I’m Not an All-or-Nothing Kind of Guy – Keep MAGA
Going!
John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© April 2, 2025
If you have read any of my blogs you are aware I am a huge
Trump supporter. AND YET I have some issues with some Trump stands. Off the top
of my head, I find President Trump’s support for the mRNA Jab a HUGE
disappointment. And there are a few Trump Appointments I find questionable and
some minor Foreign Policy issues I am not on board with as well [First Term
Examples: HERE
& HERE].
EVEN SO, the majority of President Trump’s Executive Actions
are something I am on board with. Most importantly, President Trump’s very
existence in the White House triggers Trump
Derangement Syndrome (TDS) among Deep State Bureaucrats,
Dem-Marxist un-Americans and Establishment RINOs to such a degree they keep
shooting themselves in the foot by exposing their true evil nature to the
American Public.
I am convinced this exposed evil nature contributed to
President Trump’s TOO-BIG-TO-RIG reelection in November 2024 and continues to
increase his popularity. It also explains that the Mockingbird Media
is still
doing (Youtube
Video Example from 12/20/24) their best to twist facts into
dirt to dredge up scandals that are essentially meaningless (PJ Media
exposes the meaninglessness of Signalgate HERE
& HERE).
In sharing my position on President Trump, I want to share a
couple of posts that present a Pro-MAGA/Pro-Trump outlook while putting a
verbal hit on Trump detractors.
The first will be from Frank Salvato originally posted on
3/31 and the second is from Robert Spencer originally from 3/30. The titles:
o The
Anti-Federalist Antidote To A Century of Progressive Overreach (which
has a podcast style audio I’m not including)
o Whose
‘1984’ Is It, Anyway?
Read one or both, I sense you will enjoy it.
JRH
4/2/25
READER SUPPORTED!
PLEASE! I need more Patriots to step up. I need Readers
to chip in $5 - $10 - $25 - $50 - $100 (PAYPAL - one-time or recurring). PLEASE YOUR generosity is NEEDED. PLEASE GIVE to Help me be a voice for
Liberty:
Please Support SlantRight 2.0
Big Tech Censorship is pervasive – Share voluminously on
all social media platforms!
Our Senior Citizen Family Supplements our income by
offering healthy coffee products. BETTER YOUR HEALTH with healthy & good
tasting COFFEE and enjoy some weight management supplements. BUY Happy Coffee
& Weight Loss Supplements at the Diana Wellness Store: https://dianawellnessstore.com
>>DRINK
HAPPY-HEALTHY COFFEE<<
**************************
The Anti-Federalist Antidote To A Century of Progressive
Overreach
By Frank
Salvato
March 31, 2025
Underground
USA
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.
Expanding Republican Majorities
In 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 first term,
when a recalcitrant House under Nancy Pelosi’s decrepit iron grip stymied his
efforts to fully repeal Obamacare or secure robust border funding. Even with
Republican majorities, the margins were too thin, and moderate Republicans too
spineless, to push through the most ambitious parts of his platform. Now, with
an emboldened Trump doubling down on anti-federalism, the need for overwhelming
congressional support is even more urgent.
Consider what’s at stake. Trump has signaled plans to gut
federal agencies like the Department of Education and the Environmental
Protection Agency, arguing they infringe on state sovereignty and burden
taxpayers with wasteful mandates. It’s a move cheered by conservatives who see
these bureaucracies as tools of Progressive overreach—think indoctrinating
curricula and climate policies that kill jobs. But if Democrats retake the
House or Senate in 2026, they’ll weaponize the budget process to protect these
sacred cows. Funding will flow unabated to every pet project of the far-Left,
from resurrected Green New Deal fantasies to regenerated DEI initiatives that
divide rather than unite. Trump’s push to defund and decentralize will be dead.
Then there’s the judiciary. Trump’s ability to appoint
originalist judges who respect the Constitution’s limits on federal power
hinges on a Senate willing to confirm them. A Democrat Senate, led by the likes
of Chuck Schumer or his successors, would stonewall every nominee, leaving
vacancies unfilled and the courts vulnerable to activist judges who
rubber-stamp Progressive agendas. Imagine a judiciary packed with jurists who
uphold every federal overreach—Trump’s anti-federalist gains would unravel faster
than you can say “filibuster.”
Border security, another pillar of Trump’s platform, would
also suffer. Republicans with expanded majorities could finally deliver the
wall, deportations, and immigration reforms Trump has long championed—policies
aimed at asserting national sovereignty over the open-borders fetish of the
Left. But if Democrats gain ground in 2026, they’ll block funding, push
amnesty, and return the border to a revolving door for their future voter base.
The chaos of 2021-2022, when millions crossed illegally under Biden’s watch,
would look tame by comparison.
Economic policy offers another stark example. Trump’s tax
cuts and deregulation unleashed a pre-COVID boom that Progressives still refuse
to acknowledge. He wants to go further—slashing corporate welfare, simplifying
the tax code, and unshackling small businesses from federal red tape. A
fortified Republican Congress could make this a reality. But if the far-Left
gains seats, they’ll resurrect their soak-the-rich rhetoric, jack up taxes, and
smother entrepreneurs with regulations—all in the name of “equity” that somehow
never trickles down to the working class they claim to represent.
The most insidious threat, though, is the Left’s obsession
with expanding federal power through new entitlements and surveillance.
Programs like Medicare
for All or a universal
basic income aren’t just budget-busters—they’re chains on state
autonomy, locking Americans into dependency on Washington. Pair that with their
push for digital IDs and censorship under the guise of “misinformation”
crackdowns, and you’ve got a recipe for a federal dystopia that Trump’s agenda
explicitly rejects. A Democrat surge in 2026 would embolden these efforts,
turning Congress into a battering ram against the very freedoms Trump seeks to
protect.
History warns us of the cost of complacency. In 2018,
Republicans lost the House, and Trump’s first term was hobbled by endless
investigations and legislative gridlock. The 2022 mid-terms, while a narrower
disappointment, still left the GOP with a razor-thin House majority that
struggled to unify. 2026 must be different. A decisive Republican
wave—say, a 20-seat gain in the House and 5 in the Senate—would give Trump the
muscle to enact his reforms without compromise. Anything less risks a repeat of
past failures, with Progressives crowing as they dismantle his legacy brick by
brick.
The culprits here are clear: Progressives who fetishize
government control, far-Leftists who dream of socialism at any cost, and
Democrats who cloak their power grabs in sanctimonious platitudes. They’re not
just wrong—they’re dangerous. Their vision of America is a centralized monolith
where dissent is crushed, and states are mere vassals of Washington. Trump’s
anti-federalist crusade is the antidote, but it’s fragile. Without expanded
Republican majorities in 2026, it’ll be smothered by a Congress that despises
everything he stands for.
The choice is clear. Republicans must rally—we must
keep the pressure on, not just to hold the line, but to charge forward. The
mid-terms are a battle for the soul of the nation—Trump’s agenda hangs in the
balance, and the Left is salivating to bury it. Expansion isn’t
optional; it’s imperative. Anything less, and the Republic pays the
price.
© 2025 Frank
Salvato
Underground USA HOMEPAGE
SUBSCRIBE/SUPPORT
Underground USA
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whose ‘1984’ Is It, Anyway?
('1984' screenshot) [PJ Media Photo]
By Robert
Spencer
March 30, 2025 6:41 PM
PJ
Media
One of the most effective aspects of the Trump campaign’s
critique of the Biden regime was that it was authoritarian, bent on framing its
principal opponent on various bogus crimes and destroying the freedom of speech
by forcing Americans to accept a wide array of falsehoods, chief among them
being that men can become women and legitimately star in women’s sports.
Numerous patriots termed this leftist authoritarianism “Orwellian” and have
continued to do so, and the New York Times is clearly feeling the sting.
Leftists, after all, thought they owned Orwell, and
that any totalitarian regime that resembled the one in 1984 would come from the
right. On Saturday, the Times feebly and petulantly tried to make the case that it is Trump and his supporters,
not leftists, who are really Orwellian.
If it sounds like a fool’s errand, that’s only because it
is. The leftist flagship that insisted on referring to guys such as Rachel
Levine and Caitlyn Jenner as if they were really the women they wish they were
now expects you to believe that the real manipulation of language is to be
found in “Trump’s airbrushing of the deadly Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol as a
‘beautiful day’ and the pardoning of violent rioters who, he said, had ‘love in
their hearts,’” which, the Times insists, “recalls one of Orwell’s quotes: ‘The
past is whatever the Party chooses to make it.’”
See, the Times can call Trump’s words about Jan. 6
“Orwellian” because it is familiar with the old leftist tactic of accusing the
enemy of doing what the accuser is actually doing himself. The left, with the
Grey Lady leading the way, fabricated the entire Jan. 6 “insurrection”
narrative out of a guy with Viking horns walking around and some elderly ladies
snapping selfies in the Capitol rotunda after the police opened the doors and
ushered them in. Now this is “the deadly Jan. 6 attack,” even though the only
person who was actually killed on that day was a Trump supporter, Ashli
Babbitt.
Now, if you don’t accept the left’s “insurrection”
narrative, you’re engaged in an Orwellian rewriting of the past, according to
the Times, when the actual rewriting of the events of that fateful day was
entirely the handiwork of the left. And yet despite the fact that the entire
leftist intelligentsia was on board with this deception, no one was ever
actually charged with “insurrection,” least of all Trump, and the left’s
efforts to bar him from seeking office again came to naught.
The Times’ Orwellian Matthew Purdy adds that Pete Hegseth’s
efforts to rid the Pentagon of the divisive and racist effects of Critical Race
Theory are reminiscent of the bureaucrat in “1984” who “gleefully bragged that
‘we’re destroying words — scores of them, hundreds of them, every day.’”
Remember, this is coming from the group that has destroyed a generation of
schoolchildren’s understanding of what pronouns are and how they work by
forcing us all to pretend that they were a matter of each individual’s own
choosing. This is coming from the group that professes to revere the man who
said he dreamed of the day when people would be judged by the content of their
character rather than the color of their skin; now, Hegseth’s efforts to do
just that are “Orwellian.”
Purdy also rails against the “abrupt switch of Russia from
enemy to ally,” likening it to the switch in “1984” of the enemy from Eurasia
to Eastasia. And yet where has Russia become a U.S. ally except in the febrile
imagination of the likes of Purdy and his fellow leftists?
The biggest howler of all in this childish
Orwell-Is-Ours-Not-Yours screed is this: “In ‘1984,’ hate binds members of the
Party, reinforced with Two Minute Hate sessions aimed at the televised mythical
figure ‘Emanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People.’ In the lexicon of Trump,
his many enemies — law enforcement, judges, immigrants, the press — are ‘scum’
and ‘vermin’ and, yes, ‘enemies of the people.’” It’s hard to imagine that even
the New York Times could be this myopic, but there it is. Matthew Purdy clearly
has the self-awareness of special-needs slime mold.
Did the Times miss the fact that the entire justice system
was weaponized against Trump for at least the last four years, and that before
that, there was the Russian Collusion hoax, the impeachment over an
insignificant phone call, and, oh yes, another impeachment and efforts to bar
him from the ballot over that phony “insurrection”? The man is now a “convicted
felon” because a rabidly partisan prosecutor decided to elevate misdemeanors
into felonies and ram a conviction of Trump through an equally rabidly partisan
and corrupt court system. No, the Times didn’t miss all that; it was leading
the charge against Trump. If anyone is the Emanuel Goldstein of our age, it is
Trump himself, and it is a testimony to the strength and resilience of our
political system that he wasn’t completely railroaded and isn’t sitting in a
prison cell today.
Yes, the left owns Orwellian, because leftists today are so
exquisitely Orwellian. It is they, with their felonious Trump, their fake
insurrection, and their equally fake women, who are demanding that we affirm
that two plus two equals five, just because the party says so. The New York
Times, in trying to shore up the left’s sagging narrative, only reminds us yet
again who are the real enemies of freedom, and, indeed, enemies of the people.
The New York Times will keep on trying to invert reality, as
will CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post and all the rest. That's why, dear
reader, you need us, and it's time to join up. As a PJ
Media VIP, you'll get full access to the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth. Use promo code FIGHT to get a non-Orwellian 60% off
your membership!
Robert Spencer
is the director of Jihad
Watch and a Shillman Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center.
He is author of 29 books, including many bestsellers, such as The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades),
The Truth About Muhammad, The History of Jihad, The Critical Qur’an, and Muhammad: A Critical Biography. His latest book is Antisemitism:
History and Myth. Spencer has led seminars on Islam and jihad for
the FBI, the United States Central Command, United States Army Command and
General Staff College, the U.S. Army’s Asymmetric Warfare Group, the Joint
Terrorism Task Force (JTTF), the Justice Department’s Anti-Terrorism Advisory
Council and the U.S. intelligence community. He is a senior fellow with the
Center for Security Policy. For media inquiries, contact communications@pjmedia.com.
Read more by Robert Spencer
Copyright PJMedia.com/Salem Media. All Rights
Reserved.
