Newsletter | October 26, 2023
Finally, some clarity — and a win. This week, Republicans elected a new speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson, a four-term congressman from Louisiana’s fourth district. After weeks of infighting and dissension, the choice is a strong America First conservative, a family man who understands the nature of the challenge before our great country. “My faith,” says Johnson, “informs everything I do.”
America needs Rep. Johnson’s qualities of intellect, morality, and love of country in its leaders more than ever because the forces of darkness are gaining momentum.
Since Hamas’ savage October 7 assault on Israel, college students and other activists around the country are rallying on behalf of a terrorist organization that burned families alive, raped then executed young girls, and beheaded infants. Pro-Hamas protestors led by the children of U.S. elites and foreign nationals fortunate to have been granted the privilege to study and live here gather in mobs to threaten and chase Jewish students into hiding and chant anti-Israel, anti-American, and antisemitic slogans.
It’s a scene from 1930s Nazi Germany. It’s a scene from hell. How did this vicious moral corruption spread like wildfire across our country’s ruling classes? It starts at the top — with the current White House.
In its efforts to prevent Israel from attacking Hamas terrorists, and preserve its partnership with Hamas’ sponsor Iran, the Joe Biden administration is trying to unnerve and unbalance the Israeli government with a messaging campaign warning Jerusalem not to make the same mistakes America did after 9/11.
But there was nothing wrong with hunting for the mastermind of the September 11 plot or seeking to deter Arab terrorists from attacking Americans at home. The problems came after, when America’s Middle East wars turned into a slush fund for activists and operatives from both U.S. political parties. They got rich while impoverishing the parts of America, the South and Midwest, that send their children to battlefields abroad to defend us at home. That is corruption.
Barack Obama’s former deputy Ben Rhodes joins with Biden to sow confusion and warn Israel against making our 9/11 “mistake.” And, like Biden, he confuses light with dark. In the immediate aftermath of the attacks, Rhodes writes, “I felt a sense of clarity about good and evil that made it difficult to scrutinize the actions that my own government soon began to take.”
But the difference between good and evil is clear, as clear as night and day. Rhodes is trying to muddy the picture by tying it to the work of politicians. And as it turns out, that’s been the work of Rhodes’ ex-boss since day one, to plant doubt in the minds of Americans about the character of our nation, to disorient and demoralize the country he was twice elected to lead.
Earlier this week, Obama released a statement drawing a moral equivalence between Israel and the Palestinians, who have rejected land and peace since 1948 in the hopes of exterminating the Jews of Israel. Obama even highlighted the big takeaway from his false sermon – that the actions of the Palestinians are, if not justified, certainly understandable.
They have “lived in disputed territories for generations,” Obama writes. “Many of them were not only displaced when Israel was formed but continue to be forcibly displaced by a settler movement that too often has received tacit or explicit support from the Israeli government.”
How did U.S. college students become pro-Hamas, why do they embrace terror as a political tool and celebrate the murder of Jews? They are led by example. It starts at the top.
It’s time now for us to lead by example. We hold terrorists and their publicists in contempt, whether they are spoiled college students or the former President of the United States. We prize life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. We honor God, our families, our communities, and our country. And we are grateful for the clarity of purpose brought to the nation by the new House Speaker Mike Johnson, and wish him the courage, wisdom, and strength of leadership as our great nation faces historic challenges.
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!
Jesse Binnall is one of our country’s great legal minds — and a battled-hardened patriot who fights not only for his clients, like Donald Trump, but for all of us who treasure the liberties granted us by God and protected by the Constitution. A partner at the Virginia-based law firm he founded, the Binnall Law Group, Jesse is representing the Chairman of America’s Future Gen. Michael Flynn in his suit against the U.S. government for wrongful prosecution. We spoke with Jesse recently to get his insight into the challenges our great nation is facing.
Can you update us on the case Gen Flynn has brought against the Justice Department and FBI?
In General Flynn’s case against the Department of Justice, the government has moved to dismiss the case and is trying to avoid having to face the merits. We are about to respond to that motion, and continue to believe that if we get a fair trial that we will be victorious.
When did you first recognize that progressives were using “lawfare” to target their political opponents?
Progressives have been using some form of lawfare for years. They’ve used the courts to advance their social agenda through things like abortion, for instance. But in recent years, they have gotten far more ambitious. Since during the Obama administration, I saw the Department of Justice engage in an overly political prosecution against members of Ron Paul’s 2012 campaign. It used to be that they used the court system to advance their policy objectives. Now, they use the courts to attempt to destroy their political opponents. It’s extremely dangerous.
Should conservatives use “lawfare” of their own?
Well, I believe that the rule of law must ultimately prevail, I also believe it’s essential that conservatives not unilaterally disarm. Our opponents will continue to use the court system to destroy their political opponents unless we prove to them that we are equally dedicated to victory. For instance, everyone involved in these political persecutions against President Trump and his supporters should be prosecuted and punished to the full extent of the law. We must be relentless.
How can we repair our justice system?
To repair our justice system, we must guard the guardians. We need a special counsel to investigate prosecutorial and FBI misconduct. Those who have violated the civil rights of Americans, through political prosecutions, must be brought to justice. We obviously must also free all political prisoners. It’s incredibly sad that we have to say that in America, but it’s true. Also, the Department of Justice should be instructed to settle with the victims of political persecution and justly compensate them.
What is your prayer for America?
My prayer for America is that we return to the nation that we inherited from our forefathers. That we demand that our leaders serve us, rather than represent special interests in Washington D.C. That we are allowed to throw off the shackles of the administrative state, the way that our Founders freed themselves from the tyranny of George III. I truly believe this is our last chance to ensure that this last best hope for liberty does not perish from the earth.
Editor’s Note: To read other Speaking With American Patriots interviews, please click here.
The courage of Tara Lee Rodas to step forward and expose the truth about a federal government agency’s role in the shocking treatment of thousands and thousands of unaccompanied children entering the U.S. at the southern border was the action of a warrior. The stories she recounted of the tragedies, and the trafficking and abuse of the children during her Congressional testimony in April 2023 were insurmountable to suppress by the culpable agency, the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), and its Unaccompanied Children (UC) Program. The world took notice when she said, “Whether intentional or not, it can be argued that the US Government has become the middleman in a large-scale, multi-billion-dollar, child trafficking operation run by bad actors seeking to profit off the lives of children.”
Her goal in testifying before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration Integrity, Security, and Enforcement then, and her continued advocacy today as an HHS whistleblower, is “to inspire action to safeguard the lives of migrant children, including the staggering 85,000 that are missing.”
Tara is still asking, where are the children and where the accountability is. But now, she is joined by three other whistleblowers asking the same questions and more with united voices and strength. Together, these four individuals, connected by their work experiences at the Pomona Fairplex Emergency Intake Site in California, as either government employees or federal contractors’ employees in 2021, reveal more truth and facts about the dysfunctional HHS program in an America’s Future exposé special entitled, “Where Did The Children Go.”
Featured along with Tara in the special, are the other whistleblowers: Mayra Moreno, former case manager for a federal contractor, Maxim Healthcare Services; Deborah White, a federal government contract specialist, deployed to the Pomona facility at the same time as Tara, and Carlos Arellano, a former unaccompanied minor transportation specialist for MVM, Inc. and later, for other government contractors operating the government’s release of thousands of migrants housed at the Row NYC in downtown Manhattan.
Viewers will hear new evidence showing that the U.S. government knowingly put children into the hands of unknown and unvetted sponsors and traffickers, how the federal government turned a blind eye to the waste of taxpayer dollars by their select NGO contractors, and how “shame tactics” and threats were used by both government officials and federal contractors to suppress staff from sharing information.
From their first-hand accounts, the four brave whistleblowers describe the conditions of a failed government agency that put innocent lives in harm’s way. Among the shocking disclosures include:
“It’s stunning. It’s horrifying,” said Tara in one segment. “And the government knows…they knew they had a trafficking problem. They knew. And so, where are these children? Where are these children?”
In the special, viewers will also hear from Whistleblower Deborah White, who has worked as a federal contract specialist for 10 years. “We cannot continue to fund a program that has failed over and over again, year after year…to date, they have not answered, the contractors have not answered, and the government has not answered why these sole source contracts are necessary. Why would we pay a contractor if they’re not fulfilling the requirements of the contract?”
The whistleblowers are calling on others to step forward to protect the children and for Congress to take action immediately. Speaking for the four brave individuals, viewers will hear their collective plea in Tara’s words: “That’s what we all want to see. Accountability and transparency for the children and for the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars that are funding child trafficking.”
Watch “Where Did The Children Go” above, or click here. The special was produced in coordination with TriFilm Pictures Production, and presented by America’s Future as part of its Project Defend & Protect Our Children initiative established to raise awareness and educate grassroots Americans to get involved in helping end child exploitation and trafficking. Tara is a member of the initiative’s Advisory Board.
On October 18, 2023, America’s Future filed an Amicus brief with the Texas Supreme Court in Hensley v State Commission on Judicial Conduct, et al., Tx. Sup. Ct. Dkt. No. 22-1145, a case concerning the religious freedom of a judge, a government employee. The brief urges the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s dismissal in support of plaintiff-petitioner, Hon. Dianne Hensley, a judge who presides over one of the 821 Texas justice of the peace courts (commonly referred to in other states as a “small claims” court). In her role as a justice of the peace court judge, she is authorized but not required to officiate weddings. The public court docket in this case is located here. Four other nonprofits joined the brief.
Following dismissals by the lower courts for lack of jurisdiction due to statutory “exhaustion of remedies” requirements, Judge Hensley presents the following question to this court:
Did the lower courts err in dismissing the lawsuit filed against the State Commission on Judicial Ethics (and its members) for violating religious freedom protections conferred by the Constitution and enacted under the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act (TRFRA)?
In her Petition to this court, Judge Hensley explains that she “is a Christian and her Christian faith forbids her from officiating at any same-sex marriage.” She goes on to explain that it is her sincerely held religious belief that a marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Her lawsuit provides that the sanction violated her religious rights under TRFRA by substantially burdening her exercise of religion. Judge Hensley is seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and compensatory damages. She argues that the lower court’s dismissal was improper because the remedy she seeks is prospective and, therefore, not available to her through any statutory remedy.
Judge Hensley cites the June 26, 2015 Supreme Court (SCOTUS) decision in Obergefell v Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015) as a primary cause of her peril. In Obergefell, the SCOTUS announced a new fundamental right to marry, conspicuously advancing the Court’s preferred social policy, at the time, which was an endorsement of same-sex marriages. Based on the ruling and its ramifications to government employees, Judge Hensley officiated the four weddings previously scheduled to be conducted by her, and, thereafter, stopped booking weddings out of concern she would be compelled to facilitate the Court’s expanded definition of marriage in contravene to her deeply held religious beliefs.
Just over one year later, in August 2016, Judge Hensley realized there was a need for low-cost wedding officiants and resumed officiating weddings between one man and one woman. If a same-sex couple requested her services, she recused but referred the same-sex couple to an officiant who was willing to perform the requested services.
In May 2018, the Commission launched a formal inquiry into Judge Hensley’s sincerely held religious beliefs. In November 2019, after a widely publicized investigation and formal hearing, the Commission sanctioned her with a Public Warning, arguing that Judge Hensley’s recusals from officiating same-sex marriages “cast doubt on her capacity to act impartially…in violation of Rule 4A(1) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.” In response, Judge Hensley filed suit against the Commission for TRFRA violations.
In its brief, the Commission argues the dismissal was proper because “Texas courts have no jurisdiction over her claims…it was her own fault since she did not send the requisite notice to assert TRFRA claims in the Commission proceeding.” Remarkably, the Commission undercuts its own legal argument when it adds, mockingly, “She could have fully litigated her TRFRA rights unsuccessfully at the Commission.” It is clear the Commission would not impartially consider any claim made by her under TRFRA, no matter the facts or argument. It also demonstrates an intention to unlawfully divest Judge Hensley of her due process rights by determining the outcome of a proceeding without ever conducting one. This fact pattern is illustrative of the adage, “but who will oversee the overseers?” This Commission may need to be repurposed or restocked.
We, at America’s Future, urge the Texas Supreme Court to reverse the lower court’s dismissal, enter a summary judgment order in favor of Judge Hensley, and provide for declaratory and injunctive relief with compensatory damages as the full and final remedy.
Editor’s Note: To read all of our Amicus briefs, please visit our Law & Policy page.
This is the eleventh 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.
If the House of Representatives actually were to impeach Joe Biden, and the matter proceeded to trial in the Senate, it would be the fourth impeachment trial to be held in the brief span of 24 years — Clinton, Trump (2), and Biden. However, there once was a time when impeachment trials were not so common. In fact, somehow, the nation managed to survive without such a trial for more than half of its existence — 131 years — between the 1868 trial of Andrew Johnson and the 1999 trial of Bill Clinton.
While most Americans today likely associate the Clinton impeachment with “Slick Willie’s” sexual involvement with 22-year-old White House intern, Monica Lewinsky, the articles of impeachment against Clinton actually approved by the House were, as Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN) tried to frame the issue, “not about adultery.”
The investigation into Bill Clinton and Hillary Rodham (still using her maiden name when in Arkansas) originally centered around their role in the Whitewater real estate development in Arkansas, while he was Governor. The investigation was begun by Special Prosecutor Robert Fiske, Jr., and then continued by Independent Counsel Ken Starr. (Although the Clintons were never convicted, their partner in Whitewater, James McDougal, was convicted of fraud and conspiracy charges.) The final report of the investigation, known as the “Starr Report,” was submitted to the House of Representatives on September 9, 1998. At that time, the House had a Republican majority, and Newt Gingrich was Speaker.
Based on that Starr Report, the House Judiciary Committee approved four articles of impeachment: perjury in defending against a sexual harassment suit against him by Paula Jones; perjury to a grand jury in the Monica Lewinsky affair; obstruction of justice; and abuse of office based on refusing to respond to and lying to Congress.
The full House of Representatives was willing to impeach based only on two of those articles — perjury and obstruction of justice. The perjury charge alleged that Clinton “willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice.” Specifically, it alleged that “William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury.” The obstruction of justice charge alleged that he had “encouraged a witness in a Federal civil rights action brought against him to give perjurious, false and misleading testimony.”
Two-thirds of the Senate are needed to convict, but at the time, the Republican Party held a 55 to 45 majority in the Senate. Thus, conviction would require a dozen Democrat votes, but instead there were many defections from Republican ranks. Republicans voting against impeachment on the obstruction of justice count were five Northeastern Rhinos: John Chafee (RI), Susan Collins (ME), Jim Jeffords (VT), Olivia Snowe (ME), and Arlen Spector (PA). In the end, the Senate split 50-50 on the obstruction of justice charge. It would turn out that this would be the high-water mark for the House Managers.
Even though no one really disputed that “Clinton flat-out perjured himself,” five more Republican Senators joined the other five dissenters on obstruction of justice, as 10 Republicans voted to acquit, this time adding Slade Gorton (WA), Richard Shelby (AL), Ted Stevens (AK), Fred Thompson (TN), and John Warner (VA). Thus, the Senate voted 55-45 against conviction on the perjury charge.
On February 12, 1999, it was all over. Clinton was acquitted on both charges. Neither charge could even muster a majority of Senators. The Republican defectors allowed Democrats to describe the Clinton acquittal as “bi-partisan.”
A bit of justice occurred in April 2001 when, after he left office, Clinton agreed to what amounted to a plea bargain to end Starr’s criminal perjury investigation. Clinton’s law license was suspended for five years in Arkansas. In October of the same year, the Supreme Court disbarred Clinton from practicing before it.
What can be learned from the Clinton Impeachment? Part of the lesson is that Democrat Senators do not take perjury or obstruction of justice all that seriously — if it’s by one of their own. Even more now than then, they have shown they will hang together, unless the politics of their state demands differently. A popular uprising would require the People of their state to be outraged, but rage is hard to generate when the establishment press covers for a Democrat President and rails against the Republican House Managers.
Additionally, we learned from the Clinton impeachment that since the Senate sets the rules for an impeachment trial, the game can be rigged by Senate leaders. With Clinton, the Senate Majority Leader was Trent Lott (MS), who never wanted Clinton to have been impeached in the first place. Lott had first served in Washington as administrative assistant to powerful House Democrat Congressman William Colmer (D-MS), and by the time Lott was elected to the Senate and rose to Majority Leader, he had become comfortable in the Washington swamp.
The great controversy was whether to call witnesses — and the Democrats (and Lott) did not want to risk matters of “sex” being discussed in the hallowed Senate Chambers. In the end, the Senate refused to let the House managers call Lewinsky to testify in person — by a 70-to-30 vote. Today, there is every reason to believe that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) would work hand-in-glove with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to undermine however the House Managers would want to present their case.
Opposed by the establishment press in the days before alternative media had become well established, and faced with Senate leadership that did not want to even be there, the 13 House Managers became so demoralized that, at one point, most simply wanted to end the entire proceeding. The one Congressman who rallied the troops, calling on them to do their duty no matter what the political cost may be, was Congressman James Rogan (R-CA). As a curiosity of history, Rogan turned out to be the one house manager who lost his seat in Congress primarily due to his work on the Clinton impeachment. And who was he defeated by? That would be then-state senator, now extreme leftist Congressman Adam Schiff (D-CA), who beat Rogan in the November 2000 election by a vote of 53-to-44 percent in what was the most expensive House race ever as of that time.
There is one huge difference between the Clinton impeachment and a possible Biden impeachment. In the case of Biden, the key charges likely will be bribery and abusing the powers of his office. Those charges are easier for the public to grasp than perjury, especially when the lying, in part, was to defend against an allegation of having committed a sexual act. Beyond that, Biden is not nearly as “likeable” as Clinton, and you could never describe Biden as “slick.” And with low approval ratings in the polls, it would be much harder for Senators to ignore the solid charges that the House is now developing, especially if voters become enraged by how our country has been sold to the highest bidder.
In any event, the courageous counsel former Congressman, now California state Judge James Rogan, gave to the Clinton House Managers is still instructive. House members should do their duty to impeach when the facts support impeachment, regardless of the political consequences.
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.