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)
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:
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
March 31, 2025
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]
March 30, 2025 6:41 PM
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.
Copyright PJMedia.com/Salem Media. All Rights Reserved.
