Menu Close
Hellfire Of Threats To America Demands Action

Newsletter | October 12, 2023

American Flag with Fire

It’s no wonder the administration is covering up Iran’s role in supporting Hamas’ massacre of Israelis last week. Our corrupt ruling class has aligned America with the forces of evil. Over the last several months, the current White House has given the Islamic Republic of Iran access to $16 billion dollars. Why? In order to bribe the leading state sponsor of terror to re-enter a deal over its nuclear weapons program — an agreement that doesn’t prevent Iran from getting the bomb but rather legalizes it.

The issue isn’t just that Iran uses the money to arm, fund, and train its terror assets like Hamas, Hezbollah, and others. No, by giving Iran those huge sums, the Joe Biden administration signals that the Islamic Republic is a partner. The White House is lying about Iran’s role supporting Hamas’ massacre to obscure its complicity.

Demonic is the first word that comes to mind when describing the events in Israel. The images of families slaughtered and children mutilated are seared into our memory forever. We’re angry, and our anger is righteous. Scripture shows that our most merciful God is also wrathful. Destroy the Lord’s most precious work, his children, and you have earned His wrath.

What was nearly as shocking to Americans were the grisly demonstrations throughout U.S. cities in support of Hamas. New York, Washington, Chicago, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Atlanta, Denver, San Diego, Tucson, Salt Lake City, Tampa, and others. It appears there are U.S. cities like Dearborn, Michigan, with a large population of second-generation Middle Easterners who esteem savagery. Why U.S. and local government officials, in partnership with radicalized charity organizations, have imported terror supporters over the last half century to threaten America’s peace and prosperity is a question that demands not only answers but immediate solutions.

Even more urgent, however, is the national security threat pointed like a dagger at the throat of every American. Since Biden became president, between seven to ten million foreign nationals have crossed our border. They come from all parts of the globe, including the Middle East and North African states that sponsor terror, including Syria, Iraq, Iran, and the Palestinian territories. And no one has any idea who they are.

The border has been a top issue for American voters for over a decade. Promising to close it is one of the factors that helped Donald Trump get to the White House in 2016. We’re justifiably angry the Biden administration has exposed us to danger by inviting in the masses that invariably include terrorists as well as felons and foreign operatives. And now that we’ve seen what the cost of that invasion might look like for our families, friends, and neighbors, it’s time to make closing the border the number one issue leading into the 2024 vote. We need a leader to stand with us and for us and close the gate. We’ve had enough. Don’t tempt our wrath either.

Please participate in our Reader’s Survey. Your insights and thoughts are important as we learn what is on the minds and in the hearts of our fellow Americans. We read them all and share some of them Mondays at 9 a.m. during America’s Future live broadcasts with our Executive Director Mary O’Neill on America’s Mondays With Mary. Thank You!

America Patriots - Jason Foster

With more than two decades of experience conducting oversight and investigations on Capitol Hill, Jason Foster represented four different congressional committees in hundreds of disputes with the Executive Branch over access to documents and witnesses in a broad array of contexts. After leaving the Senate Judiciary Committee staff in 2018, Foster advised the investigations and litigation support practice of a DC public affairs firm. In 2021, he founded Empower Oversight Whistleblowers and Research, a nonpartisan organization dedicated to enhancing independent oversight. Empower Oversight works to help insiders safely and legally report corruption to the proper authorities and to hold those authorities accountable to act on those reports.

Has the mainstream media ignored evidence of the Biden administration and Biden family corruption brought to light by the whistleblowers Empower Oversight represents?

It has absolutely downplayed key facts. The IRS whistleblowers gave Congress evidence that felony charges against the President’s son for evading tax on his income from corrupt Ukrainian energy company Burisma were blocked by Biden appointees, contrary to sworn assurances from the Attorney General.  As of May 15, when Gary Shapley and his entire team were removed from the case in retaliation for his protected disclosures, Hunter Biden had still not declared or paid tax on his Burisma income, and the Delaware U.S. Attorney allowed the time limit on those charges to expire. If the same facts had been established involving the Bush or Trump family during those administrations, the mainstream media would no doubt have turned the volume up to eleven. No American could have escaped the breathless wall-to-wall coverage. Yet now, some in the press call our client a “so-called” whistleblower and amplify the Biden family attacks against him for telling the truth.

What did you learn about protecting whistleblowers and investigating corruption while you were Chief Investigative Counsel for Sen Charles Grassley?

I learned that whistleblowers can supercharge and empower oversight authorities to hold powerful institutions accountable.  Protecting whistleblowers is essential to ensure that insiders will continue to provide information about wrongdoing that would otherwise remain hidden. Being a whistleblower is not easy. Their willingness to help uncover waste, fraud, and abuse is essential to our system of government. They should be applauded as the patriotic Americans that they are—regardless of the political implications of their protected disclosures.

First under Sen Grassley and now with Empower Oversight, you’ve helped uncover some of the biggest scandals in U.S. political history. What’s worse, Russiagate or the Bidens’ alleged financial arrangements with foreign officials and enterprises

That remains to be seen, but the common theme in these scandals—as well as in the Operation Fast & Furious gunrunning scandal—is the lack of transparency and accountability for prosecutors, law enforcement, and intelligence officials. When improper political motives or a desire to cover up government wrongdoing infect decisions that should be made objectively on the merits alone, it undermines public faith in the integrity of the system. These officials have only themselves to blame for the cratering of public trust in the objectivity of their institutions. Until they stop blaming Americans who call out the double standards and address the underlying problem, the situation will only deteriorate.

How can readers help your important mission at Empower Oversight?

Our team works every day to dig into allegations, but we have more and bigger requests than we can handle. In hopes of expanding our capacity on priority issues, we have established a special law enforcement whistleblower defense fund.  This fund will help us represent people like IRS whistleblower Gary Shapley, who face retaliation from opposition forces funded by virtually limitless resources.  Readers can go to to give or learn more.

What is your prayer for America?I pray that America can rediscover and revive the best aspects of its founding principles to survive and flourish as one nation and a free republic under God.

Editor’s Note: To read other Speaking With American Patriots interviews, please click here

Music is among the most powerful influences in the culture of a society that can inspire positivity, unity, and peace. Jimmy Levy, who is an acclaimed songwriter, singer, producer, and #1 Billboard charting recording artist, intends to see to it that his music does just that.  He is featured in the latest America’s Future Not On My Watch episode, hosted by Liz Crokin, investigative journalist and a member of America’s Future Project Defend & Protect Our Children Advisory Board,

Jimmy is the maestro behind the recently released song, “FREEDOM,” an inspirational masterpiece of lyrics and soulful melodies featuring blended voices that Jimmy brought together – each representing a distinct purpose in the fight for freedom – to produce the song’s blockbuster video. Watch the podcast interview to learn more about the genesis of “FREEDOM,” Jimmy’s life journey with music and faith, and his long-time devotion to protecting children from harmful environments. He is fearless in speaking out against negative, dark forces, especially when it comes to children, and believes that as truth is revealed about societal evils, there will be a “…big revival in the music industry and the entertainment industry within the next three to five years…”

Jimmy hopes to one day build a mission-driven organization as part of his advocacy work for children. As a musician, he understands the power of music to young people. “Music is so important because the children listen to the music. The children don’t listen to the politicians, they don’t listen to their parents, but they listen to music and music is what influences them.”

Editor’s Note: Two members of the America’s Future team, General Mike Flynn, Board Chair, and Liz Crokin, who conducted the Not On My Watch interview with Jimmy Levy, are featured in the music video. If you would like to download FREEDOM, please click here.

“Andrew’s Law” Strengthens Grooming Convictions

A new federal bill that hardens grooming convictions by increasing the penalties for those convicted of sexual grooming and prohibiting plea deals will be unveiled at the 2023 National Federation of Republican Assemblies Convention in Orlando, Florida, on Saturday, Oct. 14, 2023. America’s Future Executive Director, Mary O’Neill, along with other leaders, will be at the event to join forces in support of the proposed legislation.

Mary O’Neill

The Andrew’s Law – Unlawful Grooming Offenses Act, is named after Andrew Peterson, who, as a teenager, was sexually groomed by his teacher, until his mother, Michelle, discovered the horrific circumstances that he had endured. Once exposed, Michelle’s fight to have her son’s groomer incarcerated lasted over three years, from 2010 to 2013. The predator was eventually convicted on two Illinois charges: solicitation of a minor and grooming. The 2013 grooming conviction turned out to be the first in the United States and has since been used as a precedent in grooming cases in other states. 

The proposed federal legislation will be announced at the Convention, which is being held from Oct. 13 to Oct. 15. Michelle will be on hand for the unveiling on Oct. 14. To learn more about Michelle’s fight to protect her son and other children in her community – and now nationally through the proposed bill – please watch America’s Future Not On My Watch interview with Michelle, hosted by Liz Crokin, investigative journalist and a member of America’s Future Project Protect & Defend Our Children Advisory Board.

Keeping You Informed

SCOTUS Current Term Examines States’ Powers to Regulate Big Tech

On a rolling basis, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) announces petitions that the Justices grant for review, oral argument, and resolution.  In keeping with the tradition, on Friday, September 29, 2023, the SCOTUS released its updated list for the current term, October Term 2023, including twelve additional cases selected, all of which are of constitutional importance and consequence.  The complete current list of cases accepted by the SCOTUS so far this term is located here. Notably, it is expected that by the end of the winter season, the number of cases on this list will double.

This week, to keep our readers up-to-date and well-informed, we turn to two cases regarding similar state laws enacted by Florida and Texas, respectively, to regulate social-media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter) in order to, as explained by Florida state attorney general Ashley Moody (the petitioner in one of the two cases), prevent these social-media “behemoths” from “abusing their massive control over the channels of speech.”  The cases were selected based on public interest, significance, and the potential impact on Americans and our Freedom of Speech rights.

With growing concerns over the censorship of conservative, republican viewpoints, by social media “Big Tech” conglomerates, we turn to the following two “anti-censorship” cases:

  1. Netchoice, LLC v Paxton, Dkt. No. 22-555
  2. Moody v. Netchoice, LLC, Dkt. No. 22-277

The SCOTUS granted both petitions, but limited the questions presented to the following:

Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring that social-media companies host third-party communications, and from regulating the time, place, and manner in which they do so; and 

Whether the First Amendment prohibits a State from requiring social-media companies to notify and provide an explanation to their users when they censor the user’s speech.

Significantly, these cases have followed very different paths on their way to the SCOTUS docket.  In the Florida case, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed a preliminary injunction against the State of Florida, holding that the Florida law, at issue, likely violates the First Amendment due to its content-moderation and individualized-explanation provisions.  On the other hand, in the Texas case, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a preliminary injunction against Texas, concluding that NetChoice, LLC is unlikely to prevail in court and the Texas law is likely to survive.

State lawmakers in Florida and Texas have set out to reverse the trend of social media companies silencing half of the public based on political ideologies and subjective truths.  Supporters argue that anti-censorship laws reduce the harms arising out of viewpoint censorship, including misinformation, disinformation, and hate speech.  The ability to voice political dissent is a hallmark of our Constitutional Republic.  Social media companies have been operating recklessly and in concert with the federal bureaucracy, providing a great disservice to the public and even interfering with our presidential elections.

Governor Abbott explained his reasoning for signing the Texas law, in an announcement, stating,

Social media websites have become our modern-day public square. They are a place for healthy public debate where information should be able to flow freely — but there is a dangerous movement by social media companies to silence conservative viewpoints and ideas. That is wrong, and we will not allow it in Texas.

Both proponents and opponents of the state laws ground their arguments in First Amendment protections.  The Supreme Court is set to balance the interests of the public with the interests of Big Tech.  Suppressing the ideas and beliefs of millions of Americans through online censorship is dangerous and destructive.  Big tech cannot be trusted to police online political speech.  We, at America’s Future, urge the SCOTUS to consider the strong public interest in protecting public debate and discourse within the online market.

In Focus Using The Congressional Impeachment Power
Nixon’s Impeachment for Weaponization of the Government

This is the ninth entry in our IN FOCUS section examining the impeachment power to help give readers a historical and constitutional context to this political process. To access previous articles, please click here.

More than a century passed between the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1868 and the impeachment of President Richard Nixon in 1974.  While Johnson survived the challenge to his Presidency, Nixon did not.  Richard Milhous Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, only days before being impeached by the House, thereby avoiding both impeachment while in office and a looming trial in the Senate.

Most Americans associate just one word with the Nixon impeachment — Watergate.  The Watergate affair began during Nixon’s first term, with the June 17, 1972 break-in of the offices of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Office Building in Washington.  The Watergate scandal worsened as agencies of government were mobilized to cover up the crime.

However, on Election Day 1972, the Watergate scandal had not yet hit the public’s consciousness, and President Nixon was re-elected with 61 percent of the popular vote, defeating George McGovern in the Electoral College by a vote of 520 to 17.  Nixon won every state except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  From that high water mark, his Presidency continued to unravel.  From the date that President Nixon was sworn in for his second term on January 20, 1973, it took exactly 19 months for him to be driven from office.

The public’s attention became riveted on the Watergate scandal when the Senate created a special committee chaired by Senator Sam Ervin (D-NC), which held hearings that were broadcast live on the nation’s major television networks.  Although the hearings were not technically about impeachment, it is a historical curiosity that it was the Senate that developed much of the evidence used by the House Judiciary Committee’s adoption of three articles of impeachment.  Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974, just eleven days before the House of Representatives impeached him, with only three dissenting votes.

The facts surrounding the unwinding of the Nixon Presidency were complex, but the grounds on which the impeachment was based went well beyond Watergate, establishing a precedent that could be used in the Biden impeachment inquiry.

The second article of impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee accused Nixon of violating the Constitution’s “take care” clause by using executive branch agencies against the People.

He misused the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, and other executive personnel, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, by directing or authorizing such agencies or personnel to conduct or continue electronic surveillance or other investigations for purposes unrelated to national security, the enforcement of laws, or any other lawful function of his office….[Nixon Impeachment final report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, at 5 (emphasis added).] 

Rep. Jerome Waldie (D-CA), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, expanded on that charge:

Richard Nixon … has abused the powers of this office by authorizing illegal acts and dangerous intrusion into personal privacy to further political objectives.  Wiretapping to obtain information that was used to counter political opponents; illegal entry to obtain information to counter political opponents; secret police not accountable to any authority but the President and whose primary function appears to have been to further political objectives of the President; the use of agencies of our Government such as the IRS to persecute political enemies and reward political friends; the pattern of excessive accumulation of power and of dangerous abuse of power is undeniable.  [Nixon Impeachment final report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, at 410-411 (emphasis added).]

Nixon’s misuse of federal agencies to attack his political opponents is eerily similar to the actions of President Biden today.  Like Nixon, Biden has used government agencies to punish enemies and reward friends.  It could be said that Biden has declared war on his political opponents.  For example, in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 election protests at the Capitol, more than a thousand persons have been unmercifully prosecuted by the Biden Justice Department, including those who were waved into the building by Capitol Police.  In January 2022, the Justice Department created a new unit to counter domestic terrorism, claiming an imaginary “growing threat from white supremacists and anti-government activists … on par with that posed by foreign militant groups such as the Islamic State.”

In an action unprecedented in American history, Biden’s FBI raided the home of former President and current candidate Donald Trump, using the FBI’s overwhelming force to attempt to obtain documents to use in criminal prosecutions of Trump.  Biden repeatedly denied that the White House had any advance knowledge of the raid, but it has now been shown that the White House specifically requested it.  “This government, it seems, acknowledges no limits on its power to harass, intimidate, and silence its political opponents,” said the lawyer who filed suit to force release of documents tying the White House demands to the FBI raid.  And, matters are getting worse.  Just last week, Newsweek reported that the Biden Administration is ramping up its assault on his opponents in preparation for next year’s election:

[t]he federal government believes that the threat of violence and major civil disturbances around the 2024 U.S. presidential election is so great that it has quietly created a new category of extremists that it seeks to track and counter: Donald Trump’s army of MAGA followers.  [Emphasis added.]

If more illustrations of executive branch abuses were needed, the Fifth Circuit recently ruled that “the White House, acting in concert with the Surgeon General’s office, likely (1) coerced the [Big Tech social media] platforms to make their moderation decisions by way of intimidating messages and threats of adverse consequences, and (2) significantly encouraged the platforms’ decisions by commandeering their decision-making processes, both in violation of the First Amendment.”  Missouri v. Biden, 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 26191, at 61 (5th Cir. 2023).  In 2021, the Supreme Court struck down Biden’s attempt to impose a nationwide moratorium on evictions through a Centers for Disease Control mandate, stating, “our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends.”  Ala. Ass’n of Realtors v. HHS, 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021).  The High Court also struck down Biden’s mandate for employers to force employees to receive the COVID “vaccine” or be fired, stating:  “the mandate extends beyond the agency’s legitimate reach.”  Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. DOL, OSHA, 142 S. Ct. 661, 666 (2022).

In the Nixon impeachment, Congressman Waldie explained:  “Impeachment for such activities is clearly warranted that we might redefine executive power and thereby limit it that future Presidents will not so abuse their powers.”  [Nixon Impeachment final report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, at 411.]  The abuses of the Biden Administration demonstrate that the lesson Mr. Waldie hoped Presidents would learn has been lost after the passage of a half-century.

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

Reminders & Updates

LISTEN ON SPOTIFY: Now you can tune in every week on Spotify to America’s Mondays With Mary and listen to our Executive Director Mary O’Neill’s report on the comments and insights we receive from our fellow Americans to our weekly Reader’s Survey. Listen and learn what’s on their minds and in their hearts and get the latest news about America’s Future activities and updates.

PEOPLE ARE TALKING: Thousands of our newsletter readers tell us that our articles are thought-provoking, increase their knowledge about the history and traditions of America, and keep them informed about the current state of affairs.   If you missed one of our weekly newsletters or want to revisit a past edition, you can access them here.

SHOP TIL YOU STOP: We hope you love America’s Future online shop display and ease of accessing your favorite items! There are many new products, including a full assortment of tees for the whole family, a wide range of accessories like coffee mugs and totes, and a special line dedicated to our Project Defend & Protect Our Children. Thank you for your support!

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.

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.