Underground USA

Underground USA
  • 4.3 (6)
  • POLITICS
  • UPDATED SEMIWEEKLY
Underground USA

No Fear. No Political Correctness. No Wokeism. An irreverent fact-based podcast heard and read across 48 US states and 35 countries. www.undergroundusa.com

  1. 2D AGO

    Beware The Democratic Socialist Dog From Vermont

    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 allocat

    56 min

  2. 5D AGO

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

    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

    11 min

  3. 5D AGO

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

    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

    45 min

  4. FEB 24

    The Manufactured Opposition To DOGE & Elon Musk

    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, J

    41 min

  5. FEB 21

    No, DOGE Is Not Unconstitutional

    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 gran

    44 min

  6. FEB 18

    The AP’s Contorted View Of Reality

    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 b******t, 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

    37 min

  7. FEB 15

    It’s The Left Who Are Creating A Constitutional Crisis

    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 re

    17 min

  8. FEB 13

    It’s Time To Make An Example Of McConnell

    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

    9 min
See All (596)

Ratings & Reviews

4.3
out of 5
6 Ratings

About

No Fear. No Political Correctness. No Wokeism. An irreverent fact-based podcast heard and read across 48 US states and 35 countries. www.undergroundusa.com

Information

  • Creator
    Underground USA
  • Years Active
    2018 - 2025
  • Episodes
    596
  • Rating
    Explicit
  • Copyright
    © Frank Salvato
  • Show Website
    Underground USA

You Might Also Like

To listen to explicit episodes, sign in.

Stay up to date with this show

Sign in or sign up to follow shows, save episodes, and get the latest updates.
Select a country or region

Africa, Middle East, and India

Asia Pacific

Europe

Latin America and the Caribbean

The United States and Canada