Newsletter | April 13, 2023
The sentinels of our constitutional order are those who serve in our fighting forces. They’ve sworn an oath to defend our freedoms and liberties and are willing to sacrifice their lives for their fellow citizens. Yet, with all the talk of coming conflict between the U.S. and its chief geopolitical rival China, there is growing concern that America is ill-prepared for the challenge. It’s certainly not because the Chinese Communist Party is an overwhelmingly impressive foe. Beijing steals most of its high-tech power from U.S. industry. The problem, say critics, is that the U.S. military has gone woke.
One documented impact is not meeting enlistment quotas. And rather than military and civilian leadership taking responsibility for their failures to sign up America’s best and brightest, they say the problem is that the rising generation is too lazy, fearful, and unfit. But as President John F. Kennedy showed, one of the crucial tasks of leadership is to inspire American youth; hence, one of his initiatives to guide them was the President’s Council on Physical Fitness.
Compare that to the current White House, which instead compelled military personnel to submit to failed and potentially dangerous mRNA vaccines. Instead of allowing for religious exemptions, the military cut loose thousands of its most devoted warriors.
And then there’s an often overlooked but essential data point explaining why recruitment is so low: Our military and civilian leaders no longer win wars. And, they seldom suffer any consequences for losing them. Look at the generals and senior intelligence officials who failed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Instead of being held accountable for their incompetence, they’re rather rewarded with seats on the boards of defense contractors and other private entities. Is it any wonder that parents who served their country are now discouraging their children from following in their footsteps? Who would entrust their loved ones to men and women whose main focus is not the field of battle before them but a lucrative post-military career?
In this context, it’s easy to see that wokeness is a symptom of a larger problem that afflicts not just our military and civilian leadership but American society as a whole — the disdain for honor. The true threat to our great nation isn’t China or any other foreign foe, rather it’s our own establishment that has betrayed America for money, prestige, and power, used not to deter and destroy external threats but to lord their position over their fellow Americans.
The U.S. military is a reflection of our society. All of us have a role to play in preserving our constitutional order by restoring our honor. Remember that as the Founders argued, the Constitution was written for a moral and religious people — that is, an honorable nation. To demand accountability of our country, we have to assume responsibility for our communities, our families, and above all, ourselves. It’s time we answer the call — rise up, America. Our country, our honor is at stake.
Please participate in our Reader’s Survey on the topic above and provide your thoughts and comments to us. We read them all and share some of them every Monday 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!
Mike Smith put it all on the line to reveal the truth when he independently produced Out of Shadows, a documentary exposing how the mainstream media and Hollywood manipulates the public by spreading propaganda through their content. The courageous move for this former Hollywood stunt double was no easy endeavor and did not come without consequences. Despite being banned by Big Tech and several mainstream media platforms, the acclaimed documentary has surpassed over 100 million views since its release in 2020.
What was it like to work at the top level of the Hollywood film industry?
Most of my career I was living the dream – I was traveling around the world and working with A-list actors and films with the biggest budgets. It was a life that most people dream about and very few get to do. But in 2014, I was catastrophically injured and while that was one of the worst things that happened to me, it turned out to be the beginning of my salvation which was a huge blessing. My walk as a stunt man ended, and my walk with God began.
What inspired you to make Out of Shadows?
Once I found God, I realized if I was truly serving as a Christian, then I had to stand up and expose what I believe to be the truth. If I wasn’t going to stand up and say something – I thought, who’s going to do it? I know one day I’m going to stand in front of God and he’s going to say ‘I showed you all this stuff and what did you do?’ and I don’t want to be that guy who replies ‘nothing’. I want to be the man who tells God I did everything I could.
What kind of sacrifices did you make to put out this film and what kind of backlash did you receive?
I knew making Out of Shadows would more than likely be the end of my career in Hollywood but that was a sacrifice I was willing to make. It did get me kicked off Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and PayPal but I was willing to accept that. If I wasn’t telling the truth, then why did they kick me off all those platforms?
In your film, you also expose the prevalence of an elite pedophilia ring, can you expand on how your physical therapist helped you understand Satanic Ritualistic Abuse?
After I got injured, I was going to a pelvic floor therapist who treats victims of Satanic Ritualistic Abuse. That’s what really opened my eyes to this dark reality. I didn’t want to look into at first, but the more I did, and remembered situations and conversations over the years, I realized this was all real. I didn’t find God because I went to church — I found God because I realized Satan was real.
What’s next for you?
I’ve been working for the past three years on several projects, and I hope to have them completed in the near future.
Editor’s Note: The public is invited to watch Out of Shadows for free at www.OutofShadows.org. Mike is an advisor to America’s Future Project Defend & Protect Our Children (PDPC). Click Here to learn more.
Parents, not teachers, school administrators, or politicians, should have the final say in their child’s education – including to the curriculum, teaching tools, instructional material like books, safety protocols, extracurricular activities, budget allocations, and more. Yet, parents are confronting backlash when requesting information about their child’s learning environment. To ensure that the rights of parents as the decision-makers for their children are honored and protected throughout the nation’s public school system, on March 24, 2023, the House of Representatives passed the Parents Bill of Rights Act. Currently, the bill is with the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, awaiting review and further consideration.
Parents and voters are wise to stay informed and pay attention to this bill even though it is already well-established as to who is charged with the full responsibility of rearing and educating children.
First, in a 1923 decision by the Supreme Court that stated “the interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children…liberty protected by the Due Process Clause includes the right of parents to establish a home and bring up children and to control the education of their own.”
Two years later, in 1925, the Supreme Court reaffirmed and expanded protections, holding “liberty of parents and guardians to include the right to direct the upbringing and education of children under their control.”
And in 2000, Supreme Court Justice, the Hon. Sandra Day O’Connor, writing for the court in Troxel (2000), addressed the wide range of constitutional protections against governmental infringement of the exceptionally broad liberty rights of a parent or guardian to nurture, guide, raise, and care for children they rear. Significantly, the Troxel decision provides a historical examination of 100 years of Supreme Court rulings in favor of protecting parents against arbitrary interference by the government.
There is little doubt that children are impressionable and particularly vulnerable to adults in their lives. The spirit behind laws favoring parents as decision-makers involving the company their children keep and adults their children interact with, including school officials and teachers, is based on the sacred and vital roles parents play as caregivers of their children. Justice O’Connor reasoned,
The strength of a parent’s interest in controlling a child’s associates is as obvious as the influence of personal associations on the development of the child’s social and moral character. Whether for good or for ill, adults not only influence but may indoctrinate children, and a choice about a child’s social companions is not essentially different from the designation of the adults who will influence the child in school. Even a State’s considered judgment about the preferable political and religious character of schoolteachers is not entitled to prevail over a parent’s choice of private school.
The question remains whether it is possible for a parent to determine the best interests of their child regarding education if the most basic information is withheld from them by the school system. Clearly, it is not possible. Congress has sought to help through the Parent’s Bill of Rights Act to memorialize the rights of parents to be informed and active participants in their child’s education.
Welcome back to our series surveying the 27 constitutional amendments ratified over the course of our history as a sovereign nation, a Constitutional Republic. Each amendment revises our Constitution, alters the course of history, and, in one way or another, advances America closer on her path to exceptionalism. The article below reviews the Twenty-Fifth Amendment.
The Twenty-Fifth Amendment was approved by Congress on April 13, 1965, and ratified on February 10, 1967. Often referred to as the “Succession Act,” the Amendment was drafted to resolve outstanding issues related to vacancies, both permanent and temporary, in the Office of the President. The concerns involved not only the death, removal, or resignation of a President but also when a President becomes incapacitated or disabled, even for a short period of time, to the extent he or she cannot fulfill the responsibilities of the Office.
Although it has been well established that the Vice President becomes President upon the death of the President, it was the assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, and significant confusion as to whether Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson had also been injured on that fateful day that the need for the nation to have a clear succession plan was identified.
To cover multiple scenarios from death to disability to incapacity to do the job, the course of action that America would follow is set forth in the text of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment. In its entirety, the Amendment states,
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Sections one through three of the Twenty-Fifth Amendment have all been invoked over time.
For example, eight Presidents have died while in office, leading to their Vice President assuming the presidency. Another example of the invocation of one of the first three sections of the Amendment occurred during the Nixon administration. In 1973, Vice President Spiro Agnew resigned, and President Richard M. Nixon appointed Gerald R. Ford to succeed him. One year later, on August 9, 1974, President Nixon resigned, and Vice President Ford became President. As President, Ford would invoke the Amendment by appointing Nelson A. Rockefeller as Vice President.
Additionally, invocation of the Amendment has taken place for brief and temporary transfers of presidential powers to the Vice President. In July 1985, President Ronald Reagan used the Amendment to transfer power to Vice President George H.W. Bush for the duration of a surgical procedure he underwent. And on two separate occasions, President George W. Bush transferred temporary powers of the presidency to Vice President Dick Cheney. Both of the “Bush to Cheney” brief transfers of powers took place due to the President undergoing elective surgery.
Section 4 of the Amendment is the most controversial as it allows for the removal of a President upon a determination that he or she is unfit to carry out the responsibilities due to incapacity caused by illness, including mental illness or injury. To date, this section of the Amendment has never been invoked. However, in 1981, after President Reagan was shot and while he was in surgery, documents invoking this section were prepared, but not executed as President Reagan’s surgery and recovery from the assassination attempt were successful.
DOJ Refuses to Protect Pro-Life Justices
This is the fifteen entry in our expanded IN FOCUS section addressing corruption in the U.S. Department of Justice and the self-destruction of the FBI. Readers will find the compilation of the complete series of articles at Unequal Justice Under Law.
The Biden Department of Justice (DOJ) has had time to identify and investigate thousands of January 6 Capitol trespassers or visitors — and prosecute 1,000 of them so far, found time to investigate mothers in Loudoun County, Virginia, and even made time to go after a pro-life dad in Pennsylvania who dared to protest at an abortion clinic. But DOJ has had no interest whatsoever in enforcing a federal law to protect the lives of conservative Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 2, 2022, Politico published an article entitled “Supreme Court has voted to overturn abortion rights, draft opinion shows.” That article was based on a leak of the draft Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org., 142 S. Ct. 2228 (2022), which 53 days later would be finalized and issued, overturning Roe v. Wade.
In response, the Left exploded in rage against Justice Alito who was identified as the opinion’s author, as well as against the justices who were believed to have joined him (Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett). As usual, no one could know how Chief Justice Roberts would vote, but it was a certainty that the Democrat-appointees (Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) would dissent. (Roberts eventually concurred in the Court’s judgment upholding the Mississippi law which banned most abortions after 15 weeks, but refused to join Justice Alito’s opinion overturning both Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey.)
Justice Samuel Alito later described the justices as “targets for assassination” as leftwing activists apparently believed they could stop the release of the Dobbs decision by killing one or more conservative justices. A leftist activist from California, Nicholas Roske, traveled to Washington armed with a pistol, ammunition, and a knife, and was arrested outside the home of Justice Brett Kavanaugh. On social media, Roske stated, “I could get at least one, which would change the votes for decades to come, and I am shooting for 3.” (Many press outlets refused to report that Roske was not just an abortion enthusiast, but “frequently portrayed himself online as a transgender woman named Sophie….” and as an “Mtf” meaning male-to-female.)
Roske was not the only threat. “U.S. Supreme Court Police … reported a ‘significant increase in violent threats’ that include social media posts directed at sitting justices and the Supreme Court building.” Social media posts suggested “burning down or storming the U.S. Supreme Court and murdering justices and their clerks.” Protests occurred daily at the homes of the pro-life justices.
In response, the Biden Justice department did little to protect the pro-life justices away from the Supreme Court, even though it is a violation of federal law to attempt to picket or parade in an effort to intimidate a judge at the judge’s home:
Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer…. shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. [18 U.S.C. § 1507 (emphasis added).]
If the protests had occurred outside the homes of pro-abortion Justices Breyer, Kagan, or Sotomayor, how would DOJ have reacted? We don’t know, but the DOJ couldn’t be bothered to take action to protect the pro-life justices. If the refusal to enforce the law had been based on a view the law was overbroad and likely unconstitutional — a position taken by Professor Jonathan Turley — that would be one thing. But no such reason was given.
Attorney General Merrick Garland first “blamed the U.S. Marshals … for not making any arrests during his sworn testimony before Congress,” but last month Alabama Senator Katie Britt broke the news that DOJ whistleblowers revealed that the DOJ had “discouraged the U.S. Marshals Service from arresting protesters illegally demonstrating at the homes of the Supreme Court justices.” Shockingly, the DOJ warned federal marshals that “it would be ‘counterproductive’ for the marshals to make arrests on cases that the DOJ ‘will not charge and prosecute.’” In other words, Garland not only refused to enforce the law, but lied to Congress when he blamed the Marshals Service.
As usual, the response of Republicans was to write letters to Biden appointees who either do not read those letters, or do not care what they read.
On May 11, 2022, a group of 50 House Republicans led by Rep. Claudia Tenney (R-NY) wrote a scathing letter to AG Garland, expressing their “profound concern and deep dismay as the rule of law in the United States is completely eroded under [Garland’s] leadership.” The representatives decried the DOJ’s “failure to act [as] a shameless and implicit endorsement of mob rule in America.” Also on May 11, 2022, governors Larry Hogan of Maryland and Glenn Youngkin of Virginia sent a letter to Garland asking the DOJ to “provide appropriate resources to safeguard the Justices and enforce the law as it is written.”
On June 23, 2022, Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) wrote a letter “demanding U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland turn over documents that could explain why the Department of Justice has repeatedly refused to prosecute any threats against Republican-nominated Supreme Court justices.”
Last month, Senator Britt reported that as of March 28, 2023 “not a single person has been prosecuted for illegally harassing Supreme Court justices outside of their homes. The reason is crystal clear: the Department of Justice has willfully chosen not to enforce federal law.”
When the Dobbs decision was finally released on June 24, 2022, it was clear that the threats had not worked and the protests began to die down. However, no one can know what will be the long-term effects of these protests. With the Garland precedent of non-enforcement of laws protecting justices established, one wonders if conservative justices will respond by becoming more timid in their decision making, fearing retaliation against their family members.
It is also considered curious that Chief Justice Roberts refused to ask for the help of any federal law enforcement agency to investigate the leak, but rather gave the job to the Marshal of the Supreme Court, who reports to him directly. The Marshal proceeded to engage the firm of former Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, widely regarded a Deep State operative based on his role in writing the PATRIOT Act. On January 19, 2023, the Court issued a Statement “Concerning the Leak Investigation,” explaining that the investigation turned up nothing – and it was not possible to know who “disclosed the document or how the draft opinion ended up with Politico.”
In the wake of the release of evidence of the DOJ’s telling U.S. Marshals to stand down, and AG Garland’s lying to Congress about it, a few have called for Garland’s impeachment. But it appears that there is no will among House Republicans to impeach Garland, or to impeach Secretary of Homeland Security Mayorkas who has let the border leak like a sieve, or impeach President Biden who by now could be impeached on a half-dozen different bases. Sending strongly worded letters will not restrain the Deep State. The House Republicans control the purse strings of government, and can defund any agency or program they want, but so far have refused to do even that. Increasingly Americans are viewing House Republicans as inept at best, or possibly part of the problem.
To read the entire series of articles, please click here.
America’s Future encourages readers to place their orders for our two free books, Exploring Our Founding Documents and Understanding The Separation Of Powers Principles, and access the digital versions on our website here. This study series of books is highly visual and adds value to your family discussions about the founding of our nation and the vision of our Founding Fathers. These informative books offer learning opportunities to increase your knowledge of American history. Homeschoolers are free to add them to their curriculum and resource tools. Order your print copies of the books and renew your commitment to the beauty and bounty of the greatest nation in the world.
SHOP TIL YOU STOP: We hope you love America’s Future new 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.
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.