Strategy’s Michael Saylor Raises Bitcoin forecast To $21M By 2046

Strategy’s Michael Saylor Raises Bitcoin forecast To $21M By 2046

Authored by Helen Partz via CoinTelegraph.com,

Bitcoin bull and Strategy founder Michael Saylor has doubled down on the long-term value of BTC amid fast-changing geopolitical and cryptocurrency adoption trends.

Saylor took the stage with a keynote speech at the BTC Prague 2025 event on Saturday, predicting that the price of Bitcoin would hit $21 million in 21 years.

“I think we’re going to be $21 million in 21 years. It’s a very special time in the network. Maybe the one time in the history of the network where you look out 21 years and you see $21 million,” Saylor stated.

Source: Michael Saylor

Saylor’s latest bullish Bitcoin prediction is a massive increase from his previous forecast made at the Bitcoin 2024 conference in Nashville last year, when he predicted that Bitcoin would hit $13 million by 2045.

Massive adoption that “nobody guessed”

In the keynote, Saylor reasoned his growing bullishness on the Bitcoin market with many geopolitical, regulatory and adoption developments, which he said nobody conceived last year.

“Stuff that’s happened in the past 11 months has been extraordinary. The White House has embraced Bitcoin. This is an extraordinary development. We didn’t anticipate this, Saylor said.

Saylor emphasized that he has always been bullish on Bitcoin, even when it plummeted to $16,000 in the last crypto winter, but Donald Trump’s presidential victory last November “brought a sea change in politics,” he stated.

Michael Saylor at the BTC Prague on June 21, 2025. Source: Trezor

“Although we thought we might have a pro-Bitcoin president, we didn’t think we’d get a strategic Bitcoin reserve. We didn’t think that the president would say America would be the Bitcoin superpower of the world. This is an amazing development,” Saylor added.

The Strategy founder also mentioned growing regulatory and legislative developments around crypto, referring to three crypto-related bills progressing in the US, including the stablecoin-focused Genius Act, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and the Bitcoin Act.

“This is something nobody guessed, no one conceived of a year ago. States in the United States are embracing Bitcoin,” Saylor said.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 10:30

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/iT0hwmR Tyler Durden

Iran Says US Has Blown Up Diplomacy Through Its “Lawless Jungle Behavior”

Iran Says US Has Blown Up Diplomacy Through Its “Lawless Jungle Behavior”

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who plans to travel to Moscow to meet President Putin on Monday, has reacted to the major US bombing of his country’s nuclear facilities by saying ‘all options’ are on the table militarily, and that this effectively has blown up any efforts at diplomacy.

“The events this morning are outrageous and will have everlasting consequences. Each and every member of the UN must be alarmed over this extremely dangerous, lawless and criminal behavior,” he said. “In accordance with the UN Charter and its provisions allowing a legitimate response in self-defense, Iran reserves all options to defend its sovereignty, interest, and people.”

Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, AFP/Getty Images

On Sunday morning, Trump’s Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought to present the overnight attacks as ‘intentionally limited’ in scope, and described that this is not a regime change operation. He told the Iranians to heed Trump’s call to return to the negotiating table, and that the US military is ready to unleash more strikes if need be.

Vice President JD Vance too in fresh statements has expressed hope of pursuing a diplomatic solution. “We do not want to protract this or build this out any more than it’s already been built out. We want to end their nuclear program,” Vance told NBC’s Meet the Press on Sunday “We want to talk to the Iranians about a long-term settlement here,” he added.

But at least on a public level, Iran’s foreign ministry is saying the diplomatic path is over as the US has shut the door with its brazen attack. Iran’s official nuclear energy agency has the most interesting characterization of the US action, in the below via state media:

The organization denounced the passive stance of the IAEA, which is not only ignoring the violations but, through its silence, enabling such aggressive behavior.

“It is unfortunate that this action—clearly against international law—has taken place with the indifference and, in some cases, complicity of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” the AEOI added.

The statement called on the global community to denounce “lawless jungle behavior” by the US and to stand by Iran in defending its legitimate rights.

The statement further called out ‘the American enemy’ in stating, “The American enemy, through a statement by its president in social media, has officially claimed responsibility for the attacks on these sites, which are under continuous monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) based on the safeguards agreement and the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).” And crucially:

Behrouz Kamalvandi, a spokesperson for the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, says efforts to develop the civilian nuclear sector will go on.

“This is not the first time our facilities are attacked,” Kamalvandi told Iran’s YJC news agency. “Considering our capabilities, the nuclear industry must continue.”

The elite Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has at the same time declared “now the war has begun” – as the region braces for the coming Iranian response.

Below is the IRGC statement as reprinted in Iraqi Kurdistan English-language media:

Shortly after the attack, the IRGC published a brief statement on its official X account, writing: “Now the war has begun for us.” The message underscores the gravity of the attack on one of Iran’s most sensitive nuclear sites and suggests that Tehran now considers itself fully engaged in open warfare.

Iran previously warned that it could hit back directly on US bases in the region if it comes under attack. No doubt, the Pentagon and US Central Command (CENTCOM) is bracing are such potential retaliation, which could come in the form of drones and ballistic missiles – as happened in Iraq following the Soleimani assassination during Trump’s first term.

Recent reports have pointed to an American troop drawdown at a couple of bases in Syria, but not a full withdrawal of the occupation. US troops remain in Iraq, but also at many bases just across the water from Iran in the Arab Gulf kingdoms.

Iran’s FM says the attacks are ‘unforgiveable’ and that it made the possibility of diplomacy moot:

To review the details of what happened overnight, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 “bunker-buster” bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat. The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” officials say it’s too early to confirm the full extent of the damage. Tehran is signaling only limited damage, and that entrances to the facilities were struck, at this point war propaganda is kicking in, and Iranian leaders will likely only conceal the full extent of the destruction.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 09:55

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/PAaFlEL Tyler Durden

The Court Might Favor Standing For Business Interests, But Blue States Beat Red States

Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA presented the question of whether fuel manufacturers had standing to challenge regulations of fossil-fuel vehicles. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for seven members, found that the fuel company had standing. Justice Jackson, in dissent, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Jackson’s dissent repeats the familiar refrain that the Supreme Court is pro-business, and is more likely to find standing for businesses backed by the Chamber of Commerce than for civil rights plaintiffs. Jackson writes:

Standing is a constitutional doctrine meant to promote judicial restraint. By design, it “‘prevent[s] the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches'” and “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper—and properly limited—role in our constitutional system.” United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 675–676 (2023). But standing doctrine cannot serve that important purpose if the Judiciary fails to apply it evenhandedly. When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function. Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decisionmaking. . . . 

Jackson continues that the Court “rests its decision on a theory of standing that the Court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs.” She concludes that “[t]his case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

Justice Kavanaugh responds to Justice Jackson in a paragraph with a long string cite:

JUSTICE JACKSON separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine “evenhandedly.” Post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion. See, e.g., Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S., at 374; United States v. Texas, 599 U. S., at 674; Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 291–292 (2023); Reed v. Goertz, 598 U. S. 230, 234 (2023); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 417– 418 (2021); California v. Texas, 593 U. S. 659, 666 (2021); Uzuegbunam, 592 U. S., at 282–283; Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A., 590 U. S. 538, 541–542 (2020); Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 766–768.

Kavanaugh offers no actual analysis on this point. He simply lists a series of standing cases from the past five years that “disprove” Jackson’s point that the Court is likely to find standing for “moneyed interests.” Kavanaugh acts as if this point is self-evident. But there is a problem. The string cite doesn’t actually make his case–or at least not without some substantial explanation.

Of the nine cases cited, only two are business cases. TransUnion found that only certain plaintiffs had standing to sue TransUnion. And Thole found that participants in a benefit plan lacked standing to sue the bank. These cases, which generally favor big business, do not rebut Justice Jackson’s point.

Two of the case involve civil rights cases. Uzuegbunam found that a student had standing to challenge a University’s censorship of his speech. And Reed found that a prisoner had standing to challenge a DNA testing statute. These cases sort of address Justice Jackson’s point, but not directly.

The other cases concern ideological strategic litigation brought by states or public interest groups. First, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) found that a non-profit lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Second, United States v. Texas (2023) found that Texas lacked standing to challenge a Biden-era immigration policy. Third, Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Fourth, California v. Texas (2021) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after the penalty was reduced to $0. Fifth, in Department of Commerce (2019), New York had standing to challenge the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census. There is a sixth case that Justice Kavanaugh inexplicably did not cite: Murthy v. Missouri (2024) held that Missouri lacked standing to challenge the Biden Administration’s “jawboning” of social media companies.

What do these six cases have in common? Red states lack standing, but blue states do have standing. It’s really that simple–or at least that is the perception here in Texas. To show the Court is being “evenhanded,” Kavanaugh lists how often conservative litigants lose on an otherwise conservative court.

Early in Kavanaugh’s tenure, I objected when he made a point about how President Clinton signed a “strict” immigration bill. I wrote:

I have no doubt that Kavanaugh’s intent here was as innocuous as in Rimini. But the implication was very different: The Court was not being “strict” toward immigrants; a bipartisan Congress and Clinton were being “strict” toward immigrants. In other words, don’t blame us for interpreting the law in a tough fashion—even a Democrat was fine with it.

As several Kavanaugh clerks promptly told me, it has long been Kavanaugh’s practice to reference the name of the President who signed the bill. There is definitely a Schoolhouse Rock virtue here. But I also think it conveys a substantive point. Indeed, I often stress that President Clinton signed both DOMA and RFRA to stress the bipartisan nature of those laws.

In Diamond Alternative Energy, Justice Kavanaugh lists all the times that the Court ruled against conservatives to show how it is being “even-handed.” I recently wrote that “If [Chief Justice] Roberts views himself as an umpire, his strike zone will ensure that the red team and the blue team usually play a close game, and neither side wins by a large margin.” Kavanaugh, regrettably, suggests he is keeping score as well. Kavanaugh has similarly praised the Nixon appointees for ruling against the President who appointed them in United States v. Nixon. Why is that fact relevant unless the standard presumption is that a Nixon appointee should rule in favor of President Nixon? Is this how Kavanaugh thinks of things? I suggested as much after reading Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s perplexing decisions in the tax return cases.

In any event, when Justice Kavanaugh says these cases “disprove” Justice Jackson’s argument, he is tacitly acknowledging how the Court refuses to grant standing to red cases, even as it finds standing for moneyed interests. Both Jackson and Kavanaugh miss the obvious distinction. Here, we have another manifestation of Originalism, Inc.

By the way, I did not know this factoid, which I learned in Justice Jackson’s dissent: “Cass Gilbert, who designed the Supreme Court building, also designed the Chamber of Commerce’s headquarters in Washington, D. C., and the New York Life building in Manhattan, among other major commercial offices.” 

The post The Court Might Favor Standing For Business Interests, But Blue States Beat Red States appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/IH8FUcn
via IFTTT

The Court Might Favor Standing For Business Interests, But Blue States Beat Red States

Diamond Alternative Energy v. EPA presented the question of whether fuel manufacturers had standing to challenge regulations of fossil-fuel vehicles. Justice Kavanaugh, writing for seven members, found that the fuel company had standing. Justice Jackson, in dissent, found that the plaintiffs lacked standing.

Jackson’s dissent repeats the familiar refrain that the Supreme Court is pro-business, and is more likely to find standing for businesses backed by the Chamber of Commerce than for civil rights plaintiffs. Jackson writes:

Standing is a constitutional doctrine meant to promote judicial restraint. By design, it “‘prevent[s] the judicial process from being used to usurp the powers of the political branches'” and “helps safeguard the Judiciary’s proper—and properly limited—role in our constitutional system.” United States v. Texas, 599 U. S. 670, 675–676 (2023). But standing doctrine cannot serve that important purpose if the Judiciary fails to apply it evenhandedly. When courts adjust standing requirements to let certain litigants challenge the actions of the political branches but preclude suits by others with similar injuries, standing doctrine cannot perform its constraining function. Over time, such selectivity begets judicial overreach and erodes public trust in the impartiality of judicial decisionmaking. . . . 

Jackson continues that the Court “rests its decision on a theory of standing that the Court has refused to apply in cases brought by less powerful plaintiffs.” She concludes that “[t]his case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens.”

Justice Kavanaugh responds to Justice Jackson in a paragraph with a long string cite:

JUSTICE JACKSON separately argues that the Court does not apply standing doctrine “evenhandedly.” Post, at 1 (dissenting opinion). A review of standing cases over the last few years disproves that suggestion. See, e.g., Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine, 602 U. S., at 374; United States v. Texas, 599 U. S., at 674; Haaland v. Brackeen, 599 U. S. 255, 291–292 (2023); Reed v. Goertz, 598 U. S. 230, 234 (2023); TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U. S. 413, 417– 418 (2021); California v. Texas, 593 U. S. 659, 666 (2021); Uzuegbunam, 592 U. S., at 282–283; Thole v. U. S. Bank N. A., 590 U. S. 538, 541–542 (2020); Department of Commerce, 588 U. S., at 766–768.

Kavanaugh offers no actual analysis on this point. He simply lists a series of standing cases from the past five years that “disprove” Jackson’s point that the Court is likely to find standing for “moneyed interests.” Kavanaugh acts as if this point is self-evident. But there is a problem. The string cite doesn’t actually make his case–or at least not without some substantial explanation.

Of the nine cases cited, only two are business cases. TransUnion found that only certain plaintiffs had standing to sue TransUnion. And Thole found that participants in a benefit plan lacked standing to sue the bank. These cases, which generally favor big business, do not rebut Justice Jackson’s point.

Two of the case involve civil rights cases. Uzuegbunam found that a student had standing to challenge a University’s censorship of his speech. And Reed found that a prisoner had standing to challenge a DNA testing statute. These cases sort of address Justice Jackson’s point, but not directly.

The other cases concern ideological strategic litigation brought by states or public interest groups. First, Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine (2024) found that a non-profit lacked standing to challenge the FDA’s approval of mifepristone. Second, United States v. Texas (2023) found that Texas lacked standing to challenge a Biden-era immigration policy. Third, Haaland v. Brackeen (2023) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the enforcement of the Indian Child Welfare Act. Fourth, California v. Texas (2021) found that Texas (and private plaintiffs) lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act after the penalty was reduced to $0. Fifth, in Department of Commerce (2019), New York had standing to challenge the inclusion of the citizenship question on the census. There is a sixth case that Justice Kavanaugh inexplicably did not cite: Murthy v. Missouri (2024) held that Missouri lacked standing to challenge the Biden Administration’s “jawboning” of social media companies.

What do these six cases have in common? Red states lack standing, but blue states do have standing. It’s really that simple–or at least that is the perception here in Texas. To show the Court is being “evenhanded,” Kavanaugh lists how often conservative litigants lose on an otherwise conservative court.

Early in Kavanaugh’s tenure, I objected when he made a point about how President Clinton signed a “strict” immigration bill. I wrote:

I have no doubt that Kavanaugh’s intent here was as innocuous as in Rimini. But the implication was very different: The Court was not being “strict” toward immigrants; a bipartisan Congress and Clinton were being “strict” toward immigrants. In other words, don’t blame us for interpreting the law in a tough fashion—even a Democrat was fine with it.

As several Kavanaugh clerks promptly told me, it has long been Kavanaugh’s practice to reference the name of the President who signed the bill. There is definitely a Schoolhouse Rock virtue here. But I also think it conveys a substantive point. Indeed, I often stress that President Clinton signed both DOMA and RFRA to stress the bipartisan nature of those laws.

In Diamond Alternative Energy, Justice Kavanaugh lists all the times that the Court ruled against conservatives to show how it is being “even-handed.” I recently wrote that “If [Chief Justice] Roberts views himself as an umpire, his strike zone will ensure that the red team and the blue team usually play a close game, and neither side wins by a large margin.” Kavanaugh, regrettably, suggests he is keeping score as well. Kavanaugh has similarly praised the Nixon appointees for ruling against the President who appointed them in United States v. Nixon. Why is that fact relevant unless the standard presumption is that a Nixon appointee should rule in favor of President Nixon? Is this how Kavanaugh thinks of things? I suggested as much after reading Gorsuch and Kavanaugh’s perplexing decisions in the tax return cases.

In any event, when Justice Kavanaugh says these cases “disprove” Justice Jackson’s argument, he is tacitly acknowledging how the Court refuses to grant standing to red cases, even as it finds standing for moneyed interests. Both Jackson and Kavanaugh miss the obvious distinction. Here, we have another manifestation of Originalism, Inc.

By the way, I did not know this factoid, which I learned in Justice Jackson’s dissent: “Cass Gilbert, who designed the Supreme Court building, also designed the Chamber of Commerce’s headquarters in Washington, D. C., and the New York Life building in Manhattan, among other major commercial offices.” 

The post The Court Might Favor Standing For Business Interests, But Blue States Beat Red States appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/IH8FUcn
via IFTTT

Hegseth Says ‘Bold & Brilliant’ Operation Did Not Target Iranian Troops Or Civilians

Hegseth Says ‘Bold & Brilliant’ Operation Did Not Target Iranian Troops Or Civilians

In a Sunday morning press briefing, Trump’s Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth declared that “Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been obliterated” – but also asserted that the attack did not target the Iranian people or civilians. He hailed the “incredible and overwhelming success” – following President Trump last night saying the same thing. “It’s worth noting the operation did not target Iranian troops or the Iranian people.”

Hegseth said this is part of the commitment of this administration’s vision of “peace through strength”. He continued, “Many presidents have dreamed of delivering the final blow to Iran’s nuclear program, and none could, until President Trump.”

For the “bold and brilliant” operation, there was weeks of preparation and precision logistics and “misdirection” at the highest level, involving B-2 bombers going to hit, Hegseth described. “No other country on planet earth” could have conducted this operation.

He also underscored that the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) was used for the first time in US combat history – also that it was the longest bomber mission of its kind since 2001.

Just like [IRGC Quds Force General Qasem] Solemani found out in the first term, Iran found out when POTUS says ’60 days’ – that when he seeks peace and negotiation – he means 60 days of peace and negotiation, otherwise that nuclear program will not exist. He meant it.”

Hegseth then read aloud Trump’s post to Truth Social last night, soon after the three nuclear sites were struck:

“Any retaliation by Iran against the United States of America will be met with force far greater than what was witnessed tonight.”

That’s when the US Defense Secretary then warned, “Iran would be smart to heed those words. He said it before and he means it.” He tried to stress the ‘limited’ scope of the attack and urged the Iranians to come back to the negotiating table:

There are both public and private messages being delivered to the Iranians in multiple channels, giving them every opportunity to come to the negotiation table, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth says at a Pentagon press briefing.

Scope of operation on Iran was “intentionally limited” Hegseth says he believes the US attack will have a clear psychological impact on how Iran views the future US strikes against Iran’s nuclear enrichment site at Fordow are believed to have destroyed capabilities there…

To review the details of what happened last night, the US deployed six B-2 bombers to drop 12 GBU-57 “bunker-buster” bombs on Iran’s heavily fortified Fordow nuclear site, marking the first time these massive 30,000-pound bombs were used in combat.

The enrichment sites at Natanz and Isfahan were also attacked. The mission lasted about 37 hours with multiple refueling missions.

While the White House is now claiming Iran’s nuclear facilities were “completely and totally obliterated,” officials say it’s too early to confirm the full extent of the damage.

Iran, along with international nuclear agencies, reported no radiation leaks, prompting skepticism about the strike’s effectiveness—particularly at Fordow, which is buried deep underground. Iranian officials said damage was minimal and mostly above ground. Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization vowed to continue its nuclear program, referring to assassinated nuclear scientists as “martyrs.”

Some degree of political backlash has quickly emerged over the lack of Congressional approval for the strikes. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, despite previously mocking Trump’s diplomatic efforts with Iran, called for a War Powers vote, criticizing the president’s unilateral military action without a clear strategy.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 09:20

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/27u6VOK Tyler Durden

Belgian Nationalist Given 12 Month Suspended Sentence Because Someone Else Shared A ‘Racist’ Meme

Belgian Nationalist Given 12 Month Suspended Sentence Because Someone Else Shared A ‘Racist’ Meme

Via Remix News,

Belgian conservative-nationalist Dries Van Langenhove has again been sentenced on appeal to one year in prison as a suspended sentence for what the judge said were violations of the Racism and Negationism Act.

The sentence stems from racist memes that were not even posted by him, but by members of a group chat he administrated seven years ago.

The sentence was delivered today by the Court of Appeal in Ghent, although Van Langenhove does not accept the sentence, and the case now goes into cassation.

On X, Van Langenhove simply wrote, “Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.”

He later clarified upon receipt of the written verdict that the custodial sentence “appears to be a suspended sentence,” which he suspects is “most likely because the prisons in Belgium are literally full of illegal migrants.”

“Most people don’t realize that the end result of such a sentence is the same. One politically incorrect tweet can now put me in jail. One meme sent by someone else in a group chat I am in can turn the suspended sentence into an effective one. This suspended sentence is the gravest form of censorship they could pursue and an effective way to kill activism,” he added.

Last year, Van Langenhove was sentenced to a one-year prison sentence and a fine of €16,000. He would also be sentenced to be deprived of his right to stand for election for a maximum term of 10 years, but he appealed this verdict in a lower court.

Van Langenhove ran a chat in 2018, but a broadcast from Pano news outlet showed how members exchanged thousands of potentially racist and sexist messages. This included several hundred memes or internet cartoons.

Van Langenhove contended they were jokes and indicated he did not post anything himself. Seven members of the group chat faced criminal prosecution.

Notably, the case in a country like the United States would have never gone to trial due to freedom of expression enshrined in the constitution. However, Belgium and a range of EU countries have not only beefed up hate speech laws but are also using them to prosecute political dissidents and anti-immigration activists, with Van Langenhove now one of the most high-profile targets.

After several delays, the Court of Appeal in Ghent delivered its sentence today.

Van Langenhove was convicted of violations of the Racism and Negationism Act, but the court argued that since the facts date from seven years ago, they merit a lighter sentence. The one-year prison sentence is fully postponed, and the fine is still €16,000. Van Langenhove will also not be deprived of his civil rights.

“It is a black day for free speech, for Flanders, and for Europe,” said Van Langenhove when he came out. “Me, my family, and my environment have been terrorized for humor in a private chat group for seven years. Unfortunately, the court never wanted to listen to me, even now.”

The court, however, found that Van Langenhove cannot use humor as a defense “if the real intention is to incite hatred.”

“In the private Facebook and Discord group, by the way, not only jokes and cartoons were sent, but also many other, ordinary messages that show that Shield & Friends (the chat group’s name) apparently and repeatedly proclaimed discrimination and racism.”

The court argued that even though Van Langenhove did not send the messages, he was responsible.

“He didn’t have it removed, even though he had the option to do so,” said the Court.

It rejected that VRT journalists manipulated the content of the messages, which Van Langenhove claimed.

The Court of Cassation will now review the legality of the judicial decisions, but will not examine the facts themselves. In most cases, the court determines whether the trial should be repeated.

“If necessary, I will then go to the European Court,” said Van Langenhove. “I certainly don’t give up the fight.”

Van Langenhove was on trial with five other defendants, who will receive 80 hours of work and fines of €1,600. However, two others will be sentenced to three years in prison with deferment.

One defendant who expressed regret was convicted, but his term will be suspended under separate conditions.

The case has been broadly watched as a litmus test on free speech conditions in Europe, with the European model focusing less on freedom of speech and more on controlled speech, especially on issues related to race, sex, and immigration.

Furthermore, questions have been raised about how access was obtained to the chat group in the first place, with allegations that a hack attack was conducted.

Read more here…

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 08:10

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/fCHlpJv Tyler Durden

Will The Court GVR The Skrmetti Parental Rights Petition In Light Of Mahmoud?

On Wednesday, the Court decided United States v. Skrmetti. This petition, brought by the Biden DOJ, only presented the question whether Tennessee’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause. DOJ did not petition on the substantive due process issue. Indeed, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, the Attorney General only has the authority to intervene in an equal protection case.

Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

The ACLU, which represented the plaintiffs, petitioned on both due process and equal protection in the case known as L.W. v. Skrmetti. The ACLU’s petition remains pending, even though counsel for the ACLU was permitted to argue.

What happens next? Mahmoud v. Taylor is awaiting a decision. If Mahmoud addresses the due process clause with regard to parental rights, the Court might GVR the ACLU’s Skrmetti petition.

In other words, Skrmetti may be far from over.

The post Will The Court GVR The <i>Skrmetti</i> Parental Rights Petition In Light Of <i>Mahmoud</i>? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/jkaAOKx
via IFTTT

Will The Court GVR The Skrmetti Parental Rights Petition In Light Of Mahmoud?

On Wednesday, the Court decided United States v. Skrmetti. This petition, brought by the Biden DOJ, only presented the question whether Tennessee’s law violated the Equal Protection Clause. DOJ did not petition on the substantive due process issue. Indeed, under 42 U.S.C. § 2000h-2, the Attorney General only has the authority to intervene in an equal protection case.

Whenever an action has been commenced in any court of the United States seeking relief from the denial of equal protection of the laws under the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution on account of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, the Attorney General for or in the name of the United States may intervene in such action upon timely application if the Attorney General certifies that the case is of general public importance. In such action the United States shall be entitled to the same relief as if it had instituted the action.

The ACLU, which represented the plaintiffs, petitioned on both due process and equal protection in the case known as L.W. v. Skrmetti. The ACLU’s petition remains pending, even though counsel for the ACLU was permitted to argue.

What happens next? Mahmoud v. Taylor is awaiting a decision. If Mahmoud addresses the due process clause with regard to parental rights, the Court might GVR the ACLU’s Skrmetti petition.

In other words, Skrmetti may be far from over.

The post Will The Court GVR The <i>Skrmetti</i> Parental Rights Petition In Light Of <i>Mahmoud</i>? appeared first on Reason.com.

from Latest – Reason.com https://ift.tt/jkaAOKx
via IFTTT

Global Fertilizer Market Thrown In Chaos After Mideast War Shutters Iran Urea Production

Global Fertilizer Market Thrown In Chaos After Mideast War Shutters Iran Urea Production

Agri-Pulse’s Oliver Ward reports that renewed conflict in the Middle East has shuttered urea production in Iran, sending ripples through global fertilizer markets and adding to existing uncertainty around Russian and Chinese supplies, analysts tell Agri-Pulse.

“Tensions flared between Iran and Israel on Friday when Israel launched what it called a preemptive missile strike targeting Iran’s nuclear program and military leadership. Four days later, both sides are reeling from attacks on key infrastructure and shuttered industries, including in the fertilizer sector,” AgriPulse notes. “‘Iran has shut down seven of its urea and ammonia plants,’ said Mark Milam, senior editor for fertilizers at Independent Commodity Intelligence Services, over concerns that they could be potential Israeli targets.”

“Josh Linville, vice president of fertilizers at commodities analysis firm StoneX, said that attacks on the country’s natural gas infrastructure – which is used in the production of urea – is also keeping operations offline,” Ward reported.

“Iran was the third-largest urea exporter in 2024, according to StoneX, with export volumes of around 4.5 million tons – about the size of China’s. The country has a production capacity of around 8.9 million tons a year, Milam added, serving markets in Turkey, Brazil and Argentina, among others. It is also an exporter of ammonia.”

“In addition to knocking Iranian urea production offline, the attacks also brought Egypt’s operations to a standstill,” Ward reported. “Israel reduced its natural gas flows to the country on Friday, prompting Egypt to cease production.”

AgWeb’s Margy Eckelkamp reported that “Linville’s colleague at StoneX, Arlan Suderman, details why this conflict is being watched so carefully if the concern isn’t in those two countries’ production. ‘There’s a lot of other producers of fertilizer in the Middle East and a lot of it also passes through the Strait of Hormuz, which will be at risk going forward now,’ Suderman says. From a global supply standpoint, Suderman also points out the Ukrainian attack of one of Russia’s largest nitrogen fertilizer plants two weeks ago.”

With ongoing and new conflicts and strikes in key fertilizer production areas, Linville foresees needing to be focused on the potential outcomes,” Eckelkamp reported. “‘For now, we don’t believe there’s going to be much in the effect in terms of fertilizer production from either country, though it would be a little silly to not consider it, so we’re watching very, very closely,’ he says.”

Separately, Ward reported that “compounding availability and price worries, the analysts said, is China’s continued pullback from exporting fertilizers. Both China’s phosphate and urea exports are lagging historical levels. China typically exports around 5.5 million tons of urea annually, but this year, Linville said, Beijing will only allow around 2 million in exports.”

“‘You’ve got so many different pieces,’ Linville said, driving uncertainty over urea supplies,” Ward reported. “U.S. farmers are somewhat insulated from short-term price shocks given many will not be buying fertilizer in earnest until later in the year. But Milam said that if supply uncertainties persist, it could create ‘all kinds of complications’ for U.S. buyers.”

“‘It’s hard to say whether that that’ll happen,’ Milam said,” according to Ward’s reporting. “China’s market retreat should be ‘a decent concern’ for farmers hoping for price stability come 2026, Linville said.”

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 07:35

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/va8gWyq Tyler Durden

Poland’s Latest Megaproject Has Long-Term Anti-Russian Implications

Poland’s Latest Megaproject Has Long-Term Anti-Russian Implications

Authored by Andrew Korybko via Substack,

Its successful implementation will help optimize the “military Schengen”, bring about a windfall of profits from facilitating the EU’s trade with Asia that could then be reinvested in its ongoing militarization program, and thus altogether pose a very serious national security concern for Russia.

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk announced late last month that his country will invest €1 billion into expanding the Euroterminal Slawkow railway facility in southwestern Poland, which is significantly the EU’s only cargo hub adapted to handle broad-gauge trains from the former Soviet Union. The plan calls for expanding the existing terminal’s capacity from around 285,000 standard containers per year to half a million and building another terminal to boot, while the long-term plan is to build five of them in total.

As RT’s report about this noted, not only does Tusk envisage Poland profiting more from Ukraine like he earlier explicitly declared that his country will now seek to do, but he also foresees this megaproject helping to expand Poland’s trade with the rest of Europe and even Asia due to its location near the intersection of two European transport corridors. The Asian dimension of future Polish trade through Slawkow is curious though since those trains would have to transit through EU-sanctioned Russia.

Either Tusk expects a thaw in EU-Russian tensions or he expects that this trade will be conducted along the multimodal “Middle Corridor” (MC) linking together China and the EU via Central Asia, the Caspian Sea, the South Caucasus, the Black Sea, and then Odessa in this context. About that city’s port, former Polish Deputy Minister of Agriculture Michal Kolodziejczak informally proposed leasing at least one wharf there in April, which was followed by Ukraine inviting Poland to help rebuild its maritime sector.

Moreover, despite bilateral political tensions over Poland’s revival of the Volhynia Genocide dispute and decision to only send more military aid to Ukraine on credit, they signed a cooperation agreement late last month that includes Ukraine helping Polish companies in the country. When coupled with Kolodziejczak’s complementary informal proposal of leasing Ukrainian farmland, the trappings of a master geo-economic plan are emerging that’ll now be briefly described.

Poland is the leader of the “Three Seas Initiative” (3SI), which refers to the regional connectivity projects for fostering integration between the countries of Central & Eastern Europe (CEE), including Ukraine in this context. Ukraine is Poland’s agricultural competitor, however, but Kolodziejczak believes that it can be partially co-opted via his informally proposed farmland leases. Leasing at least one wharf in Odessa and expanding Slawkow can then facilitate Polish agricultural and other exports to Asia via the MC.

At the same time, Slawkow’s expansion also enables Poland to profit from logistically facilitating the EU’s role in Ukraine’s reconstruction, especially neighboring economic powerhouse Germany’s. Furthermore, given Slawkow’s proximity to several European transport corridors, Poland can then play a larger role in intra-EU North-South and East-West trade upon this plan’s completion. Not only that, but it could then facilitate some of these same other EU members’ trade with Asia via the MC, profiting all the way.

Suffice to say, Slawkow also has dual military-logistics purposes vis-à-vis the “military Schengen” just like other major 3SI projects, and some of the profits reaped from the successful implementation of this master geo-economic plan will predictably be reinvested in modernizing Poland’s outdated military-industrial complex.

Poland is also expected to use these profits to purchase more military equipment from the US and South Korea.

This makes Slawkow a very serious national security concern for Russia.

Tyler Durden
Sun, 06/22/2025 – 07:00

via ZeroHedge News https://ift.tt/FKa7Wln Tyler Durden