Underground USA Podcast Por Underground USA arte de portada

Underground USA

Underground USA

De: Underground USA
Escúchala gratis

Acerca de esta escucha

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

www.undergroundusa.comFrank Salvato Ciencia Política Ciencias Sociales Política y Gobierno
Episodios
  • Judicial Overreach & Congressional Inaction: A Betrayal Of The Electorate’s Mandate

    Judicial Overreach & Congressional Inaction: A Betrayal Of The Electorate’s Mandate
    May 12 2025
    The American judiciary, once a bastion of restraint and fidelity to the Constitution, has descended into a cesspool of activism that threatens the very fabric of our Republic.On May 15, 2025, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a case that will inevitably address this crisis: a challenge to the rampant use of nationwide injunctions by lower court judges to obstruct President Donald Trump’s agenda. These injunctions, issued with reckless abandon, are not mere legal tools but weapons of ideological warfare, wielded by unelected judges to impose their will on the entire nation.Yet, as egregious as this judicial overreach is, it is surpassed only by the inexcusable inaction of the Republican-controlled Congress, which has squandered its mandate to codify Trump’s executive orders into law and curb the courts’ excesses. This dual betrayal—by activist judges and feckless legislators—demands a reckoning.The case before the Supreme Court stems from the Trump administration’s appeal against a federal judge’s use of a nationwide injunction to block a key immigration and citizenship policy, but it hinges on the ability of the federal district courts to affect national policy. Over 100 lawsuits have been filed against Trump’s initiatives, targeting everything from immigration enforcement to federal spending freezes to the elimination of divisive diversity, equity, and inclusion programs. In response, district court judges have issued a barrage of injunctions that halt these policies not just for the plaintiffs but for every person and entity in the United States.This practice is not only unprecedented in its scope but fundamentally unconstitutional—and, in fact, anti-constitutional, as it allows a single judge to dictate national policy without the accountability of an electoral mandate or a legislative process.The Trump administration rightly argues that these judges are exceeding their Article III authority, which limits judicial power to resolving “cases” and “controversies” between specific parties. As Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris told the Supreme Court in March 2025, the judiciary must say “enough is enough” to this abuse. Nationwide injunctions, she argued, create “irreparable harm” to our democratic system by preventing the Executive Branch from implementing policies that reflect the will of the electorate.Justices Neil Gorsuch, Elena Kagan, and Clarence Thomas have previously signaled skepticism about this practice, with Gorsuch decrying in 2020 the “increasingly common” tendency of trial courts to issue relief that “transcends the cases before them.” The Constitution is clear: judges are not policymakers, and their role is to adjudicate disputes, not to legislate from the bench.Yet, the audacity of these judges knows no bounds. As President Trump himself stated in a March 2025 Truth Social post:“These Judges want to assume the Powers of the Presidency, without having to attain 80 Million Votes. They want all of the advantages with none of the risks.”His words cut to the heart of the issue: unelected judges, insulated from public accountability, are usurping the authority of a president chosen by tens of millions of Americans. This isn’t justice. Nor is it the rule of law; it’s tyranny cloaked in robes.The defenders of this judicial overreach, including a cadre of House Democrats who filed an amicus brief, claim that blocking Trump’s policies prevents “chaos.” Their argument is as disingenuous as it is hypocritical. The real chaos is the erosion of democratic governance, where the will of the people, expressed through their elected president, is subverted by a handful of activist judges. The Competitive Enterprise Institute’s Devin Watkins aptly framed the central question: Do lower courts have the power to issue injunctions that affect non-parties? The answer, rooted in constitutional text and tradition, is a resounding no.If the judiciary’s activism is a dagger aimed at the heart of Trump’s agenda, the Republican-controlled Congress is the hand that refuses to pull it out. With control of both the House and Senate, Republicans have a historic opportunity to enact legislation that limits the scope of federal district courts and codifies Trump’s executive orders into law. Yet, they have done nothing—nothing—to seize this moment. Their inaction is not merely a failure of leadership; it is a betrayal of the voters who entrusted them with power.Article III of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate the jurisdiction of federal courts. Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA), acknowledged this in March 2025, stating:“The Constitution limits judges to exercising power over ‘cases’ or ‘controversies.’ Judges are not policymakers, and allowing them to assume this role is very dangerous.”Republicans have even introduced legislation to curb the courts’ ability to issue nationwide ...
    Más Menos
    41 m
  • The Elevation Of Pope Leo XIV: A New Era For The World

    The Elevation Of Pope Leo XIV: A New Era For The World
    May 9 2025
    The Catholic Church witnessed a historic moment with the election of Robert Francis Cardinal Prevost as Pope Leo XIV, marking the first time an American has ascended to the papacy. This seismic shift in Vatican leadership, following the death of Pope Francis, not only reflects the global reach of Catholicism but also signals a potential realignment in the Church’s ideological and political priorities. Pope Leo XIV’s background, his choice of papal name, and the broader implications of his elevation—particularly in relation to the United States’ political landscape under the Trump administration—offer a rich tapestry for understanding the future trajectory of the Church.Born in Dalton, Illinois—a south suburb of Chicago, Robert Prevost’s journey to the papacy traveled through Villanova University and is rooted in a deep commitment to missionary work and ecclesiastical leadership. A member of the Augustinian order, Prevost spent significant portions of his career in Peru, serving as a missionary and later as the Bishop of Chiclayo from 1998 to 2014. His work in Latin America focused on addressing poverty, education, and community development, earning him a reputation for humility and pastoral care.In 2014, Pope Francis appointed him Bishop of Chimbote, and by 2019, Prevost was elevated to Archbishop of Ayacucho, a role that placed him at the forefront of addressing social inequalities in one of Peru’s most impoverished regions.In 2023, Prevost’s career took a significant turn when Pope Francis named him Prefect of the Dicastery for Bishops, a powerful Vatican position responsible for overseeing the selection of bishops worldwide. This role positioned Prevost as a key figure in shaping the Church’s global hierarchy, aligning him closely with Francis’s vision of a more inclusive and pastoral Church. His dual American-Peruvian citizenship and fluency in Spanish further enhanced his ability to bridge the Global North and South, making him a compelling candidate for the papacy.Prevost’s selection of the name Leo XIV is laden with historical and symbolic significance. The last pope to bear the name, Leo XIII (1878–1903), is renowned for his encyclical Rerum Novarum (1891), which laid the foundation for modern Catholic social teaching. Leo XIII defended private property, rejected socialism, and championed workers’ rights, advocating for a balanced approach to economic justice that avoided the extremes of unbridled mercantilism and collectivism. By choosing this name, Pope Leo XIV signals an intent to engage with contemporary social and economic challenges while grounding his papacy in the Church’s traditional teachings.However, Leo XIV’s choice also suggests a divergence from the immediate legacy of Pope Francis. While Francis emphasized environmental stewardship, inclusivity, and critical critiques of global capitalism—often aligning with neo-Marxist and globalist causes—Leo XIV appears poised to prioritize doctrinal clarity and the Church’s role in fostering individual moral responsibility. Posts across social media describe Leo XIV as a “close confidant of Francis,” yet his selection of a name associated with Leo XIII hints at a return to a more structured engagement with modernity, emphasizing personal freedom and subsidiarity over systemic critiques of economic structures.Pope Francis, who died in April 2025, transformed the Church’s public image through his emphasis on mercy, outreach to marginalized groups, and a decentralized, synodal approach to governance. His encyclical Laudato Si’ (2015) framed environmental issues as moral imperatives, while his critiques of “trickle-down economics” and the “globalization of indifference” resonated with progressive audiences, alienating some conservative Catholics, particularly in the United States. Francis’s openness to revising Church teachings sparked debates about doctrinal flexibility versus orthodoxy.In contrast, Leo XIV’s background suggests a more measured approach. His missionary work in Peru focused on practical aid and evangelization, reflecting a commitment to traditional Catholic values of charity and personal conversion. While Francis often spoke in broad, systemic terms—condemning economic models as “structurally perverse”—Leo XIV appears to lean toward Leo XIII’s framework, which upheld the dignity of the individual and the family as the bedrock of society. This could very well manifest in a renewed emphasis on subsidiarity, where local communities and individuals take precedence over centralized interventions, aligning with a rejection of socialist-leaning globalism.Moreover, Leo XIV’s American roots and his time in Peru equip him to navigate the Church’s role in a polarized world. Unlike Francis, who faced criticism from American conservatives for his socialist tendencies, Leo XIV, it appears, seeks to bridge divides by emphasizing universal Catholic principles—such as the ...
    Más Menos
    37 m
  • Black America's Addiction to Violence & Entitlement

    Black America's Addiction to Violence & Entitlement
    May 5 2025
    In contemporary America, a disturbing trend festers within the Black community: a reckless dependence on violence as the go-to method for settling disputes, paired with an arrogant sense of entitlement that shamelessly excuses such behavior. This problem is glaringly exposed by crime statistics and the flood of social media videos showcasing Black individuals, especially women, unleashing physical aggression in situations that scream for restraint or rational dialogue.The facts, when honestly examined, reveal a cultural decay that sabotages the community’s advancement, cements damaging stereotypes, and demands unflinching, brutal self-scrutiny.Crime statistics lay bare an uncomfortable truth. The FBI’s 2019 Uniform Crime Report shows Black individuals, making up 12.2% of the US population, accounted for 51.2% of murder arrests, 52.7% of robbery arrests, and 28.8% of burglary arrests.The incarceration rate for Black Americans is equally lopsided, with 600 per 100,000 Black individuals in jails compared to 184 per 100,000 for Whites. While poverty and systemic inequities contribute, they do not fully justify the knee-jerk resort to violence. This pattern points to a much deeper cultural defect that begs examination, one that persists beyond external pressures and signals entrenched behavioral norms that border on the savage.Social media platforms magnify this reality, with a continuous stream of video clips of Black individuals erupting into public brawls over petty issues—restaurant orders, airline seats, and minor slights. The 2021 Miami International Airport melee, where Black individuals descended into chaos over a seating dispute, is a textbook case, ending in arrests and public disgust.These episodes, frequently featuring Black women, reveal a brazen eagerness to escalate conflicts physically, often backed by loud claims of untouchability. The “Strong Black Woman” archetype, once a symbol of resilience, has been twisted in some circles to glorify indignant belligerence, as if violence is a valid flex of power or defiance. This distortion betrays the archetype’s roots and fuels a destructive spiral.The community’s response to criticism betrays its hubris. Instead of soul-searching, there’s an ignorant knee-jerk rejection of accountability, with cries of racism or victim-shaming flung at anyone daring to call out these proven trends. This cowardice smothers honest discussion and entrenches violence as an acceptable reflex, perpetuating a cycle that tarnishes the community’s image and fractures its unity. The deluge of social media footage—Black women brawling in stores, streets, or schools—validates a stereotype of volatility that the community should be dismantling, not reinforcing.Media consumed within the Black community stokes this fire. Certain music genres—rap and gangster rap, to be specific, dripping with violent misogyny, and films glorifying gang life and vengeance, craft a worldview where physical confrontation is a mark of pride. Not all Black cultural output endorses this, mind you, but the dominance of such themes in mainstream media is undeniable. When lyrics fetishize retribution, violence, and cop killing, and movies lionize lethal street justice, they quietly validate violence as a default, especially for vulnerable youth starved for better role models.The fallout is nothing short of catastrophic. Gun violence devastates Black communities, with Black Americans 12 times more likely than Whites to die by firearm homicide. Black women endure staggering rates of intimate partner violence, with 40% facing domestic abuse in their lifetimes. These numbers aren’t just data sets—they represent shattered families, traumatized children, and neighborhoods locked in cycles of violence, anguish, and revenge. Normalizing violence guts the vitality of Black communities, spiking healthcare costs, tanking property values, and eroding social bonds. Beyond material tolls, it destroys trust, making the Black community’s collective progress toward prosperity and true equality, not equity, a stale pipe dream.Breaking this cycle requires the Black community to own its role in enabling and perpetuating these behaviors. Leaders must denounce the glorification of violence in media and champion non-violent conflict resolution. Community programs teaching communication, emotional control, and accountability could channel entitled energy into productive advocacy. Rejecting the urge to dodge criticism and embracing raw self-examination are non-negotiable for change.This rampant violence and falsely inflated sense of entitlement are worsened by systemic failures and self-serving leadership.The union-controlled public education system, shackled by the National Education Association and American Federation of Teachers, puts teacher job security and extremist ideology over student success, leaving Black youth without the emotional or intellectual tools to resolve conflicts peacefully. ...
    Más Menos
    39 m
adbl_web_global_use_to_activate_webcro805_stickypopup
Todas las estrellas
Más relevante
A quick take on these 3 issues with a common sense and insightful take on the consequences of each

Quick, Factual, Real

Se ha producido un error. Vuelve a intentarlo dentro de unos minutos.