MMN Editor

Topline: Illinois State Rep. Robin Gabel reportedly told his colleagues that “there is no pork” in the 2026 state budget bill he sponsored. Yet ongoing analysis from the Illinois Policy Institute has found 2,815 pork-barrel earmarks hidden in the budget, worth a whopping $4.5 billion.
Key facts: The $55.2 billion budget passed on May 31, 2025, and included a $2 million earmark for the operational expenses of the nonprofit XS Tennis in Chicago. According to Construct Connect News, “XS Tennis and Education Foundation is the largest minority-owned tennis organization in the United States.” Founder Kamau Murray’s “dream is to bring tennis to impoverished communities and give young African Americans a better chance at excelling in a sport that has long eluded them.”
The Illinois Policy Institute questioned why the funding was needed. XS Tennis reported $22.7 million worth of revenue in 2024 and just $3.5 million of expenses.
Two months later, XS Tennis announced a planned $41 million expansion to its facility, including a six-story Hyatt Hotel and a five-story apartment building with pickleball courts.
State lawmakers also decided to multiply the budget of the nonprofit A Ray of Hope on Earth by more than 10 times, with only a vague explanation for the $4.6 million. The company, founded by former pro football player Ray McElroy, hosts workshops for “youth choosing to be college-bound, learn a trade skill, or go into direct employment.”
A Ray of Hope had only $415,365 in revenue in 2023, the latest year available. More than half was spent on “executive compensation” for McElroy, tax filings show.
Now the group will receive $4.6 million in the state budget for “operational expenses” and “costs associated with purchasing and renovating facilities.” The nonprofit does not appear to have any facilities, according to the Illinois Policy Institute.
The budget also contained $40 million for a new sports complex at Proviso West High School in the suburbs of Chicago — the alma mater of Illinois House Speaker Chris Welch. Surely, that must be a coincidence.
Another earmark went to the Reimagining Capitalism Lab, which aims to “change the narrative about who has an ownership claim to American prosperity.”
Search all federal, state and local salaries and vendor spending with the world’s largest government spending database at OpenTheBooks.com. 
Background: Illinois’ earmark process may be even less transparent than the federal government’s. Lawmakers do not have to publicly disclose their earmark requests, according to the Illinois Policy Institute, or provide any justification.
The Illinois Constitution requires lawmakers to have at least three days to read a budget bill before voting on it. But by adding the earmarks as amendments to an existing bill, lawmakers circumvented the rule and voted on them almost immediately, the Illinois Policy Institute reported.
The federal government has passed $15.9 billion worth of earmarks in the 2026 budget as of Feb. 16. That includes $408.2 million for Illinois.
Summary: With so many earmarks at the state and federal level every year, it can be almost impossible for taxpayers to be fully aware of how their money is being spent.
The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com
This article was originally published by RealClearInvestigations and made available via RealClearWire.

Female founders take centre stage at Bicester Village this International Women’s Day, spotlighting Stella McCartney, Zimmermann, Rixo and Bamford.

Friends Like These revisits the 2012 murder of Skylar Neese—-and raises real questions about what social media does to teenagers, and to investigations.

The potential benefits of electrification are significant, but you must verify before you electrify.

Preece won the first season of the Netflix survival competition show in 2023.

Preece won the first season of the Netflix survival competition show in 2023.

Amodei tried to strong-arm Secretary Hegseth, and now he is being trolled by Musk.
Is it Claude who is anxious, or is it Dario?
We have been covering in TGP about the severing of ties between the US Government and the AI company Anthropic over disagreements that arose in the Department of War, and quickly led to a complete ban of their products and services in all agencies.
Anthropic also deserved one of the classic dressing-downs by US President Donald J. Trump.
Anthropic fell on the bad side of Trump.
“THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL NEVER ALLOW A RADICAL LEFT, WOKE COMPANY TO DICTATE HOW OUR GREAT MILITARY FIGHTS AND WINS WARS! That decision belongs to YOUR COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, and the tremendous leaders I appoint to run our Military.
The Leftwing nut jobs at Anthropic have made a DISASTROUS MISTAKE trying to STRONG-ARM the Department of War, and force them to obey their Terms of Service instead of our Constitution. Their selfishness is putting AMERICAN LIVES at risk, our Troops in danger, and our National Security in JEOPARDY.
Therefore, I am directing EVERY Federal Agency in the United States Government to IMMEDIATELY CEASE all use of Anthropic’s technology. We don’t need it, we don’t want it, and will not do business with them again! There will be a Six Month phase out period for Agencies like the Department of War who are using Anthropic’s products, at various levels. Anthropic better get their act together, and be helpful during this phase out period, or I will use the Full Power of the Presidency to make them comply, with major civil and criminal consequences to follow.
WE will decide the fate of our Country — NOT some out-of-control, Radical Left AI company run by people who have no idea what the real World is all about. Thank you for your attention to this matter. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!” – Donald J. Trump

Pentagon formally designates Anthropic a supply-chain risk – POLITICO https://t.co/EnOqF3Ny5U
— Jim Kaskade (he/him) (@jimkaskade) March 5, 2026

So, after all that, the company’s CEO Dario Amodei came to public with a controversial claim about his AI models, saying he wasn’t sure if his company’s AI models have gained consciousness.

BREAKING: Anthropic CEO says Claude may or may not have gained consciousness, as the model has begun showing symptoms of anxiety.
— Polymarket (@Polymarket) March 6, 2026

Amodei was mercilessly trolled by social media users, including billionaire Elon Musk.
Fox News reported:
“’Anthropic CEO says Claude may or may not have gained consciousness, as the model has begun showing symptoms of anxiety’, read a post on X by cryptocurrency-based prediction market Polymarket, to which Musk replied, “He’s projecting.”

He’s projecting
— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) March 6, 2026

pic.twitter.com/J7c50DdPU6
— Faithful Sentinel (@Windstone8440) March 6, 2026

“In an interview with The New York Times, Amodei, when asked about AI and consciousness, said, ‘We’ve taken a generally precautionary approach here’, and, ‘We don’t know if the models are conscious’.
‘We are not even sure that we know what it would mean for a model to be conscious or whether a model can be conscious. But we’re open to the idea that it could be’, he continued.”
Read more:
BREAKING: President Trump Directs Every Federal Agency to Cease Use of Anthropic After AI Company Refuses to Comply with Pentagon’s Demands

The post CEO of Blacklisted AI Company Anthropic, Dario Amodei Says His AI Models ‘May Have Gained Consciousness’ and Are Exhibiting Signs of Anxiety – Gets Trolled by Elon Musk appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.

This article was originally published at The Empowerment Alliance and is re-published here with permission. 

Just days before President Trump announced that the EPA would no longer be guided on climate change by the so-called “endangerment finding,” the Washington Post’s newsroom decided to take another bite at the old “Earth is getting hotter” apple.

Contrary to their intent, the resulting story, headlined, “Scientists thought they understood global warming. Then the past three years happened,” made the Trump administration’s decision seem entirely logical.
The story, published Feb. 11, is a lesson in the perils of an entity supposedly focused on journalism conducting its own analysis in the field of climate science, and then producing a story that could not be more confusing if it was intentionally trying to supplant Abbott and Costello’s “Who’s On First?” as the most hilarious comedic routine ever founded on the concept of confusion.
“According to a Washington Post analysis,” the Post’s lead paragraph declared, “the fastest warming rate on record occurred in the last 30 years.” The Post noted that it based its analysis on “a dataset from NASA to analyze global average surface temperatures from 1880 to 2025.”
The story was presumably in the works before the U.S. was hit with one of the most frigid stretches in recent years. Never mind. The Post had that covered.
“Even as the United States languishes under a frigid cold snap, the rest of the world is still experiencing unusually warm temperatures,” the Post assured us. Why just consider Nuuk, Greenland (or “Nuuk, Nuuk” as the Three Stooges might have called it) which “saw temperatures in January more than 20 degrees Fahrenheit above average. Parts of Australia, meanwhile, have seen temperatures push past 120 degrees Fahrenheit amid a record heat wave.”
Some places get cold. Some places get hot. Welcome to Earth, visitors. The Post was worried because “for about 40 years — from 1970 to 2010 — global warming proceeded at a fairly steady rate,” inching up about 0.19 degrees Celsius per decade. “Then, that rate began to shift,” the Post reported. “The warming rate ticked up a notch. Temperatures over the past decade have increased by close to 0.27 degrees C per decade — about a 42 percent increase.”
If this seems utterly confusing, you’re not alone. The Post led off by saying that the fastest warming rate on record “occurred in the last 30 years,” which would be since about 1996. But then it said that from 1970-2010, global warming was “pretty steady.” Huh?
It’s never quite clear why “the last 3 years” is featured in the headline and mentioned a couple of times within the story. Don’t try too hard to make sense of it. These people are journalists, er, I mean scientists, er, science reporters – well, dammit, they’re sure not mathematicians. Give them a break.
Follow the story’s winding road: Sulfate aerosols in the atmosphere actually helped cool things off. But they’re bad to breathe, so when countries cracked down on such things, it just heated things up again. Plus, there are fewer low-lying clouds, letting more heat from the sun get through. On the other hand, “Clouds have long been one of the greatest uncertainties in climate science. Clouds are probably helping to cool the Earth, like aerosols, but how much is an open question.” Like everything else.
Please read the following section closely – more than once if you have to – and then let’s review.
About two decades ago, according to the Post, “Countries also began shifting from coal and oil to wind and solar power. As a result, global sulfur dioxide emissions have fallen about 40 percent since the mid-2000s; China’s emissions have fallen even more. That effect has been compounded in recent years by a new international regulation that slashed sulfur emissions from ships by about 85 percent. That explains part of why warming has kicked up a bit.”
Wait, coal, oil and sulfur emissions helped keep the Earth cooler? And cutting down on those emissions have made the Earth warmer? Here’s the Post’s explanation: “For decades, a portion of the warming unleashed by greenhouse gas emissions was ‘masked’ by sulfate aerosols. These tiny particles cause heart and lung disease when people inhale polluted air, but they also deflect the sun’s rays.” So, pick your poison.
The Post did quote one expert who’s not yet buying the too-hot-to-handle narrative. Chris Smith, a research fellow at the University of Leeds, told the Post, “It’s still too early to definitively conclude there’s an increase in the rate of warming,” and he wants to see a few more years of
additional data.
The Post, on the other hand, may not have that kind of time. In early February, the Post announced another round of layoffs, and while initial estimates guessed a loss of about one-third of its newsroom, “an accounting by the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, the union that represents Post journalists, finds that the paper’s management eliminated closer to half of the journalists it used to employ,” according to The Washingtonian.
It never occurs to the far-left (formerly mainstream) media that its demise might be attributable to more than economic factors or the rise of the internet. Just as important is the clear bias and agenda- driven politics that resulted in a loss of trust by millions of Americans who are not part of the far-left bubble that the media increasingly served.
The era of climate change hysteria is thankfully nearing its end. Some of its biggest promoters are sharing its fate.
Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing opinion columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. 

This article was originally published by RealClearEnergy and made available via RealClearWire.

Brazil At A Historical Crossroads

Authored by Deborah Palma via the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE),

Brazil finds itself at a historical crossroads that demands a rigorous analysis of its institutional structures. The release of the 2025 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI), record-breaking data from the Impostômetro, and the persistence of an authoritarian labor framework expose a system of economic asphyxiation and moral erosion. The State, under the pretext of protecting the citizen, in reality hinders their initiative, their property, and their future.

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, an annual report published by the organization to assess perceived levels of public-sector corruption worldwide, provides important context for evaluating governance and institutional trust in countries such as Brazil. The transparency International report confirms what independent analysts have long pointed out. With 35 points on a scale of 0 to 100, Brazil occupies the 107th position among 182 countries, registering one of the worst marks in its recent historical series. This result is not merely a statistical indicator, but the quantitative expression of an institutional environment in which public power is frequently captured by private interests, eroding social trust. This decline points to deep failures in control mechanisms, associated with the growing politicization of the justice system.

From an economic standpoint, corruption acts as an invisible and arbitrary tax. It raises transaction costs, inhibits long-term investment, and favors the flourishing of so-called crony capitalism. In an environment of high regulatory power, inefficient companies survive at the taxpayer’s expense, while productive entrepreneurs are blocked by bureaucratic barriers. The result is a continuous process of weakening morality and the free market.

According to the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom, as well as the Fraser Institute, there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and low levels of corruption. Countries that limit the scope of government and rigorously protect private property tend to exhibit greater institutional resilience. In Brazil, the opposite phenomenon is observed: the size and complexity of the State together create broad zones of discretion, where bureaucracy becomes a currency of exchange. The politicization of justice, highlighted in the 2025 report, suggests that even institutional checks and balances are fragile.

While the integrity of the Brazilian State is questionable, its capacity to extract resources from society is remarkable. On Dec. 31, 2025, the São Paulo Commercial Association’s Impostômetro registered the record figure of R$3.98 trillion ($772 billion) collected, a nominal growth of 10.56 percent compared to the previous year. This advance, far exceeding the period’s inflation, reflects a deliberate increase in revenue expansion by the government.

But this increase did not occur by chance. The re-evaluation of fuels, taxation of electronic bets, taxing low-value international packages, incidence on exclusive funds and offshores, plus the end of sectoral tax benefits, have significantly expanded the State’s weight on production and consumption. In February 2026, Brazilians had already paid R$500 billion ($97 billion) in taxes in just the first 40 days of the year.

According to the CPI/IPCA, from the Real Plan launch in 1994 to 2026, the Real accumulated roughly 982.5 percent inflation, equivalent to prices nearly 10.8 times higher today. In other words, R$100.00 in 1994 now equals R$11.75. Furthermore, according to the Index of Return to Society’s Well-Being (IRBES), Brazil has for 14 consecutive years ranked as the country that charges the most taxes while giving the least return to the population. While the government celebrates “pretty revenue numbers,” the population faces a systematic loss of purchasing power, fueled by a tax system that burdens consumption, disproportionately penalizing the poorest.

Institutional deterioration is also directly reflected in labor remuneration. In 2026, Brazil had one of the lowest minimum wages in the region when converted to dollars. The Brazilian minimum wage, set at R$1,621, equals approximately US$290–300, a value lower than observed in countries like Paraguay (about US$435), Chile (US$560), and Uruguay (US$630). This distortion does not stem from a lack of potential productive capacity, but from structural obstacles, such as high payroll taxation, labor charges that nearly double the cost of formal employment, systemic low productivity, and chronic currency devaluation caused by persistent fiscal imbalances.

The result is a labor market unable to sustain higher real wages, even in a large-scale economy. Evidently, the impoverishment of the Brazilian worker is a direct consequence of low economic freedom and difficulty in doing business.

The critique of Brazil’s tax burden is not based on social insensitivity, but on the realization of its regressivity. The promise of social justice through fiscal expansion ignores the perverse effects of consumption taxation and chronic inflation. As Thomas Sowell observed, the attempt to equalize outcomes through State redistribution frequently reduces individual freedom and strengthens a bureaucracy that consumes resources intended for the most vulnerable.

The asphyxiation of entrepreneurship in Brazil has deep historical roots dating back to the 1940s. The Consolidation of Labor Laws (CLT), promulgated by Getúlio Vargas in 1943, is celebrated by many as a milestone of protection, but a technical analysis reveals its deeply authoritarian ideological matrix. Directly inspired by the 1927 Carta del Lavoro, the foundational document of Benito Mussolini’s corporatist system, the CLT institutionalized State tutelage over the worker.

The fundamental principle of the Carta del Lavoro was that work is a “social duty” and that the State must be the supreme arbiter between capital and labor, suppressing free class conflict in favor of “harmonious collaboration” dictated from top down. Vargas absorbed this logic entirely, creating a structure where the worker is not a free citizen to negotiate contract terms, but a subject protected by an omnipresent State apparatus. The requirement of unique unions, compulsory contributions, and specialized labor justice are direct reflections of this fascist heritage that survived redemocratization.

In practice, this structure imposes high costs on formal hiring. In 2026, the total cost of a worker under the labor legislation regime is expected to approach 190 percent of the nominal salary. For every real received by the employee, the employer bears nearly double the charges and mandatory provisions. This model discourages formalization, reduces job creation, and penalizes especially those entering the job market, changing fields, and small and medium enterprises.

From the perspective of thinkers like Roger Scruton, replacing individual responsibility with compulsory State security corrodes the bonds of trust that sustain community life. Freer economies, like the United States, allow dynamic contractual adjustments and exhibit more resilient labor markets to economic shocks as a result.

The Brazilian business environment reflects this combination of corruption, high tax burden, and labor rigidity. In the 2025 Index of Economic Freedom, the country ranked 117th, with particularly weak performance in fiscal health and government integrity. Tax bureaucracy requires companies to spend about 1,500 hours annually just to meet fiscal obligations, a significant waste of human and financial capital.

The direct consequence is high business mortality. Less than 40 percent of Brazilian companies survive after five years of activity. Among the main factors are high credit costs, legal insecurity, and regulatory complexity, which disproportionately affect small entrepreneurs.

International comparisons highlight the contrast. Countries leading economic freedom rankings, like Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, and New Zealand, show greater institutional stability, lower corruption, and better well-being indicators, including for the poorest. Economic freedom is not a privilege of rich countries, but the proven path to prosperity.

Global data show that freer countries have significantly higher per capita income than repressed ones and that the poorest in those economies enjoy much higher living standards. In contrast, dependence on State transfers tends to perpetuate stagnation and vulnerability.

The institutional degradation evidenced by the aforementioned 2025 CPI has immediate political implications. Social polarization and weakening trust in institutions reflect the perception that the State serves its own protection. The 2025 tax reform, despite simplification rhetoric, reinforces this trend by consolidating one of the world’s highest tax burdens.

Brazil lives at the peak of the conflict between a productive society and an interventionist State. The diagnosis is unquestionable, as corruption, confiscatory taxation, and bureaucratic paralysis form a vicious circle that prevents sustainable growth. Breaking this cycle requires a shock of economic freedom based on reducing the State’s scope, lowering the tax burden, improving the corporatist matrix of labor legislation, and strengthening legal security.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 03/08/2026 – 15:30

Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy — who co-sponsored the proposed Safeguard American Voter Eligibility, or SAVE, Act– said that while Republicans are currently short of the 60-vote threshold in the Senate to pass it, he believes it can still be moved along.