Underground USA's Corner of the Bar Podcast

The American judiciary, once a bastion of restraint and fidelity to the Constitution, has descended into a cesspool of activism that threatens the very fabric of our Republic.On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will inevitably address this crisis: a challenge to the rampant use of nationwide injunctions by lower court judges to obstruct President Donald Trump’s agenda. These injunctions, issued with reckless abandon, are not mere legal tools but weapons of ideological warfare, wielded by unelected judges to impose their will on the entire nation.Yet, as egregious as this judicial overreach is, it is surpassed only by the inexcusable inaction of the Republican-controlled Congress, which has squandered its mandate to codify Trump’s executive orders into law and curb the courts’ excesses. This dual betrayal—by activist judges and feckless legislators—demands a reckoning.The case before the Supreme Court stems from the Trump administration’s appeal against a federal judge’s use of a nationwide injunction to block a key immigration and citizenship policy, but it hinges on the ability of the federal district courts to affect national policy. Over 100 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s initiatives, targeting everything from immigration enforcement to federal spending freezes to the elimination of divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In response, district court judges have issued a barrage of injunctions that halt these policies not just for the plaintiffs but for every person and entity in the United States.This practice is not only unprecedented in its scope but fundamentally unconstitutional—and, in fact, anti-constitutional, as it allows a single judge to dictate national policy without the accountability of an electoral mandate or a legislative process.The Trump administration rightly argues that these judges are exceeding their Article III authority, which limits judicial power to resolving “cases” and “controversies” between specific parties. As Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court in March 2025, the judiciary must say “enough is enough” to this abuse. Nationwide injunctions, she argued, create “irreparable harm” to our democratic system by preventing the Executive Branch from implementing policies that reflect the will of the electorate.Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, and Clarence Thomas have previously signaled skepticism about this practice, with Gorsuch decrying in 2020 the “increasingly common” tendency of trial courts to issue relief that “transcends the cases before them.” The Constitution is clear: judges are not policymakers, and their role is to adjudicate disputes, not to legislate from the bench.Yet, the audacity of these judges knows no bounds. As President Trump himself stated in a March 2025 Truth Social post:“These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks.”His words cut to the heart of the issue: unelected judges, insulated from public accountability, are usurping the authority of a president chosen by tens of millions of Americans. This isn’t justice. Nor is it the rule of law; it’s tyranny cloaked in robes.The defenders of this judicial overreach, including a cadre of House Democrats who filed an amicus brief, claim that blocking Trump’s policies prevents “chaos.” Their argument is as disingenuous as it is hypocritical. The real chaos is the erosion of democratic governance, where the will of the people, expressed through their elected president, is subverted by a handful of activist judges. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Devin Watkins aptly framed the central question: Do lower courts have the power to issue injunctions that affect non-parties? The answer, rooted in constitutional text and tradition, is a resounding no.If the judiciary’s activism is a dagger aimed at the heart of Trump’s agenda, the Republican-controlled Congress is the hand that refuses to pull it out. With control of both the House and Senate, Republicans have a historic opportunity to enact legislation that limits the scope of federal district courts and codifies Trump’s executive orders into law. Yet, they have done nothing—nothing—to seize this moment. Their inaction is not merely a failure of leadership; it is a betrayal of the voters who entrusted them with power.Article III of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), acknowledged this in March 2025, stating:“The Constitution limits judges to exercising power over ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’ Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous.”Republicans have even introduced legislation to curb the courts’ ability to issue nationwide injunctions, recognizing that such measures violate the constitutional Separation of Po

The Catholic Church witnessed a historic moment with the election of Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost as Pope Leo XIV, marking the first time an American has ascended to the papacy. This seismic shift in Vatican leadership, following the death of Pope Francis, not only reflects the global reach of Catholicism but also signals a potential realignment in the Church’s ideological and political priorities. Pope Leo XIV’s background, his choice of papal name, and the broader implications of his elevation—particularly in relation to the United States’ political landscape under the Trump administration—offer a rich tapestry for understanding the future trajectory of the Church.Born in Dalton, Illinois—a south suburb of Chicago, Robert Prevost’s journey to the papacy traveled through Villanova University and is rooted in a deep commitment to missionary work and ecclesiastical leadership. A member of the Augustinian order, Prevost spent significant portions of his career in Peru, serving as a missionary and later as the Bishop of Chiclayo from 1998 to 2014. His work in Latin America focused on addressing poverty, education, and community development, earning him a reputation for humility and pastoral care.In 2014, Pope Francis appointed him Bishop of Chimbote, and by 2019, Prevost was elevated to Archbishop of Ayacucho, a role that placed him at the forefront of addressing social inequalities in one of Peru’s most impoverished regions.In 2023, Prevost’s career took a significant turn when Pope Francis named him Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, a powerful Vatican position responsible for overseeing the selection of bishops worldwide. This role positioned Prevost as a key figure in shaping the Church’s global hierarchy, aligning him closely with Francis’s vision of a more inclusive and pastoral Church. His dual American-Peruvian citizenship and fluency in Spanish further enhanced his ability to bridge the Global North and South, making him a compelling candidate for the papacy.Prevost’s selection of the name Leo XIV is laden with historical and symbolic significance. The last pope to bear the name, Leo XIII (1878–1903), is renowned for his encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), which laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching. Leo XIII defended private property, rejected socialism, and championed workers’ rights, advocating for a balanced approach to economic justice that avoided the extremes of unbridled mercantilism and collectivism. By choosing this name, Pope Leo XIV signals an intent to engage with contemporary social and economic challenges while grounding his papacy in the Church’s traditional teachings.However, Leo XIV’s choice also suggests a divergence from the immediate legacy of Pope Francis. While Francis emphasized environmental stewardship, inclusivity, and critical critiques of global capitalism—often aligning with neo-Marxist and globalist causes—Leo XIV appears poised to prioritize doctrinal clarity and the Church’s role in fostering individual moral responsibility. Posts across social media describe Leo XIV as a “close confidant of Francis,” yet his selection of a name associated with Leo XIII hints at a return to a more structured engagement with modernity, emphasizing personal freedom and subsidiarity over systemic critiques of economic structures.Pope Francis, who died in April 2025, transformed the Church’s public image through his emphasis on mercy, outreach to marginalized groups, and a decentralized, synodal approach to governance. His encyclical Laudato Si’ (2015) framed environmental issues as moral imperatives, while his critiques of “trickle-down economics” and the “globalization of indifference” resonated with progressive audiences, alienating some conservative Catholics, particularly in the United States. Francis’s openness to revising Church teachings sparked debates about doctrinal flexibility versus orthodoxy.In contrast, Leo XIV’s background suggests a more measured approach. His missionary work in Peru focused on practical aid and evangelization, reflecting a commitment to traditional Catholic values of charity and personal conversion. While Francis often spoke in broad, systemic terms—condemning economic models as “structurally perverse”—Leo XIV appears to lean toward Leo XIII’s framework, which upheld the dignity of the individual and the family as the bedrock of society. This could very well manifest in a renewed emphasis on subsidiarity, where local communities and individuals take precedence over centralized interventions, aligning with a rejection of socialist-leaning globalism.Moreover, Leo XIV’s American roots and his time in Peru equip him to navigate the Church’s role in a polarized world. Unlike Francis, who faced criticism from American conservatives for his socialist tendencies, Leo XIV, it appears, seeks to bridge divides by emphasizing universal Catholic principles—such as the sanctity of life and the importance of family—while avoiding the culture wars in

In contemporary America, a disturbing trend festers within the Black community: a reckless dependence on violence as the go-to method for settling disputes, paired with an arrogant sense of entitlement that shamelessly excuses such behavior. This problem is glaringly exposed by crime statistics and the flood of social media videos showcasing Black individuals, especially women, unleashing physical aggression in situations that scream for restraint or rational dialogue.The facts, when honestly examined, reveal a cultural decay that sabotages the community’s advancement, cements damaging stereotypes, and demands unflinching, brutal self-scrutiny.Crime statistics lay bare an uncomfortable truth. The FBI’s 2019 Uniform Crime Report shows Black individuals, making up 12.2% of the US population, accounted for 51.2% of murder arrests, 52.7% of robbery arrests, and 28.8% of burglary arrests.The incarceration rate for Black Americans is equally lopsided, with 600 per 100,000 Black individuals in jails compared to 184 per 100,000 for Whites. While poverty and systemic inequities contribute, they do not fully justify the knee-jerk resort to violence. This pattern points to a much deeper cultural defect that begs examination, one that persists beyond external pressures and signals entrenched behavioral norms that border on the savage.Social media platforms magnify this reality, with a continuous stream of video clips of Black individuals erupting into public brawls over petty issues—restaurant orders, airline seats, and minor slights. The 2021 Miami International Airport melee, where Black individuals descended into chaos over a seating dispute, is a textbook case, ending in arrests and public disgust.These episodes, frequently featuring Black women, reveal a brazen eagerness to escalate conflicts physically, often backed by loud claims of untouchability. The “Strong Black Woman” archetype, once a symbol of resilience, has been twisted in some circles to glorify indignant belligerence, as if violence is a valid flex of power or defiance. This distortion betrays the archetype’s roots and fuels a destructive spiral.The community’s response to criticism betrays its hubris. Instead of soul-searching, there’s an ignorant knee-jerk rejection of accountability, with cries of racism or victim-shaming flung at anyone daring to call out these proven trends. This cowardice smothers honest discussion and entrenches violence as an acceptable reflex, perpetuating a cycle that tarnishes the community’s image and fractures its unity. The deluge of social media footage—Black women brawling in stores, streets, or schools—validates a stereotype of volatility that the community should be dismantling, not reinforcing.Media consumed within the Black community stokes this fire. Certain music genres—rap and gangster rap, to be specific, dripping with violent misogyny, and films glorifying gang life and vengeance, craft a worldview where physical confrontation is a mark of pride. Not all Black cultural output endorses this, mind you, but the dominance of such themes in mainstream media is undeniable. When lyrics fetishize retribution, violence, and cop killing, and movies lionize lethal street justice, they quietly validate violence as a default, especially for vulnerable youth starved for better role models.The fallout is nothing short of catastrophic. Gun violence devastates Black communities, with Black Americans 12 times more likely than Whites to die by firearm homicide. Black women endure staggering rates of intimate partner violence, with 40% facing domestic abuse in their lifetimes. These numbers aren’t just data sets—they represent shattered families, traumatized children, and neighborhoods locked in cycles of violence, anguish, and revenge. Normalizing violence guts the vitality of Black communities, spiking healthcare costs, tanking property values, and eroding social bonds. Beyond material tolls, it destroys trust, making the Black community’s collective progress toward prosperity and true equality, not equity, a stale pipe dream.Breaking this cycle requires the Black community to own its role in enabling and perpetuating these behaviors. Leaders must denounce the glorification of violence in media and champion non-violent conflict resolution. Community programs teaching communication, emotional control, and accountability could channel entitled energy into productive advocacy. Rejecting the urge to dodge criticism and embracing raw self-examination are non-negotiable for change.This rampant violence and falsely inflated sense of entitlement are worsened by systemic failures and self-serving leadership.The union-controlled public education system, shackled by the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, puts teacher job security and extremist ideology over student success, leaving Black youth without the emotional or intellectual tools to resolve conflicts peacefully. Their stubborn resistance to reform b

Recently, Victor Davis Hanson used a phrase that struck a chord with me: Cultural Imperialism. Cultural imperialism occurs when one culture forces its values, beliefs, and ways of life onto others, often through pressure, manipulation, or the use of violence. It’s a controlling force that stifles freedom and demands conformity to a single worldview. Presented as moral progress, it silences dissent and enforces rigid ideology, often driven by uncompromising movements, particularly those of the globalist far-Left. This phenomenon manifests from authoritarian regimes to democratic societies. Therefore, it is important to understand why cultural imperialism is a dangerous threat if left unchecked.In China, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) practices cultural imperialism through its Sinicization policies. These policies force ethnic minorities like Uyghurs and Tibetans to abandon their languages, religions, and traditions to adopt Han Chinese culture. Uyghur Muslims are detained in re-education camps, enduring forced labor and indoctrination to erase their cultural heritage. The Tibetans faced a campaign of genocide to erase their history and culture completely. The CCP justifies this as promoting national unity and modernization, but it’s a blatant attempt to eliminate cultural differences. This aggressive homogenization crushes any resistance, revealing a totalitarian agenda that prioritizes ideological uniformity over human rights and cultural richness.In strict Islamic countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran, cultural imperialism takes a theocratic form. These regimes enforce a singular interpretation of Islam, leaving no room for personal freedom. In Iran, women who defy mandatory hijab laws, such as Mahsa Amini in 2022, face imprisonment or death, sparking nationwide protests. Saudi Arabia’s religious police enforce strict dress codes and gender segregation, punishing violations with violence, detention, and worse. While claiming divine authority, these governments mirror the far-Left’s ideological rigidity, demanding absolute conformity and punishing those who deviate, regardless of personal beliefs or aspirations.In Western democracies, cultural imperialism operates more subtly but remains insidious. In Germany, the government’s decision to label the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) party as extremist illustrates this trend. Though the AfD holds some controversial positions (it’s not like the positions of the political Left don’t), branding it a threat to democracy risks stifling legitimate political debate. This move, often supported by globalist progressive elites, seeks to silence views that challenge the mainstream multicultural narrative. By enforcing a single “acceptable” perspective, it undermines the open exchange of ideas essential to democracy, revealing an intolerance for ideological variation that mirrors authoritarian tactics.In France, Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally, has faced relentless scrutiny for her nationalist views and critiques of immigration. In March 2025, a Paris court convicted her of misusing EU funds, banning her from public office for five years, effective immediately, despite her appeal. The charges focused on the use of EU parliamentary funds, intended for aides, to pay National Rally staff in France from 2004 to 2016—a practice other EU leaders, such as those in the Democratic Movement (MoDem) party, have also been accused of doing. They all faced lighter consequences for their actions.Le Pen’s conviction has been decried as politically motivated by supporters and even centrists like Prime Minister François Bayrou, who argue it undermines democratic choice by sidelining a leading 2027 presidential candidate. This case highlights how legal systems can be weaponized to suppress voices challenging dominant ideologies, a tactic frequently tied to the far-Left’s efforts to control public discourse (can anyone say lawfare against President Trump?).In the United States, the nauseously caustic woke movement exemplifies cultural imperialism’s coercive nature. It demands unwavering agreement with its stances on race, gender, and social issues—including DEI initiatives, branding dissenters as morally deficient. Cancel culture, a hallmark of this movement, has led to professional and social ostracism for those who question its tenets.For instance, educators and public figures have been fired or shunned for expressing views deemed unacceptable. Corporate and institutional policies, such as mandatory pronoun usage or ideological training, further entrench conformity, limiting free speech. Claiming moral superiority, this movement behaves as oppressively as regimes in China or Iran, imposing a singular worldview that tolerates no opposition and punishes nonconformity with social or economic consequences.Cultural imperialism, whether in authoritarian or democratic contexts, is a vile assault on human freedom. It obliterates cultural differences and demands slavish loyalty to a

The United States, once a beacon of medical innovation, now languishes under the suffocating grip of an utterly dysfunctional drug trial process, crippled by the Food & Drug Administration’s (FDA) labyrinthine regulations and Big Pharma’s insatiable greed. While the world advances, offering hope to millions suffering from debilitating diseases, the US medical establishment remains mired in bureaucratic quicksand, denying patients access to transformative treatments like adult stem cell-derived exosome therapies. This is not just incompetence—it’s a moral failing, a betrayal of the sick and vulnerable who are left to deteriorate while the FDA dithers and Big Pharma counts its profits.Consider the groundbreaking work of Dr. Chadwick C. Prodromos, MD, whose research at the Prodromos Stem Cell Institute has demonstrated astonishing results. Small-group studies, conducted with rigorous oversight, show an 80% success rate in treating Parkinson’s Disease, Autism, ALS, Lewy Body Dementia, Alzheimer’s Disease, and Multiple Sclerosis using exosome therapies derived from mesenchymal stem cells.These stem cells, ethically sourced from placental tissue donated by women undergoing C-sections, sidestep the contentious ethical issues surrounding fetal stem cells. The exosomes, administered intranasally or intravenously, have shown no adverse effects, offering a beacon of hope for patients with otherwise untreatable conditions.In Europe, Japan, and the Caribbean, these therapies are already changing lives, with patients reporting improved motor function, cognition, and quality of life. Yet, in the US, these treatments are nowhere to be found. Why? Because the FDA’s glacial approval process, riddled with red tape and influenced by Big Pharma’s obsession with vaccines and high-margin drugs, ensures that anything not aligned with corporate interests is relegated to the sidelines. This isn’t science—it’s sabotage.Equally infuriating is the FDA’s refusal to acknowledge compelling evidence linking the borrelia bacteria—known for causing Lyme disease—to a host of cancers and every major neurodegenerative disorder. Dr. Vincent M. Tedone, MD, has tirelessly documented this connection, showing that borrelia is present in patients with ALS, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s, and other devastating conditions. His work suggests that targeting this bacterium could unlock new treatment paradigms.Yet, where is the coordinated research from Big Pharma or government agencies like the National Institutes of Health? Nowhere. Instead, these entities pour billions into redundant vaccine programs and marginal drugs, ignoring the potential to address root causes of diseases affecting millions. This isn’t just negligence—it’s a deliberate choice to prioritize profit over human lives.The human cost of this dysfunction is staggering. Over 10 million people in the US alone suffer from Parkinson’s, ALS, Lewy Body Dementia, Alzheimer’s, and MS. Exosome therapies, with their proven efficacy in small trials, could be made available through informed-consent protocols, allowing patients to access these treatments while further research is conducted. This approach would immediately alleviate suffering, restore dignity, and extend lives. But the FDA, in its infinite arrogance, demands years of redundant trials, even as patients waste away.The establishment of informed-consent exosome treatments isn’t just a good idea—it’s a moral imperative, one that could transform the lives of millions overnight if the FDA weren’t so beholden to Big Pharma’s lobbying dollars.The hypocrisy of the FDA’s priorities is perhaps most galling when viewed through the lens of the COVID-19 vaccine debacle.In a matter of months, the US government fast-tracked vaccines that were poorly researched, with adverse effects like myocarditis and blood clots only becoming apparent after widespread mandates. These vaccines, heralded as a panacea, failed to prevent transmission and waned in efficacy, yet the FDA and CDC had the audacity to coerce millions into compliance.If the government can ram through such a flawed intervention, why can’t it expedite exosome therapies that have shown consistent, safe, and effective results in small trials? The answer is clear: Big Pharma reaped billions from vaccines, while exosome therapies, being less profitable and more patient-centric, are left to languish. This double standard isn’t just infuriating—it’s a scandal, cruel in nature, of historic proportions.The FDA’s overregulation doesn’t just delay treatments; it kills hope. Every day that patients are denied access to treatments like exosome therapies is a day of unnecessary suffering and debilitation. The agency’s insistence on exhaustive, multi-phase trials for therapies already proven safe and effective in smaller studies is not caution—it’s cruelty. The FDA’s cozy relationship with Big Pharma, which funds much of its budget through user fees, ensures that only blockbuster drugs with massive profit potential

Klaus Schwab, the self-anointed potentate architect of globalism, has finally been toppled from his perch at the World Economic Forum (WEF), resigning in disgrace on Easter Sunday 2025. The 87-year-old’s abrupt exit, cloaked in a flimsy excuse about his age, was no voluntary retirement—it was a forced retreat driven by a damning whistleblower report exposing alleged corruption and the gross hypocrisy at the heart of the WEF’s elitist empire. This isn’t just the end of Schwab’s reign; it’s a crack in the facade of the globalist agenda that’s been fleecing nations and subjugating freedoms for decades.The whistleblower report reads like a sordid tale of entitlement. Schwab, the man who preached “stakeholder capitalism” to the masses, is charged with treating the WEF’s coffers as his personal piggy bank, instructing subordinates to pull thousands from ATMs for his whims and billing the Forum for private, in-room massages at luxury hotels. His wife, Hilde, a former WEF employee, reportedly joined in the embezzlement, scheduling sham “meetings” to justify extravagant holiday jaunts on the Forum’s dime. This is the hypocrisy of globalism laid bare: while Schwab’s WEF lectures the world on “sustainability” and “equity,” its leader lived like a modern-day monarch, above accountability.But the allegations don’t stop at financial impropriety. The report paints Schwab as a workplace tyrant, fostering a culture where sexual harassment and discrimination against female employees went unchecked. The WEF’s prior investigations into these claims—conveniently dismissed by its own leadership—reek of a cover-up. Schwab’s request to the WEF Board of Trustees to ignore the whistleblower report only underscores his arrogance, but the board, perhaps sensing the growing global backlash, defied him and launched an independent probe. This move, while late, signals that even the WEF’s inner circle can no longer ignore the stench of scandal surrounding its founder and the globalist hypocrites at the top.The WEF’s turmoil isn’t just about Schwab’s personal failings—it’s a symptom of a broader reckoning with globalism itself.For years, the Forum has peddled a vision that empowers unelected elites while eroding national sovereignty and personal liberty. Schwab’s 2020 manifesto, COVID-19: The Great Reset, was a chilling blueprint for this agenda, exploiting a global crisis to push for a restructured world order that prioritizes centralized control over individual freedom and national sovereignty. From the Paris Climate Accord’s economy-crippling regulations to the divisive dogma of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), the WEF’s policies have consistently favored globalist ideals over the needs of ordinary people. Critics, including Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts, have rightly called out the Forum’s absurd claims—that climate change is humanity’s greatest threat, that illegal immigration is a net positive, or that American cities are safe havens despite rising crime.This globalist hubris was on full display at the WEF’s 2025 Davos meeting, where newly inaugurated President Donald Trump delivered a scathing rebuke.In a speech that electrified the room, Trump touted his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and his dismantling of “discriminatory DEI nonsense,” framing his administration’s actions as a “revolution of common sense” against the WEF’s ideological excesses. His words weren’t just a policy critique—they were a direct challenge to the Davos elite, who’ve long treated nations as pawns in their grand utopian schemes. Trump’s defiance resonates with a growing global movement rejecting the WEF’s top-down control.The WEF’s influence has long been bolstered by dubious figures like George Soros, the billionaire globalist recently awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by outgoing President Joe Biden. Soros-funded groups, as detailed in the book The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government, owned Biden’s administration and both the Obama and Clinton administrations, steering them toward policies that echoed the WEF’s agenda. From green energy mandates that spiked energy costs to open-border policies that strained public resources, the Biden-Obama-Clinton-Soros nexus exemplified the globalist playbook: prioritize ideology over practicality, and let the average citizen bear the cost.Schwab’s resignation, while a symbolic victory for critics, doesn’t dismantle the WEF’s machinery overnight. The Forum’s leadership shake-up, prompted by a prior probe into its toxic workplace culture, shows an organization scrambling to save face. CEO Børge Brende’s claim that earlier allegations against Schwab were unsubstantiated only deepens skepticism about the WEF’s integrity. The independent probe into the whistleblower report, while necessary, risks becoming a performative gesture unless it exposes the full extent of the Forum’s mismanagement and ideological overreach.The broader fight against globalism dema

The federal district courts, increasingly weaponized by activist judges, have become epicenters of lawfare—strategic lawsuits designed to obstruct the policy agenda of President Donald Trump’s second term. These courts issue sweeping rulings, often based on flimsy legal grounds, that delay or derail executive actions on immigration, deregulation, and election integrity.Congress, endowed with clear constitutional authority, must act to narrow the jurisdiction of these courts to curb their abuse. By leveraging Article III, historical precedent, and case law, Congress can rein in judicial overreach, as exemplified by recent rulings like those involving Kilmar Abrego Garcia and Venezuelan deportations. Such reforms would protect the Trump administration’s mandate from ideologically driven litigation orchestrated by activist law firms and organizations.Article III, Section 1 of the Constitution grants Congress the power to establish and regulate “inferior Courts,” giving it broad discretion over their jurisdiction. Section 2, Clause 2 allows Congress to make “Exceptions” and “Regulations” to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction, a principle extending to lower courts. The Supreme Court affirmed this in Ex parte McCardle (1868), upholding Congress’s ability to strip jurisdiction over habeas corpus appeals, stating that “the power to make exceptions…is given by express words.” This precedent confirms Congress’s authority to limit district court jurisdiction without breaching Separation of Powers.Historically, Congress has tailored judicial scope. The Judiciary Act of 1789 confined district courts to admiralty and minor criminal matters, a far cry from today’s activist courts issuing nationwide injunctions. In 1875, Congress expanded federal question jurisdiction (28 USC § 1331), but it can just as easily contract it. By invoking Article III, Congress can restrict district courts from hearing cases that exploit vague statutory or constitutional claims to target Trump’s agenda, restoring judicial restraint.Lawfare has surged, with plaintiffs forum-shopping for sympathetic judges to block Trump’s policies. These cases often hinge on expansive readings of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) or dubious constitutional claims. For instance, in Texas v. United States (2015), a single district judge halted Obama’s DAPA program, setting a precedent for nationwide injunctions now weaponized against Trump. While occasionally justified, these injunctions are abused by activist judges, often appointed for ideological alignment, transforming courts into political battlegrounds.Two recent cases illustrate this scourge. In Abrego Garcia v. United States (2025), US District Judge Paula Xinis ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Salvadoran migrant initially reported as erroneously deported to El Salvador’s CECOT prison despite a 2019 withholding-of-removal order. The Supreme Court upheld Xinis’s order unanimously, requiring the administration to act, though it sought clarification on “effectuating” the return due to foreign policy concerns.Garcia’s legal team, led by Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg of the Legal Aid Justice Center, alongside advocacy from CASA, framed the deportation as a due process violation even though Abrego Garcia received due process in an immigration court in the denial of his asylum application. Sandoval-Moshenberg leveraged Xinis’s court to challenge Trump’s immigration crackdown. This ruling, while mistakenly correcting an initially admitted error, exemplifies how district courts can issue intrusive orders that complicate executive action, fueled by activist law.Similarly, in a Texas federal court, Judge Drew B. Tipton issued a temporary injunction in April 2025 halting the deportation of three Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, citing the Supreme Court’s ruling in Abrego Garcia and due process concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the National Immigrant Justice Center, with attorneys like Lee Gelernt, spearheaded this challenge, arguing the administration’s “invasion” narrative at the border lacked legal grounding. This case underscores how district courts, prompted by well-funded advocacy groups, issue broad injunctions to thwart Trump’s deportation policies, often on speculative grounds.But Congress can enact targeted reforms to neutralize lawfare.First, it should amend 28 USC § 1331 to limit federal question jurisdiction, excluding cases challenging executive actions unless plaintiffs show direct, concrete injury. The Supreme Court’s standing doctrine in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife (1992) supports this, requiring “injury in fact” that is “concrete and particularized.” Codifying stricter standing rules would block groups like the ACLU or CASA from filing suits based on ideological opposition, as seen in the Venezuelan deportation case.Second, Congress should ban district courts from issuing nationwide injunctions, limi

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a clear and unapologetic goal: to dominate the world, economically and politically, by any means necessary. Through a sophisticated web of financial deception, regulatory loopholes, and strategic market manipulation, tens of millions of Americans are unwittingly funneling trillions of dollars into Chinese companies that directly threaten US national security, produce advanced military weaponry, develop surveillance technologies, and perpetrate egregious human rights abuses.This alarming reality, highlighted by former Reagan adviser Roger Robinson, reveals a chilling truth: American investors are inadvertently funding the very forces that seek to undermine the free world.• SEGMENT 2: America’s Third Watch• SEGMENT 3: The Federal Government’s Attack On Independent Farmers & Ranchers“You have ... companies that are responsible for manufacturing China’s most advanced weapon systems,” Robinson, a veteran of the Reagan administration’s National Security Council, warned in a recent interview. “We’re funding, in some ways, our own demise.”His words carry the weight of experience, having played a pivotal role in crafting economic strategies that helped dismantle the Soviet Union. Today, as co-founder of the Prague Security Studies Institute, Robinson is sounding the alarm on a new existential threat—one that operates not just on battlefields but in the opaque corridors of global finance.At the heart of this crisis is the structure of modern investment vehicles, particularly index funds like those focused on emerging markets. These funds, popular among retail investors and pension plans, often include significant allocations to Chinese companies, many of which are deeply entwined with the CCP’s military-industrial complex.According to a 2021 report by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, over 1,200 Chinese firms listed on major US exchanges have ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or state-directed initiatives that advance Beijing’s authoritarian agenda. Yet, these companies are routinely bundled into broad-based funds like the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, where Chinese firms can account for 30-40% of holdings.The average American investor, seeking diversification or passive income, has no idea their 401(k) or IRA is bankrolling entities like China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, which constructs warships for the PLA, or Hikvision, a global leader in surveillance technology implicated in the Uyghur genocide. A 2020 Department of Defense report identified Hikvision as one of several Chinese firms directly supporting Beijing’s military modernization, yet its stock remains a staple in many investment portfolios. This is not an accident but a deliberate strategy by the CCP to exploit Western capital markets.How does this happen? The answer lies in a combination of lax oversight, regulatory loopholes, and deliberate obfuscation by Chinese firms. Many of these companies operate through complex structures like Variable Interest Entities (VIEs), which allow them to list on US exchanges while shielding their true ownership and activities from scrutiny. A 2022 analysis by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) found that over 150 Chinese firms listed in the US failed to comply with basic auditing standards, raising red flags about transparency and accountability. Despite this, these firms continue to attract billions in American capital.Worse still, some of these companies are on US government blacklists, such as the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which restricts trade with firms deemed a national security threat. Yet, as Robinson points out, “the capital markets have no equivalent mechanism to enforce these restrictions.” This gap allows blacklisted firms like Huawei or SMIC, China’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, to access American investment through secondary markets or index funds, effectively bypassing sanctions.The CCP’s ambitions extend far beyond financial gain. By capturing Western capital, China is accelerating its quest for global dominance. The Belt & Road Initiative, for instance, has funneled billions into infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe, often financed by Western investors through Chinese state-owned banks. These projects are not merely economic; they are strategic, designed to create dependencies and extend Beijing’s geopolitical influence. A 2023 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that 60% of Belt & Road projects are linked to CCP-controlled entities, many of which are publicly traded and accessible to American investors.Moreover, the technologies funded by these investments—such as AI, quantum computing, and 5G infrastructure—are dual-use, serving both civilian and military purposes. Companies like Tencent and Alibaba, darlings of the investment world, have deep ties to the CCP’s surveillance state. Tencent’s WeChat platform, for example, is a cornerstone of China’s social cr

The People’s Republic of China (PRC), under the iron grip of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has pursued a foreign policy that reeks of conquest and coercion, targeting nations like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan with calculated aggression. This approach, cloaked in diplomatic platitudes, seeks to bend sovereign states to Beijing’s will through economic leverage, military intimidation, and cultural infiltration.The world must recognize the PRC’s actions for what they are—a bid for global dominance—and unite, particularly with the United States, to economically cripple China’s ability to threaten international peace and cultural integrity.* Segment 2: America’s Third Watch Segment* Segment 3: The Epidemic of Violence As Conflict Resolution In The US Black CommunityA recent flashpoint in China’s belligerent posture is its reaction to Australia’s move to repatriate the strategically vital Darwin Port, leased to the Chinese-owned Landbridge Group in 2015. On April 7, 2025, Beijing issued a thinly veiled warning through Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian:"We urge the Australian side to provide a fair, non-discriminatory and predictable business environment for Chinese enterprises investing and operating in Australia, and refrain from overstretching the concept of national security or politicising normal business cooperation."This statement is a masterclass in hypocrisy. The CCP frames Australia’s defense of its sovereignty as discriminatory, while ignoring its own track record of weaponizing trade and investment to punish nations that defy its agenda. Australia’s decision to reclaim the port stems from legitimate security concerns, given its proximity to key military bases and its role in Indo-Pacific trade routes. Beijing’s protest reveals its intent to maintain strategic footholds abroad, treating foreign assets as pawns in its geopolitical chess game.China’s playbook in Australia extends beyond Darwin. Since 2017, when Australia began scrutinizing Chinese influence in its politics and universities, Beijing retaliated with crippling trade sanctions, costing Australian exporters an estimated AU$20 billion. These measures targeted beef, barley, wine, and coal—sectors chosen to maximize economic pain and send a message: compliance with CCP interests is non-negotiable. The sanctions followed Australia’s call for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, exposing China’s sensitivity to scrutiny and its willingness to economically bludgeon smaller nations into submission. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s economic warfare aimed at eroding Australia’s autonomy.Japan faces a similar onslaught. China’s aggressive posturing in the East China Sea, particularly around the Senkaku Islands, combines military provocations with economic pressure. The CCP’s coast guard and naval vessels routinely encroach on Japanese waters, testing Tokyo’s resolve while Beijing ramps up rhetoric claiming the islands as its own.Japan, a key US ally, is targeted not just for its strategic location but for its role in the Quad—a security partnership with the U.S., Australia, and India that China views as a direct challenge. Beijing’s strategy is clear: intimidate Japan into distancing itself from Western alliances, thereby weakening the regional counterbalance to Chinese hegemony. Japan’s economic dependence on China, with $150 billion in annual trade, gives Beijing leverage to threaten tariffs or supply chain disruptions, as seen in 2010 when China restricted rare earth exports during a prior Senkaku dispute.Taiwan, however, bears the brunt of China’s conquest-oriented ambitions. The CCP views Taiwan not as a sovereign democracy but as a renegade province to be reclaimed by force if necessary. Xi Jinping’s regime has escalated military incursions, with over 1,700 warplane sorties into Taiwan’s air defense zone in 2024 alone. These provocations, coupled with cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, aim to destabilize Taiwan’s 23 million citizens and erode their will to resist.Economically, China pressures global firms to shun Taiwan, punishing companies like TSMC if they align too closely with Western interests.The CCP’s obsession with Taiwan isn’t just territorial—it’s cultural, seeking to erase a thriving democratic alternative to its authoritarian model. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan would not only disrupt global semiconductor supply chains but also signal to the world that resistance to Beijing is futile.Lin Jian’s Darwin Port warning encapsulates China’s broader strategy: demand unfettered access to foreign markets while decrying any pushback as unfair. This tactic masks the CCP’s exploitation of open economies to advance its military and cultural ambitions. China’s Belt & Road Initiative, for instance, saddles nations with debt to secure strategic assets, as seen in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port.Culturally, Confucius Institutes and media influence operations propagate CCP narratives, stifling criticism in host countries. In Australia, C

In light of the recent dark money-funded, manufactured protests we have seen pop up around the country—poorly attended and proffered as they were—a repugnant trend has metastasized within swathes of the American public, and the neo-Marxist far left stands exposed as the venomous architects behind it: the calculated normalization and perverse glorification of political violence, with Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others as their prime targets.The attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13, 2024, wasn’t an anomaly—it was the opening salvo in what’s morphed into a meticulously engineered “assassination culture,” a term that barely scratches the surface of this ideological rot.This isn’t a spontaneous eruption of discontent; it’s a structured, ideologically fueled offensive, orchestrated by the neo-Marxian American Fifth Column with a precision that demands both fury and dissection. It’s infiltrating digital networks and physical spaces, eroding political stability and public safety with a virulence that’s impossible to ignore. We’re not just witnessing chaos—we’re facing a deliberate assault that requires unrelenting scrutiny and a refusal to let these murder-advocating radicals slink away unchallenged.The National Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) delivered a scathing indictment in a December 2024 report, wielding hard data to unmask the neo-Marxist far left’s role.Drawing from a survey of 1,264 US residents—calibrated to Census demographics—and bolstered by open-source intelligence, the NCRI demonstrates how these neo-Jacobin ideologues are weaponizing social media narratives to sanctify murder. The numbers aren’t just alarming—they’re a call to arms against this insidious trend.The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was the neo-Marxist far left’s grotesque catalyst, laying bare their chilling tolerance for violence among their young, hyper-online acolytes. But their ambitions didn’t stop there—their sights have expanded to encompass political giants like Trump and Musk, revealing a broader, more sinister agenda.The data cuts like a blade: 38% of respondents deem Trump’s murder at least somewhat justified, 31% extend that to Musk. Among the self-congratulatory left-of-center cohort—where Marxist sympathies fester—those figures surge to 55% and 48%, respectively. Nearly 40% even backed torching a Tesla dealership. These aren’t statistical blips; they’re evidence of a societal fracture engineered by the American Fifth Column’s relentless radicalism.What fuels the rage here is the cold, systematic nature of this ideology. This isn’t a loose collection of unhinged outbursts—it’s a framework based in Marxist conquest, rigorously constructed to legitimize violence as a political instrument. The NCRI’s correlation analysis dismantles any pretense of spontaneity: support for murdering Trump, Musk, or Thompson clusters tightly with ideological and psychological markers, pointing to a coherent belief system rather than random malice.At the core sits Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA), a neo-Marxist hallmark defined by moral absolutism, a vicious punitive streak against dissenters, and a readiness to impose their warped vision through force. The NCRI’s regression models show respondents with high LWA scores are disproportionately likely to endorse assassination and property destruction—statistical proof that this “assassination culture” is a deliberate neo-Marxist construct, not some organic uprising. These aren’t outliers; they’re the vanguard of a movement that cloaks its bloodlust in pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric.The interconnectivity is stark. Survey respondents who justify Trump’s killing also tend to greenlight Musk’s murder and venerate Luigi Mangione—Thompson’s assassin—as a folk hero. Mangione’s name now adorns a perverse California ballot measure (“the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act”), a grotesque monument to the murderous far left’s ability to spin a killer into a symbol. His “Deny, Defend, Depose” mantra, etched on a shell casing, isn’t just a slogan—it’s a statistical predictor of violent intent among those who see bloodshed as their righteous cudgel against perceived systemic evils.This isn’t fringe—it’s the American Fifth Column clawing into the mainstream, with platforms like BlueSky as their accelerant. The NCRI’s multivariate regressions—controlling for age, gender, race, education, and party affiliation—pinpoint far-left identity, LWA, and BlueSky usage as the strongest drivers of support for assassinating Trump or Musk.BlueSky’s ecosystem, where Mangione’s image is gamified and violent calls are veiled in irony, isn’t just permissive—it’s a radicalization engine. X amplifies this further, with viral threads racking up tens of millions of views, serving as both a gauge and a multiplier of the far left’s toxic influence on public attitudes toward Trump, Musk, and Tesla.Reddit offers a parallel lens. Subreddits like r/FreeLuigi (37,000 members) and r/LuigiMangioneJ

Over the weekend, we witnessed the pre-pubescent insolence of our country’s crybaby, leftist, 60s throwbacks in the manufactured “Hands Off” 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.Today’s “protest anything” liberals are a pathetic spectacle, a gaggle of self-righteous, uninformed clowns tripping over their own sanctimony in a desperate bid to feel relevant. They’re the kind of people who’d march against gravity if TikTok told them it was oppressive, clutching their soy lattes and megaphones, screaming about injustices they can’t even define, while tightening their man-buns.These are not the principled radicals of yesteryear; they’re a hollowed-out caricature, a generation of intellectual lightweights who stand for nothing but the dopamine hit of their own outrage. They’re not just ignorant; they’re proudly, willfully uneducated, letting their feelings bulldoze over facts like a toddler tantrum in a Walmart store aisle. It’s a tragic comedy: the perpetually offended, armed with nothing but vibes, a $1000 smartphone, and a Wi-Fi connection.What’s most galling is their utter lack of context. They’ll chain themselves to a tree or glue their hands to a highway over “climate justice” without knowing the first thing about carbon cycles, renewable energy trade-offs, or global emissions stats. They’ll wail about “systemic racism” in a country that’s spent decades dismantling legal segregation, yet couldn’t tell you what the Civil Rights Act actually says—probably because reading it would cut into their Instagram scroll time.They protest wars they can’t locate on a map, economic systems they’ve never studied beyond a Bernie Sanders-AOC “Stop Oligarchy” tweet, and corporations whose products they’re still buying on Amazon Prime. It’s not activism; it’s 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. They’re allergic to specifics and facts because facts and specifics might demand actual thought.And oh, how they fetishize the 1960s—like it’s some golden age of rebellion they’re destined to resurrect. They’re 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 ‘60s radicals had skin in the game—draft cards burning in their pockets, real oppression bearing down, and a coherent enemy in the military-industrial complex. Today’s protesters? They’re just nostalgic for a relevance they never earned, chasing a retro fantasy where they’re the heroes without doing the homework.The Summer of Love wasn’t a hashtag campaign—it was a cultural upheaval, messy and grounded in specifics these modern wannabe posers couldn’t begin to grasp. They’re not inheritors of that legacy; they’re tourists in it, snapping selfies at the gift shop.Worse, they’re useful idiots, and self-righteously so—marionettes jerked around by bought-and-paid-for community organizers bankrolled by far-Left, deep-pocket oligarchs. These aren’t grassroots warriors; they’re 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 “social change.”The irony’s thick enough to choke on: they rage against “the 1%” while doing the bidding of plutocrats who’d 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 who’s signing the checks. It’s not a movement; it’s a machine, and they’re the disposable grease—lubricating the gears of an agenda they’re too dim to decipher.Feelings are their god, and common sense is the heretic they’ve burned at the stake.Watch them sob over “injustice” without a shred of data to back it up—because why let reality ruin a good cry? They’ll block traffic to “save the planet,” ignoring the idling engines spewing fumes around them, or the fact that their own carbon footprint rivals a small factory. They’ll shriek about “fascism” 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. They’d rather drown in their own tears than admit the world’s messy and their slogans don’t fix it. It’s not bravery; it’s ignorant cowardice dressed up as virtue, a refusal to wrestle with complexity because that might mean they’re wrong—and God forbid their fragile egos take a hit.The hypocrisy serves as

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 suspects—ivory-tower economists and free-trade purists—are gasping in horror, warning of inflation and trade wars. But with Canada and Israel already pledging to zero out tariffs on US goods, Trump’s strategy is proving its worth before it’s fully off the ground.The congressional GOP must rally behind this policy, not just for party loyalty, but because it’s a pragmatic, taxpayer-friendly move that could redefine America’s economic future—potentially 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 world’s lowest tariffs—averaging 2.2%—while 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. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs turn this on its head.By matching foreign tariffs—34% on China, 20% on the EU, up to 49% on outliers like Cambodia—Trump is forcing a reset.Critics bleat about higher consumer prices, conveniently glossing over the policy’s core: incentivizing domestic production. “Build your plant here, no tariffs,” Trump declares. Companies that relocate will hire Americans, pay US taxes, and shrink the trade deficit. That’s not a tax hike—it’s a tax relief blueprint. Meanwhile, companies like Ford are establishing product discounts, calling them “From America, For America” discounts. More jobs, “Made in the USA” discounts, and higher wages mean less reliance on public assistance, easing the strain on taxpayers.Here’s 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. Trump’s 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 you’ve got a revenue stream that could replace the IRS’s chokehold on American paychecks.Before 1913, tariffs funded nearly half the government; today, they’re a measly 1% of revenue. Trump’s plan revives that model, shifting the burden from workers to importers and foreign profiteers. Opponents who scoff at this as “unrealistic” are just scared of losing their sacred cow—complex tax codes that favor their cronies.The congressional GOP has a chance to back a policy that screams economic nationalism and job creation—core party tenets. Yet, some, like House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-PA), fret over trade wars and farmers’ fertilizer costs. Thompson’s push for exemptions is myopic. Trump’s already shown flexibility, sparing Canada and Mexico from the 10% baseline tariff and carving out exceptions for drugs and computer chips. This isn’t reckless protectionism; it’s calculated leverage.Republicans can seize this to cement their working-class credibility. When Canada and Israel drop tariffs, US exporters—from Midwest farmers to Texas tech firms—win big. That’s 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. Trump’s 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 crowd’s loudest cry—that we’ll spark a global trade war and isolate America—falls flat against early successes. Canada, our top trade partner, and Israel, a staunch ally, have preemptively pledged zero tariffs on US goods. This isn’t goodwill; it’s Trump’s leverage at work. Canada, with trade at 67% of its GDP and the US as its biggest market, can’t afford a 25% hit on exports. Israel, eyeing deeper ties, followed suit. These moves prove tariffs aren’t just sticks—they’re 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 Trump’s first-term China tariffs, which didn’t crash the economy but forced a deal. Now, with a wider scope and stronger mandate, the leverage is even greater.Trump’s 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 deals—already evident with Canada and Israel’s concessions. They could even fu

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 Trump—a 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, Trump’s tenure represents a deliberate pushback against the Progressive stranglehold, aiming to restore a balance that honors the decentralized vision of America’s founders.To understand Trump’s anti-federalist streak, we must first reckon with the Progressive legacy he’s unraveling.Woodrow Wilson, the professorial poster child of early Progressivism, sneered at the Constitution’s 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 didn’t just expand Washington’s reach—they 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 society’s ills. Over decades, this morphed into a federal leviathan—think LBJ’s Great Society, Obama’s healthcare overreach, and Biden’s climate crusades—each 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 Obamacare’s 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 wasn’t just pragmatism—it was a deliberate nod to the anti-federalist belief that local governments, closer to the people, are better equipped to govern.On education, Trump’s disdain for federal meddling is apparent. He champions school choice and is seeking to gut the Department of Education’s stranglehold, arguing that parents and states—not Washington, DC, mandarins—should 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. Trump’s 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 didn’t just slash rates—it 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 Trump’s most anti-federalist legacy is his assault on the administrative state—that 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 “deregulation” is reckless, but they miss the point—or perhaps they don’t. The administrative state is their crown jewel, a means to bypass the decentralized Republic the founders envisioned. Trump’s war on the spendthrift administrative state isn’t 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 o

For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the global megaphone insisting that humans, specifically the carbon dioxide (CO₂) we pump out from cars, factories, and power plants, are the main reason the Earth’s temperature is rising. They say our CO₂ has damaged the planet’s 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 IPCC’s big claims start to look more than just a bit shaky.This isn’t about denying climate change; the Earth’s climate changes constantly and has been in constant flux since the beginning of time. It’s 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.• 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 CO₂ 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 facts—data that hasn’t been manipulated—and hear from researchers who aren’t on the IPCC bandwagon, things don’t add up so neatly.Take CO₂ itself. The IPCC acts like our emissions have an enormous impact, but here’s the reality: humans release about 10 billion tons of carbon each year as CO₂. Compare that to nature, which moves around 230 billion tons annually—80 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 salad—does that sound like we’re the ones steering the meal?Scientists like Demetris Koutsoyiannis have dug into this and found that our CO₂ doesn’t even stick around long enough to cause much trouble. They use something called isotopic evidence—like a fingerprint for carbon—to show that the air’s CO₂ mix has barely changed over 200 years. Even with a big jump in CO₂ since 1980, the shift is tiny, much less than you’d 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 CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa didn’t budge. If our CO₂ was such a game-changer, wouldn’t we have noticed?The IPCC says our CO₂ hangs around for 120 years or more, building up like a slow disaster. But Koutsoyiannis and others, like Hermann Harde, say it’s more like 3.5 to 4 years before nature sweeps it away. That’s a huge gap—and it suggests the IPCC is exaggerating our impact.The IPCC leans heavily on computer models—called GCMs—from 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 it’s only 0.13°C—a 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.It’s not just the air. The models predicted Arctic sea ice would shrink by 20-50% since 2007, but real measurements show it’s 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.Here’s something else: scientists like Ole Humlum and Murray Salby noticed that temperatures often rise before CO₂ levels go up, by about 6 to 12 months. That’s like saying the oven heats up before you turn it on. It could mean warming is pushing CO₂ out of oceans and soil—like fizz popping out of a warm soda—not CO₂ cranking up the heat. The IPCC’s models aren’t built to handle that twist, and it shows.If our CO₂ isn’t 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 1850—by just 0.05 watts per square meter. But there are 27 other estimates out there, and some show bigger swings—0.5 to 1 watt per

The mainstream media, that festering swamp of self-righteous gatekeepers, has once again exposed its true colors. This time, it’s the so-called conservative stalwarts—outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review—leading the charge in a chorus of sanctimonious outrage. Their crime? Clutching their pearls over President Trump’s 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 “retreat in the global war of ideas.” What unmitigated garbage.• SEGMENT 2 (BELOW): How Wokeism Hijacked EntertainmentLet’s 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, they’ve morphed into megaphones for a Leftist gospel of globalism—a 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 Trump’s ax is chopping down the last bastion of righteousness. National Review whines that shutting down VOA and its cousins is a “misguided reaction” to organizational failings, insisting that none of their shortcomings are “enough on their own to justify” such a purge. Really? The White House has a laundry list of outrages that says otherwise: VOA instructing its journalists to call Hamas operatives “militants” 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 you’ve got a rotting corpse masquerading as a public good.The Wall Street Journal isn’t much better, cherry-picking rare instances where these propaganda mills (and let’s 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 outlets—Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the rest—are 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. They’ve 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 autonomy—their self-anointed role as the vanguard of conservatism—is under siege. And they’re terrified.This isn’t about principle; again—and this is a re-occurring theme with those protesting Trump’s reformative moves—it’s 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 that’s 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 intake—think 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. Streaming’s rise—hitting 40.3% of US TV usage in June 2024, per Statista—only 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 who’s driving this exodus? The young—Gen Z and Millennials—who 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 that’s as obsolete as it is corrupt.This is where Trump’s genius shines. He’s no traditional “conservative”—a term so diluted by Republicans in Name Only like Mitch McConnell that it’s lost all meanin

The radical far-Left has crossed a line that no civilized society should tolerate. The neo-Marxist troglodytes targeting Tesla dealerships with violent, destructive attacks—smashing windows, torching cars, and destroying property—are not activists. They’re not noble defenders of some grand cause. They’re domestic terrorists, plain and simple, and it’s 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.Let’s cut through the nonsense. These attacks aren’t random outbursts of frustration—they’re 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 that’s not good enough for the far-Left radicals. No, they’d rather burn it all down than admit the world isn’t bending to their pseudo-utopian delusions. They hate Elon Musk, they hate success, and they hate anything that doesn’t grovel at the altar of their sanctimonious ideology. So they lash out like spoiled, ignorant brats, smashing and destroying what others have built.What’s happening at Tesla dealerships isn’t protest—it’s 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 aren’t holding signs or chanting slogans—they’re wielding weapons and leaving wreckage in their wake. That’s not free speech; that’s 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 drivel—claiming they’re fighting climate change or corporate greed. What a load of unmitigated bullshit. If they cared about the planet, they’d applaud Tesla’s mission, not attack it. This isn’t about principle; it’s about selfish power. It’s about tearing down anything that doesn’t fit their narrow, neo-Jacobin authoritarian worldview. They’re not saving the Earth—they’re just arrogantly self-righteous bullies with a fake cause, and they’ve picked Tesla as their punching bag because it’s a symbol of everything they despise: ambition, innovation, and individual freedom. Well, I’ve got news for them: we’re done tolerating their tantrums; the American people are tired of their destructive, criminal, adolescent crap!Look at the damage they’ve caused. Dealerships in California, Oregon, and beyond have been hit—windows 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 isn’t some victimless crime—it’s an assault on innocent people, all because a bunch of unhinged infantile radicals can’t handle reality. And what’s the response from the bleeding-heart apologists? Excuses. “They’re passionate.” “They’re frustrated.” To that, I say, “Fuck you!” Passion doesn’t give you a free pass to destroy. Frustration doesn’t justify terrorism. These are grown adults choosing to break the law, and they need to face grown-up consequences.The law isn’t optional—it’s the line between order and anarchy. When you let these criminal provocateurs off with a slap on the wrist, you’re telling every other wannabe pseudo-revolutionary that violence pays. That’s why prosecution has to be relentless and unforgiving for these assholes.Charge them with vandalism, arson, assault—whatever 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? Let’s send one back: you don’t get to terrorize people and walk away.And don’t even start with the “but the system’s unfair” whining. The far-Left loves to play martyr when they’re caught, crying about oppression while they’re the ones oppressing everyone else with their intolerance, ignorance, and violence. They don’t get a pass because they’re mad at capitalism or Musk’s tweets. The rest of us—members of a civilized society—don’t smash things when we’re upset, why should they?Equal justice means they face the same hammer as anyone else who pulls this crap. Anything less is favoritism, and it’s an insult to every law-abiding citizen who recognizes that it’s a crime to torch a building when life gets tough.This is a war on sanity, waged by a radical fringe that’s been indulged for far too

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 Trump’s efforts. But Trump, more of a shrewd tactician than the far–Left 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 judiciary’s descent into unconstitutional activism has reached a fever pitch since Trump’s 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, Trump’s push to streamline agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or the Department of Education—entities 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 aren’t about law; they’re about power—specifically, 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 “operational needs.” Trump could exploit this authority to target the most recalcitrant, anti-reform elements within the bureaucracy—those careerists who clog the system with resistance, leak to the press, or slow-walk directives they dislike ideologically. By transferring these malcontents to remote outposts—think desolate field offices in Alaska, rural North Dakota, the sweltering Texas border, or even Guam and American Samoa—they’d face a stark choice: uproot their lives and families to places with little appeal, or resign and seek greener pastures elsewhere. It’s a blunt instrument, to be sure, but one that could break the back of the “resistance” 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 hollow—after all, they’ve 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. Trump’s 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 injun

Donald Trump’s return to the White House in 2025 promised a seismic shift in the federal government—a 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 promises—and 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.Trump’s vision is clear: Slash the federal government’s sprawling footprint, dismantle—to an acceptable level—the 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.He’s promised to gut agencies like the Department of Education—which has achieved next to nothing throughout its existence but to facilitate power to the teacher’s unions, rein in the Environmental Protection Agency’s overreach—which 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 aren’t modest tweaks—they’re 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 courts—where activist judges, cloaked in black robes, eagerly await to twist the Constitution into a weapon against Trump’s reformative policies. Without a significant Republican majority, this vision lays squarely behind the eight ball.Let’s start with the courts, the most insidious obstacle to Trump’s reforms.The activist judiciary—stacked with liberal ideologues and spineless moderates—has spent decades unconstitutionally expanding its purview and usurping the role of elected lawmakers. These unelected black-robed tyrants don’t 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 Trump’s first term: the travel ban on people coming into our country from nations that routinely gather at weekly prayers to chant “Death to America”—gutted by judges who fancied themselves arbiters of morality; tax reforms that boosted the economy and wealth for all demographics across the board—endlessly litigated by partisan hacks; and regulatory rollbacks that allowed small businesses to thrive—stalled 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 Francisco—a Clinton appointee—who recently ordered President Trump’s 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 aren’t guardians of justice—they’re saboteurs of democracy. They hide behind vague notions of “equity,” “precedent,” and “standing” to impose their Progressive dogma, overriding the will of voters and their elected representatives.Trump’s 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 Trump’s only shield against this judicial overreach. With enough votes, Republicans can codify reformative legislation so airtight—crafted with explicit language and overwhelming legislative intent—that 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 r

Since Donald Trump’s 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 principles—groupthink, cognitive dissonance, and tribal identity—and its spread reveals the rot at the core of Progressive ideology. Worse, it poses a direct threat to the United States’ foundational principles of individualism and liberty, corroding discourse and empowering collectivist dogma over personal freedom.Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t just hyperbole slung by opportunistic right-wing pundits; it’s an observable condition marked by an inability to engage rationally with Mr. Trump—or 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 Trump’s 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 Trump’s 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. It’s not about policy critique—reasonable people can debate cutting fraud and waste, tax cuts or border security—but about a Pavlovian meltdown triggered by Trump’s persona.Progressives and Democratic Socialists, who fancy themselves “champions of tolerance and nuance,” are Trump Derangement Syndrome’s primary vectors. Their reaction isn’t rooted in Trump’s actions alone but in what he represents: a brash, unapologetic rejection of their sanctimonious worldview. Trump’s 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. What’s billed as “moral outrage” is often just psychological overload—an inability to reconcile their self-image as enlightened saviors with a reality that doesn’t bend to their whims.Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t a random outburst; it’s 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 enclaves—be it academia, media, or urban bubbles (or the smoky back rooms of K Street)—dissenting 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 isn’t principled opposition; it’s 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 there’s cognitive dissonance, the mental strain of holding conflicting beliefs. Progressives pride themselves on being the "party of science" and compassion, yet Trump’s electoral success and policy wins—like record-low minority unemployment—clash 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 isn’t reason; it’s 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 isn’t just politics—it’s a badge of pseudo-moral-superiority. This tribalism blinds them to their own contradictions: championing “diversity” while demanding lockstep conformity, or preaching “equity” 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 it’s manufactured NGO world.Psychologically, Trump Derangement Syndrome is less about Trump and more about the Left’s need to cling to a crumbling identity as society’s self-appointed guardians.Trump Derangement Syndrome isn’t just a personal quirk; it’s a wrecking ball smashing through America’s civic fabric.The United States was built on debate, compromise, and a shared commitment to democratic norms—values Progressives claim to uphold but abandon the moment

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 nation’s core values. Once a formidable force championing the working class, the Democrat Party has been hijacked by radical ideologues—progressives and Democratic Socialists—whose 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 “New-Republican” embrace of constitutionalism, individualism, and deregulation offers a path America craves—and 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 “comforting platitudes” instead of grappling with their diminishing relevance. New DNC chair Ken Martin chimed in, suggesting the problem lies not in the party’s agenda but in its messaging—a 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 party’s capitulation to progressive extremism and Democratic Socialism has left it severed and disconnected from the American people.The document acknowledges a litany of failures—a growing rift with working-class voters, a reliance on “ideological purity tests,” and the deteriorating state of Democrat-run cities. Its proposed fixes—patriotism, support for institutions like churches and police, and a focus on local governance—sound suspiciously like a page from the Republican playbook. It’s 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 party’s far-Left wing, whose neo-Marxian demands—open borders, defunding the police, the application of identity politics, and expanded government, among a host of other radical notions—threaten to drown out any hope of moderation. The retreat’s revelations point to a stark truth: the Democrat Party’s 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 today’s 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 dear—and a track record of failure that’s 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 voters—White, Black, Hispanic, or otherwise—who 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 collapse—proof that utopian intentions don’t 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 “systemic” 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 “unpopular cultural positions” are dragging the Democrat Party down—an understatement when millions see Democrats as out-of-touch elitists more interested in policing pronouns than solving real problems.This extremism isn’t just a political liabil

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 “oligarchy” 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 “progressive resistance.” His “Fighting Oligarchy” 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.Sanders’ neo-Marxist message resonates with a segment of the far- and radical-Left emboldened by former President Joe Biden’s farewell address, in which he warned of “an oligarchy taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence” that endangers democracy itself.Yet, beneath the propagandistic fervor and viral optics lies a deeply flawed ideology—Democratic Socialism—as championed by Sanders.His campaign against “oligarchy,” his critiques of the Trump administration’s 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. Sanders’ 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.Sanders’ self-identification as a Democratic Socialist invites immediate skepticism when one examines the term’s historical and practical implications. Democratic Socialism, in theory, seeks to blend socialist economic principles—centralized control of production, wealth redistribution, and the abolition of private profit motives—with democratic governance. Yet, Sanders’ 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 sense—they are market economies with robust welfare states, high taxes, and private enterprise thriving alongside significant government intervention. Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen famously rebuked Sanders in 2015, stating, “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Sanders’ insistence on the “Democratic Socialist” 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 “oligarchy” and billionaires like Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Linda McMahon, who populate the Trump administration, yet his solutions—massive government expansion, wealth taxes, and nationalized industries like healthcare—do 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 administration’s billionaire class, while emotionally compelling, lacks a clear alternative that avoids the pitfalls of centralized power—ironically, the very thing he accuses oligarchs of wielding.Sanders’ central thesis—that America is sliding into an oligarchy—gained traction when Biden echoed it in his farewell address. The image of Trump flanked by billionaires at his inauguration, coupled with Musk’s DOGE-led cuts to federal agencies like the intensely corrupt and ideologically agendized USAID, fuels Sanders’ claim that a handful of ultra-wealthy elites are seizing control of democracy.Talking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February 2025, Sanders called Musk’s USAID cuts “unconstitutional,” arguing they bypass Congress’ authority over appropriations. His “Fighting Oligarchy” 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 rebrandi

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 blind—and stubbornly so—to 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 “lower-middle-income country.” It is by no means in any position to claim the mantle of what we would have called “first world” status during the Cold War. Additionally, Zelenskyy is the leader of a country that needs foreign aid—both militarily and financially—to survive in the immediate.So, his outrageous demeanor in the Oval Office toward President Trump and Vice President Vance—not to mention his backstabbing of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in changing the terms of the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement—is and was completely and absolutely unacceptable. Zelenskyy is not of equal station or stature as the President of the United States. Put bluntly, you don’t 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 wasn’t 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 didn’t like what he was saying, so he put him in prison).In a completely unscientific social media poll (and I don’t put a lot of stock in polling, but when one is substantially lopsided, it’s hard to argue that the sentiment isn’t there), 71.4% of the respondents said they believed Zelenskyy’s actions in the Oval Office diminished the American people’s 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?Zelenskyy’s attitude on those points alone validates Mr. Trump’s statement that Zelenskyy isn’t “ready for Peace if America is involved.”But even more arrogantly egregious was Zelenskyy’s pivot away from the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement in his demand for “security guarantees” from the United States. This is where the “drive-by know-nothing” social media opinionators expose their complete lack of critical thinking skills and intellectual comprehension of geopolitical issues involving Ukraine and Russia.Zelenskyy’s insistence on “security guarantees” 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 Russia—US troops on the ground—and with Russia having China's unwavering alliance and recent assurances on the matter.Further—and again, this is where the “drive-by know-nothings” 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)—and with both of them seeking to end Western (read: American) hegemony—any US military engagement on Ukraine’s behalf on Ukrainian soil would light the fuse to a global conflict, again validating Mr. Trump’s point that Zelenskyy is playing with World War.However, the larger demonstration of Zelenskyy’s 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 hostilities—and that means the killing would have stopped—because 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 he’s not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his military’s 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

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 won’t 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 that—until now—refuses 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 “right” 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 Branch—that’s every employee of every agency, department, administration, and commission—serves 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 position—usually a high-level government job—only as long as the President wants them to. It’s 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 don’t have fixed terms or job security in the usual sense; the President can fire them at any time, for any reason—or no reason at all—without needing approval from Congress or anyone else.It’s tied to the President’s 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 isn’t cutting it in the President’s eyes, they’re out—no legal protections or formal process required, just the President’s 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. It’s a loyalty gig. You’re 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 employees—your everyday government workers like clerks, analysts, or technicians—the phrase "serve at the pleasure of the President" doesn’t 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 who’s in the White House. They’re 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 secretary’s.Civil service employees—think of the bulk of people at agencies like the IRS, EPA, or Social Security Administration—fall 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 can’t 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 reasons—like 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 President’s influence isn’t zero. Rank-and-file workers answer to supervisors, who answer to higher-ups, who ultimately answer to political appointees serving at the President’s pleasure. Therefore, the President’s agenda significantly impacts the direction and spirit of a federal employee’s work—say, through policy changes, agency or department re-branding and re-purposing, or budget cuts.Ultimately, everyone—from 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 Branch—serves at the President's pleasure in one way or another, or, at least, they’re supposed to.But since the Clinton years, when hi

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 Musk’s efforts at exposing the spendthrift practices of our bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, Deep-State-monopolized federal government. Don’t 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 organizations—you know, the ones that had Kamala Harris winning over Donald Trump in the 2024 General Election—want you to believe a significant portion of the Republic doesn’t want waste, fraud, and corruption exposed and eliminated. Further, they want you to think that everyone hates Elon Musk.Ten of the most “prestigeous,” 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 Musk’s 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 DOGE’s operations and Musk’s “potential” 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 Musk’s 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 Election—Rasmussen Reports and the Trafalgar Group—both 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 that’s just in 30 days.At the center of the Deep State grift—the US Agency for International Development (USAID), until recently headed by Samantha Power, DOGE exposed that a significant portion of USAID funds—up to 82%—never reaches intended recipients. Instead, it is pocketed by prime contractors and NGOs, turning aid into a “personal slush fund” 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 CountriesAnd 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 sy

There has been a lot of uneducated debate on the legitimacy of President Trump’s 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 Musk’s DOGE efforts, claiming that eliminating waste and fraudulent spending in the many federal agencies and departments would cause “harm” to their states. Ironically, it was US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same judge who presided over the criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, who ruled against them.As FOX News' Breanne Deppisch reported:“Plaintiffs argued that the leadership role held by Musk, a private citizen, represents an ‘unlawful delegation of executive power’ and threatened what they described as ‘widespread disruption’ to employees working across various federal agencies and government contractors.“‘There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,’ said the lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez.“Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington also joined him in the request.”Chunkin was correct in denying the attorney generals their TRO, but not for the reasons she stated, which centered on proving “irreparable harm.” Instead, the denial—which should have been dismissed with prejudice—should 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 “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” 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 individuals’ constitutional rights without providing a fair hearing or

It’s interesting how the mainstream media useful idiots wail about a “politicized” 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 DoJ—reformative actions mandated by the American people in the landslide re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Associated Press’s Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer had the unmitigated gall to report:“Even 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.”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 isn’t one that goes from legitimacy to corruption. Rather, it is a course correction that moves from “swampateer” corruption and opportunism to legitimacy, a return to constitutional law—to the rule of law—and 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 Seinfeld’s “bizarro world” where everything is the opposite of what it should be. Today’s 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, can’t 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 York’s Democrat Mayor, Eric Adams, Bondi’s spokesman, Chad Mizelle, said:“The 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.”He went on to accuse the prosecutors of acting without evidence and executing their offices with “disordered and ulterior motives.”And isn’t 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 facts—the facts—of 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 change–a legitimate change meant to restore us to the US Constitution—have 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 wasn’t right about that.Then, when we return, our segment

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.Vance’s arguments center on an accurate reading and understanding of the fundamental principle of the Separation of Powers. His interpretation—which has been validated over the years in various US Supreme Court Rulings—highlights 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 today’s courts against Trump’s 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 “a political enterprise masquerading as law.” 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 President’s 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 people’s mandate given to Trump in his 2024 landslide victory.Critics like the disgraced Liz Cheney and US Senator Adam “Boy Do I Have A Problem With Telling The Truth” Schiff (D-CA) have ignorantly painted Vance's defense of executive authority as “advocacy for lawlessness.” However, when presented with examples of how former Presidents Biden and Obama abused Executive authority for purely political purposes—in particular, Biden’s 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.”Vance himself put it this way:“If 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.”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 cou

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, it’s 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 McConnell’s prerogative or political station to not only put himself above the President’s 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:“The US Senate confirmed former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as President Trump’s spy chief Wednesday, elevating the ex-Democrat and privacy hawk to a cabinet-level position in the Republican administration.“The upper chamber voted 52-48 to confirm Gabbard, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joining all 47 Democrats in opposition.”In his descent, McConnell stated that Gabbard was “unworthy of the highest public trust” and that he feared that future intelligence assessments could be “tainted” given her “history of alarming lapses in judgment.”What are those lapses that McConnell is so troubled by? Well, those lapses included not condemning National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden’s “treasonous betrayal” of the US and refusing to condemn Vladimir Putin’s 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 “threat inflation” by the West.“Entrusting the coordination of the intelligence community to someone who struggles to acknowledge these facts is an unnecessary risk,” 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 DevelopmentIn fact, McConnell only voted against one of Biden’s 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 ServicesAs an aside, McConnell is married to Elaine Chao, who, while serving as the US Secretary of Transportation in President Trump’s 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 else’s 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 Govern

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 “journalists” in over 100 countries. That sounds noble, doesn’t 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 movements—and even the sovereignty of nations—worldwide.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.Internews’s funding sources betray its true objectives. As reported by Wikileaks:“USAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, ‘Internews Network’ (Interworks), which has ‘worked with’ 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people…[Internews] has also supported social media censorship initiatives.“The operation claims ‘offices’ 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].“Bourgault’s [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.“Records 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.“[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.”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 Soros’s Open Society Foundations.As reported by Amuse on X:“Internews 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.“Former 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 Uk

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:“As we dug into USAID, it became clear that this isn’t 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, there’s no saving it. USAID is unfixable. There’s no apple left; it's just worms. It needs to be completely eradicated. It's beyond any repair.”Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) outlined how the USAID has been “stonewalling” her office for years as she sought documents to audit and account for taxpayer dollars wasted at the agency:“USAID’s 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 more…No more stonewalling,. We need to scrutinize every last dollar being spent by this rogue agency.”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.“One 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.”“Having served in and around five US Embassies from Panama to Kabul, nothing about the conduct of DoS or USAID surprises me.“But 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.”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

These days, you can’t broach a subject without hearing someone say, “I have a right to…” Whether the subjects are mainstream, like healthcare, education, or abortion, or more axillary, like employment or access to exclusive venues and groups. But the fact of the matter is this: Our rights are enumerated, and we do not have rights that extend to everything within our purview.We have the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the petitioning of government, although some would argue that was infringed upon during and after the events of January 6th.We have the right to keep and bear arms, to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to due process, as well as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.We have the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel, although, again, some would argue those rights were usurped during and after the events of January 6th.We have the right to exist outside the bonds of slavery and are guaranteed equal protection and due process under the law regardless of race, gender, or religion.Over the years, these enumerated rights have been extended to axillary but related issues in rulings by the US Supreme Court. Nevertheless, these core rights belong to all men and women who are created equal in the eyes of our Creator.The 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to the states what is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the US Constitution.One right not included in these enumerated rights is the right to a job in the federal government. This brings me to my point: the recent purging of Department of Justice federal prosecutors and the review of the employment of FBI agents who participated in the political persecution of the nonviolent January 6th protesters.As Victor Nava of The New York Post reported:“The Justice Department fired dozens of federal prosecutors involved in January 6th cases on Friday and informed the FBI that it would initiate a ‘review process’ to determine if thousands of agents that worked Capitol riot investigations should also be terminated…“Interim DC US Attorney Ed Martin told the 30 or so fired federal prosecutors that they were being removed as a direct result of their role in the prosecution of some of the more than 1,500 individuals who [took part in the events at ] the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021…“The Supreme Court ruled last June that the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding of Congress”–-used on more than 300 riot defendants—was too broadly applied.”Now, we can have a frank discussion about January 6th: the constitutionality of the prosecution against nonviolent attendees and the tactics used to hunt these people down and hold them. I, personally, believe several constitutional rights were blatantly violated, including the right to redress government, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to a speedy and public trial, to an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel.But that is not the point I want to highlight today. Today, I want to spotlight the pure, entitled narcissism of the federal employees affected by the Trump administration’s move to terminate them for actions they should have refused to execute, actions that were—and there is no other way to couch this—actions that were unlawfully orders.In responding to the announced investigations toward the terminations of the offending FBI agents , the labor union representing over 1,400 FBI agents responded with indignant outrage.Again, from The New York Post:“‘If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents,’ the FBI Agents Association said in a statement.“‘Dismissing potentially hundreds of Agents would severely weaken the Bureau’s ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the Bureau and its new leadership for failure,’ the union added. ‘These actions also contradict the commitments that Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Director-nominee Kash Patel made during their nomination hearings before the United States Senate.’“‘They also run counter to the commitment that Director-nominee Patel made to the FBI Agents Association, where during our meeting he said that Agents would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned.’”No federal employee has a right to their job. Each federal employee operating under the Executive Branch—as FBI agents and administrative staff do—serves at the pleasure of the President and can be dispatched from their station to any assignment commanded, even if that station and mission is to watch ice melt at the South Pole. This was evidenced in President Rea

With the arrival of Trump 2.0, the winds of change are being felt across the Washingtonian swamp. For the status quo, spendthrift Deep Staters, those winds have a sub-zero windchill. But the usual suspects on the political and ideological Left aren’t taking the freeze sitting down.A cadre of those who routinely feed at the governmental taxpayer monetary feed trough, including the National Council of Nonprofits and other Non-Government Organization (NGO) entities, have taken legal action against the Office of Management & Budget and its Acting Director, Matthew Vaeth, following a directive that halted the disbursement of federal grant and loan funds.This move by Democrat attorneys general from states like New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to sue over the policy seems less about legality and more about protecting the flow of “free” taxpayer federal money into Leftist and Left-leaning politically aligned non-profits and NGOs. Attorney General Letitia James of New York—you remember her, she’s one of the Soros-installed AGs that went after Donald Trump over business practices that no one had a problem with—James branded the directive as “dangerous, reckless, illegal, and unconstitutional.” She’s undoubtedly more concerned with maintaining funding for organizations that align with her specific political agendas rather than addressing the broader implications of fiscal responsibility.Vaeth's rationale for the funding pause—to ensure that federal dollars are spent in alignment with the President's policy goals—highlights much-needed (and long overdue) scrutiny of how taxpayer money is funneled into special interest groups and non-profit organizations. This review is crucial, considering the vast sums often allocated to these entities, which may not reflect the interests or needs of the general populace but serve radical niche political ideologies.As reported by The Hill.com:“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused the Trump administration of ‘blatantly’ disobeying the law ‘by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.’“‘Congress approved these investments, and they are not optional; they are the law,’ Schumer said. ‘These grants help people in red states and blue states, support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.’“He said the move could jeopardize ‘billions upon billions of community grants and financial support that help millions of people across the country. It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit charities.’”The plaintiffs' claim that the guidance will devastate non-profits dependent on government grants paints a picture of organizations addicted to federal funding. This presents a legitimate point: questioning their sustainability and true independence. If these groups are so reliant on federal funds to operate, one must ask how effective or necessary their missions truly are without such support.Furthermore, the argument that this guidance breaches the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” reveals how the far-Left manipulates the law to advance their transformative and spendthrift agendas. It evidences an overreach by these organizations to shield their financial interests under the guise of legal rights. The assertion that this could infringe on First Amendment rights, particularly for groups advocating for Left-leaning causes like LGBTQ rights, suggests a fear that funding might be more critically evaluated based on merit rather than political alignment.Basically, this lawsuit is less about protecting the constitutional rights of non-profits and NGOs and more about defending a profligate system where federal funds—taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars in an age of incredible national debt—are disproportionately directed towards far-Left special interest groups at the expense of broader, more equitable—and constitutional—public policy goals.The reaction to this funding pause indicates how entrenched some non-profits and NGOs have become in relying on government support (read taxpayer dollars), raising questions about the efficiency and impartiality of the federal funding distribution qualifying process.Bottom line: If a non-profit organization or a federal grant-eligible non-government organization is worthy of support, that support should come exclusively from the private sector, not through the extraction of tax dollars—under threat by the taxman—from the general public. If you want to support a non-profit or NGO, I applaud you; more power to you. But government shouldn’t force me to support auxiliary organizations outside the constitutionally required entities of the federal government.That’s the very meaning of “unconstitutional.”In the end, the temporary funding freeze to evaluate which initiatives were receiving taxpayer dollars was rescinded, but no

In 1975, Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.” The truth of that statement couldn’t be more apparent than it is today.The advent of social media and interactive internet platforms has validated Reagan’s statement and proved that this truth is even more prevalent than we suspected.At every turn—on any given day and on any given subject, erroneously advanced inaccuracies and untruths can be found because someone “liked,” forwarded, and/or posted a meme, statement, or opinion on something without actually taking the time to validate the meme or statement or read the provided content.This intellectual cancer isn’t just an attribute of “our liberal friends.” It exists just as prevalently on the ideological Right, and instances of this are getting more frequent.Recently, I had an old acquaintance from high school—by all accounts, a solid guy; thoughtful and an engaged member of the community, completely out himself as someone who finds it more important to opine on what he thinks he knows rather than what he actually would have known if he had taken the time to read what he was opining on.He is not alone. I have been guilty of this at one time or another, although today I make a conscious effort never to do it. We will read a headline and maybe the first paragraph of an article, and because we believe we understand the gist of what the author is saying, we feel confident that the opinion we’re about to craft for the consumption of others is valid; and based on a full knowledge of the subject at hand. Yet it’s not because we didn’t read the full article, white paper, research, or book or listen to the full podcast or presentation.This is a dangerous practice because when a not-fully-informed opinion is advanced—and then re-advanced, again and again, and liked and quoted—it takes on the appearance of fully researched truth, and a non-truth co-opts the appearance of legitimacy.Disingenuous actors, those who manipulate the public for ideological and opportunistic purposes, prey on those who engage in such acts—those who exist intellectually vulnerable because of their “excitability”—to seed statements that sound legitimate but aren’t. This allows them to create division and discontent while capturing the power of narrative control. Think of the Steele Dosier and the Trump-Russia scam, the Hunter Biden laptop denial, or, today, the Obama-Jennifer Aniston rumor.This intellectual susceptibility in our society makes us incredibly vulnerable to maleficent actors—government agencies as well as political organizations and ideological NGOs—employing PsyOps.Some of the more egregious PsyOp campaigns in recent years include:* Trump's Business Dealings: Accusations of money laundering and illegal business practices at the Trump Organization, circulated often without substantial evidence* Republican Voter Suppression: The claim that Republicans are actively suppressing minority votes, an allegation repeatedly disproved and lacking in both evidence and context* Trump's Mental Health: Speculation during Trump’s first term about the President’s cognitive abilities and mental fitness, allegations completely baseless and without evidence* Republican War on Women: The notion that Republicans are waging a war on women's rights, even as conservatives are on record as supporting policies that empower women.* COVID Mask Use: During the COVID pandemic, it has now been proven that a purposeful PsyOps campaign was employed to encourage the widespread use of face masks. This operation aimed to instill fear and compliance among the population by exaggerating the effectiveness of masks and the ineffectiveness of natural herd immunity. Inconsistent messaging from health authorities, along with the constant bombardment of frightening statistics and images in the media, created a state of panic that made people more willing to accept unconstitutional restrictive measures like mask mandates and the closing of businesses, maintaining that the information on mask-wearing and social distancing was based on scientific evidence.And the list goes on and on and on.In each case, well-meaning individuals were duped into advancing these untruths on social media and interactive internet platforms, as well as directly into the public square. They were duped because they failed—they failed—to do their due diligence in ascertaining the facts of the matter, to any responsible extent, before they opined on the matter.Now, I’m not advocating for the restriction of free speech in any way, shape, or form. I believe that the way to combat mis– and dis–information is by applying more free speech (which facilitates access to the truth), not less, and it certainly doesn’t facilitate the discovery of truth when the government (or any arrogantly self-important NGO) assumes the mantle of arbiter of the truth.What I am saying is this—and I specifically urge this

Most of the nation—and the free world—is breathing a sigh of relief at the exit of Joe Biden and Obama 2.0 from power. We see this as the beginning of the end of neo-Marxist wokeism. But while we celebrate the probable return to constitutionality and the downsizing of our federal government, some well-funded far-Left disruptors see an opportunity to create chaos.A small group that played a role in the effort to disqualify Donald Trump from ballots before the 2024 General Election is already propagandizing for impeachment proceedings against the 47th president. The Free Speech for People nonprofit organization is spearheading the call for impeachment, insisting:“Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”The group is pursuing this ridiculousness even though CBS News and myriad other news outlets reported in January 2017 that Trump “resigned from all positions of authority and management within the Trump Organization and its affiliates” and that “his sons, Don and Eric, are fully in charge of the company.”Expecting Trump to sell his shares in the Trump Organization while he is not in an official capacity decision-making role is similar to requiring members of Congress to sell stocks in companies and organizations that could be impacted by the legislation they are considering. So, the expectation exposes the gross hypocrisy of the hyper-partisan Trump-hating Left at the Free Speech for People organization.The real issue is not so much the Free Speech for People non-profit itself but rather the typical neo-Marxist progressive donors and philanthropic organizations (using the term “philanthropic” very loosely) that finance groups like this one. It’s the dark money of the far-Left transformative Deep State oligarchy and their neverending financial commitment to undermine the will of the American people that is the problem; that is the cancer in the system that needs to be exposed and then expunged.Two main groups behind the new effort to divide our nation, purely for opportunistic partisan, transformative, and power-play purposes, are The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors.According to the Independent Journal Review:“The Tides Foundation — a key cog in the wider left-wing Tides philanthropic network, which combined to shell out $850 million in 2022 — is a major financial backer of Free Speech For People. The Tides Foundation gave grants exceeding $250,000 to the legal nonprofit in 2020, 2022 and 2023, and a combined $925,816 since 2019.”Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.The article’s author, Nick Pope, goes on to say that the Hopewell Fund granted the Free Speech for People anti-Trump efforts $20,000 in 2023. The Hopewell Fund is one of several nonprofits boosting transformative neo-Marxist causes under the management of liberal dark money juggernaut Arabella Advisors, a major for-profit consultancy established by Clinton administration veteran Eric Kessler and funded by some of the worst anti-freedom advocates around the globe, including:* Bill Gates: Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he has been one of the largest donors to the Arabella network, focusing on various globalist policy advocacy issues.* George Soros: He has provided multi-million dollar donations to the network, with affiliations noted through his funding to groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund.* Mark Zuckerberg: Specifically, his philanthropy through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has committed significant funds, particularly noted for social justice issues.* Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund: This organization has been identified as the largest institutional donor to almost all of Arabella's nonprofit entities, providing donor-advised funds to wealthy individuals.* Hansjorg Wyss: A foreign national billionaire, he has donated substantial amounts, notably $500 million, to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has been used for various Leftist political initiatives.Incidentally, the same cast of characters—and more of the usual suspect far-Left advocate cabal (Google, Soro’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and Pierre Omidyar and Warren Buffett)—financially supports The Tides Foundation.These are the kinds of organizations that cause the divide in our country. It's less about the radicals they dupe into subservience, who constitute the far-Left ideologue voting public, and more about the agitators in organizations like these that stoke partisanship by advocating for destructive and baseless actions like the impeachme

In his final hours as President of the United States, Joe Biden issued a series of preemptive pardons for Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, the members of the January 6th Committee, and his extended family. This action was one of the most disgusting uses of presidential power to grant reprieves and pardons in the history of our Republic. And the action’s constitutionality should be questioned. In Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, the president is vested with the power to “grant reprieves and pardons” through these words:“The President shall…have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”The keywords here are “for offenses against the United States,” which infers a criminal conviction in federal court. In fact, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on that. If you accept a pardon, there is an inference of guilt. Therefore, the question that begs to be asked is valid: Are pre-emptive presidential pardons constitutional?Biden, in the early days of his presidency, lauded the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, both of which expanded presidential authority and the purview of the Executive Branch unconstitutionally. Roosevelt’s New Deal was choke-full of presidential authority expansion beyond the limits of the Constitution. Brion McClanahan documents each—and the expansionist agendas of Wilson and Truman, as well as several others, in his book, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her. It’s definitely worth the time.So, it should come as no surprise that Biden felt unencumbered by the Constitution in his actions, specifically with his precedent-setting issuance of pre-emptive presidential pardons. It’s never happened before, and, through an originalist's view of the Constitution, it appears unconstitutional.Some would attempt to defend Biden’s actions by juxtaposing them with President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after his resignation stemming from the Watergate scandal. But there are significant differences between the two.Ford’s pardon of Nixon was singular, focused solely on Nixon, covering all federal offenses he committed or was under investigation for during his presidency. It was a direct response to a specific legal threat—a threat that had already been initiated. Ford’s action prevented any further legal action against Nixon.Biden’s actions, conversely, were preemptive because no investigative or legal actions had commenced against anyone receiving a pre-emptive pardon. Biden’s actions were aimed at protecting individuals from potential future legal actions regardless of any criminal conduct.Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, the J6 Committee, and his family members. However, according to the Constitution, presidential pardons are only valid for issuance in instances of transgressions against the United States. So, how could they be valid and binding?But what to do? Well, if Biden can execute precedential actions, so can President Trump.President Trump should instruct his Solicitor General to file an emergency petition with the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to definitively rule on the parameters of the presidential reprieve and pardon clause in Article II, Section 1.It can be successfully argued that Article III, Section 1 gives the SCOTUS purview over establishing the defining parameters associated with Article II, Section1, through the words:“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…”Because the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of our federal government—and the one charged with judicial review—it does not need to be presented with a case to accept or decline because the Executive’s action has already taken place. All it needs is a petition from the Solicitor General.This petition isn’t even an act of partisan politics because it concerns constitutionality; the definition and parameters would apply to all presidents regardless of party.The Supreme Court should be motivated to make this ruling because failure to do so would create a constitutional crisis.For example, suppose presidential pre-emptive pardons are allowed to stand. What is to keep every president, at any time, from issuing pre-emptive pardons to the entirety of his staff and cabinet? What would prevent a president from issuing pre-emptive pardons to sycophantic private citizens or crony foreign nationals?Inaction by the SCOTUS would render moot its ruling on presidential immunity because a POTUS could, theoretically, issue himself a pre-emptive pardon for any and all actions undertaken before, during, and after his or her tenure. Hunter Biden’s pre-emptive pardon serves as precedent for t

It’s finally here, Liberation Day; liberation from the caustic, divisive, neo-Marxist Biden administration, liberation from the underhanded, shadowy Obama 2.0 neo-Bolsheviks, liberation from the heavy hand of our globalist oppressors, liberation from wokeism.But just like in any successful “revolution”—and frankly, that is what we have achieved, a revolution in restoring governmental leadership that thinks the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t suck—just in any revolution, We the People have to see it through, which means keeping the pressure on.I’ve said this before, and I will say it many more times as we move forward. It’s an Alinsky rule, Rule. No. 8.Alinsky understood that creating constant tension and conflict was the key to transitioning power. This rule—“keeping the pressure on”— was and remains crucial to the far-Left's agenda because it focuses on wearing down their opposition through relentless pressure. They understand that if they can keep the pressure applied, they can exhaust and divide their opponents, making it easier to push their transformative, neo-Marxist agenda. It's like a never-ending political battle where the farthest of the Left never lets up.They use this tactic in various ways, including endless protests, media smear campaigns, and constant calls for change. By keeping the pressure on, they aim to create an atmosphere of crisis and uncertainty that will make people more likely to accept their radical ideas.Well, I have always thought that if your opponent uses a tactic—or in this case, a set of “rules”—that works, why not co-opt that rule book and turn those tactics against them? Quite frankly, the Trump campaign (and now administration) understands this and leverages it to its advantage.But now, the time has come for us to understand our role in our restorative revolution. We cannot go back to being complacent. We cannot foolishly believe that just because we watched President Trump get sworn in as the 47th president, everything will be fine. We are at the beginning of the process, not the end.While wokeism is now dying, just like a mortally wounded wild animal that is cornered, now is the time when those in that movement are the most dangerous. We all must continue to accurately and factually educate our fellow citizens on why wokeism—its DEI and ESG tenets and its climate change and identity politics—why wokeism is so incredibly damaging to our freedom and to our ability to thrive. That takes engagement, not just liking posts and forwarding memes.We must immediately shift part of our attention to the 2026 mid-term elections and adding to the majority numbers in the House and the Senate. Why is this important? Well, we do have usual suspect RINOs in the Senate and the House, and our majorities in both houses are not large. We need to be able to have numbers that make the usual suspect RINOs inconsequential. That can only happen if President Trump doesn’t have to count on their votes.In the meantime, we must make sure that those currently elected to office feel our breaths on the back of their necks every minute of every day. We cannot let them fall back into the “self-importance” routine. They need to hear from us—with both positive and negative reinforcement, just like a child—when they do things that are both good and bad. The American people gave Donald Trump a mandate to re-establish constitutionalism across our nation, and that’s what we have to demand: that return to constitutionalism.We cannot tolerate those elected to the House and the Senate to derail the mandate that we, the voters, bestowed on the 47th president. They must feel pressure from we, the voters, so they know it is unacceptable for them to exhale and return to the bureaucratic, political, inside-the-beltway status quo. Again, that requires engagement, not just poking a button on a social media platform.Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a monthly cup of coffee at Starbucks.President Trump, now inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, has an incredible amount of work to do in just one term. He must:* Secure the border, deport criminal aliens, and advocate for legislation to permanently establish immigration laws that make it impossible for transformative neo-Marxists to flood our nation with illegal immigrants ever again* Completely rework the century-old income tax system to work to our strengths as a nation instead of the current unconstitutional system of inequity and carve-outs for the connected* Re-establish our energy self-sufficiency and position the US as a net exporter of energy to the world while establishing the US energy industry as a leader in common sense innovative energy development* Purge our federal government—including all departments and alphabet agencies—of partisan political activists* Streamline and balance the federal budget while expunging overreaching and unconstitutional regulations and the

Well, Joe Biden said his official goodbye to the nation—allegedly—in his farewell speech to the nation, which most people decided not to watch. The fact is this. Biden has been beyond a lame-duck president since the Obama machine shelved him as the Democrat candidate.But his farewell address had some things worthy of being addressed, even if for their obvious hypocrisy and the telegraphing of his and his administration’s misdeeds.I have edited his speech down to a few points and hurried his speech along, so if you are someone who thought Biden was a good president, no, I’m not taking him out of context. So, feel free to go about your day in your bizarre pseudo-utopian bubble.In this first clip, Biden discusses the importance of treating everyone with dignity, justice, and fairness.Without time enough to blink, the question erupted: So, what happened to Donald Trump’s right to be treated with dignity, justice, and fairness? He was denied each for his tenure and Biden’s term. He was called Hitler; they mocked his appearance, turned a blind eye to his benevolence to call him greedy, and denied him fair treatment both socially, professionally, and judicially.But that set the tone for Biden’s speech. He would go on to disingenuously serve up one hypocrisy after another even as he telegraphed his own opportunistic actions before and during his presidency.In this following clip, Biden has the unmitigated gall to say that we all must have the backbone to stand up to those who abuse power.You have to wonder if he really doesn’t understand that he is describing exactly what he and his administration—Obama 2.0—have done for eight years. He talks about “respecting” the institutions of government. Yet, at every turn, he transformed whole departments and agencies of our federal government into weapons against his enemies and the American people.And to even suggest that he is a proponent of a “free and independent press” when his and his party’s relationship with the mainstream media was both nepotistic and sympathetic stinks a vomitous stench of untruth. We haven’t had a free and independent press since the days of Woodrow Wilson, and it’s only gotten worse over the years.And then Biden made these obnoxious claims.The claim that this administration did anything to protect our children should earn Biden his own private circle in Dante’s world. There has never been a more egregious push to normalize gender dysphoria than during the Biden administration. The entirety of his staff—appointees et al.—were obsessed with sexuality and the sexualization of our children. And they were so to the point where they attempted to come between the sacred bond of parent and child. The Biden administration did more to corrupt the family unit than 100 years of Planned Parenthood, and that’s saying a lot.He then went on to falsely claim that crime—violent crime—is down across the nation. This is a flat-out lie. In fact, crime is so bad in many locales that people have stopped reporting crimes because there is too much of it for our law enforcement officers to address. Listen to any urban area police scanner on any given night—and especially Friday and Saturday nights—and all you hear is “shots fired.” Those aren’t the radio calls of a lower crime rate.And I suppose it’s easy to claim you’ve created 17 million jobs when you first eliminated 17 million jobs by destroying businesses during a so-called pandemic. But don’t worry, there are more people with health insurance than ever before. Now, all they have to do is schedule appointments thirteen months into the future because there are too many illegal immigrants in the waiting rooms thanks to the Biden administration giving them all free healthcare on the taxpayer’s dime.Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a monthly cup of coffee at StarbucksThen we come to Biden’s warnings for all to heed. For some reason, Biden felt he had the mental acuity to channel his inner Eisenhower to forewarn of ghosts of the future.A peaceful transition of power? I suppose the Bidens and their White House staff won’t barricade themselves in the Oval Office. Still, with the rapid-fire executive orders coming out of Biden’s administration in the waning days of his presidency, he is certainly setting Rome on fire for the incoming president. I’m half expecting to hear he has posthumously pardoned Charles Manson and awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.But the most sickening thing in his speech to me is his telegraphing of the dangers of a new oligarchy. Yes, he was trying to paint that color onto Trump, his incoming administration, and his potentate supporters, but he was describing exactly what he, the Democrats, Hollywood, the Silicon Valley billionaires, George Soros, and the World Economic Forum Orcs have had assembled since the days of the Clinton administration. Biden was speaking of the Deep State inside-the-beltway bureaucracy, the very en

The aware understand that free speech is required for freedom to reign. Our Framers understood it well, and that’s why it is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights. But how does a free society protect free speech from nefarious charlatans who abuse that right for personal and ideological gain?Such is the question we face today when we examine the partisan politics that have metastasized like cancer throughout the mainstream media complex and, to drill down into one aspect of that niche, the pollsters.In an era of high political polarization, trust in polls has waned, particularly among certain voter groups. This distrust manifests in lower response rates and sometimes (and this is growing) dishonest responses, further skewing poll results. There has also been a trend where polls “herd” their respondents towards an expected result to avoid being an outlier, which can lead to a uniform but inaccurate picture.The American Association of Public Opinion Research published a white paper on herding that read:“Herding” specifically refers to the possibility that pollsters use existing poll results to help adjust the presentation of their own poll results. "Herding” strategies can range from making statistical adjustments to ensure that the released results appear similar to existing polls to deciding whether or not to release the poll depending on how the results compare to existing polls. By drawing upon information from previous polls, herding may appear to increase the perceived accuracy of an individual survey estimate…”The white paper said that one troublesome consequence of herding is that pollsters who engage in the practice will produce artificially consistent results that don’t accurately reflect public attitudes. This perceived polling consistency instills false confidence about who will win an election, thereby artificially impacting how the media covers the race. The white paper’s author goes on to say that the faux consistency becomes a major factor in whether political campaigns and parties “devote resources to a campaign, and even if voters think it is worthwhile to turn out to vote. “So, by the conscious decisions made by the polling companies and, most of the time, by the individual pollsters themselves, even the associations that champion their “science” admit that industry practices artificially affect elections.In 2020, Maddy Weinberg, writing from the University of California at Berkeley, noted that data analyzing over 1,400 polls from 11 election cycles revealed that only 60 percent of polls conducted the week before an election included the actual outcome. This doesn't sound too bad to those defending the “science” of polling, but to the consumer, that result is a failing grade.The defenders of this failure spin it this way:“It’s really important to remember that these polls are not forecasting who’s going to win. They are an estimate of likely vote share. So this is about whether the truth falls inside the confidence interval, not whether the poll calls the eventual winner.”And pollsters often use statistical models manufactured to adjust or “weight” their data to—as they see it—to better reflect the broader population. However, these adjustments often introduce errors if the assumptions or methods used are ideologically tainted, dishonest, or flawed. For instance, weighting by “recalled vote” or education level has been criticized for possibly skewing results. The 2020 election highlighted that national polling errors were among the highest in 40 years despite these adjustments.So, it goes without saying (although it must be said) that the “science” of polling is inaccurate, to say the very least. Yet, the mainstream media complex and the political opportunists of all political parties routinely cite polling results as intently sincere and an accurate harbinger of the coming election results predicated on that snapshot in time.This presents the action in question recently reported by TheHill.com. Ashleigh Fields reported:“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) announced on Tuesday their decision to represent an Iowa pollster entangled in a lawsuit with President-elect Trump stemming from a November poll from renowned pollster Ann Selzer that showed him losing to Vice President Harris.”The group, in Selzer’s defense, claims the poll was an “outlier that projected inaccurate predictions unintentionally” and, therefore, did not violate the law.The poll in question—Selzer’s poll, was published in The DesMoine Register just days before the November 2024 Presidential Election. Her poll results stated that the people of Iowa favored Kamala Harris by three percentage points over Donald Trump. In reality, Trump won in Iowa by 13 points—a 16-point deviation from Selzer’s results.Yet FIRE maintains:“Trump’s lawsuit, brought under an Iowa law against ‘consumer fraud,’ violates long-standing constitutional principles. It’s also entirely meritles

This terrible, tragic story about what is happening in Southern California isn’t about wildfires or climate change, no matter how badly the elected class in California tries to spin it as such. Wildfires have been a part of everyday life since Los Angeles was created. And climate change didn’t cause the explosion in the size of this wildfire. But blame for the utter devastation has a home.Woke-brained ideologues and eco-zealous activists who have captured California government—at every level—have instituted reckless and dangerous utopian ideas and unrealistic and imbecilic initiatives, which have made this tragedy 100 times more dangerous and deadly than it had to be.Wildfires in California are nothing new. No one should have been surprised about a wildfire in Southern California. No one should have been caught unprepared for the annual arrival of the Santa Anna winds. What is happening in California right now was bound to happen sooner or later. However, the inability of California’s state and local governments to mitigate the emergency has caused this natural disaster to become an unnatural disaster propagated by inferior intellect at the hands of social engineers of a dysfunctional ideology.Traditionally—or until the woke mob assumed the throne—a large portion of California’s state, county, and city budgets were allocated to a reasonable amount of fire prevention, water management, and forest maintenance. But since the invasion of the woke, fire prevention budgets have been slashed, water management doesn’t exist, and forest maintenance is considered a crime.At a time when a large portion of the budgets should have been devoted to securing the safety of the citizens of California by evolving fire prevention abilities, hiring more firemen and training them for wildfires, and solving the decades-old water crisis—the exact opposite has taken place.Over 2,000 homes have burned to the ground (so far). Let that number sink in. It will take decades to rebuild all that was lost if, in fact, the people who lost their homes are allowed to get permits to do so for all the bureaucratic bullshit people have to go through in California. So, the overarching question for the moment is this: Why did this happen?Los Angeles elected a radically extreme neo-Marxist activist for its mayor, Karen Bass. She is woke in a devout way; fully invested in the DEI culture that manufactures the equity of outcomes instead of the equality of opportunity.Bass cut the fire department’s budget by $17.6 million in deference to the institution of DEI programs and their accompanying taxpayer-funded administrative salaries. At the same time, Bass’s budget found money for housing, educating, and healthcare for millions of illegal immigrants and the homeless.By the way, with full knowledge that a massive wind event was to bear down on Los Angeles and its surrounding area, Bass went to Africa to celebrate the inauguration of Ghana’s president. Why would attending such an event serve the people of Los Angeles?Then, we have the DEI hires who are the Fire Chief of Los Angeles, Kristin Crowley, an LGBTQ+ community member, devoted to DEI (and damn proud of it, according to her official department bio), and her deputy chief, Kristine Larson, also of the LGBTQ+ community. Larson heads up the department’s DEI Bureau. Both have publicly bragged about their devotion to ridding the Los Angeles Fire Dept of “old-school white guys” and hiring for “diversity.” In fact, Crowley said shewas “super inspired about bringing more women and LGBTQ-identifying persons in to fight fires.”Honestly, if your house is on fire and you are trapped, do you give a damn who the person coming to rescue you is sleeping with? It’s inconsequential to the job at hand and the position. To base the hiring of a firefighter—or any first responder— on gender, sexual orientation, or skin color over the candidate’s ability to do the job is not only imbecilic, it’s a dereliction of duty.This is illustrative of the whole of governments—with few exceptions—in the state of California.Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a cup of quarterpounder with cheese at Mc Donald’s once a week!During COVID, Bass and the Los Angeles Fire Department administration fired hundreds of professional firefighters who refused the vaccine. It goes without saying that those fire-tested professionals could have been valuable during this emergency, but then they would have needed equipment. To that point, were you aware a large portion of Los Angeles’ firefighting equipment was sent to Ukraine to aid in the war effort?Then we have Janisse Quiñones, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the nation’s largest publicly-owned utility. Under Quiñones, firefighters responding to the fires were met with fire hydrants that didn’t produce water. Within 24 hours, the tanks used as reservoirs for the hydrants wer

The conservative block recently celebrated the paring down of the 1500-page Continuing Resolution that kept the government open. Part of that celebration centered on the defunding of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which the learned pointed out was an integral cog in the Deep State anti-First Amendment censorship apparatus. However, the reports of the Center’s death have been greatly exaggerated.The so-called "Global Engagement Center" sounds about as threatening as a high school debate club. But in the wise words of Vivek Ramaswamy, it was actually a linchpin in what we might call the "censorship industrial complex." Its mission? Supposedly to combat "foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations." Foreign, they emphasized, because: a) apparently, the truth is only offensive when it comes from outside our borders, and b) political censorship is forbidden in the First Amendment.Here's the kicker: the GEC, like its cousins in the Deep State alphabet soup of government agencies (think CIA, FBI, and all those other three-letter nightmares), was supposed to be our shield against foreign threats. But—and especially over the Obama and Biden years, this shield has been turned inward, targeting those pesky American citizens who dare to think differently, especially on topics like COVID or Hunter Biden's laptop or the manufacture of the J6 events. The GEC, it seems, was more like a junior partner in Big Brother's surveillance state, keeping tabs on “Wrongthink.”Because heaven forbid, they couldn't directly censor Americans (that pesky First Amendment thing gets in the way, don’t you know), the GEC played it coy. They funded the British-based Global Disinformation Index. This group was less about fighting disinformation and more about creating a blacklist for publications like The Washington Examiner, RealClearPolitics, and The New York Post. The result? A financial guillotine for conservative voices, with ad revenues drying up faster than the initiatives promised by the BLM activists who bilked millions from their supporters and immediately abandoned them.Then came the bureaucratic masterstroke. The GEC’s funding was tucked away in that behemoth 1500-page legislative monstrosity—the Continuing Resolution to keep the government open. It was like serving a scoop of bureaucracy with a side of contempt, drawing the ire of Elon Musk and others. But, after much outrage and protest, the spendthrifts of Congress managed to shave it down to a mere 120 pages, cutting the GEC's funding and retreating from the legislators’ pay raises intact. Crisis averted? Not quite.The joy (no, not Kamala Harris “joy”) was fleeting. Like a magic trick, the State Department pulled a rabbit out of its hat, rebranding the GEC as the “Counter Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference Hub.” Isn't that just a mouthful? Same people, new sign on the door, and a budget that miraculously “re-aligned” itself. It's like watching a bad magician perform at a second-rate political fundraiser.Now, with Donald Trump's second term looming, the questions are these. Will he be able to successfully play whack-a-mole with these bureaucratic hydraheads? Or will Republican infighting and the voraciousness of the Deep State apparatus mute his efforts to rein in the bureaucracy and tame the beast?There's talk of a "vibe shift," a cultural sea change where even former center-leftists and moderately inclined never-Trumpers are jumping on the MAGA bandwagon. But as some pre-maturely celebrate, we must all remember that rebranding doesn't mean reform. In fact, it’s not even close. It’s a re-packaging of the very initiatives we determined were outrageous in the first place. The GEC lives under an assumed alias. The Deep State bureaucracy, so focused on chiseling away at our First Amendment rights, lives on.Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting the free speech/truth effort at just $5 a monthSo here we stand, at the precipice of what could be a significant cultural, governmental, and political upheaval. We have a real chance to tame the Deep State beast and protect our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. But that will require us—all of us—to keep the pressure on. That means making sure our elected creatures in Congress hear from us regularly about the consequences they will face if they don’t support the reformation—from top to bottom, including the CIA, DoJ, FBI, State Department, and the IRS—that was mandated by the people in the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency.If we don’t keep the pressure on (an Alinsky rule, by the way), everything we have achieved to date will be just another episode in the endless saga of government inefficiency and overreach.Will Trump and his team truly be able to dismantle the Deep State bureaucracy apparatus? They wi

It might just be possible that you are as tired of hearing this bullshit as I am. Almost daily, it seems, we see items in the news that declare outgoing lame-duck president Joe Biden is enacting this order of that initiative to hobble the agenda of the incoming Trump 2.0 administration.Evidently, one of two things is happening here. One, the mainstream media narrative crafters never showed up to or were always stoned for civics classes. Or two, the neo-Bolshevik spinners of the Clinton-Obama-Biden regime are working overtime to make the public believe something that simply isn’t true.Where presidential executive orders are concerned, a lame-duck president cannot enact executive orders that are inherently irreversible by an incoming president.Executive orders, directives from the POTUS, are legally binding but can be revoked, modified, or replaced by subsequent executive orders from a new president. This is because executive power resides in the office of the President, not in an individual president after they leave office.While a lame-duck president can issue executive orders, these are subject to the same legal scrutiny and practical limitations as any other executive action. They can be challenged in court, and their implementation might very well depend on the cooperation of the federal agencies, which can shift with a new administration.Congress can also affect the longevity of executive orders by passing legislation that contradicts or nullifies them, subject to the president's veto power or lack thereof if there's enough support to override a veto.Historical examples show that new presidents often review and sometimes reverse executive orders of their predecessors. For example, Biden reversed almost all of President Trump's executive orders shortly after taking office. Trump did the same with Obama's orders.Through the federal rulemaking process, a president can influence regulations managed by federal agencies. However, these can be changed by subsequent administrations, though this might involve expediting the Administrative Procedure Act's notice-and-comment period.Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriberThis applies to one fear-porn item floating around the usual suspect partisan media outlets—you know, the ones that are choke-full of asinine clickbait articles and ads— that reads:“President Joe Biden is reportedly preparing to restrict offshore oil and gas drilling in his final days in office, a move that would placate the environmentalist lobby and potentially obstruct President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to unleash the US energy sector...“Biden’s reportedly forthcoming order would permanently ban new lease sales for oil and gas drilling in certain regions of the outer continental shelf…Some elected Democrats and many well-funded green groups have pushed Biden to implement permanent environmental policies in the waning days of his presidency to fluster Trump’s ‘energy dominance’ agenda…”So, when you read or hear bullshit like that, remember your civics class in understanding that all agencies, departments, and commissions in the federal government fall under the Executive Branch and that the Executive Branch is under the control of the White House, not the other way around.That means, when a president with a working knowledge of the US Constitution and an actual set of balls—and not transgender balls either—takes office, he is the ultimate executive authority, not the Deep State bureaucracy of the agencies, departments, and commissions, and the myriad assholes of K Street.That’s important to remember this to fight the fear-porn that’s coming out of the mainstream media as we head towards January 20th.Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

The questions beg to be asked. Are our political and academic classes that fatuous and dense? Or are they so jaded in their partisanship that they are willing to commit an actual insurrection against the American people because of their political power greed?Such is the question that we are presented with in scrutinizing an opinion editorial in The Hill (and, by the way, if you are under the delusion that publication is fair and balanced or conservative, you’re smoking something Hunter Biden would share) by two established far-Left operatives, Evan Davis and David Schulte.Davis, a former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and counsel to New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D), and Schulte, an investment banker and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal—and good friend and financial supporter of Barack Obama, are ignorantly parroting the nonsense promoted by US Rep. Jeremey Raskin (D-MD), that somehow, Donald Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...”Davis and Schulte, like Raskin, insist that there has been some sort of adjudication that insurrection occurred on January 6, 2021, and that is was planned and executed by Donald Trump.Davis and Schulte write:“Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government,” the authors write. “The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”Davis and Schulte, like Raskin, cite the main charge of Trump’s second impeachment trial, “incitement of insurrection,” which all 222 Democrats voted in favor of, as proof. Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021.Davis and Schulte went on to cite “the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing, during which the court found “by clear and convincing evidence” that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.And lastly, the authors cited the farce that was the Nancy Pelosi House Select Committee that investigated January 6, arguing that evidence from witnesses leads to “the inescapable conclusion…that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.”For men educated at Ivy League universities, these two are as constitutionally illiterate and devoid of critical thinking skills and common sense as they come, maybe but for Raskin.Let’s take each piece of “evidence” in reverse order. Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriberThe House Select Committee's investigation of the events of January 6th was contested in its legitimacy from the start because the minority party was denied the right to seat members from its caucus, thereby making the exercise one of political persecution and partisan politics.Further, the committee selectively presented evidence to support a predetermined narrative. The committee cherry-picked evidence and refused to release or discuss all relevant information, particularly anything that might contradict their findings or narrative. This includes exculpatory evidence, which was hidden or not adequately explored.In addition, a former ABC News producer helped stage the hearings, and it’s easy to see that the committee was more focused on creating a compelling narrative for public consumption than on conducting a legitimate investigation.Then there is Davis and Schulte’s citation of the Colorado court hearing, not a trial but a hearing, and a hearing that invalidated itself from the very beginning.Set aside, for a moment, that after the “verdict” was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, it was sent on appeal to the US Supreme Court, which did “not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.” For the SCOTUS not to address that point, basic to the appeal, is an action of ipso facto “denial of certiorari,” dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.And, to put a legal and constitutional cherry on top of that, let’s not forget that Colorado, like all states, is bound to the Supremacy Clause—Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution—which states:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be b

The heads of far-Left and usual suspect media outlets are exploding all over the world at Donald Trump’s recent statements about Canada and Greenland, and maybe a bit less so about the Panama Canal. But those who are so alarmed fail to understand the “art of the deal” type of thinking being employed here.Recently, Trump extended his holiday wishes to “Governor” Justin Trudeau of Canada. Of course, Trudeau is the prime minister of Canada.In his holiday message, Trump pointed out that Canadian citizen's taxes are far too high. In mentioning that fact, he playfully said, “but if Canada were to become our 51st State, their taxes would be cut by more than 60%, their businesses would immediately double in size, and they would be militarily protected like no other country anywhere in the world.”In a separate statement, he went on to say that he had just met with hockey legend Wayne Gretzky and suggested that he run for prime minister of Canada, alluding to Gretzky in saying he would soon be “the Governor of Canada.”Trump also extended his holiday cheer to the people of Greenland, who he said “is needed by the United States for National Security purposes and, who want the US to be there, and we will!”And he didn’t forget his favorite target, communist China. To which he said:“Merry Christmas to all, including to the wonderful soldiers of China, who are lovingly, but illegally, operating the Panama Canal (where we lost 38,000 people in its building 110 years ago), always making certain that the United States puts in Billions of Dollars in ‘repair’ money, but will have absolutely nothing to say about ‘anything.’”Of course, Trump’s words toward the communist Chinese came after he addressed the issue of excessive shipping fees assessed by the Panamanian port authority operating the Panama Canal. Reliable reports indicate that Chinese nationals—most likely PLA soldiers—operate the canal daily. Trump proposed that if they did not stop “ripping off” the US by charging obscene fees for using the canal (built and owned by the United States until President Jimmy Carter), the United States would retake it.Can’t you hear the exploding of the heads of the usual suspects in the mainstream media and on the radical Left?Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriberIn typical kneejerk fashion, those who feel anyone cares whether or not they get in front of a microphone immediately did so.Múte B. Egede, Greenland's Prime Minister—who obviously takes thighs way too seriously, stated: "Greenland is ours. We are not for sale and will never be for sale. We must not lose our long struggle for freedom. Greenland is not for sale."José Raúl Mulino, President of Panama, who equally lacks any sense of jocularity, stated: “Panama's independence is non-negotiable. The canal and surrounding area belong to our country and will remain so.”And Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada—who many believe to be the illegitimate son of Fidel Castro, raced to the microphones and cameras and declared: “This is not a laughing matter. Threatening tariffs and then joking about annexation shows a lack of understanding of our sovereignty and the respect due between allies.”To borrow a phrase from Sgt. Hulka in the movie Stripes to apply to each of these pearl-clutching Karens, "Take it easy, Francis."To cite another age-old adage—albeit to apply it in reverse (and anyone with an intellect larger than that of figgy pudding understands this), what Trump is doing here implementing a strategy where he is asking for much more than he expects to get, settling for less but still achieving his actual goal.So, let’s look at what Mr. Trump did and how Egede, Mulino, and Castro—oops, I mean Trudeau—were played.In the aftermath of Trump’s statement about Greenland (which is a nation in the kingdom of Denmark), Denmark announced a significant increase in defense spending aimed at strengthening Greenland's defense capabilities. This included a package worth at least $1.5 billion for new inspection ships, drones, dog sled teams, and upgrades to civilian airports to handle military aircraft.Trump threatened annexation and received a bolstered native defense of Greenland that would help protect the United States and the free world…at zero cost to the US.In Canada, Trump not only kept the issue of high taxes front and center for the Canadian people, but throttled up the pressure on the Trudeau administration, currently under attack and facing a vote of no confidence that would end Trudeau’s term as prime minister. That pressure also aids the budding conservative movement in Canada at the national level.Trump talks about Canada being annexed as the 51st State and helped advance a more fiscally responsible and conservative government in Canada while taking out one of Klaus Schuab’s World Economic Forum golden boys.And in Panama, Trump put a spotlight on the continued aggression and expansion of the communist Chinese in the Western Hemisphere, refoc

Christmas is here, and I thought I would take a different tack, away from the overt politics of the day, and talk a bit about what I speak of at the end of each podcast.Everyone recognizes the spirit of Christmas when the season approaches. Sadly, a lot of that spirit centers on material things because the profiteers and marketers never miss an opportunity to exploit our consumer society to their benefit. I’m not saying they’re bad people for it, but it would be nice if it weren’t “so slam it in your face” and “jam it down your throat” 24/7/365.No, the Christmas spirit I am talking about is the “peace on earth, goodwill toward men” spirit. The spirit of brotherhood—and sisterhood, I don’t like to play those woke word games, so you know what I mean. If you’re offended by that sort of thing, well, I don’t think you listen regularly anyway.At the end of each podcast, I always ask people to talk about politics, religion, and current events with their family, friends, and colleagues. My point in doing so is that when we have these conversations, we start to realize that we all have a lot more in common than we do in difference. It helps us—all of us—realize we aren’t in this thing called life alone, that we are part of a brotherhood—the brotherhood of man.Now, I’m not naive enough not to see that there are some nefarious people in the world. There are. They are the weak, even though they see themselves, most times, as powerful and influential. These outliers, sadly, we won’t be able to reach with any message of brotherhood in the time we have on this earth. These are the people we must keep in check every day so that their egos and greed don’t damage our lives any further than they already have.But those outliers are the exception, not the rule. The common rule, the commonality of natural law, is the brotherhood of man.The brotherhood of man is a powerful thing, even emerging during times of war and revolution.During the American Revolution, the faithful gathered in their churches regularly and heard messages of unity and brotherhood from their priests and preachers. These messages fostered unity among the diversity of the colonists who, through that message, achieved e pluribus unum, out of many, one.These messages promoted a shared identity and common purpose, emphasizing the idea that all of the colonists were part of a greater American family fighting for liberty and freedom from the tyranny of King George. This sense of brotherhood was vital in rallying support for the revolutionary cause, encouraging mutual aid and sacrifice among the populace.This message, this brotherhood of man message of unity, was instrumental in mobilizing both soldiers and civilians, reinforcing the shared resolve needed to endure the hardships of war and to envision a new nation built on principles of equality, freedom, liberty, and fraternity.During World War I, an extraordinary event known as the Christmas Truce occurred—spontaneously—along various parts of the Western Front in December 1914.On Christmas Eve, soldiers from opposing sides, primarily British and German troops, began to fraternize, singing carols, exchanging gifts like cigarettes and food, and even playing impromptu games of soccer. This unofficial ceasefire saw men emerging from their trenches to meet in “No Man's Land,” sharing moments of peace and humanity amidst the horrors of war.Although the truce wasn’t universal and varied in duration, with some areas seeing brief moments of ceasefire while others lasted for days, it remains one of the most poignant examples of human solidarity—of the brotherhood of man—during wartime, showing that even in the darkest times, the spirit of Christmas, the sentiment of “peace on earth, goodwill toward men,” could momentarily halt the brutality of conflict between peoples.Today, as our society, our brotherhood, exists threatened by ideologues who purposely attempt to gin up discontent and division at every turn—all for their own greeds; power, wealth, influence, it is important that we understand—or reacquaint ourselves with the fact—that we are all—all of us—a part of that brotherhood of man. In the spirit of this brotherhood, this commonality, this reality, we awaken to the truth that, in the grand scheme of things, we are all in this crazy and sometimes maddening ride together.This is why my Christmas wish for you—for all of you—is the gift of talking with one another about the issues we face—as a brotherhood, as a brotherhood in liberty and freedom—that we all talk about the things we have been told never to talk about in public so that we can arrive at the realization of that brotherhood.So, grab a glass of whatever it is that you choose when you are setting yourself to revelry, and take just a few moments to talk with your family, friends, colleagues, and acquaintances about politics, religion, and current events. Please employ a tone appropriate for the holidays—a tone steeped in peace on earth, goodwill toward men—and li

As we approach the start date for Trump 2.0, it appears some of the more partisan Deep State, uniparty Democrats—and their RINO compatriots—are starting to regain their confidence after the election slap down they received from the American people, not Donald Trump, although he was on the ballot and was the vehicle. The slap down came from the American people, the voters.Some are desperately trying to ignore the mandate for change the American people voted for in November, but then, we can’t expect the grifters of the inside-the-beltway bureaucracy to change just because the people demand it. That would be like having representative government. I mean, really!No, they will have to be expunged from Washington either through the electoral process—which, given the lack of critical thinking skills among the progressive electorate, is nothing more than a pipe dream—or by the process of that age group dying off of organic, granola-like natural causes, of course. One of those two things will have to happen before we are rid of their Constitution Avenue palmistry.One arrogant uniparty tool—and yes, I am using the word in the way you think I am—is US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT), who recently attacked the existence of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy’s influence in the Trump 2.0 administration. In a pathetic attempt to define the narrative away from the federal government’s bloated budgets, spendthrift spending, and overall fiscal irresponsibility, Murphy said:“Why do we, all of a sudden, decide to take this government efficiency task force seriously? Like, why are we acting as if this is legitimate?...[DOGE is] “not a department…it’s being run by two billionaires, people who have no idea how important basic government services like Medicaid, Social Security, Veterans Benefits are to regular people.“But there are a lot of Democrats, you know, openly saying, ‘I wanna work with them, I want to sit down with this group' giving the appearance that this is something other than either than just a TV show or an effort by the billionaire class to privatize government to benefit themselves, which would be par for the course because all Donald Trump has shown us is that he wants to monetize his power for the benefit of himself and his friends…”Let me get this straight. The guy who gave—and plans to give— his presidential salary away to charity is only out for himself. That’s some twisted and convoluted stuff right there.And as for Musk and Ramaswamy working to kill a Continuing Resolution, how was killing a bill that was packed with politics, pork, and opportunistic protection, “privatizing government to benefit themselves?”Let’s look at some of the more egregious things that Deep State uniparty reprobates—from the Left and the RINO classes—tried to stuff into that now dead bill:* Immunity for J6 Committee members* Nullified Statutory PAYGO so the government doesn’t have to pay for programs by offsetting spending elsewhere* Funding for a new Washington Commanders stadium* Congressional pay increases of $70,000 annually* Renewal of the Global Engagement Center (a vassal for government censorship)* Expansion of vaccine and mask mandates, as well as pandemic policy* Redistribution of Social Security Funds* Exempted members of Congress from having to enroll in Obamacare* Redefined “criminal offenders” to “justice involved” individualsAdd to that the ideological spending that seems to be mandatory when you are a Deep State unipartier; things like $15 Million for Egyptians' college tuition—the tuition of Egyptian college students, $400 thousand for clothing for transgenders, and $500 thousand for a DEI zoo.Aside from the fact that none of this—none of it—has anything to do with the core functions of government, we must come to the realization it’s all pork bullshit. How does any of what the Far-Left and RINO classes wanted in the original CR “benefit” Donald Trump, Elon Musk, or Vavek Ramaswamy? How does it benefit anyone but the devout special interest groups of the neo-Marxist transformative Left?Yet, that’s what Murphy insisted. That hacking the spendthrift bullshit from a bill meant to fund the core obligations of government is somehow benefiting the billionaires.I said this recently, and I will say it again. People who have awakened to be pissed off at the opportunistic grifter class that our federal government has become must keep the pressure on! Yes, Donald Trump—a disrupter if there ever was one—emerged victorious in the election, thank God. But that is not the total of the battle. Not by a long shot. It is just the beginning.In this war to reestablish the people’s dominance over a now tyrannical federal bureaucracy—and one that has no understanding at all of fiscal restraint, we cannot let usual suspect uniparty operatives—like Murphy, Mitch McConnell, Hakeem Jefferies, Susan Collins, The Squad (or at least those remaining members), Lisa Murkowski, and the like—we can not let them reassume the ability to craft the narrative away

While social media and the information sphere buzz about the drones inundating the coastline approximate to New Jersey and New York, I can’t help but wonder if we are being blind to the real problem here.With credible reports coming out of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission that radioactive material was lost in transit earlier this month from a cargo ship headed into New Jersey, the simple explanation that the NRC and/or US military is searching for that material becomes probable.Also credible, but further down the list, comes the truth that 80 nuclear warheads that existed in Ukraine during the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1980s are unaccounted for.According to John Ferguson, CEO of Saxon Aerospace LLC and an expert in unmanned aerial systems—as reported in GatewayPundit.com:“Back in the 1980s, Ronald Reagan had dismantled the nuclear program with Russia. There were countless nuclear missiles that were disarmed and disposed of. Well, there were over 80, I believe, over 80 nuclear warheads that were in Ukraine that came up missing.“We don’t know where they are. Maybe somebody does, but nobody really knows where these are. I speak with some pretty high-level government officials on this stuff. It seems as though that is the case.“I spoke to a gentleman a few months ago who was trying to raise the alarm to the highest levels of our government, who had their ears closed, about this one particular nuclear warhead that he physically put his hands on.“He physically touched this warhead that was left over from Ukraine. And he knew that that thing was headed towards the United States. That is a very serious deal…”If, in fact, this is the case, that the drones are of the US government in origin and they are looking for lost nuclear materials—a warhead or otherwise—then we have a serious and actionable problem on our hands.If, in fact, one of the two aforementioned scenarios is the reason for all the drone activity, that makes Biden’s National Security Communications Advisor, John Kirby’s, statement all the more infuriating:This brings me to my point and a point that I believe has been and is being somewhat overlooked. Our federal government has become a behemoth apparatus where secrecy is the order of the day, and transparency is a rarity.Secrecy is supposed to be the rare exception for the most serious of issues and subjects, not the automatic default for anything and everything the government does. Using secrecy as a default sets the stage for the co-opting of government by the nefarious and opportunistically connected. It’s a warm petri dish for the bureaucratic Deep State to manipulate government to their will. And when the government bureaucracy, the Deep State government bureaucracy, is so entangled and controlled by K Street and the global elite—as it is today—the people kneel as slaves to the master, and that master has become the federal government.I talk about this to a great extent in my book Nullification: The Case for Decentralizing the Federal Government. The free Constitutional Republic of the United States was never—ever—supposed to have an all-controlling centralized government in Washington, DC. The fear of just such a centralized control was palpable as far back as the last days of Thomas Jefferson’s presidency when Jeffersonian Republicans went head-to-head with the federalists on the subject.It has been an issue our nation has been battling and debating ever since, but in this day and age—what with the many levels of greed present in the elected and activist classes; greed for money, greed for power, greed for being seen as correct—the dangers presented by a centralized federal government are ten-fold from those of Jefferson’s era.The secrecy surrounding the drone activity is just a by-product of the centralization of power at the federal level and a byproduct of a federal government that has gotten entirely too large. When coupled with the fact that this centralization of power is being controlled not by those duly elected to represent us in government, but by a bureaucracy that really answers to no one; that is never held accountable…well, Houston, we have a problem, a serious problem.That means we don’t live in a Constitutional Republic any longer. Since the US Constitution created our government as a Constitutional Republic, it presents a reality and a few questions.The reality is that a coup has taken place in the transformation of our government away from its rightful state as a Constitutional Republic.The questions: When did that happen, who is responsible, and when will they be held accountable?Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s 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. Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

So, how much of a complete asshole is Mitch McConnell? Well, I can argue that he is an emotion-exploiting, Deep State, K Street whore of a magnanimous proportion. Put succinctly, he’s quite an asshole.Anyone who listens regularly understands how much I loathe McConnell; a demonstrated Republican In Name Only who clings to his lust for power and control like Charleton Heston clung to his Second Amendment rights.McConnell, the titular head of the Deep State Republican “Gang of Six”—comprised of himself and US Senators Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, John Curtis, Lindsey Graham, and John Thune, recently took a shot at Trump Health & Human Services nominee, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the issue of vaccines and the vaccine approval process.Kennedy, many would argue, is a bit more informed on the issue of vaccines than Mitch, “the Sino-Bitch,” who, with regard to the COVID vaccines—now proven to be choke-full of side effects and absent the promise of immunity—infamously stated:"I can say as a Republican man, as soon as it was my turn, I took the vaccine. I would encourage all Republican men to do that." (March 2021)And…"It was a modern medical miracle. That doesn't work if people don't get vaccinated. So for whatever influence I can have over those decisions, I want to encourage everyone to get the vaccine." (June 2021)And…"These shots need to get in everybody's arm as rapidly as possible or we're going to be back in a situation in the fall that we don't yearn for, that we went through last year." (July 2021)Now, the oracle of RINO-ism and purveyor of pseudo-science is feigning a superior scientific intellect in attacking a Kennedy ally, Aaron Siri, singling out Siri’s questioning of one vaccine to blanket suspicion over the whole of his opposition to BigPharma’s addiction to profiteering off of vaccine creations for anything and everything the commercial marketeers can concoct, all under the guise of “protecting” the American public.McSino-RINO said:“For decades, I have been proud to work with devoted advocates—from Rotary International to the Gates Foundation—and use my platform in public life to champion the pursuit of cures for further generations. I have never flinched from confronting specious disinformation that threatens the advance of lifesaving medical progress, and I will not today…Efforts to undermine public confidence in proven cures are not just uninformed – they’re dangerous. Anyone seeking the Senate’s consent to serve in the incoming Administration would do well to steer clear of even the appearance of association with such efforts.”So, the 82-year-old—whose own physical capabilities have informed him that he shouldn’t be navigating the halls of power, let alone doing it on behalf of the people of Kentucky or the United States—is using his position to coerce those who weren’t duped by the pseudo-science of the COVID vaccine movement, into being just as ignorant in their thinking as he and his profit-motivated RINO, Deep State compatriots?I don’t think so, Tim.In fact, this is just more evidence of the need—the intense need—for the American people and their duly elected representatives, by virtue of the established Trump mandate, to turn the page on the opportunistic politics of the McConnell/Pelosi era. It’s time for those two reprobates and their henchmen to vaporize from public life. I mean, really, haven’t they done enough damage to the American political system over the years? Haven’t they enriched themselves to saturation at the taxpayer-funded governmental monetary feed trough?So, to answer my own question, I guess McConnell is an asshole of historical proportion. And we should all be pretty sick and tired of his slurred bullshit.Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

In a world where we have been duped into believing that everyone’s individual truth must be accepted and embraced, even at the expense of facts and reality, I suppose the statement “there is no defense for what they do,” could apply to many people, entities, and organizations. But as the virtue-signaling globalist Left in the United States continues to turn a blind eye to the lethal dangers streaming by the tens of thousands over our open borders each month, it’s time to over-state the blatantly obvious.There is no defense, no rationale, no excuse for the US federal government–as well as the many state, county, and local governments–to do absolutely nothing to thwart and, in fact, facilitate, in many cases, the entry into our Republic of criminal gangs from Venezuela, El Salvador, and Mexico. With every passing day, they embed themselves into our country like roaches in a tenement building.This is not about extending a benevolent hand to Third World downtrodden in an effort to help them live better. This is about well-financed and organized criminal gangs–aided by foe governments to the United States–strategically rooting themselves in our country to occupy and profiteer from their chosen trades: Drug and human trafficking through the use of obscene and horrific uses of violence.As reported in The New York Post:“The vicious Venezuelan prison gang Tren de Aragua has expanded its territory to at least 16 US states–an area that includes half of America’s population...“Homeland Security officials last week were warned in an internal department intelligence memo about TdA’s growing presence across the country, most recently in Washington, DC, Virginia, Montana and Wyoming.“The gang already has footholds in California, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Wisconsin, according to the memo...“The gang has only increased its violent tendencies’ as it spreads, the memo added.”In late August 2024, shocking videos surfaced of gun-wielding Tren de Aragua members storming an apartment building in Aurora, Colorado. This incident was part of a series of events leading local authorities to acknowledge the presence of the gang in the community. Incredulously–and assumably because it was during the heat of the 2024 General Election cycle, local authorities downplayed claims of the gang having “taken over” the city.In June 2024, a 19-year-old member of Tren de Aragua was charged with shooting two New York City police officers in Queens. This incident was cited as part of a broader pattern of criminal activities by the gang, with the suspect showing no remorse about the shootings, stating it was “common practice” to open fire on police in Venezuela.Tren de Aragua is heavily engaged in the following:* Human trafficking, particularly women and girls for the sex trade and debt bondage* Kidnappings for ransom* Extortion of “protection fees”* Drug trafficking, including cocaine, MDMA, and "pink cocaine," a mix involving ketamine* Arms trafficking* Theft and robbery, including retail theft, street robberies, and home invasions.* Money laundering* Prostitution, particularly in migrant shelters or areas with high migrant populations* Violent crimes, including murder, assault, and intimidation to maintain control or expand their influence, including high-profile incidents like shootings of law enforcement and civilians.And like Tren de Aragua, the El Salvadoran Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13) is entrenched in the United States with a significant presence in California (particularly in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and the Central Valley), New York (notably active on Long Island and New York City), Virginia, Maryland, Texas (in Houston and Dallas), Massachusetts, Nevada, Washington, DC, North Carolina, Georgia, Ohio, and Florida (particularly in Miami). Their presence has also been felt in Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee.In September 2016, two teenage girls, Nisa Mickens, 15, and Kayla Cuevas,16—both civilians—were viciously attacked and killed in Brentwood, New York. They were beaten, hacked, and stabbed to death by members of MS-13. One of the victims was stabbed over 50 times, and both were mutilated in an act meant to terrorize the community and establish MS-13's dominance. The attack was in retaliation for perceived slights against the gang.These are just two of the more than 33,000 organized criminal gangs—including street gangs, motorcycle gangs, and prison gangs—currently operating in the United States. Of those 33,000, thousands of the most vicious groups, with splinter groups numbering in additional thousands, come from Mexico, Central America, and South America.Currently, the top five most violent street gangs in the United States based on notoriety, reported violence, and law enforcement focus, are:* Mara Salvatrucha (MS-13)* Barrio Azteca* 18th Street Gang* Mexican Mafia (La Eme)* Bloods & CripsLeft unaddressed, this list will soon include

First, let me state this for the record so no one can try to manipulate my words. The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson is nothing short of an act of murder. I condemn the act and hope the perpetrator is apprehended and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, left to the justice meted out by a jury of his peers.I also extend my sincere condolences to Mr. Thompson’s family and close friends.That said, it would be wise to examine the possible motives that spurred the shooter to engage in murder, in the taking of another human being’s life.The security camera footage of the shooting is chilling, even in a world where violence is over-glorified in the entertainment industries. The shooter, calculated and cold in his simplicity, stalked Thompson and very simply pulled the trigger…three times.VIEW VIDEO HERE Investigators have discovered that etched onto the bullet casings found at the murder scene were the words “deny,” “defend,” and “depose.” These words are eerily similar to the title of the book, Delay, Deny, Defend, which discusses why “insurance companies don’t pay claims and what you can do about it.”The book is a critical examination of the insurance industry in the United States, delving into how insurance companies often operate through strategies encapsulated by its title:Insurers often use delaying tactics to slow the claims process, hoping claimants will give up or settle for less. When that doesn’t work, they often reject claims (even valid ones) by finding any reason not to pay out. And if those two tactics don’t work, many, if not most, insurers will proceed to litigation, aggressively defending and leveraging their resources to outlast or outspend the policyholder.The book’s author uses numerous examples and case studies to illustrate these practices, highlighting how they affect individuals and the broader economy and society. He argues that these strategies prioritize profit over policyholder welfare, often at the expense of those who have paid for coverage expecting protection in times of need. The book also explores regulatory failures and suggests reforms to make the insurance industry more equitable and consumer-friendly.So, it is reasonable to speculate that the shooter was adversely affected by the health insurance industry and decided, like the character Howard Beale in the movie Network, that he was mad as hell and wasn’t going to take it anymore.Of course, that wouldn’t rationalize an act of murder, and it certainly doesn’t excuse it. But who hasn’t had a run-in with a health insurance company and ended up enraged and disgusted? At every turn, there seems to be a loophole or fine-print caveat that excludes what an insured patient needs or saddles him or her with co-pays that are just about as expensive as paying out-of-pocket.Then there is the unholy alliance between the health insurance industry and BigPharma.Insurance companies influence drug costs through their formulary, a list of insurance-covered medications. BigPharma often colludes with insurers to ensure their drugs are included in these formularies through financial incentives or exclusive deals, which usually aren’t in the best interest of patients or based on the drug's effectiveness.Further, there have been legal actions regarding price-fixing and collusion in drug pricing, where insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies agree on pricing strategies that limit competition and keep prices artificially high.For example. The average price for a 30-day supply (60 tablets) of the anticoagulant medication Eliquis is approximately $185 in Canada. In the United States, where we are told we have a superior healthcare system, the list price for a 30-day supply is approximately $594. That’s a $409 difference.The average price in Mexico is approximately $85. This translates to slightly more than $1 per pill. In the United States, the land where the US federal government tried to mandate health insurance for all each tablet of Eliquis costs approximately $9.90.That’s just one medication. Now use that as a loose base-line in contemplating how the costs of other medicines and medical procedures are affected by this unholy alliance.Consider this. One report of cost inflation after an Emergency Room visit detailed a case where a $629 bill was issued, with $7 attributed to a Band-Aid and the rest to the facility fee for emergency services. In another example, the cost of a Band-Aid was part of a $478 bill for a minor injury treatment. The retail price of a Band-Aid is anywhere from $0.05 to $0.50.Then there are plain old visits to a doctor. The average non-insurance out-of-pocket cost for a visit to the doctor in 2024 is anywhere from $150 to $300 for a basic visit. In 2000, that same visit cost $61. In 1980, it cost $14. These costs are based on data from the Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality.But what about major life-threatening illnesses and how health insurance companies issue payments to cover those?Let’s

It never, ever fails, ever. Democrat Deep Staters always, always, always telegraph their deeds, transposing them onto their opposition. It’s been happening since the days of Woodrow Wilson and it continues to this day.Today’s uniparty Deep State tool is a frequent flier: Dick Durbin, a Democrat senator from Illinois. This Chicago-machine-anointed partisan hack has demonstrated his partisanship almost every second of his career, and his latest remarks don’t deviate from his far-Left fealty.In response to President-elect Trump’s nomination of Kash Patel to head the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Durbin issued an infantile protest full of name-calling and “it’s not fair” whining, fully unbecoming of someone seated in the most prestigious legislative body on the planet.“President Biden kept Director Wray in office because the FBI is supposed to be insulated from partisanship. Now, the president-elect wants to replace his own appointee with an unqualified loyalist…The Senate should reject this unprecedented effort to weaponize the FBI for the campaign of retribution that Donald Trump has promised.”What? There is so much wrong with that statement it’s hard to know where to begin. But let’s take it from the top, shall we?Durbin’s insistence that Patel shouldn’t be seated because President Biden kept Wray in place is an imbecilic notion. Under Wray, the FBI has been used in numerous ways to affect the political persecution of Americans.The FBI was found to have labeled parents speaking out at school board meetings as potential “domestic terrorists.” This stemmed from a memo issued by the National School Boards Association (NSBA) in 2021, which served as an attempt to categorize outspoken parents as threats. The FBI response involved investigating these parents over their legitimate concerns about how the school districts were treating and educating their children.In 2023, a subpoenaed document from the FBI's Richmond Field Office revealed coordination with multiple field offices to produce a memo targeting traditional Catholics as domestic terrorists. This memo was later withdrawn, but the incident exposed the FBI’s religious profiling and political bias.The FBI under Wray has targeted agents based on their political beliefs, particularly those with conservative views or military backgrounds. This includes claims of harassment and retaliation against whistleblowers who spoke out against political biases within the agency.The FBI has also been called on the carpet for not only not aggressively pursuing investigations into Hunter Biden, suggesting a protective stance towards political figures aligned with the Democrat party, but also covering up the facts surrounding what was on his laptop, couching it all as an exercise in Russian skullduggery.Then we have the SWAT raid at former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago residence in 2022 where we now know the FBI was being used as a political tool against Trump and his 2024 election campaign.And lastly, for our purposes here, we now know the FBI worked with social media companies to suppress information, particularly around the federal government’s COVID disinformation campaign and the Hunter Biden laptop story before the 2020 election.By Durbin’s “ethical” standards, Trump should leave Wray in his position, well, just because Biden did, ignoring the fact—the indisputable fact—that under Christopher Wray, the FBI has been corrupted and politicized almost beyond repair.Not only has Wray failed in his sworn oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” and “bear true faith and allegiance to the same,” he allowed partisan ideologues to rise to positions of power that allowed them to thwart investigations, hobble the search for truth and justice, and use the power of the FBI and its sacred public trust to benefit political ideologues.Wray is a failed FBI director and rightfully deserves to be fired for dereliction of duty if not scrutinized for true acts of insurrection and sedition.But, back to Durbin and his idiotic statement.Durbin infers that Trump appointing an “unqualified loyalist” is ludicrous in both uses of the words.First, why would any president, Trump, Biden, Obama—any of them, appoint someone who wasn’t loyal to their agenda? The idea is psychopathic on its face. In fact, it’s absurdity is self-evident to those with an IQ over that of a grape.But “unqualified”? Durbin dares to use the term “unqualified” in the same sentence as the name Kash Patel?Okay, quickly, because it would take hours to fully explain why Patel is more than qualified to be a reformative FBI director in the Trump administration:* Patel holds a Juris Doctor from Pace University School of Law and has a certificate in international law from the University of College London.* He worked as a federal prosecutor within the Justice Department, focusing on national security cases, which gives him direct experience in law enforcement re