Underground USA

Underground USA
Underground USA

No Fear. No Political Correctness. No Wokeism. An irreverent fact-based podcast heard and read across 49 US states and 38 countries. www.undergroundusa.com

  1. 2D AGO

    How Wall Street Fuels China’s Global & Military Ambitions

    The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has a clear and unapologetic goal: to dominate the world, economically and politically, by any means necessary. Through a sophisticated web of financial deception, regulatory loopholes, and strategic market manipulation, tens of millions of Americans are unwittingly funneling trillions of dollars into Chinese companies that directly threaten US national security, produce advanced military weaponry, develop surveillance technologies, and perpetrate egregious human rights abuses. This alarming reality, highlighted by former Reagan adviser Roger Robinson, reveals a chilling truth: American investors are inadvertently funding the very forces that seek to undermine the free world. • SEGMENT 2: America’s Third Watch• SEGMENT 3: The Federal Government’s Attack On Independent Farmers & Ranchers “You have ... companies that are responsible for manufacturing China’s most advanced weapon systems,” Robinson, a veteran of the Reagan administration’s National Security Council, warned in a recent interview. “We’re funding, in some ways, our own demise.” His words carry the weight of experience, having played a pivotal role in crafting economic strategies that helped dismantle the Soviet Union. Today, as co-founder of the Prague Security Studies Institute, Robinson is sounding the alarm on a new existential threat—one that operates not just on battlefields but in the opaque corridors of global finance. At the heart of this crisis is the structure of modern investment vehicles, particularly index funds like those focused on emerging markets. These funds, popular among retail investors and pension plans, often include significant allocations to Chinese companies, many of which are deeply entwined with the CCP’s military-industrial complex. According to a 2021 report by the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, over 1,200 Chinese firms listed on major US exchanges have ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) or state-directed initiatives that advance Beijing’s authoritarian agenda. Yet, these companies are routinely bundled into broad-based funds like the MSCI Emerging Markets Index, where Chinese firms can account for 30-40% of holdings. The average American investor, seeking diversification or passive income, has no idea their 401(k) or IRA is bankrolling entities like China Shipbuilding Industry Corporation, which constructs warships for the PLA, or Hikvision, a global leader in surveillance technology implicated in the Uyghur genocide. A 2020 Department of Defense report identified Hikvision as one of several Chinese firms directly supporting Beijing’s military modernization, yet its stock remains a staple in many investment portfolios. This is not an accident but a deliberate strategy by the CCP to exploit Western capital markets. How does this happen? The answer lies in a combination of lax oversight, regulatory loopholes, and deliberate obfuscation by Chinese firms. Many of these companies operate through complex structures like Variable Interest Entities (VIEs), which allow them to list on US exchanges while shielding their true ownership and activities from scrutiny. A 2022 analysis by the Securities & Exchange Commission (SEC) found that over 150 Chinese firms listed in the US failed to comply with basic auditing standards, raising red flags about transparency and accountability. Despite this, these firms continue to attract billions in American capital. Worse still, some of these companies are on US government blacklists, such as the Department of Commerce’s Entity List, which restricts trade with firms deemed a national security threat. Yet, as Robinson points out, “the capital markets have no equivalent mechanism to enforce these restrictions.” This gap allows blacklisted firms like Huawei or SMIC, China’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, to access American investment through secondary markets or index funds, effectively bypassing sanctions. The CCP’s ambitions extend far beyond financial gain. By capturing Western capital, China is accelerating its quest for global dominance. The Belt & Road Initiative, for instance, has funneled billions into infrastructure projects across Asia, Africa, and Europe, often financed by Western investors through Chinese state-owned banks. These projects are not merely economic; they are strategic, designed to create dependencies and extend Beijing’s geopolitical influence. A 2023 study by the Center for Strategic and International Studies found that 60% of Belt & Road projects are linked to CCP-controlled entities, many of which are publicly traded and accessible to American investors. Moreover, the technologies funded by these investments—such as AI, quantum computing, and 5G infrastructure—are dual-use, serving both civilian and military purposes. Companies like Tencent and Alibaba, darlings of the investment world, have deep ties to the CCP’s surveillance state. Tencent’s WeChat platform, for example, is a cornerstone of China’s social credit system, which monitors and controls the behavior of over a billion people. A 2021 report by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute documented how Tencent collaborates with the PLA to develop AI-driven military applications. Yet, these firms remain fixtures in American portfolios, their risks obscured by glossy prospectuses and Wall Street’s relentless optimism. The moral implications are equally dire. American investments are propping up companies complicit in some of the worst human rights abuses of our time. Firms like iFlytek, a leader in voice recognition technology, have been directly linked to the mass internment and forced labor of Uyghurs in Xinjiang. A 2019 Human Rights Watch report detailed how iFlytek’s technology enables the CCP to track and oppress ethnic minorities, yet its shares are traded on global exchanges and included in major indices. Every dollar invested in these companies is a dollar that sustains Beijing’s genocidal policies. The United States cannot afford to ignore this threat. The CCP’s infiltration of global markets is not a passive phenomenon but a calculated assault on the free world’s economic and political systems. As Robinson argues, “We need a fundamental rethinking of how we allow capital to flow into these entities.” Immediate steps must include stricter SEC oversight, mandatory disclosures of Chinese firms’ ties to the PLA, and a capital markets equivalent of the Entity List to block investment in blacklisted companies. Investors, too, must take responsibility. Pension funds, universities, and individual investors should demand transparency from fund managers and divest from indices that include CCP-linked firms. The alternative is complicity in China’s bid for global hegemony—a bid that threatens not just American security but the very principles of freedom and democracy. The clock is ticking. If the free world does not act, the CCP’s vision of a world under its iron grip will become reality, funded by the very people it seeks to subjugate. The time for complacency is over. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. The Federal Government’s AttackOn Independent Farmers & Ranchers I wanted to highlight a disturbing report out of South Dakota that illustrates just one story among hundreds about the US federal government—in cahoots with the environmentalist lobby—targeting ranchers and farmers across the country. It’s a pathetic power-grab that we all must come together to push back against. The US federal government’s indictment of South Dakota farmers Charles and Heather Maude for “theft” of National Grasslands is a shameful attack on rural America. Charged for cultivating and grazing 50 acres their family has managed since 1910, the Maudes face up to 10 years in prison and $250,000 in fines each, with separate charges designed to maximize their financial burden. This bureaucratic assault reeks of malice, targeting a couple for continuing long-standing practices approved by the US Forest Service (USFS) for decades. Keely Brazil Covello reported on this in her publication Unwon: The Maudes’ grazing allotment has been in good standing since the USFS’s inception, with no prior objections to their land use, including irrigation and fencing arrangements. The 2020 irrigation upgrade, cited as the “theft,” involves equipment on private land, yet the government now criminalizes practices it long permitted. Neighbor Scott Edoff highlights the betrayal, noting the USFS never challenged the Maudes’ management until this sudden, vindictive indictment. This case reflects a broader federal campaign against ranchers, with USFS agents harassing others like rancher Frank Bloom, who faces potential charges over similar fencing disputes. The government’s hypocrisy—trespassing on private land while accusing farmers of violations—is appalling. By ignoring historical agreements and pursuing punitive measures, the federal government is waging war on rural communities, demanding public outcry to protect farmers from such abuses. We simply have to stand with our country’s ranchers and farmers. The food they provide, as HHS Secretary RFK Jr. would agree, is infinitely healthier for us than the conglomerate manufactured processed crap force-fed to us through supermarket chains. Not to mention, farmers and ranchers are part of our American fabric; our history. It’s pathetic that we have to make a stand to protect our heritage, yet here we are… Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe

    43 min
  2. 6D AGO

    Communist China’s Conquest-Oriented Threat To Global Stability

    The People’s Republic of China (PRC), under the iron grip of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), has pursued a foreign policy that reeks of conquest and coercion, targeting nations like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan with calculated aggression. This approach, cloaked in diplomatic platitudes, seeks to bend sovereign states to Beijing’s will through economic leverage, military intimidation, and cultural infiltration. The world must recognize the PRC’s actions for what they are—a bid for global dominance—and unite, particularly with the United States, to economically cripple China’s ability to threaten international peace and cultural integrity. * Segment 2: America’s Third Watch Segment * Segment 3: The Epidemic of Violence As Conflict Resolution In The US Black Community A recent flashpoint in China’s belligerent posture is its reaction to Australia’s move to repatriate the strategically vital Darwin Port, leased to the Chinese-owned Landbridge Group in 2015. On April 7, 2025, Beijing issued a thinly veiled warning through Foreign Ministry spokesperson Lin Jian: "We urge the Australian side to provide a fair, non-discriminatory and predictable business environment for Chinese enterprises investing and operating in Australia, and refrain from overstretching the concept of national security or politicising normal business cooperation." This statement is a masterclass in hypocrisy. The CCP frames Australia’s defense of its sovereignty as discriminatory, while ignoring its own track record of weaponizing trade and investment to punish nations that defy its agenda. Australia’s decision to reclaim the port stems from legitimate security concerns, given its proximity to key military bases and its role in Indo-Pacific trade routes. Beijing’s protest reveals its intent to maintain strategic footholds abroad, treating foreign assets as pawns in its geopolitical chess game. China’s playbook in Australia extends beyond Darwin. Since 2017, when Australia began scrutinizing Chinese influence in its politics and universities, Beijing retaliated with crippling trade sanctions, costing Australian exporters an estimated AU$20 billion. These measures targeted beef, barley, wine, and coal—sectors chosen to maximize economic pain and send a message: compliance with CCP interests is non-negotiable. The sanctions followed Australia’s call for an independent inquiry into COVID-19’s origins, exposing China’s sensitivity to scrutiny and its willingness to economically bludgeon smaller nations into submission. This isn’t diplomacy; it’s economic warfare aimed at eroding Australia’s autonomy. Japan faces a similar onslaught. China’s aggressive posturing in the East China Sea, particularly around the Senkaku Islands, combines military provocations with economic pressure. The CCP’s coast guard and naval vessels routinely encroach on Japanese waters, testing Tokyo’s resolve while Beijing ramps up rhetoric claiming the islands as its own. Japan, a key US ally, is targeted not just for its strategic location but for its role in the Quad—a security partnership with the U.S., Australia, and India that China views as a direct challenge. Beijing’s strategy is clear: intimidate Japan into distancing itself from Western alliances, thereby weakening the regional counterbalance to Chinese hegemony. Japan’s economic dependence on China, with $150 billion in annual trade, gives Beijing leverage to threaten tariffs or supply chain disruptions, as seen in 2010 when China restricted rare earth exports during a prior Senkaku dispute. Taiwan, however, bears the brunt of China’s conquest-oriented ambitions. The CCP views Taiwan not as a sovereign democracy but as a renegade province to be reclaimed by force if necessary. Xi Jinping’s regime has escalated military incursions, with over 1,700 warplane sorties into Taiwan’s air defense zone in 2024 alone. These provocations, coupled with cyberattacks and disinformation campaigns, aim to destabilize Taiwan’s 23 million citizens and erode their will to resist. Economically, China pressures global firms to shun Taiwan, punishing companies like TSMC if they align too closely with Western interests. The CCP’s obsession with Taiwan isn’t just territorial—it’s cultural, seeking to erase a thriving democratic alternative to its authoritarian model. A Chinese takeover of Taiwan would not only disrupt global semiconductor supply chains but also signal to the world that resistance to Beijing is futile. Lin Jian’s Darwin Port warning encapsulates China’s broader strategy: demand unfettered access to foreign markets while decrying any pushback as unfair. This tactic masks the CCP’s exploitation of open economies to advance its military and cultural ambitions. China’s Belt & Road Initiative, for instance, saddles nations with debt to secure strategic assets, as seen in Sri Lanka’s Hambantota Port. Culturally, Confucius Institutes and media influence operations propagate CCP narratives, stifling criticism in host countries. In Australia, Chinese-language media outlets have been co-opted to echo Beijing’s line, while in Japan, CCP-linked donors have pressured universities to downplay human rights discussions. The world cannot afford to appease this expansionist regime. Economic interdependence with China, once touted as a path to peace, has instead empowered the CCP to hold nations hostage. The United States, with its unmatched economic and military clout, must lead a global effort to dull China’s ability to project power. This means aggressive sanctions on Chinese firms tied to the People’s Liberation Army, tariffs to curb Beijing’s trade surpluses, and restrictions on technology transfers that fuel China’s war machine. The US has already added over 800 Chinese entities to its export control list since 2018, a move allies must emulate to starve China’s military-industrial complex. Crippling China economically isn’t about containment—it’s about the survival of freedom. The CCP’s $18 trillion economy funds a military budget exceeding $225 billion, dwarfing regional rivals. China’s full complement of military personnel numbers over 2 million (the US complement stands at 1.3 million). Its navy, now the world’s largest by ship count, projects power from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean. Culturally, Beijing’s soft power campaigns aim to normalize authoritarianism, undermining democratic values worldwide. By reducing China’s economic capacity, the free world can limit its ability to coerce neighbors and export its dystopian vision. Allies like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan are on the front lines, but they cannot counter China alone. Australia’s iron ore exports, Japan’s industrial supply chains, and Taiwan’s semiconductors are critical to the global economy, yet their reliance on Chinese markets creates vulnerabilities Beijing exploits. A united front, led by the US, must diversify trade, bolster regional alliances like AUKUS and the Quad, and invest in alternative supply chains. Europe, too, must shed its ambivalence, recognizing that China’s ambitions threaten the liberal order it cherishes. The CCP’s response to Darwin’s repatriation is a microcosm of its global strategy: bully, deflect, and demand compliance. Lin Jian’s words are not a plea for fairness but a warning of retribution. The world must reject this coercion, aligning with the U.S. to economically weaken a regime that thrives on conquest. Only by curbing China’s financial lifeblood can we blunt its military saber-rattling and cultural overreach, preserving the sovereignty and values of nations like Australia, Japan, and Taiwan. The stakes are nothing less than the future of a free world. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. The Epidemic of Violence As ConflictResolution In The US Black Community For over half a century, the Black community in the United States has been gripped by a devastating epidemic: violence as the default method for resolving conflicts. Since the 1970s, this reliance on physical confrontation—whether in street disputes or domestic clashes—has spiraled out of control, becoming a cultural reflex that threatens not only the community but American society at large. The situation supercharged after Barack Obama’s presidency began in 2009, revealing a troubling paradox: even as a so-called Black man led the nation, the community’s descent into violence accelerated. The Black community’s persistent failure to confront this crisis head-on, coupled with its dismissal of accountability, signals a catastrophic trajectory. If left unaddressed, this epidemic risks unraveling social cohesion, deepening systemic divides, and perpetuating self-destruction. The roots of this crisis trace back to the 1970s, when urban decay and economic decline hit Black communities hard. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) data from 1975 shows homicide rates in cities like Chicago and Detroit—home to large Black populations—soaring to 30 per 100,000 residents, triple the national average. By 1980, Black Americans, roughly 12% of the population, accounted for 48% of homicide victims, with 85% of these deaths intra-communal, per the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS). The crack epidemic of the 1980s and gang proliferation in the 1990s only entrenched this pattern. Homicide became the leading cause of death for Black males aged 15–34, a grim statistic that persists today, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Yet, the election of Barack Obama in 2008, hailed as a transformative moment, marked an unexpected turning point—not for healing but for escalation. Between 2009 and 2016, violent crime in Black urban neighborh

    48 min
  3. APR 11

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

    In light of the recent dark money-funded, manufactured protests we have seen pop up around the country—poorly attended and proffered as they were—a repugnant trend has metastasized within swathes of the American public, and the neo-Marxist far left stands exposed as the venomous architects behind it: the calculated normalization and perverse glorification of political violence, with Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and others as their prime targets. The attempted assassination of President Trump on July 13, 2024, wasn’t an anomaly—it was the opening salvo in what’s morphed into a meticulously engineered “assassination culture,” a term that barely scratches the surface of this ideological rot. This isn’t a spontaneous eruption of discontent; it’s a structured, ideologically fueled offensive, orchestrated by the neo-Marxian American Fifth Column with a precision that demands both fury and dissection. It’s infiltrating digital networks and physical spaces, eroding political stability and public safety with a virulence that’s impossible to ignore. We’re not just witnessing chaos—we’re facing a deliberate assault that requires unrelenting scrutiny and a refusal to let these murder-advocating radicals slink away unchallenged. The National Contagion Research Institute (NCRI) delivered a scathing indictment in a December 2024 report, wielding hard data to unmask the neo-Marxist far left’s role. Drawing from a survey of 1,264 US residents—calibrated to Census demographics—and bolstered by open-source intelligence, the NCRI demonstrates how these neo-Jacobin ideologues are weaponizing social media narratives to sanctify murder. The numbers aren’t just alarming—they’re a call to arms against this insidious trend. The assassination of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson was the neo-Marxist far left’s grotesque catalyst, laying bare their chilling tolerance for violence among their young, hyper-online acolytes. But their ambitions didn’t stop there—their sights have expanded to encompass political giants like Trump and Musk, revealing a broader, more sinister agenda. The data cuts like a blade: 38% of respondents deem Trump’s murder at least somewhat justified, 31% extend that to Musk. Among the self-congratulatory left-of-center cohort—where Marxist sympathies fester—those figures surge to 55% and 48%, respectively. Nearly 40% even backed torching a Tesla dealership. These aren’t statistical blips; they’re evidence of a societal fracture engineered by the American Fifth Column’s relentless radicalism. What fuels the rage here is the cold, systematic nature of this ideology. This isn’t a loose collection of unhinged outbursts—it’s a framework based in Marxist conquest, rigorously constructed to legitimize violence as a political instrument. The NCRI’s correlation analysis dismantles any pretense of spontaneity: support for murdering Trump, Musk, or Thompson clusters tightly with ideological and psychological markers, pointing to a coherent belief system rather than random malice. At the core sits Left-Wing Authoritarianism (LWA), a neo-Marxist hallmark defined by moral absolutism, a vicious punitive streak against dissenters, and a readiness to impose their warped vision through force. The NCRI’s regression models show respondents with high LWA scores are disproportionately likely to endorse assassination and property destruction—statistical proof that this “assassination culture” is a deliberate neo-Marxist construct, not some organic uprising. These aren’t outliers; they’re the vanguard of a movement that cloaks its bloodlust in pseudo-revolutionary rhetoric. The interconnectivity is stark. Survey respondents who justify Trump’s killing also tend to greenlight Musk’s murder and venerate Luigi Mangione—Thompson’s assassin—as a folk hero. Mangione’s name now adorns a perverse California ballot measure (“the Luigi Mangione Access to Health Care Act”), a grotesque monument to the murderous far left’s ability to spin a killer into a symbol. His “Deny, Defend, Depose” mantra, etched on a shell casing, isn’t just a slogan—it’s a statistical predictor of violent intent among those who see bloodshed as their righteous cudgel against perceived systemic evils. This isn’t fringe—it’s the American Fifth Column clawing into the mainstream, with platforms like BlueSky as their accelerant. The NCRI’s multivariate regressions—controlling for age, gender, race, education, and party affiliation—pinpoint far-left identity, LWA, and BlueSky usage as the strongest drivers of support for assassinating Trump or Musk. BlueSky’s ecosystem, where Mangione’s image is gamified and violent calls are veiled in irony, isn’t just permissive—it’s a radicalization engine. X amplifies this further, with viral threads racking up tens of millions of views, serving as both a gauge and a multiplier of the far left’s toxic influence on public attitudes toward Trump, Musk, and Tesla. Reddit offers a parallel lens. Subreddits like r/FreeLuigi (37,000 members) and r/LuigiMangioneJustice (14,000 members) evade moderation to function as neo-Marxian incubators, where coded glorification of violence escalates into explicit threats against Trump, Musk, and government targets—often parroting Mangione’s rallying cry. These aren’t isolated echo chambers; they’re data-driven breeding grounds for real-world escalation, as the California ballot measure starkly illustrates. Psychologically, the neo-Marxist far left exploits a potent variable: “external locus of control”—the belief that life’s outcomes hinge on outside forces. The NCRI’s analysis ties this to support for violence, with coefficients showing a clear link—when paired with economic volatility and institutional distrust, it’s a combustible mix. These individuals, primed by neo-Jacobin narratives to see themselves as victims, view assassination and destruction as agency reclaimed—a hypothesis borne out by their disproportionate LWA scores. Platforms amplify this grievance, ideology rationalizes it, and psychological fragility weaponizes it. The raw figures are a gut punch: 55.2% of left-leaning respondents, where neo-Marxist influence runs deep—see Trump’s murder as at least somewhat justified, with 13% fully endorsing it. For Musk, 48% agree, 9% unequivocally so. The July 2024 attempt on Trump’s life wasn’t a one-off—it was a data point in a trend line. The American Fifth Column’s growing comfort with targeting figures like Trump and Musk—embodiments of power and resistance—signals a deliberate unraveling of civic norms. This assassination culture, birthed by the neo-Marxist far left—and fueled by rhetoric spewed forth by the likes of Jasmine Crockett, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Rachel Madow, and the gorgons of The View—is a statistical and existential threat to American democracy and a direct threat to the well-being of our Republic. They’ve taken political violence—once a universal taboo—and recast it as a legitimate tactic, with data showing a clear ideological footprint. Their tolerance—hell, their advocacy—for bloodshed undermines the bedrock principle that disputes are settled through discourse, not death. Trump and Musk aren’t random targets; they’re lightning rods for neo-Marxian manufactured resentment—symbols of wealth, influence, and defiance. The California ballot measure is a quantifiable spillover, and with 40% shrugging at Tesla dealership arson, the gap between intent and action is shrinking fast. The NCRI’s predictive models warn that without a forceful counter, this Marxism-driven trend will escalate—probability estimates rise with each unchecked data point. In an era of economic instability and eroding trust, the conditions are primed for their digital radicalism to ignite physical chaos and death. This demands more than outrage—it demands analysis and definitive action. The American Fifth Column’s assassination culture, with Trump and Musk as its focal points, is a structured, data-backed menace—fueled by ideology, amplified by far-left social media platforms, and rooted in psychological vulnerabilities. It’s not a fleeting anomaly; it’s a growing threat that could fracture our Republic if we don’t dismantle it now. The time to confront it is now, before the rhetoric of justification becomes the reality of bloodshed. The numbers don’t lie, and neither should our resolve. We must crush this evil before it’s too late. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM860 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Forcing the White House to Play Press Equalizer In a ruling that can only be described as a grotesque example of judicial overreach marinated in constitutional illiteracy, a federal court has decided that the White House must grant the Associated Press (AP) perpetual access to its press briefings, citing the First Amendment’s hallowed “freedom of the press” provision. This decision—indicative of today’s climate of entitlement masquerading as rights—twists the Founding Fathers’ words into a pretzel of modern progressive dogma. The First Amendment guarantees freedom, not favoritism; it protects the press from government censorship, not from the government’s discretion to choose its interlocutors. To argue otherwise, as this court apparently has, is to invent an obligation where none exists, and we must dissect this travesty with the scalpel of reason. Let’s start with the text itself, because apparently, the court couldn’t be bothered to read it with any precision. The First Amendment states: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,

    49 min
  4. APR 7

    1960s Wannabes: Sanctimonious Morons Screaming at Shadows

    Over the weekend, we witnessed the pre-pubescent insolence of our country’s crybaby, leftist, 60s throwbacks in the manufactured “Hands Off” protests. While their social media narrative creators enhance the attendance numbers by the power of ten on the internet, the rest of us identify that they are nothing more than paid activists, photographed from advantageous angles, screeching to preserve the spendthrift, status quo bureaucracy that has been feeding at the taxpayer feedtrough for far too long. Today’s “protest anything” liberals are a pathetic spectacle, a gaggle of self-righteous, uninformed clowns tripping over their own sanctimony in a desperate bid to feel relevant. They’re the kind of people who’d march against gravity if TikTok told them it was oppressive, clutching their soy lattes and megaphones, screaming about injustices they can’t even define, while tightening their man-buns. These are not the principled radicals of yesteryear; they’re a hollowed-out caricature, a generation of intellectual lightweights who stand for nothing but the dopamine hit of their own outrage. They’re not just ignorant; they’re proudly, willfully uneducated, letting their feelings bulldoze over facts like a toddler tantrum in a Walmart store aisle. It’s a tragic comedy: the perpetually offended, armed with nothing but vibes, a $1000 smartphone, and a Wi-Fi connection. What’s most galling is their utter lack of context. They’ll chain themselves to a tree or glue their hands to a highway over “climate justice” without knowing the first thing about carbon cycles, renewable energy trade-offs, or global emissions stats. They’ll wail about “systemic racism” in a country that’s spent decades dismantling legal segregation, yet couldn’t tell you what the Civil Rights Act actually says—probably because reading it would cut into their Instagram scroll time. They protest wars they can’t locate on a map, economic systems they’ve never studied beyond a Bernie Sanders-AOC “Stop Oligarchy” tweet, and corporations whose products they’re still buying on Amazon Prime. It’s not activism; it’s ignorant, self-centered, performative chaos; a live-action roleplay for people too lazy to crack a book, question a headline, or do their own fucking research. They’re allergic to specifics and facts because facts and specifics might demand actual thought. And oh, how they fetishize the 1960s—like it’s some golden age of rebellion they’re destined to resurrect. They’re obsessed with Woodstock vibes, tie-dye aesthetics, and grainy footage of sit-ins, as if slapping a peace sign on their BlueSky bio makes them kin to MLK or the anti-Vietnam marchers. Newsflash: the ‘60s radicals had skin in the game—draft cards burning in their pockets, real oppression bearing down, and a coherent enemy in the military-industrial complex. Today’s protesters? They’re just nostalgic for a relevance they never earned, chasing a retro fantasy where they’re the heroes without doing the homework. The Summer of Love wasn’t a hashtag campaign—it was a cultural upheaval, messy and grounded in specifics these modern wannabe posers couldn’t begin to grasp. They’re not inheritors of that legacy; they’re tourists in it, snapping selfies at the gift shop. Worse, they’re useful idiots, and self-righteously so—marionettes jerked around by bought-and-paid-for community organizers bankrolled by far-Left, deep-pocket oligarchs. These aren’t grassroots warriors; they’re foot soldiers for billionaires like George Soros, Tom Steyer, or the Pritzker clan, who funnel cash through shadowy NGOs to orchestrate chaos under the guise of “social change.” The irony’s thick enough to choke on: they rage against “the 1%” while doing the bidding of plutocrats who’d never deign to share a zip code with them, let alone a tax bracket. Those purchased organizers show up with pre-printed signs, megaphones, and a script, and these useful idiots lap it up, too blinded by their own moral pseudo-superiority to ask who’s signing the checks. It’s not a movement; it’s a machine, and they’re the disposable grease—lubricating the gears of an agenda they’re too dim to decipher. Feelings are their god, and common sense is the heretic they’ve burned at the stake. Watch them sob over “injustice” without a shred of data to back it up—because why let reality ruin a good cry? They’ll block traffic to “save the planet,” ignoring the idling engines spewing fumes around them, or the fact that their own carbon footprint rivals a small factory. They’ll shriek about “fascism” while silencing anyone who disagrees, oblivious to the contradiction staring them in the mirror. Facts? Those are for oppressors. Nuance? A tool of the patriarchy. They’d rather drown in their own tears than admit the world’s messy and their slogans don’t fix it. It’s not bravery; it’s ignorant cowardice dressed up as virtue, a refusal to wrestle with complexity because that might mean they’re wrong—and God forbid their fragile egos take a hit. The hypocrisy serves as a neon sign of their intellectual bankruptcy. They’ll decry capitalism while snapping selfies on those $1,000 iPhones assembled in Chinese factories by slavelaborers. They’ll boycott Chick-fil-A for its CEO’s opinions but not the sweatshop-made hoodie they’re wearing—or the fast fashion haul they just vlogged about. They’re anti-establishment until the establishment pats them on the head—then they’re all in, licking the boots of any opportunistic politician, celebrity, or blue-check influencer who mirrors their tantrums back at them. These aren’t revolutionaries; they’re conformists in trans-rebel drag, parroting whatever the loudest voice in their echo chamber tells them to feel. Their rebellion is as authentic as a knockoff Gucci bag. At their core, they’re irrelevant—not because the issues they latch onto don’t matter, but because they bring nothing to the table but noise. No solutions, no depth, just a primal scream into the void. They’re not changing the world; they’re annoying it, and deep down, they know it. That’s why they cling to the ‘60s ghost—they’re terrified of being forgotten, of being the nobodies history will prove them to be. So they march, they chant, they glue themselves to something, anything, hoping the optics will make them matter. But optics aren’t substance, and feelings aren’t facts. They’re a protest generation that’s lost the plot, manipulated by puppet masters they’re too dim to spot, and too arrogant to care. Pathetic doesn’t even begin to cover it—they’re a walking obituary for critical thought, and they wrote it themselves. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Trump’s Tariffs End DecadesOf Schwab’s Globalist Exploitation Since the end of World War II, the world has been sold a utopian dream: globalism, the idea that dissolving national borders and fostering interdependence would lead to peace, prosperity, and unity. The globalist elite—unelected bureaucrats, corporate titans, and technocrats like Klaus Schwab—promised that intertwining economies and cultures would lift all boats. Instead, this grand experiment has capsized, leaving national economies battered, international relations strained, and the average citizen paying the price for the hubris of a disconnected ruling class. Far from delivering harmony, globalism has eroded sovereignty, hollowed out industries, and set the stage for a reckoning—one that leaders like Donald Trump are finally addressing with bold, abrupt, unapologetic moves like reciprocal tariffs. Let’s start with Trump’s tariffs, a policy smeared by the globalist cheerleaders as “protectionist” or “isolationist.” The reality is—in the long run, they’re a lifeline for the United States. For decades, America has been the world’s doormat—exporting jobs, importing cheap goods, and letting countries like China exploit lopsided trade deals. The US trade deficit ballooned to $945.3 billion in 2022 alone, a testament to how globalism gutted American manufacturing while fattening the wallets of foreign regimes. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs flip the script: if you hit us with tariffs, we hit back—hard. This isn’t about starting a trade war; it’s about ending the one America’s been losing for years. By leveling the playing field, these tariffs incentivize domestic production, bring jobs back to American soil, and force other nations to rethink their predatory trade practices. The US economy grows stronger when it stops hemorrhaging wealth to subsidize everyone else’s. The ball’s now in the court of other world leaders. Globalism’s house of cards relies on America playing the sucker—absorbing trade imbalances while its own workers suffer. Trump’s tariffs signal that the free ride is over. If countries like Germany, Japan, or India want to avoid a debilitating international trade war, they’ll need to equalize their trade policies with the United States. No more flooding American markets with subsidized goods while slapping barriers on US exports. The European Union, for instance, loves to preach “fair trade” but maintains a $180 billion trade surplus with the US as of 2023. That’s not fairness; it’s exploitation. These nations can either adapt—cutting their own tariffs and opening markets—or face the consequences of a US that finally prioritizes itself. The choice is theirs, but the era of America as the world’s economic punching bag is done. Then there’s China, the globalist poster child that was supposed to dethrone the US as the world’s economic kingpin. The reality? China’s economy i

    45 min
  5. APR 4

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

    On April 2, 2025, President Donald Trump unveiled his reciprocal tariff policy, a bold stroke to rebalance global trade and deliver a windfall to American taxpayers. Branded "Liberation Day," this plan promises to slash the trade deficit, boost domestic industry, and restore economic sovereignty. Predictably, the usual suspects—ivory-tower economists and free-trade purists—are gasping in horror, warning of inflation and trade wars. But with Canada and Israel already pledging to zero out tariffs on US goods, Trump’s strategy is proving its worth before it’s fully off the ground. The congressional GOP must rally behind this policy, not just for party loyalty, but because it’s a pragmatic, taxpayer-friendly move that could redefine America’s economic future—potentially even paving the way to ditch the income tax. American taxpayers have long shouldered the burden of a lopsided trade system. The US has boasted some of the world’s lowest tariffs—averaging 2.2%—while nations like India (12%) and China (with effective rates ballooning under non-tariff barriers) enjoy near-unfettered access to our markets. The fallout? A $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit in 2024, a gutted manufacturing base, and a tax system that squeezes workers to prop up foreign economies. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs turn this on its head. By matching foreign tariffs—34% on China, 20% on the EU, up to 49% on outliers like Cambodia—Trump is forcing a reset. Critics bleat about higher consumer prices, conveniently glossing over the policy’s core: incentivizing domestic production. “Build your plant here, no tariffs,” Trump declares. Companies that relocate will hire Americans, pay US taxes, and shrink the trade deficit. That’s not a tax hike—it’s a tax relief blueprint. Meanwhile, companies like Ford are establishing product discounts, calling them “From America, For America” discounts. More jobs, “Made in the USA” discounts, and higher wages mean less reliance on public assistance, easing the strain on taxpayers. Here’s the kicker: tariffs could be the key to axing the income tax entirely. In 2024, the federal government collected $2.2 trillion from individual income taxes. Trump’s team projects reciprocal tariffs could generate $500 billion to $1 trillion annually, depending on compliance and retaliation. Pair that with corporate tax revenue from repatriated businesses, and you’ve got a revenue stream that could replace the IRS’s chokehold on American paychecks. Before 1913, tariffs funded nearly half the government; today, they’re a measly 1% of revenue. Trump’s plan revives that model, shifting the burden from workers to importers and foreign profiteers. Opponents who scoff at this as “unrealistic” are just scared of losing their sacred cow—complex tax codes that favor their cronies. The congressional GOP has a chance to back a policy that screams economic nationalism and job creation—core party tenets. Yet, some, like House Agriculture Chair Glenn Thompson (R-PA), fret over trade wars and farmers’ fertilizer costs. Thompson’s push for exemptions is myopic. Trump’s already shown flexibility, sparing Canada and Mexico from the 10% baseline tariff and carving out exceptions for drugs and computer chips. This isn’t reckless protectionism; it’s calculated leverage. Republicans can seize this to cement their working-class credibility. When Canada and Israel drop tariffs, US exporters—from Midwest farmers to Texas tech firms—win big. That’s Red-state gold. If the GOP wavers, Democrats will swoop in to claim the jobs victory. Critics fearing retaliation are trapped in a pre-Trump daze of negotiate-and-concede. Trump’s tariffs-first approach already has Canada bending the knee. The GOP must trust his playbook and unite, or risk botching a legacy-defining win. The anti-tariff crowd’s loudest cry—that we’ll spark a global trade war and isolate America—falls flat against early successes. Canada, our top trade partner, and Israel, a staunch ally, have preemptively pledged zero tariffs on US goods. This isn’t goodwill; it’s Trump’s leverage at work. Canada, with trade at 67% of its GDP and the US as its biggest market, can’t afford a 25% hit on exports. Israel, eyeing deeper ties, followed suit. These moves prove tariffs aren’t just sticks—they’re carrots that deliver. The dominoes have a high probability of continuing to fall. If the EU (facing 20%) or Japan (24%) lower barriers to dodge retaliation, the trade deficit shrinks, and US exporters thrive. Critics warning of stagflation ignore Trump’s first-term China tariffs, which didn’t crash the economy but forced a deal. Now, with a wider scope and stronger mandate, the leverage is even greater. Trump’s reciprocal tariffs are a lifeline for taxpayers, a rallying cry for the GOP, and a strategic masterstroke harkening from the successes of the past. They promise to claw back wealth, reward domestic production, and pressure partners into fair deals—already evident with Canada and Israel’s concessions. They could even fund the government enough to kill the income tax, freeing Americans from April’s annual misery. The doomsayers can clutch their models in their sweaty little hands and scream “trade war,” but the real war has been against US workers for decades. Trump’s ending it on our terms. The GOP must stand firm, or squander a shot at making America not just great, but prosperous again…and free of the IRS. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Schumer & Senate Democrats:A Betrayal Of The American Electorate In a move that reeks of political opportunism and disdain for the integrity of the American electoral process, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and his cadre of Senate Democrats have threatened to filibuster the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. This legislation, a commonsense measure aimed at ensuring that only US citizens can vote in federal elections, has exposed the true colors of Schumer and his party: a willingness to sacrifice the sanctity of the ballot box for the sake of pandering to pro-illegal immigrant activists and securing a permanent electoral advantage. This is not just a policy disagreement—it’s a calculated assault on the very foundation of our Republic. The SAVE Act, passed by the House in July 2024 with bipartisan support, is straightforward. It requires states to verify citizenship before registering voters and mandates the removal of non-citizens from voter rolls. It’s a law that should be uncontroversial, a no-brainer for anyone who believes that the right to vote is a privilege reserved for those who are citizens of our Republic. Yet, Schumer and his Democrat minions in the Senate are planning to obstruct it, clinging to the filibuster—the very tool they’ve spent years decrying as a “Jim Crow relic” when it suits their narrative—as a shield to protect their radical agenda. Their threat to block this bill is nothing less than an attempt to dilute the voice of the American electorate by opening the floodgates to non-citizen voters. Let’s not mince words: Schumer’s opposition to the SAVE Act is a blatant power grab. For years, Democrats have relied on identity politics and the cultivation of grievance-based voting blocs to maintain their grip on power. Now, facing a shifting political landscape and a populace increasingly fed up with their failed policies, they’re turning to a new strategy—harnessing the votes of those who have no legal right to cast a ballot. By resisting a law that would enforce existing federal statutes prohibiting non-citizen voting, Schumer and his party are signaling their intent to exploit a loophole-ridden system, and one that pro-illegal immigrant activists have long salivated over. This isn’t about compassion or inclusion; it’s about stacking the deck. The hypocrisy of Schumer and Senate Democrats is stupefying. These are the same people who spent the Trump years shrieking about “election integrity” and “foreign interference” whenever it suited their narrative. Yet, when presented with a chance to secure the vote against actual interference by ensuring only citizens participate, they balk? Why? Because the interference they once decried pales in comparison to the electoral windfall they hope to reap from illegal immigrants casting ballots. Schumer’s filibuster threat isn’t a defense of principle; it’s a cynical ploy to preserve a vulnerability in our system that Democrats have weaponized. And make no mistake, the activists cheering Schumer on are complicit in this travesty. Groups like the ACLU and various open-borders advocates—including US District Court Judge James Boasberg’s daughter, Katherine Boasberg, who works for Partners for Justice, a 501(c)(3) organization that provides legal assistance to "justice-involved individuals," including undocumented immigrants and, notably, those accused of gang affiliations—have long pushed the fiction that requiring proof of citizenship is somehow discriminatory or burdensome. They peddle sob stories and half-truths, claiming that such measures suppress turnout, while conveniently ignoring the fact that millions of Americans—citizens—manage to register and vote without issue every election cycle. Their real goal isn’t fairness; it’s the erosion of sovereignty, both physical and civic, to create a borderless electorate beholden to their neo-Jacobin ideology. Schumer, ever the slimy political chameleon, is all too happy to play along, trading the rights of his constituents for the applause of this radical fringe. Voting is the bedrock of our republic, the mechanism by which citizens hold their leaders accountable. When that

    45 min
  6. MAR 31

    The Anti-Federalist Antidote To A Century of Progressive Overreach

    For nearly a century, the United States has been steadily marching down a path paved by Progressive ideologues, starting with Woodrow Wilson and cemented by Franklin D. Roosevelt. These architects of centralized power turned the federal government into a bloated, overreaching behemoth, eroding the sovereignty of states and the liberty of individuals in favor of a technocratic elite. Enter Donald Trump—a brash, unapologetic disruptor whose policies and actions signal a return to the anti-federalist roots of the nation. Far from the chaos agent his detractors paint him as, Trump’s tenure represents a deliberate pushback against the Progressive stranglehold, aiming to restore a balance that honors the decentralized vision of America’s founders. To understand Trump’s anti-federalist streak, we must first reckon with the Progressive legacy he’s unraveling. Woodrow Wilson, the professorial poster child of early Progressivism, sneered at the Constitution’s checks and balances, viewing them as quaint obstacles to his grand vision of an administrative state. His administration birthed the Federal Reserve and pushed for centralized economic control, setting the stage for a government that meddles in every corner of American life. Then came FDR, whose New Deal metastasized federal power into a sprawling bureaucracy. Social Security, labor regulations, and a dizzying array of alphabet agencies didn’t just expand Washington’s reach—they entrenched a federalist ethos that treated states as mere administrative units rather than sovereign entities. Progressives, cloaking their ambitions in the guise of compassion, sold the public on the idea that only a strong central government could solve society’s ills. Over decades, this morphed into a federal leviathan—think LBJ’s Great Society, Obama’s healthcare overreach, and Biden’s climate crusades—each layering more power in Washington, DC, at the expense of local control. The result? A nation where unelected Deep State bureaucrats wield more influence than elected state officials, and where individual liberty drowns under the weight of endless regulations. This is the federalist dream: a homogenized, top-down system that smothers the diversity and autonomy the founders intended. Donald Trump, for all his bombast, emerged as a wrecking ball to this Progressive edifice. His policies and actions consistently favor devolving power back to the states and the people, rejecting the federalist dogma that Washington knows best. Take his approach to healthcare: rather than doubling down on Obamacare’s one-size-fits-all mandate, Trump pushed for deregulation and state-level experimentation. His administration rolled back federal overreach in Medicaid, giving states flexibility to tailor programs to their unique needs. This wasn’t just pragmatism—it was a deliberate nod to the anti-federalist belief that local governments, closer to the people, are better equipped to govern. On education, Trump’s disdain for federal meddling is apparent. He champions school choice and is seeking to gut the Department of Education’s stranglehold, arguing that parents and states—not Washington, DC, mandarins—should dictate how kids are taught. Contrast this with Progressive darlings like Wilson, who saw education as a tool for national conformity, or FDR, whose acolytes centralized control over curricula. Trump’s stance echoes the anti-federalist wariness of a distant authority imposing its will on diverse communities. Even his economic policies carry an anti-federalist streak. The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 didn’t just slash rates—it capped the state and local tax (SALT) deduction, a move that curbed the ability of high-tax, Progressive-run states to offload their fiscal irresponsibility onto the federal ledger. Critics howled, but the message was clear: states should live within their means, not lean on the federal government as a crutch of salvation. This aligns with the anti-federalist view that each state should bear the consequences of its governance, free from federal bailouts or homogenizing subsidies. Perhaps Trump’s most anti-federalist legacy is his assault on the administrative state—that unelected fourth branch of government Progressives adore. His administration is slashing regulations at a historic pace, axing eight rules for every new one enacted. Agencies like the EPA and FDA, long bastions of authoritarian federal overreach, saw their wings clipped as Trump prioritized state-level decision-making over edicts from Washington. Progressives shriek that this “deregulation” is reckless, but they miss the point—or perhaps they don’t. The administrative state is their crown jewel, a means to bypass the decentralized Republic the founders envisioned. Trump’s war on the spendthrift administrative state isn’t just about efficiency; it is about restoring a balance where states and citizens, not faceless bureaucrats, hold the reins. This is anti-federalism in action: a rejection of centralized control in favor of diffused authority. Trump’s policies didn’t arise in a vacuum—they are a reaction to a century of Progressive excess. Since Wilson’s technocratic fantasies and FDR’s New Deal empire-building, the federal government has grown into a colossus, swallowing state autonomy and individual freedom. The anti-federalists, those scrappy skeptics of centralized power, warned of this in 1787: a distant government would inevitably drift from the people’s will. Trump, flaws and all, tapped into that warning. His “America First” rhetoric isn’t just nationalism—it is a call to prioritize local needs over the globalist, federalist agenda Progressives fetishize. Critics—federalists and Progressives alike—decry Trump as a destabilizer, but that’s the point. Stability, in their eyes, means preserving a system where Washington reigns supreme. Trump’s disruption, from trade wars to border security, aims to reassert the primacy of the nation’s parts over its whole. His border wall obsession? Less about xenophobia and more about states like Texas and Arizona reclaiming control from a federal government too timid—or complicit—to act. His trade battles with China? A rebuke to the federalist elite who’d sacrificed local economies for global integration. Donald Trump is no philosopher-king, and his anti-federalist bent isn’t always articulate. But his instincts align with a vision the founders would recognize: a nation of sovereign states—fifty symbiotic states with fifty separate constitutions enjoined in a compact, not a monolith ruled from on high. After a century of Wilsonian centralization and Rooseveltian sprawl, Trump’s policies offer a corrective, not a cure-all. Progressives gasp in dismay at the rollback of their sacred federal apparatus, but that’s precisely why it matters. The balance they’ve tilted toward Washington for a hundred years is finally tipping back. In the end, Trump’s legacy isn’t about perfection—it’s about rediscovery. By dismantling the Progressive federalist machine, he’s reminding Americans that power needn’t flow from a single source. The anti-federalists knew this; the founders baked it into the Constitution. Trump, in his unorthodox, polarizing way, dragged it back into the light. Whether that sticks depends on what comes next—but for now, the pendulum swings toward liberty, and away from the long shadow of Progressivism’s totalitarian overreach. Then, when we return, a new segment called The Corner of the Bar, in which we speak with everyday Americans, some more qualified to speak on certain topics than others, but average Americans nonetheless. It’s a pulse of the mindset in everyday America. Today’s guest is Einar Ronningen. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Expanding Republican MajoritiesIn 2026 Is Critical For The Anti-Federalist Agenda As Donald Trump continues to steer the Republican Party toward a bold, reformative anti-federalist agenda, the stakes for the 2026 mid-term elections could not be higher. Holding Republican majorities in the US House and Senate is not enough—expanding those majorities is an absolute necessity. The alternative, a resurgence of neo-Marxist Progressives, anarchic far-Leftists, and Deep State Democrats in Congress, threatens to derail the American people’s electoral mandate to dismantle centralized bureaucratic overreach, slash federal spending, and restore power to the states and the people. These ideological fifth column adversaries have proven time and again their willingness to obstruct, sabotage, and destroy any policy that challenges their statist worldview. To secure Trump’s legacy and protect the Republic from their ruinous influence, Republicans must not just defend their ground in 2026—they must advance. Trump’s anti-federalist agenda is rooted in a rejection of the bloated, unaccountable federal leviathan that Progressives and Democrats have spent decades constructing. Trump’s policies—whether it’s deregulation, tax cuts, or devolving authority to the states—aim to break the stranglehold of Washington elites and return governance to a more localized, responsive level. This vision resonates with millions of Americans tired of being dictated to by unelected bureaucrats and coastal ideologues. But it’s a vision that terrifies the Left, who rely on federal power to impose their top-down, one-size-fits-all schemes on a nation that increasingly rejects them. The 2026 mid-terms will be a referendum on this agenda. If Republicans fail to expand their majorities, the consequences will be dire. A Congress with slim GOP margins—or worse, one flipped to Democrat control—would empower Progressives and their allies to grind Trump’s reforms to a halt. They’ve done it before, and they’ll do it again. Look no further than the early years of Trump’s fir

    1 hr
  7. MAR 28

    A House Of Climate Cards Built On A Foundation Of Lies

    For years, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the global megaphone insisting that humans, specifically the carbon dioxide (CO₂) we pump out from cars, factories, and power plants, are the main reason the Earth’s temperature is rising. They say our CO₂ has damaged the planet’s energy balance, and they back this up with computer models and adjusted temperature records. But when you take a step back, look at the raw data, and listen to what some independent scientists are saying, the IPCC’s big claims start to look more than just a bit shaky. This isn’t about denying climate change; the Earth’s climate changes constantly and has been in constant flux since the beginning of time. It’s about questioning whether the IPCC has been too quick to blame humans while ignoring bigger natural forces and extorting hundreds of billions in research funding from countries around the world. • SEGMENT 2: Why Do Federal JudgesChampion Violent Gang Members Over US Citizens? It should be noted here that, extrapolating back to the 1970s, when climate funding began gaining traction (e.g., post-Charney Report in 1979), total US and international public funding for climate science and green initiatives likely ranges into the hundreds of billions, potentially nearing a trillion dollars when adjusted for inflation and including diverse programs. The IPCC, which is overseen by the United Nations Environment Programme and the World Meteorological Organization, insists that since the Industrial Revolution began around 1750, our CO₂ emissions have thrown the climate out of whack. They rely on complex computer models and tweaked temperature records to make their case, pushing the idea that we need to cut emissions fast or face disaster. But when you check the unadjusted facts—data that hasn’t been manipulated—and hear from researchers who aren’t on the IPCC bandwagon, things don’t add up so neatly. Take CO₂ itself. The IPCC acts like our emissions have an enormous impact, but here’s the reality: humans release about 10 billion tons of carbon each year as CO₂. Compare that to nature, which moves around 230 billion tons annually—80 billion from oceans and 140 billion from plants and soil. That means our share is just 4% of the total. Imagine a big potluck where nature brings 96 dishes and we show up with a tiny side salad—does that sound like we’re the ones steering the meal? Scientists like Demetris Koutsoyiannis have dug into this and found that our CO₂ doesn’t even stick around long enough to cause much trouble. They use something called isotopic evidence—like a fingerprint for carbon—to show that the air’s CO₂ mix has barely changed over 200 years. Even with a big jump in CO₂ since 1980, the shift is tiny, much less than you’d expect if our emissions were significant in any way. And during the 2020 COVID lockdowns, when we cut emissions by 7% (0.7 billion tons), the CO₂ levels at Mauna Loa didn’t budge. If our CO₂ was such a game-changer, wouldn’t we have noticed? The IPCC says our CO₂ hangs around for 120 years or more, building up like a slow disaster. But Koutsoyiannis and others, like Hermann Harde, say it’s more like 3.5 to 4 years before nature sweeps it away. That’s a huge gap—and it suggests the IPCC is exaggerating our impact. The IPCC leans heavily on computer models—called GCMs—from projects labeled CMIP3, CMIP5, and CMIP6. These are supposed to predict the future, but they keep getting it wrong. Researchers like Ross McKitrick and John Christy found that most of these models overestimate how much the lower atmosphere (the troposphere) is warming. The models say it should heat up by 0.15 to 0.5°C every decade, but satellite data shows it’s only 0.13°C—a small but telling miss. When you compare the two, the models barely line up, like a weather app that keeps predicting rain on sunny days. It’s not just the air. The models predicted Arctic sea ice would shrink by 20-50% since 2007, but real measurements show it’s been steady at about 4.4 million square kilometers. And old rural temperature records from the US, untouched by adjustments, sit steady at 12.2°C from the 1930s to now, while the latest models guess 13.3 to 14.4°C, off by a full degree or two. Here’s something else: scientists like Ole Humlum and Murray Salby noticed that temperatures often rise before CO₂ levels go up, by about 6 to 12 months. That’s like saying the oven heats up before you turn it on. It could mean warming is pushing CO₂ out of oceans and soil—like fizz popping out of a warm soda—not CO₂ cranking up the heat. The IPCC’s models aren’t built to handle that twist, and it shows. If our CO₂ isn’t the main driver, what is? How about the most logical source: the sun? The IPCC brushes off changes in sunlight, sticking to one estimate that says solar energy (Total Solar Irradiance, or TSI) has barely ticked up since 1850—by just 0.05 watts per square meter. But there are 27 other estimates out there, and some show bigger swings—0.5 to 1 watt per square meter. Researchers like Willie Soon say these bigger changes match up well with actual warming, showing strong links (up to 0.9 or even 0.95) with temperature records since 1850, way better than CO₂’s weak 0.3 to 0.5 connection. That suggests the sun’s heat—and how it affects clouds—might explain a lot, maybe even all, of the warming we’ve seen. So why does the IPCC stick to its lowball estimate? It’s like blaming a dim lamp for a bright room while the sun’s blazing outside. Then there’s the temperature data itself. The IPCC uses records from places like NOAA and NASA, but those numbers get “adjusted.” Studies by Ronan Connolly and Willie Soon show how these tweaks downplay hot spells in the 1930s (dropping from 12.8°C to 11.7°C) and bump up recent years (from 12.2°C to 12.8°C). A small rural rise of 0.2 to 0.5°C gets turned into a bigger 0.8 to 1.1°C global jump. Raw data from modern US stations shows little change (+0.4°C, flat), and older rural records hold steady at 12.2°C—yet the adjusted versions magically match the models. Even the famous “hockey stick” graph, which flattens out past warm periods, looks more like a storytelling trick than solid science. So what’s the takeaway? The IPCC’s been hammering the idea that our CO₂—human-created CO₂—is the climate’s big bad wolf, but the evidence—raw data, carbon cycles, sunlight, and shaky models—points to nature still being in charge. Our emissions are a small piece of the puzzle, not the whole picture. Their models don’t predict well, their sun estimates are too timid, and their data tweaks raise eyebrows. It’s time to stop buying their story hook, line, and sinker and start asking what’s really going on. The sun, the oceans, and a messy mix of natural shifts might hold the real answers, not just a CO₂ villain we’ve been told to fear. In fact, CO₂ is essential for plant growth because it serves as a key raw material in photosynthesis, the process by which plants convert sunlight into energy. Without sufficient CO₂, plants cannot efficiently produce the energy needed for growth, development, and reproduction, making it a critical component of their life cycle and overall ecosystem health. The IPCC’s had its say, and that say has involved trillions of dollars both in special interest profit and economic regulations, and nothing has changed at the hands of man. So, let’s give nature a fair shot and rethink this issue from scratch. Then, when we return, our segment on America’s Third Watch, broadcast nationally from our flagship station WGUL AM930 & FM93.7 in Tampa, Florida. Underground USA is reader-supported. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Why Do Federal Judges ChampionViolent Gang Members Over US Citizens? In recent months, a troubling pattern has emerged within the US federal judiciary, particularly among lower court judges, that raises serious questions about the integrity of our legal system. Across the country, US District Court judges have issued rulings that obstruct the removal of known violent gang members from Central and South America, thwarting efforts by the Trump administration to protect American citizens from the escalating threat of transnational crime. At the heart of this controversy lies a glaring case: Chief Judge James "Jeb" Boasberg of the US District Court for the District of Columbia, whose personal ties to immigration advocacy reveal a potential conflict of interest that exemplifies the broader dysfunction within the federal bench. Why, one must ask, are these judges so determined to shield dangerous criminals from deportation? The answer lies in a toxic blend of ideological bias, personal entanglements, and an alarming disconnect from the realities faced by everyday Americans. Let’s begin with the specifics of Judge Boasberg’s case, which has become a lightning rod for criticism. In March 2025, Boasberg issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua. This gang, notorious for its brutality and involvement in human trafficking, drug smuggling, and violent crime, has infiltrated American cities, exploiting lax border policies established during the open-border years of the Obama and Biden administrations. The Trump administration’s invocation of the centuries-old law was a bold move to expedite the removal of these threats without the bureaucratic delays of standard immigration proceedings. Yet Boasberg, in a decision dripping with sanctimonious and elitist legalese, halted the deportations, arguing that the accused gang members deserved individualized hearings—a stance that critics argue prioritizes the rights of foreign criminals over the safety of US citizens. What makes Boasberg

    49 min
  8. MAR 24

    Relic Conservative Media Just Doesn’t Get It

    The mainstream media, that festering swamp of self-righteous gatekeepers, has once again exposed its true colors. This time, it’s the so-called conservative stalwarts—outlets like The Wall Street Journal and National Review—leading the charge in a chorus of sanctimonious outrage. Their crime? Clutching their pearls over President Trump’s audacious move to dismantle relics of US-funded media outlets like Radio Free Asia, Voice of America (VOA), and their sort. On Saturday, Trump ordered the termination of grants for Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, VOA, the Office of Cuba Broadcasting, the Open Technology Fund, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks. And the reaction from these self-appointed arbiters of truth? A collective wail that this is a “retreat in the global war of ideas.” What unmitigated garbage. • SEGMENT 2 (BELOW): How Wokeism Hijacked Entertainment Let’s strip away the veneer. These agencies, birthed in the Cold War to counter communism and beam truth into nations choked by government lies, have devolved into something grotesque. Once heralded as champions of liberty, they’ve morphed into megaphones for a Leftist gospel of globalism—a creed that spits in the face of freedom and individualism, the very cornerstones of Americanism. Yet here come the conservative media darlings, wringing their hands as if Trump’s ax is chopping down the last bastion of righteousness. National Review whines that shutting down VOA and its cousins is a “misguided reaction” to organizational failings, insisting that none of their shortcomings are “enough on their own to justify” such a purge. Really? The White House has a laundry list of outrages that says otherwise: VOA instructing its journalists to call Hamas operatives “militants” instead of terrorists; staff spewing hyper-partisan drivel on social media; and a steady stream of left-wing bile on race and transgenderism. Add to that lapses in vetting foreign employees, resource mismanagement, and the peddling of anti-American narratives, and you’ve got a rotting corpse masquerading as a public good. The Wall Street Journal isn’t much better, cherry-picking rare instances where these propaganda mills (and let’s call them what they are) stumble into doing something worthwhile. But those moments are fleeting, drowned out by the overwhelming stench of ideological decay. These outlets—Radio Free Asia, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the rest—are nonprofit in name only, suckling at the teat of the US Agency for Global Media (USAGM), fully funded by taxpayers to the tune of hundreds of millions. And what do we get for it? A globalist agenda that undermines the very nation footing the bill. The hypocrisy of the conservative media elite is astonishing. They’ve spent years posturing as defenders of truth, liberty, and fiscal responsibility, yet when Trump dares to torch these sacred cows, they recoil in horror. Why? Because their authoritative autonomy—their self-anointed role as the vanguard of conservatism—is under siege. And they’re terrified. This isn’t about principle; again—and this is a re-occurring theme with those protesting Trump’s reformative moves—it’s about power. The protestations from The Wall Street Journal, National Review, and their second selves at FOX News are the death rattles of an elitist clique that’s long held sway over the narrative, now panicking as their influence crumbles. Look at the numbers. News consumption has shifted dramatically, and the old guard is being left in the dust. In 2025, the internet dominates globally, accounting for 40-50% of news intake—think websites, social media, streaming, and apps. Cable limps along at 20-25%, traditional broadcast TV at 15-20%, and satellite and radio trailing at 5-10% each. Pew Research in 2024 found a third of US adults regularly get news from platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube, and Rumble, a trend echoing worldwide as internet access explodes. Streaming’s rise—hitting 40.3% of US TV usage in June 2024, per Statista—only accelerates this shift. Meanwhile, trust in traditional outlets is hemorrhaging. The Edelman Trust Barometer pegged global trust in mainstream media at a measly 43% in 2023, down from prior years, battered by accusations of bias, sensationalism, and corporate puppetry. The people are waking up. And who’s driving this exodus? The young—Gen Z and Millennials—who scoff at legacy brands. The 2023 Reuters Institute Digital News Report found 55% of under-35s globally turn to social media first, often flocking to independent voices over the polished lies of the establishment. If the goal is to reach future generations, then VOA, Radio Free Asia, and their dinosaur brethren are already fossils. Yet the conservative media clings to them like life rafts, desperate to preserve a system that’s as obsolete as it is corrupt. This is where Trump’s genius shines. He’s no traditional “conservative”—a term so diluted by Republicans in Name Only like Mitch McConnell that it’s lost all meaning. Trump is an anti-federalist, a wrecking ball to the bloated, overreaching national government that’s drowned us in taxes, regulations, and globalist surrender. He sees these media agencies not as noble emissaries but as cogs in that oppressive machine—stakeholders in a status quo that’s suffocating the American spirit. And the citizenry agrees. We don’t see a “free press” in these government-subsidized relics; we see a cabal propping up an elitist structure we’re desperate to tear down. The conservative media’s tantrum is predictable. They’re cut from the same cloth as the forty-year congressional power-clingers—jumping on and off the Trump train as it suits their quest for relevance. The Wall Street Journal and National Review lash out because their fraud has been laid bare: they’re not guardians of conservatism, but members of the same bloated national elite Trump’s supporters are rejecting. The people are fleeing to independent outlets—online platforms, podcasts, social media—where truth and fact aren’t filtered through a legacy lust for influence. So, should Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, VOA, and the rest be euthanized? It’s a fair debate. If they’re to survive, it’d have to be in a radically new form—leveraging modern technology and enforcing ruthless vetting to ensure truth, not propaganda, reigns. But in their current state, no amount of cherry-picked “good” can save them. They’re bloated, corrupt, biased, and beholden to a federal beast that’s lost its way. Trump’s move isn’t a retreat; it’s a reckoning. And the conservative media’s howls only prove they’re on the wrong side of it. The global war of ideas isn’t fought with dusty relics of a bygone era. It’s waged on the digital frontier, where the people—not the elites—hold the reins. The mainstream conservative press can clutch its pearls all it wants, but the tide has turned. Their time is up. Let them die with the propaganda mills they defend. We’ll find the truth elsewhere—unfiltered, unbowed, and free. 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. How Wokeism Hijacked Entertainment I am going to divert from my usual researched analysis on politics and geopolitics here to wax philosophical—or perhaps observational—about the entertainment industry and how it is completely failing society, both around the world and especially here in the United States. But for very few offerings today, the entertainment industry is complete garbage, and it only has itself to blame for its demise. For as long as humans have toiled under the weight of daily existence, entertainment has been a sanctuary—a shimmering oasis where the mind can flee from the grind of bills, deadlines, and the relentless beatdown of reality. Whether it’s the flickering glow of a movie screen, the lyric lines that transport to another place or time, or the dog-eared pages of a novel, people have long turned to these escapes to recharge, to dream, to feel something beyond the mundane. Entertainment was once a pressure valve, a way to sidestep life’s burdens without judgment or sermonizing. But today, that sacred refuge is under siege, infiltrated by the creeping tendrils of wokeism and cultural Marxism—ideologies that have turned art into a megaphone for sanctimonious preaching, robbing us of true escapism. The allure of entertainment as an escape is primal. Life is hard—always has been. The average person wrestles with financial strain, fractured relationships, and the quiet despair of unfulfilled dreams. A 2023 study from the American Psychological Association found that 77% of adults reported significant stress from work and money woes, a number that’s only climbed in recent years. Entertainment offered a reprieve: a chance to slip into a world where heroes triumph, love conquers, or at least where the stakes feel thrillingly distant from our own. Think of the golden age of Hollywood—films like Casablanca (a personal favorite) or The Wizard of Oz, they didn’t lecture you on systemic inequities; they swept you into stories of courage and wonder. Songs like Sittin' On The Dock Of The Bay transported you to serenity without a sidebar on racial inequity. And books like Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings built sprawling universes free of diversity quotas. These were escapes, pure and simple. But that purity is gone. Today’s entertainment industry has been hijacked by a cadre of self-righteous ideologues who see every script, every pixel, every lyric as a battlefield for social engineering. Wokeism—a noxious blend of identity obsession, grievance culture, and moral superiority—has wormed its way into every corner

    48 min

    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 49 US states and 38 countries. www.undergroundusa.com

    You Might Also Like

    Content Restricted

    This episode can’t be played on the web in your country or region.

    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