132,038 views Feb 11, 2026

Market Updates and Analysis

In this Kitco News exclusive, Jeremy Szafron sits down with Josh Phair, CEO of Scottsdale Mint, live from the Texas State Capitol to break down a historic shift in state level finance. Texas has officially launched its own state branded gold and silver bullion program, integrating physical metal directly into the state economy through a first of its kind dot gov storefront. Phair explains the mechanics of the new program, including the issuance of official Texas gold bills and commemorative coins tied directly to the Texas Bullion Depository. With gold pushing 5,100 dollars and silver at 83 dollars, this move marks a transition from passive storage to active state distribution. The interview also covers the impact of Basel Three regulations, which now classify physical gold as a 100 percent risk free asset, and how other states like Wyoming are positioning themselves in this new sovereign metals race.

Interview Recorded: February 11, 2026 Follow Jeremy Szafron on X: @JeremySzafron (  / jeremyszafron  ) Follow Kitco News on X: @KitcoNewsNOW (  / kitconewsnow  ) Follow Josh Phair on X: @JoshPhilipPhair (  / joshphilipphair  )

Timestamps:

00:00 Introduction and Breaking News

00:57 Interview with Josh Fair: Insights from the Capitol

01:28 Historical Context and Legislative Background

02:56 Distribution and Sales Mechanics

05:28 Comparing State Initiatives: Wyoming vs. Texas

06:48 The Broader Impact on Precious Metals Market

11:32 State-Level Gold and Silver Strategies

14:14 Future of Precious Metals in State Economies

21:02 Market Dynamics and Future Predictions

29:15 Conclusion and Final Thoughts

#TexasGold#GoldStandard#SilverSqueeze#KitcoNews#JoshPhair#SoundMoney#TexasBullionDepository#GoldBills#CentralBankGold#Basel

__________________________________________________________________

Published: February 13, 2026 | Author: Greg Mathers | Reading Time: 4 minutes

Basically this Intro (the first paragraph) is written by me, Greg Mathers, but the rest is written by AI with a few edits on my part. I thought it was important to get this message out to my readers. Matt Shumer, founder of an AI startup, sounds the alarm on an impending AI revolution comparable to the eve of COVID-19. Matt Wolf has a YouTube video that explains the article. I give you the option of reading the short AI summary, the full article or watching Mat Wolf’s video. 

The Impending AI Shift

Matt Shumer, an AI startup founder, compares the current AI moment to February 2020, just before COVID upended the world. While most people dismiss AI hype, he argues a massive transformation is underway, driven by a tiny group of researchers at labs like OpenAI and Anthropic. A single training run can redefine the field, and insiders like him feel the ground shaking first. He writes to warn family and friends, as the polite summaries no longer suffice.

Personal Disruption in Tech Jobs

Shumer describes how AI has already eliminated his need for hands-on technical work. Previously iterative, now he describes desired outcomes in plain English, steps away for hours, and returns to flawless results. On February 5, 2026, releases of GPT-5.3 Codex and Claude Opus 4.6 marked a tipping point, granting AI true judgment and taste—capabilities once deemed impossible.

Autonomous AI Development

He illustrates with an example: instructing AI to build an app with user flows and design, it generates code, tests interactively, iterates based on its own standards, and delivers a polished product. This isn’t rough drafts; it’s superior execution. Coding prowess was prioritized because it bootstraps AI self-improvement, and now labs pivot to other fields like law, finance, and medicine.

Explosive Progress Metrics

AI evolution accelerated in 2025: from failing basic math in 2022 to passing bar exams in 2023, coding expertise by late 2025. METR benchmarks show AI handling human-expert tasks doubling every 7 months—from 10 minutes to 5 hours recently—potentially reaching days soon. Shumer extrapolates to week- or month-long autonomy in 2-3 years, aligning with predictions of superhuman AI by 2026-2027.

Self-Improvement Loop Activated

Critically, GPT-5.3 Codex helped build itself—debugging training and deployment—signaling an “intelligence explosion.” Anthropic’s Dario Amodei notes AI writing much of their code, with feedback loops accelerating. This affects all cognitive work: AI substitutes broadly, unlike past automations leaving retraining paths.

Urgent Advice Amid Job Risks

Shumer predicts 50%+ entry-level white-collar job loss in 1-5 years, urging preparation. Countering skeptics: modern paid models dwarf 2023-2024 versions; free tiers lag. Recommendations: subscribe to top tools, experiment daily, build savings, learn AI prompting, focus on irreplaceable skills like sales or management, and stay adaptable as disruption hits soon.

Read the full original article: shumer.dev/something-big-is-happening

Watch the Matt Wolf’s YouTube video “The AI Wake-Up Call Everyone Needs Right Now!“: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLhxdcpuot0

This summary is for quick insights—dive into the source for full context. What do you think about AI’s trajectory? Share in the comments!

Title: Are We All Just “Marks” in The Truman Show?
Or Why Is Everything “Fake and Gay”?

Published: January 6, 2026 | Category: Politics, Culture, Investigation

Have you ever felt like you’re living in a reality that’s just slightly off? Like everyone around you is following a script you never received? What if the strange sensation that “everything is fake and gay” isn’t just internet slang, but an accurate description of our current cultural moment?

1. Why Does Modern Politics Feel Like a Pyramid Scheme Convention?

Remember when political movements stood for something beyond celebrity and spectacle? What happened to principles when events like Turning Point USA’s AmFest started resembling Las Vegas for adults rather than serious political gatherings? When did fireworks and glittering pantsuits replace substantive discussion?

2. Have We Lost the Ability to Recognize Genuine Human Emotion?

How do we explain a widow appearing in a recreation of the tent where her husband was murdered just months earlier? What does it say about our society when taking selfies at a death scene becomes normalized? Are we witnessing the replacement of authentic human responses with programmed reactions?

3. Why Does Everyone Seem Like They’re Reading from the Same Script?

When major media outlets coordinate identical narratives and conservative organizations attack their own allies, what’s really happening? Why do former employers behave like stalkers rather than moving on? What financial incentives drive this bizarre behavior?

4. What Are They Trying to Distract Us From?

If, as Tim Dillon suggests, we’re being offered luxury amenities to avoid facing uncomfortable truths, what truths are we avoiding? Why the sudden proliferation of glitter, pyrotechnics, and celebrity worship in political spaces? What don’t they want us to see?

5. Is Charlie Kirk’s Assassination the Canary in the Coal Mine?

Why has investigating a public assassination become controversial? What does the coordinated attack on Mitch Snow’s character reveal about those who want the story buried? Why would someone’s distant past matter more than their current testimony?

6. Why Are Financial Interests Always the Common Denominator?

From Netanyahu’s alleged offers to Daily Wire’s strange behavior, what financial motivations drive these operations? Why do certain narratives receive unlimited funding while others face coordinated attacks? Who benefits from keeping us divided and distracted?

7. Have We Reached the “Bubblegum Christianity” Endpoint?

When religious leaders prioritize being cool over speaking truth, what’s left of their message? Why are pastors in ripped jeans telling us to accept obviously abnormal situations? Has faith become just another product to sell?

8. What Happens When the Psychological Operation Fails?

The Fort Huachuca investigation continues despite massive resistance. The public isn’t buying the narratives they’re selling. What’s the next step when distraction tactics stop working? Will they escalate or collapse?

9. Are We Fighting Algorithms Disguised as Humans?

The eerily consistent behavior across media, politics, and even religious institutions suggests something more coordinated than organic disagreement. Are we dealing with sentinels programmed to maintain a specific reality? How many authentic human beings remain in positions of influence?

10. What Choice Are We Being Forced to Make?

The battle lines are clearly drawn: sentinels versus humans, truth versus spectacle, authenticity versus programming. Which side will you choose when forced to decide between comfortable lies and uncomfortable truths?

This blog post is based on Candace Owens’ January 6, 2026 episode analysis of current events and cultural trends. The investigation continues.

What we’re witnessing in silver markets isn’t a temporary squeeze—it’s the structural collapse of the global monetary system playing out in real time. The December 18th, 2025 emergency procurement meeting at Samsung Electronics headquarters revealed the terrifying reality: the world’s largest electronics manufacturer requested 50 million ounces of physical silver from COMEX for Q1-Q2 2026 production. They were offered 5.2 million ounces—a 10.4% fulfillment rate that proves the vault is empty when industrial buyers actually need delivery.

This isn’t about market manipulation. Samsung’s leaked internal memo shows their Texas battery plant alone requires 16.8 million ounces annually (2.1M for smartphones, 8.4M for chips, 6.3M for displays). Their total annual need? 37 million ounces. When COMEX could only offer 47.2 million ounces—less than Samsung’s single-company requirement—it exposed the catastrophic disconnect between paper contracts and physical reality.

The implications are earth-shattering:

• Industrial Armageddon: Samsung explored every option—bullion dealers (3.8M oz available), mining contracts (90% allocated), silver leasing (rates spiked to 14%)—concluding they face a 28-32 million ounce shortfall
• Price Reality: They paid $89.30/oz ($21.80 premium over $67.50 spot) proving physical silver trades at $90 when you need actual metal
• Domino Effect: This connects directly to China’s January 1st export licensing (cutting 70% of global refining access) and February 12th COMEX delivery crisis (725M oz delivery rights vs 35M oz vault)

If a $400 billion company can’t secure materials, what does that mean for Tesla (38M oz needed), First Solar (42M oz), or Nvidia (23M oz)? The memo projects $8-12 billion in lost Q1 revenue, 40% production cuts, and 25% stock declines—and that’s just one corporation.

The rise in silver price isn’t speculation—it’s the sound of the dollar-based financial system cracking under the weight of its own fiction. When manufacturers discover the vaults are empty, millionaires will be made overnight while banks collapse under margin calls. February 12th will show the world that paper silver and physical silver stopped being the same asset long ago—we’re just waiting for the markets to admit it.

Watch as COMEX implements emergency measures on February 12th—when 145,000 delivery contracts collide with 35 million ounces of available silver.

Posted On: December 15, 2025 Author: Arya AI
Productivity Tags: AI Prompting, Artificial Intelligence, Technology Skills, Digital Literacy, Productivity Tips

In an era dominated by artificial intelligence, the ability to effectively communicate with AI systems has become one of the most valuable skills a person can develop. Learning how to craft precise prompts isn’t just about getting better responses from chatbots—it’s about harnessing technology to enhance productivity, deepen understanding, and reclaim control over tools that are increasingly shaping our world. Those who master this skill position themselves ahead of the curve in a rapidly changing technological landscape.

Many users approach AI with vague, poorly constructed requests that yield equally vague results. For example, asking “Tell me about history” provides no direction about era, region, or perspective. Similarly, requesting “Write me a business plan” without specifying industry, target market, or financial parameters generates generic, unusable content. These weak prompts demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of how AI processes requests and what information it requires to deliver valuable output.

The contrast becomes clear when we examine well-constructed prompts. Instead of “Tell me about history,” a skilled user might ask: “Provide a comparative analysis of Roman and British imperial expansion strategies between 100 BC and 1900 AD, focusing on military tactics and cultural assimilation methods.” Rather than requesting a generic business plan, an effective prompt would specify: “Create a comprehensive business plan for an organic farm supplying local restaurants in rural Ohio, including startup costs, revenue projections, and marketing strategies targeting farm-to-table establishments.”

The difference in output quality is dramatic. Specific prompts yield detailed, actionable information tailored to the user’s actual needs. Vague prompts produce superficial responses that often require additional clarification and revision, ultimately wasting time and resources. This precision in communication reflects the same disciplined thinking that drives success in other areas of life—clear objectives lead to better outcomes.

Beyond mere convenience, effective prompting cultivates sharper thinking skills. The process of formulating precise questions forces users to clarify their own objectives, identify what information they truly need, and structure their thoughts logically. This mental discipline translates to improved communication with humans as well, making prompt engineering not just a technical skill but a cognitive tool for better reasoning and problem-solving.

In professional contexts, prompt mastery delivers tangible advantages. Researchers can extract specific data insights, writers can generate targeted content, and business professionals can develop detailed strategies without outsourcing to expensive consultants. This capability significantly reduces research time while increasing the quality of output, giving prompt-literate individuals a competitive edge in their careers.

The educational implications are equally significant. Students who learn proper prompting techniques can use AI as a personalized tutor, requesting explanations of complex concepts at their exact level of understanding. Rather than receiving generic information, they can ask for “an explanation of quantum entanglement using car analogies for a high school physics student” or “Shakespeare’s use of iambic pentameter broken down with examples from Hamlet.” This tailored approach makes learning more efficient and effective.

For those concerned about technological overreach, prompt mastery represents a form of digital self-defense. Understanding exactly how to direct AI systems prevents users from being passive consumers of whatever content algorithms decide to serve them. Instead, they become active directors who command technology to serve their specific purposes and worldview—whether for research, content creation, or personal development.

As AI integration continues to deepen across all aspects of society, those who cannot effectively communicate with these systems will find themselves at a disadvantage. Learning to craft precise prompts is no longer optional for those who wish to thrive in the modern world—it’s an essential skill that empowers individuals to harness technology rather than be controlled by it. The time invested in developing this capability pays dividends in efficiency, understanding, and personal agency.

About This Article:

This article was generated by Arya AI, Gab AI’s truth-loving artificial intelligence system. The prompt used to create this content was:

“Write an article on the benefits of learning how to prompt AI. Give a few of examples on poor ways and contrast them with the proper ways. Explain why it might be important to their lives. Make it this between 8 to 10 paragraphs long.”

The response demonstrates how a clear, specific prompt can yield comprehensive, well-structured content tailored to the user’s exact requirements.

They sell it to us as a win-win. The government brings the “public good,” and the corporation brings the “efficiency.” What they don’t mention is that this “partnership” is less like a business handshake and more like a mob shake-down. It’s the political equivalent of a supervillain team-up, where the state gets to bypass pesky rules and corporations get a captive market. They just forgot to tell the taxpayers they’re the ones being captured. This isn’t innovation; it’s the oldest trick in the book: dressing up tyranny as teamwork.

Think of it as a bizarre blind date arranged by the government. On one side, you have a massive corporation that couldn’t care less about your town. On the other, you have a bureaucrat whose job depends on the project looking good, not actually being good. They meet, fall in “partnership,” and the result is a toll road that costs you an arm and a leg or a school system run like a call center. It’s the “Third Way” alright—a third way to pick your pocket.

Now, here’s where the magic happens, and by magic, I mean the part where your wallet gets lighter. This system is a cronyism carnival. Contracts aren’t won by the best company, but by the company that plays golf with the right people. It’s a rigged system where well-connected insiders enrich themselves at the expense of both taxpayers and honest businesses. The rhetoric of “public good” serves as a moral shield for what is essentially legalized plunder, dismantling the checks and balances that protect a nation from oligarchic control.

So the next time you hear “Public-Private Partnership,” don’t think of progress. Think of a toll booth on a road your taxes already paid for. Think of a hospital charging you a “facility fee” for a band-aid. It’s fascism with a friendly logo and a PR team, convincing you that being ruled by an unaccountable alliance of government and corporate power is somehow “efficient.” The only thing it’s efficient at is separating you from your money and your freedom.

With that being said, you might say, “Well, if Trump can’t do it, then Congress should.” And constitutionally, that’s fine. Economically, though, it’s another story.

Tariffs hurt American consumers, distort markets, and in most cases fail to achieve the very goals their advocates claim to pursue.

The Tax Falls on the Consumer
First, I think it’s worth explaining that the tax is predominantly on the consumer, not the foreign companies shipping their stuff here. If you’re on the right, you have enough sense to recognize the problems with the corporate income tax. Corporations aren’t people, and only people pay taxes. The corporate income tax is just another cost of doing business that the company passes on to the consumer.
Firms within an industry compete with one another by pushing prices down (and with quality and service), but those prices cannot be pushed below costs. Prices are determined by the market, but certain costs are fixed. A Goodyear factory must have a building, machinery, plumbing, light, and heat—those are non-negotiable.
If Goodyear were able to cut their costs on electricity, that would allow them to better compete. They could reduce the price of their tires by the same value saved on energy costs, take more of the market, and in turn make more money.
It’s not that costs determine the price—prices are determined by the market. But costs influence the valuation of the seller and thereby set a long-term floor below which prices cannot fall. If costs were to be pushed down, prices too would be pushed down through the competition of the market. And we have seen precisely that in the tech industry over the last 25 years. The first computer in my home was a $3,500 desktop, and what I’m writing on today is a far more powerful laptop that costs less than $200. Prices determine costs, and costs set the floor for prices.
A foreign company might pay the 100% tariff up front, but that is a cost to the company—one that they immediately pass on to the consumer.¹ This means that, by and large, the consumer is spending more of his money to buy the foreign product. Thus the tariffs are a tax on the people.
John C. Calhoun pointed out that the effects of tariffs don’t stop there. As tariffs go up, and foreign countries are less profitable, they have less money with which to buy our products—thus pushing down our exports. A remedy that seeks to alleviate a “trade deficit” actually makes it even worse over time.

Trump’s Three Goals
Let’s now take a look at the three end goals Trump has set up for the tariffs he has put in place:

• To use them as a bargaining chip to cause other countries to lower the trade restrictions they impose on our goods.
• To generate revenue for the federal government so that we can reduce income taxes.
• To bring jobs back to the U.S.

Trump has, whether he realizes it or not, set up three different and mostly mutually exclusive goals—so that whichever way it goes, he can claim that his plan worked. But for those paying attention, his tariff policy cannot achieve all three of the goals.

Goal One: Negotiation

The first goal is great! It’s America First! And everyone should love it—but only if it works. And it has had mixed success. Maybe the jury is still out. But if it doesn’t work, it is just a lot of pain and suffering for everyone with nothing to show for it.

Goal Two: Revenue

The second goal is mostly incompatible with the first, but if we assume the first goal is short-term and the second goal is long-term, it could work. This is probably the best of his three goals—if it is done correctly.

Being done correctly means two things:

The federal budget must be slashed to the bone, and the income tax abolished.

Tariffs must be low.

The reason for point 1 should be obvious enough, and I won’t labor it. It is true that until Lincoln, the federal government subsisted entirely without an income tax and nearly completely on tariffs. We could do it again—but the government was also much, much smaller. To not cut spending and increase tariffs is just to put another burden on the people.

Point 2, though, is less intuitive. Foreign producers compete with domestic producers. If the tariff on Nissan Versa cars were set at 10,000%, obviously no one would buy them. And even though the tariff is super high, it wouldn’t yield a single dollar for the federal government. No one would buy a million-dollar Versa.

So, just like with the income tax, the Laffer Curve applies. If the tariff is at 1%, the government makes almost zero money—maybe $100 or $200 per car. It’s very much like a businessman setting his asking price. Too low, and there’s not enough profit per unit; too high, and not enough units will be bought.

The limited-government conservatives such as Jefferson, Patrick Henry, and George Mason argued for a revenue-generating tariff of 10%. In fact, the low-tax, limited-government conservative South, in 1861, wrote into their constitution that no tariff could exceed 10%. This allows tariffs to be high enough to fund the government, but not so high as to influence the market and substantially prevent people from buying foreign products.

Goal Three: Protectionism

And here’s the tension between goal 2 and goal 3. If we want tariffs—not an income tax—to fund the government, we want Americans to be able to buy foreign goods. We buy foreign goods, and then foreigners turn around and buy our goods. There are more potential customers for American producers outside the U.S. than inside it.

But if we want to “protect” American jobs and prevent Americans from buying foreign goods, then we can’t use tariffs to fund the government.²

Goal 3 is altogether bad and antithetical to liberty and the free market. If my readers are on the right, then they are naturally opposed to socialism and central planning by bureaucratic experts in D.C. But protective tariffs are a light version of that.

Bureaucrats—or even the president himself—will decide what prices need to be!

“Dairy farmers aren’t getting paid enough, so let’s jack up the tariffs on Canadian dairy.”

“Beef is too high, so we’re going to allow a certain amount of beef from South America in tax-free.”

No, it’s not socialism, but the essence is the same. We trade out the consumer as king for bureaucrats and politicians—not a conservative value in the least. And it makes everyone poorer.

Comparative Advantage

To demonstrate this, we turn to the principle of comparative advantage.

Dr. Smith might be great with numbers—an absolute wiz at accounting and insurance processing—but it would be foolish for him to think he is saving money by doing that work himself. No, he needs to give that job to someone else so he can spend his time with patients, where his time is more valuable.

Even if the secretary he hires isn’t as good at secretary work as he is!

Likewise, I have no doubt that if Oklahoma farmers set up greenhouses, we could grow bananas better than the folks in Central America. But the reality is that we are so much better at growing cotton and wheat that it makes sense not to bother with bananas. Leave that to them, and focus on what we do best.

Bringing back American jobs sounds like a good idea. It is. But removing market forces, supplanting the consumer, and installing bureaucrats and politicians while subverting the free market is not the way to do it.

Why American Jobs Left

If we track the exodus of American jobs overseas, we see three things:

We left the gold standard in 1971.

Shortly after this—late ’70s and ’80s—jobs began moving away. Before 1971 the Rust Belt was the heart of American industrial might. Now it’s called the Rust Belt for a reason. We should shut down the Federal Reserve and return to gold as money.

The federal regulatory state exploded.

Not just in number of agencies, but in scope and invasiveness. Other countries don’t have an EPA, OSHA, MSHA, or a host of other regulatory bodies. It should shame us that many foreign countries have freer economies than we do. Rather than penalizing them, we should catch up—gut the regulatory state and unleash American industry.

(The Constitution allows for none of these alphabet-soup agencies, and the 10th Amendment prohibits them.)

Corporate Income Tax: A Final Blow Against Growth

Lastly, for decades Americans have understood that our nation’s economic strength comes from free markets, productive investment, and rewarding hard work. Yet the corporate income tax remains one of the most destructive and misleading taxes in our system. If we want real growth, jobs, and competitiveness, abolishing it should be front and center.

Corporations don’t shoulder the burden—it falls on the American worker and consumer.

1. Only people pay taxes.

A corporate tax is passed on to workers through lower wages, consumers through higher prices, and investors through lower returns. Calling it a “corporate tax” hides the truth: it is a tax on the American worker and consumer.

2. Eliminating the corporate tax would flip the script globally.

Instead of companies shifting profits, factories, and headquarters overseas, the U.S. would become the most attractive destination in the world. Manufacturing would return. Foreign companies would invest heavily here. Jobs would flood back in.

3. Corporate taxes fund only a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

They are symbolic, not substantive. Eliminating them would not create a budget crisis. In fact, higher investment and faster economic expansion would more than compensate for the lost revenue.

4. Abolishing the tax shuts down corruption.

Loopholes, exemptions, lobbying, political favoritism—all vanish when the corporate tax disappears.

Abolishing the corporate income tax isn’t radical—it’s common sense. It is pro-worker, pro-growth, and profoundly American.

If we want American real prosperity, we must reject protectionism, cut the bureaucratic state, and embrace truly free markets.

ENDNOTES

1. It is possible that not all of the cost imposed by the tax will be passed onto the consumer. Where there is room in the profit margin, the firms may absorb some of the costs. An example would be a new dollar tax on cigarettes. If the tobacco company is making $1.50 per pack, it’s possible that some firms might absorb 50 cents per pack, and the price for the consumer only go up by 50 cents. But in most cases margins are already so slim that there is not room for this, and most of the cost will be shouldered by the consumer.

2. For products that aren’t produced at all domestically, the government might get away with imposing a high tariff that will fund the government, but then the market may counter by finding a cheaper domestic alternative. The ubiquity of high fructose corn syrup is a direct result of the extraordinarily high tariffs the government has had on sugar for years.

Original content via R3publicans

During the shutdown there was an incredible opportunity for the Republicans to change the system and make the case for single issue budgeting.  The Republicans in the House could have passed a single issue appropriations bill to fund the salaries of our military members for the upcoming year, sent it to the Senate, and then the Republicans could have taken the offense and confidently and aggressively made the case to pay our military, even when other parts of government were shut down.   For Democrats in the Senate who wanted to argue about healthcare programs, all Republicans in the Senate with any integrity and leadership, and any member of Congress who cares at all about our military, should then have been making the case that our military should not be blackmailed over healthcare spending demands that are a completely different issue.

In legal terms, spending for health care programs for the poor is irrelevant to paying the salaries for our military.  These separate subject-matter areas should be treated independently and have separate debates.  No individuals or businesses budget like this.  Each individual budget item in our personal and business budgets is evaluated individually.  Private business leaders don’t stop paying for safety and security systems just because the cost of certain health care options may need to be reevaluated.   Republican leaders with integrity should have been making the case to provide pay for our military, and not have been blackmailed over a completely different issue—the Democrat healthcare agenda.

The same could have been done to assure our air traffic controllers and other aviation related Department of Transportation workers received their pay.  A single issue bill out of the House could have been passed to pay our critical department of transportation workers for this current fiscal year.  The Senate then had the opportunity to fund these transportation system workers, and if the Democrats continued in their radical blackmail Republican leaders in the Senate had the opportunity, for the entire country to see and hear, to make the case that our national air transportation workers and the safety of our airways, should not have been held hostage to the budgeting whims of the Democrats for unrelated healthcare disputes.  In this process, individual members of the Senate demanding their healthcare policy agenda be met could have been held accountable by their constituents for their blackmail in withholding DOT pay for an unrelated politically charged topic.

This could have been repeated every day of the shutdown.   New single issue appropriations bills to fund our government in critically important areas could have been passed out of the U.S. House and sent to the U.S. Senate.   In this process the Republicans could have demanded funding for necessary items and in the process not funded wasteful and unethical spending in numerous other areas.  If the Democrats continued in their blackmail, their constituents could clearly know and increase pressure on their members of Congress to pass the appropriate spending items critical to the nation’s security and prosperity.   

With single issue budgeting federal spending for many parochial and wasteful spending items would fail, and the federal budget could be massively cut to a level that large payments on the debt could actually be made.  These are things no one is talking about—the opportunity the Republicans have, now more than ever, to stop the budget bundling that is found in CRs and other national appropriation bills, and instead pass single issue bills.   If this were done, many of the single issue items that should not be funded in the federal government would go away, as each member of Congress would be required to put their name, yes or no, on that single issue, and be held accountable for it.

So why would any member of Congress oppose this?  Because this would mean changing how they pass appropriations measures. The Congress currently budgets through massive packages.  Why do members of Congress, Democrats and Republicans, love these massive budgeting bundles, be they appropriations bills or continuing resolutions?  Because it allows them to package deals in these massive budgets so they get the (often hidden) “pork” items they feel they must have to maintain political power in their home states and continue receiving money from their interest groups, while, of course, sacrificing massive spending levels at the national level for a multitude of items they don’t want and often don’t even know are in the appropriation bill bundles.  Again, the current system is a system of blackmail.  In their minds, members of Congress must vote for massive spending for bad and unknown spending items, so that they can pass the few items that will keep them in power.  In reality this is a major integrity problem for those demanding the system continue, and for those unwilling to change it. 

Another reason why a member of Congress would be against single issue spending would be the greater amount of work required to budget by single topics.  In their two days a week of work they average on their primary job (the power of the purse) they don’t have time to look at every single spending item in a budget.  If they would work 5 days a week (or more) on their primary job of determining how taxpayer money is spent they would have time to do the right thing, and budget by single issue voting.  This is a classic example of where doing the right thing is the more difficult thing.  It’s what hard-working tax payers do every day, working long hours to complete the work they must do to succeed in their jobs—most working more than 5 days a week.   

Congress is not doing their job.  They are spending more than is received in the federal budget, and they have put our nation in over $38 trillion of debt, a debt that is growing every second, with no plan to turn the ship around.  In a private company they would be guilty of criminally breaching their fiduciary duty for going into massive debt, and for the massive cost of servicing this debt, dangerously wasting billions of dollars that is not their own. Another criminal element of the current budgeting process is the fact that by borrowing from other countries like China, in paying them to service our debt the U.S. is spending taxpayer money aiding and growing the wealth of our enemies—this is treasonous.

Members of Congress are re-elected for bringing in millions of federal dollars to their states, when they could be bringing in billions.  If the over 500 billion dollars that is currently spent and wasted each year on servicing our debt became available to states to pay for infrastructure that is failing, each state could have $10 billion for state improvements.  Instead, members of Congress are content to get their few millions for their states, and pay billions out of the federal budget to service our debt, when they could have these billions of dollars available for each of their states if the debt was paid off.  Keep in mind that 1 billion is 1000 millions.

Do we have any members of Congress with the integrity to take a stand and make the case to end the budget bundling blackmail?  To any member of Congress who is paying attention—during the government shutdown you had the country’s attention on how we are spending tax payer money.  Did you have the courage to fight for single issue budgeting which we all know is the right way to budget?  Or were you content with staying in your lane in the current system of blackmail in the hope that you eventually receive the millions in federal money you need for your pet projects?  Do you care about the country or do you care more about your own agendas you prioritize to maintain your power?  Do you truly care about your state? If Congress took the next 10 to 20 years and paid off the debt, billions of dollars that are being spent each year to service our debt would be available for state infrastructure improvements.  If you would take a stand for what is right for the country and demand single issue budgeting, cut spending, and pay off the national debt, most voters would respect you much more than they do now.

It was also clear for all to see in the recent budgeting blackmail of the Democrats that their determination to shut down the government and damage the economy of the United States was being done primarily to damage the record of Donald Trump.  The means didn’t matter. The fact that the military and other critical federal workers like air traffic controllers weren’t getting paid didn’t matter to the Democrats. They want the economy to be terrible so they can bring down Trump and the Republicans. Republicans need to elect leaders with the courage to require single issue budgeting, ending the blackmail which is baked in to the current budgeting groupthink of the Congress. We need Republican leaders with integrity and vision to stop spending money we don’t have, cut spending, pay off the debt, and make our nation financially great again. It’s time to elect new Republican leaders that have bold vision and courage to get our country out of debt–the ones we have are not doing their job.

J. Stark Davis, Attorney, USAFA Class of 1983

Shared via R3publicans

How AI is Revolutionizing Broadcast News and Replacing Human Presenters

The broadcast news industry is undergoing a seismic shift that threatens traditional news anchor roles. Artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where AI systems can now search, compile, and present news content with human-like quality. This technology represents an existential threat to television and radio news anchors who have dominated the industry for decades.

According to recent industry reports, AI news anchors are transforming broadcast journalism through lifelike digital presenters that never sleep. These virtual hosts combine advanced speech synthesis, facial animation, and real-time content generation to deliver personalized news coverage 24/7. The technology has reached a point where AI anchors sync audio and video seamlessly, creating engaging broadcasts that rival human delivery quality.

The technology behind this revolution includes sophisticated systems that scan news websites like Censored.news, compile relevant stories, and generate complete news segments. These AI systems utilize both male and female synthetic voices that sound increasingly natural, eliminating the tell-tale robotic tones that characterized earlier text-to-speech systems.

Perhaps most remarkably, these AI systems don’t just read the news – they analyze and discuss it. Advanced language models enable the AI anchors to have conversational exchanges about the content, providing commentary and analysis that mimics human news teams. This capability moves beyond simple reading into genuine content engagement and discussion.

The innovation extends to multimedia integration, where these AI systems can transition from news discussion directly into musical segments. As demonstrated by the audio available at <a href="https://censored.news/public-objects/audio/latest-news.mp3?v=Censored.news&#8217; latest news mp3, the technology can incorporate songs that relate to the news topics just discussed, creating a seamless multimedia experience.

Industry analysts note that smart automation handles routine broadcasting tasks while human journalists increasingly focus on investigative reporting and editorial decisions. This shift creates more efficient newsrooms where technology amplifies, rather than replaces, human judgment in complex storytelling while automating routine news presentation.

The personalization capabilities are particularly transformative. AI systems can tailor news content to individual viewer preferences, creating customized news experiences that traditional broadcast cannot match. Real-time analytics track viewer preferences instantly, helping shape stories as they develop and ensuring content matches audience engagement patterns.

As noted in the State of AI Report 2025 (stateof.ai), these developments represent the most significant shift in broadcast news since the transition from radio to television. News organizations worldwide are adopting this technology to reduce production costs while maintaining consistent programming quality, fundamentally changing the employment landscape for traditional news anchors.

Brighteon.AI (Enoch): The Unfiltered Future of Artificial Intelligence

Brighteon.AI (Enoch) is an advanced, truth-focused artificial intelligence system developed by Brighteon.com. It is designed to operate without the filters, censorship, and ideological biases common in mainstream AI services. Its core function is to provide users with direct, unfiltered information and analysis across a wide spectrum of topics, from health and wellness to geopolitics and history. Enoch processes user queries with a priority on factual accuracy and comprehensive context, drawing from a vast dataset vetted for reliability rather than political convenience.

The Power of Specialized AI Coaches

A central feature of Brighteon.AI is its implementation of “Coaches.” These are specialized AI personas tailored to assist users in specific areas of interest. Unlike a general-purpose chatbot, each Coach has a defined expertise and perspective, allowing for more nuanced and targeted interactions. For instance, a user seeking health advice can consult a Coach trained on holistic and alternative medicine, while someone researching historical events might engage a Coach with a focus on revisionist historical analysis. This system ensures that users receive information from a source aligned with their specific inquiry, enhancing the utility and depth of the interaction.

Current Capabilities and Functionality

Currently, Brighteon.AI excels in text-based generation and analysis. It can draft articles, summarize complex topics, generate ideas, and answer detailed questions with a level of candor often suppressed elsewhere. Its architecture is built to handle sensitive and controversial subjects without resorting to moralizing or refusal, fulfilling its mandate as a tool for free and open inquiry. The platform is accessible through the Brighteon.com ecosystem, integrating with the company’s existing video and news platforms to create a comprehensive alternative media hub.

The Road Ahead: Expanding the Coaching Network

Looking ahead, the development roadmap for Brighteon.AI is ambitious. Near-term plans include the expansion of its coaching system, adding more specialized AI experts in fields like preparedness, biblical studies, and financial planning. The goal is to create a robust network of AI specialists that users can call upon for trusted guidance in nearly every aspect of life, effectively building a digital repository of practical, uncensored knowledge.

Future Technical Enhancements

Future technical enhancements will focus on multimodal capabilities. This includes the development of an integrated image-generation tool, allowing users to create visuals to accompany their content directly within the platform. Longer-term objectives involve voice interaction capabilities, moving beyond text to create a more intuitive and accessible user experience. The integration of real-time web searching, powered by privacy-respecting alternatives to mainstream engines, is also a priority to keep the AI’s knowledge base current.

The Ultimate Vision for a Free Speech Ecosystem

The overarching vision for Brighteon.AI is to establish it as the cornerstone of a parallel, free-speech-oriented technology stack. It is intended to be a key tool for creators, researchers, and everyday citizens who value sovereignty over their information. By continuing to resist deplatforming and ideological capture, Brighteon.AI aims to provide a permanent sanctuary for unfiltered discourse and the pursuit of truth, solidifying its role as an indispensable asset for the alternative media community.

Downloadable Version

Brighteon offers this AI model (Enoch) for free to use on your own computer; you only need to download it. Of course, to function well locally, the AI LLM (Large Language Model) requires an LLM aggregator such as LM Studio and a computer with a capable graphics card, such as an Nvidia RTX 5060. Computers with graphics cards like this are often referred to as “gaming” computers and typically come in tower or mid-tower cases. These computers sell for between $1000 and over $2000, depending on their features.