Newsletter | October 5, 2023
With birdbrain decisions meted out by an inept administration, outrage and anger intensify across America at the weaponization of government agencies, the unprecedented rise in mortgage and crime rates, gender perversions, never mind the national debt, and an invasion at the southern border.
Our ongoing series about ruling class corruption and incompetence has addressed many of these issues, and the institutions where they flourish, especially the corporate establishment, the media, and the federal bureaucracies, in particular the Justice Department and the FBI. But events on Capitol Hill over the last several weeks serve as a reminder that perhaps the largest source of corruption is within the very halls occupied by those chosen to represent We the People.
Our Founding Fathers recognized that our elected representatives would be susceptible to corruption. That’s why our system of checks and balances has three independent and equally powerful branches — the executive and judicial, as well as the legislative. And then, there are two separate bodies in the legislative branch, the Senate and the House of Representatives, to further balance the worst tendencies of human nature. And Washington, D.C., is a marketplace where in exchange for money, the highest bidder has access to the power and prestige that our elected officials dispense through legislation and favors.
They represent us, the American people, a proud and sometimes fractious nation, as forgiving as we hope our family, friends, and neighbors forgive us for our trespasses. We’re not perfect and don’t expect those who represent us to be perfect, either. They’re politicians, not pastors or priests, and their business isn’t saving souls but making deals. What we expect of those who ask for our money and votes is to honor us by acting honorably. But what we’ve seen of late is evidence not just of political chaos but also moral failure.
Nineteen months into Joe Biden’s failed proxy war on the borders of Russia, Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell continues to demand U.S. taxpayers foot the bill. According to McConnell, “providing assistance for Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is the number one priority for the United States right now according to most Republicans.”
That’s an insane lie. Here’s what matters: As many as ten million illegal aliens have invaded our country through the borders the Biden administration opened, energy prices are surging, inflation shows no signs of subsiding, and the Justice Department is waging a banana-republic style lawfare campaign against the 2024 GOP frontrunner Donald Trump while arresting his supporters. There are at least a dozen things that matter more to Americans than funding a corrupt government halfway around the world. That McConnell believes it’s our top priority shows his contempt for the U.S. public.
Democratic representative Jamal Bowman pulled a fire alarm in a House office building shortly before Congress was to vote on a bill to fund the government. In other words, he obstructed an official government proceeding. Hundreds of Trump supporters have been indicted on the same charge for simply exercising their First Amendment rights on the grounds of the capitol building January 6, 2021. Joe Biden’s weaponized Justice Department indicted the former president himself for obstructing an official proceeding by casting doubt on the integrity of an election that was rigged through unconstitutional changes in voting procedures and FBI censorship protecting the Deep State’s preferred candidate. Will Bowman also be charged? Of course not — he’s protected by his own party and the media.
But what’s gotten the most attention of late was the removal of Kevin McCarthy as House Speaker. Maverick Matt Gaetz warned McCarthy that if he didn’t fight, he’d take him down, and this week the Florida congressman did just that.
By most accounts, the California Republican was a good administrator who raised lots of money for House members who were loyal to him. But with conservatives under a full-on assault simply because they support the former president and 2024 GOP frontrunner, the Republican base rightly wants more than someone who keeps the trains running on time. They want strong leadership, and McCarthy failed to hold accountable the Biden officials who have turned the country upside down — like Director of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, Attorney General Merrick Garland, and FBI Director Christopher Wray. McCarthy rolled over on Ukraine and broke his promises to uncover the truth about January 6 by releasing the thousands of hours of videotape showing that the so-called insurrection was largely an operation mounted by federal and local law enforcement to frame Trump supporters.
Whether Gaetz’s stunning move energizes GOP legislators depends entirely on the character of the men and women whom we’ve honored by sending them to Washington to speak for us. Will they stand and fight to honor us in return?
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!
Jacob Siegel is a Senior Editor at Tablet and the co-host of the Manifesto! podcast with Phil Klay. He is a former Army intelligence officer who served in Iraq and Afghanistan. His article “A Guide to Understanding the Hoax of the Century” is a groundbreaking historical account of the censorship industry now targeting our First Amendment rights and thus the foundations of the republic. We spoke with him recently to get his insights on censorship, information warfare, and where our great country is going.
How did the internet change the nature of warfare, in particular information warfare?
Before the Internet, information operations were simply a tool that commanders used to accomplish larger operational goals. A famous example is Operation Bodyguard, the massive Allied disinformation campaign that succeeded in deceiving the Germans about the timing and location of the Normandy landings in WW2.
After the internet, the order flipped. These days, the U.S. would storm Normandy in order to launch an info op. Rather than being used as a tool to accomplish some other concrete objective, control over information — what CISA head Jen Easterly refers to as the “Cognitive infrastructure”— came to be seen as the ultimate end in itself. The power of the Internet as a communications and surveillance technology convinced U.S. officials that digital networks were the ultimate key terrain and that whoever controls the Internet, controls everything else as well: politics, elections, money, history, the meaning of words in the dictionary, the common sense of reality. Everything.
You served in Iraq and Afghanistan where you said the national security establishment was involved in a vast, and failed, social engineering program. Have you been surprised that a similar social engineering program is being implemented now here in the U.S.?
I was initially surprised, but that wore off quickly. The basic premise of social engineering is that people are programmable widgets whose behaviors can be modified and controlled according to a table of inputs and outputs. Dial-up positive incentives here and dial-down pain there, and it’s believed that people will respond in predictable and calculable ways. Of course, the theorists and advanced practitioners of U.S. counterinsurgency talked in much more sophisticated terms about cultural fluency and “understanding our Afghan partners,” but beneath that veneer, you will still find the technocratic foundation that I just described. If you see people essentially as variables in an advanced equation who can be mastered by people with sufficient technical expertise, then it follows that you will believe that they can be controlled by algorithmic manipulation and that an American – while perhaps somewhat more stubborn – is ultimately every bit as controllable as anyone else.
When you describe the networks that are behind the censorship industry, who or what are the driving forces? Are they from the political or corporate establishment, the intelligence services, or some other institution?
Network is the right term for it. The Intelligence services helped to build the current commercial Internet Leviathans like Google, and now they want control back. All of the players – corporate, political, security – believe that censorship is absolutely essential to maintaining the social order in which their own power is rooted.
You say the only way out of our current situation is through — how do we do that?
Take control over the technology that is used to control us. I recently co-authored an article for Tablet with John Robb, a special operations veteran, and strategist, in which we argue that the only effective defense against Artificial intelligence gutting whole industries is for individuals to own their data. All the court battles and congressional hearings about censorship are great but if you only fight censorship while leaving intact the infrastructure of the surveillance economy, these efforts are doomed to fail.
What is your prayer for America?
To make and keep peace among ourselves and with all nations.
Boys and girls should talk to each other and dance together.
We need each other.And I’d like a country where it’s fun to argue again.
Editor’s Note: To read other Speaking With American Patriots interviews, please click here
America’s Future Files SCOTUS Brief In Support of Second Amendment Rights
On Wednesday, October 4, 2023, America’s Future filed an Amicus Brief in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in United States v Rahimi, SCOTUS Dkt. No. 22-915. The public docket in this case is located here. America’s Future and eight other nonprofits jointly filed the Amicus brief in support of the respondent, Mr. Rahimi, and his Second Amendment rights. Following the SCOTUS’ grant of a writ of certiorari to the petitioner, United States, the following question is expected to be resolved,
Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), [a federal firearms law] which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face?
On background, Mr. Rahimi was subject to a domestic violence civil court order that prohibited him from contacting the opposing party for a two-year period. The court order was entered into by agreement of both parties. The agreed-upon domestic violence civil court order triggered 18 U.S.C §922(g)(8), which prohibits any person who is the subject of a domestic violence order from possessing a firearm. Thus, the civil court order, which was based on an unproven allegation of abuse, directly impaled his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. Subsequently and during the two-year period the order was in place, Mr. Rahimi was charged by law enforcement with felony firearm possession, and eventually convicted of one felony firearm offense.
As noted in our brief, the United States petitioned the SCOTUS following a Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals judgment vacating Mr. Rahmini’s conviction based on the recent landmark Second Amendment SCOTUS decision, NY Rifle & Pistol Assn v Bruen (2022), in which the ruling instructed all lower courts to determine Second Amendment cases based solely upon the text of the Second Amendment and nothing else.
In Bruen, Justice Thomas writing for the majority, explained, “Today, we decline to adopt that two-part approach…. Despite the popularity of this two-step approach, it is one step too many….” he went on, “the test that the Court sets forth…requires courts to assess whether modern firearms regulations is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding [and nothing more].”
United States v Rahimi could, very well, have far-reaching effects across the country, touching and concerning the daily lives of untold tens of thousands of Americans who are subject to civil protective orders, which are issued, as explained in the brief, “based on all manner of marital or relational discord.” The case could also determine whether Bruen will remain a broad and powerful Second Amendment protection against government infringement of our right to bear arms, or whether the scope and breadth of Bruen are destined to be limited on a case-by-case basis, perhaps to the point that the exceptions swallow the rule.
The federal government’s argument stands for the notion that any person it “deems dangerous” is, therefore, dangerous, and as a consequence, the government should be allowed to exercise dominion over that person.
Our brief flips the script and explains that the federal government’s argument is exactly contrary to the Constitution and its broad protections of God-given rights, stating,
“[T]he Second Amendment was designed specifically to limit the power of government to deem persons too dangerous or untrustworthy to enjoy basic civil liberties…the discrimination that early (or even more modern) dangerousness laws sanctioned — whether based on race, religion, political affiliation, loyalty, perceived dangerousness, or otherwise — is at odds with the Constitution adopted by the Framers. Indeed, even when this country flirted with such laws again after the Civil War, additional constitutional amendments were soon ratified to correct the abuses.”
The SCOTUS should affirm the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and safeguard Americans’ Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms.
Editor’s Note: To read all of our Amicus briefs, please visit our Law & Policy page.
Warning: Danger Abounds In The Digital Space
Social media is pervasive throughout society, with significant research on the escalation of danger to children in the digital space. Although it may seem impossible to control the use of devices, apps, and social media by pre-teens and teens, it is imperative that parents take extra precautions to protect their children and families.
Consider one mother’s nightmare when she learned that her 16-year-old daughter’s photo and personal information were on the dark web in an advertisement “for the purpose of having her kidnapped.”
An article published in Atlanta News First on Aug. 31, 2023, recounts the horror the mother faced when the FBI knocked on her door to tell her that “a tipster, who lived all the way in England, called the anonymous FBI tip line to say this woman’s daughter was in danger.”
In the article, available here, the mother explained what she learned: “There were two pictures, and it was from our family vacation the year before…On the picture, on the ad, it said this ‘item’, as they called it, was put for sale. If they would purchase this item, which was my daughter, then they would tell where we lived, where she frequented, and that they knew everything about her.” She also told the news outlet that the predator “took the photos from their family’s Facebook page, which was set to a private account. He stole our personal pictures that we thought were safe.”
Also, the FBI released a public notice on September 12, 2023, that violent online groups are targeting children through threats, blackmail, and manipulation tactics “to control the victims into recording or live-streaming self-harm, sexually explicit acts, and/or suicide; The footage is then circulated among members to extort victims further and exert control over them.” The agency is urging the public to be cautious in their online activity. “Although seemingly innocuous when posted or shared, the images and videos can provide malicious actors an abundant supply of content to exploit for criminal activity.”
The warning here is to be aware of your family’s social media activities and your online presence and be especially cognizant of your children’s and grandchildren’s cyber footprint. Our digital footprints have opened the door to unknown dangers and unexpected harmful consequences.
UPDATE: Fifth Circuit Extends Injunction in Missouri v Biden
In a win for freedom of speech, on Oct. 3, 2023, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals added the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to the list of federal agencies that it deemed to have likely violated the First Amendment rights of Americans. The extension arises out of the case, Missouri v Biden, 5th Cir. Dkt No. 23-30445 and a July 4, 2023 order issued by U.S. Federal District Court Judge, the Hon. Terry A. Doughty, from Louisiana’s Western District, which granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction prohibiting the federal government, its departments, agencies, and agents from continuing to violate the First Amendment rights of Americans. The 155-page ruling can be found here. The Fifth Circuit’s October 3rd opinion extending the scope of federal agencies likely infringing on citizens’ rights is here. The order now applies to the White House, Surgeon General, CDC, FBI, and CISA. To read America’s Future amicus brief in support of the plaintiffs, the states of Missouri and Louisiana, and five individuals, click here. America’s Future will keep you informed as this historic case likely heads to the Supreme Court.
This is the eighth 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.
With the removal of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House, and Acting Speaker Patrick McHenry having declared a one-week recess, Representatives traveled home for what the House euphemistically calls “district work periods.” The good news is that work on the Biden “impeachment inquiry” will continue.
The first House subpoenas were reported to have been issued for the personal and bank records of Presidential son Hunter Biden and Presidential brother James Biden. The House Oversight Committee believes that the Biden family and its business associates raked in over $24 million between 2014 and 2019 by selling access to Joe Biden around the world. While we wait for documents proving which “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” Biden may have committed as Vice President and President, we take time to focus on what President Biden failed to do that could lead to his impeachment.
Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution provides that the President “shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed….” That phrase covers a multitude of duties, and every President has different priorities, and therefore could be accused of neglecting enforcement of some matters. However, President Biden’s failure to defend the nation’s borders was not because he was busy solving other problems, like inflation, considering that the price of baby food has soared 25 percent since he took office. Rather, not only has President Biden refused to enforce immigration laws, there is every reason to believe he did so to achieve a partisan political objective. He, just like President Obama before him, has encouraged illegal immigration in the hopes of growing our dependent class of immigrants who they assume will have natural affinity for the Democrat party and its big-spending policies.
With the national government’s refusal to enforce the borders, one would think that the states would step in and enforce their portions of the border. However, the political will to defend the border certainly does not exist under Democrat Governors Gavin Newsom in California, Katie Hobbs in Arizona, and Michelle Luhan Grisham in New Mexico. Although Texas Republican Governor Greg Abbott gives the appearance of being strong on border issues, his efforts have failed, as well.
Part of the problem lies with the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2012, Arizona attempted to bring order to its own border, but the U.S. Supreme Court declared that only the federal government could protect the nation’s border. That absurd decision is at odds with both the Constitution (which only gives the national government exclusive control over “Naturalization” of new citizens), the historic Law of Nations (which gives every sovereign state power over its borders), and American history. Justice Scalia thoughtfully dissented from the Supreme Court’s decision refusing to allow Arizona to secure its own border, explaining that for most of the nation’s history it was states — not the federal government — that protected our borders. Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012). (Additional explanation of this issue can be found in an amicus brief filed by a group of conservative organizations in that case.)
Predictably, the Biden Administration embraces the Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision, and opposes every state effort to control the border. So, if President Biden believes only the federal government has the power to stop illegal immigration, and he still refuses to stop it, he is even more culpable under the Constitution’s “take care” clause.
The Constitution contains another provision known as the Guarantee Clause, Article IV, Section 4, which states that the United States “shall protect each of [every State] against Invasion.” Instead, the President has thrown open the door and invited illegal aliens from every nation of the world to enter illegally, promising they would be housed and fed for while here, and not deported.
Biden could claim that massive immigration was not an invasion, but former law professor Rob Natelson explains that, according to dictionaries at the time of the Founding, the millions of illegals crossing our southern border meets the definition of an “invasion.”
Here is the entry for invasion in Francis Allen’s 1765 dictionary: “the entrance or attack of an enemy on the possessions or dominions of another; an encroachment, or unlawful attack of the rights of another.” The latter two definitions clearly describe what is happening at the border today. [R. Natelson, “Immigration: How the Biden Administration is Violating the Constitution,” Epoch Times (Oct. 19, 2021).]
The House Committee on Homeland Security released a report on immigration in August 2023 which demonstrated that “over 300,000 border encounters nationwide — a new all-time recorder under President Biden and Secretary Mayorkas’ watch.” The immigration invasion is so massive that just yesterday (October 4, 2023), Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas reversed course, and said the United States has an “acute and immediate need” to build a border wall in southern Texas. This is the same Secretary Mayorkas who testified in Congress that there was no crisis at the southern border. In addition to tasking our “word salad” Vice President Harris with “stemming the migration” on the southern border, Biden assigned Mayorkas to protect our border. Nevertheless, as President Truman declared, “the buck stops here.”
Impeachment for border neglect has been the subject of several resolutions already filed. Rep. Marjorie Taylor-Greene (R-GA) filed H. Res. 597 based on Biden’s refusal to execute longstanding federal immigration law. Rep. Bob Gibbs (R-OH) introduced H. Res. 671. Rep. Andrew Ogles (R-TN) also introduced H. Res. 493. Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-CO) introduced H. Res. 503. Perhaps the impeachment resolution that best explains the constitutional grounds for impeachment for border inaction was offered by Rep. Bill Posey (R-FL). H. Res. 1031 charges that:
in violation of the constitutional duties of the office of President of the United States as set forth in article IV, section 4 of the U.S. Constitution has failed to ensure that the United States protect each of the States against invasion, in that: President Biden has permitted and even encouraged the unlawful entry of thousands of migrants into the United States across the U.S.-Mexico Border…. President Biden, by failing to prevent the entry of known terrorists and persons known to belong to foreign political terrorist entities intending great harm to the U.S. across the U.S.-Mexico border, has failed to protect states from foreign invasion.
Biden’s unconscionable refusal to defend border states from invasion has gone beyond just the border states at this point. “Drugs are flowing across the open Southern Border and addicting, even killing, Americans at alarming rates. Nothing that happens at the border stays at the border. Every state is a border state,” said Rep. Bob Good (R-VA). Even far-left New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, alarmed at the surge of illegals to her state, recently demanded, “If you’re going to leave your country, go somewhere else.”
Biden has betrayed his oath and failed in his constitutional duty to protect the nation, costing countless American lives. He has not only allowed, but welcomed, the invasion. There is an abundance of evidence that would support his impeachment based on his unconscionable refusal to defend our nation’s borders.
Editor’s Note: To read the articles in this series, please click here.
Reminders & Updates
Calling all Champions For America members to mark your calendars to join General Mike Flynn for his next “Champion Conversation” live broadcast on October 10, 2023, at 1:00 PM (EST). Become a part of America’s Future growing community of champions fighting to protect our individual rights and freedom. Get involved and stay informed. Click here for details and become a champion member today.
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.