These States Are Leading on Restoring Religious Freedom

 In recent years, there has been an important shift in how some states in the United States are addressing religious freedom, especially concerning funding for religious institutions. This summary focuses on the efforts made by Oklahoma, Florida, and Iowa to align their laws with the First Amendment's protections for religious entities.

• The Supreme Court has ruled that the First Amendment prohibits excluding religious institutions from public benefit programs. Despite this, many states have continued to enforce laws that exclude these institutions.

• Oklahoma has taken significant steps to restore religious freedom. In 2023, legislation was enacted to regard the exclusion of religious institutions from government benefits as a serious infringement on religious liberty. In 2025, an executive order was issued to eliminate laws that exclude religious individuals and institutions from public programs.

• Oklahoma has recently repealed several sectarian funding restrictions that barred religious organizations from participation in various state programs.

• Florida is also making progress; the state's Attorney General declared that laws preventing religious institutions from public benefits violate the First Amendment, announcing that such laws would no longer be enforced.

• Iowa has followed suit by signing legislation that removes anti-religious restrictions from its education code, allowing religious institutions to participate without facing discrimination.

• These changes signal a positive trend toward complying with the Constitution, reducing the need for extensive legal battles to protect religious liberty.

Oklahoma, Florida, and Iowa are actively working to ensure that religious groups are treated equally in public programs, reflecting a broader commitment to First Amendment rights. This evolving legal landscape seeks to uphold the principle that all citizens, including religious individuals and institutions, deserve equal access to governmental benefits. 

https://www.city-journal.org/article/supreme-court-religious-freedom-first-amendment-oklahoma-florida-iowa

Crazy Wealth Tax Proposals in California and New York City

 Recently, proposals for wealth taxes in California and New York City have emerged, reflecting the growing influence of socialist ideologies in American politics. These plans seek to tax the wealthy significantly, raising concerns about the impact on wealth creation and the economy.

1. Departure of Wealthy Residents: The rise of socialist policies in states like California and cities like New York has triggered an exodus of wealthy individuals. Over 100,000 residents have left both California and New York City annually for states with lower taxes like Texas and Florida.

2. Tax Competitiveness: States and localities must compete for residents and businesses. High tax burdens push wealthy residents to relocate, shrinking the tax base and exacerbating fiscal pressures on remaining residents.

3. Wealth Tax Proposals:

• California: A proposed ballot initiative backed by the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) aims to impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals with a net worth of $1 billion or more. Analysts predict the effective tax could exceed 5%, and estimates suggest this could generate around $100 billion.

• New York City: Mayor Zohran Mamdani and Governor Kathy Hochul introduced a “pied-à-terre” tax targeting second homes valued over $5 million. This tax could generate approximately $500 million annually for social programs.

4. Concerns from Wealth Creators: High-profile business leaders like Kenneth Griffin have expressed alarm over these wealth tax proposals. They argue that these measures push away successful individuals and discourage investment in the states.

5. Socialist Intentions: Proponents of these taxes argue that the wealthiest owe their success to government systems and should contribute more. They present wealth redistribution as essential for achieving social justice and combating inequality.

6. Economic Viability: Critics contend that such initiatives will not address existing economic problems. Taxes may drive away the very capital needed for economic growth and the improvement of society. Instead of resolving issues, increased taxation could lead to more economic decline.

7. Historical Context: The discussion reflects a broader ideological battle in America regarding capitalism and socialism, with critics citing the negative outcomes of wealth redistribution and government control seen in historical contexts.

8. Consequences of Taxation: There is skepticism around the effectiveness of wealth taxes in achieving their intended goals. Historian Murray Rothbard's views emphasize the importance of individual freedom and the danger of treating people as interchangeable, prioritizing equality of outcomes over equality of opportunity.

9. Need for Capitalism: The article asserts that a thriving economy relies on successful wealthy individuals who create jobs and drive innovation through capital investment. Removing this incentive could jeopardize economic development.

10. Justice and Wealth: The narrative challenges the notion that taxing wealth can resolve social injustices. Instead, it suggests focusing on eliminating government interventions that create unfair advantages.

Wealth tax proposals in California and New York City represent a tension between socialist policies and capitalist principles. As wealth creators flee high-tax states, the sustainability of aggressive taxation strategies is called into question. There is a need for an economic framework that encourages individual success and freedom, essential for societal growth and fairness. 

https://mises.org/mises-wire/crazy-wealth-tax-proposals-california-and-new-york-city

Michigan Voters Say They’re Sick of Mass Muslim Migration

 Recent polling indicates a strong sentiment among Michigan voters against high levels of Muslim immigration and mass migration from Third World countries. The results reflect growing concerns about the cultural and economic impacts of migration policies established over decades.

• A poll revealed that Michigan voters disapprove of the state's immigration policies, with a significant majority (6-to-1) believing there are too many Islamic immigrants in the state.

• Voters indicated a preference for prioritizing American citizens and focusing on the assimilation of current immigrants rather than allowing more to enter the country.

• The Hart-Celler Immigration Act of 1965 is criticized for its role in increasing mass migration primarily based on family ties rather than merit or alignment with American values.

• In a recent TIPP poll of nearly 1,500 voters, only 19% believe that migration from poor countries has benefited Michigan, while 35% feel it has harmed the state.

• The approval for Christian immigrants is more balanced, but support for Muslim immigrants is overwhelmingly negative, with only 6% thinking there are too few Muslim immigrants compared to 37% who think there are too many.

• Even demographics typically favoring Democrats, such as Hispanics and single women, showed strong disapproval for mass Muslim immigration.

• The data supports a broader national sentiment against mass migration, highlighting a desire among citizens for policies that prioritize American interests and strengthen local communities.

The polling data illustrates a clear discontent among Michigan voters regarding mass immigration, particularly from Islamic countries. Many citizens express a need to focus on local priorities and ensure the integration of existing immigrants rather than increasing immigration levels. The overall mood suggests an urgent call for policy changes that align better with the needs and preferences of American citizens. 

https://www.dailysignal.com/2026/06/01/michigan-mass-muslim-migration/

The Corporate Capture of America: How Monopoly Power Bought the Republic

 By Staff

There is no longer any serious debate about whether corporate power has captured the American government. The debate is only about whether anything can be done before the patient dies on the table.

Federal lobbying spending shattered $5.24 billion in 2025 a 17% year over year jump and the largest single year increase ever recorded. That's not persuasion. That's not civic participation. That's a protection racket dressed in a suit, and the American people are the ones getting shaken down.

The pharmaceutical industry alone has spent over $6.1 billion on federal lobbying since 1999. And as one industry insider put it bluntly: Since 1950, the pharmaceutical companies' lobby has been the most powerful. They have won almost every issue.

They win. You lose. That's the design.

The numbers are staggering, but raw spending only tells part of the story. Here's the mechanism: The Lobbying Industrial Complex

Healthcare

$743.9 million

Drug pricing carve outs, PBM opacity, patent extensions

Finance/Insurance/Real Estate

$636.4 million

Deregulation, interest rate influence, bailout architecture

Defense

Billions via NDAA lobbying

Perpetual war funding, no bid contracts

Oil & Gas

Among top sectors

Subsidies, drilling permits, climate regulation kills

Tech

Surging

AI regulation capture, antitrust immunity, Section 230

The top lobbying firms Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck at $73.8 million and Ballard Partners at $81.7 million in 2025 alone aren't just influencing legislation. They're writing it. Literally. Staffers on the Hill will tell you off the record that major bills arrive per-drafted by K Street lawyers, and the legislators are there to hold press conferences.

This is where the corruption becomes undeniable.

The revolving door between regulatory agencies and the industries they're supposed to regulate isn't a bug it's the primary feature of modern governance. Research examining 420,153 individuals in top corporate positions at 12,869 firms found that more than half of those firms employ someone who came directly from an executive branch regulatory agency.

The pattern is consistent across every sector:

FDA officials approve drugs, then take seven figure jobs at the pharmaceutical companies whose products they green lit

SEC enforcement lawyers negotiate fraud settlements, then join the banks they were investigating as compliance officers

Patent Office examiners grant significantly more patents to firms that later hire them and those patents are measurably lower quality, receiving about 25% fewer citations

Defense Department procurement officers sign contracts, then walk through the revolving door to become consultants for the contractors they just enriched

This isn't theoretical. Studies confirm that firms receive more procurement contracts after hiring former regulators who left their agencies within two years. The contracts are more likely to be renegotiated, driving costs up for taxpayers.

The academic economists frame this delicately: Regulatory capture requires no explicit agreements at all. Industry norms are sufficient simply following the principle that one should not bite the hand that feeds it, so to speak, will suffice.

Translation: nobody has to say the quiet part out loud. Everyone just knows how the game works.

The 2010 Citizens United ruling didn't create corporate political power but it legalized its unlimited exercise.

By a 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court declared that corporate political spending is protected speech under the First Amendment, and that independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

That last claim has aged like milk in the sun.

In the 2024 election, just 10 individual mega donors accounted for roughly 44%, $481 million of all money raised to support the Trump campaign. The top 10 donors supporting the Democratic candidate accounted for nearly 8% of her total. This is not democracy. This is plutocracy with extra steps.

The FEC the agency supposedly enforcing campaign finance law has been so thoroughly captured that it has effectively eliminated most restrictions on campaigns' ability to outsource core voter outreach to super PACs. The watchdog has been defanged, declawed, and trained to roll over.

Corporate concentration in America has been rising for 100 years not decades, a full century. Research from the University of Chicago documents that the asset share and sales share of top businesses has increased persistently across every sector:

Manufacturing and mining: concentration surged before the 1970s

Services, retail, and wholesale: concentration exploded after the 1970s

75% of all U.S. industries have seen increased concentration since the late 1990s

The number of publicly traded firms has declined by nearly 50% since the 1996 peak

The average firm is roughly three times larger in real terms than it was 20 years ago

When a handful of firms control an entire industry, they don't just control prices they control the regulatory apparatus, the supply chains, the labor market, and ultimately the political system itself.

In concentrated markets, corporations become monopolies single buyers of labor and suppress wages. They become monopolies and drive up consumer prices. They choke out small businesses and hollow out rural communities. And they accumulate enough surplus profit to buy politicians in bulk.

No industry illustrates corporate capture better than Big Pharma.

The pharmaceutical and health products industry has been the top lobbying spender every single year since 1999. That's a quarter-century of uninterrupted dominance. They've spent over $6.1 billion just on federal lobbying in that period and that doesn't count campaign contributions, dark money, astroturf patient advocacy groups, or the funding of academic research that conveniently supports their pricing models.

What did they buy?

No Medicare drug price negotiation until a weak version finally passed decades after every other developed nation implemented it.

Patent thickets and ever greening that extend monopolies decades past original patent expiry

Ban on drug importation from Canada and other countries where identical medications cost a fraction of the U.S. price.

PBM opacity that lets pharmacy benefit managers the middlemen they often own or influence extract billions in hidden rebates.

Liability shields that make it nearly impossible to sue for vaccine injuries or defective drugs.

The revolving door here is particularly egregious. FDA commissioners, NIH directors, and CMS administrators cycle between government service and pharmaceutical executive suites with the regularity of a metronome.

The Sherman Act (1890), the Clayton Act (1914), and the FTC Act were designed precisely to prevent what's happening now. So why didn't they work?

Because the courts were captured first.

Starting in the 1980s, the consumer welfare standard an economic theory championed by Robert Bork replaced the traditional understanding of antitrust law. Under this standard, mergers and monopolistic practices are only illegal if they can be proven to raise consumer prices in the short term. Worker harm, supplier exploitation, political power concentration, community destruction, and long-term innovation suppression? Irrelevant under the law.

This was a deliberate intellectual coup. It gave judges and regulators an excuse to approve virtually any merger, and they did. The number of antitrust cases filed plummeted. Merger challenges became rare. The FTC and DOJ Antitrust Division became parking lots for corporate lawyers doing a brief tour of "public service" before cashing in.

Even the Biden administration's much hyped antitrust revival Lina Khan at the FTC, Jonathan Kanter at the DOJ produced more press releases than structural change. The fundamental legal framework remains intact, and the courts remain hostile.

The solutions exist. They're not mysterious. They require political will that the current system is designed to prevent.

1. Enforce Existing Antitrust Law Aggressively

The Sherman Act already makes monopolization illegal. Use it. Break up Amazon into separate retail, cloud, and logistics companies. Split Google's search, advertising, and YouTube businesses. Unbundle Meta's Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp. Force the healthcare conglomerates to divest.

The legal authority exists. What's missing is the spine.

2. Ban the Revolving Door

A minimum five year cooling off period before any regulator can work for an industry they oversaw. No exceptions. No waivers. No consulting loopholes. Violations result in forfeiture of all compensation and criminal penalties.

The research shows that even a conditional ban where regulators can only take industry jobs if their regulatory record was unfavorable to that industry would dramatically reduce capture incentives.

3. Overturn Citizens United

A constitutional amendment establishing that: Corporations are not people. Money is not speech.

Congress and the states may regulate campaign finance without First Amendment constraint.

Twenty two states and hundreds of municipalities have already passed resolutions supporting such an amendment. The public overwhelmingly supports it. Only the bought off political class stands in opposition.

4. Public Financing of Elections

If campaigns are publicly funded with strict spending limits, the dependency on corporate and billionaire donors evaporates. Candidates spend their time talking to voters instead of dialing for dollars. This isn't radical it's how most functional democracies operate.

5. Aggressive Merger Presumption

Flip the burden of proof. Any merger involving firms above a certain market share threshold should be presumptively illegal, with the merging parties required to prove it won't harm competition not the other way around.

6. Corporate Death Penalty

Repeat offenders corporations that systematically violate laws and treat fines as a cost of doing business should face charter revocation. If you can't operate without breaking the law, you don't get to operate.

The standard push back is that breaking up large companies would hurt efficiency, raise prices, and make American firms less competitive globally.

This is propaganda funded by the companies that don't want to be broken up.

Consolidated industries don't produce lower prices they produce higher margins for shareholders. They don't produce more innovation they produce acquisition strategies to kill competitors before they become threats. They don't produce better working conditions they produce monopoly power to suppress wages.

The golden age of American economic growth the post war boom from 1945 to 1973 occurred during a period of strong antitrust enforcement, high marginal tax rates, and limited corporate political power. Productivity grew, wages rose with productivity, and inequality fell. The correlation isn't coincidental.

This isn't about economics textbooks. This is about whether your grandchildren live in a democracy or a corporate managed Neo-feudal state.

When a handful of companies control the food supply, the information environment, the healthcare system, the financial infrastructure, the defense industry, and the energy grid and when those same companies have captured the regulatory agencies and the legislative process you no longer have a government of the people.

You have a corporate state with a flag as a branding exercise.

The founders understood this threat. Thomas Jefferson warned about the aristocracy of our wealthy corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. That was 1816 before limited liability, before Citizens United, before the revolving door, before K Street.

What would he say now?

Systemic problems require systemic solutions, but individual action matters:

Support antitrust litigation through organizations funding legal challenges to monopolistic practices

Divest from concentrated industries where possible local alternatives, credit unions, independent media

Pressure state legislatures 22 states have already passed resolutions calling for a constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United

Talk about it the propaganda relies on people thinking this is too complicated or too hopeless to engage with. It's not

Recognize that bipartisanship on this issue is a trap both parties are deeply compromised by corporate money, even if one is marginally less captive than the other

The corporations want you to feel powerless. That's the whole point learned helplessness is cheaper than actual repression.

Don't give them the satisfaction.

Sources:

Corporate lobbying spending elections 2024 2025 billions

Federal lobbying set new record in 2024 • OpenSecrets opensecrets.org

Federal Lobbying Statistics 2025: $37.7B Spent, 726K Filings — Complete Data | OpenLobby openlobby.us

Lobbying spending tops $5 billion in 2025 | LegiStorm legistorm.com

Federal Lobbying Spending Reached New High in 2024 - Bloomberg Government about.bgov.com

Corporate consolidation monopolies economic power United States

100 Years of Rising Corporate Concentration bfi.uchicago.edu

Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy | Legal Information Institute law.cornell.edu

democrats-smallbusiness.house.gov

democrats-smallbusiness.house.govfaculty.haas.berkeley.edu

faculty.haas.berkeley.edu

Regulatory capture revolving door corporations government agencies

A Dynamic Theory of Regulatory gtcenter.org

Regulating the Revolving Door of Regulators: Legal vs. Ethical Issues mdpi.com

Revolving doors and regulatory capture - CEPR cepr.org

Exposing the Revolving Door in Executive Branch Agencies | Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis | Cambridge Core cambridge.org

Citizens United corporate political spending influence

Fifteen Years Later, Citizens United Defined the 2024 Election | Brennan Center for Justice brennancenter.org

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N law.cornell.edu

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205) | SCOTUSblog scotusblog.com

08-205 Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n (01/21/10) fec.gov

You Don’t Live in a Democracy. You Live in a Constitutional Republic. Here’s Why That Changes Everything.

By Staff Writer

South Carolina Bulletin

Before we go deep, let’s nail down what these words actually mean because most people use democracy as a vague synonym for good government, and that sloppiness is where the trouble starts.

In a Democracy: The majority votes directly on laws and policy.

In a Constitutional Republic: The people elect representatives to govern on their behalf.

In a Democracy: Whatever 51% wants, 51% gets immediately.

In a Constitutional Republic: Elected officials are constrained by a written constitution they cannot override.

In a Democracy: Rights exist at the pleasure of the majority.

In a Constitutional Republic: Rights are pre-political they exist before any vote is taken.

In a Democracy: Nothing stops the mob from voting away your speech, your guns, or your property.

In a Constitutional Republic: The Constitution sits above the legislature, the executive, and any election result.

This isn’t a technicality. It’s a flashing red signal. https://samueleburns.substack.com/p/you-dont-live-in-a-democracy-you

You Don’t Live in a Democracy. You Live in a Constitutional Republic. Here’s Why That Changes Everything.

By Staff Writer

Midterm Voters: Are You Better Off Than You Were Four Years Ago?

As the midterm elections approach, voters are prompted to reflect on their personal circumstances compared to four years ago. This evaluation is crucial in determining which party will control Congress for the upcoming years.

1. Historical Context: Four years ago, in June 2022, President Joe Biden and the Democrats were in power. They initiated significant spending initiatives like the "Build Back Better" plan. The expectation was for the economy to thrive post-COVID lockdowns.

2. Current Economic Status: By June 2026, with Republicans holding Congressional power, various economic metrics have shown improvement compared to the earlier Biden administration:

• Wages: Real hourly wages have improved slightly from $11.03 in April 2022 to $11.25 in April 2026, marking a 2% increase after adjusting for inflation.

• Inflation: The inflation rate has decreased significantly from 8.3% in April 2022 to 3.8% in April 2026.

• Economic Optimism: The TIPP Economic Optimism Index rose from 38.1 in June 2022 to 42.6 in May 2026.

• Job Growth: There are 5.9 million more private sector jobs compared to a year prior, and the number of federal workers has decreased by 190,000 since 2022.

3. Border Control: There has been a drastic reduction in illegal border crossings—from 234,088 in April 2022 to 12,836 in April 2026, regarded as a notable achievement during Trump's administration.

4. Stock Market Performance: The Dow Jones Industrial Average increased from 32,813 in May 2022 to 51,075 in May 2026, portraying a 56% rise.

5. Gas Prices: Gas prices appear relatively stagnant, sitting at $4.60 after inflation adjustment compared to $4.54 four years ago.

6. Labor Market Concerns: Despite improvements, the unemployment rate has risen from 3.7% in April 2022 to 4.3% in April 2026, and the labor force participation rate decreased slightly from 62.2% to 61.8%. Some concerns linger due to external factors like geopolitical tensions and tariff policies.

7. Voter Sentiments: The analysis suggests that voters may not view the past four years under the Democrats as favorable compared to the current economic climate. It raises the question of whether voters will want to return control to the Democrats, who they feel contributed to past economic difficulties.

As voters consider their options in the upcoming midterm elections, evaluating personal and economic progress in comparison to four years ago will be essential. The key question remains whether they have improved enough under Republican leadership to warrant keeping them in power or if they view returning to Democratic control as a viable option. 

https://issuesinsights.com/2026/06/02/midterm-voters-are-you-better-off-than-you-were-four-years-ago/

Since Lockdowns, a 12% GDP Loss; Half of US Dollar Purchasing Power Stolen

 The economic fallout from the COVID-19 lockdowns of 2020 has been far worse than commonly reported. New analyses reveal that official statistics may obscure the true losses in GDP and purchasing power, suggesting that economic recovery is more of a facade than reality.

1. Economic Damage Exceeds Official Reports: Studies suggest that the economic downturn since the lockdowns has not only resulted in a reported 26% loss in purchasing power but may have actually cut GDP by 12% or more. This highlights a stark difference between official statistics and real-world impacts on consumers.

2. Persistent Recession: Research indicates that since 2022, the U. S. has been in a state of technical recession, with GDP growth consistently remaining near zero. In contrast to optimistic claims of recovery, real economic output has decreased significantly.

3. Reality Index Initiative: A new platform, RealityIndex.co, uses AI to provide more accurate assessments of price indices and inflation, revealing that actual living costs have risen much more sharply than reported. For example, it calculates that what cost $100 in 1980 would now cost $515, while the official Consumer Price Index suggests it costs only $391.

4. Critique of Official Data Adjustments: The methods used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to calculate inflation and other economic indicators have been criticized for being overly complex and frequently changing, leading to artificially lowered indices. For instance, adjustments such as "owners’ equivalent rent" distort the actual costs of housing.

5. Consumer Sentiment Declines: Despite any purported improvements in officially reported indexes, consumer sentiment has reached historic lows, reflecting widespread discontent regarding purchasing power and economic conditions.

6. The Consequences of Lockdowns: The lockdowns are shown to have disproportionately affected middle and lower-income classes, widening economic disparities and resulting in substantial transfers of wealth to higher socioeconomic groups. This points to the lockdowns as a significant but overlooked cause of enduring economic hardship.

7. Rethinking Household Economics: The current economic model fails to account for changes in household income dynamics over the decades, such as the increase in dual-income households striving to maintain living standards, often exacerbated by rising living costs and stagnant wages.

The evidence indicates that the long-term economic damage from lockdowns has been profound and deceptive, masking a reality where economic growth appears insufficient and purchasing power has sharply declined. The gap between official reports and genuine economic experiences raises crucial concerns about the true health of the economy and the long-lasting implications of actions taken during the pandemic. This situation demands urgent attention and comprehensive analysis—highlighting the need for transparent and stable economic metrics to better understand the impact on everyday life.

https://brownstone.org/articles/since-lockdowns-a-12-gdp-loss-half-of-us-dollar-purchasing-power-stolen/