Menu Close
Time To Shut Them Down

Newsletter | March 21, 2024

America Eagle with Flag

That’s right. Americans want the nation’s borders shut down to end the invasion pushing criminals, terrorists, and cartels into our country. And we want the useless, corrupt government agents and agencies and their media puppeteers who spew lies and cause division and chaos in the lives of patriotic citizens shut down. And we want the filthy pedophiles, perverts, and trafficking rings raping and assaulting our children shut down.

Here’s what else the citizens of this great country want. We want the warmongering politicians and their operatives shut down. Good, decent citizens want the delusional dopes in academia, elites in corporate America, and government malcontents shut down to put an end to their worthless DEI, CRT, and their non-stop propaganda campaigns.

That’s right – shut them all down.

Shut down those who would silence We The People, persecute We The People, manufacture lies about We The People, manipulate We The People, and allow murderers and terrorists into the homes and neighborhoods of We The People.

This nation was built by men and women who are generous, hard-working, family-centered, self-determined, freedom-loving pioneers and patriots who cherish their core rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

America is being crushed under the boot of a demonic ruling establishment filled with intolerable tyrants, anti-America blowhards, and slick bullies.

These creatures of corruption and crime have laid bare what the future will be for our children and grandchildren if left unchecked and unaccountable. And we will have no one to blame but ourselves. Complacency is not an option any longer. Courage and truth are the calling cards for those willing to get on the battlefield and save this nation.

At Lexington and Concord, the men who first fought for America said NO MORE – they would not tolerate an oppressive power-hungry regime or comply with unjust rules, or be stripped of their wealth, their property, their homes, their guns, and their freedom.

Now is the time for We The People to stand up, speak up, and shut down those who are destroying our country and blighting the mighty vision of America’s exceptionalism.

God blessed the United States of America and endowed us free-born men and women with inalienable rights. Take heed, citizen-patriots. As President Ronald Reagan warned: “If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.”

Take a stand. Do all you can to shut down the enemies of We The People. Election 2024 is on the horizon. Demand that this election be fair and transparent. Get involved and vote like your life and the survival of America depends on it…because it does.

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 - Steve Friend

Steve Friend worked as a patrolman and narcotics agent in Savannah, Georgia, before joining the Federal Bureau of Investigation in 2014. He investigated violent crimes and major offenses occurring on Indian Reservations in northeast Nebraska for seven years and was also a member of the FBI Omaha SWAT team. He transferred to Daytona Beach, Florida to investigate child exploitation and human trafficking before being reassigned to investigate domestic terrorism. In 2022, Steve became an FBI whistleblower after making protected disclosures to Congress about the FBI’s questionable and manipulative investigations of January 6th protestors.

His memoir “True Blue: My Journey from Beat Cop to FBI Whistleblower” is the story of a man whose principles and patriotism left him with no other choice but to make the hard decision and risk losing the job he loved — and take a stand against a fabled American institution that has lost its way.

A graduate of the University of Notre Dame, Steve is a married father of two sons. We spoke with him recently to get his insights on the FBI, free speech, and America’s future.

When did the FBI change its counterterrorism mission to focus on the ruling establishment’s political opponents?

The FBI established the National Security Branch, the original home of the Intelligence Branch division, in September 2005, as part of its mission to detect, deter, and disrupt national security threats in the wake of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The branch collects, analyzes, and shares intelligence to understand and defeat these threats while preserving civil liberties. Unfortunately, bureaucratic mission creep and arbitrary performance metrics lead the FBI’s National Security Branch to unjustifiably target groups of Americans disfavored by the regime.

In order to continue to justify its outsized budget and power, the FBI has increased its focus on “homegrown violent extremists” (HVEs). The FBI is incentivized by its quota system to target and ensnare Americans in the counterterrorism dragnet. For example, in the years after 9/11, Muslim Americans were routinely targeted for entrapment by the FBI as part of its focus on HVEs.

In recent years, the FBI’s counterterrorism mission shifted to “domestic violent extremists” (DVEs). Although the FBI publicly states that mere advocacy of political positions, activism, use of strong rhetoric, or even general philosophic embrace of violent tactics may be constitutionally protected, agency operations indicate otherwise.

In October 2023, Newsweek spotlighted the FBI’s latest label: “anti-government anti-authority violent extremism” (AGAAVE). The FBI profiles this threat to encompass “perceived government overreach, negligence, or illegitimacy.”

Were you aware that the FBI was working with Big Tech platforms to censor speech during the 2020 election cycle?

I was uninvolved with anything pertaining to the 2020 election cycle. However, when I was reassigned to domestic terrorism investigations in 2022, I became aware of an FBI confidential human source known as “Operation Bronze Griffon.” The CHS works for Facebook and provides the FBI private messages without court-authorized subpoenas or search warrants.

What was the most rewarding work you did as an FBI agent?

I had the opportunity to investigate violent crimes and major offenses occurring on Indian reservations for seven years. During that time, I opened over 200 criminal cases and arrested 150 violent criminals plaguing small communities. The crimes ranged from homicide and aggravated assault to domestic violence and sexual abuse of children. I really enjoyed the independent, hands-on work and the chance to use the federal government’s resources to truly help underserved communities.

Can the FBI be reformed?

I do not believe reform is possible. However, our elected officials lack the political will to entirely defund the FBI. I have proposed some potential reforms — disarm the FBI and return it to an unarmed investigative agency, cross-deputize state and local police with federal arrest powers, and force the bureau to partner with those agencies to arrest subjects. The sheriff is elected to reduce crime, whereas the FBI is improperly incentivized to increase crime statistics to justify its existence and budget. These reforms create a bulwark against FBI weaponization and empower local police to direct the bureau’s resources toward the criminal and national security threats impacting a community.

What is your prayer for America?

The Book of Esther teaches that we were all “born for such a time as this.” I pray that more Americans wake up to the reality that our country is engaged in a cold civil war. One side is willing to do whatever is necessary to win. The other side just wants to get along. That is an asymmetrical battle. Our citizenship cannot simply be outsourced at the ballot box. We need everyone to engage. Being American is not a leisure pursuit. For the country to survive, more citizens have to be uncomfortable and inconvenienced. There is enough work to do for everyone – go to a school board meeting, lobby your state representatives during legislative sessions, pressure your sheriff to divest from the FBI, etc. Gideon only needed 300, but the fight for America will require all hands on deck.

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

America’s Future SCOTUS Brief Supports Donald Trump’s Claim of Presidential Immunity
Supreme Court columns

On Tuesday, March 19, 2024 , America’s Future filed an Amicus brief in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) in Donald J. Trump v United States, et al., Dkt. No. 23-939.  The public docket in this case is here. Oral argument is scheduled to take place on Thursday, April 25, 2024.  Arguments are livestreamed and and, thereafter, the audio recording will be available here.

In this case, the following question has been  presented to the Court by former President Donald Trump: 

Whether, and if so, to what extent does a former U.S. President enjoy Presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve Official Acts during his tenure as President?

Never before has the court been asked to address this question and with good reason.  No Justice Department in the history of the United States has been so brazenly corrupt and emboldened as to bring criminal charges against a former president for actions taken during his presidency.  Special Counsel Jack Smith, who waited until after President Trump announced his 2024 candidacy for President, contends Congressional impeachment and conviction are meaningless and Presidential immunity has no teeth and is merely akin to equitable tolling of a statute. Common sense and our constitutional framework must dictate otherwise.

Our brief supports former President Trump, and is consistent with the Constitution, common sense and reason. It makes clear, throughout, that fundamental Constitutional principles like Separation of Powers, Speech & Debate Clause, and Ordered Liberty compel the High Court to decide the matter in full favor of the former President, currently the leading presidential republican nominee.

As our brief points out and plainly explains, Article I Section 3 prescribes the singular avenue for a valid criminal indictment of a President.  It’s where the rubber hits the road.  And try as they might, their lawfare attacks are fatally flawed and untethered to the Constitution, common sense, and reality. 

Since the Constitution specifies that a President who is convicted in an impeachment trial is “subject to” criminal prosecution, that strongly suggests that a President who is acquitted is not. Those who hoped that a conviction at Trump’s second impeachment trial for activities primarily relating to January 6, 2021 would open the door to criminal prosecution of Trump were disappointed as that effort failed.

As further explained in our brief,

The Constitution implies that criminal charges can only follow House impeachment and Senate conviction. Presidential immunity does not put the President “above the law” any more than the “Speech and Debate clause, which confers criminal immunity, puts Congress “above the law.”

As Chief Justice Marshall made clear, a President is vested with discretion, and “is accountable only to his country in his political character, and to his own conscience.” Failure to provide Presidential immunity will transfer electoral power from voters to lawyers, juries, and judges, gravely damaging public belief in the rule of law. Tyrants abuse their power to clear the field of political opponents, but this Court must not allow America to become that kind of nation.

The recent analysis in Trump v Anderson is, too, foretelling.  We are reminded how fragile our freedoms are, and how quickly America can devolve into a banana republic if the High Court does not end the war waged against Trump and his supporters and the malicious interference with our elections, forthwith, stating,

All opinions for or against President Trump aside, the question presented is much larger than one President. This a perfect case to employ the “shoe on the other foot” test, as exactly that may happen not too far in the future. The best way for this Court to address this issue would be as it recently did in Trump v. Anderson — unanimously— which these amici respectfully request this Court again to do.

Our brief  goes to the heart of the matter; it is robust with facts for the SCOTUS to consider illustrating selective prosecution, political persecution and an unlawful abuse of power glaring in Jack Smith’s indictment against Trump.

The facts of the matter all belie Jack Smith’s bogus indictment against Trump, convincingly.  One of many factual examples we urge the SCOTUS to ponder is about then Vice President Pence.  As our brief states, 

The Indictment portrays Pence as a weak man, bereft of legal counsel, whom Trump was coercing to do what Pence believed to be wrong. None of these impressions are true.

Pence was the second highest ranking person in the United States Government. Pence had official legal counsel, Gregory Jacob, who the prior month advised him that there was sound legal and historical authority for him to decide electoral disputes — a power which he chose not to exercise.

And on January 6, Pence stated that there had been both election fraud and judicially changed election laws altering the election outcome.

We, at America’s Future, urge the SCOTUS to unanimously rebuke the notion that Presidential immunity is without teeth and without meaning.  Certainly the Framers knew better.  This is not the America we have known.  This chaos and lawlessness must stop for our nation to survive.  Every child learns from a young age that one day he or she can become President.  Here is to hoping those are not just the good ole days.

Editor’s Note: To read all of our Amicus briefs, please visit our Law & Policy page.

Keeping You Informed
SCOTUS Mid-March Recap

The SCOTUS is more than halfway through presiding over its caseload for the current October Term 2023.  Although resolutions to this term’s cases will not be complete until June 30, 2024, the SCOTUS has resolved nearly 20 percent of the 70 cases on its docket. Six decisions have been issued since March 1, 2024, including two this week (March 19, 2024).

The SCOTUS rulings are considered to be the law of the land and are binding on all courts and in all jurisdictions. To stay informed about these important decisions, readers can access this term’s case highlights and rulings on our website here. Below are summaries of the six decisions published thus far this month. To access the SCOTUS website for more information, please visit

FBI v Fikre (22-1178)
ISSUE: Whether, after unlawfully placing plaintiff’s identity (a U.S. citizen) on the “No Fly List,” the government’s removal of the plaintiff’s identity from the “No Fly List” renders the issue moot.
RULING: No. “The government failed to meet its burden to demonstrate that Mr. Fikre’s removal from the government’s No Fly List mooted his 42 U. S. C. §1983 case because its declaration did not disclose the conduct that landed Mr. Fikre on the No Fly List and did not ensure that he would not be placed back on the list for engaging in the same or similar conduct in the future.” – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed.

Wilkinson v Garland (22-666)
ISSUE: Whether an immigration judge’s discretionary decision regarding cancellation of removal and adjustment to lawful permanent status is reviewable as a mixed question of law and fact.”
RULING: Yes. The Immigration Judge’s discretionary decision determining eligibility for cancellation of removal is a mixed question of law and fact, reviewable under §1252(a)(2)(D). – The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.

O’Connor-Ratcliff v Garnier (22-324)
ISSUE: Whether a public official engages in state action subject to the First Amendment by  blocking an individual from the official’s personal social-media account, when the official uses  the account to feature their job and communicate about job-related matters with the public,  but does not do so pursuant to any governmental authority or duty.
RULING: It depends. Here, the SCOTUS vacated the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case in light of Lindke v. Freed, Dkt. No. 22-611. (This decision was published on March 15, 2024, i.e., the same date as Lindke v Freed. See below for the Lindke v Freed ruling.) 

Lindke v Freed (22-611)
ISSUE: Whether a public official’s social media activity can constitute state action. 
RULING: It depends. “A public official who prevents someone from commenting on the official’s social-media page engages in state action only if the official both (1) possessed actual authority to speak on the State’s behalf on a particular matter, and (2) purported to exercise that authority when speaking in the relevant social-media posts.”– The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is vacated and remanded.

Pulsifer v US (22-340)
ISSUE: “Whether the ‘and’ in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(f)(1) means ‘and,’ so  that a defendant satisfies the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3-point offense, and (C) a 2-point offense; or can a defendant satisfy the provision so long as he does not have (A) more than 4 criminal history points, (B) a 3- point offense, or (C) a 2-point violent  offense.”
RULING: “A criminal defendant facing a mandatory minimum sentence is eligible for safety-valve relief…only if the defendant satisfies each of the provision’s three conditions.” – The judgement out of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth is affirmed.

Trump v Anderson (23-719)
ISSUE: Whether a state can enforce Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against federal officeholders and candidates?
RULING: No. “Because the Constitution makes Congress, rather than the states, responsible for enforcing Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment against Federal officeholders and candidates, the Colorado Supreme Court erred in ordering former President Trump excluded from the 2024 Presidential primary ballot.” – The judgment out of the Colorado Supreme Court is reversed.

Editor’s Note: To read other decisions by the SCOTUS during the October Term 2023, click here.

America’s Future Amicus Briefs Updates

Last week, we began our series to keep our readers updated on cases America’s Future selected to participate in as nonparty “Amicus Curiae,” Latin for “friend of the court.” Since December 2021, America’s Future has filed 50 amicus briefs in cases that involve issues of constitutional importance. Amicus briefs are powerful tools that can inspire case outcomes and persuade judicial rationale with insight into legal issues. They are also the means to directly communicate with Article III courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States, about potential societal impacts of rulings.

To keep readers informed, this edition of the newsletter continues our reporting on the status of our filings starting with those filed this year. We will continue this series of reports over the next several newsletters. 

Case: US v Rahimi, SCOTUS Dkt. No.22-915
Court: U.S. Supreme Court 
Amicus Brief
Filing Date(s): October 4, 2023
Primary Issue: Whether 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), which prohibits the possession of firearms by persons subject to domestic-violence restraining orders, violates the Second Amendment on its face?
Outcome: Pending 

Case: Hensley v Texas State Commission, Tx Sup. Ct. Dkt. No.22-1145
Court: Supreme Court of Texas
Amicus Brief
Filing Date(s): October 18, 2023
Primary Issue: Whether a justice of the peace must perform same sex weddings in violation of deeply held religious beliefs?
Outcome: Pending 

Case: Brandt v Griffen, 8th Cir. Dkt. No. 23-2681
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
Amicus Brief
Filing Date(s): November 14, 2023
Primary Issue: Whether Arkansas Save Adolescents From Experimentation (SAFE) Act is constitutional?
Outcome: Pending (Oral Arguments scheduled for March 18, 2024)

Case: Duncan v Bonta, 9th Cir. Dkt. No.23-55805
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Amicus Brief
Filing Date(s): December 28, 2023
Primary Issue: Whether California’s law banning large capacity magazines is unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen?
Outcome: Pending 

Case: Miller v Bonta, 9th Cir. Dkt. No.23-2979
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Amicus Brief 
Filing Date(s): December 29, 2023
Primary Issue: Whether California’s law criminalizing possession of common firearms is unconstitutional after New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen?
Outcome: Pending

Tools Of Tyrants
Media Consolidation

This is the fourteenth entry in our In Focus series identifying and exposing the tools that modern-day tyrants are using to thwart the will of We The People for power and control. To access previous articles, please click here.

It is entirely predictable that a tyrant would want to control what the People hear and read.  Some on the Left might prefer the only broadcast news outlets in America to be the 1,400 radio and television stations funded by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to ensure that no unapproved populist voices would be heard.  But the existence of tens of thousands of privately owned newspapers, magazines, radio and television stations, podcasts, and websites has made control difficult to exercise — even for the government.

But if ownership of the most influential media outlets could only be consolidated into the hands of a few friends of the State — and the rest censored — the problem of what government now terms “disinformation, misinformation and malinformation” could be minimized.  Consolidation of ownership is what we have now — but it wasn’t always this way.

Media Diversity in America

There were 37 newspapers in the colonies at the beginning of the Revolutionary War, and remarkably, 43 by the end of the war.  By 1800, there were between 150 and 200 newspapers, which ballooned to 346 by the year 1814.  By 1900, there were 2,226 daily newspapers and about 14,000 weekly newspapers, accounting for over half of the newspapers worldwide at that time.  At its peak, there were over 22,000 newspapers in the early Twentieth Century.

Once upon a time, many small towns had two or more newspapers, often openly competing with each other, offering competing ideas.  The small town of Cassville, Missouri, for example (population today 3,000) still has two weekly newspapers (and for many years had three) including the “Cassville Republican” and “Cassville Democrat.”  Crawfordsville, Indiana (population 15,000) still has two daily newspapers.  With a few notable exceptions, this type of media diversity is long gone.

One excellent history on the American press explains that “journalists once were politicians, some of them the most prominent candidates, officeholders, and party operatives in the nation.”  Remarkably, in the major Presidential election of 1920, the two parties each nominated a longtime Ohio newspaper editor:  Warren G Harding for the Republicans and James M. Cox for the Democrats.  See Jeffrey L. Pasley, The Tyranny of Printers (U.Va. Press: 2001).

As late as 1945, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black could assert correctly that the First Amendment “rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public.”  Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945) (emphasis added).  That was then.

Telecommunications Act of 1996

Paradoxically, one of the reasons media diversity continued as long as it did was the existence of certain restrictions on competition.  The Federal Communications Act of 1934, and rules adopted in 1975, established a complex set of barriers to entry into certain markets preventing, for example TV or radio stations from owning a daily newspaper in the same market.  That may sound anti-competitive, but it ensured that smaller, less profitable companies would not be gobbled up by large firms, resulting in “market consolidation.”

Did you ever wonder why the Establishment Media fawns over Bill and Hillary Clinton?  One of the many reasons is that it owes them — a lot.  In 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (TCA) to bring down barriers to entry.  The 128-page bill (short by today’s standards) was sold to the American people as pro-free enterprise deregulation, allowing anyone to enter any communication business.  It was pushed through Congress with the help of many Republicans, including Newt Gingrich.

Twenty years later, it was reported that “more than 90 percent of the media is owned by just six companies.  Viacom, News Corporation, Comcast, CBS, Time Warner and Disney.”  Beginning with passage of the TCA, “media companies have dramatically increased efforts to wield influence in Washington, with a massive lobbying presence and a steady dose of campaign donations to politicians in both parties….”   Big Media richly rewarded the Clintons for their support.  In the 2016 election, “the Big Media lobby [backed] Hillary Clinton.  Media industry giants have donated way more to her than any other candidate in the race.

By any standard, the trend has been toward massive consolidation.  “The top 25 companies that own the most newspapers control the fate of nearly one-third of all papers, up from 20 percent in 2004.  This included two-thirds of all dailies – 812 – and almost a fourth of all weeklies – 1,376.”  “By 2018, fewer than one-third of the country’s 5,829 weeklies with circulations under 15,000 were locally owned.”  In 2018, “the largest 10 companies owned 1,500 papers, including almost half – 572 – of the country’s 1,283 dailies.”  Predictably, the result has been less ideological diversity, more media groupthink, and a more tightly controlled information narrative.

This law has allowed radio also to be consolidated.  “In 1995, before the Telecommunications Act was passed, companies were not allowed to own more than 40 radio stations.  ‘Since passage of the 1996 Telecommunications Act, Clear Channel [now called iHeartMedia] has grown from 40 stations to 1,240 stations.’”  Now leftist, anti-American billionaire “George Soros has purchased a potentially controlling stake in America’s second-largest chain of radio stations,” more than 220 stations, just in time to influence the 2024 elections.

The specific means which government uses to control the media are the subject of many scholarly articles and books.  Media Capture (Columbia U. Press: 2021) is a collection of essays, edited by Anya Schiffin, explaining some of the techniques used.  These can range from funding to threats.  Leaks from the intelligence community are only provided to media outlets who are willing to cooperate, and any outlet which does not toe the line will soon find access limited.  It has been said that one is never fired from big media for lying — only for telling the truth.  And when media is consolidated, being fired from one outlet can result in being blackballed by the others.  Real investigative journalism is rare, and journalists who expose too much can be jailed.  As a result, media increasingly speaks with one voice, all preserving the government’s narrative on any subject.

Censorship of the Rest

The 1997 movie Conspiracy Theory, with Mel Gibson and Julia Roberts, told the story of a government obsessed with a taxi driver who did his own research and wrote an anti-government newsletter called Conspiracy Theory, with only a handful of subscribers.  The premise of that story was credible to some when the movie came out and to many more 27 years later.  If Jerry Fletcher was publishing his newsletter today, it would likely be online.  And the government just might try to censor this “threat” to “the narrative” which it promotes to conceal what it does.  We will address controls over social media in another article, but the lesson from media consolidation is that bigger does not necessarily mean better.  The little guy who has no reason to lie is often a more reliable source of truth than what our establishment press has become.

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

Reminders and Updates

Get In The Fight Washington State campaign is around the corner. Register today to attend the Washington State Summit and Training Programs on April 26 and 27 at On Fire Ministries in Spokane, WA. Get the facts and learn what you can do in your community to help end child exploitation and trafficking.

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!

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.