping You Informed
SCOTUS to Reconsider Affirmative Action In College Admissions

To keep our readers up-to-date and well informed, last week we kicked off our series focusing on cases currently in front of SCOTUS during its new October 2022 term.  Cases selected for this series are based upon public interest, significance, and the potential impact on the lives of Americans.

Last week we highlighted cases concerning election integrity, redistricting, and voting rights.  This week we turn to two “companion cases.” Companion cases are those cases the SCOTUS recognizes that for the sake of judicial efficiency should be considered at the same time. In this instance, the two companion cases we consider have been brought by the same petitioner, raise separate but similar issues and have traveled similar paths to get to the SCOTUS. The cases regard the constitutionality of affirmative action, as applied by higher education institutions.

Companion cases

  • Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v University of North Carolina (UNC), Dkt No. 21-707

  • SFFA v President and Fellows of Harvard University (Harvard), Dkt. No. 20-1199

Both cases present an opportunity for the SCOTUS to reevaluate prior rulings permitting affirmative action to be applied by colleges, universities, and other postgraduate schools to applications for admissions submitted by potential studentss
  • In Students for Fair Admissions v UNC, the petitioner is seeking SCOTUS relief to the following two questions presented: (1) “Should this Court overrule Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003), and hold that institutions of higher education cannot use race as a factor in admissions;” and (2) “Can a university reject a race-neutral alternative because it would change the composition of the student body, without proving that the alternative would cause a dramatic sacrifice in academic quality or the educational benefits of overall student-body diversity?

    With respect to the first question above, in 2003, the SCOTUS accepted two companion cases out of Michigan for review and resolution (the “Bollinger cases”).  There, the SCOTUS reaffirmed the constitutionality of applying affirmative action as part of the admissions procedures practiced by colleges, universities and other postgraduate schools. The Bollinger rulings, however, announced to higher education institutions the notion and rule that while race could be a factor in admission decisions, it could no longer be the primary factor in admission decisions.

    The second question above is presented to the SCOTUS more as an alternative for the SCOTUS to rule in the petitioner’s favor even if it refuses to reverse the rulings in the Bollinger cases outright (reversing the Bollingercases would result in a complete ban of race-based admissions practices, whereas the impact of a ruling in favor of the petitioner only as to the second question has far less reach). 

SFFA v President and Fellows of Harvard University

In SFFA v Harvard, the petitioner again requests the SCOTUS to reverse its 2003 Bollinger cases outright, thereby banning race-based admission policies from being implemented by higher education institutions.

Additionally, in this case, the petitioner presents the following novel question to the SCOTUS: 

Whether Harvard is violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act which prohibits race-based admissions practices by a public university that, if done, violates Equal Protection if Harvard’s admissions practices penalize Asian-American applicants?

The thrust of the petitioner’s argument is that Harvard is in violation of the Equal Protection Clause because it awards racial preferences during its admissions process to Hispanics and African Americans but does not award the same to Asian Americans, thereby penalizing Asian Americans.  Further, Harvard is publicly funded and therefore the violation of the Equal Protection Clause triggers the violation of the Title VI.

This case presents novel issues for the SCOTUS to tackle.  If the SCOTUS reverses the Bollinger cases through SFFA v UNC, the novel issues in SFFA v Harvard are automatically quashed and nullified.

To access the SCOTUS website for more information, visit

Unequal Justice Under Law
The FBI’s Unholy Alliance With Big Media

This is the eighth article in our series on the nation’s premiere law enforcement agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and its self-destruction over time.

In May 2022, the attorneys general of Louisiana and Missouri filed suit against Joe Biden, Anthony Fauci, and other federal officials for directing Facebook (now Meta), Twitter and other social media giants to censor stories harmful to Democrats under the guise of combating misinformation.

Among the stories that were suppressed at the reported direction of the current administration was the Wuhan lab leak story and the worthlessness of masks.  However, the most significant spiked story was one which may have swung the November 2020 Presidential election to Biden.

In October 2020, New York Post exposed the politically damaging (and disgusting) contents of the Hunter Biden laptop.  There, the FBI told Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg that Hunter’s laptop was “Russian propaganda,” and he dutifully ensured few Facebook users would learn about its contents.  Polling has shown that, if the American People had known the truth about the laptop, it could have swung the election to President Trump.

Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry asserted: “Ripped from the playbook of Stalin and his ilk, the Biden Administration has been colluding with Big Tech to censor free speech and propagandize the masses.”

Just this month, as more evidence about Deep State control of social media has been gathered, the Louisiana-Missouri lawsuit was expanded to name the FBI and U.S. Department of Justice as defendants.  Among the FBI officials censoring news were those working in the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force.  The techniques that the FBI has developed to combat “Foreign Influence” are now being employed to limit the influence of Americans on how we are ruled by keeping us ignorant about the lies we are regularly told by the Deep State.

Social media has been a dominant form of media only for about the past decade and a half.  Before that, the main source of news was the establishment press, and historians have proven that Big Media has been complicit in covering up FBI abuses for almost a century.  Much of this story is contained in a book by a Dean at Minnesota State University, Matthew Cecil.  His book, Hoover’s FBI and the Fourth Estate: The Campaign to Control the Press and the Bureau’s Image, rips the cover off many stories the FBI would rather keep private.

In the 1930s, President Franklin Roosevelt issued a secret order “authorizing” J.  Edgar Hoover’s FBI to wiretap American citizens without warrants, despite both federal law and Supreme Court decisions banning the practice.  FBI agents arrested a dozen citizens in February 1940, some without warrants, breaking down doors in a pre-dawn Detroit raid.  The accused were chained, paraded before photographers, and denied access to counsel until minutes before their initial hearing 12 hours later.  Civil libertarian critics denounced the FBI’s “third-degree” tactics, and Senator George Norris (D-TN) denounced the FBI for “taking the law into their own hands.”

In late 1939, Hoover admitted to a House subcommittee that the FBI had been wiretapping citizens for nearly a decade.  “Once again,” writes Dean Cecil, “Hoover’s FBI had been caught placing itself above the law – squarely in secret police territory….”  The liberal New Republic editorialized, “How long will Congress let Hoover run before it calls for a full disclosure of all the FBI lawlessness?”

In order to keep his actions from the attention of the American people, and keep pressure off Congress to investigate the FBI, Hoover relied on a mostly sycophantic press corps. Dean Cecil explains that “[j]ournalists were central to the FBI’s efforts to maintain its central position in American culture and government while legitimizing its existence through news columns produced by ‘objective’ and authoritative reporters.”  Hoover’s “supporters in the media published dozens of favorable editorials and columns in the months that followed,” the author reports, further stating, “Hoover leveraged his own iconic status and dominant position of power…designating the criticism a ‘smear campaign’ designed to discredit the Bureau and undermine American society.”

Only a handful of media critics “contradicted the Bureau’s preferred message of dispassionate and scientific law enforcement led by a steady and trustworthy director.”  Hoover responded to negative stories by removing critical media outlets from the FBI’s mailing lists — cutting them off from access to information.

Hoover routinely characterized the critics of FBI lawlessness as “un-American” and promoters of “misinformation.”  “The recent campaign… against the bureau was inspired by un-American forces and through the lies and misinformation which they distributed, well-meaning … persons were victimized by their falsehood,” he claimed.  Hoover asserted that his civil libertarian critics wanted to “undermine public confidence” in law enforcement.

In 1945, President Truman wrote worriedly, “We want no Gestapo or secret police F.B.I.”  It is high time for the American People to heed that warning and begin to envision a nation without a secret police — without an FBI.

Editor’s Note: To read the articles in this series thus far, please click here.


Reminders & Updates

ELECTION INFO RESOURCES: America’s Future wants to help ease the way by providing an “Election Information Resources” page on our website. Here you will find direct links, telephone numbers and email address to all 50 states and U.S. jurisdictions’ election information websites. It’s user-friendly with easy access to check where your polling location is and other assorted points of voter information. Click here.

AMERICA’S MONDAYS WITH MARY: Tune in every Monday morning at 9 a.m. (ET) to watch our Executive Director Mary O’Neill report out on the comments and insights submitted via our weekly Reader Survey and listen to updates about America’s Future activities and what’s ahead at America’s Mondays With Mary.

MUST SEE: America’s Future urges all Americans to get involved and never quit the fight for freedom. Please watch the video  and heed our Board Chair, General Michael Flynn’s question: “What am I going to do to help my country, to help my family, to help my community?”

STAY CONNECTED: You’ll find America’s Future on your favorite social media platforms. Thank you for remembering to follow us and please share our posts.


Support America’s Future

America’s Future is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization.
All donations are tax-deductible to the full extent of the law.