It’s Time The Charges Of Treason & Sedition Had Some Teeth

1 Mär · Underground USA

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 his administration stuffed the Deep State bureaucracy with mid-level political loyalist “sleeper cells” meant to progress obstructively upward through the bureaucratic chain to guard the then soft neo-Marxist revolution that had been manifesting since the early 1960s, the Deep State bureaucracy has executed small measures to insulate itself from accountability and culpability.

Meanwhile, the ranks of the federal bureaucracy—an integral element of the Deep State—have exploded to approximately 3 million people as of November 2024. Keep in mind that this excludes state, county, and local government employees. When we add that number, the total comes to approximately 23.7 million, or about one in every 14 or 15 Americans or 14% of the US workforce.

These numbers warrant an examination of the need for so many government employees at every level, but especially in the federal government since many federal departments and agencies are redundant to state-level departments and agencies.

This brings me to my larger point and yes, it involves the termination of federal employees and quite a bit more.

Some of the CIA’s top officials are worried that disgruntled former employees may be plotting to commit treason by leaking classified information to foreign adversaries such as China or Russia, seeking revenge for their firings.

CNN reported:

“...on the CIA’s 7th floor—home to top leadership—some officers are also quietly discussing how mass firings and the buyouts already offered to staff risk creating a group of disgruntled former employees who might be motivated to take what they know to a foreign intelligence service.”

Treason is a crime against the American people and the only crime to be specifically spelled out in the US Constitution.

Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution states, in part:

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort…”

Providing classified information to the enemy—for any reason—constitutes treason.

The intelligence community institutions wield significant and often, especially in recent years, nefarious influence both domestically and abroad. They have actively worked against President Trump for nearly a decade. From constructing and promoting the now-debunked Russiagate narrative to intelligence agencies working together to suppress the Hunter Biden laptop story, they have continuously sought to undermine him and his agenda at every opportunity. The FBI’s involvement in January 6 only reinforces the extent of their political entanglements.

These acts constitute sedition.

For federal employees, sedition-like behavior is most directly addressed under laws like the federal seditious conspiracy statute. This law makes it a crime for two or more people—including government employees—to conspire to overthrow the US government, oppose its authority by force, or interfere with the execution of its laws. If a federal employee were involved in such activities—say, plotting to disrupt government operations through violence or sabotage or the usurpation of directives—they could face prosecution, with penalties of up to 20 years in prison.

The insubordination that has become commonplace in the federal bureaucracy, especially at the Department of Justice and the intelligence communities—which, in the latter’s case, constitutes treason, must be addressed and addressed with an uncompromising (read: ruthless) hand.

The idea that retaliation by disgruntled ex-employees could include divulging national security secrets to our enemies is—by definition—treason. Any current, former, or newly terminated federal employee who provides aid (classified information) or comfort to the enemy. Should be charged with treason, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and penalized to the harshest letter of the law.

Any federal employee—or complicit organization—who conspires to sedition should be charged with sedition, prosecuted aggressively, and penalized to the full extent of the penalties allowed.

There can be no caveats or mitigating circumstances. These transgressions against the American people constitute crimes of the highest order and, therefore, require the harshest penalties.

The time for talking about what should be done and what will be done is over. It’s time to execute. A few convicted traitors hanging in the public square sends a potent message.

Then, when we return, 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.

No, Zelenskyy Is Not An Equal

Before I go, I wanted to spotlight the grotesque disrespect that was displayed both toward President Trump and the American people—the American taxpayers—by Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Friday’s Oval Office meeting.

Zelenskyy is not Trump’s equal. He is a head of state, yes—for now, but he is not an equal. He is not the leader of a superpower. He is a man representing a country at war who needs the financing and big stick abilities of the United States on the world stage.

So, what does he do? He comes, dressed like a poor-man’s Castro wannabe, to the Oval Office and speaks to the President of the United States like President Trump is some sort of obligated servant.

Zelensky interrupted, talked over, and most egregiously, attempted to talk down to President Trump. He tried to dictate the terms for which he would accept aid—including the ability of the United States to affect an end to the conflict.

I am including the full video of the meeting here at UndergroundUSA.com so you can see just how disrespectful this pissant was:

As an aside, JD Vance rolled his bones to cement his bona fides in taking control and ending the spectacle, at least in front of the media.

Nevertheless, the level of ungrateful arrogance is both incredible and unacceptable. To wit, I agree with the statement the President issued shortly afterward on X:

“We had a very meaningful meeting in the White House today. Much was learned that could never be understood without conversation under such fire and pressure. It's amazing what comes out through emotion, and I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace if America is involved, because he feels our involvement gives him a big advantage in negotiations. I don't want advantage, I want PEACE. He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace.”

As I shared with a good friend of mine who used to be in the employ of the EU Commission years back when he asked my thoughts on Zelenskyy getting pretty much asked to leave the Oval Office:

“Zelensky's disrespectful attitude (maybe it's a symptom of being able to walk on Biden the way he did) toward Trump in his assumption that he is an equal isn't playing well over here in the US. His lack of humility is overt and that doesn't play well with Trump or his backers. Many Americans see that as being ungrateful after the taxpayers—not the government, the taxpayers—gifted him $500 billion.

“So, it means [Zelenskyy] thought he had some sort of leverage over here that didn't exist. If he is wise (and at this point that appears not to be the case) he will return with a conciliatory tone, even if it has to be in private. Otherwise, his world just got extremely difficult and Europe will have to flip the entirety of the bill for his begging.”

The damage that the “walk-all-over-us” Biden administration—and before them the Obama administration—did to the stature of the United States is evident in Zelenskyy’s belief that he could walk into the Oval Office and piss all over the place.

Zelenskyy’s blatant disrespect towards President Trump and his arrogance in the Oval Office lost the good will of the majority of the American people, and that is a tragedy for the people of Ukraine, who have traditionally enjoyed the sympathies and support of the American people.

But, like it or not, Zelenskyy represents the Ukrainian people and Zelenskyy did a great disservice to them, as well as to the American people.

Was this all theater for Vladimir Putin’s non-benefit? It could be, but it’s not likely. Regardless, a large majority of the American people feel that Zelenskyy disrespected both President Trump and the American people, and that cannot stand.

In the end, a more imbecilic political move has seldom been witnessed in world history. The Ukrainian people would be wise to make amends to their most valued ally, and sending Zelenskyy a pink slip would be a great first-step overture.

Zelenskyy’s punk-antics need to be the end of his political career.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
Abonnieren Abmelden
Teilen

Folgen

As The Atlantic Hurricane Season Approaches…
2 Jun· Underground USA
As a former professional firefighter and paramedic, I understand the seriousness and absolute need for an informed, effective, and well-coordinated emergency response, whether it’s to a local, regional, or national event. So, as the Atlantic hurricane season approaches, the matter of FEMA’s effectiveness, its role, and how the Trump administration wants to restructure this dysfunctional agency is a topic that we should bring into focus.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has long been touted as the cornerstone of America’s disaster response framework, yet its track record—most recently during the catastrophic flooding in western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia—reveals a bloated, inefficient bureaucracy that often hinders more than it helps. President Trump’s daring proposal to dismantle FEMA’s primacy and empower states as lead responders, with the federal government relegated to a supporting role, is not only a pragmatic response to FEMA’s repeated failures but a necessary restructuring to better serve the American people.
FEMA’s history is littered with examples of mismanagement and sluggish responses that have left communities stranded in their darkest hours. Hurricane Katrina in 2005 exposed FEMA’s inability to coordinate effectively, with delayed aid and chaotic evacuations exacerbating the crisis. Superstorm Sandy in 2012 saw similar complaints: slow deployment of resources, tangled red tape, and a failure to meet the immediate needs of affected residents. Fast forward to the recent flooding in western North Carolina, eastern Tennessee, and northern Georgia, where entire towns were submerged, and FEMA’s response was, once again, woefully inadequate.
Residents in these regions reported waiting days for basic supplies like water, food, and temporary shelters. Local officials described FEMA’s presence as “disorganized” and “out of touch,” with federal aid trickling in long after state and local responders, alongside private citizens and nonprofits, had already mobilized.
In Asheville, North Carolina, community-led efforts filled the gap, with volunteers distributing supplies and clearing debris while FEMA struggled to establish a coherent command structure. In many first-hand reports, witnesses said FEMA representatives actually made the situation worse. In Tennessee, reports surfaced of FEMA rejecting state requests for additional resources, citing bureaucratic protocols that prioritized procedure over people.
This is not an isolated incident but a pattern. FEMA’s centralized, top-down approach stifles the agility and local knowledge that states and communities bring to disaster response. Its one-size-fits-all model fails to account for regional differences, leaving rural areas like western North Carolina particularly underserved. The agency’s reliance on federal contractors, often awarded lucrative deals with little oversight, further siphons resources that could be better allocated by state governments closer to the ground.
President Trump’s vision to empower states as the lead responders in natural disasters is rooted in a fundamental truth: no one understands a community’s needs better than the people who live there. States, with their intimate knowledge of local geography, infrastructure, and demographics, are far better positioned to act swiftly and decisively. Unlike FEMA, which often parachutes into unfamiliar territory with a playbook designed in Washington, state governments can leverage existing relationships with local agencies, businesses, and community organizations to coordinate relief efforts efficiently and in an expedient manner.
The flooding in North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee illustrates this perfectly. While FEMA fumbled, state-led initiatives shone. North Carolina’s National Guard deployed rapidly, conducting rescue operations and delivering supplies to remote areas cut off by landslides, areas that FEMA representatives were unprepared to traverse. Tennessee’s Department of Emergency Management worked with local sheriffs to prioritize aid to the hardest-hit counties, bypassing the delays that plagued FEMA’s response. These efforts, though heroic, were hamstrung time and time again by FEMA’s narcissistic insistence on maintaining control over federal resources, forcing states to navigate a labyrinth of approvals to access funds and equipment.
By flipping the script—making states the lead responders and FEMA a support agency—Trump’s plan would eliminate these bottlenecks. States could directly access federal funding and resources without wading through FEMA’s bureaucratic and egocentric quagmire. This model aligns with the principles of federalism and, to a lesser degree, anti-federalism, recognizing that states are not mere subordinates but sovereign entities capable of managing their own crises with federal backing. It also incentivizes states to invest in their own preparedness, knowing an overbearing federal agency won’t sideline them, although states like California, New York, and Illinois, cursed with spendthrift Democrat governors and legislatures, seldom understand such fiscal responsibility.
The recent abrupt dismissal of Cameron Hamilton as FEMA’s acting administrator lays bare the bureaucratic metastization within the agency. Hamilton—with typical Deep State arrogance—publicly opposed Trump’s plan to dismantle FEMA, claiming it was “not in the best interest of the American people.” His ouster, confirmed by the Department of Homeland Security just weeks before the Atlantic hurricane season, signals a broader clash over FEMA’s role between those legitimately elected to execute the will of the people and the illegitimate Deep State bureaucrats fighting to sustain the dysfunctional status quo. While Hamilton’s defenders argue he was protecting a vital institution, his stance reeks of bureaucratic self-preservation, prioritizing the agency’s existence over its effectiveness.
The timing of Hamilton’s removal is telling. With hurricane season looming, FEMA’s leadership is in disarray, and the appointment of David Richardson as acting administrator does little to inspire confidence. Critics, including Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-MS), have called for “experienced and qualified” leadership, but the real issue isn’t the individual at the helm—it’s the agency’s flawed structure. No amount of reshuffling can fix an organization that consistently fails to deliver when it matters most.
Trump’s proposal, backed by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, isn’t about abandoning disaster victims but about streamlining aid to reach them faster. By cutting FEMA’s budget and reevaluating its role through an Executive Order-established review council, the administration aims to strip away layers of inefficiency. States would gain the autonomy to tailor responses to their unique needs, whether it’s deploying National Guard units, contracting local businesses for supplies, or mobilizing community volunteers. The federal government, in its supporting role, would provide funding, technical expertise, and logistical support without micromanaging every decision.
This approach has precedent. During the COVID pandemic, states like Florida and Texas bypassed federal red tape to secure ventilators, PPE, and testing kits, often outperforming FEMA’s sluggish distribution efforts. Similarly, state-led disaster responses, when given the freedom to operate, have consistently proven more nimble than FEMA’s plodding interventions.
Skeptics argue that dismantling FEMA risks leaving states underfunded or unprepared, especially in poorer regions. But this ignores the fact that FEMA’s current model already disproportionately—and consistently—fails vulnerable communities. Rural areas, low-income counties, and minority populations often wait longest for any aid under FEMA’s watch, and even then, when it comes, they are told to “go online” to request aid. A state-led system, with federal support, would empower local leaders to prioritize their most at-risk residents, rather than relying on a distant agency with a spotty track record and a consistently inadequate understanding of the urgency required.
Some pro-big-government supporters claim that states lack the capacity to handle major disasters. But states already manage complex emergencies—wildfires in California, tornadoes in Oklahoma, hurricanes in Florida—often with minimal federal interference. Trump’s plan doesn’t leave states to fend for themselves; it ensures they have the resources and authority to act without FEMA’s heavy-handed and often obstructive oversight.
The flooding in North Carolina, Tennessee, and Georgia is a clear reminder of FEMA’s shortcomings. As the Atlantic hurricane season approaches, the American people cannot afford another round of federal incompetence. President Trump’s proposal to empower states as lead responders offers a bold, practical solution that prioritizes speed, local expertise, and accountability. By relegating FEMA to a support role, we can build a disaster response system that truly serves the people it’s meant to protect.
The time for change is now—before the next storm hits.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Politics and current events in the headlines; they aren’t just noise—their consequences carve the path for our lives, our communities, and the future of our nation. They demand our attention, not as passive observers, but as guardians of the principles that define us. To stay informed is a patriotic duty, a quiet yet powerful act of stewardship. It’s not just about knowing the latest hot topics—it’s about piercing through the fog of spin and clickbait to uncover the truth. This vigilance holds those in power accountable, ensuring the Republic we cherish remains true to its founding ideals.
And engagement doesn’t end with understanding. It flows into the conversations we share—with family, friends, or the neighbor we come to have a moment with. These exchanges, rooted in listening and connection, reveal the common ground we’re often told doesn’t exist. The forces that thrive on division falter when we unite; when we rediscover the shared values that bind us as Americans. In this unity lies our strength, a united resolve that transcends mere voting and becomes a living testament to our nation’s spirit.
So, seek the truth, foster connections, and let your commitment to the shared Great American Experiment reflect the heart of what it means to be American. Together, we’re not just citizens—we’re neighbors, allies, united in a legacy of liberty and justice, ever striving for that more perfect union.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Divisive Politics & Wokeism Have Killed Comedy
30 Mai· Underground USA
Comedy, once a bastion of free expression and unfiltered truth, has been hijacked by the sanctimonious grip of divisive politics, political correctness, and wokeism. What was historically an art form that united audiences through shared laughter has devolved into a platform for social engineering, where comedians and writers wield their microphones as megaphones for ideological agendas. The result is a fractured comedic landscape that caters to polarized tribes, alienates broad audiences, and sacrifices genuine humor for cheap applause.
Late-night talk shows and sketch comedy shows like Saturday Night Live (SNL) exemplify this decay, peddling politically jaded material that fuels the social divide in America. These so-called comedians and writers have betrayed comedy’s essence, prioritizing activism over artistry, and underscore why true comedic genius thrives without leaning on divisive crutches.
Late-night talk shows, once home to the irreverent wit of Johnny Carson and David Letterman, have become predictable echo chambers for left-leaning dogma. Hosts like Stephen Colbert, Jimmy Kimmel, and Seth Meyers have transformed their platforms into nightly sermons, delivering politically charged monologues that pander to progressive audiences while alienating conservatives. Their jokes, often thinly veiled attacks on Republican figures or policies, lack the nuance or universality that defined earlier eras of comedy.
For instance, Colbert’s relentless mockery of Donald Trump during his presidency—calling him everything from a “dictator” to a “buffoon”—rarely ventured beyond gratuitous low-hanging fruit, earning cheers from partisan crowds but failing to resonate with viewers seeking intellectually-crafted wit and cleverness over propaganda.
This shift is deliberate. Writers’ rooms, increasingly staffed by ideologues, churn out material designed to signal virtue rather than provoke laughter. Kimmel’s tearful monologues on gun control or healthcare, while emotionally charged, blur the line between comedy and activism. His 2017 rants on the Affordable Care Act, though heartfelt, alienated viewers who tuned in for escapism, not lectures.
The result is a self-selecting audience, with ratings plummeting as moderates and conservatives abandon ship. Nielsen data shows late-night viewership at historic lows, with Colbert’s Late Show averaging under 3 million viewers, a far cry from Carson’s 10 million-plus in the 1980s. By catering to one side of the political spectrum, these hosts have traded broad appeal for niche relevance, proving that comedy suffers when it becomes a tool for social engineering.
Saturday Night Live, once a cultural touchstone for biting satire, has similarly succumbed to the allure of divisive politics. The show’s cold opens, which used to skewer both sides with equal glee, now lean heavily into progressive talking points. During the 2020 election cycle, SNL’s portrayal of Trump (played by Alec Baldwin) as a bumbling villain contrasted sharply with its fawning depictions of Democrat figures like Kamala Harris (Maya Rudolph), who was often framed as a flawless heroine. This imbalance isn’t accidental; it reflects a writers’ room more concerned with preaching than punching up.
SNL’s reliance on “woke” humor—jokes that prioritize moral posturing over wit—further erodes its comedic credibility. A 2021 sketch mocking “white fragility” during a corporate diversity training session felt like a TED Talk with canned laughter, alienating viewers who reject such heavy-handed messaging. The show’s obsession with identity politics has also led to self-censorship, with writers avoiding topics that might offend progressive sensibilities. Gone are the days of Norm Macdonald’s unapologetic jabs at all sides; in their place are safe, predictable bits that reinforce the leftist cultural orthodoxy. SNL’s ratings reflect this misstep, with 2024 episodes averaging 4.5 million viewers, down from 8 million a decade ago. By pandering to a polarized audience, SNL has abandoned its role as a comedic unifier, opting instead to deepen America’s social divide.
Political correctness and wokeism have imposed a straitjacket on comedy, stifling creativity and punishing risk-takers. Comedians now face career-ending backlash for jokes that challenge progressive taboos, forcing many to self-censor or retreat to safer material. Dave Chappelle, one of the few who dares to push back, faced intense criticism for his 2021 Netflix special The Closer, where he tackled transgender issues with his trademark candor. The outrage from activist groups and social media mobs underscored the new reality: comedy must conform, or it will be canceled. Lesser-known comedians, lacking Chappelle’s clout, often buckle under this pressure, diluting their acts to avoid offense.
This climate of fear has birthed a generation of comedians who prioritize ideology over humor. Writers for shows like Full Frontal with Samantha Bee or Last Week Tonight with John Oliver craft material that doubles as activism, using comedy as a Trojan horse for political agendas.
Bee’s 2018 tirade against Ivanka Trump, calling her a “feckless c*nt” on air, wasn’t a joke—it was a calculated provocation meant to rally her base. Such moments don’t unite audiences; they weaponize comedy to shame and divide. The hypocrisy is glaring: these same comedians decry “hate speech” while hurling insults at their ideological foes, proving that their principles are as disposable as their punchlines.
When comedians and writers use their platforms as megaphones for social engineering, they betray the art form’s core purpose: to reveal truth through laughter. Comedy thrives on subversion, not conformity, yet today’s mainstream acts often parrot the same tired narratives as cable news. This not only alienates half the country but also cheapens the craft. Jokes that rely on political tribalism—whether mocking “MAGA hats” or “woke snowflakes”—are lazy, requiring no insight or originality. They’re the comedic equivalent of fast food: quick, cheap, and ultimately unsatisfying.
The social divide in America, already exacerbated by partisan news media, is further inflamed by this brand of comedy. Late-night hosts and SNL sketches don’t just reflect the culture war; they stoke it, reinforcing stereotypes and entrenching divisions. A 2023 Pew Research study found that 60% of Americans believe political polarization has worsened in recent years, with media—including entertainment—playing a significant role. By choosing sides, comedians alienate audiences who crave humor that transcends politics, not propaganda disguised as humor that amplifies it.
Comedy doesn’t need divisive politics to thrive—it never has. The contemporary greats, from Richard Pryor to George Carlin to Robin Williams, achieved immortality by exposing universal truths, not by pandering to one faction. Pryor’s raw takes on race and poverty cut deeper than any late-night monologue, yet they invited everyone to laugh. Carlin’s rants against government and religion spared no one, uniting audiences in their shared exasperation. These legends didn’t need to lean on partisan talking points because their talent spoke for itself.
Today’s comedians would do well to emulate this approach. By shedding the debilitating crutches of political correctness and wokeism, they can reclaim comedy’s power to bridge divides rather than widen them. Audiences are starving for humor that doesn’t lecture or exclude, and the few who deliver it—like Chappelle or Bill Burr or Jerry Seinfeld—are rewarded with fierce loyalty.
The lesson is clear: true comedic greatness lies in authenticity, not activism. Until writers and performers abandon their social engineering megaphones, comedy will remain a shadow of its former self, fractured and impotent in a world that desperately needs to laugh together.
In Closing…
So, those headlines screaming at us? They’re not just noise—they’re the front lines where our nation’s future is hammered out! Politics, current events—they’re the things that affect our lives, our neighborhoods, and the very heart of America. We’re not just watching from the sidelines; we’re the ones holding the line, defending the values that make this country a beacon of hope. Staying informed? That’s not just something we do—it’s our sacred calling, a fist raised against the fog of spin and deception. We’ve got to cut through the chaos, keep our leaders honest, and make sure our Republic stays bold and free.
And it doesn’t end with knowing the facts. Truth is what brings us together—those real, no-filter talks with your buddy, your cousin, or that neighbor you bump into at the store. That’s where we find the unity everyone says is gone. When we listen, when we lean into the values that make us American, the walls of division come crashing down. That’s our strength, our unbeatable, American power—a force that’s bigger than any vote, pulsing through the heart of this great nation.
So, chase the truth, build those bridges, and let your love for this incredible American Experiment burn bright. We’re not just citizens—we’re family, united by a legacy of freedom and justice, fighting side by side for that “more perfect union.” Let’s make it happen, together. We’ve got the grit, the heart, and the power to keep America shining!

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Fehlende Folgen?

Hier klicken, um den Feed zu aktualisieren.
Remembering Those Who Gave The Last Full Measure
26 Mai· Underground USA
Each year, as the final Monday in May approaches, our nation pauses to observe Memorial Day—a solemn occasion dedicated to remembering and honoring the brave men and women of the United States military who made the ultimate sacrifice in service to our country. These heroes, who laid down their lives in defense of freedom, embody the courage, selflessness, and unwavering commitment that have shaped the very foundation of our nation. To honor them is not merely a tradition but a sacred duty, a way to affirm that their sacrifices were not in vain and that their legacy endures in the hearts of a grateful nation.
The origins of Memorial Day, originally known as Decoration Day, trace back to the aftermath of the Civil War, a conflict that tore the nation apart and claimed countless lives. In 1868, General John A. Logan, leader of an organization for Union veterans, called for a day of remembrance to decorate the graves of fallen soldiers with flowers, a gesture meant to symbolize love, respect, and eternal memory. Over time, this observance expanded to encompass all American service members who died in any conflict, from the battlefields of World War I, World War II, and Korea II to the jungles of Vietnam, the deserts of Iraq, and the mountains of Afghanistan. Today, Memorial Day stands as a testament to the enduring cost of liberty and a reminder of the price paid by those who answered the call to serve.
The importance of remembering these heroes cannot be overstated. Their sacrifices secured the freedoms we often take for granted—the right to speak freely, to worship as we choose, to pursue our dreams in a land of opportunity. Each life lost represents a story abruptly ended: a parent who never returned to their children, a sibling whose laughter no longer fills a home, a friend whose absence leaves an unfillable void. These were individuals with hopes, fears, and dreams, who set aside personal aspirations to protect a greater ideal. To honor them is to acknowledge not only their bravery but also the profound humanity they carried into battle.
Honoring our fallen military personnel fosters a sense of unity and gratitude that binds us as a nation. In a world often divided by differences, Memorial Day serves as a unifying moment, reminding us of the shared values these heroes died to defend. It is a day to set aside political disagreements and personal grievances, to stand together in reverence for those who gave everything. Whether through attending ceremonies, visiting cemeteries, or simply pausing for a moment of silence, these acts of remembrance connect us to one another and to the legacy of those who served.
Moreover, remembering the fallen inspires us to live with purpose and responsibility. Their sacrifices challenge us to be worthy stewards of the freedoms they secured, to engage in our communities, and to uphold the principles of justice, equality, and compassion. It is a call to action—not to repay a debt we can never fully settle, but to live in a way that honors their memory. By supporting veterans, caring for military families, and teaching future generations about the cost of freedom, we ensure that the sacrifices of the fallen continue to shape a better future.
The act of honoring our fallen is also deeply personal. For families who have lost loved ones, Memorial Day is a poignant reminder of their grief, but also an opportunity to see their loved one’s sacrifice recognized by a grateful nation. Gold Star families, those who have lost a family member in military service, carry a burden few can fully comprehend. As a society, we have a responsibility to support them, to listen to their stories, and to ensure they know their loved one’s sacrifice is neither forgotten nor diminished by the passage of time.
Across the country, communities gather to honor the fallen in ways both grand and intimate. From the solemn wreath-laying at Arlington National Cemetery to small-town parades where flags wave and flowers are placed on graves, these traditions weave a tapestry of remembrance. Veterans’ organizations, such as the American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars, play a vital role in preserving these rituals, ensuring that the stories of the fallen are told and retold. These acts of commemoration are not mere formalities; they are a reaffirmation of our collective commitment to never forget.
As we reflect on the importance of Memorial Day, let us hold space for both gratitude and sorrow. Let us remember the names etched on memorials, the faces in faded photographs, and the stories shared by those who knew them. Let us honor them not only with our words but with our actions—by living with integrity, by cherishing our freedoms, and by striving to build a nation worthy of their sacrifice. To the men and women who gave their lives for this country, we offer our deepest respect, our unending gratitude, and our solemn promise: you are not forgotten, and your legacy will endure.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
In a world where politics and current events shape our lives, we’re not mere bystanders—we’re the guardians of truth, tasked with upholding the principles that define America. Staying informed is an obligation, a stand against lies and distortion. We all must strive to cut through the chaos, hold power accountable, and preserve our Republic’s freedom.
Truth is more than headlines; it’s the spark for raw, real conversations—with family, friends, and even strangers. These exchanges rebuild our shared strength, mending divides by uncovering common ground. Connection is our true power, transcending ballots or campaigns. It’s the living pulse of our nation’s spirit.
So, as we reflect on this Memorial Day, pursue truth relentlessly. Speak it, share it, let it ignite your conversations and choices. Let it fuel your passion for this imperfect dream we call America. We’re not just citizens; we’re a vibrant fellowship, united by an unshakeable belief in liberty, justice, and the pursuit of a better tomorrow. Together, we weave a diverse tapestry, forever chasing a “more perfect union” that’s always within reach.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Broken Credit Score System: Arbitrary, Discriminatory & Damaging
23 Mai· Underground USA
In light of Moody’s move to downgrade our nation’s credit score—and the massive middle finger that the markets gave that move, this subject is appropriate and timely.
The credit score industry, led by the unholy trinity of Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, is a dystopian farce posing as a fair measure of financial trustworthiness. These agencies hold a stranglehold over people’s lives, dictating access to loans, housing, and even jobs, while producing scores that are arbitrary, discriminatory, and riddled with errors.
Worse, the US credit score system eerily mirrors the social credit system of communist China, surveilling and punishing individuals under the guise of objectivity. As handmaidens to big banks, these bureaus perpetuate a cycle of exploitation that devastates lives and entrenches systemic inequities.
Credit scores, those three-digit numbers that supposedly define your financial worth, are built on a foundation of whimsy. The proprietary algorithms behind FICO and VantageScore, used by Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion, are opaque and ever-changing. One month, paying off a credit card might boost your score; the next, it could plummet because you "reduced your credit utilization too fast."
A 2021 Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) study revealed score discrepancies of 50 points or more across bureaus for the same individual, exposing the system’s inconsistency. How can a metric be trusted when it varies so wildly depending on which agency runs the numbers?
The arbitrariness extends to penalizing sensible behavior. A missed medical bill due to a clerical error? Your score takes a hit. Kept your credit card balance low but didn’t use it enough? That’s a penalty, too. The system rewards gaming its rules—maintaining just the right debt balance—over genuine financial responsibility. It’s a rigged game where the goalposts shift without warning, and the bureaus profit from the chaos.
In a chilling parallel, the US credit score system functions as a de facto social credit system, not unlike the one enforced in communist China. Both systems assign numerical values to individuals, dictating their access to opportunities based on opaque criteria. In China, social credit scores punish behaviors like jaywalking or dissent; in the US, credit scores penalize missed payments or low credit utilization, often reflecting circumstances beyond one’s control, like job loss or medical debt.
Both systems rely on mass surveillance—credit bureaus amass vast troves of personal data, tracking every transaction and misstep, much like China’s monitoring of citizens’ behavior. The result is a pervasive control mechanism that restricts freedom and mobility, branding people as "unworthy" based on arbitrary metrics. The bureaus may not wave a communist flag, but their role in policing financial behavior is disturbingly similar, all while serving corporate interests over human dignity.
The credit score industry doesn’t just mimic authoritarian control; it perpetuates discrimination. Its algorithms embed historical inequities, disproportionately harming marginalized groups.
A 2020 Federal Reserve study showed Black and Hispanic Americans are more likely to have lower scores due to systemic factors like lower wealth and higher debt burdens. These aren’t anomalies—they reflect decades of redlining, predatory lending, and unequal access to opportunities, all codified into the bureaus’ models.
Low-income individuals face a vicious cycle: higher interest rates from predatory lenders lead to missed payments, further tanking scores. The bureaus ignore context—whether you faced a medical emergency or live in a neighborhood targeted by exploitative lenders. This isn’t neutrality; it’s a system that ensures the disadvantaged stay disadvantaged, reinforcing racial and economic divides under a veneer of objectivity.
The industry’s incompetence compounds its sins.
A 2023 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) report found that 26% of consumers had errors on their credit reports, from incorrect personal details to fraudulent accounts. These mistakes can slash scores by hundreds of points, leading to loan denials, higher interest rates, or job rejections. Correcting errors is a nightmare, with bureaus like Equifax offering byzantine dispute processes that deter all but the most persistent. And don’t even try to get through to TransUnion. The bureaus have no incentive to fix inaccuracies—their clients are banks, not consumers, and sloppy data doesn’t dent their profits.
The human toll is devastating. Families lose homes, job seekers are turned away, and small business owners are denied capital, all because of a system that prioritizes speed over accuracy. The bureaus’ indifference to errors is a feature, not a bug, as they face no real accountability in their oligopolistic fiefdom.
Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion exist to serve big banks, not people. They collect and sell consumer data to lenders, who use it to justify sky-high interest rates that trap borrowers in debt cycles. Low scores become a license for banks to exploit, while the bureaus profit from selling ancillary products like credit monitoring, preying on consumer fear. It’s a symbiotic racket: banks get data to maximize profits, and bureaus get paid to maintain the status quo.
The system discourages behaviors that threaten bank profits, like paying off debt early or avoiding credit. Legislative efforts to reform this mess, like the Credit Score Competition Act, have been stalled by K Street industry lobbying. The bureaus operate with impunity, their unchecked power a testament to their cozy relationship with financial giants.
The US credit score industry, with its arbitrary, discriminatory, and inaccurate scores, is a digital dystopia that rivals communist China’s social credit system in its control over lives. Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion profit by serving big banks, leaving millions in financial ruin. Alternative models—based on cash flow or utility payment history—could offer a fairer, more accurate picture of an individual’s financial health.
Until we dismantle this broken system, the bureaus will continue to wield their authoritarian power, condemning countless Americans to economic exile while their banking overlords reap the rewards.
The question isn’t whether this system is flawed—it’s why we’ve allowed it to persist.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Make no mistake: politics and the current events shaping our world aren’t some far-off spectacle—they ripple through our lives, our communities, and the very soul of this nation. We’re not mere spectators in this drama; we’re the guardians of truth, the ones standing firm for the principles that ignite America’s spirit. Staying informed isn’t just a choice—it’s a sacred duty, a bold defiance against the fog of lies and distortion. It’s up to us to slice through the chaos, hold power accountable, and keep this Republic free and unbroken.
But this goes deeper than just keeping up with the headlines. Truth is a lifeline. It’s the spark that fuels raw, real conversations—with your loved ones, your friends, or even that neighbor you’ve barely spoken to. In those moments, in those unfiltered exchanges, we rediscover what we’re told is gone: our shared strength. The divides start to mend when we listen, when we uncover the common ground buried beneath the clamor. That connection? That’s our true might. It’s bigger than ballots or campaigns—it’s the living pulse of what this nation means.
So chase the truth. Speak it. Share it. Let it set fire to your conversations, your bonds, and the choices you make every day. Let it stoke your passion for this wild, imperfect dream we call America. Because we’re not just citizens—we’re a brotherhood and sisterhood. We’re in this together, a vibrant, diverse tapestry of people united by a fierce belief in liberty, justice, and the relentless pursuit of a better tomorrow, a “more perfect union” that’s always just within reach.
Let’s keep fighting for it. As Reagan said, we are the last best chance for freedom, around the world.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Islam's Soft Jihad: Exploiting Demographics & Western Nihilism
19 Mai· Underground USA
There is a quiet conquest taking place in the Western world, one fueled by dogmatic edict on the one hand and our culture’s neo-Marxian decay on the other. It’s particularly evident in Europe, but in many places in the United States, it is taking root. And unless we recognize what is happening, our way of life will be irreparably damaged.
For over a decade, I ran a 501c3 non-profit that educated on the external threats facing our country—specifically, Islamofascism and progressivism—and our nation’s love affair with constitutional illiteracy. I spoke internationally about this “perfect storm,” warning that if left unchecked, this storm would encompass the globe. Today, we are living with the results of those warnings being ignored.
Islam, historically a religion of conquest, is executing a soft jihad on the West, not through swords but through strategic territorial acquisition, higher fertility rates, and exploitation of the West’s progressive-instilled nihilistic cultural decay. This insidious approach, driven by Islamofascist ambitions to establish a global caliphate by edict in the Quran, leverages demographic trends and ideological voids to reshape Western societies. Without decisive action, the West risks surrendering its cultural identity—and its sovereignty—to an ideology that thrives where purpose falters.
Islam’s rapid territorial expansion in its first century, from Arabia to Spain and India, was no accident. The Rashidun and Umayyad caliphs, fueled by religious zeal and the promise of divine reward, absorbed Byzantine and Persian territories through military campaigns. The Quran’s Surah 9:29, urging Muslims to fight non-believers until they submit or pay tribute, and Hadith glorifying martyrdom provided theological justification for conquest.
The caliphate system, merging religious and political authority, incentivized expansion with wealth, slaves, and converts, while the jizya tax pressured non-Muslims to convert or live as second-class citizens.
This martial ethos persisted through history. The Ottoman Empire’s sieges of Constantinople in 1453 and Vienna in 1683 reflected a lustful vision of universal Islamic rule. While critics point to Christianity’s Crusades, Islam’s sustained emphasis on military jihad and its rapid global spread distinguish it from the long-passed conquest-oriented actions of Christianity. Today, this legacy, which includes the ongoing employment of terrorism, informs Islamist strategies, adapting conquest to modern contexts through demographic and cultural means.
Meanwhile, Western culture, increasingly unmoored by progressive nihilism, offers fertile ground for Islamist ambitions. Postmodern skepticism, prioritizing subjective experience over objective truth, has eroded traditional sources of meaning—religion, family, and national identity. Pew Research (2022) reveals 78% of Americans distrust government and media, reflecting a broader disillusionment. The rejection of religious frameworks as oppressive leaves individuals adrift, seeking purpose in consumerism or digital escapism.
Progressive ideals, rooted in Marxism, like equity of outcome over equality of opportunity, often mask cynicism. The deconstruction of institutions—evident in movements questioning gender norms or moral absolutes—creates a worldview where nothing is sacred. Popular media, glorifying irony and detachment, and activism, spiraling into performative outrage, amplify this emptiness. Nietzsche’s warning of a world without value resonates as individuals, obsessed with “authenticity,” become trapped in narcissistic self-absorption, detached from communal standards.
This nihilism breeds despair. The focus on systemic flaws, while rarely valid, frames life as an endless power struggle, leaving unparented and unmentored youth vulnerable to ideologies offering pseudo-certainty. Islam, with its rigid totalitarian framework and perceived sense of community, fills this void for some, particularly when secular individualism fails to provide enduring significance.
Because of this, Islamofascists are exploiting the West’s cultural weaknesses through a soft jihad of demographic dominance. Immigration from Muslim-majority countries, often unchecked due to lenient immigration and open border policies, has swelled Muslim populations in Europe and North America. Studies project Muslims could reach 20% of Europe’s population by 2050, driven by fertility rates of 2.6 children per Muslim woman compared to 1.6 for non-Muslims. In cities like Malmö, Sweden, and parts of London and Paris, high Muslim birth rates and migration have transformed neighborhoods, creating enclaves resistant to integration and “no-go zones.”
While a portion of Muslim immigrants seek economic opportunity, Islamofascist factions target and manipulate these communities. Sharia councils, radical mosques, and separatist organizations promote parallel societies, undermining Western values and encouraging non-assimilation.
For example, in the UK, over 80 sharia courts operate, handling disputes outside secular law, often enforcing patriarchal norms. Radical preachers, like Anjem Choudary, exploit disaffected youth, channeling their alienation into extremism. The 2017 Manchester Arena bombing, perpetrated by a British-born Muslim radicalized locally, underscores this threat.
Islamofascists also seek to capitalize on Western legal protections. Free speech and religious freedom, noble in principle, are abused to shield extremist and incendiary rhetoric. In Germany, Salafist groups distribute Qurans in public squares, framing it as outreach while actually recruiting for radical causes. This calculated strategy erodes cultural cohesion, as Islamofascists present their ideology as a superior alternative to the West’s fractured identity.
The West’s nihilistic tendencies amplify this soft jihad. Declining faith—only 20% of Europeans attend religious services regularly—weakens resistance to Islam’s aggressive worldview. Eroding family structures, with birth rates below replacement levels in countries like Germany (1.5 children per woman), contrast with Muslim communities’ robust growth. National pride, vilified as xenophobic, leaves societies hesitant to defend their values. In France, debates over banning the burqa sparked accusations of Islamophobia, paralyzing efforts to protect established cultural and secular norms.
Secular individualism, while empowering, lacks the rigid structural framework Islam enforces on its devout. Disaffected youth, alienated by a culture glorifying irony, are prime targets for radicalization. The Islamic State’s online propaganda, slickly produced and promising a purpose through jihad, false as this promise may be, lured thousands of Western Muslims to Syria. Even moderate Islam, with its emphasis on submission and community, appeals to those craving structure in a relativistic world.
To halt this dangerous advance, the West must act decisively to counter this soft jihad. Immigration policies must prioritize cultural compatibility, vetting entrants for ideological alignment with Western values. Integration must be assertively cultivated, dismantling parallel institutions like sharia courts and banning foreign funding for mosques. Radical networks, exploiting free speech to advance jihad through terrorism and national subversion, must face stricter scrutiny—hate preachers should be disenfranchised or prosecuted when appropriate under the law, not platformed.
Equally critical is the West’s rejection of nihilism. The West must revive civic pride, family values, and a shared moral vision rooted in its Judeo-Christian heritage (America First, anyone?). Educational curricula should pivot away from the condemnation of Western history and, instead, emphasize Western achievements, countering narratives of guilt, blame, and decline. Policies supporting higher native birth rates, like Hungary’s family incentives, could help in balancing demographic trends.
Islam’s soft jihad, through territorial acquisition and higher fertility rates, exploits the West’s nihilistic decay to advance a Quran-mandated global caliphate. Without an abrupt pivot away from this status quo, the West risks a future where Islamist and Islamofascist influence dominates, not through conquest through violent jihad but through demographic and ideological triumph.
By rediscovering its purpose—through cultural renewal and resolute policies—the West can halt this quiet invasion; the soft jihad of conquest. Failure to act invites a future where the call to prayer drowns out church bells, and sharia supplants secular law.
The choice is clear: revive or submit.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
To wrap things up, politics and the events shaping our world aren’t just distant happenings; they influence our everyday lives, the neighborhoods we live in, and the deeper spirit of our nation. We’re not bystanders in all of this—we’re the keepers of the truth, the ones holding the line for the ideals that give America its spark. Choosing to stay informed isn’t optional; it’s a serious responsibility, a deliberate stand against the blur of misinformation and spin. It’s on us to cut through the static, challenge power, and keep this Republic strong and wild and free.
But it goes beyond just knowing what’s going on. Truth is a bridge. It’s what sparks those honest, sometimes gritty conversations with your family, your friends, maybe even a neighbor you barely know. And it’s in those moments, in those small exchanges, that we start to rediscover something we’re constantly told is lost: our unity. The cracks begin to heal when we choose to listen, when we find our shared values tucked beneath the noise. That connection? That’s where our true power lives. It’s bigger than votes and elections—it’s the beating heart of what this country stands for.
So seek the truth. Share it. Talk about it. Let it light up your conversations, your relationships, and your daily choices. Let it fuel your fire for this messy, beautiful experiment we call America. Because at the end of the day, we’re not just citizens of this country—we’re family. We’re in this together. We’re a wild, diverse patchwork of people bound by a shared belief in liberty, fairness, and the idea that we can always do better, aiming for that ever-elusive “more perfect union.”
Let’s keep pushing for it. The power is already in our hands.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Why Traditional Democrats Must Purge The Radical Left
16 Mai· Underground USA
This may sound like I am giving the opposition advice or letting them see a crafted playbook to a better place than where they are. I am not. What I am suggesting is the carving away and extermination of an ideological cancer that has allowed Marxism to infiltrate our two-party system. Without championing rehabilitative measures for a once loyal opposition, balance and compromise—checks-and-balances—are dead, and a troubled future awaits our Republic.
The Democrat Party is teetering on the brink of extinction, its once-sturdy foundation crumbling under the corrosive weight of progressivism. This ideological scourge, ignited by Woodrow Wilson’s hubristic vision of societal overhaul, has split the party into two warring factions: traditional Democrats and their progressive overlords.
Traditional Democrats, anchored in pragmatic liberalism, strive to serve as the loyal opposition to Republican dominance, advocating for incremental reforms that uplift without destabilizing. Progressives, however, are a wrecking ball, obsessed with dismantling American institutions in pursuit of unattainable utopias.
In examining the gulf between these factions, the reality of how progressives have degraded the Democrat Party is exposed, and an argument emerges for why traditional Democrats must ruthlessly expel this toxic ideology to restore their party as a principled counterbalance, not a competitor for Republican supremacy.
Traditional Democrats draw from the legacies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy, championing a robust social safety net, labor rights, and moderate reforms that expand opportunity within America’s institutional framework. Their approach hinged on coalition-building, appealing to working-class voters, minorities, and moderates through policies like Social Security, the Civil Rights Act, and incremental healthcare reforms. As the loyal opposition, they aimed to refine Republican policies, ensuring governance remains balanced and inclusive.
Progressives, by contrast, are the torchbearers of Wilson’s radical idealism, which posited government as the architect of a perfect society. Revived by figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Bernie Sanders, they push sweeping, often impractical policies—the Green New Deal, Medicare for All, defunding the police—that prioritize ideological purity over feasibility. They wield identity politics as a weapon, shaming dissenters and enforcing conformity through sanctimonious posturing. Unlike traditional Democrats, who sought consensus to check Republican power, progressives crave dominance, alienating allies with their refusal to compromise and their elitist scorn for working-class voters, whom they dismiss as “uninformed,” “deplorable,” and “privileged.”
The cultural divide is evident. Traditional Democrats embrace democracy’s messiness, viewing compromise as governance’s lifeblood. Progressives see compromise as betrayal, torching bridges with their dogmatic insistence on radical upheaval. Their elitism, cloaked in social justice rhetoric, has morphed the Democrat Party into a caricature—a party that once championed the common man now berates and ridicules him for his shortcomings.
Progressivism’s seeds, sown in Wilson’s era, have grown into a choking vine, strangling the Democrat Party’s ability to function. Since the 2010s and the election of Barack Obama, progressives have steered the party toward policies and rhetoric that repel its traditional base. The 2020 election laid bare this damage: while Joe Biden, an opportunistically self-serving albeit traditional Democrat (by a functional stretch of the imagination), won the presidency, down-ballot losses signaled voters’ rejection of progressive extremism. Slogans like “defund the police” and an unabashed embrace of ANTIFA anarchy gifted Republicans a narrative to paint Democrats as reckless, while the party’s fixation on identity politics—pushing divisive concepts like critical race theory and gender ideology—pushed away moderates and working-class voters who prioritize economic concerns over culture wars.
Progressives have also turned the party into a crucible of ideological conformity via cancel culture. Dissenters, even within the party, are vilified, as seen in the attacks on moderates like Joe Manchin or Kyrsten Sinema. This internal purge has smothered debate, replacing policy discussions with dogmatic litmus tests. The result is a party that preaches rather than persuades, undermining its role as the loyal opposition and thrusting it toward a doomed bid for ideological hegemony.
Economically, progressive policies have branded the party as fiscally impetuous. The Green New Deal’s multi-trillion-dollar cost and calls for universal basic income flout budgetary realities, eroding the party’s credibility. Traditional Democrats, once synonymous with fiscal prudence, are now shackled to fantasies that alienate voters. The progressive push for “equity” over equality has further warped the party’s commitment to fairness, replacing merit with quotas and reparative measures that sow resentment.
Traditional Democrats must act decisively to purge progressivism and restore their party as the loyal opposition, not an antithesis of Republican dominance. Today, progressivism is electoral kryptonite, cultural dynamite, and a betrayal of the party’s core principles.
First, progressives are electoral poison. Their radical policies repel swing voters, as evidenced in the 2022 midterms, where candidates who shunned progressive dogma outperformed those who embraced it. To return to competitiveness, Democrats must reject progressive branding and champion pragmatic policies that counterbalance Republican priorities without seeking to supplant them.
Second, progressives erode social cohesion. Their obsession with identity politics and cancel culture pits Americans against one another, fostering division over unity. Traditional Democrats, who once bridged divides through shared economic goals, must reject this grievance-driven approach to rally voters around common interests.
Third, progressivism betrays the Democrat Party’s legacy. The party of FDR and JFK was built on hope, opportunity, and incremental progress—not Wilsonian utopias or moral crusades. By expelling progressives, traditional Democrats can refocus on policies that strengthen their role as a constructive opposition, serving all Americans.
And finally, Democrats, in general, need to “move on” from the irrationality of Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s one thing to oppose a policy when you have a viable alternative that benefits all Americans. However, opposing policies that are beneficial for our Republic for the sake of political opportunism, like progressives are currently doing, harms our country and continues to damage the Democrat Party.
Expelling progressives demands courage and resolve, something in short supply in today’s Democrat Party. Traditional Democrats must publicly denounce progressive policies, exposing and explaining their impracticality and divisiveness. Party leaders should marginalize progressive figures like David Hogg and Jasmine Crockett, denying them platforms, influential positions, and endorsements. Primaries must become arenas where moderates reclaim the party’s soul, backing candidates who prioritize pragmatism over ideology.
The Democrat National Committee must overhaul its messaging, jettisoning buzzwords like “equity” and “systemic oppression” for language that resonates with everyday Americans—jobs, border security, healthcare, tax reform. By centering economic populism and social moderation, traditional Democrats can begin the long journey of rebuilding a coalition spanning class, race, and geography, positioning the party as a loyal opposition that refines, rather than destructively rivals, Republican governance.
If traditional Democrats fail to act, progressivism will devour their party, driving its moderates to defect to the Republican Party in droves. This exodus, already underway with voters and elected officials alike, will accelerate, leaving the Democrat Party a hollow husk—its influence eroded, its base fractured, and its legacy buried.
The Democrat Party’s continued embrace of progressivism will not just weaken its role as the loyal opposition; it will facilitate the death of the party entirely. To save their party, and in its current state, an argument can be successfully made to let it die, traditional Democrats must wield the scalpel with precision, severing the progressive rot before it consigns their party to oblivion.
Less the death of the progressive movement, the country—and the world—would be better off without today’s Democrat Party.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
In the end, here’s the truth: Headlines aren’t just chatter—they’re the arena where our future takes shape! Politics and current events mold our lives, our communities, and the fabric of our nation. We’re not bystanders; we’re custodians of truth, defenders of the principles that make America what it is and should be. Staying informed isn’t optional—it’s an obligation, a fearless stand against deception and distortion. We must cut through the noise to hold power accountable and keep our Republic vibrant and free.
But it goes deeper. Truth sparks connection—those honest, heartfelt talks with family, friends, or even a stranger you meet in passing. In these moments, we rediscover the unity we’re told is gone. Division fades when we truly hear each other, when we reconnect with the values that bind us. That’s our strength, our unshakable power—a force that transcends voting booths and reflects the soul of America.
So, chase the truth, forge those bonds, and let your passion for this Great American Experiment burn brightly. We’re not just citizens—we’re brothers, sisters, allies, united by a legacy of freedom and justice, striving together for that “more perfect union.” Let’s make it happen. The power is ours.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Judicial Overreach & Congressional Inaction: A Betrayal Of The Electorate’s Mandate
12 Mai· Underground USA
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 Powers. But where is the urgency? Where is the resolve to push these bills through with the same fervor that Trump brings to his reformative agenda?
More infuriating still is Congress’s failure to codify Trump’s executive orders into law through stand-alone legislation, ensuring that every member of the House and Senate is on record with their votes for the electorate to see. The president has issued a slew of orders aimed at restoring constitutionality, streamlining government, and eliminating waste, fraud, and spendthrift policies. These orders are not mere suggestions; they are a clarion call for a return to fiscal sanity and national sovereignty. Yet, the Republican Congress, with its majority in both chambers, has not moved to enshrine these policies in statute through individual bills that demand transparency and accountability from every legislator. Why? Are they afraid of the political fallout? Do they lack the spine to take a stand? Or are they simply content to coast on Trump’s coattails without doing the hard work of governing?
Codifying Trump’s orders through stand-alone legislation would serve multiple purposes:
* First, it would force every member of Congress to publicly declare their stance, allowing voters to hold them accountable.
* Second, it would provide a legislative bulwark against judicial overreach, as statutory law is far harder for courts to overturn than executive actions.
* Third, it would ensure the longevity of Trump’s reforms, protecting them from reversal by future administrations.
The fact that Republicans have not prioritized this task is a scandal of epic proportions.
The clock is ticking. Republicans have until the 2026 Mid-Term Elections to deliver on the mandate they were given. Every day they waste is a day that activist judges and their allies in the Deep State gain ground. The American people didn’t elect Trump and a Republican Congress to watch them dither and delay. They elected them to act—to cut through the bureaucratic morass, to restore constitutional governance, and to put America first.
Congress must immediately pass legislation to limit the scope of federal district courts, explicitly prohibiting nationwide injunctions that affect non-parties. They must also move with all deliberate speed to codify Trump’s executive orders through stand-alone legislation, from immigration enforcement to spending reforms to the dismantling of woke bureaucratic programs, ensuring that every legislator’s vote is recorded for posterity. These are not optional tasks; they are imperatives for the survival of our Republic.
The American people are watching, and we are growing impatient. If Republicans continue to move at a snail’s pace, they risk squandering the greatest opportunity in a generation to reshape the federal government in the image of its founding principles.
The time for excuses is over. It’s time for We the People to demand action, to whip our elected representatives into line, and to hold them accountable for their inaction.
The judiciary may think it can rule by fiat, but Congress has the power—and the duty—to prove them wrong. The question is whether they have the courage to do so and whether our continued support for them is worth it.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Politics and current events in the headlines; they aren’t just noise—their consequences carve the path for our lives, our communities, and the future of our nation. They demand our attention, not as passive observers, but as guardians of the principles that define us. To stay informed is a patriotic duty, a quiet yet powerful act of stewardship. It’s not just about knowing the latest hot topics—it’s about piercing through the fog of spin and clickbait to uncover the truth. This vigilance holds those in power accountable, ensuring the Republic we cherish remains true to its founding ideals.
And engagement doesn’t end with understanding. It flows into the conversations we share—with family, friends, or the neighbor we come to have a moment with. These exchanges, rooted in listening and connection, reveal the common ground we’re often told doesn’t exist. The forces that thrive on division falter when we unite; when we rediscover the shared values that bind us as Americans. In this unity lies our strength, a united resolve that transcends mere voting and becomes a living testament to our nation’s spirit.
So, seek the truth, foster connections, and let your commitment to the shared Great American Experiment reflect the heart of what it means to be American. Together, we’re not just citizens—we’re neighbors, allies, united in a legacy of liberty and justice, ever striving for that more perfect union.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Elevation Of Pope Leo XIV: A New Era For The World
9 Mai· Underground USA
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 which Francis often entangled himself.
The election of an American pope carries profound geopolitical implications, particularly in the context of the Trump administration’s return to power in 2025. The Trump administration’s platform, rooted in constitutionalism, individual liberty, and skepticism of globalist frameworks, resonates with a segment of American Catholics who felt marginalized under Francis’s papacy. The selection of Leo XIV, a figure with deep ties to the United States, can be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of these values within the Vatican.
Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum explicitly rejected socialism, warning against ideologies that “rob the lawful possessor” and reduce individuals to “a molecule within the social organism.” Leo XIV’s alignment with this legacy suggests a potential criticism of globalist policies that prioritize supranational systems over national sovereignty and personal freedom. His elevation may very well reflect the College of Cardinals’ recognition of the need to engage with the United States—a global superpower and a bastion of Catholic conservatism—as a counterweight to secular and socialist trends in Europe and beyond.
Furthermore, Leo XIV’s missionary experience in Latin America positions him to address immigration and economic inequality, issues central to both the Trump administration and the Church. Unlike Francis, who was negatively critical of Trump’s immigration policies, Leo XIV may adopt a more diplomatic tone, emphasizing the Church’s role in fostering dialogue and supporting local solutions. This approach aligns with the Trump administration’s focus on national sovereignty and community-based governance, potentially strengthening ties between the Vatican and Washington.
The elevation of Pope Leo XIV marks a pivotal moment for the Catholic Church, blending the global perspective of a missionary with the intellectual legacy of Leo XIII. While building on Pope Francis’s pastoral outreach, Leo XIV’s papacy promises a return to traditional Catholic principles, emphasizing individual dignity, subsidiarity, and doctrinal clarity. His American background and the choice of the name Leo signal a strategic alignment with values of constitutionalism and freedom, resonating with the Trump administration’s rejection of socialist globalism.
As the first American pope, Leo XIV stands at the crossroads of faith and geopolitics, poised to shape the Church’s role in a rapidly changing world. Until and unless I am led to feel otherwise, it is my hope of hopes that Pope Leo XIV will be a reformative change agent for the Catholic Church, much like Donald Trump is for the United States.
Vivat Papa!
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Remember, politics, policies, the headlines swirling around us—it’s more than just noise. It’s the stuff shaping our lives, our communities, and our future. So, here’s your call to action: dive in. Skip the clickbait, question the spin, and chase the truth. Staying informed isn’t just about knowing what’s up—it’s about holding those in power accountable, and we have the power to do that.
But don’t stop there. Take what you learn and talk about it; with your family, your friends, even that neighbor you just wave to. Share your thoughts, not to argue or provoke, but to connect. When we open up and really listen, we find out we’ve got more in common than we’re led to believe. That’s the secret the folks in Washington don’t want us to know. They thrive on dividing us, but when we come together, when we find that common ground, we’re unstoppable.
So, keep digging, keep talking, and be the one who builds bridges, not walls. Together, we’re not just voters—we’re neighbors, allies, and Americans united for real change, rooted in the values this country was built on. Stay curious, and start those conversations!

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Black America's Addiction to Violence & Entitlement
5 Mai· Underground USA
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 breeds frustration and failure, indirectly feeding violent impulses.
Equally guilty are race-baiting and opportunistic Black politicians who milk racial grievances for clout while dodging intracommunity accountability. Figures like US Reps. Maxine Waters (D-CA) and Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) federally, and local leaders like Chicago’s Brandon Johnson and Los Angeles’s Karen Bass, both Democrats, peddle divisive rhetoric and deflectionary excuses that inflate entitlement and sidestep the scourge of internal violence. Their political posturing over real solutions lets this culture of violence fester.
The Black community must reject this systemic inertia and these opportunistic charlatans, seizing its narrative through accountability and honest dialogue; seizing it in an effort to pivot away from the devastating and metastasizing status quo.
Failure to act will doom the community to a grim fate: spiraling violence, mounting mortality numbers, fractured unity, and enduring and even validated stereotypes that will choke progress to true equality and opportunity for decades.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Let’s hit on something very important: staying awake—not woke—and involved. Politics, policies, what’s happening out there—it’s not just noise and news clips; it’s the stuff that shapes our days, our towns, our tomorrow. Get in the habit of diving deep. Skip the sensationalistic headlines, challenge the spin, and hunt down the facts. Knowing what’s what gives you the upper hand—it’s how we keep the folks in charge on their toes.
But don’t just soak it all in. Bring it up with your people—your family, your buddies, your coworkers, even the guy next door you just nod at. Share what’s on your mind, not to preach or pick a fight, but to connect. When we talk with real openness, something incredible happens: we realize we’re way more alike than we are different. That’s the truth the Washington players don’t want you to see. They feed off splitting us up, keeping us at each other’s throats. But when we link up, when we hear each other out and find that shared ground, we’re a force they can’t ignore.
So, keep digging and start those conversations. Be the one who builds bridges, not walls. Together, we can show the powers that be we’re not just box checkers on a ballot—we’re neighbors, allies—we’re all Americans, and we are all a part of a united push for real change rooted in what this country was built on.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Threat Of The Globalist Left’s Cultural Imperialism
2 Mai· Underground USA
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 single ideology, smothering creativity and individuality. If this cancer spreads, we face a dystopian world where dissent is annihilated, and personal liberty is crushed beneath the boot of ideological tyranny. In China, it means the genocide of entire cultures; in Islamic states, the strangulation of personal rights; in the West, the death of open debate and democratic pluralism.
The far-Left’s role in this, with its disingenuous, virtue-signaling, sanctimonious crusades, is nothing short of deceitful, aping the authoritarianism it pretends to despise.
Everyone should live authentically, true to their beliefs and identities. But in expecting others to respect your beliefs and identities, comes the responsibility to respect others' beliefs and identities, and that means stopping incredibly short of imposing conformity or absolute acceptance of your personal dogma onto others. Be who you want to be, but respect everyone else’s right to do so as well.
Through it all, we all must embrace our shared American culture, the unique American culture. By defending open discourse, protecting free speech, and dismantling the far-Left’s dogmatic stranglehold, we can repel the suffocating tide of cultural imperialism, allowing everyone to live their lives in a manner in which they enjoy.
But, failure to act against cultural imperialism—acquiescence to totalitarian conformity in any of its forms—condemns us to a future where one ideology reigns supreme, and freedom is obliterated, leaving only a desolate intellectual wasteland of enforced conformity.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
In Closing…
Let’s talk about that vital thing: staying informed and engaged. Politics, government, current events—these aren’t just headlines or talking points; they shape our lives, our communities, our future. Make it a habit to dig into what’s happening. Read beyond the soundbites, question narratives, and seek out primary sources. Knowledge is power, and it’s how we hold those in charge accountable.
But don’t stop there. Talk about these things with your family, friends, colleagues, even that neighbor you only wave to. Share your thoughts—sincerely, not with an agenda or a raised fist. When we approach these conversations with open hearts, something amazing happens: we discover we have far more in common than we do differences. That’s the secret the political game players in Washington DC don’t want you to know. They thrive on division, on keeping us at odds. But when we connect, when we listen and find common ground, we become unstoppable.
So, stay curious, and start those conversations. Be the bridge, not the wall. Together, we can remind those in power that we’re not just voters—we’re neighbors, friends, and a united force for reformative change back to constitutionalism.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The FDA's Disgraceful Stranglehold on Medical Innovation Denies Millions Critical Treatments
28 Apr· Underground USA
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 get the fast-track treatment. Meanwhile, innovative therapies like those pioneered by Dr. Prodromos and insights like those from Dr. Tedone are buried under a mountain of paperwork and indifference.
This cannot continue. The American people deserve better. We must demand immediate action to overhaul the FDA’s dysfunctional approval process and break Big Pharma’s stranglehold on medical innovation. First, Congress must enact legislation to allow informed-consent use of exosome therapies for patients with life-threatening conditions, bypassing the FDA’s endless delays. Second, the government must fund large-scale research into the connection between borrelia and cancers and neurodegenerative diseases, building on Dr. Tedone’s findings. Finally, the FDA’s leadership must be held accountable, with reforms to eliminate conflicts of interest and prioritize patient outcomes over corporate profits.
The time for half-measures is over. Every day, patients lose ground to diseases that could be treated if only the FDA and Big Pharma valued lives over dollars. We must flood our Senators and Representatives with calls, letters, and protests, demanding that exosome therapies be made available now. We must amplify the voices of pioneers like Dr. Prodromos and Dr. Tedone, who are fighting against a system rigged to suppress progress for profit.
This is a fight for the soul of American medicine; this is a fight for each and every person afflicted with these cruel diseases, and it is a fight we cannot afford to lose.
Rise up! Speak out! And demand change before another life is lost to bureaucratic apathy.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
The FDA's Disgraceful Stranglehold on Medical Innovation: Redux
As we wrap up today’s episode, let’s be clear: the FDA’s dysfunctional drug trial process is a national disgrace, robbing millions of hope and health. While Europe, Japan, and the Caribbean embrace exosome therapies derived from ethically sourced stem cells—donated by women post-C-section, not fetal tissue—the US remains shackled by bureaucracy and Big Pharma’s greed.
Dr. Chadwick C. Prodromos has shown these therapies achieve an 80% success rate in treating Parkinson’s, ALS, Autism, Alzheimer’s, Lewy Body Dementia, and MS, with no adverse effects. Yet, the FDA’s endless red tape keeps these life-changing treatments out of reach for over 10 million Americans suffering from these diseases.
Equally outrageous is the neglect of Dr. Vincent M. Tedone’s research linking borrelia bacteria to cancers and neurodegenerative disorders. Despite compelling evidence, Big Pharma and government agencies like the NIH refuse to act, funneling billions into profitable vaccines instead of addressing root causes. This isn’t oversight—it’s a betrayal of patients.
The FDA’s hypocrisy is glaring: it fast-tracked poorly researched COVID-19 vaccines, mandating their use despite later-revealed risks, but drags its feet on safe, proven exosome therapies. Why? Because Big Pharma’s profits eclipse human lives.
Every day, patients deteriorate while the FDA demands redundant trials for therapies already effective in small studies. Informed-consent protocols could immediately deliver relief to millions, but the FDA, beholden to corporate interests, stalls. This isn’t caution—it’s cruelty. We can’t sit idly by as lives are lost to bureaucratic apathy, collusion, and corruption.
This is a call to action. Demand that Congress pass laws for informed-consent exosome access. Push for funding to explore borrelia’s role in disease, building on Dr. Tedone’s work. Hold the FDA accountable, stripping away its conflicts of interest. Flood your representatives with calls, emails, and protests. Amplify the voices of pioneers like Prodromos and Tedone, who fight a rigged system. The time for complacency is over.
Every moment we delay, another patient loses hope. This is a fight for the soul of American medicine, and we must win it—now. Please, act today, because tomorrow may be too late.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Fall of Klaus Schwab & The World Economic Forum's Globalist Empire
25 Apr· Underground USA
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 demands more than ousting one figurehead. As the Heritage Foundation’s Roberts declared at Davos in 2024, conservatives must reject every WEF proposal wholesale, from its climate alarmism to its borderless fantasies. The WEF’s vision—where unelected bureaucrats dictate economic and social policy—clashes with the principles of self-governance and accountability. Roberts’ call to return power to the American people, just as we are hearing from leaders of movements advocating sovereignty around the free world, isn’t just a conservative rallying cry; it’s a universal demand for liberty against the creeping authoritarianism of globalist institutions.
Schwab’s fall is a cautionary tale of what happens when unchecked power festers behind a facade of moral superiority. The WEF, under his stewardship, became a caricature of elitism, preaching “resilience” and “inclusion” while indulging in excess and discrimination. As the probe unfolds, the world will watch to see if the Forum can reform itself or if it will double down on its discredited agenda, and whether its actions are enough to stem the call for its dismantling altogether. For now, Schwab’s resignation is a crack in the globalist edifice—a reminder that no one, not even the self-styled pseudo-savior of the world, is above scrutiny.
The backlash against the WEF is more than a moment; it’s a movement. From Trump’s America to populist uprisings across Europe and Latin America, people are rejecting the Davos dogma that has enriched elites while impoverishing freedom. The task ahead is clear: dismantle the globalist frameworks that prioritize control over prosperity, and restore power to nations and their citizens.
Schwab’s exit is a start, but the real work lies in ensuring the WEF’s vision of a “great reset” remains a failed dream, consigned to the ash heap of history.
The End Of Dick Durbin &The Urgent Need for Illinois Conservatism
For nearly three decades, US Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) has sat in the Senate, a fixture of Illinois’ Democrat machine, wielding influence that has steadily chipped away at the sovereignty, freedom, and individual rights of Americans. As the Democrat Whip and a loyal servant of Chicago’s progressive elite, Durbin’s tenure is a case study in governmental overreach, urban dominance, and the betrayal of Illinois’ heartland values.
Durbin’s policies have empowered the Deep State bureaucracy, undermined personal liberties, and entrenched the Illinois Democrat Party’s stranglehold on a state that was once a bastion of conservative principles in the 1980s and 1990s. Worse, as Durbin has announced he will not seek re-election in 2026, the prospect of his replacement—likely another Chicago-machine-backed, smoky backroom-supported neo-Marxist—threatens to deepen this erosion.
Illinois, a state that must re-embrace its conservative roots, faces a critical juncture to reject the cancer of urban encroachment and restore its statewide sovereignty.
Durbin’s record is a litany of assaults on individual freedom. His relentless push for the DREAM Act since 2001, and his advocacy for DACA, prioritizes illegal immigrants over American citizens, undermining national sovereignty by incentivizing unchecked migration. Critics have called this a “masterclass in bureaucratic overreach,” arguing it diverts resources from hardworking Illinoisans to those who bypass legal pathways.
Durbin’s support for the Affordable Care Act’s expansion, another federal overstep, has ballooned costs and forced citizens into a broken healthcare system, eroding personal choice under the guise of compassion. His sponsorship of the Combating Online Infringement & Counterfeits Act and the PROTECT IP Act in 2010 and 2011, respectively, sparked outrage among digital rights activists, who warned of censorship and First Amendment violations. The Electronic Frontier Foundation condemned these bills for enabling government overreach into online speech, a direct threat to individual liberty.
As Senate Judiciary Committee chair from 2021 to 2025, Durbin’s leadership facilitated far-Left progressive judicial appointments that further tilted the federal bench toward activist interpretations of the law, undermining the constitutional protections of property rights and free expression.
His initial anti-abortion stance in the 1980s, which aligned with Illinois’ then conservative leanings, gave way to a full-throated embrace of abortion rights, reflecting not principle but political expediency. This flip-flop, justified by the lame excuse of “personal reflection,” mirrors his broader shift from representing Illinois’ rural heartland to serving Chicago’s urban elite. The National Journal once ranked him the Senate’s most liberal member, and GovTracks.us ranked him the 13th most liberal member of the US Senate in 2024, a far cry from the moderate image he cultivated early in his career to get elected.
Since the turn of the millennium, Illinois’ political landscape has been warped by far-Left Chicago Democrats, who have turned a state with a proud conservative history into a neo-Marxist progressive fiefdom.
Before the progressive onslaught, Illinois elected Republican senators like Charles Percy and Mark Kirk, reflecting a “red state” ethos that valued limited government and individual responsibility. Today, the Illinois Democrat Party, controlled by Chicago’s smoky backroom machine, suffocates the state’s rural and suburban voices. Urban encroachment—with Chicago’s progressive policies, crime, and cultural dominance spilling into once-conservative suburbs—has diluted the values of communities like Naperville, Hinsdale, Oak Brook, Schaumburg, and Downers Grove, not to mention formerly solid red counties like DuPage, Will, and Lake. This cancer of urban spillover, facilitated by Durbin’s policies, imposed high taxes, regulatory burdens, and social engineering on suburbs that once thrived as conservative strongholds.
Durbin’s departure could usher in a successor even more radical and more opposed to individual freedom. Potential replacements like Lt. Gov. Juliana Stratton or Reps. Raja Krishnamoorthi, Lauren Underwood, Robin Kelly or, God forbid, former Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel—all tied to Chicago’s corrupt Democrat machine—promise to double down on far-Left agendas. Krishnamoorthi, with $13.5 million in campaign funds, could leverage urban wealth to drown out downstate voices. Underwood’s progressive posturing, including her vote against condemning support for terrorist groups, signals a willingness to prioritize ideology over principle.
A WBEZ report noted Durbin’s influence gave Illinois outsized federal clout; his successor, likely another far-Left urban-backed Democrat, could wield that power to further erode state sovereignty by pushing for federalized healthcare, gun control, or climate mandates that clash with Illinois’ rural values.
Illinois must reject this trajectory to the globalist Left and return to its conservative roots. The state’s conservative resurgence in the 1980s and 1990s, driven by figures such as Gov. Jim Edgar and Illinois Senate President James ‘Pate' Philip, demonstrated that limited government, fiscal responsibility, and respect for individual rights resonate with voters. A Republican like US Rep. Darin LaHood (R-IL), noted for his center-Right appeal and Peoria roots, could challenge the Democrat machine by focusing on economic freedom and border security, issues that resonate in Illinois’ suburbs and rural counties.
The Cook County Democrat Party’s pre-slating meetings in April 2026 will likely anoint a Chicago loyalist, but a conservative groundswell would stand a good chance of disrupting this coronation.
The stakes are high. Durbin’s legacy—government overreach, urban spillover into the suburbs, eroded freedoms, and exploding crime—threatens to metastasize under a successor beholden to Chicago’s elites. Illinois, once a red state, must reclaim its conservative soul to protect its sovereignty and restore the individual rights of its citizens.
The 2026 election is a battle for the state’s future and a chance to reject the cancer of urban encroachment and to rebuild a free, prosperous Illinois.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Narrowing Federal District Court Jurisdiction To Curb Lawfare
21 Apr· Underground USA
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, limiting equitable relief to the parties before them. The Supreme Court criticized this practice in Trump v. Hawaii (2018), noting that such injunctions “undermine the structural design of the federal judiciary.” Legislation could reserve broader relief for circuit courts or the Supreme Court, reducing the disruptive impact of rulings like Xinis’s in Abrego Garcia.
Third, Congress can strip jurisdiction over APA-based challenges to executive actions within the President’s constitutional authority, such as immigration enforcement. The APA’s judicial review provisions (5 USC §§ 701-706) are statutory, not constitutional, and thus amendable. Franklin v. Massachusetts (1992) clarified that presidential actions are not inherently subject to APA review, providing a basis to exempt Trump’s policies from judicial meddling, as exploited in both Abrego Garcia and the Venezuelan cases.
Congress has a track record of curbing judicial overreach.
During Reconstruction, it stripped jurisdiction to protect civil rights enforcement, as seen in Ex parte Yerger (1868). The Anti-Injunction Act (28 U.S.C. § 2283) limited federal court interference in state criminal proceedings, prioritizing federalism. The Illegal Immigration Reform & Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 restricted judicial review of deportation orders, upheld in INS v. St. Cyr (2001).
These precedents support Congress’s ability to limit district court jurisdiction to shield Trump’s agenda from lawfare by groups like the Legal Aid Justice Center or the ACLU.
Opponents may claim that restricting jurisdiction undermines access to justice or judicial independence. However, Article III subordinates lower courts to congressional oversight, and redirecting cases to higher courts or state systems preserves remedies without enabling activism.
Judicial independence demands fidelity to law, not ideological crusades. The Framers envisioned courts as neutral arbiters, not veto points for elected officials. Reforms would correct the overreach seen in cases like Abrego Garcia, where Xinis’s orders, backed by Sandoval-Moshenberg’s advocacy, intruded on executive prerogative.
Federal district courts, emboldened by activist judges and fueled by law firms like the Legal Aid Justice Center and organizations like the ACLU and CASA, have become instruments of lawfare, as evidenced by rulings in Abrego Garcia and the Venezuelan deportation case. These courts exploit vague statutes and unchecked equitable powers to obstruct Trump’s mandate.
Congress, wielding Article III authority and—supported by precedents like Ex parte McCardle and Lujan—can curb this abuse by tightening standing, banning nationwide injunctions, and limiting APA challenges. Such reforms would neutralize the judiciary’s role as a political weapon, ensuring that the will of the electorate, not unelected judges or activist lawyers like Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg or Lee Gelernt, prevails.
The time for congressional action is now to safeguard democratic governance from judicial tyranny. Inaction would be a prime example of how Republican majorities in the House and Senate mean absolutely nothing.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Selling Out Freedom To China For Cheap Crap
As a consumer nation, we must recognize the grave associated risks of buying China's third-rate, low-quality products, cheap in every sense. We’re sleepwalking into a nightmare.
Communist China’s totalitarian ambitions are a clear and present danger, aiming to reshape the world under its iron fist. The Chinese Communist Party isn’t just a rival; it’s a regime hell-bent on global dominance, crushing freedom with surveillance, censorship, and oppression. And we’re fueling our own demise every time we buy their cheap goods. Our addiction to low-cost Chinese products—phones, clothes, electronics—is bankrolling a system that seeks to bury us.
The CCP’s playbook is ruthless: flood markets with subsidized goods, hook us on their supply chains, and use the profits to expand their dystopian vision. Our outrageous trade deficit with China is a testament to our reckless dependence. Every purchase empowers a regime that runs a social credit system, jails dissenters, and commits atrocities like the Uyghur genocide. And remember, their control over 80% of rare earth minerals and critical industries like pharmaceuticals gives them leverage to choke us in a crisis. This isn’t just economics—it’s a strategic trap.
By chasing short-term savings and cheap prices—and can anyone deny that their products are junk that always fall apart or cease working in short order—we’re funding China’s Belt & Road, which has 140 countries in its debt grip, spreading authoritarianism worldwide. The CCP’s influence is eroding global democracy, 18 straight years on decline, fueled by Beijing’s support for tyrants. Our dollars strengthen their hand in Taiwan, the South China Sea, and beyond, making the fight for freedom bloodier.
We can’t keep subsidizing our own destruction. We, the American consumer, must break this addiction, even if it means higher costs.
We need tariffs. We need to reshore manufacturing and bolster alliances with free nations. The WTO must boot China from the organization for its trade scams and human rights horrors. This is a wake-up call: every Chinese product we buy tightens the CCP’s grip. We must act now, or we’ll wake up in a world where freedom is a memory, and China’s totalitarian shadow rules the world.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
How Wall Street Fuels China’s Global & Military Ambitions
18 Apr· Underground USA
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 credit system, which monitors and controls the behavior of over a billion people. A 2021 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute documented how Tencent collaborates with the PLA to develop AI-driven military applications. Yet, these firms remain fixtures in American portfolios, their risks obscured by glossy prospectuses and Wall Street’s relentless optimism.
The moral implications are equally dire. American investments are propping up companies complicit in some of the worst human rights abuses of our time. Firms like iFlytek, a leader in voice recognition technology, have been directly linked to the mass internment and forced labor of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. A 2019 Human Rights Watch report detailed how iFlytek’s technology enables the CCP to track and oppress ethnic minorities, yet its shares are traded on global exchanges and included in major indices. Every dollar invested in these companies is a dollar that sustains Beijing’s genocidal policies.
The United States cannot afford to ignore this threat. The CCP’s infiltration of global markets is not a passive phenomenon but a calculated assault on the free world’s economic and political systems. As Robinson argues, “We need a fundamental rethinking of how we allow capital to flow into these entities.” Immediate steps must include stricter SEC oversight, mandatory disclosures of Chinese firms’ ties to the PLA, and a capital markets equivalent of the Entity List to block investment in blacklisted companies.
Investors, too, must take responsibility. Pension funds, universities, and individual investors should demand transparency from fund managers and divest from indices that include CCP-linked firms. The alternative is complicity in China’s bid for global hegemony—a bid that threatens not just American security but the very principles of freedom and democracy.
The clock is ticking. If the free world does not act, the CCP’s vision of a world under its iron grip will become reality, funded by the very people it seeks to subjugate. The time for complacency is over.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The Federal Government’s AttackOn Independent Farmers & Ranchers
I wanted to highlight a disturbing report out of South Dakota that illustrates just one story among hundreds about the US federal government—in cahoots with the environmentalist lobby—targeting ranchers and farmers across the country. It’s a pathetic power-grab that we all must come together to push back against.
The US federal government’s indictment of South Dakota farmers Charles and Heather Maude for “theft” of National Grasslands is a shameful attack on rural America. Charged for cultivating and grazing 50 acres their family has managed since 1910, the Maudes face up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines each, with separate charges designed to maximize their financial burden. This bureaucratic assault reeks of malice, targeting a couple for continuing long-standing practices approved by the US Forest Service (USFS) for decades.
Keely Brazil Covello reported on this in her publication Unwon:
The Maudes’ grazing allotment has been in good standing since the USFS’s inception, with no prior objections to their land use, including irrigation and fencing arrangements. The 2020 irrigation upgrade, cited as the “theft,” involves equipment on private land, yet the government now criminalizes practices it long permitted. Neighbor Scott Edoff highlights the betrayal, noting the USFS never challenged the Maudes’ management until this sudden, vindictive indictment.
This case reflects a broader federal campaign against ranchers, with USFS agents harassing others like rancher Frank Bloom, who faces potential charges over similar fencing disputes. The government’s hypocrisy—trespassing on private land while accusing farmers of violations—is appalling. By ignoring historical agreements and pursuing punitive measures, the federal government is waging war on rural communities, demanding public outcry to protect farmers from such abuses.
We simply have to stand with our country’s ranchers and farmers. The food they provide, as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. would agree, is infinitely healthier for us than the conglomerate manufactured processed crap force-fed to us through supermarket chains. Not to mention, farmers and ranchers are part of our American fabric; our history.
It’s pathetic that we have to make a stand to protect our heritage, yet here we are…

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Communist China’s Conquest-Oriented Threat To Global Stability
14 Apr· Underground USA
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 Community
A 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, Chinese-language media outlets have been co-opted to echo Beijing’s line, while in Japan, CCP-linked donors have pressured universities to downplay human rights discussions.
The world cannot afford to appease this expansionist regime. Economic interdependence with China, once touted as a path to peace, has instead empowered the CCP to hold nations hostage. The United States, with its unmatched economic and military clout, must lead a global effort to dull China’s ability to project power. This means aggressive sanctions on Chinese firms tied to the People’s Liberation Army, tariffs to curb Beijing’s trade surpluses, and restrictions on technology transfers that fuel China’s war machine. The US has already added over 800 Chinese entities to its export control list since 2018, a move allies must emulate to starve China’s military-industrial complex.
Crippling China economically isn’t about containment—it’s about the survival of freedom. The CCP’s $18 trillion economy funds a military budget exceeding $225 billion, dwarfing regional rivals. China’s full complement of military personnel numbers over 2 million (the US complement stands at 1.3 million). Its navy, now the world’s largest by ship count, projects power from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean.
Culturally, Beijing’s soft power campaigns aim to normalize authoritarianism, undermining democratic values worldwide. By reducing China’s economic capacity, the free world can limit its ability to coerce neighbors and export its dystopian vision.
Allies like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan are on the front lines, but they cannot counter China alone. Australia’s iron ore exports, Japan’s industrial supply chains, and Taiwan’s semiconductors are critical to the global economy, yet their reliance on Chinese markets creates vulnerabilities Beijing exploits. A united front, led by the US, must diversify trade, bolster regional alliances like AUKUS and the Quad, and invest in alternative supply chains. Europe, too, must shed its ambivalence, recognizing that China’s ambitions threaten the liberal order it cherishes.
The CCP’s response to Darwin’s repatriation is a microcosm of its global strategy: bully, deflect, and demand compliance. Lin Jian’s words are not a plea for fairness but a warning of retribution. The world must reject this coercion, aligning with the U.S. to economically weaken a regime that thrives on conquest. Only by curbing China’s financial lifeblood can we blunt its military saber-rattling and cultural overreach, preserving the sovereignty and values of nations like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan. The stakes are nothing less than the future of a free world.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The Epidemic of Violence As ConflictResolution In The US Black Community
For over half a century, the Black community in the United States has been gripped by a devastating epidemic: violence as the default method for resolving conflicts. Since the 1970s, this reliance on physical confrontation—whether in street disputes or domestic clashes—has spiraled out of control, becoming a cultural reflex that threatens not only the community but American society at large.
The situation supercharged after Barack Obama’s presidency began in 2009, revealing a troubling paradox: even as a so-called Black man led the nation, the community’s descent into violence accelerated. The Black community’s persistent failure to confront this crisis head-on, coupled with its dismissal of accountability, signals a catastrophic trajectory. If left unaddressed, this epidemic risks unraveling social cohesion, deepening systemic divides, and perpetuating self-destruction.
The roots of this crisis trace back to the 1970s, when urban decay and economic decline hit Black communities hard. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data from 1975 shows homicide rates in cities like Chicago and Detroit—home to large Black populations—soaring to 30 per 100,000 residents, triple the national average. By 1980, Black Americans, roughly 12% of the population, accounted for 48% of homicide victims, with 85% of these deaths intra-communal, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS).
The crack epidemic of the 1980s and gang proliferation in the 1990s only entrenched this pattern. Homicide became the leading cause of death for Black males aged 15–34, a grim statistic that persists today, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Yet, the election of Barack Obama in 2008, hailed as a transformative moment, marked an unexpected turning point—not for healing but for escalation. Between 2009 and 2016, violent crime in Black urban neighborhoods surged. A 2017 DOJ report noted a 23% increase in homicides in cities with significant Black populations during Obama’s tenure, compared to a 7% rise nationally. Chicago, Obama’s adopted hometown, saw murders climb from 459 in 2008 to 797 in 2016, with Black victims comprising 78% of the toll, per Chicago Police Department data. Nationwide, the CDC recorded a 31% spike in Black homicide rates from 2014 to 2016 alone, reaching 37 per 100,000 for Black males—eight times the national average. Firearms were involved in 91% of these cases.
This supercharging wasn’t just statistical—it was cultural. The Obama era, paradoxically, saw violence romanticized further. Social media platforms like YouTube and Vine (later Instagram) exploded with videos of Black youth brawls and shootings, racking up millions of views. A 2015 Journal of Urban Health study found 41% of Black teens in high-risk areas had engaged in physical fights to settle disputes, up from 33% in the early 2000s. Music glorifying “drills” and retribution dominated airwaves, with a 2018 American Journal of Public Health study linking such media to a 17% rise in aggressive behavior among Black youth. Yet, the community shrugged, treating these as mere entertainment rather than warning signs.
Why the escalation post-2008? Some cite systemic issues—poverty, segregation, joblessness—which persisted under Obama. A 2016 Pew Research study noted that 65% of Black families in the poorest urban areas remained stuck there since the 1970s, facing schools whose finances have been abused by city administrations and crumbling infrastructures ignored by the same. But this excuses too much. Other ethnic demographics endure hardship without comparable violence. The Black community’s refusal to foster nonviolent norms—through families, churches, or responsible community leadership—stands out. During Obama’s presidency, high-profile movements like Black Lives Matter focused on external actors (police and policy), sidestepping intra-communal carnage. Where were the marches against Black-on-Black violence? The silence was deafening.
The community’s inaction since the 1970s is infuriating. Community violence intervention (CVI) programs, like CeaseFire, cut shootings by up to 45% in pilot areas, per a 2024 Brady United report, but remain largely ignored. In the Obama years, ironically, federal grants for such initiatives flatlined, and community buy-in was tepid. A 2014 incident in St. Louis—where a CVI worker was attacked while de-escalating a dispute—barely registered outrage. Instead, leaders deflected, blaming systemic racism or guns, never the community’s own choices. This denialism, entrenched since the 1970s, hardened post-2008, as hope for change under Obama curdled into apathy.
If this epidemic—decades in the making and turbocharged since Obama—persists, society faces a bleak future. First, the Black community risks permanent marginalization. Violence repels investment, gutting neighborhoods. A 2023 CDC estimate pegs gun violence’s annual cost to Black communities at $45 billion—medical bills, lost wages, shattered lives. Schools decay, businesses flee, and poverty ossifies, locking generations into despair.
Second, the fallout endangers everyone. A 2024 DOJ report notes rising gun crimes in suburbs tied to urban spillover, eroding public safety. Police, overwhelmed, lean on heavy-handed tactics, fueling distrust. The Journal of Democracy warns that unchecked violence in divided societies undermines democratic norms, replacing dialogue with fear. If Black communities become chaos zones, stereotypes solidify, and social bonds fray.
Finally, the human toll is crushing. Black children grow up scarred—2023 data from Social Science & Medicine shows Black girls in violent areas with PTSD rates rivaling soldiers’. Normalizing violence since the 1970s has stolen hope, breeding fatalism. Post-Obama, this despair deepened as symbolic progress clashed with street-level reality.
The Black community must break this cycle, born in the 1970s and supercharged by the manufactured division and instilled entitlement of the Obama years. The Black community must take it upon itself to instill non-violent resolution in its community by emulating community violence intervention models and rejecting media that glorifies conflict. They—not everyone else, but they, themselves—must teach youth that strength lies in restraint, not tribal mentality violence. Other impoverished communities have pivoted away from violence throughout history, and it's well past time the Black community in the United States follows suit. It’s doable, but it demands honesty and commitment.
The Black community’s refusal to act isn’t just self-sabotage—it’s a betrayal of America’s future. Time’s running out.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Alarming Rise Of A Far-Left 'Assassination Culture'
11 Apr· Underground USA
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/LuigiMangioneJustice (14,000 members) evade moderation to function as neo-Marxian incubators, where coded glorification of violence escalates into explicit threats against Trump, Musk, and government targets—often parroting Mangione’s rallying cry. These aren’t isolated echo chambers; they’re data-driven breeding grounds for real-world escalation, as the California ballot measure starkly illustrates.
Psychologically, the neo-Marxist far left exploits a potent variable: “external locus of control”—the belief that life’s outcomes hinge on outside forces. The NCRI’s analysis ties this to support for violence, with coefficients showing a clear link—when paired with economic volatility and institutional distrust, it’s a combustible mix.
These individuals, primed by neo-Jacobin narratives to see themselves as victims, view assassination and destruction as agency reclaimed—a hypothesis borne out by their disproportionate LWA scores. Platforms amplify this grievance, ideology rationalizes it, and psychological fragility weaponizes it.
The raw figures are a gut punch: 55.2% of left-leaning respondents, where neo-Marxist influence runs deep—see Trump’s murder as at least somewhat justified, with 13% fully endorsing it. For Musk, 48% agree, 9% unequivocally so. The July 2024 attempt on Trump’s life wasn’t a one-off—it was a data point in a trend line. The American Fifth Column’s growing comfort with targeting figures like Trump and Musk—embodiments of power and resistance—signals a deliberate unraveling of civic norms.
This assassination culture, birthed by the neo-Marxist far left—and fueled by rhetoric spewed forth by the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rachel Madow, and the gorgons of The View—is a statistical and existential threat to American democracy and a direct threat to the well-being of our Republic. They’ve taken political violence—once a universal taboo—and recast it as a legitimate tactic, with data showing a clear ideological footprint. Their tolerance—hell, their advocacy—for bloodshed undermines the bedrock principle that disputes are settled through discourse, not death.
Trump and Musk aren’t random targets; they’re lightning rods for neo-Marxian manufactured resentment—symbols of wealth, influence, and defiance. The California ballot measure is a quantifiable spillover, and with 40% shrugging at Tesla dealership arson, the gap between intent and action is shrinking fast.
The NCRI’s predictive models warn that without a forceful counter, this Marxism-driven trend will escalate—probability estimates rise with each unchecked data point. In an era of economic instability and eroding trust, the conditions are primed for their digital radicalism to ignite physical chaos and death.
This demands more than outrage—it demands analysis and definitive action. The American Fifth Column’s assassination culture, with Trump and Musk as its focal points, is a structured, data-backed menace—fueled by ideology, amplified by far-left social media platforms, and rooted in psychological vulnerabilities. It’s not a fleeting anomaly; it’s a growing threat that could fracture our Republic if we don’t dismantle it now.
The time to confront it is now, before the rhetoric of justification becomes the reality of bloodshed. The numbers don’t lie, and neither should our resolve. We must crush this evil before it’s too late.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Forcing the White House to Play Press Equalizer
In a ruling that can only be described as a grotesque example of judicial overreach marinated in constitutional illiteracy, a federal court has decided that the White House must grant the Associated Press (AP) perpetual access to its press briefings, citing the First Amendment’s hallowed “freedom of the press” provision. This decision—indicative of today’s climate of entitlement masquerading as rights—twists the Founding Fathers’ words into a pretzel of modern progressive dogma.
The First Amendment guarantees freedom, not favoritism; it protects the press from government censorship, not from the government’s discretion to choose its interlocutors. To argue otherwise, as this court apparently has, is to invent an obligation where none exists, and we must dissect this travesty with the scalpel of reason.
Let’s start with the text itself, because apparently, the court couldn’t be bothered to read it with any precision. The First Amendment states:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
That’s it. No footnotes, no hidden clauses, no secret handshake promising every outlet a front-row seat at the White House podium. Freedom of the press means the government cannot silence journalists, jail them for their words, or shutter their printing presses—historical abuses the Founders knew well from British tyranny. It does not mean the government must fling open its doors, roll out a red carpet, and hand every self-proclaimed reporter a microphone and a chair. Yet here we are, with a court apparently convinced that “freedom” translates to “mandatory inclusion,” as if the Constitution were a participation trophy for the media class.
The White House press pool has always been a curated affair, and for good reason. The Executive Branch, like any entity, gets to decide who it engages with directly. If the president wants to talk to FOX News one day and CNN the next—or, heaven forbid, snub the AP because it’s been a thorn in his side—that’s his prerogative. The press isn’t entitled to equal airtime in the briefing room any more than I’m entitled to a private dinner with the president to air my grievances.
Freedom of the press protects the AP’s right to publish whatever it wants about the administration—criticism, praise, or conspiracy theories aplenty—but it doesn’t mandate that the White House play nice or play fair. The court’s ruling, however, seems to conflate a constitutional shield with a battering ram, forcing the government to cater to the press’s every whim.
This isn’t just a misreading; it’s a deliberate distortion.
The First Amendment’s history screams restraint on government power, not expansion of media privilege. When the Founders enshrined press freedom, they were thinking of pamphleteers like Thomas Paine, not sprawling corporate behemoths like the AP demanding VIP access. If the AP wants to report on the White House, it’s got the internet, public statements, leaks from disgruntled staffers—plenty of avenues that don’t require a judicial edict shoving it into the briefing room. To claim exclusion violates the First Amendment is to pretend the amendment’s purpose is to level the playing field, when it’s really about keeping the government’s hands off the field entirely.
And let’s talk precedent, because this ruling—if it stands—opens a Pandora’s box of absurdity.
If the AP gets a court-ordered seat, what’s next? Does every outlet, from The New York Times to some guy with a blog and a webcam, get to sue for access? The White House briefing room isn’t infinite; it’s not a magical TARDIS that expands to accommodate every journalist with a byline. The administration has to draw lines somewhere, and courts have historically deferred to that discretion.
Look at Sherrill v. Knight (1978)—a reporter denied a press pass didn’t win a constitutional jackpot because the Secret Service had security concerns. The DC Circuit said the First Amendment doesn’t guarantee “unrestrained access”; it requires only that denials not be arbitrary or viewpoint-based. If the White House has a rational basis—say, the AP’s track record of hostile coverage—it’s within its rights to say, “Not today.” But this court, in its infinite wisdom, seems to think “freedom” means “everyone gets a turn,” turning a constitutional principle into a kindergarten rule.
The aggravated irony here is that the press itself should recoil at this decision. A free press thrives on independence, not on court-ordered handouts. If the AP needs a judge to prop it up, what does that say about its clout or the public’s trust in its reporting? The First Amendment isn’t a crutch for media outlets too lazy or unpopular to fend for themselves.
And what happens when the pendulum swings? Imagine a future administration using this precedent to force inclusion of fringe outlets—say, a state-backed Pravda-like propaganda machine—under the same “equal access” logic. The court’s ruling doesn’t just overreach; it sets a trap for the very freedom it claims to protect.
Critics might argue that excluding the AP stifles public discourse, that a major outlet’s absence leaves us all in the dark. But thinking people know that is a nonsensical point. The AP isn’t the sole arbiter of truth; it’s one voice in a cacophony of media options. If the White House freezes it out, it can still investigate, publish, and scream from the rooftops—all rights the First Amendment fiercely guards. The public won’t wither without the AP’s briefing-room soundbites. What’s really at stake here is ego, not freedom of the press—the ego of a press corps that thinks it’s owed a seat at the table rather than earning it through grit and ingenuity.
In short, this court has butchered the First Amendment, turning a bulwark of liberty into a whining demand for equality of outcome. Freedom of the press is a right to speak, not a right to be heard by the government on your terms. The White House isn’t a public utility obligated to serve every journalist equally; it’s a branch of government with its own voice and choices.
If the AP doesn’t like being sidelined, it can do what the Founders intended: sharpen its quill, fire up its presses, and fight back the old-fashioned way. Anything less is a betrayal of the very freedom this ruling pretends to uphold.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
1960s Wannabes: Sanctimonious Morons Screaming at Shadows
7 Apr· Underground USA
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 a neon sign of their intellectual bankruptcy. They’ll decry capitalism while snapping selfies on those $1,000 iPhones assembled in Chinese factories by slavelaborers. They’ll boycott Chick-fil-A for its CEO’s opinions but not the sweatshop-made hoodie they’re wearing—or the fast fashion haul they just vlogged about. They’re anti-establishment until the establishment pats them on the head—then they’re all in, licking the boots of any opportunistic politician, celebrity, or blue-check influencer who mirrors their tantrums back at them. These aren’t revolutionaries; they’re conformists in trans-rebel drag, parroting whatever the loudest voice in their echo chamber tells them to feel. Their rebellion is as authentic as a knockoff Gucci bag.
At their core, they’re irrelevant—not because the issues they latch onto don’t matter, but because they bring nothing to the table but noise. No solutions, no depth, just a primal scream into the void. They’re not changing the world; they’re annoying it, and deep down, they know it. That’s why they cling to the ‘60s ghost—they’re terrified of being forgotten, of being the nobodies history will prove them to be.
So they march, they chant, they glue themselves to something, anything, hoping the optics will make them matter. But optics aren’t substance, and feelings aren’t facts. They’re a protest generation that’s lost the plot, manipulated by puppet masters they’re too dim to spot, and too arrogant to care.
Pathetic doesn’t even begin to cover it—they’re a walking obituary for critical thought, and they wrote it themselves.
Then, when we return, 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.
Trump’s Tariffs End DecadesOf Schwab’s Globalist Exploitation
Since the end of World War II, the world has been sold a utopian dream: globalism, the idea that dissolving national borders and fostering interdependence would lead to peace, prosperity, and unity. The globalist elite—unelected bureaucrats, corporate titans, and technocrats like Klaus Schwab—promised that intertwining economies and cultures would lift all boats. Instead, this grand experiment has capsized, leaving national economies battered, international relations strained, and the average citizen paying the price for the hubris of a disconnected ruling class.
Far from delivering harmony, globalism has eroded sovereignty, hollowed out industries, and set the stage for a reckoning—one that leaders like Donald Trump are finally addressing with bold, abrupt, unapologetic moves like reciprocal tariffs.
Let’s start with Trump’s tariffs, a policy smeared by the globalist cheerleaders as “protectionist” or “isolationist.” The reality is—in the long run, they’re a lifeline for the United States. For decades, America has been the world’s doormat—exporting jobs, importing cheap goods, and letting countries like China exploit lopsided trade deals. The US trade deficit ballooned to $945.3 billion in 2022 alone, a testament to how globalism gutted American manufacturing while fattening the wallets of foreign regimes.
Trump’s reciprocal tariffs flip the script: if you hit us with tariffs, we hit back—hard. This isn’t about starting a trade war; it’s about ending the one America’s been losing for years. By leveling the playing field, these tariffs incentivize domestic production, bring jobs back to American soil, and force other nations to rethink their predatory trade practices. The US economy grows stronger when it stops hemorrhaging wealth to subsidize everyone else’s.
The ball’s now in the court of other world leaders. Globalism’s house of cards relies on America playing the sucker—absorbing trade imbalances while its own workers suffer. Trump’s tariffs signal that the free ride is over. If countries like Germany, Japan, or India want to avoid a debilitating international trade war, they’ll need to equalize their trade policies with the United States. No more flooding American markets with subsidized goods while slapping barriers on US exports.
The European Union, for instance, loves to preach “fair trade” but maintains a $180 billion trade surplus with the US as of 2023. That’s not fairness; it’s exploitation. These nations can either adapt—cutting their own tariffs and opening markets—or face the consequences of a US that finally prioritizes itself. The choice is theirs, but the era of America as the world’s economic punching bag is done.
Then there’s China, the globalist poster child that was supposed to dethrone the US as the world’s economic kingpin. The reality? China’s economy is a paper tiger, nowhere near strong enough to usurp America’s consumer market. Beijing’s growth has been fueled by debt, communist state-controlled industries, and a relentless exploitation of Western openness—think intellectual property theft and currency manipulation.
In 2024, China’s real estate bubble teetered on collapse, its population shrank for the second straight year, and its export-driven model hit a wall as global demand softened. The US, meanwhile, remains the world’s consumption engine—$18 trillion in annual consumer spending compared to China’s $6 trillion. China needs America’s market far more than America needs China’s factories. Trump’s tariffs expose this imbalance, weakening Beijing’s leverage and proving that the US can thrive without being tethered to a faltering giant.
While tariffs get scapegoated as economic villains, the real chaos comes from the globalist elite—none more so than Klaus Schwab, the self-appointed architect of the “Great Reset” and, until recently, head of the World Economic Forum (WEF).
For decades, Schwab has peddled a totalitarian vision where national sovereignty bends to the will of supranational organizations and corporate overlords. His tenure has been a masterclass in economic sabotage: pushing policies like ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance) mandates that strangle businesses with red tape, advocating for digital currencies that erode financial autonomy, and championing a borderless world that dilutes labor markets and wages. The WEF’s Davos crowd cheers as supply chains stretch thin, energy prices soar under “green” agendas, and inflation ravages the working class—all while they jet-set to their next summit.
Compare that to tariffs, which are targeted, transparent, and reversible. Schwab’s meddling has done more to destabilize economies than any trade policy ever could.
The post-WWII globalist experiment promised unity but delivered division. National economies—like America’s—have been sacrificed to prop up a system that benefits a tiny elite while leaving nations vulnerable to supply chain shocks, as seen during the COVID pandemic, when reliance on foreign goods became a liability. International relations? They’re worse than ever, with distrust festering between nations forced into unnatural interdependence. Look at the US and China: globalism didn’t foster friendship—it bred rivalry, espionage, and a cold war redux. The European Union, once a globalist darling, is fracturing under the weight of its own contradictions—Brexit was just the start.
Trump’s tariffs, China’s fragility, and the failures of figures like Schwab expose globalism for what it is: a fantasy that enriched the few at the expense of the many.
Nations thrive when they control their own destinies, not when they’re yoked to a sinking global ship. Other leaders can cling to the old playbook, but they’ll find the US under leaders like Trump won’t play along. The move toward interdependence didn’t unite the world—it weakened it. It’s time to admit the experiment failed and chart a course back to sovereignty, strength, and self-reliance.
The globalist elite won’t like it, but the people they’ve ignored for decades just might.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs: Fear Porn At A Fever Pitch
4 Apr· Underground USA
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 fund the government enough to kill the income tax, freeing Americans from April’s annual misery.
The doomsayers can clutch their models in their sweaty little hands and scream “trade war,” but the real war has been against US workers for decades. Trump’s ending it on our terms. The GOP must stand firm, or squander a shot at making America not just great, but prosperous again…and free of the IRS.
Then, when we return, 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.
Schumer & Senate Democrats:A Betrayal Of The American Electorate
In a move that reeks of political opportunism and disdain for the integrity of the American electoral process, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his cadre of Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This legislation, a commonsense measure aimed at ensuring that only US citizens can vote in federal elections, has exposed the true colors of Schumer and his party: a willingness to sacrifice the sanctity of the ballot box for the sake of pandering to pro-illegal immigrant activists and securing a permanent electoral advantage.
This is not just a policy disagreement—it’s a calculated assault on the very foundation of our Republic.
The SAVE Act, passed by the House in July 2024 with bipartisan support, is straightforward. It requires states to verify citizenship before registering voters and mandates the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls. It’s a law that should be uncontroversial, a no-brainer for anyone who believes that the right to vote is a privilege reserved for those who are citizens of our Republic.
Yet, Schumer and his Democrat minions in the Senate are planning to obstruct it, clinging to the filibuster—the very tool they’ve spent years decrying as a “Jim Crow relic” when it suits their narrative—as a shield to protect their radical agenda. Their threat to block this bill is nothing less than an attempt to dilute the voice of the American electorate by opening the floodgates to non-citizen voters.
Let’s not mince words: Schumer’s opposition to the SAVE Act is a blatant power grab. For years, Democrats have relied on identity politics and the cultivation of grievance-based voting blocs to maintain their grip on power. Now, facing a shifting political landscape and a populace increasingly fed up with their failed policies, they’re turning to a new strategy—harnessing the votes of those who have no legal right to cast a ballot.
By resisting a law that would enforce existing federal statutes prohibiting non-citizen voting, Schumer and his party are signaling their intent to exploit a loophole-ridden system, and one that pro-illegal immigrant activists have long salivated over. This isn’t about compassion or inclusion; it’s about stacking the deck.
The hypocrisy of Schumer and Senate Democrats is stupefying. These are the same people who spent the Trump years shrieking about “election integrity” and “foreign interference” whenever it suited their narrative. Yet, when presented with a chance to secure the vote against actual interference by ensuring only citizens participate, they balk? Why? Because the interference they once decried pales in comparison to the electoral windfall they hope to reap from illegal immigrants casting ballots. Schumer’s filibuster threat isn’t a defense of principle; it’s a cynical ploy to preserve a vulnerability in our system that Democrats have weaponized.
And make no mistake, the activists cheering Schumer on are complicit in this travesty. Groups like the ACLU and various open-borders advocates—including US District Court Judge James Boasberg’s daughter, Katherine Boasberg, who works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides legal assistance to "justice-involved individuals," including undocumented immigrants and, notably, those accused of gang affiliations—have long pushed the fiction that requiring proof of citizenship is somehow discriminatory or burdensome. They peddle sob stories and half-truths, claiming that such measures suppress turnout, while conveniently ignoring the fact that millions of Americans—citizens—manage to register and vote without issue every election cycle.
Their real goal isn’t fairness; it’s the erosion of sovereignty, both physical and civic, to create a borderless electorate beholden to their neo-Jacobin ideology. Schumer, ever the slimy political chameleon, is all too happy to play along, trading the rights of his constituents for the applause of this radical fringe.
Voting is the bedrock of our republic, the mechanism by which citizens hold their leaders accountable. When that process is compromised—when the votes of law-abiding Americans are diluted by those who have bypassed our laws to illegally enter and include themselves—it undermines the legitimacy of every election. Schumer knows this. He’s not naive; he’s a seasoned and disingenuous operator who’s spent decades mastering the art of public manipulation and political survival. His decision to threaten a filibuster isn’t born of ignorance but of cold calculation. He’s betting that the short-term gain of a few extra votes outweighs the long-term damage to public trust in the democratic system of our Republic.
Senate Democrats, following Schumer’s lead, are no less culpable. They’ve cloaked their opposition in lofty rhetoric about “access” and “equity,” but it’s a flimsy disguise for their true aim: entrenching power at any cost.
Figures like Cory Booker (D-NJ) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), who’ve built their brands on insincere moral posturing, have been conspicuously silent or evasive on the SAVE Act, unwilling to confront the uncomfortable reality of their party’s direction. Their inaction speaks volumes. They’re content to let Schumer take the heat while quietly endorsing a strategy that betrays their own voters.
The American people deserve better than this. We deserve leaders who prioritize the rule of law over political expediency, who understand that citizenship means something—that it’s not just a bureaucratic label but a bond of mutual obligation.
By threatening to filibuster the SAVE Act, Schumer and Senate Democrats are sending a clear message: they care more about the rights of illegal immigrants and their activist cheerleaders than the rights of the citizens they swore to represent. It’s a disgraceful abdication of duty, one that should haunt them at the ballot box—if, that is, the ballot box remains a place reserved for critically-thinking American citizens.
This isn’t just a policy fight; it’s a moral reckoning. Schumer and his party have chosen their side, and it’s not with the American electorate. They’ve aligned themselves with those who see our laws as optional and our sovereignty as negotiable. The SAVE Act isn’t an absolute remedy, but it’s a huge step toward protecting what makes this nation worth defending. By standing in its way, Schumer and Senate Democrats aren’t just playing politics—they’re undermining the very system that gives them their power.
History won’t judge them kindly, nor should it. Nor should we. The mid-terms are coming/ Let’s all—all of us—send a message.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
The Anti-Federalist Antidote To A Century of Progressive Overreach
31 Mär· Underground USA
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 of diffused authority.
Trump’s policies didn’t arise in a vacuum—they are a reaction to a century of Progressive excess. Since Wilson’s technocratic fantasies and FDR’s New Deal empire-building, the federal government has grown into a colossus, swallowing state autonomy and individual freedom. The anti-federalists, those scrappy skeptics of centralized power, warned of this in 1787: a distant government would inevitably drift from the people’s will. Trump, flaws and all, tapped into that warning. His “America First” rhetoric isn’t just nationalism—it is a call to prioritize local needs over the globalist, federalist agenda Progressives fetishize.
Critics—federalists and Progressives alike—decry Trump as a destabilizer, but that’s the point. Stability, in their eyes, means preserving a system where Washington reigns supreme. Trump’s disruption, from trade wars to border security, aims to reassert the primacy of the nation’s parts over its whole. His border wall obsession? Less about xenophobia and more about states like Texas and Arizona reclaiming control from a federal government too timid—or complicit—to act. His trade battles with China? A rebuke to the federalist elite who’d sacrificed local economies for global integration.
Donald Trump is no philosopher-king, and his anti-federalist bent isn’t always articulate. But his instincts align with a vision the founders would recognize: a nation of sovereign states—fifty symbiotic states with fifty separate constitutions enjoined in a compact, not a monolith ruled from on high. After a century of Wilsonian centralization and Rooseveltian sprawl, Trump’s policies offer a corrective, not a cure-all. Progressives gasp in dismay at the rollback of their sacred federal apparatus, but that’s precisely why it matters. The balance they’ve tilted toward Washington for a hundred years is finally tipping back.
In the end, Trump’s legacy isn’t about perfection—it’s about rediscovery. By dismantling the Progressive federalist machine, he’s reminding Americans that power needn’t flow from a single source. The anti-federalists knew this; the founders baked it into the Constitution. Trump, in his unorthodox, polarizing way, dragged it back into the light. Whether that sticks depends on what comes next—but for now, the pendulum swings toward liberty, and away from the long shadow of Progressivism’s totalitarian overreach.
Then, when we return, a new segment called The Corner of the Bar, in which we speak with everyday Americans, some more qualified to speak on certain topics than others, but average Americans nonetheless. It’s a pulse of the mindset in everyday America. Today’s guest is Einar Ronningen.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Expanding Republican MajoritiesIn 2026 Is Critical For The Anti-Federalist Agenda
As Donald Trump continues to steer the Republican Party toward a bold, reformative anti-federalist agenda, the stakes for the 2026 mid-term elections could not be higher. Holding Republican majorities in the US House and Senate is not enough—expanding those majorities is an absolute necessity.
The alternative, a resurgence of neo-Marxist Progressives, anarchic far-Leftists, and Deep State Democrats in Congress, threatens to derail the American people’s electoral mandate to dismantle centralized bureaucratic overreach, slash federal spending, and restore power to the states and the people.
These ideological fifth column adversaries have proven time and again their willingness to obstruct, sabotage, and destroy any policy that challenges their statist worldview. To secure Trump’s legacy and protect the Republic from their ruinous influence, Republicans must not just defend their ground in 2026—they must advance.
Trump’s anti-federalist agenda is rooted in a rejection of the bloated, unaccountable federal leviathan that Progressives and Democrats have spent decades constructing. Trump’s policies—whether it’s deregulation, tax cuts, or devolving authority to the states—aim to break the stranglehold of Washington elites and return governance to a more localized, responsive level. This vision resonates with millions of Americans tired of being dictated to by unelected bureaucrats and coastal ideologues. But it’s a vision that terrifies the Left, who rely on federal power to impose their top-down, one-size-fits-all schemes on a nation that increasingly rejects them.
The 2026 mid-terms will be a referendum on this agenda. If Republicans fail to expand their majorities, the consequences will be dire. A Congress with slim GOP margins—or worse, one flipped to Democrat control—would empower Progressives and their allies to grind Trump’s reforms to a halt. They’ve done it before, and they’ll do it again.
Look no further than the early years of Trump’s first term, when a recalcitrant House under Nancy Pelosi’s decrepit iron grip stymied his efforts to fully repeal Obamacare or secure robust border funding. Even with Republican majorities, the margins were too thin, and moderate Republicans too spineless, to push through the most ambitious parts of his platform. Now, with an emboldened Trump doubling down on anti-federalism, the need for overwhelming congressional support is even more urgent.
Consider what’s at stake. Trump has signaled plans to gut federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Environmental Protection Agency, arguing they infringe on state sovereignty and burden taxpayers with wasteful mandates. It’s a move cheered by conservatives who see these bureaucracies as tools of Progressive overreach—think indoctrinating curricula and climate policies that kill jobs. But if Democrats retake the House or Senate in 2026, they’ll weaponize the budget process to protect these sacred cows. Funding will flow unabated to every pet project of the far-Left, from resurrected Green New Deal fantasies to regenerated DEI initiatives that divide rather than unite. Trump’s push to defund and decentralize will be dead.
Then there’s the judiciary. Trump’s ability to appoint originalist judges who respect the Constitution’s limits on federal power hinges on a Senate willing to confirm them. A Democrat Senate, led by the likes of Chuck Schumer or his successors, would stonewall every nominee, leaving vacancies unfilled and the courts vulnerable to activist judges who rubber-stamp Progressive agendas. Imagine a judiciary packed with jurists who uphold every federal overreach—Trump’s anti-federalist gains would unravel faster than you can say “filibuster.”
Border security, another pillar of Trump’s platform, would also suffer. Republicans with expanded majorities could finally deliver the wall, deportations, and immigration reforms Trump has long championed—policies aimed at asserting national sovereignty over the open-borders fetish of the Left. But if Democrats gain ground in 2026, they’ll block funding, push amnesty, and return the border to a revolving door for their future voter base. The chaos of 2021-2022, when millions crossed illegally under Biden’s watch, would look tame by comparison.
Economic policy offers another stark example. Trump’s tax cuts and deregulation unleashed a pre-COVID boom that Progressives still refuse to acknowledge. He wants to go further—slashing corporate welfare, simplifying the tax code, and unshackling small businesses from federal red tape. A fortified Republican Congress could make this a reality. But if the far-Left gains seats, they’ll resurrect their soak-the-rich rhetoric, jack up taxes, and smother entrepreneurs with regulations—all in the name of “equity” that somehow never trickles down to the working class they claim to represent.
The most insidious threat, though, is the Left’s obsession with expanding federal power through new entitlements and surveillance. Programs like Medicare for All or a universal basic income aren’t just budget-busters—they’re chains on state autonomy, locking Americans into dependency on Washington. Pair that with their push for digital IDs and censorship under the guise of “misinformation” crackdowns, and you’ve got a recipe for a federal dystopia that Trump’s agenda explicitly rejects. A Democrat surge in 2026 would embolden these efforts, turning Congress into a battering ram against the very freedoms Trump seeks to protect.
History warns us of the cost of complacency. In 2018, Republicans lost the House, and Trump’s first term was hobbled by endless investigations and legislative gridlock. The 2022 mid-terms, while a narrower disappointment, still left the GOP with a razor-thin House majority that struggled to unify. 2026 must be different. A decisive Republican wave—say, a 20-seat gain in the House and 5 in the Senate—would give Trump the muscle to enact his reforms without compromise. Anything less risks a repeat of past failures, with Progressives crowing as they dismantle his legacy brick by brick.
The culprits here are clear: Progressives who fetishize government control, far-Leftists who dream of socialism at any cost, and Democrats who cloak their power grabs in sanctimonious platitudes. They’re not just wrong—they’re dangerous. Their vision of America is a centralized monolith where dissent is crushed, and states are mere vassals of Washington. Trump’s anti-federalist crusade is the antidote, but it’s fragile. Without expanded Republican majorities in 2026, it’ll be smothered by a Congress that despises everything he stands for.
The choice is clear. Republicans must rally—we must keep the pressure on, not just to hold the line, but to charge forward. The mid-terms are a battle for the soul of the nation—Trump’s agenda hangs in the balance, and the Left is salivating to bury it. Expansion isn’t optional; it’s imperative. Anything less, and the Republic pays the price.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
A House Of Climate Cards Built On A Foundation Of Lies
28 Mär· Underground USA
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 square meter.
Researchers like Willie Soon say these bigger changes match up well with actual warming, showing strong links (up to 0.9 or even 0.95) with temperature records since 1850, way better than CO₂’s weak 0.3 to 0.5 connection. That suggests the sun’s heat—and how it affects clouds—might explain a lot, maybe even all, of the warming we’ve seen.
So why does the IPCC stick to its lowball estimate? It’s like blaming a dim lamp for a bright room while the sun’s blazing outside.
Then there’s the temperature data itself. The IPCC uses records from places like NOAA and NASA, but those numbers get “adjusted.” Studies by Ronan Connolly and Willie Soon show how these tweaks downplay hot spells in the 1930s (dropping from 12.8°C to 11.7°C) and bump up recent years (from 12.2°C to 12.8°C). A small rural rise of 0.2 to 0.5°C gets turned into a bigger 0.8 to 1.1°C global jump.
Raw data from modern US stations shows little change (+0.4°C, flat), and older rural records hold steady at 12.2°C—yet the adjusted versions magically match the models. Even the famous “hockey stick” graph, which flattens out past warm periods, looks more like a storytelling trick than solid science.
So what’s the takeaway? The IPCC’s been hammering the idea that our CO₂—human-created CO₂—is the climate’s big bad wolf, but the evidence—raw data, carbon cycles, sunlight, and shaky models—points to nature still being in charge.
Our emissions are a small piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. Their models don’t predict well, their sun estimates are too timid, and their data tweaks raise eyebrows.
It’s time to stop buying their story hook, line, and sinker and start asking what’s really going on. The sun, the oceans, and a messy mix of natural shifts might hold the real answers, not just a CO₂ villain we’ve been told to fear.
In fact, CO₂ is essential for plant growth because it serves as a key raw material in photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy. Without sufficient CO₂, plants cannot efficiently produce the energy needed for growth, development, and reproduction, making it a critical component of their life cycle and overall ecosystem health.
The IPCC’s had its say, and that say has involved trillions of dollars both in special interest profit and economic regulations, and nothing has changed at the hands of man. So, let’s give nature a fair shot and rethink this issue from scratch.
Then, when we return, 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.
Why Do Federal Judges ChampionViolent Gang Members Over US Citizens?
In recent months, a troubling pattern has emerged within the US federal judiciary, particularly among lower court judges, that raises serious questions about the integrity of our legal system.
Across the country, US District Court judges have issued rulings that obstruct the removal of known violent gang members from Central and South America, thwarting efforts by the Trump administration to protect American citizens from the escalating threat of transnational crime.
At the heart of this controversy lies a glaring case: Chief Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, whose personal ties to immigration advocacy reveal a potential conflict of interest that exemplifies the broader dysfunction within the federal bench.
Why, one must ask, are these judges so determined to shield dangerous criminals from deportation? The answer lies in a toxic blend of ideological bias, personal entanglements, and an alarming disconnect from the realities faced by everyday Americans.
Let’s begin with the specifics of Judge Boasberg’s case, which has become a lightning rod for criticism.
In March 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This gang, notorious for its brutality and involvement in human trafficking, drug smuggling, and violent crime, has infiltrated American cities, exploiting lax border policies established during the open-border years of the Obama and Biden administrations. The Trump administration’s invocation of the centuries-old law was a bold move to expedite the removal of these threats without the bureaucratic delays of standard immigration proceedings. Yet Boasberg, in a decision dripping with sanctimonious and elitist legalese, halted the deportations, arguing that the accused gang members deserved individualized hearings—a stance that critics argue prioritizes the rights of foreign criminals over the safety of US citizens.
What makes Boasberg’s ruling particularly galling is the revelation of his family’s deep ties to immigration advocacy. His daughter, Katharine Boasberg, works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides legal assistance to "justice-involved individuals," including undocumented immigrants and, notably, those accused of gang affiliations. Meanwhile, his wife, Elizabeth "Betsy" Boasberg, has a history of involvement with government-funded NGOs, as does his sister, Margaret Boasberg, some of which receive taxpayer dollars to advance left-wing policies.
These connections—and especially his relationship with his daughter—raise a stark question: How can a judge rule impartially on a case involving the deportation of violent gang members when his immediate family member is professionally invested in outcomes that favor immigrant retention? The stench of conflict of interest, as in the issue of Juan Merchan presiding over Trump’s trial, is overwhelming, yet Boasberg did not recuse himself, nor did he—like Merchan—disclose these ties upfront, leaving the public to wonder whether justice was truly blind in his courtroom.
This isn’t just about one judge, however. Boasberg’s actions reflect a broader trend among federal district judges, many of whom seem to view their role not as enforcers of the law but as arbiters of a progressive moral agenda. These judges—most often appointed by Democrat administrations—appear to harbor a reflexive sympathy for immigrants, regardless of their criminal status, that overrides national security concerns.
The Tren de Aragua case is not an isolated incident. Across the country, federal judges have issued injunctions against immigration enforcement actions, from sanctuary city policies to ICE raids, often cloaking their decisions in lofty rhetoric about due process and human rights. But when the individuals in question are tied to violent gangs like MS-13 or Tren de Aragua, whose members have been linked to murders, extortion, human trafficking, and terror in American communities, this judicial posturing starts to look less like principle and more like complicity.
Why are these judges so eager to obstruct the removal of such clear threats? One probability is ideological capture. The federal judiciary, particularly at the district level, is stocked with jurists who came of age in an era of liberal activism, where the narrative of the "oppressed migrant" became sacrosanct. For these judges, deporting a gang member isn’t just a legal act—it’s a moral failing, a betrayal of America’s supposed identity as a nation of immigrants.
Never mind that the immigrants of Ellis Island weren’t carrying AK-47s or trafficking humans across borders. This worldview, marinated in elite law schools and neo-Marxist progressive legal circles, blinds them to the havoc wrought by groups like Tren de Aragua, whose presence in the US is a direct consequence of unchecked illegal immigration and the Obama-Biden open-borders policy.
Another factor is the cozy relationship between the judiciary and the nonprofit industrial complex.
Government-funded NGOs, like those tied to Boasberg’s family, wield enormous influence over immigration policy, often acting as the ground troops for open-border advocates. These organizations rely on a steady stream of clients—migrants, documented or not—to justify their funding and existence. Deporting violent gang members disrupts this ecosystem, threatening the livelihoods of the activists, lawyers, and administrators who profit from it, until recently, those profits emanating from USAID.
When judges like Boasberg, with personal stakes in this world, rule against deportation, it’s hard not to see a quid pro quo at play: protect the system, and the system protects you.
The consequences of this judicial overreach are dire. In the Tren de Aragua case, over 200 alleged gang members were deported to El Salvador’s mega-prisons after Boasberg’s initial order was rightly defied—a move that sparked outrage from the administration’s critics but relief from communities terrorized by these criminals.
Yet Boasberg’s insistence on “due process,” echoed by other judges in similar cases, risks tying the government’s hands in future operations. If every deportation requires a protracted legal battle, the message to gangs is clear: come to America, commit your crimes, and trust the courts to shield you. Meanwhile, American taxpayers foot the bill for endless hearings, while families mourn loved ones lost to the butchery of gang violence.
Critics of the judiciary argue that this is a feature, not a bug, of a system designed to thwart executive authority. The Trump administration’s aggressive use of the Alien Enemies Act was undoubtedly provocative, stretching a wartime statute to address a modern crisis. But the law’s text allows for such flexibility, granting the president broad powers to remove "alien enemies" during threats of invasion—a term that fits the coordinated incursion of criminal organizations across our borders. Federal judges, however, seem intent on rewriting the law through their rulings, asserting a supremacy that undermines both the Executive Branch and the will of the electorate that returned Trump to power on a promise to secure the nation.
Perhaps Congress needs to create a federal court, limited in its lifespan and singular in scope, to hear these specific cases; to hear cases specific to the issue of mass deportations and the expulsion of violent criminal illegal aliens and those who have arrived illegally through our borders during the Obama and Biden years. They have the power to create lower courts. Why not use it and dictate the terms?
The Boasberg saga underscores a deeper rot in the lower courts: a lack of accountability. Unlike Supreme Court justices, whose rulings are scrutinized by a national audience, district judges operate in relative obscurity, wielding immense power with little oversight. Boasberg’s failure to recuse himself, despite his family’s entanglements, is a glaring ethical lapse that would sink a lesser official. Yet the judiciary’s self-policing mechanisms are notoriously weak, leaving the public with few recourses beyond calls for impeachment—a drastic step that, as Chief Justice John Roberts recently noted, is unlikely to succeed.
So why do these judges persist in obstructing the removal of violent gang members? It’s a mix of ideology, self-interest, and an arrogance born of unassailable tenure. They see themselves not as servants of the law but as guardians of a pseudo-utopian vision, one where borders are irrelevant and criminals are just misunderstood victims.
For Judge Boasberg, the personal stakes amplify this tendency, casting a shadow over his rulings that no amount of legal jargon can dispel. Until the federal judiciary is reined in—whether through legislative reform, public pressure, or a reckoning at the ballot box—the safety of Americans will remain hostage to the whims of unelected jurists more loyal to their biases than to the people they swore to serve.
The question isn’t just why they’re doing this—it’s how long we’ll let them get away with it.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Hören Erneut hören Fortsetzen Abspielen...
- Später hören Später hören
Mehr anzeigen

Folgen

As The Atlantic Hurricane Season Approaches…

Divisive Politics & Wokeism Have Killed Comedy

Remembering Those Who Gave The Last Full Measure

The Broken Credit Score System: Arbitrary, Discriminatory & Damaging

Islam's Soft Jihad: Exploiting Demographics & Western Nihilism

Why Traditional Democrats Must Purge The Radical Left

Judicial Overreach & Congressional Inaction: A Betrayal Of The Electorate’s Mandate

The Elevation Of Pope Leo XIV: A New Era For The World

Black America's Addiction to Violence & Entitlement

The Threat Of The Globalist Left’s Cultural Imperialism

The FDA's Disgraceful Stranglehold on Medical Innovation Denies Millions Critical Treatments

The Fall of Klaus Schwab & The World Economic Forum's Globalist Empire

Narrowing Federal District Court Jurisdiction To Curb Lawfare

How Wall Street Fuels China’s Global & Military Ambitions

Communist China’s Conquest-Oriented Threat To Global Stability

The Alarming Rise Of A Far-Left 'Assassination Culture'

1960s Wannabes: Sanctimonious Morons Screaming at Shadows

Trump’s Reciprocal Tariffs: Fear Porn At A Fever Pitch

The Anti-Federalist Antidote To A Century of Progressive Overreach

A House Of Climate Cards Built On A Foundation Of Lies