Beware The Democratic Socialist Dog From Vermont

4 Mar · Underground USA

Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist from Vermont who has literally never held a private sector job in his life, has spent the past few months crisscrossing the United States, rallying against what he calls an “oligarchy” threatening American democracy. This is an obvious exercise in projection.

From Omaha, Nebraska, to Iowa City, Iowa, and now targeting Republican-held congressional districts in Wisconsin ahead of a pivotal state Supreme Court election in April 2025, Sanders has positioned himself as the torchbearer of a “progressive resistance.” His “Fighting Oligarchy” tour has drawn significant attention from the rudderless far-Left, with viewership often reaching six figures and a recent video amassing nearly 3 million views.

Sanders’ neo-Marxist message resonates with a segment of the far- and radical-Left emboldened by former President Joe Biden’s farewell address, in which he warned of “an oligarchy taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence” that endangers democracy itself.

Yet, beneath the propagandistic fervor and viral optics lies a deeply flawed ideology—Democratic Socialism—as championed by Sanders.

His campaign against “oligarchy,” his critiques of the Trump administration’s billionaire-heavy roster, and his attacks on policies like the 2017 tax cuts and the Elon Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts reveal not a coherent vision for America, but a patchwork of economic fallacies, political opportunism, and moral posturing. Sanders’ rhetoric and ideology, along with Democratic Socialism as a whole, are not only impractical but also disingenuous, relying on exaggerated class warfare narratives that fail to withstand scrutiny.

Sanders’ self-identification as a Democratic Socialist invites immediate skepticism when one examines the term’s historical and practical implications. Democratic Socialism, in theory, seeks to blend socialist economic principles—centralized control of production, wealth redistribution, and the abolition of private profit motives—with democratic governance. Yet, Sanders’ version of this ideology often veers into a muddled hybrid, neither fully socialist nor pragmatically democratic, raising questions about its intellectual coherence.

Historically, socialism has been associated with state ownership of the means of production, as seen in the Soviet Union or Maoist China, where economic centralization led to inefficiency, stagnation, and authoritarianism. Sanders distances himself from these examples, pointing instead to Scandinavian countries like Denmark or Sweden as models.

However, these nations are not socialist in the traditional sense—they are market economies with robust welfare states, high taxes, and private enterprise thriving alongside significant government intervention. Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen famously rebuked Sanders in 2015, stating, “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Sanders’ insistence on the “Democratic Socialist” label thus appears more as a branding exercise than a precise ideological commitment.

This mislabeling matters because it obfuscates the policy debate.

Sanders rails against “oligarchy” and billionaires like Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Linda McMahon, who populate the Trump administration, yet his solutions—massive government expansion, wealth taxes, and nationalized industries like healthcare—do not align with the flexible, market-driven systems he claims to admire in Scandinavia. Instead, they echo the top-down control of traditional socialism, which has consistently failed to deliver prosperity without sacrificing individual liberty. His critique of the Trump administration’s billionaire class, while emotionally compelling, lacks a clear alternative that avoids the pitfalls of centralized power—ironically, the very thing he accuses oligarchs of wielding.

Sanders’ central thesis—that America is sliding into an oligarchy—gained traction when Biden echoed it in his farewell address. The image of Trump flanked by billionaires at his inauguration, coupled with Musk’s DOGE-led cuts to federal agencies like the intensely corrupt and ideologically agendized USAID, fuels Sanders’ claim that a handful of ultra-wealthy elites are seizing control of democracy.

Talking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February 2025, Sanders called Musk’s USAID cuts “unconstitutional,” arguing they bypass Congress’ authority over appropriations. His “Fighting Oligarchy” tour amplifies this narrative, spotlighting affected individuals like former park rangers laid off due to National Park Service reductions.

As an aside, Sanders is also dead wrong about the DOGE effort sidestepping congressional appropriations. DOGE is a repurposing of the congressionally funded United States Digital Service (USDS), an agency created under the Obama administration in 2014. The US Constitution allows a President to manage the Executive Branch as he sees fit, including rebranding and repurposing without the need for congressional input or approval. But then, a constitutionally illiterate Democratic Socialist probably would know that.

But is America truly an oligarchy? The term implies a small, unelected elite governing without accountability—a description more fitting for Putin’s Russia, Xi’s China, and Maduro’s Venezuela than a constitutional republic with regular elections, checks and balances, and—to the extent that it is—a free press. Sanders points to wealth concentration as evidence, noting that Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg collectively hold more wealth than the bottom half of Americans. This disparity is real (Forbes estimated their combined net worth at $911.7 billion in early 2025) but wholly irrelevant. Wealth alone does not equate to political domination.

Consider the 2024 election: Kamala Harris outspent Trump by a wide margin, raising over $1 billion with support from progressive billionaires like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, yet she lost decisively. Musk’s $270 million in campaign spending, while significant, was dwarfed by the Left’s war chest. If money guaranteed power, Harris would be president, not Trump.

This suggests that electoral outcomes hinge more on voter sentiment than billionaire checkbooks—a reality Sanders conveniently glosses over. His portrayal of Musk as a puppet master, pulling strings via DOGE, ignores the broader democratic process that installed Trump and his administration, however imperfect some my consider it to be.

Moreover, Sanders’ focus on “oligarchy” cherry-picks data to fit his narrative. The US economy remains dynamic, with entrepreneurship and upward mobility still possible, as evidenced by Musk himself—a South African immigrant who built his fortune through innovation. Wealth inequality is a challenge, but labeling it an oligarchy oversimplifies a complex system where power is distributed across elected officials, corporations, and citizens—not just a cabal of billionaires.

A chief propagandistic cornerstone of Sanders’ critique is the Trump administration’s plan to lock in the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA), which he portrays as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the working class. In Iowa City, he argued that these cuts exacerbate inequality, funneling benefits to billionaires while slashing funds for Medicaid, education, and housing. This rhetoric plays well to his tunnel-visioned, radically Leftist base, but the economic reality is more nuanced—and Sanders’ alternative is much less viable than he admits.

The TCJA reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and lowered individual rates across income brackets. Critics like Sanders highlight that the top 1% reaped disproportionate gains—an estimated 20% of the total tax relief, according to the Tax Policy Center. Yet, the cuts also boosted economic growth, with GDP rising 2.9% in 2018 compared to 2.3% in 2016, and unemployment falling to a 50-year low of 3.5% by 2019. Wage growth for low- and middle-income workers outpaced that of the top earners in 2018-2019, per Census Bureau data, contradicting the narrative of exclusive elite enrichment.

Sanders’ solution—reversing these cuts and imposing steep wealth taxes—ignores the trade-offs.

Higher corporate taxes could deter investment, as seen in pre-2017 America when companies hoarded cash overseas to avoid the 35% rate. His proposed wealth tax, modeled on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan, would face practical hurdles: capital flight, valuation disputes, and constitutional challenges under the 16th Amendment. France’s wealth tax, abandoned in 2017 after driving 60,000 millionaires abroad, serves as a cautionary tale. Sanders’ economic vision promises fairness but would deliver stagnation—a lesson history teaches but he refuses to learn.

Sanders’ outrage over Musk’s DOGE cuts, particularly to USAID and the National Park Service, exemplifies his tendency to prioritize pseudo-moral indignation over pragmatic governance. In Omaha, he stood alongside former park rangers, decrying their layoffs as evidence of billionaire indifference. On CNN, he labeled the USAID cuts unconstitutional, citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which forbids the executive from withholding Congressionally appropriated funds without legislative approval.

Legally, Sanders has a point—US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s February 2025 ruling suggested the administration’s funding freeze “potentially run[s] roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution.’” Yet, his broader critique falters when the understanding that DOGE actions are not aimed at ending funding, but weeding out waste, corruption, and outright fraud, are considered.

DOGE aims to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, targeting inefficiencies in a $6.8 trillion budget. USAID, with a $50 billion annual allocation, has faced criticism for waste, ineffectiveness, and now agendized fraud, all of which have now been exposed. Government Accountability Office reports have flagged mismanagement in its aid programs. National Park Service layoffs, while emotionally charged, reflect a broader push to streamline a bureaucracy that employs over 12,000 with a $3 billion budget, yet struggles with maintenance backlogs.

Sanders frames these cuts as an assault on the vulnerable, but he offers no serious plan to address the federal deficit, now at $36 trillion, or the inefficiencies DOGE targets. His alternative—expanding government programs like Medicare for All, costing an estimated $32 trillion over a decade per the Urban Institute—relies on fantastical revenue projections and dismisses the fiscal reality that entitlement spending already consumes 70% of the budget. Democratic Socialism, as Sanders envisions it, demands endless expenditure without a credible funding mechanism beyond “tax the rich,” a mantra that collapses under scrutiny when applied to a globalized economy.

Sanders’ latest move—touring Wisconsin’s Republican-held districts ahead of an April 2025 state Supreme Court election—underscores his propensity for opportunistic political theater.

Wisconsin, a battleground state, will decide whether conservatives retain control of its top court, a decision with implications for free speech, cultural Marxism (wokeness), voting rights, and redistricting. Sanders’ involvement, ostensibly to combat “oligarchy,” reeks of ideological and political opportunism. He’s not just fighting billionaires; he’s rallying far-Left Democrats—and targeting college students—in a state where his 2016 and 2020 primary wins showcased his appeal, conveniently aligning his “movement” with partisan electoral goals.

This pattern repeats across his tour. In Omaha and Iowa City, he targeted districts flipped by Republicans in 2024, urging audiences to pressure Reps. Don Bacon and Mariannette Miller-Meeks to oppose tax cuts. His grassroots veneer masks a calculated strategy: energize the far-Left while sidestepping the national stage, where his ideas face sterner tests and exposure to their inabilities to work.

Sanders’ nearly 3 million video views reflect his media savvy, but popularity does not equal viability. His CNN appearances and viral clips amplify his message, yet they rarely grapple with the hard questions of implementation or cost—hallmarks of a propagandistic populist more interested in preaching and being seen as important and relevant more than governing.

Sanders’ crusade against billionaires like Musk, Lutnick, and McMahon drips with irony. He decries their wealth and influence, yet his own career—spanning four decades in Congress—has made him a millionaire, with a net worth estimated at $3 million by 2025, per public disclosures, and all on a six-figure salary (think about that). His three homes, including a $600,000 lakefront property, belie the asceticly Bolshevik image he cultivates. While not in Musk’s league, Sanders’ personal success within the system he critiques undermines his moral authority. If wealth concentration is the problem, why does he exempt himself from the reckoning?

Moreover, Sanders’ selective outrage ignores far-Left Democrat billionaires—Soros, Hoffman, Tom Steyer—who pour millions into progressive causes, including NGOs that we now know purposely interfere in elections in transgression of the 501c3 statuses. In 2024, they dwarfed Musk’s contributions, yet Sanders rarely calls them out, exposing a partisan double standard. His “oligarchy” label applies only to those in the Center and on the Right, suggesting his fight is less about principle and more about political tribalism.

The real peril of Sanders’ Democratic Socialism—as well as that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Greg Casar—lies not in its immediate feasibility, or infeasibility, as it were (his policies face long odds in a divided Congress), but in its long-term implications and the destruction it would cause to the lower- and middle-classes. By demonizing wealth creators like Musk, whose innovations in electric vehicles, space travel, and communications have tangible societal benefits—including employment and all the trappings that come with it, Sanders risks stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that drives American prosperity. His obsession with wealth redistribution overlooks the role of private capital in funding breakthroughs that government alone cannot replicate—SpaceX’s reusable rockets, for instance, outpace NASA’s efforts at a fraction of the cost, and don’t get me started on Starlink.

Furthermore, Sanders’ expansionist government vision directly threatens individual liberty.

Medicare for All, free college, and Green New Deal proposals centralize power in Washington, reducing choice and accountability. Historical attempts at such scale—think Britain’s National Health Service—yield mixed results at best: universal access but long wait times and rationing. Sanders’ faith in bureaucratic competence defies evidence of federal mismanagement, from the VA scandals to the Social Security Administration’s $23 billion in improper payments in 2023. Ask yourself, besides the US military—and this is only focusing on their performance on the battlefields—what does the federal government (or the state governments, for that matter) do better than the private sector? The honest answer is nothing.

Bernie Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, with its manufactured, propagandistic impassioned speeches and bought-and-paid-for viral reach, taps into genuine frustrations over inequality and political dysfunction. His warnings about billionaires in the Trump administration and cuts like those to USAID resonate with a public wary of unchecked power; unchecked power fueled for the most part by Democrat administrations and Democrat spendthrift opportunists in Congress. Yet, his Democratic Socialism offers not a solution, but a mirage—economically untenable, ideologically inconsistent, and politically opportunistic; an unattainable utopia tantamount to the false euphoria promised through a heroin addiction.

Sanders casts himself as a modern-day Lincoln, battling for a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” But Lincoln faced slavery, a clear moral evil; Sanders faces a messy, imperfect capitalism that, for all its flaws, has lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history. His crusade against “oligarchy” disingenuously substitutes class warfare for serious debate, ignoring the trade-offs of his own policies.

As he tours Wisconsin and beyond, Sanders remains a compelling voice—but one whose vision, if realized, would trade one set of elites for another with a far more totalitarian and authoritative cast of characters, leaving America poorer and less free in the process.

Sanders' vision for American government is this: The Biden years only four-times more inept, invasive, and oppressive.

Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.

Frank Salvato's analysis has been entered into the congressional record through the US House Foreign Relations Committee and recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His writing has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Human Events, as well as syndicated internationally.

Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Conflating Support For Ukrainians & Zelenskyy

Before I go, I wanted to address what appears to be an irrational position being taken by a great many people on social media. That is their refusal to distinguish between the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government.

Vlodomyr Zelenskyy is the leader of the Ukrainian government. He represents the leaders of that country who—through his words, as expressed in his disrespectful Oval Office performance—will not agree to a ceasefire and will not negotiate peace with Vladimir Putin. These are his words, not mine or anyone else's.

Common sense (and I know that’s in short supply these days) mandates—mandates—that two people who exist in conflict with each other resolve their differences for there to be a cessation of hostilities. That’s just a fact and anyone not accepting that basic premise is an ignoramus.

One way to resolve conflict is for one adversary to overcome the other. In the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, any resolution would have to see one country winning the war against the other. As it stands—recognizing this conflict as now one of attrition—Ukraine cannot win. Let’s do the math.

At the start of the war in 2022, Ukraine’s population stood at approximately 41 million people. Russia’s population was approximately 146 million people. Russia had between 18 to 20 million people of “fighting age.” Ukraine’s fighting age population stood at 7 to 9 million. In a war of attrition considering math alone, Ukraine would lose by a ratio of a little more than 2-to-1.

Yes, weaponry makes a difference, but occupation is the name of the game in war and it takes bodies to occupy land. Then you must consider that North Korea has engaged its troops on Russia’s behalf. Unless the West (read: NATO or Europe’s newly considered “coalition of the willing”---which hasn’t been formed yet) gets involved with boots on the ground, there is no way Ukraine can defeat Russia in the conflict to reach that avenue of conflict resolution.

The other avenue of conflict resolution is negotiated peace. That requires the two parties in conflict to enter into negotiations with the goal of ceasing hostilities (read: stopping the killing and aggression). Zelenskyy has stated full-throatedly that he is uninterested in a ceasefire or negotiating with his adversary. So, Zelenskyy—not Putin, not Trump; not Russia and not the West—has eliminated this avenue for peace from the choices.

Again, for the hard of hearing, a negotiated peace cannot be achieved when one of the parties in conflict refuses to negotiate with the other.

That left a cunningly crafted third way, devised by the Trump team: The Rare Earth minerals deal. This would have formally introduced the American private sector into land management in Ukraine; it would have created US assets in the regions. Thus, an attack on those assets would have been a direct attack on the United States and an act of war on Russia’s behalf.

As I stated in an earlier podcast:

“Putin may be ruthless, but he’s not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his military’s vulnerabilities through their actions against the Ukrainian Army, and he recognizes that in the face of a US-led (or even NATO-led) military coalition, he would lose unequivocally.”

So, the impediment to peace is Zelenskyy’s egotistical need to win the war when there is no possibility of winning the war without a global conflict ensuing. Zelenskyy’s goal, it appears, is not peace; it is not to stop the killing. It is to win an unwinnable war.

Which brings me to my point. Only the heartless don’t feel for the people—the people—of Ukraine. We all want them to live freely under their own sovereign rule. But conflating support for Ukraine’s leader with feeling for the Ukrainian people is just as inane as saying all Germans were devout supporters of Hitler during World War II.

You can feel for the innocents in Ukraine without supporting the unwinnable war effort of the Ukrainian government. The posting of the “I stand with Ukraine” memes and statements only feeds the Ukrainian war machine’s propaganda campaigns; it only serves their goal that insists on more military aid only to see the sharpening of the blades of the meat grinder for its warfighters and citizens.

To wit, when did all the people who want peace so badly, become blind followers of the unwinnable war? Only the uninformed, the naive, the half-witted, and the ghoulish support the unwinnable war.

Please people, I beg you: Do your homework before you just repost stuff on social media. When you do that—and you don’t know what you’re posting, or what it means to post what you’re posting—you are feeding the propaganda machine that keeps getting people killed in an unwinnable war.

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

Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
Abonner Slutt abonner
Dela

Episoder

Beware The Democratic Socialist Dog From Vermont
4 Mar· Underground USA
Senator Bernie Sanders, the self-proclaimed Democratic Socialist from Vermont who has literally never held a private sector job in his life, has spent the past few months crisscrossing the United States, rallying against what he calls an “oligarchy” threatening American democracy. This is an obvious exercise in projection.
From Omaha, Nebraska, to Iowa City, Iowa, and now targeting Republican-held congressional districts in Wisconsin ahead of a pivotal state Supreme Court election in April 2025, Sanders has positioned himself as the torchbearer of a “progressive resistance.” His “Fighting Oligarchy” tour has drawn significant attention from the rudderless far-Left, with viewership often reaching six figures and a recent video amassing nearly 3 million views.
Sanders’ neo-Marxist message resonates with a segment of the far- and radical-Left emboldened by former President Joe Biden’s farewell address, in which he warned of “an oligarchy taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power, and influence” that endangers democracy itself.
Yet, beneath the propagandistic fervor and viral optics lies a deeply flawed ideology—Democratic Socialism—as championed by Sanders.
His campaign against “oligarchy,” his critiques of the Trump administration’s billionaire-heavy roster, and his attacks on policies like the 2017 tax cuts and the Elon Musk-run Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts reveal not a coherent vision for America, but a patchwork of economic fallacies, political opportunism, and moral posturing. Sanders’ rhetoric and ideology, along with Democratic Socialism as a whole, are not only impractical but also disingenuous, relying on exaggerated class warfare narratives that fail to withstand scrutiny.
Sanders’ self-identification as a Democratic Socialist invites immediate skepticism when one examines the term’s historical and practical implications. Democratic Socialism, in theory, seeks to blend socialist economic principles—centralized control of production, wealth redistribution, and the abolition of private profit motives—with democratic governance. Yet, Sanders’ version of this ideology often veers into a muddled hybrid, neither fully socialist nor pragmatically democratic, raising questions about its intellectual coherence.
Historically, socialism has been associated with state ownership of the means of production, as seen in the Soviet Union or Maoist China, where economic centralization led to inefficiency, stagnation, and authoritarianism. Sanders distances himself from these examples, pointing instead to Scandinavian countries like Denmark or Sweden as models.
However, these nations are not socialist in the traditional sense—they are market economies with robust welfare states, high taxes, and private enterprise thriving alongside significant government intervention. Danish Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen famously rebuked Sanders in 2015, stating, “Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.” Sanders’ insistence on the “Democratic Socialist” label thus appears more as a branding exercise than a precise ideological commitment.
This mislabeling matters because it obfuscates the policy debate.
Sanders rails against “oligarchy” and billionaires like Elon Musk, Howard Lutnick, and Linda McMahon, who populate the Trump administration, yet his solutions—massive government expansion, wealth taxes, and nationalized industries like healthcare—do not align with the flexible, market-driven systems he claims to admire in Scandinavia. Instead, they echo the top-down control of traditional socialism, which has consistently failed to deliver prosperity without sacrificing individual liberty. His critique of the Trump administration’s billionaire class, while emotionally compelling, lacks a clear alternative that avoids the pitfalls of centralized power—ironically, the very thing he accuses oligarchs of wielding.
Sanders’ central thesis—that America is sliding into an oligarchy—gained traction when Biden echoed it in his farewell address. The image of Trump flanked by billionaires at his inauguration, coupled with Musk’s DOGE-led cuts to federal agencies like the intensely corrupt and ideologically agendized USAID, fuels Sanders’ claim that a handful of ultra-wealthy elites are seizing control of democracy.
Talking with CNN’s Anderson Cooper in February 2025, Sanders called Musk’s USAID cuts “unconstitutional,” arguing they bypass Congress’ authority over appropriations. His “Fighting Oligarchy” tour amplifies this narrative, spotlighting affected individuals like former park rangers laid off due to National Park Service reductions.
As an aside, Sanders is also dead wrong about the DOGE effort sidestepping congressional appropriations. DOGE is a repurposing of the congressionally funded United States Digital Service (USDS), an agency created under the Obama administration in 2014. The US Constitution allows a President to manage the Executive Branch as he sees fit, including rebranding and repurposing without the need for congressional input or approval. But then, a constitutionally illiterate Democratic Socialist probably would know that.
But is America truly an oligarchy? The term implies a small, unelected elite governing without accountability—a description more fitting for Putin’s Russia, Xi’s China, and Maduro’s Venezuela than a constitutional republic with regular elections, checks and balances, and—to the extent that it is—a free press. Sanders points to wealth concentration as evidence, noting that Musk, Jeff Bezos, and Mark Zuckerberg collectively hold more wealth than the bottom half of Americans. This disparity is real (Forbes estimated their combined net worth at $911.7 billion in early 2025) but wholly irrelevant. Wealth alone does not equate to political domination.
Consider the 2024 election: Kamala Harris outspent Trump by a wide margin, raising over $1 billion with support from progressive billionaires like George Soros and Reid Hoffman, yet she lost decisively. Musk’s $270 million in campaign spending, while significant, was dwarfed by the Left’s war chest. If money guaranteed power, Harris would be president, not Trump.
This suggests that electoral outcomes hinge more on voter sentiment than billionaire checkbooks—a reality Sanders conveniently glosses over. His portrayal of Musk as a puppet master, pulling strings via DOGE, ignores the broader democratic process that installed Trump and his administration, however imperfect some my consider it to be.
Moreover, Sanders’ focus on “oligarchy” cherry-picks data to fit his narrative. The US economy remains dynamic, with entrepreneurship and upward mobility still possible, as evidenced by Musk himself—a South African immigrant who built his fortune through innovation. Wealth inequality is a challenge, but labeling it an oligarchy oversimplifies a complex system where power is distributed across elected officials, corporations, and citizens—not just a cabal of billionaires.
A chief propagandistic cornerstone of Sanders’ critique is the Trump administration’s plan to lock in the 2017 Tax Cuts & Jobs Act (TCJA), which he portrays as a giveaway to the rich at the expense of the working class. In Iowa City, he argued that these cuts exacerbate inequality, funneling benefits to billionaires while slashing funds for Medicaid, education, and housing. This rhetoric plays well to his tunnel-visioned, radically Leftist base, but the economic reality is more nuanced—and Sanders’ alternative is much less viable than he admits.
The TCJA reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21% and lowered individual rates across income brackets. Critics like Sanders highlight that the top 1% reaped disproportionate gains—an estimated 20% of the total tax relief, according to the Tax Policy Center. Yet, the cuts also boosted economic growth, with GDP rising 2.9% in 2018 compared to 2.3% in 2016, and unemployment falling to a 50-year low of 3.5% by 2019. Wage growth for low- and middle-income workers outpaced that of the top earners in 2018-2019, per Census Bureau data, contradicting the narrative of exclusive elite enrichment.
Sanders’ solution—reversing these cuts and imposing steep wealth taxes—ignores the trade-offs.
Higher corporate taxes could deter investment, as seen in pre-2017 America when companies hoarded cash overseas to avoid the 35% rate. His proposed wealth tax, modeled on Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s plan, would face practical hurdles: capital flight, valuation disputes, and constitutional challenges under the 16th Amendment. France’s wealth tax, abandoned in 2017 after driving 60,000 millionaires abroad, serves as a cautionary tale. Sanders’ economic vision promises fairness but would deliver stagnation—a lesson history teaches but he refuses to learn.
Sanders’ outrage over Musk’s DOGE cuts, particularly to USAID and the National Park Service, exemplifies his tendency to prioritize pseudo-moral indignation over pragmatic governance. In Omaha, he stood alongside former park rangers, decrying their layoffs as evidence of billionaire indifference. On CNN, he labeled the USAID cuts unconstitutional, citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which forbids the executive from withholding Congressionally appropriated funds without legislative approval.
Legally, Sanders has a point—US District Judge Loren L. AliKhan’s February 2025 ruling suggested the administration’s funding freeze “potentially run[s] roughshod over a ‘bulwark of the Constitution.’” Yet, his broader critique falters when the understanding that DOGE actions are not aimed at ending funding, but weeding out waste, corruption, and outright fraud, are considered.
DOGE aims to slash federal spending by $2 trillion, targeting inefficiencies in a $6.8 trillion budget. USAID, with a $50 billion annual allocation, has faced criticism for waste, ineffectiveness, and now agendized fraud, all of which have now been exposed. Government Accountability Office reports have flagged mismanagement in its aid programs. National Park Service layoffs, while emotionally charged, reflect a broader push to streamline a bureaucracy that employs over 12,000 with a $3 billion budget, yet struggles with maintenance backlogs.
Sanders frames these cuts as an assault on the vulnerable, but he offers no serious plan to address the federal deficit, now at $36 trillion, or the inefficiencies DOGE targets. His alternative—expanding government programs like Medicare for All, costing an estimated $32 trillion over a decade per the Urban Institute—relies on fantastical revenue projections and dismisses the fiscal reality that entitlement spending already consumes 70% of the budget. Democratic Socialism, as Sanders envisions it, demands endless expenditure without a credible funding mechanism beyond “tax the rich,” a mantra that collapses under scrutiny when applied to a globalized economy.
Sanders’ latest move—touring Wisconsin’s Republican-held districts ahead of an April 2025 state Supreme Court election—underscores his propensity for opportunistic political theater.
Wisconsin, a battleground state, will decide whether conservatives retain control of its top court, a decision with implications for free speech, cultural Marxism (wokeness), voting rights, and redistricting. Sanders’ involvement, ostensibly to combat “oligarchy,” reeks of ideological and political opportunism. He’s not just fighting billionaires; he’s rallying far-Left Democrats—and targeting college students—in a state where his 2016 and 2020 primary wins showcased his appeal, conveniently aligning his “movement” with partisan electoral goals.
This pattern repeats across his tour. In Omaha and Iowa City, he targeted districts flipped by Republicans in 2024, urging audiences to pressure Reps. Don Bacon and Mariannette Miller-Meeks to oppose tax cuts. His grassroots veneer masks a calculated strategy: energize the far-Left while sidestepping the national stage, where his ideas face sterner tests and exposure to their inabilities to work.
Sanders’ nearly 3 million video views reflect his media savvy, but popularity does not equal viability. His CNN appearances and viral clips amplify his message, yet they rarely grapple with the hard questions of implementation or cost—hallmarks of a propagandistic populist more interested in preaching and being seen as important and relevant more than governing.
Sanders’ crusade against billionaires like Musk, Lutnick, and McMahon drips with irony. He decries their wealth and influence, yet his own career—spanning four decades in Congress—has made him a millionaire, with a net worth estimated at $3 million by 2025, per public disclosures, and all on a six-figure salary (think about that). His three homes, including a $600,000 lakefront property, belie the asceticly Bolshevik image he cultivates. While not in Musk’s league, Sanders’ personal success within the system he critiques undermines his moral authority. If wealth concentration is the problem, why does he exempt himself from the reckoning?
Moreover, Sanders’ selective outrage ignores far-Left Democrat billionaires—Soros, Hoffman, Tom Steyer—who pour millions into progressive causes, including NGOs that we now know purposely interfere in elections in transgression of the 501c3 statuses. In 2024, they dwarfed Musk’s contributions, yet Sanders rarely calls them out, exposing a partisan double standard. His “oligarchy” label applies only to those in the Center and on the Right, suggesting his fight is less about principle and more about political tribalism.
The real peril of Sanders’ Democratic Socialism—as well as that of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rashida Tlaib, Cori Bush, and Greg Casar—lies not in its immediate feasibility, or infeasibility, as it were (his policies face long odds in a divided Congress), but in its long-term implications and the destruction it would cause to the lower- and middle-classes. By demonizing wealth creators like Musk, whose innovations in electric vehicles, space travel, and communications have tangible societal benefits—including employment and all the trappings that come with it, Sanders risks stifling the entrepreneurial spirit that drives American prosperity. His obsession with wealth redistribution overlooks the role of private capital in funding breakthroughs that government alone cannot replicate—SpaceX’s reusable rockets, for instance, outpace NASA’s efforts at a fraction of the cost, and don’t get me started on Starlink.
Furthermore, Sanders’ expansionist government vision directly threatens individual liberty.
Medicare for All, free college, and Green New Deal proposals centralize power in Washington, reducing choice and accountability. Historical attempts at such scale—think Britain’s National Health Service—yield mixed results at best: universal access but long wait times and rationing. Sanders’ faith in bureaucratic competence defies evidence of federal mismanagement, from the VA scandals to the Social Security Administration’s $23 billion in improper payments in 2023. Ask yourself, besides the US military—and this is only focusing on their performance on the battlefields—what does the federal government (or the state governments, for that matter) do better than the private sector? The honest answer is nothing.
Bernie Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, with its manufactured, propagandistic impassioned speeches and bought-and-paid-for viral reach, taps into genuine frustrations over inequality and political dysfunction. His warnings about billionaires in the Trump administration and cuts like those to USAID resonate with a public wary of unchecked power; unchecked power fueled for the most part by Democrat administrations and Democrat spendthrift opportunists in Congress. Yet, his Democratic Socialism offers not a solution, but a mirage—economically untenable, ideologically inconsistent, and politically opportunistic; an unattainable utopia tantamount to the false euphoria promised through a heroin addiction.
Sanders casts himself as a modern-day Lincoln, battling for a government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” But Lincoln faced slavery, a clear moral evil; Sanders faces a messy, imperfect capitalism that, for all its flaws, has lifted more people out of poverty than any system in history. His crusade against “oligarchy” disingenuously substitutes class warfare for serious debate, ignoring the trade-offs of his own policies.
As he tours Wisconsin and beyond, Sanders remains a compelling voice—but one whose vision, if realized, would trade one set of elites for another with a far more totalitarian and authoritative cast of characters, leaving America poorer and less free in the process.
Sanders' vision for American government is this: The Biden years only four-times more inept, invasive, and oppressive.
Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Frank Salvato's analysis has been entered into the congressional record through the US House Foreign Relations Committee and recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His writing has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Human Events, as well as syndicated internationally.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Conflating Support For Ukrainians & Zelenskyy
Before I go, I wanted to address what appears to be an irrational position being taken by a great many people on social media. That is their refusal to distinguish between the Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian government.
Vlodomyr Zelenskyy is the leader of the Ukrainian government. He represents the leaders of that country who—through his words, as expressed in his disrespectful Oval Office performance—will not agree to a ceasefire and will not negotiate peace with Vladimir Putin. These are his words, not mine or anyone else's.
Common sense (and I know that’s in short supply these days) mandates—mandates—that two people who exist in conflict with each other resolve their differences for there to be a cessation of hostilities. That’s just a fact and anyone not accepting that basic premise is an ignoramus.
One way to resolve conflict is for one adversary to overcome the other. In the case of the Ukraine-Russia conflict, any resolution would have to see one country winning the war against the other. As it stands—recognizing this conflict as now one of attrition—Ukraine cannot win. Let’s do the math.
At the start of the war in 2022, Ukraine’s population stood at approximately 41 million people. Russia’s population was approximately 146 million people. Russia had between 18 to 20 million people of “fighting age.” Ukraine’s fighting age population stood at 7 to 9 million. In a war of attrition considering math alone, Ukraine would lose by a ratio of a little more than 2-to-1.
Yes, weaponry makes a difference, but occupation is the name of the game in war and it takes bodies to occupy land. Then you must consider that North Korea has engaged its troops on Russia’s behalf. Unless the West (read: NATO or Europe’s newly considered “coalition of the willing”---which hasn’t been formed yet) gets involved with boots on the ground, there is no way Ukraine can defeat Russia in the conflict to reach that avenue of conflict resolution.
The other avenue of conflict resolution is negotiated peace. That requires the two parties in conflict to enter into negotiations with the goal of ceasing hostilities (read: stopping the killing and aggression). Zelenskyy has stated full-throatedly that he is uninterested in a ceasefire or negotiating with his adversary. So, Zelenskyy—not Putin, not Trump; not Russia and not the West—has eliminated this avenue for peace from the choices.
Again, for the hard of hearing, a negotiated peace cannot be achieved when one of the parties in conflict refuses to negotiate with the other.
That left a cunningly crafted third way, devised by the Trump team: The Rare Earth minerals deal. This would have formally introduced the American private sector into land management in Ukraine; it would have created US assets in the regions. Thus, an attack on those assets would have been a direct attack on the United States and an act of war on Russia’s behalf.
As I stated in an earlier podcast:
“Putin may be ruthless, but he’s not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his military’s vulnerabilities through their actions against the Ukrainian Army, and he recognizes that in the face of a US-led (or even NATO-led) military coalition, he would lose unequivocally.”
So, the impediment to peace is Zelenskyy’s egotistical need to win the war when there is no possibility of winning the war without a global conflict ensuing. Zelenskyy’s goal, it appears, is not peace; it is not to stop the killing. It is to win an unwinnable war.
Which brings me to my point. Only the heartless don’t feel for the people—the people—of Ukraine. We all want them to live freely under their own sovereign rule. But conflating support for Ukraine’s leader with feeling for the Ukrainian people is just as inane as saying all Germans were devout supporters of Hitler during World War II.
You can feel for the innocents in Ukraine without supporting the unwinnable war effort of the Ukrainian government. The posting of the “I stand with Ukraine” memes and statements only feeds the Ukrainian war machine’s propaganda campaigns; it only serves their goal that insists on more military aid only to see the sharpening of the blades of the meat grinder for its warfighters and citizens.
To wit, when did all the people who want peace so badly, become blind followers of the unwinnable war? Only the uninformed, the naive, the half-witted, and the ghoulish support the unwinnable war.
Please people, I beg you: Do your homework before you just repost stuff on social media. When you do that—and you don’t know what you’re posting, or what it means to post what you’re posting—you are feeding the propaganda machine that keeps getting people killed in an unwinnable war.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
SPECIAL: It’s Stunning That This Needs To Be Explained…
1 Mar· Underground USA
In the aftermath of the dust-up in the Oval Office between Vlodomyr Zelenskyy, President Trump, and Vice President Vance, I find it stunning that so many, quick to their opinions, can be so blind—and stubbornly so—to the realities of what happened and the opportunities that were refused.
First, Zelenskyy is the leader (for now) of what the World Bank calls a “lower-middle-income country.” It is by no means in any position to claim the mantle of what we would have called “first world” status during the Cold War. Additionally, Zelenskyy is the leader of a country that needs foreign aid—both militarily and financially—to survive in the immediate.
So, his outrageous demeanor in the Oval Office toward President Trump and Vice President Vance—not to mention his backstabbing of Secretary of State Marco Rubio in changing the terms of the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement—is and was completely and absolutely unacceptable. Zelenskyy is not of equal station or stature as the President of the United States. Put bluntly, you don’t come asking for foreign aid and start dictating what you will accept, how the benefactor will feel, and what the donor country will do.
And it wasn’t just Americans, sans the radical Left, who must consistently and inanely take the opposite position of everything Donald Trump says (every House Democrat voted against eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, tips, and overtime). Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Dubinsky called for an emergency session of the Ukrainian Parliament to initiate impeachment proceedings against Zelenskyy. It needs to be noted that Dubinsky is currently imprisoned in Ukraine for his alleged Russian influence (Zelenskyy didn’t like what he was saying, so he put him in prison).
In a completely unscientific social media poll (and I don’t put a lot of stock in polling, but when one is substantially lopsided, it’s hard to argue that the sentiment isn’t there), 71.4% of the respondents said they believed Zelenskyy’s actions in the Oval Office diminished the American people’s support for Ukraine in its war with Russia.
And how could we not. Zelenskyy sat defiantly in the Oval Office declaring with a full-throat that he would both not accept a ceasefire and not negotiate peace with Vladimir Putin. Regardless of what you may think about Putin (I am not a fan, by far), if you are unwilling to enter into dialogues with your nation-state adversary, how do you expect to craft an avenue to peace; how do you stop the killing?
Zelenskyy’s attitude on those points alone validates Mr. Trump’s statement that Zelenskyy isn’t “ready for Peace if America is involved.”
But even more arrogantly egregious was Zelenskyy’s pivot away from the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement in his demand for “security guarantees” from the United States. This is where the “drive-by know-nothing” social media opinionators expose their complete lack of critical thinking skills and intellectual comprehension of geopolitical issues involving Ukraine and Russia.
Zelenskyy’s insistence on “security guarantees” from the United States equates to the United States committing to military engagement should Russia violate any agreement to cease hostilities. That would mean a direct US military conflict with Russia—US troops on the ground—and with Russia having China's unwavering alliance and recent assurances on the matter.
Further—and again, this is where the “drive-by know-nothings” fail to think things through, with China (a nuclear power with a 2 million person active-duty roster) both existing adversarially to the United States and in contracted concert with Russia (a nuclear power)—and with both of them seeking to end Western (read: American) hegemony—any US military engagement on Ukraine’s behalf on Ukrainian soil would light the fuse to a global conflict, again validating Mr. Trump’s point that Zelenskyy is playing with World War.
However, the larger demonstration of Zelenskyy’s inability to grasp a concept is his complete ignorance of what the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have meant for his country. Thus, my contention that Zelenskyy is not even close to being an adequate leader for the Ukrainian people.
The Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have achieved two things.
First, it would have immediately affected a cessation of hostilities—and that means the killing would have stopped—because it would have hobbled Putin from advancing, the United States would have established a vested interest and, therefore, an official presence in Ukraine. So, any aggression by Putin against US interests in that country would have been an act of war against the United States directly.
Putin may be ruthless, but he’s not foolish. He understands that the United States and its aligned European powers have identified his military’s vulnerabilities through their actions against the Ukrainian Army, and he recognizes that in the face of a US-led (or even NATO-led) military coalition, he would lose unequivocally.
Just as importantly, the Rare Earth Minerals Agreement would have provided Ukraine with a domestic capability to rebuild, which will likely be a monumental effort.
As of February 2024, the estimated cost for rebuilding Ukraine, assuming the war ends in short order, was pegged at $486 billion over a decade, according to the Rapid Damage & Needs Assessment (RDNA3) released on February 15, 2024, by the Ukrainian government, the World Bank, the European Commission, and the United Nations.
This figure reflects the total reconstruction and recovery needs based on damages incurred from the start of Russia’s full-scale invasion on February 24, 2022, through December 31, 2023. Later data, like the RDNA4 from February 25, 2025, bumps the cost to $524 billion through December 31, 2024, suggesting an additional $38 billion in damage over 2024.
As Zelenskyy scurries to the low-watt spotlight being shone on him by some European leaders—leaders who talk a tough game but whose actions in the past prove a more cautious approach to any foreign entanglements without US participation, are we to believe that Europe (the EU) alone will flip the bill for eveyething Ukraine will need to rebuild?
Further, are we to believe that in a post-conflict Ukraine, the government’s penchant for embracing and tolerating corruption will suddenly evaporate to an acceptable level tolerated by the European people, particularly when the Ukrainian government will be spending European tax dollars? My friends, Europeans aren’t as apathetic about the squandering of their tax dollars as American taxpayers.
So, in my eyes, all the handwringing and superficial protestation about President Trump and Vice President Vance’s response to Zelenskyy’s Oval Office behavior, and, quite frankly, his arrogant approach to the American taxpayer in general, is nothing more than a display of kneejerk, emotion-driven, stunted intellect and the “drive-by-know-nothing’s” inability to think an issue through to all logical and realistic conclusions.
It’s one of the burdens that a free people must both contend with and defend to maintain the sanctity of free speech. The knowledgeable must suffer the inanity of the uneducated and uninformed who believe they know the fact because they feel they do.
It’s a cross to bear for sure. But freedom is worth that cost.
Frank Salvato's analysis has been entered into the congressional record through the US House Foreign Relations Committee and recognized by the Japan Center for Conflict Prevention. His writing has been published by The American Enterprise Institute, The Washington Times, Accuracy in Media, and Human Events, as well as syndicated internationally.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Mangler du episoder?

Klikk her for å oppdatere manuelt.
It’s Time The Charges Of Treason & Sedition Had Some Teeth
1 Mar· 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
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
The Manufactured Opposition To DOGE & Elon Musk
24 Feb· Underground USA
If you only get your information from social media or the usual suspect media outlets, you probably believe there are a significant number of Americans who oppose Elon Musk’s efforts at exposing the spendthrift practices of our bought-and-paid-for, corrupt, Deep-State-monopolized federal government. Don’t believe it. Not for a New York minute.
For those who genuinely seek accurate and truthful information, it may surprise you to learn that the mainstream media complex and its toady polling organizations—you know, the ones that had Kamala Harris winning over Donald Trump in the 2024 General Election—want you to believe a significant portion of the Republic doesn’t want waste, fraud, and corruption exposed and eliminated. Further, they want you to think that everyone hates Elon Musk.
Ten of the most “prestigeous,” and for those listening to the podcast I am using the word facetiously, polling institutions report a mixed but often negative view of Elon Musk and his leadership of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE):
* AP-NORC Poll (January 9-13, 2025): This poll found that 52% of US adults have an unfavorable opinion of Musk, compared to 36% with a favorable view. Regarding DOGE, only 29% approved of its creation with 60% of respondents viewing it as a "bad thing."
* YouGov/The Economist Poll (February 9-11, 2025): This survey reported that 52% of Americans view Musk unfavorably, compared to 42%. For DOGE, 42% viewed it favorably, but 38% were unfavorable, and notably, it was less popular than many federal programs it aims to cut.
* Morning Consult Poll (Published February 5, 2025): Among 2,000 registered voters, 46% disapproved of Musk's involvement in the government, compared to 41% who approved.
* Reuters/Ipsos Poll (Completed February 18, 2025): This poll revealed that 58% of Americans were concerned that Musk’s efforts to slash government spending could delay critical services like Social Security and student aid.
* Groundwork Collaborative/Public Citizen Poll (Hart Research, Published February 5, 2025): This survey showed 54% of voters with an unfavorable view of Musk, rising to 63% by the end after respondents learned more about DOGE’s operations and Musk’s “potential” conflicts of interest. Additionally, 57% felt Musk has too much influence, with 61% less favorable toward him due to unregulated access to government systems and his business interests.
* Quinnipiac University Poll (Published February 19, 2025): A majority, 54%, disapproved of Musk’s role in the Trump administration, with 42% approving, placing him 12 points underwater in public opinion.
* Pew Research Center Poll (January, 2025): This poll found 54% of respondents with an unfavorable view of Musk, compared to 42% favorable.
* CBS/YouGov Poll (Published February 5, 2025): Nearly half of respondents (49%) wanted Musk to have less or no influence over government spending and operations, with 31% saying he should have none at all.
The results of these polls are being trumpeted in the usual suspect Left-wing alphabet media, and special interest publications including: Politico, Axios, Newsweek, MotherJones.com, GroundWorkCollaborative.org, Reuters, The New Republic, NBC News, and others.
Incidentally, two of the most accurate polls in the 2024 General Election—Rasmussen Reports and the Trafalgar Group—both reported a majority support for Musk and DOGE.
So, what is it that the Deep State masters of the propaganda polling outlets hate so much about Elon Musk and his activities with DOGE? Within 30 days of its inception, DOGE found $55 billion in fraud, waste, redundancy, and corruption in federal spending, and that’s just in 30 days.
At the center of the Deep State grift—the US Agency for International Development (USAID), until recently headed by Samantha Power, DOGE exposed that a significant portion of USAID funds—up to 82%—never reaches intended recipients. Instead, it is pocketed by prime contractors and NGOs, turning aid into a “personal slush fund” for Washington, DC insiders.
Some of those USAID-funded projects include:
* Funding for a $20 Million "Sesame Street" project in Iraq
* $1.5 Million for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion (DEI) projects in Serbia
* Millions of taxpayer dollars to nonprofits linked to terrorist organizations ($9 million in aid diverted to groups like the Al-Nusrah Front in Syria and millions for food aid reaching al Qaeda-affiliated fighters, also in Syria)
* Millions to EcoHealth Alliance for Wuhan lab gan-of-function research
* $70,000 for a "DEI Musical" in Ireland
* Printing "Personalized" Contraceptives in Developing Countries
And this is just a sampling of the list of abuses the American taxpayer has had to endure under the grotesque campaign of grift perpetrated by the Deep State uniparty.
Most recently, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt has asserted that DOGE, targeting three main areas for acts of fraud at the Social Security Administration (duplicate payments, payments to deceased individuals, and broader systemic integrity issues), has found data inconsistencies that raise concerns about payments to people listed as 150, 200, or even 360 years old. The Social Security Administration database shows millions of people over 100 years old with the "death field" set to "FALSE," implying they might still be receiving benefits despite being dead.
The Social Security Administration’s own Inspector General reported in July 2024 that improper payments—including some to deceased individuals—totaled $71.8 billion from fiscal years 2015 to 2022 alone. Additionally, a 2021 audit specifically identified $298 million paid to about 24,000 deceased individuals through December 2019.
It should be noted here that DOGE hasn’t even come close to concluding their audits of any of these agencies. It’s all in the beginning stages.
I am fortunate to connect with a great many people, both domestically and internationally, during the course of my days and I can make this statement with absolute certainty. I have yet to come across anyone who, once informed about the facts and figures of the matter—the actual data—and who genuinely wants the United States to thrive—I have yet to come across anyone who supports the continuation of the Deep State’s diabolical campaign of grift.
My larger point here is this. The mainstream media, along with those aforementioned polling organization toadies, routinely manufacture polls to fit the preferred narrative of the Deep State uniparty. Their history of push polling is not a secret, and today, the overwhelming number of polling organizations only execute push polls. To that end, ask yourself this question: If the mainstream public opinion polls were on the up-and-up, why would political campaigns need “internal polling”?
So, as you scroll through the posts about fuzzy baby animals and which celebrity turned down $7 trillion to star in a movie with Oprah and Robert DeNiro, keep in mind that the onslaught of anti-DOGE and anti-Musk memes and posts are as credible as a daycare center run by P Diddy and Jeffrey Epstein. They aren’t. They are propaganda pieces sanctioned by the Deep State uniparty to discredit an initiative that means to return sanity to government spending and the government itself to the service of the American people.
Then, when we return, our segment on 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 Joy for MSNBC’s Reid
Before I go, I wanted to celebrate a move—made by MSNBC, of all places—to recognize their responsibility (at least in this instance) to truth in our public square.
Benjamin Mullin of The New York Times reports:
“Joy Reid’s evening news show on MSNBC is being canceled, part of a far-reaching programming overhaul orchestrated by Rebecca Kutler, the network’s new president, two people familiar with the changes said.
“The final episode of Ms. Reid’s 7 p.m. show, ‘The ReidOut,’ is planned for sometime this week, according to the people, who were not authorized to speak publicly.”
Reid comes in a close second to Rachel Maddow as one of the most caustically partisan “personalities” in the media today, with Mika and Joe coming in a distant third.
The false narratives, conspiracy theories, and politically uneducated drivel advanced by Reid and her ilk are not only racist, they are allodoxaphobic (the fear of opinions differing from one’s own). Her race-based, exploitative rants were consistently counter-productive to the discussion of truth and fact and, in fact, damaging to society.
That Joy Reid is losing her $3 million a year paycheck (who the fuck thought she was worth $3 million a year?!) along with having her corporate media megaphone shut off should be celebrated, not because it is canceling a caustic, hateful voice, but because it is forcing Reid to face the harsh reality that her positions about politics and society aren’t selling in the public square and, thus, don’t warrant any spotlight.
I am sure Reid will exist tone-deaf to this truth: That she is so out of tune with society (and even the overwhelming majorities of the Democrat Party and the Black community) that she can’t even get a gig on the hyper-partisan MSNBC.
But I am equally certain that she will refuse to fade from the roach-infested corners of the spotlight, those rounded corners where the fraudulent conspiracy theorists, has-been partisan hacks, and Hitlarian haters dwell in obscurity. I am sure she will launch a podcast, and places like YouTube, Spotify, and Apple will again ignore her unmistakeable racism and intrinsic hatred to spotlight her claptrap over fact-based and honest podcasts…all because some political hack in an editor’s suite once saw the possibility of ratings through the exploitation of identity politics.
Ta-ta, Joy, and don’t let the door hit you in your race-baiting, hateful ass on the way out.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
No, DOGE Is Not Unconstitutional
21 Feb· Underground USA
There has been a lot of uneducated debate on the legitimacy of President Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), the effort headed by Elon Musk. As those who see their seats at the taxpayer-funded government feedthrough threatened and panic about having to do without out, the idea that the new entity is illegitimate needs to be laid to rest. It is.
Recently, 14 state attorneys general were denied their request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to obstruct Musk’s DOGE efforts, claiming that eliminating waste and fraudulent spending in the many federal agencies and departments would cause “harm” to their states. Ironically, it was US District Judge Tanya Chutkan, the same judge who presided over the criminal investigation into Trump’s alleged efforts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, who ruled against them.
As FOX News' Breanne Deppisch reported:
“Plaintiffs argued that the leadership role held by Musk, a private citizen, represents an ‘unlawful delegation of executive power’ and threatened what they described as ‘widespread disruption’ to employees working across various federal agencies and government contractors.
“‘There is no greater threat to democracy than the accumulation of state power in the hands of a single, unelected individual,’ said the lawsuit, filed by New Mexico Attorney General Raul Torrez.
“Attorneys general from Arizona, California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington also joined him in the request.”
Chunkin was correct in denying the attorney generals their TRO, but not for the reasons she stated, which centered on proving “irreparable harm.” Instead, the denial—which should have been dismissed with prejudice—should have centered on the fact that DOGE exists as a re-purposed department already codified by Congress.
The DOGE effort under the Trump administration is, indeed, a re-purposed version of an initiative initially established during the Obama administration.
The Obama administration created the United States Digital Service (USDS) in 2014 to improve government technology and address issues like the HealthCare.gov rollout. The Trump administration rebranded and expanded this effort into what is now known as the DOGE, which focuses on government efficiency, cutting waste, and modernizing federal technology.
DOGE, like other government initiatives, has a legal basis for operating with that basis rooted in executive authority and existing budgetary approval through discretionary spending.
The President has the constitutional authority to issue Executive Orders to establish or direct the operations of initiatives such as those tasked to Musk through DOGE. Executive orders do not require congressional approval and can be used to set policy and/or reorganize federal agencies or offices.
Further, the Constitution grants the President broad executive authority to reorganize and manage the Executive Branch as deemed necessary for the efficient operation of the government. This includes creating, rebranding, or repurposing offices or initiatives like DOGE.
Regarding funding sources, DOGE service falls under the Executive Office of the Presidental Budget, and its fiscal year 2025 budget is available for DOGE activities. This budget typically covers staff salaries, technology, and advisory initiatives. Further, agencies hosting DOGE teams can redirect portions of their discretionary funds (Departmental Expenditure Limits, or DELs) to support embedded personnel or system upgrades, as suggested by the framework for efficiency initiatives.
Therefore, DOGE does not require new legislation for its operations. It operates under the existing legal framework that supported its predecessor, the US Digital Service, codified by executive actions and legislation pertaining to government efficiency and technology.
For DOGE operations to be considered unconstitutional, several scenarios or arguments would have to be satisfied before judicial interference would be constitutionally appropriate:
* If DOGE were to execute functions explicitly reserved for Congress or the judiciary, like making laws or adjudicating disputes, it might be seen as an overreach, violating the Separation of Powers principle. However, as DOGE is narrowly tasked with seeking out waste, fraud, and spendthrift expenditures, neither of these lines in the sand has been crossed.
* If DOGE were to spend money that has not been appropriated by Congress, it could violate the Appropriations Clause of the US Constitution, which states that “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” As DOGE operates exclusively under the fiscal umbrella of discretionary spending, this red line has not been approached.
* If DOGE's actions led to the deprivation of rights without due process (e.g. if it implemented policies or technology that affected individuals’ constitutional rights without providing a fair hearing or legal recourse, this could be challenged under the Fifth or Fourteenth Amendments. Since DOGE is tasked with ferreting out waste and fraud that exists as an abuse of taxpayer dollars (i.e., abuse of power), no encroachment into federal employee rights can be recognized. As federal employees under the Executive Branch serve at the “pleasure of the President,” redundancy terminations and employment separations for an employee's lack of fidelity to presidential directives fall well within the President’s purview.
* If DOGE were to engage in surveillance or data collection practices that infringed upon citizens' privacy without proper legal justification or oversight, this could be seen as violating the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. Since DOGE is simply claiming its right to existing data, there is no “surveillance” or “data collection,” making this point moot.
* If DOGE's operations included censorship or content control in a way that impinged on free speech, this would be a significant constitutional concern. With DOGE being a “transparency effort,” this issue is also moot.
* Should DOGE implement policies or use technology in a discriminatory manner, this could be challenged under the Equal Protection Clause, suggesting that individuals are not being treated equally under the law based on race, religion, gender, or other protected classes. Again, because the DOGE effort is to root out waste, spendthrift monetary practices, and grift, the effort is not identity-driven, rendering this go-to favorite of the radical Left nothing more than a hollow claim.
* Lastly, if the initiative were seen as an attempt by the Executive Branch to bypass legislative processes or create de facto laws or regulations without congressional approval, it could be argued that this was an unconstitutional expansion of executive power. Yet, because the DOGE effort is rooted in eliminating existing waste, fraud, and corruption, the actions that result are not legislative or regulatory. They are operational and fall squarely within the executive purview.
For any of these scenarios to lead to a finding of unconstitutionality, DOGE would need to take specific actions or create specific policies that clearly violate constitutional principles. No argument has been levied to make any of these charges. Any legal challenge requires evidence that DOGE's actions go beyond the Executive Branch's constitutional authority or infringe upon individual constitutional rights. That threshold isn’t even in the room.
So, yes, Virginia, there is a legal and constitutional basis for DOGE to both exist and operate, much to the chagrin of the Deep State spendthrift swampateers in Washington, DC, and beyond.
Carry on, Elon. You are providing an incredible service to your adopted country, and I, for one, am thankful.
Funny. In the end, landing a man on Mars may prove easier for Musk than expunging corruption and fraud from the federal government. Who would have thought?!
Then, when we return, our segment on 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.
The Ideological Left’s Deep State ‘Sleeper Cells’
I wanted to touch on why it is so critically important to maintain the hunt for the ideological “sleeper cells” embedded in federal agencies and departments in pursuit of reform.
Two recent stories validate my contention that every agency and department under the Executive Branch—including the lesser White House and Executive Office staff—must be rid of any previously appointed careerists and especially any “holdovers” from Democratic administrations. Anyone who received their positions during the Clinton, Obama, or Biden administrations must be released from service.
The first example comes in the removal of Michelle King, who was serving as acting commissioner of the Social Security Administration, right up until it was discovered that she was stonewalling a DOGE investigation into massive fraud within the agency. King spent several decades at the agency before being named its acting commissioner last month.
This comes as reports surface that $71.8 billion in improper Social Security payments were made between 2015 and 2022 alone.
And the second example comes in the resignation of senior US prosecutor Denise Cheung, who quit after being ordered to issue grand jury subpoenas to determine whether “a contract had been unlawfully awarded.” Cheung’s refusal to execute a prosecutorial order from her superiors—who determined the need for the action—exists as a usurpation of acting DC US attorney Ed Martin’s legitimate authority.
The grand jury sought by Martin was to determine criminal culpability in the Biden administration’s awarding of billions in environmental grants immediately before President Trump re-entered the White House.
The Deep State uniparty rot permeates the Executive Branch agencies and departments, requiring a massive culling of the herd to ensure that the shadow governments of the past don’t simply “run out the clock” on the Trump administration while providing operation life support to the elements of corruption that the American people mandated Mr. Trump eliminate.
Quite frankly, an exact replica of the DOGE effort currently underway in the Executive Branch must be executed in the Legislative and Judicial Branches of our federal government if we are to fully exterminate the roach operative of the status quo Deep State. The obstacle to that becoming a reality is the lack of will to do so. Finding a set of balls where reformative action is concerned on Capitol Hill or across the street at the US Supreme Court—rhetorically speaking, of course—is like finding a drinking fountain on the face of the Sun.
Before I go, I wanted to address the cultural Stockholm Syndrome emerging in people’s almost pre-programmed criticism of Elon Musk and the job he is doing with DOGE.
Recently, a few usually reasonable people have floated the propaganda that Elon Musk is executing his efforts with DOGE to benefit himself personally. A more ridiculous statement is seldom heard.
A person who is manipulating his or her position to benefit themselves wouldn’t stand silently next to a United States President while he bashed the very products and industry that you own and that brings you the wealth you’ve earned. This is the case with Musk: He stood silently as Trump brutally bashed the EV industry.
Further, it is not self-beneficial when politically motivated prosecutorial misconduct in the form of investigations and tax probes is ceased in the name of lawfulness, which is also the case. The DoJ has terminated investigations started under the Biden administration after Musk aligned with Trump because they were both politically motivated and illegitimate.
The fact of the matter is this. The long knives are out for Musk because he is exposing the corruption and graft perpetrated by the Deep State uniparty, and they are going to do everything in their power to stop him, to destroy him. That’s what’s playing out there.
Those attacking Elon Musk for exposing the sickening level of corruption in our federal government are suffering from a cultural Stockholm Syndrome, fomented by years of corrupt politicians and the K Street-backed media telling you, “that’s just how government works.” No, it’s not. And it doesn’t need to be this way. That’s what Musk is exposing.
As the first step to recovering from this cultural Stockholm Syndrome, ask yourself this question: How do elected officials making a six-figure salary, who have to pay exorbitant rent for living quarters in the nation’s capital, exit office as multimillionaires, sometimes amassing wealth in the eight- and nine-figure range?
Then, with an open mind, consider what Musk is exposing.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
The AP’s Contorted View Of Reality
18 Feb· Underground USA
It’s interesting how the mainstream media useful idiots wail about a “politicized” Department of Justice after spending four years during the Biden administration running interference for some of the most egregious acts of political persecution our country has ever had to endure.
In reporting on reformative moves made by Attorney General Pam Bondi at the DoJ—reformative actions mandated by the American people in the landslide re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency, the Associated Press’s Eric Tucker and Alanna Durkin Richer had the unmitigated gall to report:
“Even for a department that has endured its share of scandals, the moves have produced upheaval not seen in decades, tested its independence, and rattled the foundations of an institution that has long prided itself on being driven solely by facts, evidence, and the law. As firings and resignations mount, the unrest raises the question of whether a president who raged against his own Justice Department during his first term can succeed in bending it to his will in his second.”
Tucker and Richer completely ignore this inarguable fact: When a government agency or department has been corrupted, sometimes a complete reformation is needed. Wrongs must be righted for that department or agency to be reclaimed for the nation's service.
Where Tucker, Richer, and the AP see a radical deviation from the politically motivated corrupt practices of the Obama and Biden administrations (not to mention the Clinton tenure), that deviation isn’t one that goes from legitimacy to corruption. Rather, it is a course correction that moves from “swampateer” corruption and opportunism to legitimacy, a return to constitutional law—to the rule of law—and the rejection and termination of the lawfare that the Deep State status quo seeks; that the Deep State status quo is and has been perpetrating on their political opposition.
The irony here is that the Fourth Estate, which is supposed to be bound to a quest for objectivity and truth, an entity that speaks truth to power, exists now as a blinded entity the public cannot trust, an entity that exists in Jerry Seinfeld’s “bizarro world” where everything is the opposite of what it should be. Today’s mainstream media speaks the language of power and opportunism to truth and fact.
As the Trump administration and its newly seated cabinet and agency heads expose corruption executed for decades by the Deep State uniparty insiders, media organizations like the AP, New York Times, Washington Post, and the like, so used to the status quo of the swamp, can’t differentiate between legitimate moves to return the federal government to the people and the criminally opportunistic moves that moved it away from the people in the first place.
In a statement made about the termination of what appeared to be a case of political retribution against New York’s Democrat Mayor, Eric Adams, Bondi’s spokesman, Chad Mizelle, said:
“The decision to dismiss the indictment of Eric Adams is yet another indication that this DOJ will return to its core function of prosecuting dangerous criminals, not pursuing politically motivated witch hunts.”
He went on to accuse the prosecutors of acting without evidence and executing their offices with “disordered and ulterior motives.”
And isn’t that what the Department of Justice is supposed to be, a department of the federal government that serves the people through the application of the letter of the law and the facts—the facts—of any investigation that leads them to a move to a prosecution?
Did the mainstream media players get so used to writing and hearing their own ideologically motivated false narratives championing corrupt political persecutions of retribution that they have come to believe their own falsehoods? That indicting your political rivals without true justifiable cause and for the sole purpose of ending careers and political movements is a legitimate role for our US Justice Department? That it is good government and the legitimate use of law enforcement to jail and hold non-violent protesters who executed their First Amendment Rights to redress government and in defiance of their Sixth Amendment Rights to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury?
The winds of change–a legitimate change meant to restore us to the US Constitution—have come to the Deep State swamp that is the Washingtonian inside-the-beltway world. For the swampateers and political status quo bottomfeeders of that world, change will be difficult, like kicking a heroin addiction. But in the end, our Republic will be healthier for it, and our federal government will be returned to a state where it serves the people, not the swamps' pocket-filling reprobates.
Alinsky wrote about this concept in his book Rules for Radicals. When pushing for reform, change often requires a degree of chaos, pain, and disruption to challenge the status quo. Alinsky may have been ideologically evil, but damn if he wasn’t right about that.
Then, when we return, our segment 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.
Clusterfuck Nation
I rarely do this (I think I did it once for my good friend Judson Carroll, who hosts the Southern Appalachian Herbs podcast on iHeart, a great resource if you’re looking to get more natural with your health); anyway, before I go, I wanted to share with you a column I am thoroughly enjoying.
It’s called Clusterfuck Nation, and it is written and sometimes produced (he has an associated podcast) by James Howard Kuntsler, who, over his career, has written for Rolling Stone, The Atlantic, and the New York Times Magazine. Now, you would think that with bona fides like those, he would be an unwashed left-winger. But he’s not.
Either he realized the Kool-Aid was mixed from a blend of arsenic and bullshit, or he just saw the light, Kuntsler’s take on what is happening today is spot on, especially his take on the Deep State, what he calls “The Blob.”
You can read his stuff for free, just as you can with Underground USA, but if you appreciate the work and the insight, it never hurts to help the cause financially. Now that substack allows monthly remittance, it’s easier than ever, and, as the woman in the commercial says, it costs less than a cup of coffee at a Starbucks once a month.
So, check out Cklusterfuck Nation after you finish here at Underground USA. I don’t believe you will be disappointed…

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
It’s The Left Who Are Creating A Constitutional Crisis
15 Feb· Underground USA
In the face of what many see as an egregious judicial overreach into the Trump administration's policy implementation, Vice President JD Vance recently challenged the courts' encroachment on the Executive Branch's constitutional prerogatives. It is undoubtedly time to re-establish the Separation of Powers based on the US Constitution.
Vance’s arguments center on an accurate reading and understanding of the fundamental principle of the Separation of Powers. His interpretation—which has been validated over the years in various US Supreme Court Rulings—highlights how anti-Trump judicial actions have repeatedly attempted to usurp the Executive Branch's rightful authority over key functions like military command and prosecutorial discretion, not to mention its exclusive purview of branch organizational operations.
The Separation of Powers doctrine, codified in the Articles of the US Constitution that establishes the three branches of government, is meant to ensure that each branch of government checks the others to prevent any one from becoming too powerful. However, judicial activism, such as what we see in the politically motivated actions of today’s courts against Trump’s executive actions, can upset this balance by allowing the judiciary to encroach on the powers of the legislative or executive branches.
Robert Bork, in his book The Tempting of America, critiques judicial activism as “a political enterprise masquerading as law.” And the late Justice Antonin Scalia, in his book, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts, frequently argued against judicial activism, advocating for originalism, where judges interpret the Constitution based on its text and the original understanding of its terms.
The current controversy ignited when a federal judge brazenly blocked the Department of Government Efficiency, led by Elon Musk, from accessing critical Treasury Department systems. This act blatantly infringes on the Executive's operational autonomy.
This judicial intervention is but one example of how the courts have systematically challenged President Trump's executive orders to restructure and optimize federal government operations. These orders included significant policies that would reorganize and streamline operations, eliminate the wasting of taxpayer dollars, and, specifically, dismantle the Deep State monetary feed-trough that was the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
With over two dozen lawsuits filed directly opposing the President’s executive directives, Deep Staters and Democrat judicial appointees have undertaken an alarming trend in lawfare where judicial blocks have become political tools to thwart the administration's reformative agenda. This politically motivated lawfare obstructs the people’s mandate given to Trump in his 2024 landslide victory.
Critics like the disgraced Liz Cheney and US Senator Adam “Boy Do I Have A Problem With Telling The Truth” Schiff (D-CA) have ignorantly painted Vance's defense of executive authority as “advocacy for lawlessness.” However, when presented with examples of how former Presidents Biden and Obama abused Executive authority for purely political purposes—in particular, Biden’s repeated orders to ignore the US Supreme Court in his advancement of student loan forgiveness, these two political numpties were notably silent.
This obstructionist view starkly contrasts with the insights offered by legal scholars like Yale Law's Jed Rubenfeld, who supports Vance's stance that certain Executive Branch functions are inherently outside the judiciary's scope and purview, and Harvard Law Professor Adrian Vermeule, who also argued that such judicial blocks violate the Separation of Powers, saying, "Judicial interference with legitimate acts of state, especially the internal functioning of a co-equal branch, is a violation of the Separation of Powers.”
Vance himself put it this way:
“If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal. Judges aren't allowed to control the Executive's legitimate power.”
As the administration navigates these legal challenges through what is rightfully recognized as politically weaponized and biased lower courts, the expectation is that these cases will reach the Supreme Court, where a more constitutionally minded review will restore balance.
But, Mr. Trump, his advisors, and legal minds would be wise to borrow from Andrew Jackson's attitude. The 7th president viewed the US Constitution from an originalist viewpoint (as all federally elected and appointed officials should) and often had a contentious relationship with the Judicial Branch.
Jackson often emphasized the sovereignty of states and the limited role of the federal government as mandated by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. This viewpoint extended to opposing and sometimes ignoring judicial review when their decisions could be argued to be extra-constitutional and/or unconstitutionally expansive in their purview. Some key examples come in his veto of the re-chartering of the Second Bank of the United States and his handling of South Carolina's nullification of federal tariffs in 1832-1833, in which he used his executive power to counter what he saw as judicial overreach.
That said, the ongoing legal battles have not only spotlighted the judiciary's contemporary penchant for grotesque overreach—and this is especially true of the lower courts of the federal judiciary at the hands of Democrat appointees—but they also raise alarms about the possibility of a budding constitutional crisis based on the Separation of Powers, establishing the political and ideological Left as the genesis of any potential constitutional crisis.
Vance's bold, wholly constitutional-based rhetoric has escalated the debate on this matter. However, it has also highlighted critical inconsistencies, such as the aforementioned Supreme Court decision on President Biden's student loan forgiveness plan, which reflects a selective acceptance of applicable Judicial Branch power.
With President Trump's re-election, these confrontations are not just legal skirmishes but pivotal moments calling out the need to re-establish the boundaries—based on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights—of presidential authority versus judicial oversight and review in the American governance framework. In fact, these confrontations make it clear that the Deep State, the usurpers of authority, must recognize and accept a complete re-understanding of the federal government’s constitutionally established limitations.
This underscores the urgent need for a national dialogue on our nation’s constitutional illiteracy—and especially our elected officials' constitutional apathy—and the need to uphold the Separation of Powers and the limitations set forth for the federal government under the US Constitution.
We urgently need this to ensure that each branch of government operates within its constitutional confines, free from undue interference by the other co-equal branches of government, and so that “We the People” start to understand that politics is not government.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Are You In Or Are You Out?
We were due a brief celebration after the 2024 General Election. Far from the usual rhetoric surrounding our every-four-year event, this past election was historical. It was historical for the re-election of a non-incumbent president. But it was also historical for the grand re-direction for which the American people voted.
In the short time that Trump has been back in office, we have seen the seating of a full cabinet of Washingtonian outsiders. This is unprecedented. Yes, some of them have been in the federal sphere before, but never in a conglomeration like this, each with a commitment to radical reformative change.
But it’s one monumental thing to win an election and then seat the cabinet you want. It’s quite another to defeat the Deep State uniparty machine in the quest to fulfill campaign promises and the commitment to return the US federal government to the people; to serving the people.
The Deep State swamp is thick and full of obstacles. As I mentioned earlier, the labyrinth of lawfare is not just something that can be brushed aside with a narrative campaign. The radical Deep Staters of the Left—like Marc Elias, the Soros’s, and the Clintonian creatures of the past who still feed off the rot with the bottom-feeders—they have been planning for this very moment for at least two years, amassing armies of orc-like lawyers and researching which courts and judges to bring their lawfare in front of, all to diminish the extent to which Mr. Trump can harm their machine; their spendthrift, globalist, New World Order status quo, the Deep State.
In addition to the usual suspects of the radical transformative Left, we have their accomplices in the establishment and elitist Republican Party. Mitch McConnell, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, and the rest of the fill-up-the-pockets, go-along-to-get-along Republicans who have conned their way to the halls of power are all against the winds of reformative change. They would rather see things remain the way they are because that allows them to maintain the con, and they get rich off of that. The USAID scam proves this beyond doubt.
This is why we—you and I and everyone we know who is sick and tired of the grift that has been executed on us, on our country—must keep the pressure on. That means not falling for or advancing untruthful memes and social media posts, jettisoning the opinions and only consuming the facts, and maintaining pressure on those elected to represent us (and perhaps some who don’t) to constantly remind them that there will be consequences for the abdication of commitment to return the country to the people from the control of the Deep State “swampateers.”
The battle is clear: It’s reformative change vs. transformative change. Today, the Deep Staters—the globalists, the elites, the US oligarchs—are on the side of transformative change (interesting how “trans” is in there), and the people, who want to be free to make their own decisions and live their own lives without some busy-body annoying Karen from some swamp agency telling us what we can and can’t do and then how we can do what they are letting us do, on the other. It’s we, you and I, vs. the elitist, oligarchic Deep State.
So, my friends, we are at the beginning of the fight, not the middle, and certainly not the end. The question you must ask yourself is this: Are you in, or are you out?

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
It’s Time To Make An Example Of McConnell
13 Feb· Underground USA
There comes a time when, after being sucker-punched by someone you considered a friend and ally, you have to exact a comeuppance: establish a definitive understanding of a realignment in the relationship. Just such a time has come for US Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY).
Yes, it’s common knowledge that McConnell and Donald Trump have a deeply-seated dislike for each other, although, by all accounts, Trump has been more adult about their differences than McConnell. But, it is not McConnell’s prerogative or political station to not only put himself above the President’s agenda but also to usurp the mandate of the American people.
He is and has done both. His vote against Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence (DNI) is the latest example. His vote was vindictive and shallow, and it should have significant consequences, most of which the Deep Staters will be reluctant to pursue.
This week, the US Senate voted to confirm Gabbard as the DNI, The New York Post reporting:
“The US Senate confirmed former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard as President Trump’s spy chief Wednesday, elevating the ex-Democrat and privacy hawk to a cabinet-level position in the Republican administration.
“The upper chamber voted 52-48 to confirm Gabbard, with Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) joining all 47 Democrats in opposition.”
In his descent, McConnell stated that Gabbard was “unworthy of the highest public trust” and that he feared that future intelligence assessments could be “tainted” given her “history of alarming lapses in judgment.”
What are those lapses that McConnell is so troubled by? Well, those lapses included not condemning National Security Agency leaker Edward Snowden’s “treasonous betrayal” of the US and refusing to condemn Vladimir Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine, as well as not acknowledging that the growing threat of the communist Chinese on the world stage is not a result of “threat inflation” by the West.
“Entrusting the coordination of the intelligence community to someone who struggles to acknowledge these facts is an unnecessary risk,” McConnell said.
It should be noted here that McConnell voted for these Biden cabinet nominees:
* Antony Blinken for Secretary of State
* Janet Yellen for Secretary of the Treasury
* Lloyd Austin for Secretary of Defense
* Alejandro Mayorkas for Secretary of Homeland Security
* Avril Haines for Director of National Intelligence
* Jennifer Granholm for Secretary of Energy
* Pete Buttigieg for Secretary of Transportation
* Deb Haaland for Secretary of the Interior
* Gina Raimondo for Secretary of Commerce
* Merrick Garland for Attorney General
* Tom Vilsack for Secretary of Agriculture
* Xavier Becerra for Secretary of Health & Human Services
* Marty Walsh for Secretary of Labor
* Marcia Fudge for Secretary of Housing & Urban Development
In fact, McConnell only voted against one of Biden’s cabinet nominees, Neera Tanden, for Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), who withdrew her nomination after it became clear she did not have enough support for confirmation.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
Additionally, McConnell voted for these Obama cabinet nominees:
* Hillary Clinton for Secretary of State
* Eric Holder for Attorney General
* Janet Napolitano for Secretary of Homeland Security
* Kathleen Sebelius for Secretary of Health & Human Services
As an aside, McConnell is married to Elaine Chao, who, while serving as the US Secretary of Transportation in President Trump’s first administration, elicited concerns about potential conflicts of interest due to her family's business connections with China.
Chao's family founded Foremost Group, a shipping company with significant business dealings in communist China. Foremost Group has constructed ships in Chinese state-owned shipyards, and some of these ships were even financed by the Chinese government. From January 2018 to April 2019, 72% of the company's cargo was shipped to and from China.
In 2004, McConnell's net worth exploded from approximately $3.1 million to between $9.2 million and $36.5 million by 2014. This was partly due to gifts from the communist-Chinese affiliated Chao family. Additionally, members of the Chao family, including those associated with Foremost Group, have donated over $1 million to McConnell's political campaigns over the years.
All of that should have been enough to have ended anyone else’s political career, if not at least see him/her under investigation for any possible illegal relationship with the communist Chinese. But McConnell? He was elevated to Majority Leader in the US Senate by the go-along-to-get-along Deep Staters in the Republican hierarchy.
Today, McConnell, having descended from his throne of leadership after doing all the damage he could to the Trump 2024 campaign and the campaigns of those running for US Senate under the GOP banner, exists as the proverbial thorn in the side of a desperately needed reformist agenda being spearheaded by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency at Donald Trump's order.
So, after all this, some serious questions remain. Why do Republicans put up with McConnell? Why hasn’t this political traitor been made to pay a severe penalty for his party disloyalty and his self-elevation above the rank-and-file Republican voters, not to mention the plurality of voters who voted Donald Trump a mandate for absolute reformative change?
The RNC chair should call for an emergency executive committee vote to a) excommunicate McConnell from the National Republican Party and b) forbid any RNC-affiliated organization from facilitating any funding or fundraising mechanism for McConnell, his campaigns, or any campaign that McConnell supports. Kentucky’s GOP should follow suit on both measures.
With the Senate voting 52-48 to confirm Tulsi Gabbard as DNI and McConnell joining all 47 Democrats in opposition, we should all confidently assume that McConnell will always vote with Democrats on key votes, especially when that vote will hurt Donald Trump.
Honestly, with the beautiful winds of reformative change in the air and the Deep State concerned about the longevity of their grift, isn’t it time to make an example out of one of the biggest grifters in Republican Party history?
It’s time to be done with this jagoff!

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
USAID's Dark & Scandalous Narrative Control Underbelly
10 Feb· Underground USA
As details of the USAID scandal continue to emerge, Wikileaks has added fuel to the fire with a recent information drop on February 7, 2025. This sometimes controversial nonprofit revealed a disturbing but verifiable link between the USAID slush fund and an organization that seeks to gain control of the international narrative by co-opting the mainstream media.
Throughout history, the information sphere has been a coveted acquisition for ideological and political power players. It is said that if you control the narrative, you control the discourse, and if you control the discourse, you control the minds that direct the future. Enter Internews, a USAID-connected nonprofit that claims to champion independent media. In reality, Internews is a government-funded narrative-control globalist information war machine of an insidious force.
Internews boasts of training over 100,000 “journalists” in over 100 countries. That sounds noble, doesn’t it? But the fact of the matter is this. Internews is an ipso facto globalist-aligned media cartel that manipulates narratives to facilitate and advance far-Left ideologies while undermining populist and conservative movements—and even the sovereignty of nations—worldwide.
Internews promotes a neo-Marxist progressive orthodoxy while pretending to uphold the credibility of a free press and journalistic integrity. At the same time, it silences dissent through censorship and the deliberate omission of critical information.
The organization has indoctrinated over 38,000 media educators, reporters, and fact-checkers under the guise of combating "misinformation," a term increasingly deployed to delegitimize viewpoints that deviate from the preferred and anointed Left-wing narratives. In reality, their efforts constitute a targeted effort to advance select ideological perspectives while delegitimizing opposing viewpoints.
Internews’s funding sources betray its true objectives. As reported by Wikileaks:
“USAID has pushed nearly half a billion dollars ($472.6m) through a secretive US government financed NGO, ‘Internews Network’ (Interworks), which has ‘worked with’ 4,291 media outlets, producing in one year 4,799 hours of broadcasts reaching up to 778 million people…[Internews] has also supported social media censorship initiatives.
“The operation claims ‘offices’ in over 30 countries, including main offices in the US, London, Paris, and regional HQs in Kiev, Bangkok, and Nairobi. It is headed up by Jeanne Bourgault, who pays herself $451k annually. Bourgault worked out of the US embassy in Moscow during the early 1990s, where she was in charge of a $250m budget and other revolts or conflicts at critical times before formally rotating out of six years at USAID to [Internews].
“Bourgault’s [Internews] bio and those of its other key people and board members have been recently scrubbed from its website but remain accessible at http://archive.org.
“Records show the board being co-chaired by Democrat securocrat Richard J. Kessler and Simone Otus Coxe, wife of NVIDIA billionaire Trench Coxe, both major Democrat donors. In 2023, supported by Hillary Clinton, Bourgault launched a $10m [Internews] fund at the Clinton Global Initiative (CGI). The [Internews] page showing a picture of Bourgault at the CGI has also been deleted.
“[Internews] has at least six captive subsidiaries under unrelated names, including one based out of the Cayman Islands. Since 2008, when electronic records began, more than 95% of [Internews]'s budget has been supplied by the US government.”
USAID's historical entanglement with regime-change operations and its promotion of neo-Marxian New World Order social engineering policies should alone raise suspicions about the kind of "independent media" that Internews claims to support.
To add credence to the idea that Internews is nothing but an oligarchical neo-Marxian propaganda front serving the whims of the globalist class is the revelation of financial backing from George Soros’s Open Society Foundations.
As reported by Amuse on X:
“Internews has played a direct role in creating political instability and chaos in Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, and Afghanistan, where clandestine organizations and USAID foreign policy interests have leveraged Internews to foster dissent, support opposition movements, and ultimately engineer instability. By flooding these regions with Internews-trained journalists and media networks, the organization has been instrumental in shaping narratives that align with US geopolitical objectives, undermining sovereign governments in favor of pro-Western factions.
“Former high-ranking US officials, including Victoria Nuland and Samantha Power, have been key figures in overseeing agencies that fund Internews, reinforcing its ties to globalist foreign policy objectives. Nuland, in particular, played a pivotal role in utilizing Internews to control Ukrainian media. Under her direction, Internews and USAID effectively took control of 9 out of 10 major media companies in Ukraine, ensuring that local reporting adhered to a strict pro-Western and anti-Russian agenda. These media outlets became entirely dependent on Internews and USAID funding, with their reporters trained and guided by Internews operatives. It is no coincidence that Internews-backed journalists were instrumental in organizing the Maidan protests and the broader color revolution that ultimately led to regime change in Ukraine.”
A deeper look into Internews’s role in narrative control uncovers a truly repugnant operation, where the organization cynically labels legitimate news outlets that challenge the neo-Marxian orthodoxy as peddlers of "misinformation." Far from merely flagging content for review, Internews aggressively coerces advertisers to pull financial support from these outlets until they capitulate to its narrative or are effectively silenced. This financial blackmail is a blatant assault on free speech, designed to systematically mute conservative, nationalist, and libertarian voices, ensuring they are de-platformed and silenced.
One of the most egregious acts of manipulation by Internews is its zealous endorsement of the climate alarmist agenda. It actively suppresses any open debate on climate science and policy, enforcing a relentless campaign of climate hysteria. Skepticism towards draconian environmental policies is not just dismissed but vilified as misinformation or disinformation. Through its "training" programs, Internews brainwashes "journalists" to treat any form of dissent against climate alarmism as heresy, thereby discarding the fundamental journalistic tenets of objectivity, balance, and inquiry for pure advocacy under the guise of journalism.
Internews does not "train" journalists; it breeds ideological drones who infiltrate the global mainstream media infrastructures. It functions more like a "Ministry of Truth," dictating permissible discourse, who is allowed to speak, and what narratives the public is allowed to consume.
This is not an exercise in media freedom but rather media vassalage by an elite oligarchy, a direct assault on free speech and constitutional representation, funded, ironically, by your tax dollars.
Now, do you see the urgent need to dismantle the Deep State and understand the contemptible nature of those who protest against Donald Trump and Elon Musk’s efforts to expose this systemic corruption?
If you’re not pissed off, you should be!
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.
Well, Well, Well…The 4th Quarter Puppet Master
Before we go, a few words on just who was pulling the strings during the four years of the Biden administration.
We all know that for the overwhelming majority of the time the holdover Obama 2.0 contingent was executing its will. But now comes word about the waning days of the administration that can only be described as chilling.
As reported by PJ Media:
"According to Lindy Li, a former Democrat National Committee (DNC) insider, fundraiser, and confidant of the Bidens, Joe Biden, already staggering from public scrutiny, effectively lost control of the White House after that fateful debate. The event reportedly prompted an audacious power shuffle at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue—one spearheaded by none other than Hunter Biden..."
The scandals just keep on coming.
Now, the question is this. Since Hunter Biden's pre-emptive pardon only covered a particular date set, will his actions in meetings where classified and Top Secret information was discussed be actionable?
Those complaining about Elon Musk's influence in the Oval Office today might want to just zip it, given the puppet mastery of Joe Biden during his tenure and especially because of who those puppet masters were (sniff, sniff).

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
USAID & It’s Backing Of Radical Political Organizations
7 Feb· Underground USA
Recently, I wrote about the increasing scrutiny facing nonprofit and NGO organizations that receive substantial amounts of taxpayer money to carry out partisan and politically motivated activities, all presented under the guise of philanthropy. Despite the outcry from the connected Left over the withdrawal of their funding, the rationale for denying them taxpayer dollars is becoming clearer every day.
President Trump has embarked on what he describes as a mission to dismantle the Deep State, with his latest focus being the US Agency for International Development (USAID). Radical Leftist and Obama holdover Samantha Power, the wife of Cass Sunstein, the co-author of the political book on transformative activism, Nudge, lead the USAID until January 20, 2025.
Elon Musk, the head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the Trump administration, has criticized USAID, calling it a "ball of worms. " This indicates a network of corruption that permeates the organization far beyond mere individual cases of misconduct.
Musk emphasized in a recording shared on X:
“As we dug into USAID, it became clear that this isn’t just an apple with a worm in it; we are dealing with a ball of worms. If you find a worm in an apple, you can remove it. But with a ball of worms, there’s no saving it. USAID is unfixable. There’s no apple left; it's just worms. It needs to be completely eradicated. It's beyond any repair.”
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) outlined how the USAID has been “stonewalling” her office for years as she sought documents to audit and account for taxpayer dollars wasted at the agency:
“USAID’s spending shows a blatant disregard for the wishes of American taxpayers, and it is time to disrupt the system. The agency has been wasting millions of tax dollars on things like tourism in Lebanon, Sesame Street in Iraq, sending Ukrainians to Paris Fashion Week and so much more…No more stonewalling,. We need to scrutinize every last dollar being spent by this rogue agency.”
The involvement of Bill Kristol, a known anti-Trump figure who has received millions from USAID, casts serious doubt on the agency's neutrality and suggests it might be driven by political vendettas. Mike Benz has highlighted how USAID has allegedly funded prosecutors targeting Trump, like Alvin Bragg, through entities such as Fair & Just Prosecution (FJP), which is significantly funded by both USAID and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS).
FJP, which operates under the fiscal sponsorship of the Tides Center, is supported not only by USAID but also benefits significantly from the Open Society Foundations (OSF) led by George Soros. "They're more than just Soros prosecutors; they're prosecutors linked to USAID," Benz emphasizes, highlighting the substantial impact these organizations exert on American legal proceedings.
In 1991, an operative associated with the Defense Intelligence Agency, who will remain nameless due to the sensitive nature of this information, indicated that Teresa Heinz Kerry (the wife of former US Secretary of State and failed Democrat presidential candidate John Kerry) was deeply connected then and likely still is through the dark money channels that rule the Deep State funding machine.
“One of the heads of this multi-headed hydra was Soros' Open Society Foundation, which funded drug legalization NGOs in Europe, all web-connected, leading directly into Colombia. These efforts supported the 'cocalero' movements (the coca leaf growers of Peru and Bolivia) and then legal lawfare support to the FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). That is where the term 'lawfare' started.”
“Having served in and around five US Embassies from Panama to Kabul, nothing about the conduct of DoS or USAID surprises me.
“But the corruption and abuse of USAID funds going to left-wing media in the US and Britain, such as Politico and BBC and who knows yet who else beyond them, must be criminal; it must be seen as political money laundering, especially dark money funding.”
The Vera Institute of Justice, another recipient of OSF funds, further entangles this web, getting millions to ostensibly promote "fairness and equity" in the justice system. However, this funding raises questions about whether these financial ties steer legal outcomes to serve particular political and ideological ends.
From 2018 to 2022, USAID and HHS provided substantial funding to the Tides Center, which in turn has supported numerous far-left initiatives, including Black Lives Matter, movements to defund the police, pro-abortion advocacy, and aggressive climate change activism, all under the guise of social justice.
Moreover, USAID has been accused of spending $20 million on what critics label as "hit piece journalism" against Rudy Giuliani. This money was strategically used to support the 2019 impeachment efforts against President Trump. This misuse of taxpayer money for what appears to be partisan political gain starkly illustrates the potential abuse of power by these government entities.
The funding pattern from USAID and HHS to organizations like Tides Center and FJP reveals a troubling integration of government resources (read: taxpayer dollars) into political activism, activism that compromises the impartiality of government agencies and the integrity of the American justice system. This scenario paints a disturbing picture of a government apparatus more engaged in political warfare than in serving the public's interest.
So, instead of lending credence and legitimacy to the anti-deportation movement that waves nation-state flags in defiant conquest while existing in our Republic illegally—a movement fueled by federal tax dollars—perhaps it is right to question the use of taxpayer dollars to fund such organizations and initiatives.
And that’s just what the Trump administration and Elon Musk are doing: questioning the legitimacy of spending taxpayer dollars on partisan activism.
Personally, I see absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Then, when we return, our segment on 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.
The Hypocrisies Of The Islamic World
Before we go, a few words on the Arab world’s flat-out refusal to take Palestinians into their lands and the hypocrisy of elitist Islam.
Earlier this week, President Trump proposed relocating Palestinians to neighboring countries during a reconstruction of the Gaza Strip. Shrieks of rejection of the idea and a determined voice for a two-state solution rang out from the usual suspect Middle Eastern players, including Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia, with Jordan threatening war with Israel should any Palestinians be forcibly relocated onto their sovereign soil.
As I wrote in April of 2024, in a piece titled, The Palestinian Genesis & Their False Claim To Israeli Land:
“The so-called Palestinian people are not from a nation-state origin. Historically, there was no "Palestine". Instead, they were a demographic designation bestowed upon “lesser-thans” and former prisoners and slaves by the Romans; Philistines who originally emanated from Crete and other Aegean origins…”
So, if history is to matter, the creation of a two-state solution, as lusted for by the Arab world, would be to create a nation out of thin air, something that wasn’t even done when the UN mandated the creation of Israel after World War II.
A little bit of history to back up that statement, again from my April 2024 piece:
“Two hundred years after the life of Jesus, the geopolitical landscape of Judea was mainly shaped by the consequences of the Jewish-Roman Wars. These wars…left Judea in ruins, with its population significantly reduced and its culture transformed. The Romans, led by Emperor Hadrian, responded not only with military force but also with symbolic gestures aimed at erasing the identity of the rebellious Jewish province.
“To suppress any further nationalistic fervor and wipe out the memory of the Jewish revolts, Emperor Hadrian renamed Judea ‘Syria Palaestina.’ This renaming was both a political and cultural attempt to diminish Jewish ties to the land.
“The term ‘Palaestina’ was derived from the Philistines, the ancient enemies of the Israelites, adding an additional layer of insult to the injury. This change marked a significant turning point in the region's history, as it was an early example of the use of cultural and psychological warfare, as well as a form of cultural genocide, in imperial politics.”
So, when history is recounted accurately, there never was a Palestine, and there should be no “right of return.” Additionally, if the so-called Palestinian people really wanted to return to their homeland, they would be seeking to return to Crete and the Aegean origin, where they actually have ancestral roots.
To enrich those truths, we turn to the words of the Quran, which, to a devout Muslim, are the literal words of Allah and are not open to interpretation.
In Surah Al-Hujurat, the 49th chapter (surah) of the Quran, it clearly states, “The believers are but brothers, so make settlement between your brothers. And fear Allah that you may receive mercy.” This verse defines the relationship between Muslims as one of brotherhood, implying the duty of care and reconciliation.
So, by the commandment of their god, Allah, all nation-states calling themselves Muslim or Islamic must accept their brethren, for it is the word and will of their god. Yet Islamic-based nations like Egypt, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia—the land of Mecca and Medina, the holiest sites in Islam, who pontificate about their fidelity to Islam refuse to come to the aid of their Muslim brothers by absorbing them into their lands.
So, we have two hypocrisies.
On the one hand, the Arab world rejects the nation-state of Israel, claiming it is nothing more than a political creation even as they champion the creation of a nation-state for the so-called Palestinians.
On the other hand, we have a predominantly Muslim Arab world that claims to hold Islam as the only legitimate religion in the world even as they blatantly ignore the edicts in their holy scriptures that mandate they care for their own.
While there’s a lot of talk about sympathy and/or solidarity with the Palestinian cause, the policies of many, if not all, of the Middle Eastern governments reflect a more realistic approach to national security and stability.
There is a fear among Arab states that accepting Palestinian refugees could mean importing militant groups like Hamas, which is seen as a destabilizing force.
Previous experiences have been fraught with challenges. Jordan encountered significant issues with Palestinian groups in the late 1960s and early 1970s, leading to the conflict known as “Black September,” and Lebanon's civil war, from 1975 to 1990, was significantly exacerbated by the presence of Palestinian factions, which turned parts of Lebanon into bases for attacks on Israel, contributing to the country's instability.
The bottom line is that the Arab world—the Islamic Arab world—doesn’t want to take in any Palestinians because the Palestinians are a violent and uncooperative people who see conflict resolution only in the use of guns, bombs, and terrorism.
When history is recounted correctly, today's aggression by the Palestinian people—and their sympathetic Islamic terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah—will be understood to be nothing more than an Islamofascist desire to establish the global Caliphate, as mandated by the Quran, starting with Israel, a Caliphate under which the nations and people of the world would be required to bow down in subservience to Islam.
Now, wouldn’t it be better to send a strong message to the Palestinians and the Islamic world that we, the free people of the world, are not on board with this totalitarian bullshit? Wouldn’t it be better to stop placating the unhinged notion that somehow the aggressors (read: Palestinians) are somehow the victims?
The fact that the Islamic nations of the Middle East refuse to absorb their Palestinian brethren in their time of self-created need speaks volumes about the Palestinian people.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
The Purge Has Begun…And Not Too Soon, Either
3 Feb· Underground USA
These days, you can’t broach a subject without hearing someone say, “I have a right to…” Whether the subjects are mainstream, like healthcare, education, or abortion, or more axillary, like employment or access to exclusive venues and groups. But the fact of the matter is this: Our rights are enumerated, and we do not have rights that extend to everything within our purview.
We have the right to freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and the petitioning of government, although some would argue that was infringed upon during and after the events of January 6th.
We have the right to keep and bear arms, to be protected against unreasonable searches and seizures, and the right to due process, as well as protection against self-incrimination and double jeopardy.
We have the right to a speedy and public trial, an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel, although, again, some would argue those rights were usurped during and after the events of January 6th.
We have the right to exist outside the bonds of slavery and are guaranteed equal protection and due process under the law regardless of race, gender, or religion.
Over the years, these enumerated rights have been extended to axillary but related issues in rulings by the US Supreme Court. Nevertheless, these core rights belong to all men and women who are created equal in the eyes of our Creator.
The 9th and 10th Amendments reserve to the states what is not specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights and the amendments to the US Constitution.
One right not included in these enumerated rights is the right to a job in the federal government. This brings me to my point: the recent purging of Department of Justice federal prosecutors and the review of the employment of FBI agents who participated in the political persecution of the nonviolent January 6th protesters.
As Victor Nava of The New York Post reported:
“The Justice Department fired dozens of federal prosecutors involved in January 6th cases on Friday and informed the FBI that it would initiate a ‘review process’ to determine if thousands of agents that worked Capitol riot investigations should also be terminated…
“Interim DC US Attorney Ed Martin told the 30 or so fired federal prosecutors that they were being removed as a direct result of their role in the prosecution of some of the more than 1,500 individuals who [took part in the events at ] the US Capitol on January 6th, 2021…
“The Supreme Court ruled last June that the charge of “obstructing an official proceeding of Congress”–-used on more than 300 riot defendants—was too broadly applied.”
Now, we can have a frank discussion about January 6th: the constitutionality of the prosecution against nonviolent attendees and the tactics used to hunt these people down and hold them. I, personally, believe several constitutional rights were blatantly violated, including the right to redress government, the right against unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to due process, the right to a speedy and public trial, to an impartial jury, the right to confront witnesses, and the right to counsel.
But that is not the point I want to highlight today. Today, I want to spotlight the pure, entitled narcissism of the federal employees affected by the Trump administration’s move to terminate them for actions they should have refused to execute, actions that were—and there is no other way to couch this—actions that were unlawfully orders.
In responding to the announced investigations toward the terminations of the offending FBI agents , the labor union representing over 1,400 FBI agents responded with indignant outrage.
Again, from The New York Post:
“‘If true, these outrageous actions by acting officials are fundamentally at odds with the law enforcement objectives outlined by President Trump and his support for FBI Agents,’ the FBI Agents Association said in a statement.
“‘Dismissing potentially hundreds of Agents would severely weaken the Bureau’s ability to protect the country from national security and criminal threats and will ultimately risk setting up the Bureau and its new leadership for failure,’ the union added. ‘These actions also contradict the commitments that Attorney General-nominee Pam Bondi and Director-nominee Kash Patel made during their nomination hearings before the United States Senate.’
“‘They also run counter to the commitment that Director-nominee Patel made to the FBI Agents Association, where during our meeting he said that Agents would be afforded appropriate process and review and not face retribution based solely on the cases to which they were assigned.’”
No federal employee has a right to their job. Each federal employee operating under the Executive Branch—as FBI agents and administrative staff do—serves at the pleasure of the President and can be dispatched from their station to any assignment commanded, even if that station and mission is to watch ice melt at the South Pole. This was evidenced in President Reagan’s termination of unionized air traffic controllers in 1981.
Further—and this is in direct response to the labor union spokesman’s inference that the agents in question would be denied “process and review.” The agents in question are going through the process of review. If any agent is determined to have acted within the boundaries of the law, their jobs are safe. However, if any agent was found to have been fueled by politics or ideology in the execution of their duties, they should be—deservedly—terminated and restricted from federal employment going forward.
An FBI agent's oath, like that of other federal law enforcement officers in the United States, is part of the oath required by law for all federal employees to support and defend the Constitution. Here's the oath that FBI agents take:
“I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
This oath underscores the commitment of FBI agents to uphold the law, serve the nation, and protect its citizens while adhering to the constitutional principles of the United States.
Those principles and that service—empowered by the US Constitution as it pertains to the Executive Branch, have no exceptions for stepping outside their boundaries because a corrupt and politicized administrator or Executive Branch swamp creature wants to exact political persecution against perceived enemies. Regardless of any order, an FBI agent has a personal allegiance to his oath and doing what is right, legally and constitutionally.
The American people voted a mandate to Donald Trump to effect radical change in the Washington DC swamp. We are tired of the status quo bureaucratic bullshit that has morphed into a political apparatus that exerts complete centralized governmental control over our lives. There are too many “authorities,” too many “regulatory agencies,” and too many dictatorial bureaucratic powers that lord over our daily lives. This is the change we voted for. This is the change we expect.
Make no mistake. The Deep State will not go quietly. We are seeing that in the confirmation hearings where Deep Staters attempt to smear, discredit, and talk over the nominees even as they insisted during the Obama era that an elected president deserves the cabinet of his or her choosing.
We see it in BigPharma campaign finance beneficiaries like Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren attacking Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose goal is to remove chemicals from our food and reduce our population’s dependence on pharmaceuticals.
We see it in how viciously they stand to protect the corrupted status quo in the face of the nominations of Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard, two individuals who have not only proved their devotion to the Constitution and our nation but who have taken a stand against the continuance of the Deep State grift.
We see it in how, almost immediately after recovering from the shock of getting their asses handed to them in a sweep of the 2024 General Election, the far-Left and caustic Deep Staters began their attacks on President Trump and started their quest to reclaim the narrative in the mainstream media.
This is why I beg you to keep the pressure on. We cannot let up. We must continue with the same energy that delivered the 2024 election cycle to us, and that means hounding our elected officials to heed the mandate. Heed the mandate! They need to know there will be career-ending consequences should they continue to ignore the will of the people.
We’re at a unique moment in American history. We must embrace it. And if that means taking time away from watching the latest episode of “Bubblegum for the Mind” on Showtime to maintain engagement in the governmental process, so be it. Sometimes, doing what’s essential isn’t doing what’s most fun. Then, fun should be a perk of success, not apathy.
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.
Fat, Illiterate & Stupid Is No Way To Go Through Life
Before we go, a few words on the dismal report on the state of our K through 12 education performance, especially where literacy and specifically reading are concerned.
Tommy Schultz of The New York Post reported:
"The latest scores from National Assessment of Educational Progress are unsurprisingly catastrophic. A generation of painfully slow progress was swiftly wiped out...and reading scores for our lowest-performing students fell to the lowest levels in the NAEP assessment’s 30-year history — despite an additional $190 billion from the federal government for K-12 in the last few years, on top of its usual massive outlays..."
In 2023, the total spending on K-12 education in the United States was reported to be approximately $857 billion from all sources—federal, state, and local. So, only a fool would continue to believe that funding is the problem where the decline of the quality of American education is concerned.
K-12 education expenditures breakdown thusly:
* Administrative Salaries: 7.5%
* Teacher Salaries: 42.4%
* Employee Benefits: 37.6%
The average K-12 teacher (and I am not saying they don't earn it; they do, especially with the intellectual handcuffs they are made to wear by administrative and labor union edict) makes approximately $66,397 in salary and $19,919 in benefits annually, totaling $86,316.
The average K-12 administrator makes approximately $116,474 in salary and $101,186 in benefits, totaling $217,660 per year.
As an aside—and as an example, the annual budget for the Chicago Public School System for the fiscal year 2025 is approximately 9.9 billion dollars. For the 2023-2024 school year, the portion of the budget allocated to administrative costs was approximately $495 million. The Chicago Public School administrative offices employ approximately 4,200 employees. This is where to start if we are looking at where to make budgetary cuts based on eliminating bureaucracy and inefficiency.
So compensation is not the problem...at all.
The problem is with the quality of the curriculum. Our society has abandoned critical thinking skills, which teach children how to think and make decisions for themselves. Instead, our schools have become the playground for neo-Marxist indoctrinators, and our children are their lab monkeys.
If we are going to survive as a society, as a culture, and as a country, we must cleave the teacher's unions from any and all decision-making processes where curriculum is concerned. Further, we must cleanse the colleges of education of the far-Left transformative neo-Bolshevik ideologies so pervasive in those institutions.
Education has to be about the core subjects -- reading, writing, math, science, and core civics and history --devoid of socio-political ideology. Critical thinking skills must be the order of the day. Social engineering indoctrination through our education system should be considered a criminal act of child abuse.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Taxpayer Dollars Can’t Be Considered 'Free Money' Anymore
31 Jan· Underground USA
With the arrival of Trump 2.0, the winds of change are being felt across the Washingtonian swamp. For the status quo, spendthrift Deep Staters, those winds have a sub-zero windchill. But the usual suspects on the political and ideological Left aren’t taking the freeze sitting down.
A cadre of those who routinely feed at the governmental taxpayer monetary feed trough, including the National Council of Nonprofits and other Non-Government Organization (NGO) entities, have taken legal action against the Office of Management & Budget and its Acting Director, Matthew Vaeth, following a directive that halted the disbursement of federal grant and loan funds.
This move by Democrat attorneys general from states like New York, California, New Jersey, Illinois, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island to sue over the policy seems less about legality and more about protecting the flow of “free” taxpayer federal money into Leftist and Left-leaning politically aligned non-profits and NGOs. Attorney General Letitia James of New York—you remember her, she’s one of the Soros-installed AGs that went after Donald Trump over business practices that no one had a problem with—James branded the directive as “dangerous, reckless, illegal, and unconstitutional.” She’s undoubtedly more concerned with maintaining funding for organizations that align with her specific political agendas rather than addressing the broader implications of fiscal responsibility.
Vaeth's rationale for the funding pause—to ensure that federal dollars are spent in alignment with the President's policy goals—highlights much-needed (and long overdue) scrutiny of how taxpayer money is funneled into special interest groups and non-profit organizations. This review is crucial, considering the vast sums often allocated to these entities, which may not reflect the interests or needs of the general populace but serve radical niche political ideologies.
As reported by The Hill.com:
“Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) accused the Trump administration of ‘blatantly’ disobeying the law ‘by holding up virtually all vital funds that support programs in every community across the country.’
“‘Congress approved these investments, and they are not optional; they are the law,’ Schumer said. ‘These grants help people in red states and blue states, support families, help parents raise kids, and lead to stronger communities.’
“He said the move could jeopardize ‘billions upon billions of community grants and financial support that help millions of people across the country. It will mean missed payrolls and rent payments and everything in between: chaos for everything from universities to non-profit charities.’”
The plaintiffs' claim that the guidance will devastate non-profits dependent on government grants paints a picture of organizations addicted to federal funding. This presents a legitimate point: questioning their sustainability and true independence. If these groups are so reliant on federal funds to operate, one must ask how effective or necessary their missions truly are without such support.
Furthermore, the argument that this guidance breaches the Administrative Procedure Act by being “arbitrary and capricious” reveals how the far-Left manipulates the law to advance their transformative and spendthrift agendas. It evidences an overreach by these organizations to shield their financial interests under the guise of legal rights. The assertion that this could infringe on First Amendment rights, particularly for groups advocating for Left-leaning causes like LGBTQ rights, suggests a fear that funding might be more critically evaluated based on merit rather than political alignment.
Basically, this lawsuit is less about protecting the constitutional rights of non-profits and NGOs and more about defending a profligate system where federal funds—taxpayer dollars, and taxpayer dollars in an age of incredible national debt—are disproportionately directed towards far-Left special interest groups at the expense of broader, more equitable—and constitutional—public policy goals.
The reaction to this funding pause indicates how entrenched some non-profits and NGOs have become in relying on government support (read taxpayer dollars), raising questions about the efficiency and impartiality of the federal funding distribution qualifying process.
Bottom line: If a non-profit organization or a federal grant-eligible non-government organization is worthy of support, that support should come exclusively from the private sector, not through the extraction of tax dollars—under threat by the taxman—from the general public. If you want to support a non-profit or NGO, I applaud you; more power to you. But government shouldn’t force me to support auxiliary organizations outside the constitutionally required entities of the federal government.
That’s the very meaning of “unconstitutional.”
In the end, the temporary funding freeze to evaluate which initiatives were receiving taxpayer dollars was rescinded, but not until billions of dollars in funding for special interests and unconstitutional wealth disbursement were eliminated.
Quite frankly, I think that the $50 million spent on condoms for Palestinians in Gaza—which they filled with flammable materials to firebomb farms and local civilian populations in Israel— or free benefits for people who have broken the law to be here in the first place, could be better spent on Americans in need right here in the United States.
But hey, I’m not a federally elected or appointed spendthrift, so what do I know…
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.
If Information Is Power, Then Data Is The Fuel
Before we go, a few words on yet another communist Chinese initiative to collect data on foreign nationals and, specifically, Americans.
DeepSeek, the Chinese app that triggered a $1 trillion meltdown in the US markets this week, is not only storing its rapidly expanding pools of US user data on servers in China but is also suspected of having ulterior motives driven by the Chinese Communist Party's (CCP) agenda. This situation echoes the national security concerns that led to Congress's crackdown on TikTok.
Despite its popularity—it topped the charts in both Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store on Tuesday, with over 2 million downloads since its international debut—DeepSeek raises red-flag alarms (no pun intended) about data privacy and national security. Unlike other AI chatbots like ChatGPT, which also gather extensive user data, DeepSeek's use of China-based servers marks a significant and concerning distinction, posing a direct privacy threat to American users.
Angela Zhang, a law professor at the University of Southern California specializing in Chinese tech regulations, said:
“What sets this context apart is that DeepSeek is not just a company but a tool potentially leveraged by the CCP for surveillance and influence…The collection of sensitive data like IP addresses and keystroke patterns could easily be exploited for espionage or to manipulate public opinion, posing a clear national security threat.”
DeepSeek’s terms of service openly admit that user data is stored on "secure servers located in the People’s Republic of China," automatically collecting personal details including “device model, operating system, keystroke patterns or rhythms, IP address, and system language.” This level of access to personal data under the control of the CCP, which has a notorious record of using technology for authoritarian control, is deeply troubling.
All companies based in China are legally obligated to comply with the CCP's cybersecurity laws. These laws require them to share data with the government upon request, essentially making DeepSeek a conduit for state surveillance.
The security risks associated with DeepSeek's close ties to Beijing have prompted exacting responses; for instance, the US Navy has explicitly ordered its members to steer clear of using this chatbot, highlighting the gravity of the situation. This move underscores a broader concern about the strategic use of technology by the CCP to undermine privacy, security, and democratic values in the West.
The mainstream populace has gotten so used to thinking of Chinese business ventures as sympatico with Western business initiatives that they completely ignore that the Chinese Communist Party and the Chinese People's Liberation Army are at the core of everything they do; at the core of their Commu-Capitalist economic system.
To wit: I suppose if you didn't listen about the dangers of TikTok, you wouldn't care about the dangers of this AI data-collecting communist Chinese initiative.
But if you are short-sighted enough not to see the danger of the communist Chinese amassing data on you and your children through these apps, then you are naive to the goals they have set for themselves: to be the dominant force in the world. And I use the term “force” deliberately because communism, even in its hybrid form of Commu-Capitalism, cannot thrive without coercion.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Oh No, No, No…We Can’t Be Doing This
28 Jan· Underground USA
In 1975, Ronald Reagan famously remarked, “The problem with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t true.” The truth of that statement couldn’t be more apparent than it is today.
The advent of social media and interactive internet platforms has validated Reagan’s statement and proved that this truth is even more prevalent than we suspected.
At every turn—on any given day and on any given subject, erroneously advanced inaccuracies and untruths can be found because someone “liked,” forwarded, and/or posted a meme, statement, or opinion on something without actually taking the time to validate the meme or statement or read the provided content.
This intellectual cancer isn’t just an attribute of “our liberal friends.” It exists just as prevalently on the ideological Right, and instances of this are getting more frequent.
Recently, I had an old acquaintance from high school—by all accounts, a solid guy; thoughtful and an engaged member of the community, completely out himself as someone who finds it more important to opine on what he thinks he knows rather than what he actually would have known if he had taken the time to read what he was opining on.
He is not alone. I have been guilty of this at one time or another, although today I make a conscious effort never to do it. We will read a headline and maybe the first paragraph of an article, and because we believe we understand the gist of what the author is saying, we feel confident that the opinion we’re about to craft for the consumption of others is valid; and based on a full knowledge of the subject at hand. Yet it’s not because we didn’t read the full article, white paper, research, or book or listen to the full podcast or presentation.
This is a dangerous practice because when a not-fully-informed opinion is advanced—and then re-advanced, again and again, and liked and quoted—it takes on the appearance of fully researched truth, and a non-truth co-opts the appearance of legitimacy.
Disingenuous actors, those who manipulate the public for ideological and opportunistic purposes, prey on those who engage in such acts—those who exist intellectually vulnerable because of their “excitability”—to seed statements that sound legitimate but aren’t. This allows them to create division and discontent while capturing the power of narrative control. Think of the Steele Dosier and the Trump-Russia scam, the Hunter Biden laptop denial, or, today, the Obama-Jennifer Aniston rumor.
This intellectual susceptibility in our society makes us incredibly vulnerable to maleficent actors—government agencies as well as political organizations and ideological NGOs—employing PsyOps.
Some of the more egregious PsyOp campaigns in recent years include:
* Trump's Business Dealings: Accusations of money laundering and illegal business practices at the Trump Organization, circulated often without substantial evidence
* Republican Voter Suppression: The claim that Republicans are actively suppressing minority votes, an allegation repeatedly disproved and lacking in both evidence and context
* Trump's Mental Health: Speculation during Trump’s first term about the President’s cognitive abilities and mental fitness, allegations completely baseless and without evidence
* Republican War on Women: The notion that Republicans are waging a war on women's rights, even as conservatives are on record as supporting policies that empower women.
* COVID Mask Use: During the COVID pandemic, it has now been proven that a purposeful PsyOps campaign was employed to encourage the widespread use of face masks. This operation aimed to instill fear and compliance among the population by exaggerating the effectiveness of masks and the ineffectiveness of natural herd immunity. Inconsistent messaging from health authorities, along with the constant bombardment of frightening statistics and images in the media, created a state of panic that made people more willing to accept unconstitutional restrictive measures like mask mandates and the closing of businesses, maintaining that the information on mask-wearing and social distancing was based on scientific evidence.
And the list goes on and on and on.
In each case, well-meaning individuals were duped into advancing these untruths on social media and interactive internet platforms, as well as directly into the public square. They were duped because they failed—they failed—to do their due diligence in ascertaining the facts of the matter, to any responsible extent, before they opined on the matter.
Now, I’m not advocating for the restriction of free speech in any way, shape, or form. I believe that the way to combat mis– and dis–information is by applying more free speech (which facilitates access to the truth), not less, and it certainly doesn’t facilitate the discovery of truth when the government (or any arrogantly self-important NGO) assumes the mantle of arbiter of the truth.
What I am saying is this—and I specifically urge this among those who consider themselves conservative and constitutionalist, although I beseech those on the Left as well as all those who feel the need to opine: Don’t just read the headline or the first paragraph and feel you have the intellectual authority to opine. Yes, you have the right to state your mind, but to feign an understanding of the information in an authoritative way is the height of deceptive irresponsibility. It is almost as egregious as the actions of those who seek to manipulate the people for opportunistically disingenuous gain. It’s insanely irresponsible and arrogant.
No one has the intellectual capacity—the clairvoyant ability—that allows them to divine whole swaths of content because they feel they understand the gist of an article, program, podcast, or presentation’s content. It cannot—cannot—be about the feeling that you get it. It can’t even be for your want to believe that you understand it. It has to be about acquiring the full context and content of the information.
For that to happen, as the Blues Brothers said (and I paraphrase) you, me, everybody—everybody—we need to be responsible. We have to gather the information first and opine and make statements afterward. We must advance information that is based on fact and truth, not feelings or the want for the appearance of authoritative knowledge without having first earned that station.
Bottom line: If you have the time and compunction to advance information, then you have time to consume that whole of the information on which you feel the need to opine first so you know the information you are advancing isn’t complete bullshit; so you don’t make a complete ass of yourself by exposing your intellectual laziness; so you don’t come off looking the fool for your ignorance.
If we all do this—all of us—imagine how Teflon we will be against the manipulation of the Deep State manipulators and dividers.
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.
A Few Words On The Left’s ‘Stupidity Games’
As reported in a variety of mainstream media news outlets—both on the Left and the Right, the United States Air Force, arguably the wokest of the military branches as far as its hierarchy is concerned, has ordered the removal of some training courses focusing on the Tuskegee Airmen and Women Airforce Service Pilots who served during World War II.
The order comes, they argue, to “comply” with President Trump’s crackdown on DEI initiatives throughout our government institutions, including the military. And while the problem may not be with the course content itself, the subject matter was co-opted by radical ideologues and incorporated into DEI coursework.
There is a stark difference between DEI policy, advocacy instruction, and actual history. In fact, removing historical teachings from the USAF curriculum goes against the very spirit of Trump's Executive Order. This move is, itself, discriminatory.
Trump's order is extremely clear: Demographic preferences, i.e., race, gender, religion, sexual preferences, etc., are not to be employed in any way, shape, or form in any training curriculum or promotion-based decision-making. Instead, merit and ability are to be the basis for everything, regardless of demographic. Certainly, the Tuskegee Airmen and the Women of WWII proved their merit, both making history.
The Tuskegee Airmen were part of the 332nd Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the US Army Air Corps, the precursor to the US Air Force. Despite facing racial segregation and discrimination, they proved their skill and valor in the skies over Europe, North Africa, and the Mediterranean.
The Women Airforce Service Pilots, often referred to as WASPs, were a remarkable group of women who served during World War II. These brave ladies—over a thousand women— took to the skies flying aircraft of all kinds, including bombers, transports, and even the iconic fighter planes. They ferried aircraft from factories to military bases, towed targets for live-ammunition training, and even tested newly repaired planes. But, despite their invaluable contributions, the WASPs weren’t granted military status until 1977.
So, whoever in the US Air Force hierarchy made the shallow-brained—or purposely deceitful—decision to remove the history lessons on these two prestigious groups, wrongfully identifying their history as only that of a DEI issue (and I would like to know the name of the charlatan who made the call to do this), doesn't deserve to be in a position of authority and should be relieved of command immediately, for they possess no common sense.
We have to refuse to play these stupidity games. As Dan Bongino is fond of saying, "Cutesy time is over."

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
This Is Why There Is Divide In Our Republic
24 Jan· Underground USA
Most of the nation—and the free world—is breathing a sigh of relief at the exit of Joe Biden and Obama 2.0 from power. We see this as the beginning of the end of neo-Marxist wokeism. But while we celebrate the probable return to constitutionality and the downsizing of our federal government, some well-funded far-Left disruptors see an opportunity to create chaos.
A small group that played a role in the effort to disqualify Donald Trump from ballots before the 2024 General Election is already propagandizing for impeachment proceedings against the 47th president. The Free Speech for People nonprofit organization is spearheading the call for impeachment, insisting:
“Trump has refused to sell his ownership stake in companies through which he is assured to receive substantial payments from foreign governments in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause. At least five foreign governments pay a combined $2 million per month in fees for their units in Trump World Tower; and because all five of these foreign governments are currently paying Trump these monthly fees, Trump is in violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause from the moment he took the oath of office.”
The group is pursuing this ridiculousness even though CBS News and myriad other news outlets reported in January 2017 that Trump “resigned from all positions of authority and management within the Trump Organization and its affiliates” and that “his sons, Don and Eric, are fully in charge of the company.”
Expecting Trump to sell his shares in the Trump Organization while he is not in an official capacity decision-making role is similar to requiring members of Congress to sell stocks in companies and organizations that could be impacted by the legislation they are considering. So, the expectation exposes the gross hypocrisy of the hyper-partisan Trump-hating Left at the Free Speech for People organization.
The real issue is not so much the Free Speech for People non-profit itself but rather the typical neo-Marxist progressive donors and philanthropic organizations (using the term “philanthropic” very loosely) that finance groups like this one. It’s the dark money of the far-Left transformative Deep State oligarchy and their neverending financial commitment to undermine the will of the American people that is the problem; that is the cancer in the system that needs to be exposed and then expunged.
Two main groups behind the new effort to divide our nation, purely for opportunistic partisan, transformative, and power-play purposes, are The Tides Foundation and Arabella Advisors.
According to the Independent Journal Review:
“The Tides Foundation — a key cog in the wider left-wing Tides philanthropic network, which combined to shell out $850 million in 2022 — is a major financial backer of Free Speech For People. The Tides Foundation gave grants exceeding $250,000 to the legal nonprofit in 2020, 2022 and 2023, and a combined $925,816 since 2019.”
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
The article’s author, Nick Pope, goes on to say that the Hopewell Fund granted the Free Speech for People anti-Trump efforts $20,000 in 2023. The Hopewell Fund is one of several nonprofits boosting transformative neo-Marxist causes under the management of liberal dark money juggernaut Arabella Advisors, a major for-profit consultancy established by Clinton administration veteran Eric Kessler and funded by some of the worst anti-freedom advocates around the globe, including:
* Bill Gates: Through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, he has been one of the largest donors to the Arabella network, focusing on various globalist policy advocacy issues.
* George Soros: He has provided multi-million dollar donations to the network, with affiliations noted through his funding to groups like the Sixteen Thirty Fund.
* Mark Zuckerberg: Specifically, his philanthropy through the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative has committed significant funds, particularly noted for social justice issues.
* Fidelity Charitable Gift Fund: This organization has been identified as the largest institutional donor to almost all of Arabella's nonprofit entities, providing donor-advised funds to wealthy individuals.
* Hansjorg Wyss: A foreign national billionaire, he has donated substantial amounts, notably $500 million, to the Sixteen Thirty Fund, which has been used for various Leftist political initiatives.
Incidentally, the same cast of characters—and more of the usual suspect far-Left advocate cabal (Google, Soro’s Open Society Foundations, the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations, and Pierre Omidyar and Warren Buffett)—financially supports The Tides Foundation.
These are the kinds of organizations that cause the divide in our country. It's less about the radicals they dupe into subservience, who constitute the far-Left ideologue voting public, and more about the agitators in organizations like these that stoke partisanship by advocating for destructive and baseless actions like the impeachments of presidents from the first days of their administrations, regardless of political party or political party affiliation.
These are the transformative neo-Marxist opportunists and agitators. These are the people and organizations that comprise the Deep State cabal that must be marginalized and expunged from influence on Capitol Hill. This is the anti-freedom and anti-American influence that the American people mandated President Trump to eradicate from the halls of power.
Because we have free speech rights in the United States, we can't go after the cabal’s message—or the message trumpeted by the Free Speech for People nonprofit, as imbecilic as it may be. But we can expose them as disingenuous and opportunistic political partisan assassins and pressure their donors and donor corporations to shun them financially.
Bleeding these organizations (The Tides Foundation, Arabella, The Ford Foundation, etc.) so that they have to draw their finances from an evermore limited pool of ideological zealots marginalizes their ability to attack the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as they routinely do.
It also sends a message that ‘We the People’ disapprove of impeachment as a partisan political tactic and believe it should be reserved for only the most extreme circumstances.
And lastly, it sledgehammers them between the eyes with the unmistakable message that “We the People” are done with this far-Left Alinskyite tactical bullshit and that if they continue to act so childishly, they will suffer consequences, consequences that will result in their being dropped from the elitist class for their personal and institutional poverty.
Let’s face it: we punished Disney, Anheuser-Busch, and several other organizations into subservience after their woke activism, bringing them to their knees. We can do it to these “philanthropic” organizations and their benefactors as well.
Striking their wallets to punish their intellectual infantilism is the only way to get the message across to them.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
Before we go, a quick point.
It’s beautiful that President Trump is enacting a flurry of much-needed Executive Orders meant to reverse the institutionalized wokeism and neo-Marxism that has been implemented by the Obama-Biden Era. But without legislative action to codify those EOs into law, they can all simply be reversed with any incoming Leftist administration in the future. Then, we are back to square one.
We must keep the pressure on our elected Congress creatures to craft and institute constitutionally sound law that codifies the Trump doctrine into law, including his moves to end DEI, secure the border, and unleash our energy sector.
Without those pieces of legislation, it’s all just an exercise in short-term gratification and long-term ideological masturbation. We have to be smart this time around.
And I’d like to give a quick shout-out to Bobby D. and Sheila S., who have—ever since the days of The New Media Journal and the non-profit BasicsProject.org, have been steadfast supporters. Please know you are appreciated now as you were appreciated then.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Pre-Emptive Pardons: A Question Of Constitutionality
21 Jan· Underground USA
In his final hours as President of the United States, Joe Biden issued a series of preemptive pardons for Anthony Fauci, Mark Milley, the members of the January 6th Committee, and his extended family. This action was one of the most disgusting uses of presidential power to grant reprieves and pardons in the history of our Republic. And the action’s constitutionality should be questioned.
In Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution, the president is vested with the power to “grant reprieves and pardons” through these words:
“The President shall…have power to grant reprieves and pardons for offenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment.”
The keywords here are “for offenses against the United States,” which infers a criminal conviction in federal court. In fact, the US Supreme Court has already ruled on that. If you accept a pardon, there is an inference of guilt. Therefore, the question that begs to be asked is valid: Are pre-emptive presidential pardons constitutional?
Biden, in the early days of his presidency, lauded the Wilson and Roosevelt administrations, both of which expanded presidential authority and the purview of the Executive Branch unconstitutionally. Roosevelt’s New Deal was choke-full of presidential authority expansion beyond the limits of the Constitution. Brion McClanahan documents each—and the expansionist agendas of Wilson and Truman, as well as several others, in his book, 9 Presidents Who Screwed Up America: And Four Who Tried to Save Her. It’s definitely worth the time.
So, it should come as no surprise that Biden felt unencumbered by the Constitution in his actions, specifically with his precedent-setting issuance of pre-emptive presidential pardons. It’s never happened before, and, through an originalist's view of the Constitution, it appears unconstitutional.
Some would attempt to defend Biden’s actions by juxtaposing them with President Gerald Ford’s pardon of Richard Nixon after his resignation stemming from the Watergate scandal. But there are significant differences between the two.
Ford’s pardon of Nixon was singular, focused solely on Nixon, covering all federal offenses he committed or was under investigation for during his presidency. It was a direct response to a specific legal threat—a threat that had already been initiated. Ford’s action prevented any further legal action against Nixon.
Biden’s actions, conversely, were preemptive because no investigative or legal actions had commenced against anyone receiving a pre-emptive pardon. Biden’s actions were aimed at protecting individuals from potential future legal actions regardless of any criminal conduct.
Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, the J6 Committee, and his family members. However, according to the Constitution, presidential pardons are only valid for issuance in instances of transgressions against the United States. So, how could they be valid and binding?
But what to do? Well, if Biden can execute precedential actions, so can President Trump.
President Trump should instruct his Solicitor General to file an emergency petition with the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) to definitively rule on the parameters of the presidential reprieve and pardon clause in Article II, Section 1.
It can be successfully argued that Article III, Section 1 gives the SCOTUS purview over establishing the defining parameters associated with Article II, Section1, through the words:
“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party…”
Because the SCOTUS is a co-equal branch of our federal government—and the one charged with judicial review—it does not need to be presented with a case to accept or decline because the Executive’s action has already taken place. All it needs is a petition from the Solicitor General.
This petition isn’t even an act of partisan politics because it concerns constitutionality; the definition and parameters would apply to all presidents regardless of party.
The Supreme Court should be motivated to make this ruling because failure to do so would create a constitutional crisis.
For example, suppose presidential pre-emptive pardons are allowed to stand. What is to keep every president, at any time, from issuing pre-emptive pardons to the entirety of his staff and cabinet? What would prevent a president from issuing pre-emptive pardons to sycophantic private citizens or crony foreign nationals?
Inaction by the SCOTUS would render moot its ruling on presidential immunity because a POTUS could, theoretically, issue himself a pre-emptive pardon for any and all actions undertaken before, during, and after his or her tenure. Hunter Biden’s pre-emptive pardon serves as precedent for that.
Moving forward, President Trump should request that liberal constitutional attorney Alan Dershowitz be seated as a Solicitor General specifically for this action in front of the Supreme Court. Dershowitz is on record as holding the idea of preemptive presidential pardon in contempt as wholly unconstitutional. Few possess his knowledge, experience, and expertise in matters of the US Constitution and constitutionality.
Additionally, Mr. Trump must talk directly to the American people, circumventing the mainstream media, and explain that this action is not an act of retribution but a question of constitutionality that would bind all presidents to limitations set forth by the Constitution. He doesn’t even have to state that he wants the pardons revoked. He is simply asking the Supreme Court—the proper authority on the Constitution—for clarification on a matter of constitutionality.
Personally, if I were in President Trump’s place and Biden would have left the pre-emptive pardons at only his son, I probably would have let the subject go. The question of what we would do for our children—especially troubled children like Hunter—is a question of personal sacrifice.
But the moment Biden issued pre-emptive pardons to Fauci, Milley, the J6 Committee, and his extended grifter family, there was no question that the issue of pre-emptive pardons had to be addressed.
We, as a nation and our federal government as a whole, have strayed far from the limitations set forth by the US Constitution. Our federal government routinely ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments even as it expands its authority beyond its constitutional boundaries by bastardizing the meanings of clauses in the Constitution and enabling the bureaucratic regulatory process. By allowing this expansion of authority, we now find our constitutional right to free speech under attack.
Mr. Biden said it himself in his farewell babblings. No one should be considered above the law. I put it to you that no president should feel he can exist above the limitations of the Constitution.
All we are asking for is a ruling by the SCOTUS on a matter of constitutionality. It’s their job, the reason that branch exists, to determine constitutionality. All we are asking is that they do their jobs.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber.
This Is How You Come To The Aid Of Your Neighbor?
Many people may think I’m naive for believing that people rise to the occasion when disaster strikes. However, I’m not naive. I have witnessed this firsthand as a professional firefighter and paramedic and through my own experiences with numerous natural disasters, primarily hurricanes and tornadoes.
In every instance, I have witnessed people stepping up to help their neighbors and even strangers. It may be something ingrained in us as Americans; who knows?
I have come to understand one important thing: while people who "run towards the fire" can be found everywhere in our country—and likely across the globe—I notice that there are more of them in rural communities than in urban areas.
I have been told by those who have grown up in rural settings (including family members and close friends) that this is because in rural communities, because resources are so spread out, people come to depend on one another in times of crisis. It makes perfect sense.
This is why the current story coming out of fire-ravaged Southern California makes me believe that there are some real assholes in the world, and many of them come out during disasters and crises, exposing their selfishness in people’s despair.
Ariel Zilber of The New York Post reports:
“Landlords in fire-ravaged Los Angeles have jacked up rents — in some cases by more than double the price — in violation of California law against price gouging as thousands of residents seek shelter.
By law, landlords are not permitted to raise the price of housing by more than 10% after a state of emergency has been declared. But a search of local listings and horror stories from realtors show that many opportunistic landlords are openly flouting the law after the wildfires destroyed entire communities.”
She went on to say that one rental property in North Hollywood, near the disaster area, jumped by $800 overnight. And one mansion (or what would be considered a mansion by middle-class standards—five bedrooms is a bit larger than the average house) in Santa Monica, that previously listed at $12,500 per month in February 2024, now lists at $28,000 per month—a 124% increase.
The question that begs to be asked is this. What kind of a jagoff gouges people in the face of a once-in-a-lifetime disaster? The answer is obvious: The worst kind.
As pleas for help fill the threads on social media (even from those who have millions and careers that will, no doubt, afford them millions more), this is how some Californians come to the aid of their neighbors? By jacking up rent prices over 100%?? With neighbors like that, who needs enemies?!
Now, there are those who, chest out and make-up applied for the camera (and some of them need it), say full-throated that they are not trying to politicize the situation, even as they go on to castigate the rich for not paying enough in taxes to pay for the disaster and as they insist that taxes related to “climate change” could have prevented it all (cough…Maxine Waters…cough). I am not going to be disingenuous like those people. I am going to get both political and ideological about it.
In the 2024 general election, 71.17% of the voters from the five voting precincts that largely constitute the Pacific Palisades area voted Democrat. It’s estimated that the areas affected by the Eaton Fire went Democrat by 65%.
Known for its radically liberal, neo-Marxist-leaning community, these voting patterns reflect the general trend in Los Angeles County, a stronghold for Democrat candidates. This is evidenced by the fact that Southern California counties, specifically Los Angeles County, voted 70.85% in favor of retaining Gavin Newsom in his 2021 recall election.
Aside from the fact that the voters of this area voted in favor of Newsom and the ideologically driven political bullshit that has led them to this disaster, by voting demographics alone, it is fair to determine that there is a 77.17 percent chance that the landlords raising the rent prices to robber baron levels are, themselves, neo-Marxist progressive liberals.
These are the same people who virtue signal about diversity, equity, and inclusion and how everyone has to pay their “fair share.” These are the people who screech about equity of outcome being more important than equal opportunity. They are the same people who vomited invective about how greedy Donald Trump is while calling him Hitler.
These are the same people who say—nay, insist, that they know what is best for you and your children. They are people who expect you to accept their intellectual superiority over the average person.
Yet, when the chance to prove their benevolence comes into play, what do they do? They opportunistically stick it to their neighbors in a time of desperation and need. That, my friends, is the very definition of a jagoff.
And they, no doubt, will be the same assholes complaining about how the federal government isn’t providing enough taxpayer-funded relief to the victims, even as they refuse to acknowledge that their votes—their ideologically fueled votes—are responsible for the extent of this avoidable disaster.
Meanwhile, people in Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee still live in tents and without basic amenities after officials denied them the charity of the Amish community, which offered donations of tiny cabins. This kindness came from complete strangers who traveled hundreds of miles at their own expense to help their neighbors.
All the people of Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee got from the woke-loving Biden administration was a directive to “go online” to apply for $750. But hey, at least they aren’t getting gouged on rent for their tents, right? Meanwhile, they’re looking for an internet connection. And if it weren’t for Elon Musk, there would be no communications connections at all.
Yes, there are two worlds in the US today, but hopefully, that’s coming to an end. And it's time the one the woke elite live in to crash down and burn. Shame on those people gouging those who have lost everything, regardless of who they might be and from what station in society.
Maybe exposing these gouging blood-suckers among the ash ruins of Southern California will force them to see their greed and inhumanity. And perhaps that will cultivate some true benevolence for their fellow man…and some much-needed humility.
I say we expose them all. Expose them all!

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Liberation Day Is Here…Now Our Work Begins
20 Jan· Underground USA
It’s finally here, Liberation Day; liberation from the caustic, divisive, neo-Marxist Biden administration, liberation from the underhanded, shadowy Obama 2.0 neo-Bolsheviks, liberation from the heavy hand of our globalist oppressors, liberation from wokeism.
But just like in any successful “revolution”—and frankly, that is what we have achieved, a revolution in restoring governmental leadership that thinks the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights don’t suck—just in any revolution, We the People have to see it through, which means keeping the pressure on.
I’ve said this before, and I will say it many more times as we move forward. It’s an Alinsky rule, Rule. No. 8.
Alinsky understood that creating constant tension and conflict was the key to transitioning power. This rule—“keeping the pressure on”— was and remains crucial to the far-Left's agenda because it focuses on wearing down their opposition through relentless pressure. They understand that if they can keep the pressure applied, they can exhaust and divide their opponents, making it easier to push their transformative, neo-Marxist agenda. It's like a never-ending political battle where the farthest of the Left never lets up.
They use this tactic in various ways, including endless protests, media smear campaigns, and constant calls for change. By keeping the pressure on, they aim to create an atmosphere of crisis and uncertainty that will make people more likely to accept their radical ideas.
Well, I have always thought that if your opponent uses a tactic—or in this case, a set of “rules”—that works, why not co-opt that rule book and turn those tactics against them? Quite frankly, the Trump campaign (and now administration) understands this and leverages it to its advantage.
But now, the time has come for us to understand our role in our restorative revolution. We cannot go back to being complacent. We cannot foolishly believe that just because we watched President Trump get sworn in as the 47th president, everything will be fine. We are at the beginning of the process, not the end.
While wokeism is now dying, just like a mortally wounded wild animal that is cornered, now is the time when those in that movement are the most dangerous. We all must continue to accurately and factually educate our fellow citizens on why wokeism—its DEI and ESG tenets and its climate change and identity politics—why wokeism is so incredibly damaging to our freedom and to our ability to thrive. That takes engagement, not just liking posts and forwarding memes.
We must immediately shift part of our attention to the 2026 mid-term elections and adding to the majority numbers in the House and the Senate. Why is this important? Well, we do have usual suspect RINOs in the Senate and the House, and our majorities in both houses are not large. We need to be able to have numbers that make the usual suspect RINOs inconsequential. That can only happen if President Trump doesn’t have to count on their votes.
In the meantime, we must make sure that those currently elected to office feel our breaths on the back of their necks every minute of every day. We cannot let them fall back into the “self-importance” routine. They need to hear from us—with both positive and negative reinforcement, just like a child—when they do things that are both good and bad. The American people gave Donald Trump a mandate to re-establish constitutionalism across our nation, and that’s what we have to demand: that return to constitutionalism.
We cannot tolerate those elected to the House and the Senate to derail the mandate that we, the voters, bestowed on the 47th president. They must feel pressure from we, the voters, so they know it is unacceptable for them to exhale and return to the bureaucratic, political, inside-the-beltway status quo. Again, that requires engagement, not just poking a button on a social media platform.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a monthly cup of coffee at Starbucks.
President Trump, now inaugurated as the 47th President of the United States, has an incredible amount of work to do in just one term. He must:
* Secure the border, deport criminal aliens, and advocate for legislation to permanently establish immigration laws that make it impossible for transformative neo-Marxists to flood our nation with illegal immigrants ever again
* Completely rework the century-old income tax system to work to our strengths as a nation instead of the current unconstitutional system of inequity and carve-outs for the connected
* Re-establish our energy self-sufficiency and position the US as a net exporter of energy to the world while establishing the US energy industry as a leader in common sense innovative energy development
* Purge our federal government—including all departments and alphabet agencies—of partisan political activists
* Streamline and balance the federal budget while expunging overreaching and unconstitutional regulations and the bureaucracy’s ability to establish regulations that equate to law
* Re-establish the core mission of the Pentagon to that of a warfighting machine instead of a social engineering Petri dish
* Reclaim the United States' rightful seat at the world power table to regain the ability to influence and potentially compromise the relationship between communist China and neo-Soviet Russia
And these are just some of the big-ticket things that Mr. Trump must achieve in only four years. To say his slate is full is an incredible understatement.
This is precisely why we—as well as the Trump administration—can’t allow the business-as-usual disrupters of the far-Left and the RINO classes to “wrench the machine” like they usually do. And to make sure that doesn’t happen, we must stay engaged; we must take the lead in using the far-Left’s playbook against them. We must think and act cohesively as a movement—a transformative constitutionalist movement—using tactics; “rules” that have proven to work on the stage of social influence.
To reiterate the Alinksy Rules:
* Power is not only what you have but what the enemy thinks you have
* Never go outside the experience of your people
* Whenever possible go outside of the experience of the enemy
* Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules
* Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. There is no defense. It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage
* A good tactic is one your people enjoy
* A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag
* Keep the pressure on
* The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself
* The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition.
* If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside; this is based on the principle that every positive has its negative
* The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative
* Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it
So, with the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 47th President of the United States, I exist with hope in my heart for a re-establishment of constitutionalism for our Republic and a return to equal opportunity and prosperity for all. But without our commitment to “seeing it through,” without our efforts to “keep the pressure on,” this spectacular revolution will have all been for naught. It will die on the vine.
And if we fail now to achieve our goals, the far-Left will—without doubt—execute a resurgence that will make the Clinton-Obama-Biden era look like nothing. What will come after our failure will make Mao’s Cultural Revolution look like child’s play ad that will not only affect the United States, it will affect the world.
If that doesn’t motivate you, I don’t know what will.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
On Grifter Joe’s Parting Words…
17 Jan· Underground USA
Well, Joe Biden said his official goodbye to the nation—allegedly—in his farewell speech to the nation, which most people decided not to watch. The fact is this. Biden has been beyond a lame-duck president since the Obama machine shelved him as the Democrat candidate.
But his farewell address had some things worthy of being addressed, even if for their obvious hypocrisy and the telegraphing of his and his administration’s misdeeds.
I have edited his speech down to a few points and hurried his speech along, so if you are someone who thought Biden was a good president, no, I’m not taking him out of context. So, feel free to go about your day in your bizarre pseudo-utopian bubble.
In this first clip, Biden discusses the importance of treating everyone with dignity, justice, and fairness.
Without time enough to blink, the question erupted: So, what happened to Donald Trump’s right to be treated with dignity, justice, and fairness? He was denied each for his tenure and Biden’s term. He was called Hitler; they mocked his appearance, turned a blind eye to his benevolence to call him greedy, and denied him fair treatment both socially, professionally, and judicially.
But that set the tone for Biden’s speech. He would go on to disingenuously serve up one hypocrisy after another even as he telegraphed his own opportunistic actions before and during his presidency.
In this following clip, Biden has the unmitigated gall to say that we all must have the backbone to stand up to those who abuse power.
You have to wonder if he really doesn’t understand that he is describing exactly what he and his administration—Obama 2.0—have done for eight years. He talks about “respecting” the institutions of government. Yet, at every turn, he transformed whole departments and agencies of our federal government into weapons against his enemies and the American people.
And to even suggest that he is a proponent of a “free and independent press” when his and his party’s relationship with the mainstream media was both nepotistic and sympathetic stinks a vomitous stench of untruth. We haven’t had a free and independent press since the days of Woodrow Wilson, and it’s only gotten worse over the years.
And then Biden made these obnoxious claims.
The claim that this administration did anything to protect our children should earn Biden his own private circle in Dante’s world. There has never been a more egregious push to normalize gender dysphoria than during the Biden administration. The entirety of his staff—appointees et al.—were obsessed with sexuality and the sexualization of our children. And they were so to the point where they attempted to come between the sacred bond of parent and child. The Biden administration did more to corrupt the family unit than 100 years of Planned Parenthood, and that’s saying a lot.
He then went on to falsely claim that crime—violent crime—is down across the nation. This is a flat-out lie. In fact, crime is so bad in many locales that people have stopped reporting crimes because there is too much of it for our law enforcement officers to address. Listen to any urban area police scanner on any given night—and especially Friday and Saturday nights—and all you hear is “shots fired.” Those aren’t the radio calls of a lower crime rate.
And I suppose it’s easy to claim you’ve created 17 million jobs when you first eliminated 17 million jobs by destroying businesses during a so-called pandemic. But don’t worry, there are more people with health insurance than ever before. Now, all they have to do is schedule appointments thirteen months into the future because there are too many illegal immigrants in the waiting rooms thanks to the Biden administration giving them all free healthcare on the taxpayer’s dime.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a monthly cup of coffee at Starbucks
Then we come to Biden’s warnings for all to heed. For some reason, Biden felt he had the mental acuity to channel his inner Eisenhower to forewarn of ghosts of the future.
A peaceful transition of power? I suppose the Bidens and their White House staff won’t barricade themselves in the Oval Office. Still, with the rapid-fire executive orders coming out of Biden’s administration in the waning days of his presidency, he is certainly setting Rome on fire for the incoming president. I’m half expecting to hear he has posthumously pardoned Charles Manson and awarded him the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
But the most sickening thing in his speech to me is his telegraphing of the dangers of a new oligarchy. Yes, he was trying to paint that color onto Trump, his incoming administration, and his potentate supporters, but he was describing exactly what he, the Democrats, Hollywood, the Silicon Valley billionaires, George Soros, and the World Economic Forum Orcs have had assembled since the days of the Clinton administration. Biden was speaking of the Deep State inside-the-beltway bureaucracy, the very entity that Donald Trump now has a mandate from the people to destroy.
And he validated this by warning of the mis– and dis-information that will rule the social media threads because his beloved “fact checkers”—read government anointed censors—are being abandoned by most social media organizations, so much so that many “fact checking” companies are going belly up.
But he continues to incriminate not only himself but the entirety of the Deep State apparatus.
Reform the tax code? Biden had four years to do something about a corrupt and inequitable Internal Revenue Service and did absolutely nothing. In fact, he fueled the beast by feeding it personnel. But hey, he’s right. We should scrap the entire tax code from top to bottom and craft a consumption tax that can never be raised, with no add-ons or extras. That would force the federal government to establish and maintain a budget.
Then he dared to complain about dark money in politics when Democrats—his party— have thrived off of dark money political donations since before the Clinton administration. Obam and Biden were even caught accepting donations from overseas. Look into ActBlue if you need proof.
And you have to see Nancy Pelosi’s dentures fall into her chardonnay glass at Biden’s suggestion that Congress be forbidden from playing the stock market. I mean, really. How will the Congress creatures exit office as millionaires if they can’t inside trade and influence legislation for profit?
However, the moment the possibility of a lightning strike was presented was when Biden addressed the issue of holding a president accountable to the law. Honestly, I agree. And by his own request, the incoming Attorney General should appoint a special prosecutor—and make sure Congress seats him or her—to investigate the actions of both then-presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
And lastly, Biden “circled back” to complain about that darn oligarchy again.
Much to my surprise, I agreed completely with the sentiment in his final points, but again, he telegraphed precisely what he and his neo-Marxist ilk have done to the people of the United over the past 16 years. They have used identity politics and the smear of racism to divide our country.
Rather than creating that level playing field for every American, they have embraced the discriminatory neo-Marxist tenet of equity of outcome over equality of opportunity. They have demonized the White heterosexual male as a second class onto which all the blame for every ill of our nation—past, present, and future—must be placed.
We have to suffer two more days of these divisive assholes, and I am sure there will be some parting shots as he and his leave the White House and the Naval Observatory. But there is a new dawn on the horizon, and it is filled with a return to normalcy, or at least the hope of that eventuality.
Now all we have to do is make sure the Congressional Republicans don’t fuck everything up like they did with Paul Ryan’s Congress in 2016. There is never any guarantee that Republicans can’t snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…And Now There’s FIRE
13 Jan· Underground USA
The aware understand that free speech is required for freedom to reign. Our Framers understood it well, and that’s why it is enshrined in the First Amendment to the US Constitution in the Bill of Rights. But how does a free society protect free speech from nefarious charlatans who abuse that right for personal and ideological gain?
Such is the question we face today when we examine the partisan politics that have metastasized like cancer throughout the mainstream media complex and, to drill down into one aspect of that niche, the pollsters.
In an era of high political polarization, trust in polls has waned, particularly among certain voter groups. This distrust manifests in lower response rates and sometimes (and this is growing) dishonest responses, further skewing poll results. There has also been a trend where polls “herd” their respondents towards an expected result to avoid being an outlier, which can lead to a uniform but inaccurate picture.
The American Association of Public Opinion Research published a white paper on herding that read:
“Herding” specifically refers to the possibility that pollsters use existing poll results to help adjust the presentation of their own poll results. "Herding” strategies can range from making statistical adjustments to ensure that the released results appear similar to existing polls to deciding whether or not to release the poll depending on how the results compare to existing polls. By drawing upon information from previous polls, herding may appear to increase the perceived accuracy of an individual survey estimate…”
The white paper said that one troublesome consequence of herding is that pollsters who engage in the practice will produce artificially consistent results that don’t accurately reflect public attitudes. This perceived polling consistency instills false confidence about who will win an election, thereby artificially impacting how the media covers the race. The white paper’s author goes on to say that the faux consistency becomes a major factor in whether political campaigns and parties “devote resources to a campaign, and even if voters think it is worthwhile to turn out to vote. “
So, by the conscious decisions made by the polling companies and, most of the time, by the individual pollsters themselves, even the associations that champion their “science” admit that industry practices artificially affect elections.
In 2020, Maddy Weinberg, writing from the University of California at Berkeley, noted that data analyzing over 1,400 polls from 11 election cycles revealed that only 60 percent of polls conducted the week before an election included the actual outcome. This doesn't sound too bad to those defending the “science” of polling, but to the consumer, that result is a failing grade.
The defenders of this failure spin it this way:
“It’s really important to remember that these polls are not forecasting who’s going to win. They are an estimate of likely vote share. So this is about whether the truth falls inside the confidence interval, not whether the poll calls the eventual winner.”
And pollsters often use statistical models manufactured to adjust or “weight” their data to—as they see it—to better reflect the broader population. However, these adjustments often introduce errors if the assumptions or methods used are ideologically tainted, dishonest, or flawed. For instance, weighting by “recalled vote” or education level has been criticized for possibly skewing results. The 2020 election highlighted that national polling errors were among the highest in 40 years despite these adjustments.
So, it goes without saying (although it must be said) that the “science” of polling is inaccurate, to say the very least. Yet, the mainstream media complex and the political opportunists of all political parties routinely cite polling results as intently sincere and an accurate harbinger of the coming election results predicated on that snapshot in time.
This presents the action in question recently reported by TheHill.com. Ashleigh Fields reported:
“The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) announced on Tuesday their decision to represent an Iowa pollster entangled in a lawsuit with President-elect Trump stemming from a November poll from renowned pollster Ann Selzer that showed him losing to Vice President Harris.”
The group, in Selzer’s defense, claims the poll was an “outlier that projected inaccurate predictions unintentionally” and, therefore, did not violate the law.
The poll in question—Selzer’s poll, was published in The DesMoine Register just days before the November 2024 Presidential Election. Her poll results stated that the people of Iowa favored Kamala Harris by three percentage points over Donald Trump. In reality, Trump won in Iowa by 13 points—a 16-point deviation from Selzer’s results.
Yet FIRE maintains:
“Trump’s lawsuit, brought under an Iowa law against ‘consumer fraud,’ violates long-standing constitutional principles. It’s also entirely meritless under the Iowa law…The lawsuit is the very definition of a ‘SLAPP’ suit — a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. Such tactical claims are filed purely for the purpose of imposing punishing litigation costs on perceived opponents, not because they have any merit or stand any chance of success. In other words, the lawsuit is the punishment.”
Let’s take a look at the past performance of Selzer and her company:
* 2008 Presidential Election: Selzer's final poll correctly predicted an influx of first-time caucusgoers would deliver Barack Obama a victory in the Iowa Democratic caucuses. Her poll had Obama leading by 3 points when he actually won by 10, which, while not exact, captured the trend correctly.
* 2012 Presidential Election: Her poll showed Obama leading by 5 points over Mitt Romney in Iowa, and he won by 5.6 points, which is a very close match.
* 2014 Senate Election: Selzer's poll predicted Joni Ernst would win by 7 points over Bruce Braley, and she won by 8.5 points, showcasing her poll's accuracy.
* 2016 Presidential Election: Selzer's polls were among the few that accurately anticipated Donald Trump's performance in Iowa. Her final poll had Trump leading by 7 points, and he won by 9.4 points, indicating a small but notable margin of error.
* 2020 Presidential Election: For the 2020 election, her final pre-election poll found Trump ahead by seven percentage points (48% to 41%), which was very close to the actual result where Trump won with a margin of 8.2 points (53.1% to 44.9%).
* 2022 Senate Election: Her poll predicted a Republican lead by 12 points, which was exactly what happened.
That makes her 16-point error in the 2024 Presidential Election a significant—and, quite frankly—unbelievable anomaly in her track record. Her last poll before the election predicted a 3-point lead for Kamala Harris in Iowa, but Trump won by 13 points, marking a 16-point miss, unprecedented for Selzer's polls.
Trump’s lawsuit alleges that Selzer’s poll—now proven to be a magnificent anomaly from her routine accuracy—was intended to “deceive” voters:
“Millions of Americans, including Plaintiff, residents of Iowa, and Iowans who contributed to President Trump’s Campaign and its affiliated entities, were deceived by the doctored Harris Poll…Selzer’s misconduct caused ‘great distrust and uncertainty at a very critical time.’”
Because the newspaper and associated media outlets portrayed Selzer’s poll as accurate using her reputation and polling accuracy as a selling point—and because that product was intrinsically defective, there must be some culpability for misleading voters given the industry’s acknowledgment of a 40 percent accuracy failure rate and industry standard practices that facilitate that inaccuracy.
It’s quite hard to believe, given Selzer’s history of extreme accuracy, that a nefarious intent wasn’t in play here. Certainly, because The DesMoines Register paid Selzer for her polling, the poll itself must be considered a product. By that fact alone—because Selzer was paid for her services—her product shouldn’t fall under the dominion of First Amendment free speech protection, simply because she wasn’t engaging in political free speech as an individual espousing her personal beliefs. She was facilitating a product for profit.
That FIRE is attempting to sully the judicial waters by arguing First Amendment protection—in the face of all of the evidence of malfeasance and nefarious intent, and in light of the fact that she was not exercising political free speech as a citizen redressing government, diminished its reputation as a protector of free speech in a time when it is needed the most.
How far the mighty have fallen. And I have no doubt a fair and honest jury will hold to that assertion.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.
A Post Script:
Before we go, I feel the need to further expose the insanity of the systemic wokeism that has infested the Los Angeles Fire Department’s administrative ranks.
If you recall, I mentioned a Deputy Fire Chief named Kristine Larson, the head of the department’s DEI Bureau, in my recent article Who Couldn’t See This Coming. Not that it makes a bit of difference, Larson is of the LGBTQ+ community. What does make a difference is this. That’s why she ascended to her rank. Her appointment was not due to merit.
As reported by Newsweek, of all places:
“Los Angeles Fire Department Deputy (LAFD) Chief Kristine Larson is facing widespread criticism online after comments surfaced in which she appeared to shift blame onto fire victims for their circumstances.
“Speaking as part of a video that aired during a commercial break for the FOX show 9-1-1 about firefighter capabilities, Larson said, “Am I able to carry your husband out of a fire? He got himself in the wrong place if I have to carry him out.”
This mindset is antithetical to the very reason the fire service—and, in fact, all public safety organizations—exist. The primary purpose of a firefighter, regardless of rank, is to save lives. Larson’s narcissistic approach to the fire service is a slap in the face to every firefighter who ever donned an MSA or Scott mask and put his life on the line to help someone in danger.
But this is the arrogance that permeates the woke movement. It’s an undeserved and unearned air of superiority that can only be defined as arrogance. And this arrogance comes out each and every time these assholes are put on the spot because their ineptitude and determination to force their dysfunctional ideology into the mainstream have ended in disaster and, many times, death. The response to the fires of Southern California—from Newsom to Bass to the DEI hire chiefs of the LA Fire Department—the fires of Southern California and proves this beyond argument.
To that end, those who exist inept in their positions who can be fired should be fired and immediately. I am certain there are a multitude of fireline battalion chiefs and even captains who would have managed the crisis better, especially in pre-planning preparation. So, to Deputy Chief Larson (and I just threw up a little bit having to say that), I say this: Go fuck yourself. You don’t deserve to wear the uniform, anywhere.
But the scourge of the imbecile among the ranks of California’s elected officials, well, that has to rest on the shoulders of the people who vote in California. They ascended them to power and did so because these idiots promoted and pandered to the ideologically woke. They got the government they deserve. And now their homes are ashes.
The question is this. From the ashes, will a new, more sensical mindset emerge in Califonia’s electorate? Or will they just return to being the ideological dupes that people like Gavin Newsom and Karen Bass believe them to be. Only time will tell.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Who Couldn’t Know This Was Coming?
10 Jan· Underground USA
This terrible, tragic story about what is happening in Southern California isn’t about wildfires or climate change, no matter how badly the elected class in California tries to spin it as such. Wildfires have been a part of everyday life since Los Angeles was created. And climate change didn’t cause the explosion in the size of this wildfire. But blame for the utter devastation has a home.
Woke-brained ideologues and eco-zealous activists who have captured California government—at every level—have instituted reckless and dangerous utopian ideas and unrealistic and imbecilic initiatives, which have made this tragedy 100 times more dangerous and deadly than it had to be.
Wildfires in California are nothing new. No one should have been surprised about a wildfire in Southern California. No one should have been caught unprepared for the annual arrival of the Santa Anna winds. What is happening in California right now was bound to happen sooner or later. However, the inability of California’s state and local governments to mitigate the emergency has caused this natural disaster to become an unnatural disaster propagated by inferior intellect at the hands of social engineers of a dysfunctional ideology.
Traditionally—or until the woke mob assumed the throne—a large portion of California’s state, county, and city budgets were allocated to a reasonable amount of fire prevention, water management, and forest maintenance. But since the invasion of the woke, fire prevention budgets have been slashed, water management doesn’t exist, and forest maintenance is considered a crime.
At a time when a large portion of the budgets should have been devoted to securing the safety of the citizens of California by evolving fire prevention abilities, hiring more firemen and training them for wildfires, and solving the decades-old water crisis—the exact opposite has taken place.
Over 2,000 homes have burned to the ground (so far). Let that number sink in. It will take decades to rebuild all that was lost if, in fact, the people who lost their homes are allowed to get permits to do so for all the bureaucratic bullshit people have to go through in California. So, the overarching question for the moment is this: Why did this happen?
Los Angeles elected a radically extreme neo-Marxist activist for its mayor, Karen Bass. She is woke in a devout way; fully invested in the DEI culture that manufactures the equity of outcomes instead of the equality of opportunity.
Bass cut the fire department’s budget by $17.6 million in deference to the institution of DEI programs and their accompanying taxpayer-funded administrative salaries. At the same time, Bass’s budget found money for housing, educating, and healthcare for millions of illegal immigrants and the homeless.
By the way, with full knowledge that a massive wind event was to bear down on Los Angeles and its surrounding area, Bass went to Africa to celebrate the inauguration of Ghana’s president. Why would attending such an event serve the people of Los Angeles?
Then, we have the DEI hires who are the Fire Chief of Los Angeles, Kristin Crowley, an LGBTQ+ community member, devoted to DEI (and damn proud of it, according to her official department bio), and her deputy chief, Kristine Larson, also of the LGBTQ+ community. Larson heads up the department’s DEI Bureau. Both have publicly bragged about their devotion to ridding the Los Angeles Fire Dept of “old-school white guys” and hiring for “diversity.” In fact, Crowley said shewas “super inspired about bringing more women and LGBTQ-identifying persons in to fight fires.”
Honestly, if your house is on fire and you are trapped, do you give a damn who the person coming to rescue you is sleeping with? It’s inconsequential to the job at hand and the position. To base the hiring of a firefighter—or any first responder— on gender, sexual orientation, or skin color over the candidate’s ability to do the job is not only imbecilic, it’s a dereliction of duty.
This is illustrative of the whole of governments—with few exceptions—in the state of California.
Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. It costs less than a cup of quarterpounder with cheese at Mc Donald’s once a week!
During COVID, Bass and the Los Angeles Fire Department administration fired hundreds of professional firefighters who refused the vaccine. It goes without saying that those fire-tested professionals could have been valuable during this emergency, but then they would have needed equipment. To that point, were you aware a large portion of Los Angeles’ firefighting equipment was sent to Ukraine to aid in the war effort?
Then we have Janisse Quiñones, the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Engineer of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power, the nation’s largest publicly-owned utility. Under Quiñones, firefighters responding to the fires were met with fire hydrants that didn’t produce water. Within 24 hours, the tanks used as reservoirs for the hydrants were depleted, and Los Angeles' outdated infrastructure couldn’t refill the tanks fast enough to produce usable pressure for the hydrants. The water was there, but there was no pressure to bring it to the hydrants.
Could it possibly be that an individual whose salary was doubled upon taking the position as head of the Los Angeles Department of Water & Power ($750,000 annually—the highest salary in municipal government) might begin efforts to upgrade a dilapidated system that, by all expectations, couldn’t perform in a worst-case scenario?
Then, we come to the eco-zealots of Southern California’s radically insane environmentalist community.
The area currently existing as an inferno is surrounded by state forests. However, the eco-zealot stewards of these woodlands have not controlled, cleared, or maintained undergrowth in 20 years. Many eco-zealots argue that undergrowth plays a crucial role in forest ecosystems, providing habitats for wildlife and contributing to biodiversity. Clearing it, they argue, would disrupt these natural processes. Besides, fire is a natural part of the forest ecosystems.
Preserving habitats is one thing, but allowing undergrowth to accumulate to the point that when it catches fire, it obliterates whole cities is the rationale behind the imbecile. This poses the question: How many habitats were destroyed in the current fires?
California has had two years of more-than-average rainfall, especially in Southern California. 2022-2023 was notably wet, with many regions of California receiving significantly more rain than average. Following the previous year, the 2023-2024 water year continued this trend with above-average rainfall across much of the state. Los Angeles, for example, recorded one of its highest two-year rainfall totals since the late 19th century, making these back-to-back years exceptionally wet by historical standards.
Yet that naturally available water wasn’t captured to fill new reservoirs that were appropriated in 2014 through Proposition 1. Instead of building new reservoirs, there's been a push towards “conservation.” The last water desalination plant was built in 2015 in Carlsbad, California,
Los Angeles is a city built on the Pacific Ocean. Yet the firefighters had no water? Why?
Well, the state government—spurred by a potent eco-zealot lobby—routes naturally occurring water to the ocean for several reasons, all of which are rooted in environmental regulations. These people lecture everyone about carbon footprints and how dangerous CO2 is for the environment (CO2 is required in the growth cycle to afford photosynthesis and plant growth) as they board their G6s to Davos.
So, while tens of thousands of people see their houses burn to the ground and, in a growing number of instances, find out that their neighbors have died, it’s pretty easy to see that the bulk of the blame for this horrific event lays at the feet of the woke assholes that are elected and appointed to public office in the State of California and the city and county of Los Angeles. Each has failed the people of Southern California in a spectacular way.
To add insult to injury, just weeks ago—you know, when warnings about a more intense than usual Santa Anna wind was forecast, many of the people affected by the fire had their fire insurance canceled. Aside from that action being tantamount to criminal, it begs the question: If the insurance robber barons were astute enough to know that a disaster was in the offing, how come the people elected to know about these things were caught completely unprepared?
The answer is simple. They are all DEI hires of the extremist ideological class, and their mission is not public service or the protection of their people but a mission of social engineering transformation. Well, they’ve succeeded in transforming a once beautiful and thriving area into an armageddon-like wasteland.
But, you get the government you vote for so it can be argued that the woke of California lit the match to this disaster because virtue signaling was more important to them than electing people of merit to very important roles.
But, hey, don’t worry. President Biden just announced the federal government will be picking up the tab for the disaster, so the woke who voted for their shit show of a government won’t suffer any consequences for their ideologically-based stupidity.
I wonder how Western North Carolina and Eastern Tennessee people feel about that.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
This Is Why We Must Keep The Pressure On
6 Jan· Underground USA
The conservative block recently celebrated the paring down of the 1500-page Continuing Resolution that kept the government open. Part of that celebration centered on the defunding of the Global Engagement Center (GEC), which the learned pointed out was an integral cog in the Deep State anti-First Amendment censorship apparatus. However, the reports of the Center’s death have been greatly exaggerated.
The so-called "Global Engagement Center" sounds about as threatening as a high school debate club. But in the wise words of Vivek Ramaswamy, it was actually a linchpin in what we might call the "censorship industrial complex." Its mission? Supposedly to combat "foreign state and non-state propaganda and disinformation efforts aimed at undermining or influencing the policies, security, or stability of the United States, its allies, and partner nations." Foreign, they emphasized, because: a) apparently, the truth is only offensive when it comes from outside our borders, and b) political censorship is forbidden in the First Amendment.
Here's the kicker: the GEC, like its cousins in the Deep State alphabet soup of government agencies (think CIA, FBI, and all those other three-letter nightmares), was supposed to be our shield against foreign threats. But—and especially over the Obama and Biden years, this shield has been turned inward, targeting those pesky American citizens who dare to think differently, especially on topics like COVID or Hunter Biden's laptop or the manufacture of the J6 events. The GEC, it seems, was more like a junior partner in Big Brother's surveillance state, keeping tabs on “Wrongthink.”
Because heaven forbid, they couldn't directly censor Americans (that pesky First Amendment thing gets in the way, don’t you know), the GEC played it coy. They funded the British-based Global Disinformation Index. This group was less about fighting disinformation and more about creating a blacklist for publications like The Washington Examiner, RealClearPolitics, and The New York Post. The result? A financial guillotine for conservative voices, with ad revenues drying up faster than the initiatives promised by the BLM activists who bilked millions from their supporters and immediately abandoned them.
Then came the bureaucratic masterstroke. The GEC’s funding was tucked away in that behemoth 1500-page legislative monstrosity—the Continuing Resolution to keep the government open. It was like serving a scoop of bureaucracy with a side of contempt, drawing the ire of Elon Musk and others. But, after much outrage and protest, the spendthrifts of Congress managed to shave it down to a mere 120 pages, cutting the GEC's funding and retreating from the legislators’ pay raises intact. Crisis averted? Not quite.
The joy (no, not Kamala Harris “joy”) was fleeting. Like a magic trick, the State Department pulled a rabbit out of its hat, rebranding the GEC as the “Counter Foreign Information Manipulation & Interference Hub.” Isn't that just a mouthful? Same people, new sign on the door, and a budget that miraculously “re-aligned” itself. It's like watching a bad magician perform at a second-rate political fundraiser.
Now, with Donald Trump's second term looming, the questions are these. Will he be able to successfully play whack-a-mole with these bureaucratic hydraheads? Or will Republican infighting and the voraciousness of the Deep State apparatus mute his efforts to rein in the bureaucracy and tame the beast?
There's talk of a "vibe shift," a cultural sea change where even former center-leftists and moderately inclined never-Trumpers are jumping on the MAGA bandwagon. But as some pre-maturely celebrate, we must all remember that rebranding doesn't mean reform. In fact, it’s not even close. It’s a re-packaging of the very initiatives we determined were outrageous in the first place. The GEC lives under an assumed alias. The Deep State bureaucracy, so focused on chiseling away at our First Amendment rights, lives on.
Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriber and supporting the free speech/truth effort at just $5 a month
So here we stand, at the precipice of what could be a significant cultural, governmental, and political upheaval. We have a real chance to tame the Deep State beast and protect our First Amendment right to freedom of speech. But that will require us—all of us—to keep the pressure on. That means making sure our elected creatures in Congress hear from us regularly about the consequences they will face if they don’t support the reformation—from top to bottom, including the CIA, DoJ, FBI, State Department, and the IRS—that was mandated by the people in the re-election of Donald Trump to the presidency.
If we don’t keep the pressure on (an Alinsky rule, by the way), everything we have achieved to date will be just another episode in the endless saga of government inefficiency and overreach.
Will Trump and his team truly be able to dismantle the Deep State bureaucracy apparatus? They will if we do our part by keeping the pressure on. But should we fail in our duty to advance our return to constitutional government, all we will see is the same old song and dance, just with different choreography and under a new production company.
Only time will tell if we're witnessing the death throes of a bloated, ineffective, and nepotistic Deep State bureaucracy or merely watching its latest act of self-preservation.
Then, when we come back, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida.

Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe
- Lytte Lytte igjen Fortsette Lytter...
- Lytte senere Lytte senere
Se mer

Episoder

Beware The Democratic Socialist Dog From Vermont

SPECIAL: It’s Stunning That This Needs To Be Explained…

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

The Manufactured Opposition To DOGE & Elon Musk

No, DOGE Is Not Unconstitutional

The AP’s Contorted View Of Reality

It’s The Left Who Are Creating A Constitutional Crisis

It’s Time To Make An Example Of McConnell

USAID's Dark & Scandalous Narrative Control Underbelly

USAID & It’s Backing Of Radical Political Organizations

The Purge Has Begun…And Not Too Soon, Either

Taxpayer Dollars Can’t Be Considered 'Free Money' Anymore

Oh No, No, No…We Can’t Be Doing This

This Is Why There Is Divide In Our Republic

Pre-Emptive Pardons: A Question Of Constitutionality

Liberation Day Is Here…Now Our Work Begins

On Grifter Joe’s Parting Words…

Where There’s Smoke, There’s Fire…And Now There’s FIRE

Who Couldn’t Know This Was Coming?

This Is Why We Must Keep The Pressure On