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 f

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 Effici

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 thre

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

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

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

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

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 m

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 ex

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 Yor

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, completel

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 governmen

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

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 divi

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 h

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 w

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 governme

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 th

It might just be possible that you are as tired of hearing this bullshit as I am. Almost daily, it seems, we see items in the news that declare outgoing lame-duck president Joe Biden is enacting this order of that initiative to hobble the agenda of the incoming Trump 2.0 administration.Evidently, one of two things is happening here. One, the mainstream media narrative crafters never showed up to or were always stoned for civics classes. Or two, the neo-Bolshevik spinners of the Clinton-Obama-Biden regime are working overtime to make the public believe something that simply isn’t true.Where presidential executive orders are concerned, a lame-duck president cannot enact executive orders that are inherently irreversible by an incoming president.Executive orders, directives from the POTUS, are legally binding but can be revoked, modified, or replaced by subsequent executive orders from a new president. This is because executive power resides in the office of the President, not in an individual president after the

The questions beg to be asked. Are our political and academic classes that fatuous and dense? Or are they so jaded in their partisanship that they are willing to commit an actual insurrection against the American people because of their political power greed?Such is the question that we are presented with in scrutinizing an opinion editorial in The Hill (and, by the way, if you are under the delusion that publication is fair and balanced or conservative, you’re smoking something Hunter Biden would share) by two established far-Left operatives, Evan Davis and David Schulte.Davis, a former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and counsel to New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D), and Schulte, an investment banker and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal—and good friend and financial supporter of Barack Obama, are ignorantly parroting the nonsense promoted by US Rep. Jeremey Raskin (D-MD), that somehow, Donald Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment,