Afleveringen
-
Over the weekend, we witnessed the pre-pubescent insolence of our countryâs crybaby, leftist, 60s throwbacks in the manufactured âHands Offâ protests. While their social media narrative creators enhance the attendance numbers by the power of ten on the internet, the rest of us identify that they are nothing more than paid activists, photographed from advantageous angles, screeching to preserve the spendthrift, status quo bureaucracy that has been feeding at the taxpayer feedtrough for far too long.
Todayâs âprotest anythingâ liberals are a pathetic spectacle, a gaggle of self-righteous, uninformed clowns tripping over their own sanctimony in a desperate bid to feel relevant. Theyâre the kind of people whoâd march against gravity if TikTok told them it was oppressive, clutching their soy lattes and megaphones, screaming about injustices they canât even define, while tightening their man-buns.
These are not the principled radicals of yesteryear; theyâre a hollowed-out caricature, a generation of intellectual lightweights who stand for nothing but the dopamine hit of their own outrage. Theyâre not just ignorant; theyâre proudly, willfully uneducated, letting their feelings bulldoze over facts like a toddler tantrum in a Walmart store aisle. Itâs a tragic comedy: the perpetually offended, armed with nothing but vibes, a $1000 smartphone, and a Wi-Fi connection.
Whatâs most galling is their utter lack of context. Theyâll chain themselves to a tree or glue their hands to a highway over âclimate justiceâ without knowing the first thing about carbon cycles, renewable energy trade-offs, or global emissions stats. Theyâll wail about âsystemic racismâ in a country thatâs spent decades dismantling legal segregation, yet couldnât tell you what the Civil Rights Act actually saysâprobably because reading it would cut into their Instagram scroll time.
They protest wars they canât locate on a map, economic systems theyâve never studied beyond a Bernie Sanders-AOC âStop Oligarchyâ tweet, and corporations whose products theyâre still buying on Amazon Prime. Itâs not activism; itâs ignorant, self-centered, performative chaos; a live-action roleplay for people too lazy to crack a book, question a headline, or do their own fucking research. Theyâre allergic to specifics and facts because facts and specifics might demand actual thought.
And oh, how they fetishize the 1960sâlike itâs some golden age of rebellion theyâre destined to resurrect. Theyâre obsessed with Woodstock vibes, tie-dye aesthetics, and grainy footage of sit-ins, as if slapping a peace sign on their BlueSky bio makes them kin to MLK or the anti-Vietnam marchers.
Newsflash: the â60s radicals had skin in the gameâdraft cards burning in their pockets, real oppression bearing down, and a coherent enemy in the military-industrial complex. Todayâs protesters? Theyâre just nostalgic for a relevance they never earned, chasing a retro fantasy where theyâre the heroes without doing the homework.
The Summer of Love wasnât a hashtag campaignâit was a cultural upheaval, messy and grounded in specifics these modern wannabe posers couldnât begin to grasp. Theyâre not inheritors of that legacy; theyâre tourists in it, snapping selfies at the gift shop.
Worse, theyâre useful idiots, and self-righteously soâmarionettes jerked around by bought-and-paid-for community organizers bankrolled by far-Left, deep-pocket oligarchs. These arenât grassroots warriors; theyâre foot soldiers for billionaires like George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the Pritzker clan, who funnel cash through shadowy NGOs to orchestrate chaos under the guise of âsocial change.â
The ironyâs thick enough to choke on: they rage against âthe 1%â while doing the bidding of plutocrats whoâd never deign to share a zip code with them, let alone a tax bracket. Those purchased organizers show up with pre-printed signs, megaphones, and a script, and these useful idiots lap it up, too blinded by their own moral pseudo-superiority to ask whoâs signing the checks. Itâs not a movement; itâs a machine, and theyâre the disposable greaseâlubricating the gears of an agenda theyâre too dim to decipher.
Feelings are their god, and common sense is the heretic theyâve burned at the stake.
Watch them sob over âinjusticeâ without a shred of data to back it upâbecause why let reality ruin a good cry? Theyâll block traffic to âsave the planet,â ignoring the idling engines spewing fumes around them, or the fact that their own carbon footprint rivals a small factory. Theyâll shriek about âfascismâ while silencing anyone who disagrees, oblivious to the contradiction staring them in the mirror. Facts? Those are for oppressors. Nuance? A tool of the patriarchy. Theyâd rather drown in their own tears than admit the worldâs messy and their slogans donât fix it. Itâs not bravery; itâs ignorant cowardice dressed up as virtue, a refusal to wrestle with complexity because that might mean theyâre wrongâand God forbid their fragile egos take a hit.
The hypocrisy serves as a neon sign of their intellectual bankruptcy. Theyâll decry capitalism while snapping selfies on those $1,000 iPhones assembled in Chinese factories by slavelaborers. Theyâll boycott Chick-fil-A for its CEOâs opinions but not the sweatshop-made hoodie theyâre wearingâor the fast fashion haul they just vlogged about. Theyâre anti-establishment until the establishment pats them on the headâthen theyâre all in, licking the boots of any opportunistic politician, celebrity, or blue-check influencer who mirrors their tantrums back at them. These arenât revolutionaries; theyâre conformists in trans-rebel drag, parroting whatever the loudest voice in their echo chamber tells them to feel. Their rebellion is as authentic as a knockoff Gucci bag.
At their core, theyâre irrelevantânot because the issues they latch onto donât matter, but because they bring nothing to the table but noise. No solutions, no depth, just a primal scream into the void. Theyâre not changing the world; theyâre annoying it, and deep down, they know it. Thatâs why they cling to the â60s ghostâtheyâre terrified of being forgotten, of being the nobodies history will prove them to be.
So they march, they chant, they glue themselves to something, anything, hoping the optics will make them matter. But optics arenât substance, and feelings arenât facts. Theyâre a protest generation thatâs lost the plot, manipulated by puppet masters theyâre too dim to spot, and too arrogant to care.
Pathetic doesnât even begin to cover itâtheyâre a walking obituary for critical thought, and they wrote it themselves.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Trumpâs Tariffs End DecadesOf Schwabâs Globalist Exploitation
Since the end of World War II, the world has been sold a utopian dream: globalism, the idea that dissolving national borders and fostering interdependence would lead to peace, prosperity, and unity. The globalist eliteâunelected bureaucrats, corporate titans, and technocrats like Klaus Schwabâpromised that intertwining economies and cultures would lift all boats. Instead, this grand experiment has capsized, leaving national economies battered, international relations strained, and the average citizen paying the price for the hubris of a disconnected ruling class.
Far from delivering harmony, globalism has eroded sovereignty, hollowed out industries, and set the stage for a reckoningâone that leaders like Donald Trump are finally addressing with bold, abrupt, unapologetic moves like reciprocal tariffs.
Letâs start with Trumpâs tariffs, a policy smeared by the globalist cheerleaders as âprotectionistâ or âisolationist.â The reality isâin the long run, theyâre a lifeline for the United States. For decades, America has been the worldâs doormatâexporting jobs, importing cheap goods, and letting countries like China exploit lopsided trade deals. The US trade deficit ballooned to $945.3 billion in 2022 alone, a testament to how globalism gutted American manufacturing while fattening the wallets of foreign regimes.
Trumpâs reciprocal tariffs flip the script: if you hit us with tariffs, we hit backâhard. This isnât about starting a trade war; itâs about ending the one Americaâs been losing for years. By leveling the playing field, these tariffs incentivize domestic production, bring jobs back to American soil, and force other nations to rethink their predatory trade practices. The US economy grows stronger when it stops hemorrhaging wealth to subsidize everyone elseâs.
The ballâs now in the court of other world leaders. Globalismâs house of cards relies on America playing the suckerâabsorbing trade imbalances while its own workers suffer. Trumpâs tariffs signal that the free ride is over. If countries like Germany, Japan, or India want to avoid a debilitating international trade war, theyâll need to equalize their trade policies with the United States. No more flooding American markets with subsidized goods while slapping barriers on US exports.
The European Union, for instance, loves to preach âfair tradeâ but maintains a $180 billion trade surplus with the US as of 2023. Thatâs not fairness; itâs exploitation. These nations can either adaptâcutting their own tariffs and opening marketsâor face the consequences of a US that finally prioritizes itself. The choice is theirs, but the era of America as the worldâs economic punching bag is done.
Then thereâs China, the globalist poster child that was supposed to dethrone the US as the worldâs economic kingpin. The reality? Chinaâs economy is a paper tiger, nowhere near strong enough to usurp Americaâs consumer market. Beijingâs growth has been fueled by debt, communist state-controlled industries, and a relentless exploitation of Western opennessâthink intellectual property theft and currency manipulation.
In 2024, Chinaâs real estate bubble teetered on collapse, its population shrank for the second straight year, and its export-driven model hit a wall as global demand softened. The US, meanwhile, remains the worldâs consumption engineâ$18 trillion in annual consumer spending compared to Chinaâs $6 trillion. China needs Americaâs market far more than America needs Chinaâs factories. Trumpâs tariffs expose this imbalance, weakening Beijingâs leverage and proving that the US can thrive without being tethered to a faltering giant.
While tariffs get scapegoated as economic villains, the real chaos comes from the globalist eliteânone more so than Klaus Schwab, the self-appointed architect of the âGreat Resetâ and, until recently, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
For decades, Schwab has peddled a totalitarian vision where national sovereignty bends to the will of supranational organizations and corporate overlords. His tenure has been a masterclass in economic sabotage: pushing policies like ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) mandates that strangle businesses with red tape, advocating for digital currencies that erode financial autonomy, and championing a borderless world that dilutes labor markets and wages. The WEFâs Davos crowd cheers as supply chains stretch thin, energy prices soar under âgreenâ agendas, and inflation ravages the working classâall while they jet-set to their next summit.
Compare that to tariffs, which are targeted, transparent, and reversible. Schwabâs meddling has done more to destabilize economies than any trade policy ever could.
The post-WWII globalist experiment promised unity but delivered division. National economiesâlike Americaâsâhave been sacrificed to prop up a system that benefits a tiny elite while leaving nations vulnerable to supply chain shocks, as seen during the COVID pandemic, when reliance on foreign goods became a liability. International relations? Theyâre worse than ever, with distrust festering between nations forced into unnatural interdependence. Look at the US and China: globalism didnât foster friendshipâit bred rivalry, espionage, and a cold war redux. The European Union, once a globalist darling, is fracturing under the weight of its own contradictionsâBrexit was just the start.
Trumpâs tariffs, Chinaâs fragility, and the failures of figures like Schwab expose globalism for what it is: a fantasy that enriched the few at the expense of the many.
Nations thrive when they control their own destinies, not when theyâre yoked to a sinking global ship. Other leaders can cling to the old playbook, but theyâll find the US under leaders like Trump wonât play along. The move toward interdependence didnât unite the worldâit weakened it. Itâs time to admit the experiment failed and chart a course back to sovereignty, strength, and self-reliance.
The globalist elite wonât like it, but the people theyâve ignored for decades just might.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled his reciprocal tariff policy, a bold stroke to rebalance global trade and deliver a windfall to American taxpayers. Branded "Liberation Day," this plan promises to slash the trade deficit, boost domestic industry, and restore economic sovereignty. Predictably, the usual suspectsâivory-tower economists and free-trade puristsâare gasping in horror, warning of inflation and trade wars. But with Canada and Israel already pledging to zero out tariffs on US goods, Trumpâs strategy is proving its worth before itâs fully off the ground.
The congressional GOP must rally behind this policy, not just for party loyalty, but because itâs a pragmatic, taxpayer-friendly move that could redefine Americaâs economic futureâpotentially even paving the way to ditch the income tax.
American taxpayers have long shouldered the burden of a lopsided trade system. The US has boasted some of the worldâs lowest tariffsâaveraging 2.2%âwhile nations like India (12%) and China (with effective rates ballooning under non-tariff barriers) enjoy near-unfettered access to our markets. The fallout? A $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, a gutted manufacturing base, and a tax system that squeezes workers to prop up foreign economies. Trumpâs reciprocal tariffs turn this on its head.
By matching foreign tariffsâ34% on China, 20% on the EU, up to 49% on outliers like CambodiaâTrump is forcing a reset.
Critics bleat about higher consumer prices, conveniently glossing over the policyâs core: incentivizing domestic production. âBuild your plant here, no tariffs,â Trump declares. Companies that relocate will hire Americans, pay US taxes, and shrink the trade deficit. Thatâs not a tax hikeâitâs a tax relief blueprint. Meanwhile, companies like Ford are establishing product discounts, calling them âFrom America, For Americaâ discounts. More jobs, âMade in the USAâ discounts, and higher wages mean less reliance on public assistance, easing the strain on taxpayers.
Hereâs the kicker: tariffs could be the key to axing the income tax entirely.
In 2024, the federal government collected $2.2 trillion from individual income taxes. Trumpâs team projects reciprocal tariffs could generate $500 billion to $1 trillion annually, depending on compliance and retaliation. Pair that with corporate tax revenue from repatriated businesses, and youâve got a revenue stream that could replace the IRSâs chokehold on American paychecks.
Before 1913, tariffs funded nearly half the government; today, theyâre a measly 1% of revenue. Trumpâs plan revives that model, shifting the burden from workers to importers and foreign profiteers. Opponents who scoff at this as âunrealisticâ are just scared of losing their sacred cowâcomplex tax codes that favor their cronies.
The congressional GOP has a chance to back a policy that screams economic nationalism and job creationâcore party tenets. Yet, some, like House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-PA), fret over trade wars and farmersâ fertilizer costs. Thompsonâs push for exemptions is myopic. Trumpâs already shown flexibility, sparing Canada and Mexico from the 10% baseline tariff and carving out exceptions for drugs and computer chips. This isnât reckless protectionism; itâs calculated leverage.
Republicans can seize this to cement their working-class credibility. When Canada and Israel drop tariffs, US exportersâfrom Midwest farmers to Texas tech firmsâwin big. Thatâs Red-state gold. If the GOP wavers, Democrats will swoop in to claim the jobs victory. Critics fearing retaliation are trapped in a pre-Trump daze of negotiate-and-concede. Trumpâs tariffs-first approach already has Canada bending the knee. The GOP must trust his playbook and unite, or risk botching a legacy-defining win.
The anti-tariff crowdâs loudest cryâthat weâll spark a global trade war and isolate Americaâfalls flat against early successes. Canada, our top trade partner, and Israel, a staunch ally, have preemptively pledged zero tariffs on US goods. This isnât goodwill; itâs Trumpâs leverage at work. Canada, with trade at 67% of its GDP and the US as its biggest market, canât afford a 25% hit on exports. Israel, eyeing deeper ties, followed suit. These moves prove tariffs arenât just sticksâtheyâre carrots that deliver.
The dominoes have a high probability of continuing to fall. If the EU (facing 20%) or Japan (24%) lower barriers to dodge retaliation, the trade deficit shrinks, and US exporters thrive. Critics warning of stagflation ignore Trumpâs first-term China tariffs, which didnât crash the economy but forced a deal. Now, with a wider scope and stronger mandate, the leverage is even greater.
Trumpâs reciprocal tariffs are a lifeline for taxpayers, a rallying cry for the GOP, and a strategic masterstroke harkening from the successes of the past. They promise to claw back wealth, reward domestic production, and pressure partners into fair dealsâalready evident with Canada and Israelâs concessions. They could even fund the government enough to kill the income tax, freeing Americans from Aprilâs annual misery.
The doomsayers can clutch their models in their sweaty little hands and scream âtrade war,â but the real war has been against US workers for decades. Trumpâs ending it on our terms. The GOP must stand firm, or squander a shot at making America not just great, but prosperous againâŠand free of the IRS.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Schumer & Senate Democrats:A Betrayal Of The American Electorate
In a move that reeks of political opportunism and disdain for the integrity of the American electoral process, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his cadre of Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This legislation, a commonsense measure aimed at ensuring that only US citizens can vote in federal elections, has exposed the true colors of Schumer and his party: a willingness to sacrifice the sanctity of the ballot box for the sake of pandering to pro-illegal immigrant activists and securing a permanent electoral advantage.
This is not just a policy disagreementâitâs a calculated assault on the very foundation of our Republic.
The SAVE Act, passed by the House in July 2024 with bipartisan support, is straightforward. It requires states to verify citizenship before registering voters and mandates the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls. Itâs a law that should be uncontroversial, a no-brainer for anyone who believes that the right to vote is a privilege reserved for those who are citizens of our Republic.
Yet, Schumer and his Democrat minions in the Senate are planning to obstruct it, clinging to the filibusterâthe very tool theyâve spent years decrying as a âJim Crow relicâ when it suits their narrativeâas a shield to protect their radical agenda. Their threat to block this bill is nothing less than an attempt to dilute the voice of the American electorate by opening the floodgates to non-citizen voters.
Letâs not mince words: Schumerâs opposition to the SAVE Act is a blatant power grab. For years, Democrats have relied on identity politics and the cultivation of grievance-based voting blocs to maintain their grip on power. Now, facing a shifting political landscape and a populace increasingly fed up with their failed policies, theyâre turning to a new strategyâharnessing the votes of those who have no legal right to cast a ballot.
By resisting a law that would enforce existing federal statutes prohibiting non-citizen voting, Schumer and his party are signaling their intent to exploit a loophole-ridden system, and one that pro-illegal immigrant activists have long salivated over. This isnât about compassion or inclusion; itâs about stacking the deck.
The hypocrisy of Schumer and Senate Democrats is stupefying. These are the same people who spent the Trump years shrieking about âelection integrityâ and âforeign interferenceâ whenever it suited their narrative. Yet, when presented with a chance to secure the vote against actual interference by ensuring only citizens participate, they balk? Why? Because the interference they once decried pales in comparison to the electoral windfall they hope to reap from illegal immigrants casting ballots. Schumerâs filibuster threat isnât a defense of principle; itâs a cynical ploy to preserve a vulnerability in our system that Democrats have weaponized.
And make no mistake, the activists cheering Schumer on are complicit in this travesty. Groups like the ACLU and various open-borders advocatesâincluding US District Court Judge James Boasbergâs daughter, Katherine Boasberg, who works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides legal assistance to "justice-involved individuals," including undocumented immigrants and, notably, those accused of gang affiliationsâhave long pushed the fiction that requiring proof of citizenship is somehow discriminatory or burdensome. They peddle sob stories and half-truths, claiming that such measures suppress turnout, while conveniently ignoring the fact that millions of Americansâcitizensâmanage to register and vote without issue every election cycle.
Their real goal isnât fairness; itâs the erosion of sovereignty, both physical and civic, to create a borderless electorate beholden to their neo-Jacobin ideology. Schumer, ever the slimy political chameleon, is all too happy to play along, trading the rights of his constituents for the applause of this radical fringe.
Voting is the bedrock of our republic, the mechanism by which citizens hold their leaders accountable. When that process is compromisedâwhen the votes of law-abiding Americans are diluted by those who have bypassed our laws to illegally enter and include themselvesâit undermines the legitimacy of every election. Schumer knows this. Heâs not naive; heâs a seasoned and disingenuous operator whoâs spent decades mastering the art of public manipulation and political survival. His decision to threaten a filibuster isnât born of ignorance but of cold calculation. Heâs betting that the short-term gain of a few extra votes outweighs the long-term damage to public trust in the democratic system of our Republic.
Senate Democrats, following Schumerâs lead, are no less culpable. Theyâve cloaked their opposition in lofty rhetoric about âaccessâ and âequity,â but itâs a flimsy disguise for their true aim: entrenching power at any cost.
Figures like Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), whoâve built their brands on insincere moral posturing, have been conspicuously silent or evasive on the SAVE Act, unwilling to confront the uncomfortable reality of their partyâs direction. Their inaction speaks volumes. Theyâre content to let Schumer take the heat while quietly endorsing a strategy that betrays their own voters.
The American people deserve better than this. We deserve leaders who prioritize the rule of law over political expediency, who understand that citizenship means somethingâthat itâs not just a bureaucratic label but a bond of mutual obligation.
By threatening to filibuster the SAVE Act, Schumer and Senate Democrats are sending a clear message: they care more about the rights of illegal immigrants and their activist cheerleaders than the rights of the citizens they swore to represent. Itâs a disgraceful abdication of duty, one that should haunt them at the ballot boxâif, that is, the ballot box remains a place reserved for critically-thinking American citizens.
This isnât just a policy fight; itâs a moral reckoning. Schumer and his party have chosen their side, and itâs not with the American electorate. Theyâve aligned themselves with those who see our laws as optional and our sovereignty as negotiable. The SAVE Act isnât an absolute remedy, but itâs a huge step toward protecting what makes this nation worth defending. By standing in its way, Schumer and Senate Democrats arenât just playing politicsâtheyâre undermining the very system that gives them their power.
History wonât judge them kindly, nor should it. Nor should we. The mid-terms are coming/ Letâs allâall of usâsend a message.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Zijn er afleveringen die ontbreken?
-
For nearly a century, the United States has been steadily marching down a path paved by Progressive ideologues, starting with Woodrow Wilson and cemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt. These architects of centralized power turned the federal government into a bloated, overreaching behemoth, eroding the sovereignty of states and the liberty of individuals in favor of a technocratic elite.
Enter Donald Trumpâa brash, unapologetic disruptor whose policies and actions signal a return to the anti-federalist roots of the nation. Far from the chaos agent his detractors paint him as, Trumpâs tenure represents a deliberate pushback against the Progressive stranglehold, aiming to restore a balance that honors the decentralized vision of Americaâs founders.
To understand Trumpâs anti-federalist streak, we must first reckon with the Progressive legacy heâs unraveling.
Woodrow Wilson, the professorial poster child of early Progressivism, sneered at the Constitutionâs checks and balances, viewing them as quaint obstacles to his grand vision of an administrative state. His administration birthed the Federal Reserve and pushed for centralized economic control, setting the stage for a government that meddles in every corner of American life.
Then came FDR, whose New Deal metastasized federal power into a sprawling bureaucracy. Social Security, labor regulations, and a dizzying array of alphabet agencies didnât just expand Washingtonâs reachâthey entrenched a federalist ethos that treated states as mere administrative units rather than sovereign entities.
Progressives, cloaking their ambitions in the guise of compassion, sold the public on the idea that only a strong central government could solve societyâs ills. Over decades, this morphed into a federal leviathanâthink LBJâs Great Society, Obamaâs healthcare overreach, and Bidenâs climate crusadesâeach layering more power in Washington, DC, at the expense of local control. The result? A nation where unelected Deep State bureaucrats wield more influence than elected state officials, and where individual liberty drowns under the weight of endless regulations. This is the federalist dream: a homogenized, top-down system that smothers the diversity and autonomy the founders intended.
Donald Trump, for all his bombast, emerged as a wrecking ball to this Progressive edifice. His policies and actions consistently favor devolving power back to the states and the people, rejecting the federalist dogma that Washington knows best.
Take his approach to healthcare: rather than doubling down on Obamacareâs one-size-fits-all mandate, Trump pushed for deregulation and state-level experimentation. His administration rolled back federal overreach in Medicaid, giving states flexibility to tailor programs to their unique needs. This wasnât just pragmatismâit was a deliberate nod to the anti-federalist belief that local governments, closer to the people, are better equipped to govern.
On education, Trumpâs disdain for federal meddling is apparent. He champions school choice and is seeking to gut the Department of Educationâs stranglehold, arguing that parents and statesânot Washington, DC, mandarinsâshould dictate how kids are taught. Contrast this with Progressive darlings like Wilson, who saw education as a tool for national conformity, or FDR, whose acolytes centralized control over curricula. Trumpâs stance echoes the anti-federalist wariness of a distant authority imposing its will on diverse communities.
Even his economic policies carry an anti-federalist streak. The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 didnât just slash ratesâit capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a move that curbed the ability of high-tax, Progressive-run states to offload their fiscal irresponsibility onto the federal ledger. Critics howled, but the message was clear: states should live within their means, not lean on the federal government as a crutch of salvation. This aligns with the anti-federalist view that each state should bear the consequences of its governance, free from federal bailouts or homogenizing subsidies.
Perhaps Trumpâs most anti-federalist legacy is his assault on the administrative stateâthat unelected fourth branch of government Progressives adore. His administration is slashing regulations at a historic pace, axing eight rules for every new one enacted. Agencies like the EPA and FDA, long bastions of authoritarian federal overreach, saw their wings clipped as Trump prioritized state-level decision-making over edicts from Washington.
Progressives shriek that this âderegulationâ is reckless, but they miss the pointâor perhaps they donât. The administrative state is their crown jewel, a means to bypass the decentralized Republic the founders envisioned. Trumpâs war on the spendthrift administrative state isnât just about efficiency; it is about restoring a balance where states and citizens, not faceless bureaucrats, hold the reins. This is anti-federalism in action: a rejection of centralized control in favor of diffused authority.
Trumpâs policies didnât arise in a vacuumâthey are a reaction to a century of Progressive excess. Since Wilsonâs technocratic fantasies and FDRâs New Deal empire-building, the federal government has grown into a colossus, swallowing state autonomy and individual freedom. The anti-federalists, those scrappy skeptics of centralized power, warned of this in 1787: a distant government would inevitably drift from the peopleâs will. Trump, flaws and all, tapped into that warning. His âAmerica Firstâ rhetoric isnât just nationalismâit is a call to prioritize local needs over the globalist, federalist agenda Progressives fetishize.
Criticsâfederalists and Progressives alikeâdecry Trump as a destabilizer, but thatâs the point. Stability, in their eyes, means preserving a system where Washington reigns supreme. Trumpâs disruption, from trade wars to border security, aims to reassert the primacy of the nationâs parts over its whole. His border wall obsession? Less about xenophobia and more about states like Texas and Arizona reclaiming control from a federal government too timidâor complicitâto act. His trade battles with China? A rebuke to the federalist elite whoâd sacrificed local economies for global integration.
Donald Trump is no philosopher-king, and his anti-federalist bent isnât always articulate. But his instincts align with a vision the founders would recognize: a nation of sovereign statesâfifty symbiotic states with fifty separate constitutions enjoined in a compact, not a monolith ruled from on high. After a century of Wilsonian centralization and Rooseveltian sprawl, Trumpâs policies offer a corrective, not a cure-all. Progressives gasp in dismay at the rollback of their sacred federal apparatus, but thatâs precisely why it matters. The balance theyâve tilted toward Washington for a hundred years is finally tipping back.
In the end, Trumpâs legacy isnât about perfectionâitâs about rediscovery. By dismantling the Progressive federalist machine, heâs reminding Americans that power neednât flow from a single source. The anti-federalists knew this; the founders baked it into the Constitution. Trump, in his unorthodox, polarizing way, dragged it back into the light. Whether that sticks depends on what comes nextâbut for now, the pendulum swings toward liberty, and away from the long shadow of Progressivismâs totalitarian overreach.
Then, when we return, a new segment called The Corner of the Bar, in which we speak with everyday Americans, some more qualified to speak on certain topics than others, but average Americans nonetheless. Itâs a pulse of the mindset in everyday America. Todayâs guest is Einar Ronningen.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Expanding Republican MajoritiesIn 2026 Is Critical For The Anti-Federalist Agenda
As Donald Trump continues to steer the Republican Party toward a bold, reformative anti-federalist agenda, the stakes for the 2026 mid-term elections could not be higher. Holding Republican majorities in the US House and Senate is not enoughâexpanding those majorities is an absolute necessity.
The alternative, a resurgence of neo-Marxist Progressives, anarchic far-Leftists, and Deep State Democrats in Congress, threatens to derail the American peopleâs electoral mandate to dismantle centralized bureaucratic overreach, slash federal spending, and restore power to the states and the people.
These ideological fifth column adversaries have proven time and again their willingness to obstruct, sabotage, and destroy any policy that challenges their statist worldview. To secure Trumpâs legacy and protect the Republic from their ruinous influence, Republicans must not just defend their ground in 2026âthey must advance.
Trumpâs anti-federalist agenda is rooted in a rejection of the bloated, unaccountable federal leviathan that Progressives and Democrats have spent decades constructing. Trumpâs policiesâwhether itâs deregulation, tax cuts, or devolving authority to the statesâaim to break the stranglehold of Washington elites and return governance to a more localized, responsive level. This vision resonates with millions of Americans tired of being dictated to by unelected bureaucrats and coastal ideologues. But itâs a vision that terrifies the Left, who rely on federal power to impose their top-down, one-size-fits-all schemes on a nation that increasingly rejects them.
The 2026 mid-terms will be a referendum on this agenda. If Republicans fail to expand their majorities, the consequences will be dire. A Congress with slim GOP marginsâor worse, one flipped to Democrat controlâwould empower Progressives and their allies to grind Trumpâs reforms to a halt. Theyâve done it before, and theyâll do it again.
Look no further than the early years of Trumpâs first term, when a recalcitrant House under Nancy Pelosiâs decrepit iron grip stymied his efforts to fully repeal Obamacare or secure robust border funding. Even with Republican majorities, the margins were too thin, and moderate Republicans too spineless, to push through the most ambitious parts of his platform. Now, with an emboldened Trump doubling down on anti-federalism, the need for overwhelming congressional support is even more urgent.
Consider whatâs at stake. Trump has signaled plans to gut federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing they infringe on state sovereignty and burden taxpayers with wasteful mandates. Itâs a move cheered by conservatives who see these bureaucracies as tools of Progressive overreachâthink indoctrinating curricula and climate policies that kill jobs. But if Democrats retake the House or Senate in 2026, theyâll weaponize the budget process to protect these sacred cows. Funding will flow unabated to every pet project of the far-Left, from resurrected Green New Deal fantasies to regenerated DEI initiatives that divide rather than unite. Trumpâs push to defund and decentralize will be dead.
Then thereâs the judiciary. Trumpâs ability to appoint originalist judges who respect the Constitutionâs limits on federal power hinges on a Senate willing to confirm them. A Democrat Senate, led by the likes of Chuck Schumer or his successors, would stonewall every nominee, leaving vacancies unfilled and the courts vulnerable to activist judges who rubber-stamp Progressive agendas. Imagine a judiciary packed with jurists who uphold every federal overreachâTrumpâs anti-federalist gains would unravel faster than you can say âfilibuster.â
Border security, another pillar of Trumpâs platform, would also suffer. Republicans with expanded majorities could finally deliver the wall, deportations, and immigration reforms Trump has long championedâpolicies aimed at asserting national sovereignty over the open-borders fetish of the Left. But if Democrats gain ground in 2026, theyâll block funding, push amnesty, and return the border to a revolving door for their future voter base. The chaos of 2021-2022, when millions crossed illegally under Bidenâs watch, would look tame by comparison.
Economic policy offers another stark example. Trumpâs tax cuts and deregulation unleashed a pre-COVID boom that Progressives still refuse to acknowledge. He wants to go furtherâslashing corporate welfare, simplifying the tax code, and unshackling small businesses from federal red tape. A fortified Republican Congress could make this a reality. But if the far-Left gains seats, theyâll resurrect their soak-the-rich rhetoric, jack up taxes, and smother entrepreneurs with regulationsâall in the name of âequityâ that somehow never trickles down to the working class they claim to represent.
The most insidious threat, though, is the Leftâs obsession with expanding federal power through new entitlements and surveillance. Programs like Medicare for All or a universal basic income arenât just budget-bustersâtheyâre chains on state autonomy, locking Americans into dependency on Washington. Pair that with their push for digital IDs and censorship under the guise of âmisinformationâ crackdowns, and youâve got a recipe for a federal dystopia that Trumpâs agenda explicitly rejects. A Democrat surge in 2026 would embolden these efforts, turning Congress into a battering ram against the very freedoms Trump seeks to protect.
History warns us of the cost of complacency. In 2018, Republicans lost the House, and Trumpâs first term was hobbled by endless investigations and legislative gridlock. The 2022 mid-terms, while a narrower disappointment, still left the GOP with a razor-thin House majority that struggled to unify. 2026 must be different. A decisive Republican waveâsay, a 20-seat gain in the House and 5 in the Senateâwould give Trump the muscle to enact his reforms without compromise. Anything less risks a repeat of past failures, with Progressives crowing as they dismantle his legacy brick by brick.
The culprits here are clear: Progressives who fetishize government control, far-Leftists who dream of socialism at any cost, and Democrats who cloak their power grabs in sanctimonious platitudes. Theyâre not just wrongâtheyâre dangerous. Their vision of America is a centralized monolith where dissent is crushed, and states are mere vassals of Washington. Trumpâs anti-federalist crusade is the antidote, but itâs fragile. Without expanded Republican majorities in 2026, itâll be smothered by a Congress that despises everything he stands for.
The choice is clear. Republicans must rallyâwe must keep the pressure on, not just to hold the line, but to charge forward. The mid-terms are a battle for the soul of the nationâTrumpâs agenda hangs in the balance, and the Left is salivating to bury it. Expansion isnât optional; itâs imperative. Anything less, and the Republic pays the price.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the global megaphone insisting that humans, specifically the carbon dioxide (COâ) we pump out from cars, factories, and power plants, are the main reason the Earthâs temperature is rising. They say our COâ has damaged the planetâs energy balance, and they back this up with computer models and adjusted temperature records. But when you take a step back, look at the raw data, and listen to what some independent scientists are saying, the IPCCâs big claims start to look more than just a bit shaky.
This isnât about denying climate change; the Earthâs climate changes constantly and has been in constant flux since the beginning of time. Itâs about questioning whether the IPCC has been too quick to blame humans while ignoring bigger natural forces and extorting hundreds of billions in research funding from countries around the world.
âą SEGMENT 2: Why Do Federal JudgesChampion Violent Gang Members Over US Citizens?
It should be noted here that, extrapolating back to the 1970s, when climate funding began gaining traction (e.g., post-Charney Report in 1979), total US and international public funding for climate science and green initiatives likely ranges into the hundreds of billions, potentially nearing a trillion dollars when adjusted for inflation and including diverse programs.
The IPCC, which is overseen by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, insists that since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, our COâ emissions have thrown the climate out of whack. They rely on complex computer models and tweaked temperature records to make their case, pushing the idea that we need to cut emissions fast or face disaster.
But when you check the unadjusted factsâdata that hasnât been manipulatedâand hear from researchers who arenât on the IPCC bandwagon, things donât add up so neatly.
Take COâ itself. The IPCC acts like our emissions have an enormous impact, but hereâs the reality: humans release about 10 billion tons of carbon each year as COâ. Compare that to nature, which moves around 230 billion tons annuallyâ80 billion from oceans and 140 billion from plants and soil. That means our share is just 4% of the total. Imagine a big potluck where nature brings 96 dishes and we show up with a tiny side saladâdoes that sound like weâre the ones steering the meal?
Scientists like Demetris Koutsoyiannis have dug into this and found that our COâ doesnât even stick around long enough to cause much trouble. They use something called isotopic evidenceâlike a fingerprint for carbonâto show that the airâs COâ mix has barely changed over 200 years. Even with a big jump in COâ since 1980, the shift is tiny, much less than youâd expect if our emissions were significant in any way. And during the 2020 COVID lockdowns, when we cut emissions by 7% (0.7 billion tons), the COâ levels at Mauna Loa didnât budge. If our COâ was such a game-changer, wouldnât we have noticed?
The IPCC says our COâ hangs around for 120 years or more, building up like a slow disaster. But Koutsoyiannis and others, like Hermann Harde, say itâs more like 3.5 to 4 years before nature sweeps it away. Thatâs a huge gapâand it suggests the IPCC is exaggerating our impact.
The IPCC leans heavily on computer modelsâcalled GCMsâfrom projects labeled CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6. These are supposed to predict the future, but they keep getting it wrong. Researchers like Ross McKitrick and John Christy found that most of these models overestimate how much the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is warming. The models say it should heat up by 0.15 to 0.5°C every decade, but satellite data shows itâs only 0.13°Câa small but telling miss. When you compare the two, the models barely line up, like a weather app that keeps predicting rain on sunny days.
Itâs not just the air. The models predicted Arctic sea ice would shrink by 20-50% since 2007, but real measurements show itâs been steady at about 4.4 million square kilometers. And old rural temperature records from the US, untouched by adjustments, sit steady at 12.2°C from the 1930s to now, while the latest models guess 13.3 to 14.4°C, off by a full degree or two.
Hereâs something else: scientists like Ole Humlum and Murray Salby noticed that temperatures often rise before COâ levels go up, by about 6 to 12 months. Thatâs like saying the oven heats up before you turn it on. It could mean warming is pushing COâ out of oceans and soilâlike fizz popping out of a warm sodaânot COâ cranking up the heat. The IPCCâs models arenât built to handle that twist, and it shows.
If our COâ isnât the main driver, what is? How about the most logical source: the sun?
The IPCC brushes off changes in sunlight, sticking to one estimate that says solar energy (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) has barely ticked up since 1850âby just 0.05 watts per square meter. But there are 27 other estimates out there, and some show bigger swingsâ0.5 to 1 watt per square meter.
Researchers like Willie Soon say these bigger changes match up well with actual warming, showing strong links (up to 0.9 or even 0.95) with temperature records since 1850, way better than COââs weak 0.3 to 0.5 connection. That suggests the sunâs heatâand how it affects cloudsâmight explain a lot, maybe even all, of the warming weâve seen.
So why does the IPCC stick to its lowball estimate? Itâs like blaming a dim lamp for a bright room while the sunâs blazing outside.
Then thereâs the temperature data itself. The IPCC uses records from places like NOAA and NASA, but those numbers get âadjusted.â Studies by Ronan Connolly and Willie Soon show how these tweaks downplay hot spells in the 1930s (dropping from 12.8°C to 11.7°C) and bump up recent years (from 12.2°C to 12.8°C). A small rural rise of 0.2 to 0.5°C gets turned into a bigger 0.8 to 1.1°C global jump.
Raw data from modern US stations shows little change (+0.4°C, flat), and older rural records hold steady at 12.2°Câyet the adjusted versions magically match the models. Even the famous âhockey stickâ graph, which flattens out past warm periods, looks more like a storytelling trick than solid science.
So whatâs the takeaway? The IPCCâs been hammering the idea that our COââhuman-created COââis the climateâs big bad wolf, but the evidenceâraw data, carbon cycles, sunlight, and shaky modelsâpoints to nature still being in charge.
Our emissions are a small piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. Their models donât predict well, their sun estimates are too timid, and their data tweaks raise eyebrows.
Itâs time to stop buying their story hook, line, and sinker and start asking whatâs really going on. The sun, the oceans, and a messy mix of natural shifts might hold the real answers, not just a COâ villain weâve been told to fear.
In fact, COâ is essential for plant growth because it serves as a key raw material in photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy. Without sufficient COâ, plants cannot efficiently produce the energy needed for growth, development, and reproduction, making it a critical component of their life cycle and overall ecosystem health.
The IPCCâs had its say, and that say has involved trillions of dollars both in special interest profit and economic regulations, and nothing has changed at the hands of man. So, letâs give nature a fair shot and rethink this issue from scratch.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Why Do Federal Judges ChampionViolent Gang Members Over US Citizens?
In recent months, a troubling pattern has emerged within the US federal judiciary, particularly among lower court judges, that raises serious questions about the integrity of our legal system.
Across the country, US District Court judges have issued rulings that obstruct the removal of known violent gang members from Central and South America, thwarting efforts by the Trump administration to protect American citizens from the escalating threat of transnational crime.
At the heart of this controversy lies a glaring case: Chief Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, whose personal ties to immigration advocacy reveal a potential conflict of interest that exemplifies the broader dysfunction within the federal bench.
Why, one must ask, are these judges so determined to shield dangerous criminals from deportation? The answer lies in a toxic blend of ideological bias, personal entanglements, and an alarming disconnect from the realities faced by everyday Americans.
Letâs begin with the specifics of Judge Boasbergâs case, which has become a lightning rod for criticism.
In March 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administrationâs use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This gang, notorious for its brutality and involvement in human trafficking, drug smuggling, and violent crime, has infiltrated American cities, exploiting lax border policies established during the open-border years of the Obama and Biden administrations. The Trump administrationâs invocation of the centuries-old law was a bold move to expedite the removal of these threats without the bureaucratic delays of standard immigration proceedings. Yet Boasberg, in a decision dripping with sanctimonious and elitist legalese, halted the deportations, arguing that the accused gang members deserved individualized hearingsâa stance that critics argue prioritizes the rights of foreign criminals over the safety of US citizens.
What makes Boasbergâs ruling particularly galling is the revelation of his familyâs deep ties to immigration advocacy. His daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides legal assistance to "justice-involved individuals," including undocumented immigrants and, notably, those accused of gang affiliations. Meanwhile, his wife, Elizabeth "Betsy" Boasberg, has a history of involvement with government-funded NGOs, as does his sister, Margaret Boasberg, some of which receive taxpayer dollars to advance left-wing policies.
These connectionsâand especially his relationship with his daughterâraise a stark question: How can a judge rule impartially on a case involving the deportation of violent gang members when his immediate family member is professionally invested in outcomes that favor immigrant retention? The stench of conflict of interest, as in the issue of Juan Merchan presiding over Trumpâs trial, is overwhelming, yet Boasberg did not recuse himself, nor did heâlike Merchanâdisclose these ties upfront, leaving the public to wonder whether justice was truly blind in his courtroom.
This isnât just about one judge, however. Boasbergâs actions reflect a broader trend among federal district judges, many of whom seem to view their role not as enforcers of the law but as arbiters of a progressive moral agenda. These judgesâmost often appointed by Democrat administrationsâappear to harbor a reflexive sympathy for immigrants, regardless of their criminal status, that overrides national security concerns.
The Tren de Aragua case is not an isolated incident. Across the country, federal judges have issued injunctions against immigration enforcement actions, from sanctuary city policies to ICE raids, often cloaking their decisions in lofty rhetoric about due process and human rights. But when the individuals in question are tied to violent gangs like MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, whose members have been linked to murders, extortion, human trafficking, and terror in American communities, this judicial posturing starts to look less like principle and more like complicity.
Why are these judges so eager to obstruct the removal of such clear threats? One probability is ideological capture. The federal judiciary, particularly at the district level, is stocked with jurists who came of age in an era of liberal activism, where the narrative of the "oppressed migrant" became sacrosanct. For these judges, deporting a gang member isnât just a legal actâitâs a moral failing, a betrayal of Americaâs supposed identity as a nation of immigrants.
Never mind that the immigrants of Ellis Island werenât carrying AK-47s or trafficking humans across borders. This worldview, marinated in elite law schools and neo-Marxist progressive legal circles, blinds them to the havoc wrought by groups like Tren de Aragua, whose presence in the US is a direct consequence of unchecked illegal immigration and the Obama-Biden open-borders policy.
Another factor is the cozy relationship between the judiciary and the nonprofit industrial complex.
Government-funded NGOs, like those tied to Boasbergâs family, wield enormous influence over immigration policy, often acting as the ground troops for open-border advocates. These organizations rely on a steady stream of clientsâmigrants, documented or notâto justify their funding and existence. Deporting violent gang members disrupts this ecosystem, threatening the livelihoods of the activists, lawyers, and administrators who profit from it, until recently, those profits emanating from USAID.
When judges like Boasberg, with personal stakes in this world, rule against deportation, itâs hard not to see a quid pro quo at play: protect the system, and the system protects you.
The consequences of this judicial overreach are dire. In the Tren de Aragua case, over 200 alleged gang members were deported to El Salvadorâs mega-prisons after Boasbergâs initial order was rightly defiedâa move that sparked outrage from the administrationâs critics but relief from communities terrorized by these criminals.
Yet Boasbergâs insistence on âdue process,â echoed by other judges in similar cases, risks tying the governmentâs hands in future operations. If every deportation requires a protracted legal battle, the message to gangs is clear: come to America, commit your crimes, and trust the courts to shield you. Meanwhile, American taxpayers foot the bill for endless hearings, while families mourn loved ones lost to the butchery of gang violence.
Critics of the judiciary argue that this is a feature, not a bug, of a system designed to thwart executive authority. The Trump administrationâs aggressive use of the Alien Enemies Act was undoubtedly provocative, stretching a wartime statute to address a modern crisis. But the lawâs text allows for such flexibility, granting the president broad powers to remove "alien enemies" during threats of invasionâa term that fits the coordinated incursion of criminal organizations across our borders. Federal judges, however, seem intent on rewriting the law through their rulings, asserting a supremacy that undermines both the Executive Branch and the will of the electorate that returned Trump to power on a promise to secure the nation.
Perhaps Congress needs to create a federal court, limited in its lifespan and singular in scope, to hear these specific cases; to hear cases specific to the issue of mass deportations and the expulsion of violent criminal illegal aliens and those who have arrived illegally through our borders during the Obama and Biden years. They have the power to create lower courts. Why not use it and dictate the terms?
The Boasberg saga underscores a deeper rot in the lower courts: a lack of accountability. Unlike Supreme Court justices, whose rulings are scrutinized by a national audience, district judges operate in relative obscurity, wielding immense power with little oversight. Boasbergâs failure to recuse himself, despite his familyâs entanglements, is a glaring ethical lapse that would sink a lesser official. Yet the judiciaryâs self-policing mechanisms are notoriously weak, leaving the public with few recourses beyond calls for impeachmentâa drastic step that, as Chief Justice John Roberts recently noted, is unlikely to succeed.
So why do these judges persist in obstructing the removal of violent gang members? Itâs a mix of ideology, self-interest, and an arrogance born of unassailable tenure. They see themselves not as servants of the law but as guardians of a pseudo-utopian vision, one where borders are irrelevant and criminals are just misunderstood victims.
For Judge Boasberg, the personal stakes amplify this tendency, casting a shadow over his rulings that no amount of legal jargon can dispel. Until the federal judiciary is reined inâwhether through legislative reform, public pressure, or a reckoning at the ballot boxâthe safety of Americans will remain hostage to the whims of unelected jurists more loyal to their biases than to the people they swore to serve.
The question isnât just why theyâre doing thisâitâs how long weâll let them get away with it.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
The mainstream media, that festering swamp of self-righteous gatekeepers, has once again exposed its true colors. This time, itâs the so-called conservative stalwartsâoutlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Reviewâleading the charge in a chorus of sanctimonious outrage. Their crime? Clutching their pearls over President Trumpâs audacious move to dismantle relics of US-funded media outlets like Radio Free Asia, Voice of America (VOA), and their sort.
On Saturday, Trump ordered the termination of grants for Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, the Open Technology Fund, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. And the reaction from these self-appointed arbiters of truth? A collective wail that this is a âretreat in the global war of ideas.â What unmitigated garbage.
âą SEGMENT 2 (BELOW): How Wokeism Hijacked Entertainment
Letâs strip away the veneer. These agencies, birthed in the Cold War to counter communism and beam truth into nations choked by government lies, have devolved into something grotesque. Once heralded as champions of liberty, theyâve morphed into megaphones for a Leftist gospel of globalismâa creed that spits in the face of freedom and individualism, the very cornerstones of Americanism.
Yet here come the conservative media darlings, wringing their hands as if Trumpâs ax is chopping down the last bastion of righteousness. National Review whines that shutting down VOA and its cousins is a âmisguided reactionâ to organizational failings, insisting that none of their shortcomings are âenough on their own to justifyâ such a purge. Really? The White House has a laundry list of outrages that says otherwise: VOA instructing its journalists to call Hamas operatives âmilitantsâ instead of terrorists; staff spewing hyper-partisan drivel on social media; and a steady stream of left-wing bile on race and transgenderism. Add to that lapses in vetting foreign employees, resource mismanagement, and the peddling of anti-American narratives, and youâve got a rotting corpse masquerading as a public good.
The Wall Street Journal isnât much better, cherry-picking rare instances where these propaganda mills (and letâs call them what they are) stumble into doing something worthwhile. But those moments are fleeting, drowned out by the overwhelming stench of ideological decay.
These outletsâRadio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the restâare nonprofit in name only, suckling at the teat of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), fully funded by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions. And what do we get for it? A globalist agenda that undermines the very nation footing the bill.
The hypocrisy of the conservative media elite is astonishing. Theyâve spent years posturing as defenders of truth, liberty, and fiscal responsibility, yet when Trump dares to torch these sacred cows, they recoil in horror. Why? Because their authoritative autonomyâtheir self-anointed role as the vanguard of conservatismâis under siege. And theyâre terrified.
This isnât about principle; againâand this is a re-occurring theme with those protesting Trumpâs reformative movesâitâs about power. The protestations from The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and their second selves at FOX News are the death rattles of an elitist clique thatâs long held sway over the narrative, now panicking as their influence crumbles.
Look at the numbers. News consumption has shifted dramatically, and the old guard is being left in the dust. In 2025, the internet dominates globally, accounting for 40-50% of news intakeâthink websites, social media, streaming, and apps. Cable limps along at 20-25%, traditional broadcast TV at 15-20%, and satellite and radio trailing at 5-10% each.
Pew Research in 2024 found a third of US adults regularly get news from platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and Rumble, a trend echoing worldwide as internet access explodes. Streamingâs riseâhitting 40.3% of US TV usage in June 2024, per Statistaâonly accelerates this shift.
Meanwhile, trust in traditional outlets is hemorrhaging. The Edelman Trust Barometer pegged global trust in mainstream media at a measly 43% in 2023, down from prior years, battered by accusations of bias, sensationalism, and corporate puppetry. The people are waking up.
And whoâs driving this exodus? The youngâGen Z and Millennialsâwho scoff at legacy brands. The 2023 Reuters Institute Digital News Report found 55% of under-35s globally turn to social media first, often flocking to independent voices over the polished lies of the establishment. If the goal is to reach future generations, then VOA, Radio Free Asia, and their dinosaur brethren are already fossils. Yet the conservative media clings to them like life rafts, desperate to preserve a system thatâs as obsolete as it is corrupt.
This is where Trumpâs genius shines. Heâs no traditional âconservativeââa term so diluted by Republicans in Name Only like Mitch McConnell that itâs lost all meaning. Trump is an anti-federalist, a wrecking ball to the bloated, overreaching national government thatâs drowned us in taxes, regulations, and globalist surrender. He sees these media agencies not as noble emissaries but as cogs in that oppressive machineâstakeholders in a status quo thatâs suffocating the American spirit. And the citizenry agrees. We donât see a âfree pressâ in these government-subsidized relics; we see a cabal propping up an elitist structure weâre desperate to tear down.
The conservative mediaâs tantrum is predictable. Theyâre cut from the same cloth as the forty-year congressional power-clingersâjumping on and off the Trump train as it suits their quest for relevance. The Wall Street Journal and National Review lash out because their fraud has been laid bare: theyâre not guardians of conservatism, but members of the same bloated national elite Trumpâs supporters are rejecting. The people are fleeing to independent outletsâonline platforms, podcasts, social mediaâwhere truth and fact arenât filtered through a legacy lust for influence.
So, should Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, VOA, and the rest be euthanized? Itâs a fair debate. If theyâre to survive, itâd have to be in a radically new formâleveraging modern technology and enforcing ruthless vetting to ensure truth, not propaganda, reigns. But in their current state, no amount of cherry-picked âgoodâ can save them. Theyâre bloated, corrupt, biased, and beholden to a federal beast thatâs lost its way. Trumpâs move isnât a retreat; itâs a reckoning. And the conservative mediaâs howls only prove theyâre on the wrong side of it.
The global war of ideas isnât fought with dusty relics of a bygone era. Itâs waged on the digital frontier, where the peopleânot the elitesâhold the reins. The mainstream conservative press can clutch its pearls all it wants, but the tide has turned. Their time is up. Let them die with the propaganda mills they defend. Weâll find the truth elsewhereâunfiltered, unbowed, and free.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
How Wokeism Hijacked Entertainment
I am going to divert from my usual researched analysis on politics and geopolitics here to wax philosophicalâor perhaps observationalâabout the entertainment industry and how it is completely failing society, both around the world and especially here in the United States. But for very few offerings today, the entertainment industry is complete garbage, and it only has itself to blame for its demise.
For as long as humans have toiled under the weight of daily existence, entertainment has been a sanctuaryâa shimmering oasis where the mind can flee from the grind of bills, deadlines, and the relentless beatdown of reality. Whether itâs the flickering glow of a movie screen, the lyric lines that transport to another place or time, or the dog-eared pages of a novel, people have long turned to these escapes to recharge, to dream, to feel something beyond the mundane.
Entertainment was once a pressure valve, a way to sidestep lifeâs burdens without judgment or sermonizing. But today, that sacred refuge is under siege, infiltrated by the creeping tendrils of wokeism and cultural Marxismâideologies that have turned art into a megaphone for sanctimonious preaching, robbing us of true escapism.
The allure of entertainment as an escape is primal. Life is hardâalways has been. The average person wrestles with financial strain, fractured relationships, and the quiet despair of unfulfilled dreams.
A 2023 study from the American Psychological Association found that 77% of adults reported significant stress from work and money woes, a number thatâs only climbed in recent years. Entertainment offered a reprieve: a chance to slip into a world where heroes triumph, love conquers, or at least where the stakes feel thrillingly distant from our own. Think of the golden age of Hollywoodâfilms like Casablanca (a personal favorite) or The Wizard of Oz, they didnât lecture you on systemic inequities; they swept you into stories of courage and wonder. Songs like Sittin' On The Dock Of The Bay transported you to serenity without a sidebar on racial inequity. And books like Tolkienâs Lord of the Rings built sprawling universes free of diversity quotas. These were escapes, pure and simple.
But that purity is gone.
Todayâs entertainment industry has been hijacked by a cadre of self-righteous ideologues who see every script, every pixel, every lyric as a battlefield for social engineering. Wokeismâa noxious blend of identity obsession, grievance culture, and moral superiorityâhas wormed its way into every corner of pop culture, dragging cultural Marxism along for the ride. This isnât about art anymore; itâs about control.
Studios, publishers, and developers bow to a shrill minority of activistsâincreasingly embedded into the industryâwho incrementally insert their ideology into the process until they reach a point of demanding that every story reflect their narrow worldview, where characters arenât judged by their actions but by their skin color, gender, or proximity to some imagined oppressed class. The result? A glut of content thatâs less about entertaining and more about indoctrination.
Take Hollywood, which, for the most part, has turned into a cauldron of coastal elitism that panders to narcissistic virtue-signaling while ignoring the values of its audiences. Once a dream factory, itâs now a propaganda mill.
So-called âblockbustersâ like Disneyâs recent Star Wars sequels or Marvelâs endless churn of capes-and-tights flicks donât just tell storiesâthey lecture. Rey is a flawless âstrong female characterâ because the script says so, not because she earns it. Captain Marvel smirks through adversity, untouchable and unrelatable, a cardboard cutout of feminist talking points. And subtletyâs dead; every line drips with agenda.
Televisionâs no betterâshows like The Rings of Power twist Tolkienâs legacy into a diversity checkbox, alienating fans who just wanted Middle-earth, not a sociology seminar.
A perfect example comes to us in the television series Everwood, the story of Dr. Andy Brown, a widowed and renowned Manhattan neurosurgeon, who impulsively moves his teenage son and young daughter to the small, picturesque town of Everwood, Colorado, following his wife's sudden death.
The series starts out exploring the family's adjustment to their new life, navigating grief, their complex relationships, and the challenges of small-town living. But, by season four, it devolves into a storyline including a main character who embraces radical feminism and left-wing causes and episodes about hot-button issues like abortion, with the occasional promotion of Leftist politicians and digs at politicians from the Right. It moved away from a journey with a family people could relate to and arrived at an unrelatable caricature of a pseudo-utopian small town, lecturing on diversity and tolerance. While it returned to a non-woke theme by the end of the series, the damage was done.
Another example comes to us in Disneyâs unnecessary remark of Snow White, with which both critics and viewers alike took issue. The adaptation was roundly criticized for its woke narrative updates emphasizing female empowerment and cultural inclusivity. The box office immediately registered its unquestionable disapproval, as has been the case with all Disney films as of late.
This isnât escapismâitâs ideology-induced exhaustion that robs people of escapism. People donât want to flee the stress of their lives only to be scolded about privilege or climate change. A 2022 YouGov poll found that 62% of Americans feel entertainment is âtoo political,â with many citing it as the main reason theyâve tuned out. The numbers speak clearly in support of that poll. Box office receipts for woke-heavy films like The Marvels (2023) tanked, pulling in a measly $206 million worldwide against a $270 million budget; $63 million underwater. Meanwhile, unapologetically escapist fare like Top Gun: Maverick soared past $1.4 billion. Audiences are voting with their wallets, begging for stories that donât nag, preach, and lecture.
Television franchises like Yellowstone, with all its offshoots, dominate in the ratings with great plots and intriguing storylines.
The root of this rot, of course, is cultural Marxism, a framework that bastardizes art as a tool to dismantle âoppressiveâ structuresâcapitalism, patriarchy, Americanism, you name it. Wokeism is its arrogant, ignorant, self-absorbed, loudmouthed offspring, obsessed with deconstructing everything fun or heroic into a guilt trip. Villains canât just be evil; theyâre products of systemic injustice. Heroes canât just win; they must first navel-gaze about their privilege. The industryâs enforcersâcritics, executives, social media pseudo-potentatesâcheer this on, dismissing dissent as bigotry. If you complain that Ghostbusters: Afterlife feels like a corporate feminist sermon, youâre a misogynist. If you miss the days when television shows had characters like Archie Bunker or Red Forman, youâre a dinosaur. The message is clear: conform or be canceled; what the audiences want be damned.
This relentless social engineering has stripped entertainment of its soul. Escapism thrives on freedomâfreedom to imagine, to feel, to lose yourself without a lecture. Wokeism chains todayâs escapism to realityâs worst impulses: division, resentment, sanctimony. People arenât turning away because they hate progress; theyâre turning away because theyâre tired of elites lecturing them about how bad they are. They want dragons, not dogma; lyrics that touch the heart, not lessons.
The industry could save itself by remembering why we loved it in the first placeâbecause it let us dream. Until then, every new release risks being another sermon we didnât sign up for, and the oasis of escapism grows infinitely drier by the day.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
The radical far-Left has crossed a line that no civilized society should tolerate. The neo-Marxist troglodytes targeting Tesla dealerships with violent, destructive attacksâsmashing windows, torching cars, and destroying propertyâare not activists. Theyâre not noble defenders of some grand cause. Theyâre domestic terrorists, plain and simple, and itâs time we stop coddling them with soft words and weaker consequences.
These thugs deserve to be hunted down, locked up, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Anything less is a betrayal of justice and a green light for more chaos.
Letâs cut through the nonsense. These attacks arenât random outbursts of frustrationâtheyâre calculated assaults on a company that dares to innovate, dares to challenge the sacred cows of the eco-fanatics and their anti-capitalist cronies. Tesla, for all its flaws, represents progress: cutting-edge technology that pushes humanity forward created by a guy who rescues purposely stranded astronauts.
But thatâs not good enough for the far-Left radicals. No, theyâd rather burn it all down than admit the world isnât bending to their pseudo-utopian delusions. They hate Elon Musk, they hate success, and they hate anything that doesnât grovel at the altar of their sanctimonious ideology. So they lash out like spoiled, ignorant brats, smashing and destroying what others have built.
Whatâs happening at Tesla dealerships isnât protestâitâs terrorism. The Department of Justice defines domestic terrorism as acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law and are intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or influence government policy through violence. Tell me, how does hurling Molotov cocktails through showroom windows not fit that bill? How does vandalizing cars and terrorizing employees not qualify as intimidation? These cowards arenât holding signs or chanting slogansâtheyâre wielding weapons and leaving wreckage in their wake. Thatâs not free speech; thatâs a felony. And every single one of them should be treated like the threat they are.
The far-Left loves to cloak their violence in self-righteous drivelâclaiming theyâre fighting climate change or corporate greed. What a load of unmitigated bullshit. If they cared about the planet, theyâd applaud Teslaâs mission, not attack it. This isnât about principle; itâs about selfish power. Itâs about tearing down anything that doesnât fit their narrow, neo-Jacobin authoritarian worldview. Theyâre not saving the Earthâtheyâre just arrogantly self-righteous bullies with a fake cause, and theyâve picked Tesla as their punching bag because itâs a symbol of everything they despise: ambition, innovation, and individual freedom. Well, Iâve got news for them: weâre done tolerating their tantrums; the American people are tired of their destructive, criminal, adolescent crap!
Look at the damage theyâve caused. Dealerships in California, Oregon, and beyond have been hitâwindows shattered, vehicles torched, and livelihoods threatened. Employees who just want to do their jobs are now dodging bricks and breathing smoke. Customers who dared to buy a Tesla are having their property trashed.
This isnât some victimless crimeâitâs an assault on innocent people, all because a bunch of unhinged infantile radicals canât handle reality. And whatâs the response from the bleeding-heart apologists? Excuses. âTheyâre passionate.â âTheyâre frustrated.â To that, I say, âFuck you!â Passion doesnât give you a free pass to destroy. Frustration doesnât justify terrorism. These are grown adults choosing to break the law, and they need to face grown-up consequences.
The law isnât optionalâitâs the line between order and anarchy. When you let these criminal provocateurs off with a slap on the wrist, youâre telling every other wannabe pseudo-revolutionary that violence pays. Thatâs why prosecution has to be relentless and unforgiving for these assholes.
Charge them with vandalism, arson, assaultâwhatever sticks. Throw in domestic terrorism enhancements and make it federal. Lock them up for decades if the evidence holds. No plea deals, no community service, no second chances. They wanted to send a message with their Molotovs? Letâs send one back: you donât get to terrorize people and walk away.
And donât even start with the âbut the systemâs unfairâ whining. The far-Left loves to play martyr when theyâre caught, crying about oppression while theyâre the ones oppressing everyone else with their intolerance, ignorance, and violence. They donât get a pass because theyâre mad at capitalism or Muskâs tweets. The rest of usâmembers of a civilized societyâdonât smash things when weâre upset, why should they?
Equal justice means they face the same hammer as anyone else who pulls this crap. Anything less is favoritism, and itâs an insult to every law-abiding citizen who recognizes that itâs a crime to torch a building when life gets tough.
This is a war on sanity, waged by a radical fringe thatâs been indulged for far too long. The Tesla attacks are just the latest symptom of a far-Left rot thatâs festering uncheckedâencouraged by spineless politicians and a media that calls them âactivistsâ instead of what they are: criminals, domestic terrorists. Enough is enough.
Round them up, prosecute them, and let them rot in cells where they canât hurt anyone else. Societyâs had its fill of their childish, destructive chaos. Itâs time to crush this madness before it spreads any further. Anything less is a ceding of our Republic to anarchy.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
President Trump Must Defy the Activist Federal Judiciary
President Donald Trump faces a judiciary weaponized by anti-Trump Democrats and activist judges intent on thwarting his second-term agenda. From injunctions halting deportations to legal roadblocks obstructing Elon Muskâs DOGE reforms, the federal judiciary has emerged as an adversary pushing the limits of its constitutional authority.
Chief Justice John Robertsâ rebuke of Trumpâs defianceâparticularly his call to impeach Judge James Boasberg over a deportation rulingâunderscores the tension between an electorally mandated Executive and a Judiciary overstepping its bounds. Trump must stand firm, defying these activist rulings and asserting the Executiveâs rightful authority to fulfill the mandate of the American people. The judiciaryâs actions threaten the Constitution itself.
Since Trumpâs reinauguration on January 20, 2025, lower courts have issued injunctions to paralyze his administration. On March 15, 2025, Obama appointee Judge Boasberg blocked deportation flights targeting the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua under the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, asserting control over national security and immigrationâdomains reserved for the Executive. The Trump administration argued the flights departed before Boasbergâs order was formalized, citing national security, yet the judgeâs probing of âpossible defianceâ reveals an intent to undermine the president.
Similarly, the DOGE initiative, a cornerstone of Trumpâs pledge to streamline bureaucracy, has faced judicial interference. Judges have restricted Muskâs team from accessing Treasury data, citing dubious constitutional concerns. Judge Theodore Chuang ruled DOGE âlikelyâ violated the Constitution by shutting down the US Agency for International Development, a cesspool of corruption and graft. Yet testimony before Judge Tanya Chutkan revealed Musk is a âsenior adviserâ to Trumpâa Special Government Employee role akin to Anita Dunnâs under Biden. DOGEâs day-to-day is led by Amy Gleason, a former US Digital Service official named acting administrator in 2025.
These rulings are political, not legal. Anti-Trump Democrats, bruised from their 2024 defeat, have turned to courts to obstruct the votersâ will. This judicial activism plagued Trumpâs first term with injunctions against his travel ban and border wall, but its 2025 intensity signals a politicized judiciary emboldened by unchecked power.
This lawfare drowns courts in frivolous injunctions to trap White House lawyers in a circus of filingsâa desperate gambit by the âresistanceâ to dismantle the Deep State apparatus propping up Democrats. Taxpayer cash funnels into ânon-governmental organizationsââpiggy banks for kickbacks to loyal foot-soldiers vandalizing Tesla dealerships. Leading this sabotage are Mark Zaid, Norm Eisen, Mary McCord, Marc Elias, Barbara McQuade, and Joanna LydgateâDeep State lawyers weaponizing courts to strangle democracy with bad-faith litigation.
On March 18, 2025, Roberts rebuked Trumpâs call for Boasbergâs impeachment, declaring it inappropriate for judicial disagreement. This is rich with irony. Roberts, who legislated from the bench on Obamacare, fails to acknowledge lower courtsâ activism with nationwide injunctions. His criticism is a power play to shield a judiciary turned tool of the Left. In 2018, he chastised Trump for calling a judge an âObama judge,â yet stayed silent when Democrats assailed conservative justices. His 2024 immunity ruling for Trump emboldened the Executive, yet now he postures to preserve judicial supremacy.
Critics say Roberts protects the rule of law, but this collapses under scrutiny. The rule of law doesnât mean blind obedience to judicial edicts, especially when courts overstep. Boasbergâs injunction relies on tenuous groundsâthe Alien Enemies Actâs use in wars doesnât preclude its application to modern threats like Tren de Aragua or the border crisis prompting Trumpâs emergency declaration. Robertsâ failure to curb nationwide injunctions, questioned by Justice Thomas in 2018, exposes his complicity in judicial overreach. Trumpâs defiance defends against a judiciary usurping Executive prerogative.
History supports Trumpâs stand. In 1832, Andrew Jackson ignored the Supreme Courtâs Worcester v. Georgia ruling, prioritizing federal authority. In 1937, FDR threatened to pack the Court when it struck down New Deal laws, forcing it to relent and exposing its opportunistic infidelity to the Constitution. During the Civil War, Lincoln suspended habeas corpus despite judicial opposition, asserting Executive authority in emergencies. These examples show the judiciary isnât infallibleâDred Scott proves itâand the Executive need not bow when courts exceed their role.
Trumpâs situation mirrors these moments. His deportations address gang infiltration tied to illegal immigration, while DOGE tackles a bloated bureaucracyâboth within Article II powers. When judges issue sweeping injunctions, they subvert democracy, negating voters who endorsed Trumpâs platform. Defiance reclaims constitutional balance.
The Constitution designates the Supreme Court, not lower courts, as coequal to the Executive, yet activist judges attempt to wield power far beyond their station. Trumpâs defiance is a necessary counterweight to restore the Executiveâs rightful place.
The stakes are high. If Trump yields, his presidency and the peopleâs will are neutered. Democrats, losing at the ballot box, exploit courts via forum-shopping in liberal districts for favorable rulings. A single judge can halt deportations or cripple DOGE, overriding the Commander-in-Chiefâs authority and a landslide mandate. This isnât checks and balances; itâs judicial tyranny.
Trump should defy these injunctions, proceed with deportations under Article II, and push DOGE forward. The Supreme Courtâs conservative majority, including three Trump appointees, should back him if lower courts escalate. Historical precedentâfrom Jackson to Lincoln to FDRâsupports him. The American people, who elected him to drain the swamp and secure the border, demand it.
Robertsâ rebuke is a distraction from an elitist clinging to judicial purity. The real threat is a judiciary run amok, abetted by anti-Trump Democrats desperate to cling to power. By standing firm, Trump can expose this charade, rally his base, and reaffirm the Executiveâs role as the peopleâs voice. Defiance is the path to victory.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
President Donald Trump, in his relentless pursuit of a leaner, more efficient federal government, faces a formidable obstacle: the insidious tandem of judicial activism and anti-DOGE Democrat politicians. These forces, cloaked in sanctimonious rhetoric about "protecting workers" and "preserving institutions," are hell-bent on thwarting his agenda to downsize bloated government agencies and eliminate redundant federal jobs, not to mention fraud and graft.
The federal courts, increasingly a playground for partisan tyrants masquerading as impartial arbiters, have repeatedly overstepped their constitutional bounds to block Trumpâs efforts. But Trump, more of a shrewd tactician than the farâLeft suspects, has a card up his sleeve: the power to transfer non-compliant and shielded federal workers to the most undesirable corners of the country, effectively forcing them to quit. This strategy, while ruthless, could be the key to dismantling the entrenched bureaucracy and restoring accountability to a government long overrun by unelected busybodies.
The federal judiciaryâs descent into unconstitutional activism has reached a fever pitch since Trumpâs return to the White House. Judges, many appointed by Democrat predecessors with an eye toward preserving the administrative state, have issued injunctions and rulings that defy both logic and the will of the electorate.
Take, for instance, Trumpâs push to streamline agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Department of Educationâentities that have ballooned into inefficient behemoths, churning out regulations that stifle economic growth while employing armies of paper-pushers. When Trump moved to cut jobs and consolidate functions, the courts swooped in, citing dubiously union-centric legal theories about "worker protections" or "agency mandates." These rulings arenât about law; theyâre about powerâspecifically, the power of a neo-Jacobin elite to shield its Deep State bureaucratic allies from the consequences of a Trump presidency.
Meanwhile, anti-DOGE Democrats in Congress have cheered on this judicial overreach, clutching their pearls at the thought of crony political foot soldier federal workers losing their cushy gigs. These are the same politicians who decry "income inequality" while defending six-figure salaries for mid-level functionaries who spend their days drafting memos no one reads. Their hypocrisy is galling. They claim to champion the little guy, yet their real loyalty lies with the entrenched Deep State DC swamp creatures who thrive on taxpayer largesse. Together, the activist courts and their Democrat enablers have created a firewall around the administrative state, daring Trump to find a way through.
Enter the transfer gambit.
Under federal law, the President, as head of the Executive Branch, has broad authority to manage the workforce of government agencies. This includes the power to reassign employees to different locations, provided the moves align with âoperational needs.â Trump could exploit this authority to target the most recalcitrant, anti-reform elements within the bureaucracyâthose careerists who clog the system with resistance, leak to the press, or slow-walk directives they dislike ideologically. By transferring these malcontents to remote outpostsâthink desolate field offices in Alaska, rural North Dakota, the sweltering Texas border, or even Guam and American Samoaâtheyâd face a stark choice: uproot their lives and families to places with little appeal, or resign and seek greener pastures elsewhere. Itâs a blunt instrument, to be sure, but one that could break the back of the âresistanceâ without firing a single shot.
The beauty of this approach lies in its legality.
The courts, for all their activism, would struggle to block such transfers. Precedents like United States v. Fausto (1988) affirm that federal personnel decisions fall squarely within Executive discretion, and judges have historically been loath to micromanage agency staffing. Even the most zealous anti-Trump jurist would find it hard to argue that a transfer to, say, a Customs Service outpost in Montana violates some sacred constitutional principle. The Democrats would howl, of course, accusing Trump of "weaponizing" his authority, but their outrage would ring hollowâafter all, theyâve spent years cheering when their own presidents shuffled personnel to reward loyalists or punish dissenters.
Consider the practical impact.
The federal workforce, numbering over 2 million civilian employees, is riddled with dead weight. Agencies like the EPA employ thousands whose primary function seems to be dreaming up new ways to harass small businesses, while the redundant Department of Education churns out edicts that burden local schools without improving outcomes. Trumpâs DOGE agenda aims to slash these ranks by at least 20%, saving billions and redirecting resources to priorities like border security and infrastructure. But every time he moves to cut, the courts slap injunctions, and the bureaucrats dig in, knowing their Democrat patrons have their backs.
Transfers sidestep this quagmire entirely. If a mid-level EPA drone in DC suddenly finds herself reassigned to a crumbling office inUtqiaÄĄvik, Alaska (formerly known as Barrow), odds are sheâll quit rather than pack her snow boots. Multiply that by a few thousand, and the attrition starts to add upâquietly, efficiently, and without the legal fanfare of mass layoffs.
Critics will cry foul, claiming this tactic punishes workers for simply doing their jobs. But letâs be real: many of these "workers" arenât serving the publicâtheyâre serving themselves, coasting on gerrymandered job security while undermining a duly elected President.
The federal government isnât a welfare program; itâs a tool to execute the peopleâs will. If employees canât stomach Trumpâs visionâvoted for by a plurality of Americans, and a majority of the voters, at thatâthey donât belong there. And if the courts wonât let Trump fire them outright, heâs well within his rights to make their lives uncomfortable enough to leave voluntarily, just like those self-deporting illegal immigrants now leaving the country.
The logistics are daunting but doable. The General Services Administration could identify understaffed field offices in low-demand regionsâplaces where the cost of living is cheap but the quality of life is, shall we say, more rustic, requiring more self-sufficiency than life in an urban center. Think dying industrial towns, isolated military bases, or border zones plagued by heat and dust; poisonous snakes and scorpions.
Trump could frame these moves as "rebalancing" the federal workforce to meet national needsâsay, bolstering immigration enforcement in Texas or supporting rural economic development in the Midwest. The spin writes itself: "Weâre putting federal resources where theyâre needed most." The courts might grumble, but theyâd have little ground to intervene.
The political fallout would be fierce. Democrats would flood the airwaves with sob stories about displaced workers packing their Lexuses to leave the beltway, painting Trump as a heartless tyrant. The media, always eager to amplify the narrative, would run profiles of teary-eyed bureaucrats, venti Starbucks macchiatos in hand, forced to abandon their suburban McMansions for lesser accommodations in more âenvironmentally pristineâ areas of our Republic.
But Trump thrives on such backlashâitâs his oxygen. Heâd counter with rallies, pointing out how these "victims" were the same do-nothing government feedtrough leeches who spent years obstructing his first term. The base would eat it up, and swing voters, tired of government waste, would approvingly nod along.
The real test would be staying power. If Trump can weather the initial storm and rack up enough resignations, the bureaucracy would start to crack. Seeing their ranks thin, anti-Trump agency heads might finally get the message and fall in line with the DOGE agenda. The courts, meanwhile, would lose their leverageâhard to issue injunctions protecting jobs that no longer exist. Itâs a war of attrition, and Trumpâs got the stomach for it and the cards to play that hand.
In the end, this isnât about cruelty; itâs about results. The activist courts and anti-DOGE Democrats have made it clear theyâll fight tooth and nail to preserve the Deep State bureaucratic status quo. Trump, ever the disruptorâand armed with a mandate by the American people, doesnât have to play their game. By wielding the transfer power, he can outmaneuver the judges, outlast the bureaucrats, and deliver on his promise to drain the swampâone remote reassignment at a time.
The American people didnât elect him to coddle the administrative state; they elected him to tame it; to conquer it, to dismantle it. And if the courts wonât let him cut the fat, he can just ship it off to the hinterlands until it quits on its own. Itâs not like the private sector doesnât do this all the time.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Democrats Cling to Delusion as America Wakes Up
Iâve said it a thousand times, and Iâll say it again: political opinion polling, for the most part, is a sham. The questions are often rigged, twisted, and sculpted to herd respondents into the answers the pollstersâoften lackeys for the Leftâwant to hear. But when the results come back overwhelmingly lopsided, especially from outlets that usually shill for the losing side, itâs worth a second glance.
Case in point: an NBC News poll dropped on Sunday, and itâs a glorious gut punch to the sanctimonious far-Left and their Democrat puppets.
Three months into his second term, President Trump has soared to the highest approval rating of his tenure as commander-in-chief. More Americans say the countryâs on the right track than at any point since 2004âback when the world wasnât yet drowning in woke dogma and Democrat hysterics.
The survey shows voters overwhelmingly believe Trumpâs delivering âthe right kind of changeâ on the issues that matterâeven tariffs, that sacred cow the Left loves to demonize. More Americans back his trade policy shake-up (41%) than whine about it (38%), per NBCâs own numbers. On border securityâwhere the far-Leftâs open-borders fetish has wreaked havocâ56% cheer Trumpâs moves as a positive shift. On slashing government bloat, 47% approve, while a measly 29% cling to their big-government blankie.
Even on Ukraine and NATOâwhere the elitist Left and their media lapdogs have screeched nonstopâmore respondents salute Trumpâs approach than clutch their pearls in opposition. And inflation? The poll shows voters are giving him a pass, despite the Democrat machineâs endless bleating about economic Armageddon.
Then thereâs the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Muskâa glorious middle finger to the wasteful, corrupt swamp the Left worships. A whopping 61% of Americans say itâs a net positive, with just 4%âprobably the same granola-crunching socialists who think money grows on treesâinsisting thereâs no need to trim the fat. One-third (33%) want DOGE to dig deeper into the cesspool of government waste, fraud, and abuse, while 28% call it a long-overdue reckoning. That 61% steamrolls the 33% of whining Leftists who clutch their chai lattes and sob that DOGEâs cuts are âreckless and must stop.â
Trumpâs still a lightning rod, no doubt. Republicans give him a 90% approval ratingâdeservedly soâwhile Democrats muster a pathetic 4%. Thatâs the widest partisan gap in 80 years, and itâs a neon sign flashing the intellectual bankruptcy of the Democrat Party.
Two takeaways scream for attention. First, if most voters think Trumpâs steering the country in the right direction, all the Leftâs venom toward him is just performative tantrum-throwingâa hissy fit over his personality, not his results. In a free nation, which weâre still clinging to despite the Leftâs best efforts, you donât have to braid friendship bracelets with someone to respect what theyâre doing for you. Only the shallow, feelings-obsessed drones of the far-Left canât grasp that.
Second, if just 4% of Democrats approve of Trumpâs second-term performance while everyone else sees the light, what does that say about the Democrat Party? Theyâre a cult of stubborn, emotion-drunk ideologues, so blinded by their hatred theyâd rather torch the country than admit heâs winning; that the American people are better off than under the neo-Marxist bullshit sold to us as âprogressâ in the Clinton, Obama, and Biden years.
Is America ideologically gridlocked? You bet. The far-Left and their Democrat stooges have dragged us away from facts, reason, and truth, chaining us instead to the propaganda mill of the mainstream mediaâthe same clowns whoâve spent years peddling fear and utopian fairy tales.
But this poll? Itâs a flicker of hope. Maybe, just maybe, Americans are finally rubbing the sleep from their eyes, seeing through the hollow promises of the radical Left and their Democrat mouthpieces. Thereâs a long road ahead to rekindle libertyâs fire in this nation, but this is a startâand as Martha Stewart might say, thatâs a good thing.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Donald Trumpâs return to the White House in 2025 promised a seismic shift in the federal governmentâa long-overdue reckoning for the bloated, inefficient, overreaching, and corrupt bureaucracy that has choked American liberty for decades. But his agenda, rooted in deregulation, fiscal restraint, and a reassertion of national sovereignty, although nothing short of revolutionary, is in trouble.
To deliver on these promisesâand to capitalize on the mandate he received from the American people, Trump will need more than a slim Republican majority in the US House and Senate. He needs a commanding, unassailable supermajority. Why? Because the twin forces of an activist judiciary and the relentlessly obstructive Democrat Party in Congress stand poised to derail every move he makes.
These entrenched enemies of reform wield their power not to govern, but to obstruct, subvert, preserve, and expand a centralized governmental status quo; a Deep State status quo, corrupt and entangled, that serves their unattainable ideological fantasies over the will of the American people.
Trumpâs vision is clear: Slash the federal governmentâs sprawling footprint, dismantleâto an acceptable levelâthe regulatory state that strangles businesses, and restore transparency and accountability to a system that has grown fat on taxpayer dollars while delivering little in return.
Heâs promised to gut agencies like the Department of Educationâwhich has achieved next to nothing throughout its existence but to facilitate power to the teacherâs unions, rein in the Environmental Protection Agencyâs overreachâwhich is now recognized a loyal arm of the transformative global elite, and impose fiscal discipline on a bought-and-paid-for Congress addicted to reckless spending. These arenât modest tweaksâtheyâre radical reforms that strike at the heart of the Progressive neo-Marxian leviathan.
But such an agenda requires legislative muscle. Bills must pass both chambers of Congress with enough votes to override inevitable Democrat filibusters in the Senate and survive the gauntlet of partisan gridlock in the House. Even then, the real battle begins when these reforms collide with the courtsâwhere activist judges, cloaked in black robes, eagerly await to twist the Constitution into a weapon against Trumpâs reformative policies. Without a significant Republican majority, this vision lays squarely behind the eight ball.
Letâs start with the courts, the most insidious obstacle to Trumpâs reforms.
The activist judiciaryâstacked with liberal ideologues and spineless moderatesâhas spent decades unconstitutionally expanding its purview and usurping the role of elected lawmakers. These unelected black-robed tyrants donât just interpret laws; they invent them, striking down duly enacted legislation with smug pronouncements that reek of elitism. Look no further than their track record during Trumpâs first term: the travel ban on people coming into our country from nations that routinely gather at weekly prayers to chant âDeath to Americaââgutted by judges who fancied themselves arbiters of morality; tax reforms that boosted the economy and wealth for all demographics across the boardâendlessly litigated by partisan hacks; and regulatory rollbacks that allowed small businesses to thriveâstalled by injunctions from district courts in deep-blue strongholds like California and New York.
A perfect example comes in a ruling by US District Court Judge William Alsup in San Franciscoâa Clinton appointeeâwho recently ordered President Trumpâs OPM director to re-hire probationary workers at six different agencies including Defense, Agriculture, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs, executing the bidding of the government-sector labor unions. How can a president reform and streamline a bloated bureaucracy when the judiciary consistently interferes with the culling of the payroll?
Judges like Alsup arenât guardians of justiceâtheyâre saboteurs of democracy. They hide behind vague notions of âequity,â âprecedent,â and âstandingâ to impose their Progressive dogma, overriding the will of voters and their elected representatives.
Trumpâs plan to streamline the federal government by abolishing redundant agencies, eliminating corruption, redundancy, and waste, and slashing funding for the special interest projects of the far-Left will face an avalanche of lawsuits from activist groups, cheered on by these judicial autocrats. A slim Republican majority might pass a bill, but it takes only one rogue judge to issue a nationwide injunction, halting progress indefinitely.
A supermajority in Congress is Trumpâs only shield against this judicial overreach. With enough votes, Republicans can codify reformative legislation so airtightâcrafted with explicit language and overwhelming legislative intentâthat even the most brazen activist judge will hesitate to strike them down.
Better yet, a dominant majority could expedite judicial appointments, flooding the courts with constitutionalists who respect the Separation of Powers, or impeach activist federal judges rather than treating the bench as a super-legislature. Without this, Trumpâs reforms will drown in a sea of litigation, courtesy of a judiciary that answers to no one.
And if the courts are the long-term threat, Democrats in Congress are the immediate poison. This is a party that thrives on gridlock, weaponizing every procedural trick to stall any attempt at a reformative agenda. From downsizing the government and eliminating waste, fraud, and corruption in the Deep State bureaucracy to deregulation, tax cuts, and strengthening our defenses, todayâs Democrats hate all of it.
During his first term, Democrats turned the House into a circus of endless investigationsâthink Russia hoaxes and impeachment charadesâwhile refusing to cooperate on even the most common-sense reforms. Now, with Trump back in power, we are seeing the beginnings of the same playbook, amplified. Senate Democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, are set to filibuster anything that smells of Trumpism, from tariffs to border security. In the House, Nancy Pelosiâs gaggle of minion successors will rally their caucus to vote in lockstep against any bill that threatens their sacred cowsâentitlements, climate boondoggles, and the maintenance of the administrative state.
The filibuster is their ace in the hole. With a 60-vote threshold in the Senate, Democrats can block legislation even if Republicans hold a narrow majority. Trumpâs most ambitious reformsâsay, a complete overhaul of federal spending or a transition away from the income taxârequire not just passage, but passage with enough force to break through this wall of obstruction. A slim majority leaves Trump vulnerable to a handful of defectors or moderates buckling under pressure from the media and neo-Jacobin left-wing activists. A supermajority, however, flips the script: 60-plus Republican senators could steamroll the filibuster, while a commanding House majority ensures bills reach Trumpâs desk without endless haggling.
Democrats donât just obstruct for sportâtheyâre ideologically wedded to the very system Trump aims to dismantle. They worship at the altar of big government, viewing every agency, every regulation, every dollar of pork as a sacrament. Streamlining the federal government threatens their power base: the unions, the bureaucrats, the special interests, and the financial regurgitative network of shadow NGOs that bankroll their campaigns. Theyâll fight tooth and nail to preserve this monstrosity, even if it means paralyzing Congress and leaving the American people to suffer under a broken system. Only a Republican supermajority can crush this âresistanceâ to deliver the reformative legislation mandated by the American voters in the 2024 General Election.
History proves the point.
In Trumpâs first term, Republicans held the House and Senate from 2017 to 2019, but their majorities were razor-thinâ52-48 in the Senate, 241-194 in the House. The result? Constant infighting, defections, and a legislative agenda that stalled despite unified control. The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act squeaked through, but broader reformsâlike infrastructure or healthcareâcrumbled under the weight of internal dissent and Democrat stonewalling. Even with a Republican trifecta, the margins were too tight to overcome the combined forces of judicial activism and congressional obstruction.
Fast forward to 2025. The stakes are higher, and the opposition is more consolidated. A narrow majorityâ53-45-2 in the Senate and a 3-seat 218-215 edge in the Houseâinvites the same chaos. A single RINO (Republican In Name Only) like Mitt Romney or Lisa Murkowski can tank a bill in the Senate, while a few squishy House moderates can doom it in the lower chamber. Meanwhile, Democrats exploit every crack, rallying their base and their allies in the media to portray Trump as a dictator while quietly suffocating his desperately needed reformative agenda in committee rooms and courtrooms.
A supermajority changes the calculus. Imagine 60 or more Republican senators, backed by a 50-seat cushion in the House. Suddenly, the filibuster becomes irrelevant, defectors can be ignored, and legislation codifying Trump's reformative Executive Orders can move at warp speed. Trump could sign laws reforming government within monthsârestructuring entire agencies, slashing budgets, and rewriting the rules of the administrative stateâbefore the courts or Democrats have time to regroup. This isnât just about winning; itâs about winning decisively to render the obstructionist opposition impotent.
Trumpâs election in 2024 was a mandate from the votersâa roar from the American heartland against a government thatâs grown too big, too corrupt, too globalist, and too disconnected. But mandates mean nothing if they canât be enacted. The activist judiciary and obstructive Democrats donât care about the voters; they serve a âhigherâ callingâtheir own warped vision of an unachievable pseudo-utopia, enforced through injunctions, filibusters, and the regulatory Deep State. These elites sneer at the working-class Americans who put Trump in office, preferring to dictate policy from ivory towers and marble chambers.
A supermajority is the only way to translate that mandate into action. Itâs the battering ram Trump needs to smash through the walls of resistance, delivering the reforms he promised and reforms the voters mandated: a leaner government, lower taxes, secure borders, and an end to the overreaching nanny state. Anything less, and the saboteurs winâleaving the American people with a hollow victory and a federal government that continues to suffocate them.
Donald Trumpâs second term is a chance to remake America, but itâs a chance that hinges on raw political power. Only a supermajority in the House and Senate can give Trump the tools to overcome the black-robbed tyrants of the activist judiciary and the neo-Jacobins of the Democrat Party. The stakes are too high for half-measures. America demands boldnessâand that starts with giving Trump the numbers to win. Thatâs why there is no rest; no time for âcelebration.â We must keep the pressure on!
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The Bloody Obama-Biden Legacy in Syria
Over the weekend of March 8th and 9th, the world watched in stunned horror as reports trickled out of Syria: Christians, Alawites, and other religious minorities were being systematically slaughtered under the iron fist of Abu Mohammad al-Jolani, the radical Islamist now posing as a statesman.
According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights and local sources cited by Newsweek, more than 1,000 peopleâmany of them Christians and Alawites, the sect of the recently ousted Bashar al-Assadâhave been butchered since Thursday, March 6. Women and children lie among the dead, entire families erased in a wave of sectarian vengeance led by al-Jolaniâs Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. This is no isolated tragedy; itâs the predictable outcome of an Obama and Biden administration foreign policy so obsessed with toppling Assad that it paved the way for a jihadist nightmare.
Letâs not mince words: al-Jolani is a monster with a resume soaked in blood. Heâs no ârebelâ or âfreedom fighter,â as the Obama and Biden administration cheerleaders in the mainstream media once styled him. This is the former emir of Al-Nusra FrontâAl-Qaedaâs Syrian franchiseâand now the head of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, the Sunni Islamist coalition that toppled Assad in December 2024. His career is a grotesque litany of atrocities: razing Christian villages along the Khabur River, demolishing churches, and orchestrating kidnappings and massacres.
In 2015, his forces abducted over 200 Assyrians near Tell Tamer, demanding $100,000 ransoms and executing three on camera as a warning to Syriaâs Christian remnant. Now, as Syriaâs self-appointed ruler, heâs traded his blood-soaked turban for a suit, mouthing empty promises of âtoleranceâ while his jihadist allies butcher minorities in Latakia and Jableh. The Biden administrationâs fingerprints are all over this catastrophe.
The body count is staggering. Since early March, Syrian Observatory for Human Rights reports confirm over 1,000 civiliansâpredominantly Christians and Alawitesâhave been killed in revenge attacks. Coastal regions, once safe havens for minorities under Assad, have become killing fields. Yet the usual suspect facilitators of the Obama-Biden administrations remain repugnantly silent, its once-vocal outrage over Assadâs crimes replaced by a shameful shrug as al-Jolaniâs Hayat Tahrir al-Sham unleashes Hell.
This isnât mere negligenceâitâs complicity. The administration, alongside a feckless media and a spineless United Nations, has spent years whitewashing al-Jolani, casting him as a pragmatic reformer to justify their regime-change fetish. Now, as Christians die by the hundreds, theyâre too invested in their narrative to admit the truth: they bet on a terrorist, and Syriaâs minorities are paying the price.
The Obama and Biden administrationâs role in this disaster cannot be overstated. For years, they funneled supportâdirect and indirectâto Syriaâs ârebels,â a motley crew of factions that included Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. The globalist warhawks in Washington, ever eager to topple dictators without a plan for what follows, saw Assad as the ultimate prize. Bashar al-Assad was no saintâhis regime tortured dissidents, gassed civilians, and ruled with brutal efficiencyâbut for Syriaâs Christians, he was a shield against the Sunni Islamofascist tide. Under Assad, Christians, once 10% of Syriaâs population, could worship openly, celebrate Christmas, and live without fear of jihadist mobs. His Alawite-led government positioned itself as a bulwark against groups like ISIS and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, and for all his sins, he delivered stability for minorities.
Contrast that with today. Since Assadâs fall, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has unleashed a sectarian bloodbath that makes his rule look like a lost Eden for Syriaâs minorities. Al-Jolani, a wild card with a decades-long hatred of Christians, has turned Syria into a jihadist playground, and the Obama and Biden administrationâs reckless gamble lit the fuse. They cheered Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as âmoderatesâ fighting for âfreedom,â ignoring the groupâs Al-Qaeda roots and anti-Christian agenda. When Assad fell in December 2024, the Biden administration celebrated a âvictoryâ without asking the critical question: What comes next? The answer is now clearâa genocide of Christians and Alawitesâand the Obama and Biden teams are too arrogant to own it.
The mediaâs role is equally damning. Outlets like CNN, BBC, and The New York Times have barely whispered about the massacres, preferring to parrot al-Jolaniâs hollow promises of moderation, framing the carnage as âclashesâ between âsecurity forcesâ and âAssad loyalists.â The United Nations, that perennial apologist for tyrants, has been no better.
On March 7, Secretary-General AntĂłnio Guterres issued a toothless call to âprotect civiliansâ but refused to name Hayat Tahrir al-Sham or al-Jolani as the culprits. Why the cowardice? Because they all bought the Obama and Biden administrationsâ lines: Assad was evil, so his enemies must be good. They hyped Hayat Tahrir al-Sham as liberators, downplaying their jihadist core, and now that the mask is off, theyâd rather bury the story than admit their error.
This silence reeks of more than biasâitâs a tacit endorsement of the far-Leftâs failed foreign policy. The media, long hostile to Christians, cheered Assadâs demise without a thought for the consequences. Meanwhile, al-Jolaniâs rebranding has fooled no one but the Westâs gullible eliteâhis âtoleranceâ a tactical sham to win approval, not a conversion. The blood of Syriaâs minorities stains his handsâas well as Obamaâs Bidenâs, and everyone who crafted their pathetic transformative âcolor-revolutionâ foreign policy.
The Obama and Biden administrationsâ legacies in Syriaâand include in that cadre Hillary Clintonâs, Susan Riceâs, Samantha Powerâs and Victoria Nulandâsâare grim ones: a dictator toppled, a terrorist empowered, and a minority population left to the slaughter. By backing Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and ignoring al-Jolaniâs true nature, theyâve turned Syria into a jihadist dystopia. Christians and Alawites are dying not because of Assadâs tyranny, but because of the hubris possessed by the Obama and Biden administrations and the far-Leftâs obsession with regime change, devoid of foresight or accountability.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Since Donald Trumpâs emergence on the political stage, a Deep State-induced and media-supported force majeure has gripped a significant swath of the American populace, particularly those ensconced in the Progressive and Democratic Socialist camps. "Trump Derangement Syndrome" (Trump Derangement Syndrome) describes an irrational, visceral hatred of President Trump that transcends policy and political disagreements and veers into unhinged obsession, emotional instability, and a rejection of reason itself.
Far from a mere political buzzword, Trump Derangement Syndrome has roots in established psychological principlesâgroupthink, cognitive dissonance, and tribal identityâand its spread reveals the rot at the core of Progressive ideology. Worse, it poses a direct threat to the United Statesâ foundational principles of individualism and liberty, corroding discourse and empowering collectivist dogma over personal freedom.
Trump Derangement Syndrome isnât just hyperbole slung by opportunistic right-wing pundits; itâs an observable condition marked by an inability to engage rationally with Mr. Trumpâor anything associated with him. A perfect example was Democrats' inability to acknowledge a young boy who has beaten cancer or the parents of slain children during Trumpâs speech to the joint session of Congress.
Sufferers exhibit symptoms ranging from pious self-righteous indignation, like the aforementioned, to unhinged rants on social media and outright denial of reality when confronted with Trumpâs achievements, like economic growth pre-COVID or Middle East peace deals.
The term, first popularized during his 2016 campaign, captures how otherwise functional adults devolve into frothing ideologues at the mere mention of his name. Itâs not about policy critiqueâreasonable people can debate cutting fraud and waste, tax cuts or border securityâbut about a Pavlovian meltdown triggered by Trumpâs persona.
Progressives and Democratic Socialists, who fancy themselves âchampions of tolerance and nuance,â are Trump Derangement Syndromeâs primary vectors. Their reaction isnât rooted in Trumpâs actions alone but in what he represents: a brash, unapologetic rejection of their sanctimonious worldview. Trumpâs refusal to bow to political correctness or genuflect before the altar of collectivist orthodoxy and Cultural Marxism sends them into a tailspin, exposing the fragility of their ideology. Whatâs billed as âmoral outrageâ is often just psychological overloadâan inability to reconcile their self-image as enlightened saviors with a reality that doesnât bend to their whims.
Trump Derangement Syndrome isnât a random outburst; itâs a textbook case of psychological mechanisms gone haywire, fueled by the usual suspect echo chambers of Progressive thought.
Start with groupthink, the phenomenon where conformity trumps critical thinking (no pun intended). In Leftist enclavesâbe it academia, media, or urban bubbles (or the smoky back rooms of K Street)âdissenting from the anti-Trump narrative is social suicide. The result? A hive-mind conviction that Trump is not just wrong but evil incarnate, with no room for debate. This isnât principled opposition; itâs a cult-like obsession, where questioning the orthodoxy risks excommunication and the telegraphing of that cult-like mindset onto those free from Trump Derangement Syndrome is tantamount to mandatory.
Then thereâs cognitive dissonance, the mental strain of holding conflicting beliefs. Progressives pride themselves on being the "party of science" and compassion, yet Trumpâs electoral success and policy winsâlike record-low minority unemploymentâclash with their narrative of him as a bumbling bigot. Rather than adjust their worldview, they double down, concocting elaborate conspiracies (Russian collusion, anyone?) or dismissing facts outright. This isnât reason; itâs a tantrum of the petulant dressed up as analysis.
Finally, tribal identity seals the deal. Democratic Socialism thrives on dividing the world into oppressors and oppressed, a Marxist tenet, with Trump cast as the ultimate oppressor. For the Progressive faithful, hating him isnât just politicsâitâs a badge of pseudo-moral-superiority. This tribalism blinds them to their own contradictions: championing âdiversityâ while demanding lockstep conformity, or preaching âequityâ while sneering at working-class voters who backed Trump, or lauding transparency while attacking Elon Musk for finding waste, corruption, and fraud in the departments and agencies of Deep State Washington, DC and itâs manufactured NGO world.
Psychologically, Trump Derangement Syndrome is less about Trump and more about the Leftâs need to cling to a crumbling identity as societyâs self-appointed guardians.
Trump Derangement Syndrome isnât just a personal quirk; itâs a wrecking ball smashing through Americaâs civic fabric.
The United States was built on debate, compromise, and a shared commitment to democratic normsâvalues Progressives claim to uphold but abandon the moment Trump enters the frame. Their derangement has poisoned discourse, turning politics into a screaming match where facts are optional and opponents are dehumanized. When less-than-funny late-night talkshow hosts, journalists, and politicians alike spend years fixating on Trumpâs every tweet instead of substantive issues, they donât just dumb down the publicâthey serve as the toadies of the American Fifth Column, eroding trust in institutions already on life support.
Worse, Trump Derangement Syndrome fuels a dangerous polarization that threatens national unity. By painting Trump and his supportersâliterally half the countryâas irredeemable fascists, Progressives justify any tactic to âsave democracy,â from censoring speech to weaponizing federal agencies, to the rationalization of violence and worse.
The 2020 riots, egged on by Leftist rhetoric about systemic evil, werenât a cry for justice but a symptom of a nation unmoored by irrational hatred. Democratic Socialistsâlike Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), and âThe Squad,â political opportunists like US Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and US Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), and throwbacks like US Rep. Al Green (D-TX)âcheer this violence and celebrated the chaos, dreaming of a collectivist utopia rising from the ashes, but the reality is a fractured America.
This obsession also hands foreign adversaries a gift-wrapped advantage.
While China builds its global influence and Russia probes our weaknesses, Trump Derangement Syndrome keeps Americaâs elites fixated on non-existent domestic bogeymen. The Progressive fixation on Trump as the root of all evil distracts from real threats, leaving the nation vulnerable. Itâs no coincidence that the same voices shrieking about Trumpâs every move stay silent on Beijingâs atrocities, i.e., the practice of slave labor and human oppression, and their expansionist policies of conquest internationallyâtheir moral compass is too warped by derangement to see beyond their own psychosis.
At its core, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a dagger aimed at individualism, the bedrock of American identity. Progressivism and Democratic Socialism despise the rugged, self-reliant character that built this country, favoring instead a nanny-state vision where the collective eclipses the person.
Trump, for all his flaws, embodies individualismâunpolished, defiant, and allergic to groupthink. His very existence challenges the Progressive dogma that individuals must submit to a totalitarian definition of the âgreater goodâ as defined by coastal elites and socialist ideologues.
Trump Derangement Syndrome amplifies this hostility by reducing people to their tribal affiliations. If you support Trump, youâre not an individual with reasoned viewsâyouâre a racist, a deplorable, a threat to be crushed. This collectivist lensâagain, rooted in Marxismâobliterates personal agency, demanding conformity to the anti-Trump crusade or outright ostracism. Itâs a psychological straitjacket, and Progressives wield it gleefully, oblivious to the irony of their âinclusionâ crusade punishing independent thought.
The economic fallout is just as grim. Democratic Socialists like US Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-VT) and AOC exploit Trump Derangement Syndrome to push policiesâGreen New Deals, wealth taxes, the centralization of government at the federal levelâthat stomp on individual achievement. Their argument hinges on fearmongering: Trumpâs âcapitalist excessâ must be reined in by state control. Never mind that his tax cuts spurred growth while their schemes tanked economies from Caracas to Havana. Trump Derangement Syndrome blinds them to evidence, letting ideology override the individualâs right to prosper free of government shackles.
Liberty, Americaâs lifeblood, fares no better under Trump Derangement Syndrome. The deranged Leftâs reaction to Trump has birthed a censorship culture that would make Orwell blush. Social media bans, âdisinformationâ task forces, and cancel and doxxing campaignsâall justified by the need to stop Trumpâs âdangerousâ influenceâit all chips away at free speech.
Progressives who once claimed to defend the First Amendment, are now so affected by Trump Derangement Syndrome that it forces the revelation of their true colors: libertyâs fine until it clashes with their agenda.
This authoritarian streak extends to the state itself. The Russia hoax, the impeachment circuses, the criminal January 6th overreachâeach was a Trump Derangement Syndrome-fueled power grab, bending legal norms to âgetâ Trump. Democratic Socialists cheer these moves, dreaming of a government strong enough to enforce their pseudo-utopia. But liberty isnât a bargaining chip; once eroded, itâs gone.
The more Trump Derangement Syndrome drives Progressives to sacrifice rights for revenge, the closer we edge to a system where dissent itself is criminalized.
Even the concept of personal responsibilityâa liberty cornerstoneâcrumbles under Trump Derangement Syndrome. By blaming Trump for every ill, from the pseudo-science of climate change to COVID deaths, Progressives absolve individuals of accountability. Itâs not your job to adapt or innovate; itâs Trumpâs fault, and the state must fix it. This victimhood cult, supercharged by derangement, breeds dependence, not freedomâa perfect fit for Socialismâs totalitarian and soul-crushing embrace.
Trump Derangement Syndrome isnât just a psychological curiosity; itâs a Progressive-spawned cancer eating away at Americaâs soul. Rooted in neo-Marxian groupthink, dissonance, and tribal rage, it turns reasonable people into pawns of a collectivist agenda, undermining the nationâs unity, individualism, and liberty. Democratic Socialism thrives on this chaos, exploiting Trump Derangement Syndrome to peddle its tired gospel of control and conformity, both tenets of Communism itself.
The antidote isnât blind loyalty to President Trumpâalthough his agenda and policies are much more aligned to the Constitution than what the neo-Marxist Left has to offer. The antidote is a return to reasonâdebating ideas with facts and truth, not demonizing people. Americaâs greatness lies in its rejection of ideological monoliths and its embrace of the individual over the mob. Progressives and their Socialist kin wonât see that, they canât see that; their derangement blinds them.
But for those who still value liberty, Trump Derangement Syndrome is a warning: Let it fester, and the Land of the Free becomes a footnote in history. My friends, itâs time to win the hearts and minds of the rank-and-file Democrats forcing the far-Left American Fifth Column to stand alone in their dwindling numbers. It can happen, but we have to address the psychosis in the room for that to happen.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Morphing Trump DerangementSyndrome Targets Elon Musk
Before I go, I wanted to build on what I discussed in the opening: How Trump Derangement Syndrome has expanded into Musk Derangement Syndrome.
For years, the far-Left clutched their pearls and shrieked into the void about Donald Trump, a man they painted as the ultimate boogeyman of democracy. Trump Derangement Syndrome erupted as an irrational hatred that turned every tweet, every policy, into an apocalyptic threat.
Fast forward to 2025, and the Left has a new target: Elon Musk.
Call it âMusk Derangement Syndromeâ (MDS), a freshly minted psychosis thatâs taken root, particularly over Muskâs involvement with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The transition is as predictable as it is patheticâa testament to the Leftâs inability to cope with anyone who dares disrupt their sacred bureaucratic swamp.
Trump Derangement Syndrome was never about Trumpâs policies; it was about his vibeâbrash, unfiltered, and unapologetic. He didnât play by the rules of the coastal elite, and that drove the tofu-eating neo-Marxian Left insane. Now, Musk has stepped into the crosshairs, wielding a similar irreverence but with a twist: heâs got the brains and the bankroll to actually dismantle their cherished institutions.
Enter DOGE, the Trump-endorsed brainchild tasked with slashing government waste. For Progressives, this isnât just a policy disagreementâitâs a personal affront, a billionaire daring to touch their corrupt, bloated, taxpayer-funded utopian facade.
The Department of Government Efficiency threatens to do what the Left fears most: expose the corruption, convoluted money-handling schemes, inefficiency and redundancy propping up their power base. DOGEâs missionâto streamline federal spending and cut the fatâflies in the face of the Democratic Socialistsâ gospel of endless government expansion and shadow payrolls for political footsoldiers. Musk, with his track record of revolutionizing industries, isnât some idle dreamer; heâs a doer. And that terrifies them.
Where Trump Derangement Syndrome fixated on Trumpâs bombast, Musk Derangement Syndrome obsesses over Muskâs competenceâa man who canât be dismissed as a mere loudmouth. The Leftâs response? Smear, distort, and panic. Scroll through X, and the symptoms of MDS are glaring.
Progressives call Musk a âfascistâ for wanting to shrink governmentâironic from a crowd that fetishizes centralized control. They decry his wealth, conveniently forgetting their own donor class of Silicon Valley hypocrites. Posts drip with venom: âMusk is destroying democracy!â they wail, as if auditing bureaucratic bloat were akin to storming the Bastille. The Atlantic and CNN churn out hit pieces, painting DOGE as a dystopian plot rather than a pragmatic fix. Itâs Trump Derangement Syndrome all over againâhyperbole masquerading as principle.
The real kicker? The Leftâs meltdown over Musk reveals their deeper insecurity. Trump was a political lightning rod, easy to rally against. Musk, though, is a harder nut to crackâself-made, innovative, and unafraid to mock their sanctimony. His quips about government waste âlike calling it âa giant welfare program for bureaucratsââhit too close to home.
Listen to this former federal employee talk about her experiences:
DOGE, under Muskâs influence, is unraveling decades of the Progressivesâ expansion of the federal government; exposing the financial feedtrough of the Deep State bureaucracyâand the slush fund for paying Democrat political footsoldiers, and they know it. So, they scream louder, hoping volume drowns out reason.
In the end, Musk Derangement Syndrome is just Trump Derangement Syndrome with a new faceâsame hysteria, different villain. Progressives and Democratic Socialists canât stand losing control, and Musk, with DOGE as his weapon, threatens to take it away. Their derangement isnât about him; itâs about what he represents: a rejection of their self-righteous, sanctimonious worldview.
Good luck, Elon, continue the fight. And please, for the love of God, everywhere you go, maintain situational awarenessâtheyâre coming for you and they have no boundaries.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
On March 4, 2025, President Donald Trump addressed a joint session of Congress, laying out a vision of American renewal rooted in constitutional fidelity, individual liberty, and economic freedom. The response from Democrats was telling: self-righteous anger, sophomoric antics, and indignant posturing that underscored how far the party has drifted from the nationâs core values. Once a formidable force championing the working class, the Democrat Party has been hijacked by radical ideologuesâprogressives and Democratic Socialistsâwhose neo-Marxian agenda has alienated voters and eroded trust.
With polls showing the Democrat brand at historic lows and internal dissent bubbling to the surface, the party stands at a precipice. Its obsession with radical, transformative extremism may well signal its end, while the âNew-Republicanâ embrace of constitutionalism, individualism, and deregulation offers a path America cravesâand one Democrats ignore at their peril.
The unraveling of the Democrat Party was laid bare at a recent retreat in Loudon County, Virginia, where Democrat consultants, campaign staffers, elected officials, and party leaders gathered to confront their declining fortunes. Jonathan Cowan, president of the centrist Third Way, delivered a scathing critique, accusing Democrats of clinging to âcomforting platitudesâ instead of grappling with their diminishing relevance. New DNC chair Ken Martin chimed in, suggesting the problem lies not in the partyâs agenda but in its messagingâa tired dodge that sidesteps the real issue. While hinting at pragmatic shifts that, with present leadership, would be impossible to achieve, the retreat produced a five-page strategy document that exposed a deeper rot: the partyâs capitulation to progressive extremism and Democratic Socialism has left it severed and disconnected from the American people.
The document acknowledges a litany of failuresâa growing rift with working-class voters, a reliance on âideological purity tests,â and the deteriorating state of Democrat-run cities. Its proposed fixesâpatriotism, support for institutions like churches and police, and a focus on local governanceâsound suspiciously like a page from the Republican playbook. Itâs as if, bereft of original ideas, Democrats are quietly conceding that their rivals have been right all along.
Yet, this half-hearted pivot is overshadowed by a palpable fear of the partyâs far-Left wing, whose neo-Marxian demandsâopen borders, defunding the police, the application of identity politics, and expanded government, among a host of other radical notionsâthreaten to drown out any hope of moderation. The retreatâs revelations point to a stark truth: the Democrat Partyâs survival hinges not on better spin, but on a wholesale rejection of its radical drift and a return to the timeless principles of constitutionalism, individualism, and deregulation.
Progressivism, as embraced by todayâs Democrats, is a doctrine of centralized power, identity obsession, and self-righteous moralizing. It dismisses individual agency, favoring collective solutions enforced by an ever-growing state. Democratic Socialism takes this further, promising paradise through government control of industries and wealth redistribution. Both ideologies, steeped in Marxist roots, view the Constitution as an obstacle to be overcome rather than a guardian of liberty. The result is a policy agenda that clashes with the values most Americans hold dearâand a track record of failure thatâs impossible to ignore.
Progressive dogma has spawned divisive initiatives like race-based reparations and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs, which prioritize group identity over merit. These policies alienate working-class votersâWhite, Black, Hispanic, or otherwiseâwho see fairness, not favoritism, as the American ideal. Democratic Socialists, meanwhile, peddle fantasies like Medicare for All and the Green New Deal, trillion-dollar schemes that defy economic reality and saddle taxpayers with unsustainable burdens. In Democrat strongholds like San Francisco, Portland, and Chicago, progressive governance has delivered soaring crime, rampant homelessness, and fiscal collapseâproof that utopian intentions donât facilitate competent outcomes.
The cultural fallout is just as damning. Progressives have turned language and institutions into tools of control, wielding cancel culture and Critical Race Theory to enforce ideological conformity. Democratic Socialists applaud this as a dismantling of âsystemicâ wrongs, oblivious to the cost and the divide it causes: trampled free speech, eroded parental rights, and a growing backlash from voters who reject woke (read: Cultural Marxism) orthodoxy. The Loudon County document admits that âunpopular cultural positionsâ are dragging the Democrat Party downâan understatement when millions see Democrats as out-of-touch elitists more interested in policing pronouns than solving real problems.
This extremism isnât just a political liability; itâs a betrayal of Americaâs founding principles. The Constitution was crafted to protect individual liberty and constrain government excess, not to enable utopian experiments. Progressivism and Democratic Socialism flip this on its head, elevating state power over personal freedom and equity of outcome over equality of opportunity. By embracing these ideologies, Democrats have abandoned the voters they claim to championâworking families, small business owners, and everyday citizens who want a government that serves, not subjugates.
Contrast this with the New-Republican vision taking root under Trumpâs leadership and the MAGA movementâa return to constitutionalism, individualism, and deregulation that resonates with a nation weary of radicalism.
Constitutionalism isnât a relic; itâs a living framework that balances power and preserves liberty. It demands adherence to the rule of law, not the whims of activists or the fiat of executives. For Democrats, recommitting to this principle would mean abandoning divisive crusadesâlike censoring âmisinformationâ or mandating social policiesâand refocusing on governance that respects individual rights. It would also curb the partyâs reliance on executive overreach, from Bidenâs student loan bailout to Obamaâs DACA edicts, aligning policy with the Constitutionâs enumerated powers. Todayâs Democrat leaders would rather âdie on that hillâ than relinquish the power those totalitarian crusades afford them.
The Loudon County documentâs nod to patriotism and institutions like churches and law enforcement aligns with this ethos. Americans revere these institutions not out of blind loyalty, but because they embody a shared commitment to freedom and communityâvalues the Constitution protects. If Democrats took the Second Amendment as seriously as the First, or the Tenth as earnestly as the Fourteenth, they might begin to reclaim the trust of voters who see government as a partner, not a parent. But then, again, that would mean relinquishing the power afforded them through the never-ending crusade; the only political game they understand.
Individualism, the beating heart of the American experiment, stands in stark opposition to the collectivist bent of progressivism and Democratic Socialism. Where the Left sees people as avatars of race, class, or gender, individualism celebrates self-reliance and personal responsibility. Itâs the truck driver who logs long hours to feed his family, the shop owner who risks all for her dream, the parent who instills values in their child. Democrats once grasped this; FDRâs New Deal, whatever its shortcomings (and there were many), sought to empower individuals, not entangle them in dependency. Todayâs Democrat Party, fixated on âsystemicâ fixes, has lost sight of this truth.
The retreatâs focus on reconnecting with working-class communities intimates at a longing to recapture this spirit. These voters donât want handouts or sanctimonious lectures on privilegeâthey want jobs, safe streets, and a government that respects their autonomy. The New-Republican emphasis on individualism speaks to these aspirations, offering policies that reward effort and unleash potential, not punish success or cradle dependence.
Deregulation is the practical arm of this philosophy. Progressives and Democratic Socialists have smothered the economy with rulesâenvironmental edicts, labor mandates, healthcare diktatsâthat choke innovation and crush small businesses. The result is stagnation: inflation, deficits, and a bureaucracy too bloated, dysfunctional and corrupt to function.
Deregulation, by contrast, trusts markets and people over apparatchiks. In energy, rolling back punitive green regulations would boost domestic production, cut costs, and create jobsâespecially in the Rust Belt and rural regions Democrats have abandoned. In healthcare, easing restrictions on insurance and drug approvals could lower prices without a government takeover. Trumpâs first term proved this works: pre-pandemic deregulation fueled record-low unemployment and rising wages, a stark rebuke to the Leftâs command-and-control fetish.
The Loudon County retreat exposed a party at war with itself. Some, like Cowan, see the need for changeâhence the calls for patriotism, local focus, and economic pragmatism. But the progressive and socialist factions, entrenched in activist networks and staffer cliques, remain a formidable obstacle. Their influence explains why the retreat document dances around the core issue: ideology itself. No amount of slick messaging can salvage a party thatâs lost its way; only a decisive break from extremism can.
Polls cited at the retreat reveal the stakes. A growing number of Democrats crave moderation, yet theyâre drowned out by the louder, radically extreme voices pulling Left. If the party doubles down on progressivism and Democratic Socialism, it risks oblivionâa coastal elite bubble preaching to a dwindling faithful. The 2024 election, with Trumpâs landslide victory and Republican gains across Congress and statehouses, was a warning shot: voters have rejected the Leftâs radicalism.
The Democrat brand is toxic, its cities crumbling, its policies unpopular. Without a drastic course correction, the party faces a slow deathâfractured by infighting, abandoned by its base, and outmaneuvered by a New-Republican movement thatâs seized the mantle of common sense and liberty.
This isnât about jettisoning liberal ideals like compassion or fairness. Itâs about anchoring them in principles that endureâlimited government, personal freedom, economic vitalityârather than chasing utopian mirages. The Constitution isnât a partisan tool; itâs Americaâs bedrock, adaptable yet resolute. Individualism isnât callousness; itâs the engine of a pluralistic society. Deregulation isnât chaos; itâs confidence in human ingenuity over bureaucratic meddling.
The Democrat Party could still pull back from the abyss. The Loudon County retreat offers a faint flicker of hopeâa recognition that âideological purity testsâ and âcomforting platitudesâ have failed. But hope alone wonât suffice. Democrats must reject the extremism of progressivism and Democratic Socialism and embrace constitutionalism, individualism, and deregulation. That means turning the page on political charlatans like Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and the Squad, and the other spotlight-seeking, pseudo-radical throwbacks to the 1960s.
Anything less is a betrayal of the nation they claim to leadâand a death knell for a Democrat Party poised to fade into irrelevance.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Itâs Time For The Final Scene in Gaza
I wanted to address the insanely one-sided arrangements that Israel is consistently forced to accept when it comes to the murderous, Islamofascist terror organization Hamas and its facilitating Palestinian people.
Letâs be crystal clear about something. The Palestinian people have had ample opportunity to throw off the oppressive shackles of Hamas and Hezbollahâand before them, the PLO, but continue to vote terrorist-aligned into leadership, giving an electoral consent to these terrorist organizations and, through that, the actions of them. To insist otherwise or to deny this, is to exist either uneducated on the facts or as a âblood-on-your-handsâ ideologue.
That understoodâand as I said, only the uneducated, terminally naive, and ideologically activist could possibly continue to exist with those facts not making sense, the idea that Israel has to negotiate with Hamas to achieve peace is nothing more than an internationally mandated joke.
First, Israel is a superior fighting force. If left to their own abilities, free from international interference, the terrorist Islamofascistic threat posed by Hamas would have been over long ago. The same goes for Hezbollah and the dozens or so other terrorist organizations constantly targeting Israelâand her citizens, not just her military. Israel would have wiped the scum off the face of the planet in short order. The only reason these unacceptable threats to the Israeli people still exist is because the international community has a soft spot for bloodthirsty, Islamofascist organizations in the most cowardly of senses.
But to add humiliation to the plate Israel is forced to accept, Hamas continues to trade the dead bodies of kidnapped, tortured, starved, and sexually abused Israelis taken through an act of warâand mostly taken by Palestinians, not Hamas regularsâfor live Hamas terrorists, convicted in a court for the their crimes. And itâs not just a one-for-one deal. The ratio is nauseatingly lopsided:
* On January 24, 2025, Hamas released four hostages. All were alive. Israel released 200 Palestinian prisoners, some serving life sentences. Ratio â 50:1
* On January 30, 2025, Hamas released eight hostages. All were alive. Israel released 110 Palestinian prisoners, again some serving life sentences. Ratio â 55:4
* On February 7 & 8, 2025, Hamas released three Israeli hostages. All were alive. Israel released 183 Palestinian prisoners, again some serving life sentences. Ratio â 61: 1
* On February 15, 2025, Hamas released three Israeli hostages. All were alive. Israel released 369 Palestinian prisoners, including 36 with life sentences. Ratio â 123:1
* On February 22, 2025, Hamas released six Israeli hostages. All were alive. Israel released 0 citing Hamasâs handling of prior exchanges. Ratio â 6:0
* On February 26 & 27, 2025, Hamas released 8 Israeli hostages. All were dead. Israel released 642 Palestinian prisoners, including 151 convicted prisoners, some exiled to Egypt. Ratio â 321:2
This totals out to Hamas releasing 33 Israeli hostages, eight of which were dead, and Israel releasing 1,904 Palestinian prisoners, many of whom were convicted of murder and acts of terrorism against the nation state of Israel. The overall ratio of terrorists released to Israeli hostages standing at 1904:33.
Even a second grader would identify those numbers as wholly out of whack when it comes to fairness and equity, two words the anti-Israel contingent in the Westâand especially in the United Statesâlikes to throw around with impunity on every subject less the topic of Israel.
Hamas, formally established during the First Intifada in 1987, has likely killed between 2,050 and 2,350 Israelis. Hezbollah, formed in 1982 during the Lebanese Civil War with Iranian backing, has killed between 555 and 840 Israelis. Throughout Israelâs history, as of March 6, 2025, Islamofascist terrorist groups have killed between 4,650 and 5,500 Israelis.
Yet the international communityâincluding the total of Arab nations who steadfastly refuse to allow Palestinian immigration into their countriesâinsists that Israel accept a negotiated peace with the Palestinians, who consistently elect and support officials who are always members of terrorist organizationsâand organizations whose charters call for the eradication of the Israeli people and the Israeli state.
33 to 1,904 with eight of those 33 already dead; all starved, all tortured, all the women raped. And the international community wants to rebuild Gaza into a financial mecca, the Palestinians re-populating it to live right next door to the people they seek to kill? What will they do with their newfound wealth, be philanthropic with it? Or continue to fund Islamofascist terror organizations that wage never-ending war against Israel and the Israeli people?
On March 5, 2025, President Donald Trump issued what he termed a final warning, saying:
ââShalom Hamasâ means Hello and Goodbye - You can choose. Release all of the hostages now, not later, and immediately return all of the dead bodies of the people you murdered, or it is over for you. Only sick and twisted people keep bodies, and you are sick and twisted! I am sending Israel everything it needs to finish the job, not a single Hamas member will be safe if you donât do as I say. I have just met with your former hostages whose lives you have destroyed. This is your last warning! For the leadership, now is the time to leave Gaza, while you still have a chance. Also, to the People of Gaza: A beautiful future awaits, but not if you hold hostages. If you do, you are DEAD! Make a smart decision. Release the hostages now, or there will be hell to pay later!â
33 Israeli hostages to 1,904 Hamas terrorists with eight of those 33 already dead; all starved, all tortured, all the women raped. I say, let Israel have at them to end this once and for all, and use the big stick the United States possesses to hold the international wolves at bay.
Itâs time Israel was allowed to live in peace.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist from Vermont who has literally never held a private sector job in his life, has spent the past few months crisscrossing the United States, rallying against what he calls an âoligarchyâ threatening American democracy. This is an obvious exercise in projection.
From Omaha, Nebraska, to Iowa City, Iowa, and now targeting Republican-held congressional districts in Wisconsin ahead of a pivotal state Supreme Court election in April 2025, Sanders has positioned himself as the torchbearer of a âprogressive resistance.â His âFighting Oligarchyâ tour has drawn significant attention from the rudderless far-Left, with viewership often reaching six figures and a recent video amassing nearly 3 million views.
Sandersâ neo-Marxist message resonates with a segment of the far- and radical-Left emboldened by former President Joe Bidenâs farewell address, in which he warned of âan oligarchy taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influenceâ that endangers democracy itself.
Yet, beneath the propagandistic fervor and viral optics lies a deeply flawed ideologyâDemocratic Socialismâas championed by Sanders.
His campaign against âoligarchy,â his critiques of the Trump administrationâs billionaire-heavy roster, and his attacks on policies like the 2017 tax cuts and the Elon Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts reveal not a coherent vision for America, but a patchwork of economic fallacies, political opportunism, and moral posturing. Sandersâ rhetoric and ideology, along with Democratic Socialism as a whole, are not only impractical but also disingenuous, relying on exaggerated class warfare narratives that fail to withstand scrutiny.
Sandersâ self-identification as a Democratic Socialist invites immediate skepticism when one examines the termâs historical and practical implications. Democratic Socialism, in theory, seeks to blend socialist economic principlesâcentralized control of production, wealth redistribution, and the abolition of private profit motivesâwith democratic governance. Yet, Sandersâ version of this ideology often veers into a muddled hybrid, neither fully socialist nor pragmatically democratic, raising questions about its intellectual coherence.
Historically, socialism has been associated with state ownership of the means of production, as seen in the Soviet Union or Maoist China, where economic centralization led to inefficiency, stagnation, and authoritarianism. Sanders distances himself from these examples, pointing instead to Scandinavian countries like Denmark or Sweden as models.
However, these nations are not socialist in the traditional senseâthey are market economies with robust welfare states, high taxes, and private enterprise thriving alongside significant government intervention. Danish Prime Minister Lars LĂžkke Rasmussen famously rebuked Sanders in 2015, stating, âDenmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.â Sandersâ insistence on the âDemocratic Socialistâ label thus appears more as a branding exercise than a precise ideological commitment.
This mislabeling matters because it obfuscates the policy debate.
Sanders rails against âoligarchyâ and billionaires like Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Linda McMahon, who populate the Trump administration, yet his solutionsâmassive government expansion, wealth taxes, and nationalized industries like healthcareâdo not align with the flexible, market-driven systems he claims to admire in Scandinavia. Instead, they echo the top-down control of traditional socialism, which has consistently failed to deliver prosperity without sacrificing individual liberty. His critique of the Trump administrationâs billionaire class, while emotionally compelling, lacks a clear alternative that avoids the pitfalls of centralized powerâironically, the very thing he accuses oligarchs of wielding.
Sandersâ central thesisâthat America is sliding into an oligarchyâgained traction when Biden echoed it in his farewell address. The image of Trump flanked by billionaires at his inauguration, coupled with Muskâs DOGE-led cuts to federal agencies like the intensely corrupt and ideologically agendized USAID, fuels Sandersâ claim that a handful of ultra-wealthy elites are seizing control of democracy.
Talking with CNNâs Anderson Cooper in February 2025, Sanders called Muskâs USAID cuts âunconstitutional,â arguing they bypass Congressâ authority over appropriations. His âFighting Oligarchyâ tour amplifies this narrative, spotlighting affected individuals like former park rangers laid off due to National Park Service reductions.
As an aside, Sanders is also dead wrong about the DOGE effort sidestepping congressional appropriations. DOGE is a repurposing of the congressionally funded United States Digital Service (USDS), an agency created under the Obama administration in 2014. The US Constitution allows a President to manage the Executive Branch as he sees fit, including rebranding and repurposing without the need for congressional input or approval. But then, a constitutionally illiterate Democratic Socialist probably would know that.
But is America truly an oligarchy? The term implies a small, unelected elite governing without accountabilityâa description more fitting for Putinâs Russia, Xiâs China, and Maduroâs Venezuela than a constitutional republic with regular elections, checks and balances, andâto the extent that it isâa free press. Sanders points to wealth concentration as evidence, noting that Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg collectively hold more wealth than the bottom half of Americans. This disparity is real (Forbes estimated their combined net worth at $911.7 billion in early 2025) but wholly irrelevant. Wealth alone does not equate to political domination.
Consider the 2024 election: Kamala Harris outspent Trump by a wide margin, raising over $1 billion with support from progressive billionaires like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, yet she lost decisively. Muskâs $270 million in campaign spending, while significant, was dwarfed by the Leftâs war chest. If money guaranteed power, Harris would be president, not Trump.
This suggests that electoral outcomes hinge more on voter sentiment than billionaire checkbooksâa reality Sanders conveniently glosses over. His portrayal of Musk as a puppet master, pulling strings via DOGE, ignores the broader democratic process that installed Trump and his administration, however imperfect some my consider it to be.
Moreover, Sandersâ focus on âoligarchyâ cherry-picks data to fit his narrative. The US economy remains dynamic, with entrepreneurship and upward mobility still possible, as evidenced by Musk himselfâa South African immigrant who built his fortune through innovation. Wealth inequality is a challenge, but labeling it an oligarchy oversimplifies a complex system where power is distributed across elected officials, corporations, and citizensânot just a cabal of billionaires.
A chief propagandistic cornerstone of Sandersâ critique is the Trump administrationâs plan to lock in the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA), which he portrays as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the working class. In Iowa City, he argued that these cuts exacerbate inequality, funneling benefits to billionaires while slashing funds for Medicaid, education, and housing. This rhetoric plays well to his tunnel-visioned, radically Leftist base, but the economic reality is more nuancedâand Sandersâ alternative is much less viable than he admits.
The TCJA reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and lowered individual rates across income brackets. Critics like Sanders highlight that the top 1% reaped disproportionate gainsâan estimated 20% of the total tax relief, according to the Tax Policy Center. Yet, the cuts also boosted economic growth, with GDP rising 2.9% in 2018 compared to 2.3% in 2016, and unemployment falling to a 50-year low of 3.5% by 2019. Wage growth for low- and middle-income workers outpaced that of the top earners in 2018-2019, per Census Bureau data, contradicting the narrative of exclusive elite enrichment.
Sandersâ solutionâreversing these cuts and imposing steep wealth taxesâignores the trade-offs.
Higher corporate taxes could deter investment, as seen in pre-2017 America when companies hoarded cash overseas to avoid the 35% rate. His proposed wealth tax, modeled on Sen. Elizabeth Warrenâs plan, would face practical hurdles: capital flight, valuation disputes, and constitutional challenges under the 16th Amendment. Franceâs wealth tax, abandoned in 2017 after driving 60,000 millionaires abroad, serves as a cautionary tale. Sandersâ economic vision promises fairness but would deliver stagnationâa lesson history teaches but he refuses to learn.
Sandersâ outrage over Muskâs DOGE cuts, particularly to USAID and the National Park Service, exemplifies his tendency to prioritize pseudo-moral indignation over pragmatic governance. In Omaha, he stood alongside former park rangers, decrying their layoffs as evidence of billionaire indifference. On CNN, he labeled the USAID cuts unconstitutional, citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which forbids the executive from withholding Congressionally appropriated funds without legislative approval.
Legally, Sanders has a pointâUS District Judge Loren L. AliKhanâs February 2025 ruling suggested the administrationâs funding freeze âpotentially run[s] roughshod over a âbulwark of the Constitution.ââ Yet, his broader critique falters when the understanding that DOGE actions are not aimed at ending funding, but weeding out waste, corruption, and outright fraud, are considered.
DOGE aims to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, targeting inefficiencies in a $6.8 trillion budget. USAID, with a $50 billion annual allocation, has faced criticism for waste, ineffectiveness, and now agendized fraud, all of which have now been exposed. Government Accountability Office reports have flagged mismanagement in its aid programs. National Park Service layoffs, while emotionally charged, reflect a broader push to streamline a bureaucracy that employs over 12,000 with a $3 billion budget, yet struggles with maintenance backlogs.
Sanders frames these cuts as an assault on the vulnerable, but he offers no serious plan to address the federal deficit, now at $36 trillion, or the inefficiencies DOGE targets. His alternativeâexpanding government programs like Medicare for All, costing an estimated $32 trillion over a decade per the Urban Instituteârelies on fantastical revenue projections and dismisses the fiscal reality that entitlement spending already consumes 70% of the budget. Democratic Socialism, as Sanders envisions it, demands endless expenditure without a credible funding mechanism beyond âtax the rich,â a mantra that collapses under scrutiny when applied to a globalized economy.
Sandersâ latest moveâtouring Wisconsinâs Republican-held districts ahead of an April 2025 state Supreme Court electionâunderscores his propensity for opportunistic political theater.
Wisconsin, a battleground state, will decide whether conservatives retain control of its top court, a decision with implications for free speech, cultural Marxism (wokeness), voting rights, and redistricting. Sandersâ involvement, ostensibly to combat âoligarchy,â reeks of ideological and political opportunism. Heâs not just fighting billionaires; heâs rallying far-Left Democratsâand targeting college studentsâin a state where his 2016 and 2020 primary wins showcased his appeal, conveniently aligning his âmovementâ with partisan electoral goals.
This pattern repeats across his tour. In Omaha and Iowa City, he targeted districts flipped by Republicans in 2024, urging audiences to pressure Reps. Don Bacon and Mariannette Miller-Meeks to oppose tax cuts. His grassroots veneer masks a calculated strategy: energize the far-Left while sidestepping the national stage, where his ideas face sterner tests and exposure to their inabilities to work.
Sandersâ nearly 3 million video views reflect his media savvy, but popularity does not equal viability. His CNN appearances and viral clips amplify his message, yet they rarely grapple with the hard questions of implementation or costâhallmarks of a propagandistic populist more interested in preaching and being seen as important and relevant more than governing.
Sandersâ crusade against billionaires like Musk, Lutnick, and McMahon drips with irony. He decries their wealth and influence, yet his own careerâspanning four decades in Congressâhas made him a millionaire, with a net worth estimated at $3 million by 2025, per public disclosures, and all on a six-figure salary (think about that). His three homes, including a $600,000 lakefront property, belie the asceticly Bolshevik image he cultivates. While not in Muskâs league, Sandersâ personal success within the system he critiques undermines his moral authority. If wealth concentration is the problem, why does he exempt himself from the reckoning?
Moreover, Sandersâ selective outrage ignores far-Left Democrat billionairesâSoros, Hoffman, Tom Steyerâwho pour millions into progressive causes, including NGOs that we now know purposely interfere in elections in transgression of the 501c3 statuses. In 2024, they dwarfed Muskâs contributions, yet Sanders rarely calls them out, exposing a partisan double standard. His âoligarchyâ label applies only to those in the Center and on the Right, suggesting his fight is less about principle and more about political tribalism.
The real peril of Sandersâ Democratic Socialismâas well as that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Greg Casarâlies not in its immediate feasibility, or infeasibility, as it were (his policies face long odds in a divided Congress), but in its long-term implications and the destruction it would cause to the lower- and middle-classes. By demonizing wealth creators like Musk, whose innovations in electric vehicles, space travel, and communications have tangible societal benefitsâincluding employment and all the trappings that come with it, Sanders risks stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that drives American prosperity. His obsession with wealth redistribution overlooks the role of private capital in funding breakthroughs that government alone cannot replicateâSpaceXâs reusable rockets, for instance, outpace NASAâs efforts at a fraction of the cost, and donât get me started on Starlink.
Furthermore, Sandersâ expansionist government vision directly threatens individual liberty.
Medicare for All, free college, and Green New Deal proposals centralize power in Washington, reducing choice and accountability. Historical attempts at such scaleâthink Britainâs National Health Serviceâyield mixed results at best: universal access but long wait times and rationing. Sandersâ faith in bureaucratic competence defies evidence of federal mismanagement, from the VA scandals to the Social Security Administrationâs $23 billion in improper payments in 2023. Ask yourself, besides the US militaryâand this is only focusing on their performance on the battlefieldsâwhat does the federal government (or the state governments, for that matter) do better than the private sector? The honest answer is nothing.
Bernie Sandersâ âFighting Oligarchyâ tour, with its manufactured, propagandistic impassioned speeches and bought-and-paid-for viral reach, taps into genuine frustrations over inequality and political dysfunction. His warnings about billionaires in the Trump administration and cuts like those to USAID resonate with a public wary of unchecked power; unchecked power fueled for the most part by Democrat administrations and Democrat spendthrift opportunists in Congress. Yet, his Democratic Socialism offers not a solution, but a mirageâeconomically untenable, ideologically inconsistent, and politically opportunistic; an unattainable utopia tantamount to the false euphoria promised through a heroin addiction.
Sanders casts himself as a modern-day Lincoln, battling for a government âof the people, by the people, for the people.â But Lincoln faced slavery, a clear moral evil; Sanders faces a messy, imperfect capitalism that, for all its flaws, has lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history. His crusade against âoligarchyâ disingenuously substitutes class warfare for serious debate, ignoring the trade-offs of his own policies.
As he tours Wisconsin and beyond, Sanders remains a compelling voiceâbut one whose vision, if realized, would trade one set of elites for another with a far more totalitarian and authoritative cast of characters, leaving America poorer and less free in the process.
Sanders' vision for American government is this: The Biden years only four-times more inept, invasive, and oppressive.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Frank Salvato's analysis has been entered into the congressional record through the US House Foreign Relations Committee and recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His writing has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Human Events, as well as syndicated internationally.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Conflating Support For Ukrainians & Zelenskyy
Before I go, I wanted to address what appears to be an irrational position being taken by a great many people on social media. That is their refusal to distinguish between the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government.
Vlodomyr Zelenskyy is the leader of the Ukrainian government. He represents the leaders of that country whoâthrough his words, as expressed in his disrespectful Oval Office performanceâwill not agree to a ceasefire and will not negotiate peace with Vladimir Putin. These are his words, not mine or anyone else's.
Common sense (and I know thatâs in short supply these days) mandatesâmandatesâthat two people who exist in conflict with each other resolve their differences for there to be a cessation of hostilities. Thatâs just a fact and anyone not accepting that basic premise is an ignoramus.
One way to resolve conflict is for one adversary to overcome the other. In the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, any resolution would have to see one country winning the war against the other. As it standsârecognizing this conflict as now one of attritionâUkraine cannot win. Letâs do the math.
At the start of the war in 2022, Ukraineâs population stood at approximately 41 million people. Russiaâs population was approximately 146 million people. Russia had between 18 to 20 million people of âfighting age.â Ukraineâs fighting age population stood at 7 to 9 million. In a war of attrition considering math alone, Ukraine would lose by a ratio of a little more than 2-to-1.
Yes, weaponry makes a difference, but occupation is the name of the game in war and it takes bodies to occupy land. Then you must consider that North Korea has engaged its troops on Russiaâs behalf. Unless the West (read: NATO or Europeâs newly considered âcoalition of the willingâ---which hasnât been formed yet) gets involved with boots on the ground, there is no way Ukraine can defeat Russia in the conflict to reach that avenue of conflict resolution.
The other avenue of conflict resolution is negotiated peace. That requires the two parties in conflict to enter into negotiations with the goal of ceasing hostilities (read: stopping the killing and aggression). Zelenskyy has stated full-throatedly that he is uninterested in a ceasefire or negotiating with his adversary. So, Zelenskyyânot Putin, not Trump; not Russia and not the Westâhas eliminated this avenue for peace from the choices.
Again, for the hard of hearing, a negotiated peace cannot be achieved when one of the parties in conflict refuses to negotiate with the other.
That left a cunningly crafted third way, devised by the Trump team: The Rare Earth minerals deal. This would have formally introduced the American private sector into land management in Ukraine; it would have created US assets in the regions. Thus, an attack on those assets would have been a direct attack on the United States and an act of war on Russiaâs behalf.
As I stated in an earlier podcast:
âPutin may be ruthless, but heâs not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his militaryâs vulnerabilities through their actions against the Ukrainian Army, and he recognizes that in the face of a US-led (or even NATO-led) military coalition, he would lose unequivocally.â
So, the impediment to peace is Zelenskyyâs egotistical need to win the war when there is no possibility of winning the war without a global conflict ensuing. Zelenskyyâs goal, it appears, is not peace; it is not to stop the killing. It is to win an unwinnable war.
Which brings me to my point. Only the heartless donât feel for the peopleâthe peopleâof Ukraine. We all want them to live freely under their own sovereign rule. But conflating support for Ukraineâs leader with feeling for the Ukrainian people is just as inane as saying all Germans were devout supporters of Hitler during World War II.
You can feel for the innocents in Ukraine without supporting the unwinnable war effort of the Ukrainian government. The posting of the âI stand with Ukraineâ memes and statements only feeds the Ukrainian war machineâs propaganda campaigns; it only serves their goal that insists on more military aid only to see the sharpening of the blades of the meat grinder for its warfighters and citizens.
To wit, when did all the people who want peace so badly, become blind followers of the unwinnable war? Only the uninformed, the naive, the half-witted, and the ghoulish support the unwinnable war.
Please people, I beg you: Do your homework before you just repost stuff on social media. When you do thatâand you donât know what youâre posting, or what it means to post what youâre postingâyou are feeding the propaganda machine that keeps getting people killed in an unwinnable war.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
In the aftermath of the dust-up in the Oval Office between Vlodomyr Zelenskyy, President Trump, and Vice President Vance, I find it stunning that so many, quick to their opinions, can be so blindâand stubbornly soâto the realities of what happened and the opportunities that were refused.
First, Zelenskyy is the leader (for now) of what the World Bank calls a âlower-middle-income country.â It is by no means in any position to claim the mantle of what we would have called âfirst worldâ status during the Cold War. Additionally, Zelenskyy is the leader of a country that needs foreign aidâboth militarily and financiallyâto survive in the immediate.
So, his outrageous demeanor in the Oval Office toward President Trump and Vice President Vanceânot to mention his backstabbing of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in changing the terms of the Rare Earth Minerals Agreementâis and was completely and absolutely unacceptable. Zelenskyy is not of equal station or stature as the President of the United States. Put bluntly, you donât come asking for foreign aid and start dictating what you will accept, how the benefactor will feel, and what the donor country will do.
And it wasnât just Americans, sans the radical Left, who must consistently and inanely take the opposite position of everything Donald Trump says (every House Democrat voted against eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, tips, and overtime). Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Dubinsky called for an emergency session of the Ukrainian Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against Zelenskyy. It needs to be noted that Dubinsky is currently imprisoned in Ukraine for his alleged Russian influence (Zelenskyy didnât like what he was saying, so he put him in prison).
In a completely unscientific social media poll (and I donât put a lot of stock in polling, but when one is substantially lopsided, itâs hard to argue that the sentiment isnât there), 71.4% of the respondents said they believed Zelenskyyâs actions in the Oval Office diminished the American peopleâs support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.
And how could we not. Zelenskyy sat defiantly in the Oval Office declaring with a full-throat that he would both not accept a ceasefire and not negotiate peace with Vladimir Putin. Regardless of what you may think about Putin (I am not a fan, by far), if you are unwilling to enter into dialogues with your nation-state adversary, how do you expect to craft an avenue to peace; how do you stop the killing?
Zelenskyyâs attitude on those points alone validates Mr. Trumpâs statement that Zelenskyy isnât âready for Peace if America is involved.â
But even more arrogantly egregious was Zelenskyyâs pivot away from the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement in his demand for âsecurity guaranteesâ from the United States. This is where the âdrive-by know-nothingâ social media opinionators expose their complete lack of critical thinking skills and intellectual comprehension of geopolitical issues involving Ukraine and Russia.
Zelenskyyâs insistence on âsecurity guaranteesâ from the United States equates to the United States committing to military engagement should Russia violate any agreement to cease hostilities. That would mean a direct US military conflict with RussiaâUS troops on the groundâand with Russia having China's unwavering alliance and recent assurances on the matter.
Furtherâand again, this is where the âdrive-by know-nothingsâ fail to think things through, with China (a nuclear power with a 2 million person active-duty roster) both existing adversarially to the United States and in contracted concert with Russia (a nuclear power)âand with both of them seeking to end Western (read: American) hegemonyâany US military engagement on Ukraineâs behalf on Ukrainian soil would light the fuse to a global conflict, again validating Mr. Trumpâs point that Zelenskyy is playing with World War.
However, the larger demonstration of Zelenskyyâs inability to grasp a concept is his complete ignorance of what the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have meant for his country. Thus, my contention that Zelenskyy is not even close to being an adequate leader for the Ukrainian people.
The Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have achieved two things.
First, it would have immediately affected a cessation of hostilitiesâand that means the killing would have stoppedâbecause it would have hobbled Putin from advancing, the United States would have established a vested interest and, therefore, an official presence in Ukraine. So, any aggression by Putin against US interests in that country would have been an act of war against the United States directly.
Putin may be ruthless, but heâs not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his militaryâs vulnerabilities through their actions against the Ukrainian Army, and he recognizes that in the face of a US-led (or even NATO-led) military coalition, he would lose unequivocally.
Just as importantly, the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have provided Ukraine with a domestic capability to rebuild, which will likely be a monumental effort.
As of February 2024, the estimated cost for rebuilding Ukraine, assuming the war ends in short order, was pegged at $486 billion over a decade, according to the Rapid Damage & Needs Assessment (RDNA3) released on February 15, 2024, by the Ukrainian government, the World Bank, the European Commission, and the United Nations.
This figure reflects the total reconstruction and recovery needs based on damages incurred from the start of Russiaâs full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, through December 31, 2023. Later data, like the RDNA4 from February 25, 2025, bumps the cost to $524 billion through December 31, 2024, suggesting an additional $38 billion in damage over 2024.
As Zelenskyy scurries to the low-watt spotlight being shone on him by some European leadersâleaders who talk a tough game but whose actions in the past prove a more cautious approach to any foreign entanglements without US participation, are we to believe that Europe (the EU) alone will flip the bill for eveyething Ukraine will need to rebuild?
Further, are we to believe that in a post-conflict Ukraine, the governmentâs penchant for embracing and tolerating corruption will suddenly evaporate to an acceptable level tolerated by the European people, particularly when the Ukrainian government will be spending European tax dollars? My friends, Europeans arenât as apathetic about the squandering of their tax dollars as American taxpayers.
So, in my eyes, all the handwringing and superficial protestation about President Trump and Vice President Vanceâs response to Zelenskyyâs Oval Office behavior, and, quite frankly, his arrogant approach to the American taxpayer in general, is nothing more than a display of kneejerk, emotion-driven, stunted intellect and the âdrive-by-know-nothingâsâ inability to think an issue through to all logical and realistic conclusions.
Itâs one of the burdens that a free people must both contend with and defend to maintain the sanctity of free speech. The knowledgeable must suffer the inanity of the uneducated and uninformed who believe they know the fact because they feel they do.
Itâs a cross to bear for sure. But freedom is worth that cost.
Frank Salvato's analysis has been entered into the congressional record through the US House Foreign Relations Committee and recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His writing has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Human Events, as well as syndicated internationally.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Change is never easy, and it is especially tough when that change has to right the wrongs committed by opportunists, ideologues, and spendthrifts from times past. Such are the realities of the pains many in the federal government are realizing in the reformative measures being executed by the Trump administration.
This corrective pain will also be felt across our nation to some degree and by everyone, although it wonât be nearly as painful as the far-Left alarmists of the woke ilk are prognosticating.
To be frank, and if we are honest with ourselves, the federal government has turned into a bloated enterprise thatâuntil nowârefuses to operate within the constraints of the constitutional framework that created it, with its rank-and-file employees so sheltered from the realities of the world they have come to think they have a ârightâ to their positions. They do not.
Regardless of what the ideologues and opportunists of the public-sector union leadership and the encroaching judges of the judiciary contend, every federal employee existing under the Executive Branchâthatâs every employee of every agency, department, administration, and commissionâserves at the pleasure of the President of the United States in one form or another.
So, what does that mean?
To "serve at the pleasure of the President of the United States" means that a person holds their positionâusually a high-level government jobâonly as long as the President wants them to. Itâs a phrase rooted in the US Constitution and applies to certain officials, like cabinet members, ambassadors, or other appointees in the Executive Branch. These people donât have fixed terms or job security in the usual sense; the President can fire them at any time, for any reasonâor no reason at allâwithout needing approval from Congress or anyone else.
Itâs tied to the Presidentâs authority to run the Executive Branch as they see fit. The thinking is that the President, as the only leader elected by the whole of the nation, gets to pick a team that aligns with his agenda. So, if a cabinet secretary or an agency head isnât cutting it in the Presidentâs eyes, theyâre outâno legal protections or formal process required, just the Presidentâs say-so.
On the flip side, it also means these officials are directly accountable to the President, not to, say, the public or another branch of government. Itâs a loyalty gig. Youâre there because the President trusts you to carry out his vision, and when that trust is gone, so are you.
For rank-and-file federal employeesâyour everyday government workers like clerks, analysts, or techniciansâthe phrase "serve at the pleasure of the President" doesnât apply in the same way it does to high-level appointees, but it still applies. These folks are part of the civil service, a system designed to keep the government running smoothly regardless of whoâs in the White House. Theyâre supposed to be hired based on merit, not because of politics or ideology, and that affords them some protections that make their jobs far less shaky than, say, a cabinet secretaryâs.
Civil service employeesâthink of the bulk of people at agencies like the IRS, EPA, or Social Security Administrationâfall under laws like the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, which abolished the US Civil Service Commission and replaced it with three entities: the Office of Personnel Management, the Merit Systems Protection Board, and the Federal Labor Relations Authority, establishing a process for discipline and termination. This gives federal employees (civil servants) a degree of job security: they canât just be fired on a whim by the President or anyone else.
Although the hyperbole of a federal employee being unfireable, unless a murder has been committed, has lost its comedic value, there is a process (as convoluted by union and judicial interference as it is) to terminating a federal employee that involves documentation, providing reasonsâlike poor performance, misconduct, or failure to comply with the directives of superiors. That process also allows the employee(s) in question the ability to appeal through systems like the Merit Systems Protection Board. The idea is to shield them from political pressure so they can do their jobs without worrying about ticking off the boss upstairs.
That said, the Presidentâs influence isnât zero. Rank-and-file workers answer to supervisors, who answer to higher-ups, who ultimately answer to political appointees serving at the Presidentâs pleasure. Therefore, the Presidentâs agenda significantly impacts the direction and spirit of a federal employeeâs workâsay, through policy changes, agency or department re-branding and re-purposing, or budget cuts.
Ultimately, everyoneâfrom the cabinet secretaries to the department and agency heads, to upper- and mid-level management personnel, to the rank-and-file employees in the Executive Branchâserves at the President's pleasure in one way or another, or, at least, theyâre supposed to.
But since the Clinton years, when his administration stuffed the Deep State bureaucracy with mid-level political loyalist âsleeper cellsâ meant to progress obstructively upward through the bureaucratic chain to guard the then soft neo-Marxist revolution that had been manifesting since the early 1960s, the Deep State bureaucracy has executed small measures to insulate itself from accountability and culpability.
Meanwhile, the ranks of the federal bureaucracyâan integral element of the Deep Stateâhave exploded to approximately 3 million people as of November 2024. Keep in mind that this excludes state, county, and local government employees. When we add that number, the total comes to approximately 23.7 million, or about one in every 14 or 15 Americans or 14% of the US workforce.
These numbers warrant an examination of the need for so many government employees at every level, but especially in the federal government since many federal departments and agencies are redundant to state-level departments and agencies.
This brings me to my larger point and yes, it involves the termination of federal employees and quite a bit more.
Some of the CIAâs top officials are worried that disgruntled former employees may be plotting to commit treason by leaking classified information to foreign adversaries such as China or Russia, seeking revenge for their firings.
CNN reported:
â...on the CIAâs 7th floorâhome to top leadershipâsome officers are also quietly discussing how mass firings and the buyouts already offered to staff risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.â
Treason is a crime against the American people and the only crime to be specifically spelled out in the US Constitution.
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states, in part:
âTreason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfortâŠâ
Providing classified information to the enemyâfor any reasonâconstitutes treason.
The intelligence community institutions wield significant and often, especially in recent years, nefarious influence both domestically and abroad. They have actively worked against President Trump for nearly a decade. From constructing and promoting the now-debunked Russiagate narrative to intelligence agencies working together to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, they have continuously sought to undermine him and his agenda at every opportunity. The FBIâs involvement in January 6 only reinforces the extent of their political entanglements.
These acts constitute sedition.
For federal employees, sedition-like behavior is most directly addressed under laws like the federal seditious conspiracy statute. This law makes it a crime for two or more peopleâincluding government employeesâto conspire to overthrow the US government, oppose its authority by force, or interfere with the execution of its laws. If a federal employee were involved in such activitiesâsay, plotting to disrupt government operations through violence or sabotage or the usurpation of directivesâthey could face prosecution, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison.
The insubordination that has become commonplace in the federal bureaucracy, especially at the Department of Justice and the intelligence communitiesâwhich, in the latterâs case, constitutes treason, must be addressed and addressed with an uncompromising (read: ruthless) hand.
The idea that retaliation by disgruntled ex-employees could include divulging national security secrets to our enemies isâby definitionâtreason. Any current, former, or newly terminated federal employee who provides aid (classified information) or comfort to the enemy. Should be charged with treason, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and penalized to the harshest letter of the law.
Any federal employeeâor complicit organizationâwho conspires to sedition should be charged with sedition, prosecuted aggressively, and penalized to the full extent of the penalties allowed.
There can be no caveats or mitigating circumstances. These transgressions against the American people constitute crimes of the highest order and, therefore, require the harshest penalties.
The time for talking about what should be done and what will be done is over. Itâs time to execute. A few convicted traitors hanging in the public square sends a potent message.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
No, Zelenskyy Is Not An Equal
Before I go, I wanted to spotlight the grotesque disrespect that was displayed both toward President Trump and the American peopleâthe American taxpayersâby Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Fridayâs Oval Office meeting.
Zelenskyy is not Trumpâs equal. He is a head of state, yesâfor now, but he is not an equal. He is not the leader of a superpower. He is a man representing a country at war who needs the financing and big stick abilities of the United States on the world stage.
So, what does he do? He comes, dressed like a poor-manâs Castro wannabe, to the Oval Office and speaks to the President of the United States like President Trump is some sort of obligated servant.
Zelensky interrupted, talked over, and most egregiously, attempted to talk down to President Trump. He tried to dictate the terms for which he would accept aidâincluding the ability of the United States to affect an end to the conflict.
I am including the full video of the meeting here at UndergroundUSA.com so you can see just how disrespectful this pissant was:
As an aside, JD Vance rolled his bones to cement his bona fides in taking control and ending the spectacle, at least in front of the media.
Nevertheless, the level of ungrateful arrogance is both incredible and unacceptable. To wit, I agree with the statement the President issued shortly afterward on X:
âWe had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It's amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don't want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.â
As I shared with a good friend of mine who used to be in the employ of the EU Commission years back when he asked my thoughts on Zelenskyy getting pretty much asked to leave the Oval Office:
âZelensky's disrespectful attitude (maybe it's a symptom of being able to walk on Biden the way he did) toward Trump in his assumption that he is an equal isn't playing well over here in the US. His lack of humility is overt and that doesn't play well with Trump or his backers. Many Americans see that as being ungrateful after the taxpayersânot the government, the taxpayersâgifted him $500 billion.
âSo, it means [Zelenskyy] thought he had some sort of leverage over here that didn't exist. If he is wise (and at this point that appears not to be the case) he will return with a conciliatory tone, even if it has to be in private. Otherwise, his world just got extremely difficult and Europe will have to flip the entirety of the bill for his begging.â
The damage that the âwalk-all-over-usâ Biden administrationâand before them the Obama administrationâdid to the stature of the United States is evident in Zelenskyyâs belief that he could walk into the Oval Office and piss all over the place.
Zelenskyyâs blatant disrespect towards President Trump and his arrogance in the Oval Office lost the good will of the majority of the American people, and that is a tragedy for the people of Ukraine, who have traditionally enjoyed the sympathies and support of the American people.
But, like it or not, Zelenskyy represents the Ukrainian people and Zelenskyy did a great disservice to them, as well as to the American people.
Was this all theater for Vladimir Putinâs non-benefit? It could be, but itâs not likely. Regardless, a large majority of the American people feel that Zelenskyy disrespected both President Trump and the American people, and that cannot stand.
In the end, a more imbecilic political move has seldom been witnessed in world history. The Ukrainian people would be wise to make amends to their most valued ally, and sending Zelenskyy a pink slip would be a great first-step overture.
Zelenskyyâs punk-antics need to be the end of his political career.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
If you only get your information from social media or the usual suspect media outlets, you probably believe there are a significant number of Americans who oppose Elon Muskâs efforts at exposing the spendthrift practices of our bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, Deep-State-monopolized federal government. Donât believe it. Not for a New York minute.
For those who genuinely seek accurate and truthful information, it may surprise you to learn that the mainstream media complex and its toady polling organizationsâyou know, the ones that had Kamala Harris winning over Donald Trump in the 2024 General Electionâwant you to believe a significant portion of the Republic doesnât want waste, fraud, and corruption exposed and eliminated. Further, they want you to think that everyone hates Elon Musk.
Ten of the most âprestigeous,â and for those listening to the podcast I am using the word facetiously, polling institutions report a mixed but often negative view of Elon Musk and his leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE):
* AP-NORC Poll (January 9-13, 2025): This poll found that 52% of US adults have an unfavorable opinion of Musk, compared to 36% with a favorable view. Regarding DOGE, only 29% approved of its creation with 60% of respondents viewing it as a "bad thing."
* YouGov/The Economist Poll (February 9-11, 2025): This survey reported that 52% of Americans view Musk unfavorably, compared to 42%. For DOGE, 42% viewed it favorably, but 38% were unfavorable, and notably, it was less popular than many federal programs it aims to cut.
* Morning Consult Poll (Published February 5, 2025): Among 2,000 registered voters, 46% disapproved of Musk's involvement in the government, compared to 41% who approved.
* Reuters/Ipsos Poll (Completed February 18, 2025): This poll revealed that 58% of Americans were concerned that Muskâs efforts to slash government spending could delay critical services like Social Security and student aid.
* Groundwork Collaborative/Public Citizen Poll (Hart Research, Published February 5, 2025): This survey showed 54% of voters with an unfavorable view of Musk, rising to 63% by the end after respondents learned more about DOGEâs operations and Muskâs âpotentialâ conflicts of interest. Additionally, 57% felt Musk has too much influence, with 61% less favorable toward him due to unregulated access to government systems and his business interests.
* Quinnipiac University Poll (Published February 19, 2025): A majority, 54%, disapproved of Muskâs role in the Trump administration, with 42% approving, placing him 12 points underwater in public opinion.
* Pew Research Center Poll (January, 2025): This poll found 54% of respondents with an unfavorable view of Musk, compared to 42% favorable.
* CBS/YouGov Poll (Published February 5, 2025): Nearly half of respondents (49%) wanted Musk to have less or no influence over government spending and operations, with 31% saying he should have none at all.
The results of these polls are being trumpeted in the usual suspect Left-wing alphabet media, and special interest publications including: Politico, Axios, Newsweek, MotherJones.com, GroundWorkCollaborative.org, Reuters, The New Republic, NBC News, and others.
Incidentally, two of the most accurate polls in the 2024 General ElectionâRasmussen Reports and the Trafalgar Groupâboth reported a majority support for Musk and DOGE.
So, what is it that the Deep State masters of the propaganda polling outlets hate so much about Elon Musk and his activities with DOGE? Within 30 days of its inception, DOGE found $55 billion in fraud, waste, redundancy, and corruption in federal spending, and thatâs just in 30 days.
At the center of the Deep State griftâthe US Agency for International Development (USAID), until recently headed by Samantha Power, DOGE exposed that a significant portion of USAID fundsâup to 82%ânever reaches intended recipients. Instead, it is pocketed by prime contractors and NGOs, turning aid into a âpersonal slush fundâ for Washington, DC insiders.
Some of those USAID-funded projects include:
* Funding for a $20 Million "Sesame Street" project in Iraq
* $1.5 Million for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) projects in Serbia
* Millions of taxpayer dollars to nonprofits linked to terrorist organizations ($9 million in aid diverted to groups like the Al-Nusrah Front in Syria and millions for food aid reaching al Qaeda-affiliated fighters, also in Syria)
* Millions to EcoHealth Alliance for Wuhan lab gan-of-function research
* $70,000 for a "DEI Musical" in Ireland
* Printing "Personalized" Contraceptives in Developing Countries
And this is just a sampling of the list of abuses the American taxpayer has had to endure under the grotesque campaign of grift perpetrated by the Deep State uniparty.
Most recently, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has asserted that DOGE, targeting three main areas for acts of fraud at the Social Security Administration (duplicate payments, payments to deceased individuals, and broader systemic integrity issues), has found data inconsistencies that raise concerns about payments to people listed as 150, 200, or even 360 years old. The Social Security Administration database shows millions of people over 100 years old with the "death field" set to "FALSE," implying they might still be receiving benefits despite being dead.
The Social Security Administrationâs own Inspector General reported in July 2024 that improper paymentsâincluding some to deceased individualsâtotaled $71.8 billion from fiscal years 2015 to 2022 alone. Additionally, a 2021 audit specifically identified $298 million paid to about 24,000 deceased individuals through December 2019.
It should be noted here that DOGE hasnât even come close to concluding their audits of any of these agencies. Itâs all in the beginning stages.
I am fortunate to connect with a great many people, both domestically and internationally, during the course of my days and I can make this statement with absolute certainty. I have yet to come across anyone who, once informed about the facts and figures of the matterâthe actual dataâand who genuinely wants the United States to thriveâI have yet to come across anyone who supports the continuation of the Deep Stateâs diabolical campaign of grift.
My larger point here is this. The mainstream media, along with those aforementioned polling organization toadies, routinely manufacture polls to fit the preferred narrative of the Deep State uniparty. Their history of push polling is not a secret, and today, the overwhelming number of polling organizations only execute push polls. To that end, ask yourself this question: If the mainstream public opinion polls were on the up-and-up, why would political campaigns need âinternal pollingâ?
So, as you scroll through the posts about fuzzy baby animals and which celebrity turned down $7 trillion to star in a movie with Oprah and Robert DeNiro, keep in mind that the onslaught of anti-DOGE and anti-Musk memes and posts are as credible as a daycare center run by P Diddy and Jeffrey Epstein. They arenât. They are propaganda pieces sanctioned by the Deep State uniparty to discredit an initiative that means to return sanity to government spending and the government itself to the service of the American people.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
No Joy for MSNBCâs Reid
Before I go, I wanted to celebrate a moveâmade by MSNBC, of all placesâto recognize their responsibility (at least in this instance) to truth in our public square.
Benjamin Mullin of The New York Times reports:
âJoy Reidâs evening news show on MSNBC is being canceled, part of a far-reaching programming overhaul orchestrated by Rebecca Kutler, the networkâs new president, two people familiar with the changes said.
âThe final episode of Ms. Reidâs 7 p.m. show, âThe ReidOut,â is planned for sometime this week, according to the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly.â
Reid comes in a close second to Rachel Maddow as one of the most caustically partisan âpersonalitiesâ in the media today, with Mika and Joe coming in a distant third.
The false narratives, conspiracy theories, and politically uneducated drivel advanced by Reid and her ilk are not only racist, they are allodoxaphobic (the fear of opinions differing from oneâs own). Her race-based, exploitative rants were consistently counter-productive to the discussion of truth and fact and, in fact, damaging to society.
That Joy Reid is losing her $3 million a year paycheck (who the fuck thought she was worth $3 million a year?!) along with having her corporate media megaphone shut off should be celebrated, not because it is canceling a caustic, hateful voice, but because it is forcing Reid to face the harsh reality that her positions about politics and society arenât selling in the public square and, thus, donât warrant any spotlight.
I am sure Reid will exist tone-deaf to this truth: That she is so out of tune with society (and even the overwhelming majorities of the Democrat Party and the Black community) that she canât even get a gig on the hyper-partisan MSNBC.
But I am equally certain that she will refuse to fade from the roach-infested corners of the spotlight, those rounded corners where the fraudulent conspiracy theorists, has-been partisan hacks, and Hitlarian haters dwell in obscurity. I am sure she will launch a podcast, and places like YouTube, Spotify, and Apple will again ignore her unmistakeable racism and intrinsic hatred to spotlight her claptrap over fact-based and honest podcastsâŠall because some political hack in an editorâs suite once saw the possibility of ratings through the exploitation of identity politics.
Ta-ta, Joy, and donât let the door hit you in your race-baiting, hateful ass on the way out.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
There has been a lot of uneducated debate on the legitimacy of President Trumpâs Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the effort headed by Elon Musk. As those who see their seats at the taxpayer-funded government feedthrough threatened and panic about having to do without out, the idea that the new entity is illegitimate needs to be laid to rest. It is.
Recently, 14 state attorneys general were denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to obstruct Muskâs DOGE efforts, claiming that eliminating waste and fraudulent spending in the many federal agencies and departments would cause âharmâ to their states. Ironically, it was US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same judge who presided over the criminal investigation into Trumpâs alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, who ruled against them.
As FOX News' Breanne Deppisch reported:
âPlaintiffs argued that the leadership role held by Musk, a private citizen, represents an âunlawful delegation of executive powerâ and threatened what they described as âwidespread disruptionâ to employees working across various federal agencies and government contractors.
ââThere is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,â said the lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez.
âAttorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington also joined him in the request.â
Chunkin was correct in denying the attorney generals their TRO, but not for the reasons she stated, which centered on proving âirreparable harm.â Instead, the denialâwhich should have been dismissed with prejudiceâshould have centered on the fact that DOGE exists as a re-purposed department already codified by Congress.
The DOGE effort under the Trump administration is, indeed, a re-purposed version of an initiative initially established during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration created the United States Digital Service (USDS) in 2014 to improve government technology and address issues like the HealthCare.gov rollout. The Trump administration rebranded and expanded this effort into what is now known as the DOGE, which focuses on government efficiency, cutting waste, and modernizing federal technology.
DOGE, like other government initiatives, has a legal basis for operating with that basis rooted in executive authority and existing budgetary approval through discretionary spending.
The President has the constitutional authority to issue Executive Orders to establish or direct the operations of initiatives such as those tasked to Musk through DOGE. Executive orders do not require congressional approval and can be used to set policy and/or reorganize federal agencies or offices.
Further, the Constitution grants the President broad executive authority to reorganize and manage the Executive Branch as deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the government. This includes creating, rebranding, or repurposing offices or initiatives like DOGE.
Regarding funding sources, DOGE service falls under the Executive Office of the Presidental Budget, and its fiscal year 2025 budget is available for DOGE activities. This budget typically covers staff salaries, technology, and advisory initiatives. Further, agencies hosting DOGE teams can redirect portions of their discretionary funds (Departmental Expenditure Limits, or DELs) to support embedded personnel or system upgrades, as suggested by the framework for efficiency initiatives.
Therefore, DOGE does not require new legislation for its operations. It operates under the existing legal framework that supported its predecessor, the US Digital Service, codified by executive actions and legislation pertaining to government efficiency and technology.
For DOGE operations to be considered unconstitutional, several scenarios or arguments would have to be satisfied before judicial interference would be constitutionally appropriate:
* If DOGE were to execute functions explicitly reserved for Congress or the judiciary, like making laws or adjudicating disputes, it might be seen as an overreach, violating the Separation of Powers principle. However, as DOGE is narrowly tasked with seeking out waste, fraud, and spendthrift expenditures, neither of these lines in the sand has been crossed.
* If DOGE were to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, it could violate the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution, which states that âNo money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.â As DOGE operates exclusively under the fiscal umbrella of discretionary spending, this red line has not been approached.
* If DOGE's actions led to the deprivation of rights without due process (e.g. if it implemented policies or technology that affected individualsâ constitutional rights without providing a fair hearing or legal recourse, this could be challenged under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. Since DOGE is tasked with ferreting out waste and fraud that exists as an abuse of taxpayer dollars (i.e., abuse of power), no encroachment into federal employee rights can be recognized. As federal employees under the Executive Branch serve at the âpleasure of the President,â redundancy terminations and employment separations for an employee's lack of fidelity to presidential directives fall well within the Presidentâs purview.
* If DOGE were to engage in surveillance or data collection practices that infringed upon citizens' privacy without proper legal justification or oversight, this could be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since DOGE is simply claiming its right to existing data, there is no âsurveillanceâ or âdata collection,â making this point moot.
* If DOGE's operations included censorship or content control in a way that impinged on free speech, this would be a significant constitutional concern. With DOGE being a âtransparency effort,â this issue is also moot.
* Should DOGE implement policies or use technology in a discriminatory manner, this could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, suggesting that individuals are not being treated equally under the law based on race, religion, gender, or other protected classes. Again, because the DOGE effort is to root out waste, spendthrift monetary practices, and grift, the effort is not identity-driven, rendering this go-to favorite of the radical Left nothing more than a hollow claim.
* Lastly, if the initiative were seen as an attempt by the Executive Branch to bypass legislative processes or create de facto laws or regulations without congressional approval, it could be argued that this was an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Yet, because the DOGE effort is rooted in eliminating existing waste, fraud, and corruption, the actions that result are not legislative or regulatory. They are operational and fall squarely within the executive purview.
For any of these scenarios to lead to a finding of unconstitutionality, DOGE would need to take specific actions or create specific policies that clearly violate constitutional principles. No argument has been levied to make any of these charges. Any legal challenge requires evidence that DOGE's actions go beyond the Executive Branch's constitutional authority or infringe upon individual constitutional rights. That threshold isnât even in the room.
So, yes, Virginia, there is a legal and constitutional basis for DOGE to both exist and operate, much to the chagrin of the Deep State spendthrift swampateers in Washington, DC, and beyond.
Carry on, Elon. You are providing an incredible service to your adopted country, and I, for one, am thankful.
Funny. In the end, landing a man on Mars may prove easier for Musk than expunging corruption and fraud from the federal government. Who would have thought?!
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The Ideological Leftâs Deep State âSleeper Cellsâ
I wanted to touch on why it is so critically important to maintain the hunt for the ideological âsleeper cellsâ embedded in federal agencies and departments in pursuit of reform.
Two recent stories validate my contention that every agency and department under the Executive Branchâincluding the lesser White House and Executive Office staffâmust be rid of any previously appointed careerists and especially any âholdoversâ from Democratic administrations. Anyone who received their positions during the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations must be released from service.
The first example comes in the removal of Michelle King, who was serving as acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, right up until it was discovered that she was stonewalling a DOGE investigation into massive fraud within the agency. King spent several decades at the agency before being named its acting commissioner last month.
This comes as reports surface that $71.8 billion in improper Social Security payments were made between 2015 and 2022 alone.
And the second example comes in the resignation of senior US prosecutor Denise Cheung, who quit after being ordered to issue grand jury subpoenas to determine whether âa contract had been unlawfully awarded.â Cheungâs refusal to execute a prosecutorial order from her superiorsâwho determined the need for the actionâexists as a usurpation of acting DC US attorney Ed Martinâs legitimate authority.
The grand jury sought by Martin was to determine criminal culpability in the Biden administrationâs awarding of billions in environmental grants immediately before President Trump re-entered the White House.
The Deep State uniparty rot permeates the Executive Branch agencies and departments, requiring a massive culling of the herd to ensure that the shadow governments of the past donât simply ârun out the clockâ on the Trump administration while providing operation life support to the elements of corruption that the American people mandated Mr. Trump eliminate.
Quite frankly, an exact replica of the DOGE effort currently underway in the Executive Branch must be executed in the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our federal government if we are to fully exterminate the roach operative of the status quo Deep State. The obstacle to that becoming a reality is the lack of will to do so. Finding a set of balls where reformative action is concerned on Capitol Hill or across the street at the US Supreme Courtârhetorically speaking, of courseâis like finding a drinking fountain on the face of the Sun.
Before I go, I wanted to address the cultural Stockholm Syndrome emerging in peopleâs almost pre-programmed criticism of Elon Musk and the job he is doing with DOGE.
Recently, a few usually reasonable people have floated the propaganda that Elon Musk is executing his efforts with DOGE to benefit himself personally. A more ridiculous statement is seldom heard.
A person who is manipulating his or her position to benefit themselves wouldnât stand silently next to a United States President while he bashed the very products and industry that you own and that brings you the wealth youâve earned. This is the case with Musk: He stood silently as Trump brutally bashed the EV industry.
Further, it is not self-beneficial when politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct in the form of investigations and tax probes is ceased in the name of lawfulness, which is also the case. The DoJ has terminated investigations started under the Biden administration after Musk aligned with Trump because they were both politically motivated and illegitimate.
The fact of the matter is this. The long knives are out for Musk because he is exposing the corruption and graft perpetrated by the Deep State uniparty, and they are going to do everything in their power to stop him, to destroy him. Thatâs whatâs playing out there.
Those attacking Elon Musk for exposing the sickening level of corruption in our federal government are suffering from a cultural Stockholm Syndrome, fomented by years of corrupt politicians and the K Street-backed media telling you, âthatâs just how government works.â No, itâs not. And it doesnât need to be this way. Thatâs what Musk is exposing.
As the first step to recovering from this cultural Stockholm Syndrome, ask yourself this question: How do elected officials making a six-figure salary, who have to pay exorbitant rent for living quarters in the nationâs capital, exit office as multimillionaires, sometimes amassing wealth in the eight- and nine-figure range?
Then, with an open mind, consider what Musk is exposing.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Itâs interesting how the mainstream media useful idiots wail about a âpoliticizedâ Department of Justice after spending four years during the Biden administration running interference for some of the most egregious acts of political persecution our country has ever had to endure.
In reporting on reformative moves made by Attorney General Pam Bondi at the DoJâreformative actions mandated by the American people in the landslide re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Associated Pressâs Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer had the unmitigated gall to report:
âEven for a department that has endured its share of scandals, the moves have produced upheaval not seen in decades, tested its independence, and rattled the foundations of an institution that has long prided itself on being driven solely by facts, evidence, and the law. As firings and resignations mount, the unrest raises the question of whether a president who raged against his own Justice Department during his first term can succeed in bending it to his will in his second.â
Tucker and Richer completely ignore this inarguable fact: When a government agency or department has been corrupted, sometimes a complete reformation is needed. Wrongs must be righted for that department or agency to be reclaimed for the nation's service.
Where Tucker, Richer, and the AP see a radical deviation from the politically motivated corrupt practices of the Obama and Biden administrations (not to mention the Clinton tenure), that deviation isnât one that goes from legitimacy to corruption. Rather, it is a course correction that moves from âswampateerâ corruption and opportunism to legitimacy, a return to constitutional lawâto the rule of lawâand the rejection and termination of the lawfare that the Deep State status quo seeks; that the Deep State status quo is and has been perpetrating on their political opposition.
The irony here is that the Fourth Estate, which is supposed to be bound to a quest for objectivity and truth, an entity that speaks truth to power, exists now as a blinded entity the public cannot trust, an entity that exists in Jerry Seinfeldâs âbizarro worldâ where everything is the opposite of what it should be. Todayâs mainstream media speaks the language of power and opportunism to truth and fact.
As the Trump administration and its newly seated cabinet and agency heads expose corruption executed for decades by the Deep State uniparty insiders, media organizations like the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, and the like, so used to the status quo of the swamp, canât differentiate between legitimate moves to return the federal government to the people and the criminally opportunistic moves that moved it away from the people in the first place.
In a statement made about the termination of what appeared to be a case of political retribution against New Yorkâs Democrat Mayor, Eric Adams, Bondiâs spokesman, Chad Mizelle, said:
âThe decision to dismiss the indictment of Eric Adams is yet another indication that this DOJ will return to its core function of prosecuting dangerous criminals, not pursuing politically motivated witch hunts.â
He went on to accuse the prosecutors of acting without evidence and executing their offices with âdisordered and ulterior motives.â
And isnât that what the Department of Justice is supposed to be, a department of the federal government that serves the people through the application of the letter of the law and the factsâthe factsâof any investigation that leads them to a move to a prosecution?
Did the mainstream media players get so used to writing and hearing their own ideologically motivated false narratives championing corrupt political persecutions of retribution that they have come to believe their own falsehoods? That indicting your political rivals without true justifiable cause and for the sole purpose of ending careers and political movements is a legitimate role for our US Justice Department? That it is good government and the legitimate use of law enforcement to jail and hold non-violent protesters who executed their First Amendment Rights to redress government and in defiance of their Sixth Amendment Rights to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?
The winds of changeâa legitimate change meant to restore us to the US Constitutionâhave come to the Deep State swamp that is the Washingtonian inside-the-beltway world. For the swampateers and political status quo bottomfeeders of that world, change will be difficult, like kicking a heroin addiction. But in the end, our Republic will be healthier for it, and our federal government will be returned to a state where it serves the people, not the swamps' pocket-filling reprobates.
Alinsky wrote about this concept in his book Rules for Radicals. When pushing for reform, change often requires a degree of chaos, pain, and disruption to challenge the status quo. Alinsky may have been ideologically evil, but damn if he wasnât right about that.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Clusterfuck Nation
I rarely do this (I think I did it once for my good friend Judson Carroll, who hosts the Southern Appalachian Herbs podcast on iHeart, a great resource if youâre looking to get more natural with your health); anyway, before I go, I wanted to share with you a column I am thoroughly enjoying.
Itâs called Clusterfuck Nation, and it is written and sometimes produced (he has an associated podcast) by James Howard Kuntsler, who, over his career, has written for Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, and the New York Times Magazine. Now, you would think that with bona fides like those, he would be an unwashed left-winger. But heâs not.
Either he realized the Kool-Aid was mixed from a blend of arsenic and bullshit, or he just saw the light, Kuntslerâs take on what is happening today is spot on, especially his take on the Deep State, what he calls âThe Blob.â
You can read his stuff for free, just as you can with Underground USA, but if you appreciate the work and the insight, it never hurts to help the cause financially. Now that substack allows monthly remittance, itâs easier than ever, and, as the woman in the commercial says, it costs less than a cup of coffee at a Starbucks once a month.
So, check out Cklusterfuck Nation after you finish here at Underground USA. I donât believe you will be disappointedâŠ
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
In the face of what many see as an egregious judicial overreach into the Trump administration's policy implementation, Vice President JD Vance recently challenged the courts' encroachment on the Executive Branch's constitutional prerogatives. It is undoubtedly time to re-establish the Separation of Powers based on the US Constitution.
Vanceâs arguments center on an accurate reading and understanding of the fundamental principle of the Separation of Powers. His interpretationâwhich has been validated over the years in various US Supreme Court Rulingsâhighlights how anti-Trump judicial actions have repeatedly attempted to usurp the Executive Branch's rightful authority over key functions like military command and prosecutorial discretion, not to mention its exclusive purview of branch organizational operations.
The Separation of Powers doctrine, codified in the Articles of the US Constitution that establishes the three branches of government, is meant to ensure that each branch of government checks the others to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. However, judicial activism, such as what we see in the politically motivated actions of todayâs courts against Trumpâs executive actions, can upset this balance by allowing the judiciary to encroach on the powers of the legislative or executive branches.
Robert Bork, in his book The Tempting of America, critiques judicial activism as âa political enterprise masquerading as law.â And the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in his book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, frequently argued against judicial activism, advocating for originalism, where judges interpret the Constitution based on its text and the original understanding of its terms.
The current controversy ignited when a federal judge brazenly blocked the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, from accessing critical Treasury Department systems. This act blatantly infringes on the Executive's operational autonomy.
This judicial intervention is but one example of how the courts have systematically challenged President Trump's executive orders to restructure and optimize federal government operations. These orders included significant policies that would reorganize and streamline operations, eliminate the wasting of taxpayer dollars, and, specifically, dismantle the Deep State monetary feed-trough that was the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
With over two dozen lawsuits filed directly opposing the Presidentâs executive directives, Deep Staters and Democrat judicial appointees have undertaken an alarming trend in lawfare where judicial blocks have become political tools to thwart the administration's reformative agenda. This politically motivated lawfare obstructs the peopleâs mandate given to Trump in his 2024 landslide victory.
Critics like the disgraced Liz Cheney and US Senator Adam âBoy Do I Have A Problem With Telling The Truthâ Schiff (D-CA) have ignorantly painted Vance's defense of executive authority as âadvocacy for lawlessness.â However, when presented with examples of how former Presidents Biden and Obama abused Executive authority for purely political purposesâin particular, Bidenâs repeated orders to ignore the US Supreme Court in his advancement of student loan forgiveness, these two political numpties were notably silent.
This obstructionist view starkly contrasts with the insights offered by legal scholars like Yale Law's Jed Rubenfeld, who supports Vance's stance that certain Executive Branch functions are inherently outside the judiciary's scope and purview, and Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, who also argued that such judicial blocks violate the Separation of Powers, saying, "Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the Separation of Powers.â
Vance himself put it this way:
âIf a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the Executive's legitimate power.â
As the administration navigates these legal challenges through what is rightfully recognized as politically weaponized and biased lower courts, the expectation is that these cases will reach the Supreme Court, where a more constitutionally minded review will restore balance.
But, Mr. Trump, his advisors, and legal minds would be wise to borrow from Andrew Jackson's attitude. The 7th president viewed the US Constitution from an originalist viewpoint (as all federally elected and appointed officials should) and often had a contentious relationship with the Judicial Branch.
Jackson often emphasized the sovereignty of states and the limited role of the federal government as mandated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This viewpoint extended to opposing and sometimes ignoring judicial review when their decisions could be argued to be extra-constitutional and/or unconstitutionally expansive in their purview. Some key examples come in his veto of the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States and his handling of South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs in 1832-1833, in which he used his executive power to counter what he saw as judicial overreach.
That said, the ongoing legal battles have not only spotlighted the judiciary's contemporary penchant for grotesque overreachâand this is especially true of the lower courts of the federal judiciary at the hands of Democrat appointeesâbut they also raise alarms about the possibility of a budding constitutional crisis based on the Separation of Powers, establishing the political and ideological Left as the genesis of any potential constitutional crisis.
Vance's bold, wholly constitutional-based rhetoric has escalated the debate on this matter. However, it has also highlighted critical inconsistencies, such as the aforementioned Supreme Court decision on President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which reflects a selective acceptance of applicable Judicial Branch power.
With President Trump's re-election, these confrontations are not just legal skirmishes but pivotal moments calling out the need to re-establish the boundariesâbased on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rightsâof presidential authority versus judicial oversight and review in the American governance framework. In fact, these confrontations make it clear that the Deep State, the usurpers of authority, must recognize and accept a complete re-understanding of the federal governmentâs constitutionally established limitations.
This underscores the urgent need for a national dialogue on our nationâs constitutional illiteracyâand especially our elected officials' constitutional apathyâand the need to uphold the Separation of Powers and the limitations set forth for the federal government under the US Constitution.
We urgently need this to ensure that each branch of government operates within its constitutional confines, free from undue interference by the other co-equal branches of government, and so that âWe the Peopleâ start to understand that politics is not government.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Are You In Or Are You Out?
We were due a brief celebration after the 2024 General Election. Far from the usual rhetoric surrounding our every-four-year event, this past election was historical. It was historical for the re-election of a non-incumbent president. But it was also historical for the grand re-direction for which the American people voted.
In the short time that Trump has been back in office, we have seen the seating of a full cabinet of Washingtonian outsiders. This is unprecedented. Yes, some of them have been in the federal sphere before, but never in a conglomeration like this, each with a commitment to radical reformative change.
But itâs one monumental thing to win an election and then seat the cabinet you want. Itâs quite another to defeat the Deep State uniparty machine in the quest to fulfill campaign promises and the commitment to return the US federal government to the people; to serving the people.
The Deep State swamp is thick and full of obstacles. As I mentioned earlier, the labyrinth of lawfare is not just something that can be brushed aside with a narrative campaign. The radical Deep Staters of the Leftâlike Marc Elias, the Sorosâs, and the Clintonian creatures of the past who still feed off the rot with the bottom-feedersâthey have been planning for this very moment for at least two years, amassing armies of orc-like lawyers and researching which courts and judges to bring their lawfare in front of, all to diminish the extent to which Mr. Trump can harm their machine; their spendthrift, globalist, New World Order status quo, the Deep State.
In addition to the usual suspects of the radical transformative Left, we have their accomplices in the establishment and elitist Republican Party. Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and the rest of the fill-up-the-pockets, go-along-to-get-along Republicans who have conned their way to the halls of power are all against the winds of reformative change. They would rather see things remain the way they are because that allows them to maintain the con, and they get rich off of that. The USAID scam proves this beyond doubt.
This is why weâyou and I and everyone we know who is sick and tired of the grift that has been executed on us, on our countryâmust keep the pressure on. That means not falling for or advancing untruthful memes and social media posts, jettisoning the opinions and only consuming the facts, and maintaining pressure on those elected to represent us (and perhaps some who donât) to constantly remind them that there will be consequences for the abdication of commitment to return the country to the people from the control of the Deep State âswampateers.â
The battle is clear: Itâs reformative change vs. transformative change. Today, the Deep Statersâthe globalists, the elites, the US oligarchsâare on the side of transformative change (interesting how âtransâ is in there), and the people, who want to be free to make their own decisions and live their own lives without some busy-body annoying Karen from some swamp agency telling us what we can and canât do and then how we can do what they are letting us do, on the other. Itâs we, you and I, vs. the elitist, oligarchic Deep State.
So, my friends, we are at the beginning of the fight, not the middle, and certainly not the end. The question you must ask yourself is this: Are you in, or are you out?
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
There comes a time when, after being sucker-punched by someone you considered a friend and ally, you have to exact a comeuppance: establish a definitive understanding of a realignment in the relationship. Just such a time has come for US Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Yes, itâs common knowledge that McConnell and Donald Trump have a deeply-seated dislike for each other, although, by all accounts, Trump has been more adult about their differences than McConnell. But, it is not McConnellâs prerogative or political station to not only put himself above the Presidentâs agenda but also to usurp the mandate of the American people.
He is and has done both. His vote against Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the latest example. His vote was vindictive and shallow, and it should have significant consequences, most of which the Deep Staters will be reluctant to pursue.
This week, the US Senate voted to confirm Gabbard as the DNI, The New York Post reporting:
âThe US Senate confirmed former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as President Trumpâs spy chief Wednesday, elevating the ex-Democrat and privacy hawk to a cabinet-level position in the Republican administration.
âThe upper chamber voted 52-48 to confirm Gabbard, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joining all 47 Democrats in opposition.â
In his descent, McConnell stated that Gabbard was âunworthy of the highest public trustâ and that he feared that future intelligence assessments could be âtaintedâ given her âhistory of alarming lapses in judgment.â
What are those lapses that McConnell is so troubled by? Well, those lapses included not condemning National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowdenâs âtreasonous betrayalâ of the US and refusing to condemn Vladimir Putinâs decision to invade Ukraine, as well as not acknowledging that the growing threat of the communist Chinese on the world stage is not a result of âthreat inflationâ by the West.
âEntrusting the coordination of the intelligence community to someone who struggles to acknowledge these facts is an unnecessary risk,â McConnell said.
It should be noted here that McConnell voted for these Biden cabinet nominees:
* Antony Blinken for Secretary of State
* Janet Yellen for Secretary of the Treasury
* Lloyd Austin for Secretary of Defense
* Alejandro Mayorkas for Secretary of Homeland Security
* Avril Haines for Director of National Intelligence
* Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy
* Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation
* Deb Haaland for Secretary of the Interior
* Gina Raimondo for Secretary of Commerce
* Merrick Garland for Attorney General
* Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture
* Xavier Becerra for Secretary of Health & Human Services
* Marty Walsh for Secretary of Labor
* Marcia Fudge for Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
In fact, McConnell only voted against one of Bidenâs cabinet nominees, Neera Tanden, for Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who withdrew her nomination after it became clear she did not have enough support for confirmation.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Additionally, McConnell voted for these Obama cabinet nominees:
* Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State
* Eric Holder for Attorney General
* Janet Napolitano for Secretary of Homeland Security
* Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health & Human Services
As an aside, McConnell is married to Elaine Chao, who, while serving as the US Secretary of Transportation in President Trumpâs first administration, elicited concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to her family's business connections with China.
Chao's family founded Foremost Group, a shipping company with significant business dealings in communist China. Foremost Group has constructed ships in Chinese state-owned shipyards, and some of these ships were even financed by the Chinese government. From January 2018 to April 2019, 72% of the company's cargo was shipped to and from China.
In 2004, McConnell's net worth exploded from approximately $3.1 million to between $9.2 million and $36.5 million by 2014. This was partly due to gifts from the communist-Chinese affiliated Chao family. Additionally, members of the Chao family, including those associated with Foremost Group, have donated over $1 million to McConnell's political campaigns over the years.
All of that should have been enough to have ended anyone elseâs political career, if not at least see him/her under investigation for any possible illegal relationship with the communist Chinese. But McConnell? He was elevated to Majority Leader in the US Senate by the go-along-to-get-along Deep Staters in the Republican hierarchy.
Today, McConnell, having descended from his throne of leadership after doing all the damage he could to the Trump 2024 campaign and the campaigns of those running for US Senate under the GOP banner, exists as the proverbial thorn in the side of a desperately needed reformist agenda being spearheaded by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency at Donald Trump's order.
So, after all this, some serious questions remain. Why do Republicans put up with McConnell? Why hasnât this political traitor been made to pay a severe penalty for his party disloyalty and his self-elevation above the rank-and-file Republican voters, not to mention the plurality of voters who voted Donald Trump a mandate for absolute reformative change?
The RNC chair should call for an emergency executive committee vote to a) excommunicate McConnell from the National Republican Party and b) forbid any RNC-affiliated organization from facilitating any funding or fundraising mechanism for McConnell, his campaigns, or any campaign that McConnell supports. Kentuckyâs GOP should follow suit on both measures.
With the Senate voting 52-48 to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as DNI and McConnell joining all 47 Democrats in opposition, we should all confidently assume that McConnell will always vote with Democrats on key votes, especially when that vote will hurt Donald Trump.
Honestly, with the beautiful winds of reformative change in the air and the Deep State concerned about the longevity of their grift, isnât it time to make an example out of one of the biggest grifters in Republican Party history?
Itâs time to be done with this jagoff!
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
As details of the USAID scandal continue to emerge, Wikileaks has added fuel to the fire with a recent information drop on February 7, 2025. This sometimes controversial nonprofit revealed a disturbing but verifiable link between the USAID slush fund and an organization that seeks to gain control of the international narrative by co-opting the mainstream media.
Throughout history, the information sphere has been a coveted acquisition for ideological and political power players. It is said that if you control the narrative, you control the discourse, and if you control the discourse, you control the minds that direct the future. Enter Internews, a USAID-connected nonprofit that claims to champion independent media. In reality, Internews is a government-funded narrative-control globalist information war machine of an insidious force.
Internews boasts of training over 100,000 âjournalistsâ in over 100 countries. That sounds noble, doesnât it? But the fact of the matter is this. Internews is an ipso facto globalist-aligned media cartel that manipulates narratives to facilitate and advance far-Left ideologies while undermining populist and conservative movementsâand even the sovereignty of nationsâworldwide.
Internews promotes a neo-Marxist progressive orthodoxy while pretending to uphold the credibility of a free press and journalistic integrity. At the same time, it silences dissent through censorship and the deliberate omission of critical information.
The organization has indoctrinated over 38,000 media educators, reporters, and fact-checkers under the guise of combating "misinformation," a term increasingly deployed to delegitimize viewpoints that deviate from the preferred and anointed Left-wing narratives. In reality, their efforts constitute a targeted effort to advance select ideological perspectives while delegitimizing opposing viewpoints.
Internewsâs funding sources betray its true objectives. As reported by Wikileaks:
âUSAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, âInternews Networkâ (Interworks), which has âworked withâ 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million peopleâŠ[Internews] has also supported social media censorship initiatives.
âThe operation claims âofficesâ in over 30 countries, including main offices in the US, London, Paris, and regional HQs in Kiev, Bangkok, and Nairobi. It is headed up by Jeanne Bourgault, who pays herself $451k annually. Bourgault worked out of the US embassy in Moscow during the early 1990s, where she was in charge of a $250m budget and other revolts or conflicts at critical times before formally rotating out of six years at USAID to [Internews].
âBourgaultâs [Internews] bio and those of its other key people and board members have been recently scrubbed from its website but remain accessible at http://archive.org.
âRecords show the board being co-chaired by Democrat securocrat Richard J. Kessler and Simone Otus Coxe, wife of NVIDIA billionaire Trench Coxe, both major Democrat donors. In 2023, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bourgault launched a $10m [Internews] fund at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The [Internews] page showing a picture of Bourgault at the CGI has also been deleted.
â[Internews] has at least six captive subsidiaries under unrelated names, including one based out of the Cayman Islands. Since 2008, when electronic records began, more than 95% of [Internews]'s budget has been supplied by the US government.â
USAID's historical entanglement with regime-change operations and its promotion of neo-Marxian New World Order social engineering policies should alone raise suspicions about the kind of "independent media" that Internews claims to support.
To add credence to the idea that Internews is nothing but an oligarchical neo-Marxian propaganda front serving the whims of the globalist class is the revelation of financial backing from George Sorosâs Open Society Foundations.
As reported by Amuse on X:
âInternews has played a direct role in creating political instability and chaos in Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan, where clandestine organizations and USAID foreign policy interests have leveraged Internews to foster dissent, support opposition movements, and ultimately engineer instability. By flooding these regions with Internews-trained journalists and media networks, the organization has been instrumental in shaping narratives that align with US geopolitical objectives, undermining sovereign governments in favor of pro-Western factions.
âFormer high-ranking US officials, including Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power, have been key figures in overseeing agencies that fund Internews, reinforcing its ties to globalist foreign policy objectives. Nuland, in particular, played a pivotal role in utilizing Internews to control Ukrainian media. Under her direction, Internews and USAID effectively took control of 9 out of 10 major media companies in Ukraine, ensuring that local reporting adhered to a strict pro-Western and anti-Russian agenda. These media outlets became entirely dependent on Internews and USAID funding, with their reporters trained and guided by Internews operatives. It is no coincidence that Internews-backed journalists were instrumental in organizing the Maidan protests and the broader color revolution that ultimately led to regime change in Ukraine.â
A deeper look into Internewsâs role in narrative control uncovers a truly repugnant operation, where the organization cynically labels legitimate news outlets that challenge the neo-Marxian orthodoxy as peddlers of "misinformation." Far from merely flagging content for review, Internews aggressively coerces advertisers to pull financial support from these outlets until they capitulate to its narrative or are effectively silenced. This financial blackmail is a blatant assault on free speech, designed to systematically mute conservative, nationalist, and libertarian voices, ensuring they are de-platformed and silenced.
One of the most egregious acts of manipulation by Internews is its zealous endorsement of the climate alarmist agenda. It actively suppresses any open debate on climate science and policy, enforcing a relentless campaign of climate hysteria. Skepticism towards draconian environmental policies is not just dismissed but vilified as misinformation or disinformation. Through its "training" programs, Internews brainwashes "journalists" to treat any form of dissent against climate alarmism as heresy, thereby discarding the fundamental journalistic tenets of objectivity, balance, and inquiry for pure advocacy under the guise of journalism.
Internews does not "train" journalists; it breeds ideological drones who infiltrate the global mainstream media infrastructures. It functions more like a "Ministry of Truth," dictating permissible discourse, who is allowed to speak, and what narratives the public is allowed to consume.
This is not an exercise in media freedom but rather media vassalage by an elite oligarchy, a direct assault on free speech and constitutional representation, funded, ironically, by your tax dollars.
Now, do you see the urgent need to dismantle the Deep State and understand the contemptible nature of those who protest against Donald Trump and Elon Muskâs efforts to expose this systemic corruption?
If youâre not pissed off, you should be!
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Well, Well, WellâŠThe 4th Quarter Puppet Master
Before we go, a few words on just who was pulling the strings during the four years of the Biden administration.
We all know that for the overwhelming majority of the time the holdover Obama 2.0 contingent was executing its will. But now comes word about the waning days of the administration that can only be described as chilling.
As reported by PJ Media:
"According to Lindy Li, a former Democrat National Committee (DNC) insider, fundraiser, and confidant of the Bidens, Joe Biden, already staggering from public scrutiny, effectively lost control of the White House after that fateful debate. The event reportedly prompted an audacious power shuffle at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenueâone spearheaded by none other than Hunter Biden..."
The scandals just keep on coming.
Now, the question is this. Since Hunter Biden's pre-emptive pardon only covered a particular date set, will his actions in meetings where classified and Top Secret information was discussed be actionable?
Those complaining about Elon Musk's influence in the Oval Office today might want to just zip it, given the puppet mastery of Joe Biden during his tenure and especially because of who those puppet masters were (sniff, sniff).
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe -
Recently, I wrote about the increasing scrutiny facing nonprofit and NGO organizations that receive substantial amounts of taxpayer money to carry out partisan and politically motivated activities, all presented under the guise of philanthropy. Despite the outcry from the connected Left over the withdrawal of their funding, the rationale for denying them taxpayer dollars is becoming clearer every day.
President Trump has embarked on what he describes as a mission to dismantle the Deep State, with his latest focus being the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Radical Leftist and Obama holdover Samantha Power, the wife of Cass Sunstein, the co-author of the political book on transformative activism, Nudge, lead the USAID until January 20, 2025.
Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration, has criticized USAID, calling it a "ball of worms. " This indicates a network of corruption that permeates the organization far beyond mere individual cases of misconduct.
Musk emphasized in a recording shared on X:
âAs we dug into USAID, it became clear that this isnât just an apple with a worm in it; we are dealing with a ball of worms. If you find a worm in an apple, you can remove it. But with a ball of worms, thereâs no saving it. USAID is unfixable. Thereâs no apple left; it's just worms. It needs to be completely eradicated. It's beyond any repair.â
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) outlined how the USAID has been âstonewallingâ her office for years as she sought documents to audit and account for taxpayer dollars wasted at the agency:
âUSAIDâs spending shows a blatant disregard for the wishes of American taxpayers, and it is time to disrupt the system. The agency has been wasting millions of tax dollars on things like tourism in Lebanon, Sesame Street in Iraq, sending Ukrainians to Paris Fashion Week and so much moreâŠNo more stonewalling,. We need to scrutinize every last dollar being spent by this rogue agency.â
The involvement of Bill Kristol, a known anti-Trump figure who has received millions from USAID, casts serious doubt on the agency's neutrality and suggests it might be driven by political vendettas. Mike Benz has highlighted how USAID has allegedly funded prosecutors targeting Trump, like Alvin Bragg, through entities such as Fair & Just Prosecution (FJP), which is significantly funded by both USAID and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).
FJP, which operates under the fiscal sponsorship of the Tides Center, is supported not only by USAID but also benefits significantly from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) led by George Soros. "They're more than just Soros prosecutors; they're prosecutors linked to USAID," Benz emphasizes, highlighting the substantial impact these organizations exert on American legal proceedings.
In 1991, an operative associated with the Defense Intelligence Agency, who will remain nameless due to the sensitive nature of this information, indicated that Teresa Heinz Kerry (the wife of former US Secretary of State and failed Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry) was deeply connected then and likely still is through the dark money channels that rule the Deep State funding machine.
âOne of the heads of this multi-headed hydra was Soros' Open Society Foundation, which funded drug legalization NGOs in Europe, all web-connected, leading directly into Colombia. These efforts supported the 'cocalero' movements (the coca leaf growers of Peru and Bolivia) and then legal lawfare support to the FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). That is where the term 'lawfare' started.â
âHaving served in and around five US Embassies from Panama to Kabul, nothing about the conduct of DoS or USAID surprises me.
âBut the corruption and abuse of USAID funds going to left-wing media in the US and Britain, such as Politico and BBC and who knows yet who else beyond them, must be criminal; it must be seen as political money laundering, especially dark money funding.â
The Vera Institute of Justice, another recipient of OSF funds, further entangles this web, getting millions to ostensibly promote "fairness and equity" in the justice system. However, this funding raises questions about whether these financial ties steer legal outcomes to serve particular political and ideological ends.
From 2018 to 2022, USAID and HHS provided substantial funding to the Tides Center, which in turn has supported numerous far-left initiatives, including Black Lives Matter, movements to defund the police, pro-abortion advocacy, and aggressive climate change activism, all under the guise of social justice.
Moreover, USAID has been accused of spending $20 million on what critics label as "hit piece journalism" against Rudy Giuliani. This money was strategically used to support the 2019 impeachment efforts against President Trump. This misuse of taxpayer money for what appears to be partisan political gain starkly illustrates the potential abuse of power by these government entities.
The funding pattern from USAID and HHS to organizations like Tides Center and FJP reveals a troubling integration of government resources (read: taxpayer dollars) into political activism, activism that compromises the impartiality of government agencies and the integrity of the American justice system. This scenario paints a disturbing picture of a government apparatus more engaged in political warfare than in serving the public's interest.
So, instead of lending credence and legitimacy to the anti-deportation movement that waves nation-state flags in defiant conquest while existing in our Republic illegallyâa movement fueled by federal tax dollarsâperhaps it is right to question the use of taxpayer dollars to fund such organizations and initiatives.
And thatâs just what the Trump administration and Elon Musk are doing: questioning the legitimacy of spending taxpayer dollars on partisan activism.
Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Then, when we return, our segment on Americaâs Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The Hypocrisies Of The Islamic World
Before we go, a few words on the Arab worldâs flat-out refusal to take Palestinians into their lands and the hypocrisy of elitist Islam.
Earlier this week, President Trump proposed relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries during a reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Shrieks of rejection of the idea and a determined voice for a two-state solution rang out from the usual suspect Middle Eastern players, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with Jordan threatening war with Israel should any Palestinians be forcibly relocated onto their sovereign soil.
As I wrote in April of 2024, in a piece titled, The Palestinian Genesis & Their False Claim To Israeli Land:
âThe so-called Palestinian people are not from a nation-state origin. Historically, there was no "Palestine". Instead, they were a demographic designation bestowed upon âlesser-thansâ and former prisoners and slaves by the Romans; Philistines who originally emanated from Crete and other Aegean originsâŠâ
So, if history is to matter, the creation of a two-state solution, as lusted for by the Arab world, would be to create a nation out of thin air, something that wasnât even done when the UN mandated the creation of Israel after World War II.
A little bit of history to back up that statement, again from my April 2024 piece:
âTwo hundred years after the life of Jesus, the geopolitical landscape of Judea was mainly shaped by the consequences of the Jewish-Roman Wars. These warsâŠleft Judea in ruins, with its population significantly reduced and its culture transformed. The Romans, led by Emperor Hadrian, responded not only with military force but also with symbolic gestures aimed at erasing the identity of the rebellious Jewish province.
âTo suppress any further nationalistic fervor and wipe out the memory of the Jewish revolts, Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea âSyria Palaestina.â This renaming was both a political and cultural attempt to diminish Jewish ties to the land.
âThe term âPalaestinaâ was derived from the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, adding an additional layer of insult to the injury. This change marked a significant turning point in the region's history, as it was an early example of the use of cultural and psychological warfare, as well as a form of cultural genocide, in imperial politics.â
So, when history is recounted accurately, there never was a Palestine, and there should be no âright of return.â Additionally, if the so-called Palestinian people really wanted to return to their homeland, they would be seeking to return to Crete and the Aegean origin, where they actually have ancestral roots.
To enrich those truths, we turn to the words of the Quran, which, to a devout Muslim, are the literal words of Allah and are not open to interpretation.
In Surah Al-Hujurat, the 49th chapter (surah) of the Quran, it clearly states, âThe believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy.â This verse defines the relationship between Muslims as one of brotherhood, implying the duty of care and reconciliation.
So, by the commandment of their god, Allah, all nation-states calling themselves Muslim or Islamic must accept their brethren, for it is the word and will of their god. Yet Islamic-based nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabiaâthe land of Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, who pontificate about their fidelity to Islam refuse to come to the aid of their Muslim brothers by absorbing them into their lands.
So, we have two hypocrisies.
On the one hand, the Arab world rejects the nation-state of Israel, claiming it is nothing more than a political creation even as they champion the creation of a nation-state for the so-called Palestinians.
On the other hand, we have a predominantly Muslim Arab world that claims to hold Islam as the only legitimate religion in the world even as they blatantly ignore the edicts in their holy scriptures that mandate they care for their own.
While thereâs a lot of talk about sympathy and/or solidarity with the Palestinian cause, the policies of many, if not all, of the Middle Eastern governments reflect a more realistic approach to national security and stability.
There is a fear among Arab states that accepting Palestinian refugees could mean importing militant groups like Hamas, which is seen as a destabilizing force.
Previous experiences have been fraught with challenges. Jordan encountered significant issues with Palestinian groups in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to the conflict known as âBlack September,â and Lebanon's civil war, from 1975 to 1990, was significantly exacerbated by the presence of Palestinian factions, which turned parts of Lebanon into bases for attacks on Israel, contributing to the country's instability.
The bottom line is that the Arab worldâthe Islamic Arab worldâdoesnât want to take in any Palestinians because the Palestinians are a violent and uncooperative people who see conflict resolution only in the use of guns, bombs, and terrorism.
When history is recounted correctly, today's aggression by the Palestinian peopleâand their sympathetic Islamic terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollahâwill be understood to be nothing more than an Islamofascist desire to establish the global Caliphate, as mandated by the Quran, starting with Israel, a Caliphate under which the nations and people of the world would be required to bow down in subservience to Islam.
Now, wouldnât it be better to send a strong message to the Palestinians and the Islamic world that we, the free people of the world, are not on board with this totalitarian bullshit? Wouldnât it be better to stop placating the unhinged notion that somehow the aggressors (read: Palestinians) are somehow the victims?
The fact that the Islamic nations of the Middle East refuse to absorb their Palestinian brethren in their time of self-created need speaks volumes about the Palestinian people.
Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe - Laat meer zien
