Authored by Gary Abernathy via The Empowerment Alliance,

When the government abuses its powers in pursuit of far-left political goals at the expense of commonsense policies, entire states and regions often suffer.

Such was the case in recent years when numerous projects centered on traditional energy were derailed by environmental extremists who leveraged the tools of government to erect roadblock after roadblock. Most famously, the Biden administration canceled the Keystone XL project in 2021, which was designed to carry 830,000 barrels of oil sands crude per day from Alberta to Nebraska.

Rather than play losing hands dealt from stacked decks, frustrated energy companies eventually began pulling the plug on one project after another, all to the detriment of businesses and families. Meanwhile, the government artificially propped up wind and solar projects, promoting energy sources that raided taxpayer wallets and were more expensive, less reliable and less efficient than traditional sources of energy.

Among the natural gas pipeline projects that ground to a halt were the Constitution and the Northeast Supply Enhancement (NESE) pipelines, both designed to transport natural gas to New York. Activists agitated against the projects, often centering their arguments on supposed clean water concerns and the alleged dangers of fracking. Even though the fracking was happening in Pennsylvania – and the projects had received approval from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission – New York state officials ultimately caved to the pressure from the far left and denied permits.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo (D) was a leader among the anti-pipeline forces. In 2019, Cuomo had “signed into law the state’s goal of net-zero carbon emissions by 2050,” as NPR previously reported. Of the pipeline efforts, Cuomo pledged that “any way that we can challenge it, we will.”

After years of costly battles – and in the face of New York regulatory officials and politicians determined to stand in their way – company officials threw their hands in the air and gave up on the Constitution project in 2020, doing the same just a year ago in regard to the NESE pipeline.

Environmental groups were ecstatic. When the Constitution project shut down, Earthjustice staff attorney Moneen Nasmith said, “At this critical moment for our climate, we cannot afford unnecessary fossil fuel projects that will lead to more fracking and exacerbate our climate crisis.”

As evidenced by increasingly frequent blackouts and faulty grid performances, the so-called “alternatives” favored by self-labeled “environmental groups” have proven to be poor substitutes for affordable and reliable traditional energy resources. Among those resources, natural gas leads the way in both cost effectiveness and cleanliness. Natural gas has become increasingly “green” with a low carbon footprint compared to other fossil fuels.

Shutting down the natural gas pipeline projects led to predictable consequences – a shortage of gas in New York and New England, leading to understandable worries about sustaining reliable energy. As demonstrated by the blackout that hit Spain, Portugal and parts of France in late April, natural gas is essential to producing electricity and rescuing residents from grid failures caused by the weaknesses of wind and solar.

But there’s renewed hope for New York and the surrounding region. Because of the Trump administration’s posture favoring traditional energy sources, the Williams Companies – owners of the Constitution and NESE pipeline projects – announced in late May that they are working with government officials to revive both projects.

The news came after some savvy maneuvering by U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, and a less severe attitude by current Democrat Gov. Kathy Hochul. Burgum had issued a stop-work order on an off-shore wind project near New York. He lifted that order last month – a move that Hochul requested – saying he was encouraged that Hochul “will allow new gas pipeline capacity to move forward,” according to Reuters.

For her part, Hochul “did not specifically endorse the gas pipes but said in a statement that New York would work with the U.S. administration and private entities on projects that meet the legal requirements under state law,” Reuters reported. If not an expression of full-throated support, Hochul’s position is a far cry from Cuomo’s previous pledge to oppose the project “any way that we can challenge it.”

A Williams official said the company has submitted a petition to federal regulators to get started again, and “has begun working through state permitting matters with environmental regulators in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and New York and will be promptly filing applications with those agencies to secure the necessary permits for advancing both the NESE and Constitution Pipeline projects.”

Time and again, opposition to traditional energy collides with stark reality, too often only after disaster strikes and officials are forced to turn to tried-and-true resources. The proactive measures by the Trump administration, and the tempered responses from some officials on the left who choose to acknowledge reality, just might be happening in time to avert the pending energy disasters facing the U.S. and other countries.

The New York pipeline saga is a microcosm of the challenges facing the country, thanks to the misguided priorities of the climate cult. Local government officials from coast to coast would be wise to acknowledge what New York officials seem to be realizing: Building the delivery system for natural gas is delivering on the promise of affordable and reliable energy for all.

Gary Abernathy is a longtime newspaper editor, reporter and columnist. He was a contributing columnist for the Washington Post from 2017-2023 and a frequent guest analyst across numerous media platforms. He is a contributing columnist for The Empowerment Alliance, which advocates for realistic approaches to energy consumption and environmental conservation. Abernathy’s “TEA Takes” column will be published every Wednesday and delivered to your inbox!

Authored by Stephen Soukup via American Greatness,

Just over two months ago, the Rand Corporation released a study on the cost of producing multi-family housing in three states: California, Colorado, and Texas.

The results were paradoxically shocking, yet utterly predictable.

California, it turns out, is a ridiculous place, run by ridiculous people, with ridiculous regulations. Or, as the folks at Rand put it, “The average market-rate apartment in California is roughly two and a half times the cost of a similar apartment constructed in Texas on a square-foot basis—and regional differences within California, where costs in the San Francisco Bay Area are roughly 50 percent higher than costs in San Diego.” Additionally, “[t]he time to bring a project to completion in California is more than 22 months longer than the average time required in Texas.” According to Rand, the culprit for these grotesque disparities is, to no one’s surprise, the differences in regulatory burdens between Texas and California and between various jurisdictions within the (allegedly) Golden State.

Earlier this month, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy was forced to issue a threat to the government of California, warning the state that the federal government was considering rescinding future funding for its high-speed rail boondoggle. According to a department report, the federal government had released more than $7 billion to California for the project over the last several years, and it had, unsurprisingly, spent all of the money, yet somehow managed not to lay even a single foot of track. As The New York Post noted at the time, “the 800-mile rail line was supposed to be completed in two phases on a $33 billion budget by 2020.” Nevertheless, the proposed line has now been abbreviated to a mere 119 miles. Its budget has ballooned to nearly $130 billion, and it appears highly unlikely that it will be completed by its new 2033 deadline.

Meanwhile, the Mumbai-Ahmedabad High-Speed Rail project—in India, for crying out loud—began planning in 2014 and is moving along quite nicely. According to Newsweek, India Railways “reported that as of June 2025, more than 300 kilometers of elevated viaduct structures had been completed….Fourteen river bridges, seven steel bridges, and five prestressed concrete bridges are now finished.” More to the point, the project, which will span nearly 600 km, is expected to be fully completed by 2030 at the cost of a mere $15 billion.

As it turns out, when it comes to building things, California is not only not competitive with Texas, but it’s also not competitive with India, an actual, real-life Third World country. Once the economic engine that drove the nation, California is now an anchor, dragging everyone and everything down with it into the mire.

All of that said, it’s probably not fair to single out California here. These days, no American state—no city, no county, not even the federal government—could build a high-speed railroad on budget and on schedule. The federal government, with its massive military budget, struggles to build ships. Heck, it struggles even to maintain the ones it has. America just doesn’t build things or complete large, complex projects anymore. Or at least it doesn’t do them well or effectively. We used to build things, but we don’t anymore. Once upon a time—and not that long ago—we built the greatest system of roads ever known to man, spanning the entire continent, east-to-west and north-to-south. Now, the interstate system would never even be started, much less finished. Somehow, sometime along the way, American governments at all levels lost their ability to do or build much of anything.

The biggest part of the problem here can be summed up in one word: “bureaucracy.” Now, I know that just two weeks ago, in these very pages, I wrote that “For all the criticism it receives, bureaucracy remains the most rational and effective organizational structure known to man for the effective and efficient operation of large systems.” While this remains inarguably true, American government bureaucracy seems not to operate at all. It appears irrational, ineffective, and, at times, totally dysfunctional. But why?

The good news is that the problem with American bureaucracy is actually fairly easily diagnosed. The bad news is that this “problem” is entrenched in American administrative practice and is unlikely to be excised without concerted and prolonged effort.

In 1948, Dwight Waldo, an American political scientist, penned his magnum opus, a book titled The Administrative State. Waldo’s primary goal was to undermine the “neutrality” of American bureaucracy, to subvert the Wilsonian “politics-administration dichotomy” that had been characteristic of American administration since Woodrow Wilson famously expounded on its ideal characteristics. The dichotomy aligned American bureaucracy with Weberian theory and made the American administrative state like all others. It was imperfect, to say the least, mostly because it was undemocratic, but at least it worked. Until Waldo came along, that is.

The problem was that Waldo’s main objection to the politics-administration dichotomy was not based on the fact that it was undemocratic. Rather, his objection was to the idea that administration could be neutral or “scientific.” He believed that it was impossible, in the application of administration, to distinguish between “value” and “fact.” What this meant in practice was that “effective” administrators would not be able to act neutrally, in Waldo’s vision, as they did everywhere else. Instead, they would have to apply their “values” to bureaucratic decision-making. This, in turn, was taken as a license by administrators and, more to the point, those who taught administrators to become values advocates, supporters of the application of largely left-leaning values to the administration of the state.

In 2018, on the 70th anniversary of The Administrative State and the 50th anniversary of Waldo’s famous Minnowbrook Conference, the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, remembered the man and his contributions, noting that “Waldo’s 1948 book challenged the idea that public administration is value-neutral, performed in a dispassionate, almost mechanical manner. He argued that public servants should become active, informed, politically savvy agents of change” [emphasis added]. George Frederickson, a public administration professor at the University of Kansas and the organizer of the “Minnowbrook II” conference in 1988, told the Maxwell School magazine that Waldo’s contributions included “three lasting themes in PA: social equity; democratic administration; and proactive, advocating, non-neutral public administration.” In short, Waldo changed everything.

By the late 1960s, it had become accepted practice, but only in the United States, for public administrators to see themselves as value advocates and social justice warriors. And within a decade or so, that attitude had become profoundly ingrained among bureaucracies at all levels of government, throughout the country. Unsurprisingly, not long thereafter, American governments became incapable of doing much of anything.

The Waldo-revolution turned what should have been executive-dependent, value-neutral, efficient bureaucracies into left-wing social justice machines. Not only does that explain the American bureaucracy’s overall dysfunction, but it also explains why politically left-leaning jurisdictions like California are even worse off than most places. Just as with their politicians, their bureaucrats adhere to different values—or cling to the same values more firmly and unrelentingly—making everything dysfunctional to the point of collapse.

The bottom line is that if the United States wants to compete in the twenty-first century, it will have to do something about its bureaucracies. The administrative state is massive and overgrown, to be sure, but more than that, it’s guided by its own values, which render it hopelessly ineffective and, ironically, radically undemocratic. Cutting it—at all levels—would be a start, but it won’t be the end. The whole concept has to be reformed from top to bottom, with the application of “social equity” and other highly subjective values purged from both practice and theory.

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention scientist who regularly presented data to the agency’s vaccine advisory panel has resigned.

Dr. Fiona Havers told The New York Times that she resigned from the CDC on June 16 because she disagrees with the approach to vaccines under Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

“If it isn’t stopped, and some of this isn’t reversed, like, immediately, a lot of Americans are going to die as a result of vaccine-preventable diseases,” Havers said.

Kennedy’s approach so far has included the narrowing of COVID-19 vaccine recommendations and the removal of all members of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP).

Kennedy has since named eight new members to the panel, which provides advice on immunizations to the CDC.

“I could not be party to legitimizing this new committee,” Havers told The New York Times. “I just no longer had confidence that the data that we were generating was going to be used objectively.”

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Havers frequently presented to the ACIP on COVID-19 developments.

A request for comment to Havers’s email returned an automated message that stated, “I am no longer at CDC.”

The CDC did not respond to a request for comment by publication time.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the CDC’s parent agency, told The Epoch Times in an email that “under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is committed to following the gold standard of scientific integrity.”

The spokesperson added, “Vaccine policy decisions will be based on objective data, transparent analysis, and evidence—not conflicts of interest or industry influence.”

The resignation followed the replacement of Dr. Melinda Wharton, a CDC employee who served as ACIP’s executive secretary.

Wharton, who did not respond to requests for comment, still works for the CDC as an associate director for vaccine policy, according to her LinkedIn and the HHS employee directory.

A spokesperson for the HHS in an email to The Epoch Times confirmed that Wharton was replaced by Mina Zadeh, who has worked for the CDC since 2000, most recently in the CDC director’s office on scheduling, and holds a doctorate in evaluation.

Zadeh “brings unparalleled experience, strategic insight, and commitment to scientific excellence to the ACIP,” the spokesperson said.

The draft agenda for the next ACIP meeting, which includes presentations on COVID-19, does not list Havers as a presenter. It states that Dr. Adam Macneil and Dr. Georgina Peacock will present on some aspects of COVID-19, while the presenters on other aspects have yet to be determined.

Authored by Andrew Thornebrooke via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The U.S. military is prioritizing the protection of its bases in the country from drone attacks after Ukraine launched a surprise attack against Russia earlier this month and Israel is suspected of using the same strategy against Iran.

The Ukraine attack destroyed at least 10 of Moscow’s limited supply of long-range heavy bombers, which are a critical component of Russia’s nuclear capability.

Israel is suspected to have smuggled drone parts into Iran and assembled them before using the drones to attack Tehran’s ballistic missile launchers and silos from within.

U.S. military leaders are increasingly concerned that similar attacks, which leverage low-cost commercial drones against expensive weapons systems, could pose a lasting threat to bases and critical infrastructure throughout the country.

However, the Army and other service branches are struggling to design and deploy appropriate technologies to defend bases on U.S. soil, owing to variables that don’t need to be considered in a war zone.

“How we’re going to [defend bases] in a combat zone is very different from how we would do that in the states, obviously,” Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George said at a House Armed Services Committee on June 4.

One key factor is the Byzantine patchwork of local, state, and federal laws governing drone flights and the military’s own rules of engagement.

Whereas officers at an outpost overseas might simply engage with an unidentified drone approaching their base before any potential harm can occur, the military lacks the authority to engage with drones on U.S. soil, unless those drones directly enter a facility’s airspace.

Even then, options are limited.

The use of kinetic systems that would simply shoot down a drone are out of the question on American soil, according to military personnel, as they are not cost-effective, and would also run the risk of injuring civilians or damaging property when the debris fell to the ground.

That issue highlights the other key factor confounding military planners: A lack of counter-drone systems customized to deal with emergent threats to bases in the United States without endangering civilians.

While the military, and federal government, do have electromagnetic weapons that can knock out drones by interfering with their electrical and navigational systems, these weapons are typically poorly suited to an environment rich in aerial traffic because they affect all electronic systems within a given area.

Such an issue was laid bare on March 1, when more than a dozen flights on final approach to the Reagan National Airport outside Washington received false collision warnings, prompting at least six flights to abort their landings.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) later stated that the false positives were caused by government testing of counter-drone technology near the airport.

Because of that weakness in the system, the Army is now exploring the use of directed energy weapons in its counter-drone operations.

Many such systems, including variants of weapons using lasers, microwaves, and particle and sound beams, are still in development, but they bring their own problems because of high energy consumption.

According to the Congressional Research Service, the Pentagon’s newest counter-drone weapons would need to draw 100 kilowatts of power to fire a laser in a counter-drone capacity.

That’s more power than the average American household uses in three days, and that figure does not include the additional power requirements for cooling the significant amount of heat generated by such weapons.

It makes defending military installations on U.S. soil from drone attacks an infrastructure problem as well as a defense problem.

New Energy Sources

Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll, who also spoke at the hearing, said the directed energy requirements for defending U.S. bases and supply chains from future drone attacks simply can’t be met with today’s power systems.

“For a lot of the tools that are coming out, directed energy, for example, they have incredible energy requirements,” Driscoll said.

“You’re going to have to have spikes of energy come through the lines that just are not set up. The current technology is not sufficient for it.”

The key to solving the nation’s directed energy issues is in the creation of nuclear microreactors, small modular nuclear reactors that would generate power for an individual base and its weapons, he said.

Driscoll’s push toward nuclear power matches an executive order signed by President Donald Trump last month directing the Army to deploy a nuclear reactor at a U.S. base by 2028.

“Advanced nuclear reactors include … small modular reactors, microreactors, and stationary and mobile reactors that have the potential to deliver resilient, secure, and reliable power to critical defense facilities and other mission capability resources,” the order reads.

Read the rest here…

Update (11:37ET): Following President Trump’s new foreign entanglement – bombing Iranian nuclear facilities (which may or may not have taken them out while causing a deep divide amongst MAGA), Vice President JD Vance says he believes their nuclear program has been set back “many years,” and that he feels “very confident that we’ve substantially delayed [Iran’s] development of a nuclear weapon,” adding that it was US intelligence, not Israeli intelligence assessments, that led to Trump’s decision. 

When asked if the United States is at war with Iran, he claimed “No, Kristen, we’re not at war with Iran. We’re at war with Iran’s nuclear program,” and called on Iranians to “give peace a chance.

“They can go down the path of peace, or they can go down the path of this ridiculous brinksmanship of funding terrorism, of trying to build a nuclear weapon – and that’s just not something the United States can accept.” 

“We didn’t blow up the diplomacy. The diplomacy never was given a real chance by the Iranians,” says @VP.

“The Iranians are clearly not very good at war. Perhaps they should follow President Trump’s lead and give peace a chance.” pic.twitter.com/pJ2tpqekom

— Rapid Response 47 (@RapidResponse47) June 22, 2025

When asked if the US would support an Israeli assassination of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Vance said that it would be “up to the Israelis,” and that the US position is “we don’t want a regime change.”

VP Vance: “No Regime Change” in Iran — U.S. Focused on Nuclear Threat, Not Government Overthrow

– In interviews (e.g. NBC’s Meet the Press), Vice President J.D. Vance emphasized the U.S. strike on Iranian nuclear sites aims solely to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program—not to… pic.twitter.com/TPOLWCvP06

— GlobalWire (@global_wire_) June 22, 2025

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, meanwhile insisted to Fox News that “This is not a war against Iran,” adding “Not a shot was fired against us. They didn’t even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing they’d been hit. So it would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliates. So but that’s not our goal.”

Secretary Rubio clears the air on whether America is “at war” with Iran.

“This is not a war against Iran.”

“Not a shot was fired against us. They didn’t even know what had happened. By the time we left, the planes were out of their airspace before they finally started realizing… pic.twitter.com/RslL7KbgUz

— Media Lies (@MediasLies) June 22, 2025

He also warned against Iranian retaliation, saying: “If Iran retaliates, it will be the WORST mistake they’ve ever made.”

RUBIO: It would be a terrible mistake if Iran retaliated.

But that’s not our goal. We are not declaring war on Iran. We’re not looking for war on Iran. But if they attack us, then I think we have capabilities they haven’t even seen yet. It would be a terrible mistake on their… pic.twitter.com/grpdHegkep

— Western Lensman (@WesternLensman) June 22, 2025

Rubio then warned Iran not to close the strait of Hormuz after Iran’s parliament backed its closure, saying “If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It’s economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that.”

Rubio:

“If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz, it will be another terrible mistake. It’s economic suicide for them if they do it and we retain options to deal with that” pic.twitter.com/6mXeYXJ6Te

— Visegrád 24 (@visegrad24) June 22, 2025

Everyone got the script?

Iran, meanwhile in a statement through spox Esmail Baghaei, accused the Trump administration of sabotaging diplomatic efforts – saying “They cannot talk about diplomacy, they betrayed diplomacy,” adding that “diplomacy never ends.” 

Regarding the escalating conflict, Baghaei warned “No one knows what will happen next, but what is sure is that the responsibility of the consequences of this war must be borne by the United States and Israel.”

The Iranian foreign ministry declined to elaborate on Tehran’s likely response to the attacks, or to detail the extent of the damage – only saying in a statement to CNN that Iran “is entitled … to exercise its right of self-defense,” adding “And we will do that for sure.” 

*  *  *

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.

America dropped six GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site pic.twitter.com/LaWrHm0c2d

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 22, 2025

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.

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.

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.”

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.

Trump Has Bombed Iran. What Happens Next Is His Fault.

The US is the only nation on earth that can rival Israel in its ability to play the victim when the ball they’ve thrown at the wall bounces back.

Reading by Tim Foley. pic.twitter.com/vNNSPxCSWE

— Caitlin Johnstone (@caitoz) June 22, 2025

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:

‘IRRELEVANT to ask Iran to return to diplomacy, because we WERE in the middle of diplomacy’

Araghchi says US ‘gave green light to Israel, if not INSTRUCTED them to attack nuclear sites’

Adds Israel and US ‘only understand language of threat and force, this is very unfortunate’ https://t.co/NJXtoTz97u pic.twitter.com/vImCTZDs7O

— RT (@RT_com) June 22, 2025

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.

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.

America dropped six GBU-57 bunker buster bombs on the Fordow nuclear site pic.twitter.com/LaWrHm0c2d

— Vince Langman (@LangmanVince) June 22, 2025

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.

In an overnight address to the nation, President Trump announced that U.S. stealth bombers had “completely and totally obliterated” Iran’s three primary nuclear facilities: Fordow, Natanz, and Esfahan. He issued a direct warning to Tehran, stating that unless the regime agrees to a peace deal with Israel, additional U.S. military action remains on the table. The attack signals Trump’s dramatic geopolitical u-turn after having long advocated for keeping the U.S. out of Middle Eastern wars. 

“This cannot continue. There will be either peace or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days,” Trump told the American people in a three-minute speech from the White House late Saturday night. 

“Remember, there are many targets left,” the president said, adding, “Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill.”

Before the deployment of six U.S. Air Force B-2 stealth bombers—each armed with a 30,000-pound GBU-57A/B Massive Ordnance Penetrator—a satellite intelligence report from Maxar Technologies identified “unusual” activity near the entrance of Iran’s Fordow uranium enrichment facility.

The observed movement on Thursday and Friday showed “unusual truck and vehicular activity” near the entrance of the underground Fordow complex south of Tehran. This may indicate foreknowledge or heightened alert status at Iran’s high-value nuclear sites. 

Newsweek cited Maxar’s report and provided more color on the unusual movements:

Pictures captured on Thursday and Friday showed “unusual truck and vehicular activity” close to the entrance of the underground Fordow complex south of Tehran, satellite imagery giant Maxar said late on Saturday U.S. time.

A total of 16 cargo trucks were spotted on the access road leading up to the Fordow tunnel entrance on Thursday, but most of the trucks had relocated to one kilometer (0.6 miles) northwest of the access road by the following day, Maxar said.

New trucks and multiple bulldozers had appeared close to the main entrance by Friday, with one truck very close to the main tunnel entrance, the satellite imagery provider said.

Satellite imagery captured by Maxar on Thursday (days before the U.S. bombing raid) shows cargo trucks near the underground entrance of the Fordow fuel enrichment facility. 

Maxar satellite imagery of Fordo fuel enrichment facility.

Maxar satellite imagery of Fordo fuel enrichment facility.

In a separate report, post-bombing, X users cite satellite imagery from UK-based Think Tank Open Source Center that shows what appears to be “visible damage to Fordow.”

“Several entry points can be seen, indicating the explosives penetrated deep towards the facility. The entry points are on the ridgelines, which are directly above the centrifuge halls,” breaking conflict news account Megatron wrote on X. 

NEW:

🇺🇸🇮🇷 First satellite imagery shows visible damage to Fordow.

Several entry points can be seen, indicating the explosives penetrated deep towards the facility. The entry points are on the ridgelines, which are directly above the centrifuge halls.

Imagery by UK-based… pic.twitter.com/AKYR5LifeD

— Megatron (@Megatron_ron) June 22, 2025

President Trump also issued a warning overnight, stating that if Tehran refuses to negotiate a peace deal, U.S. bombers and fighter aircraft will hit other targets. This scenario aligns with the escalation pathway we outlined in our October 2024 geopolitical report to readers.

And let’s not forget Hollywood has pre-programmed the American people for this…

. . . 

Until then, BYD and its rivals may continue to dominate Brazil’s green-car movement from across the Pacific, even as the long-promised benefits of local EV manufacturing remain out of reach for many Brazilian workers.

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.”

Guilty. 12 months in jail. Madness.

— Dries Van Langenhove (@DVanLangenhove) June 20, 2025

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.

I just received the written verdict. It’s very long so it will take time to analyse everything, but the 12 month prison sentence appears to be a suspended sentence.

The irony is that I have been fighting against mass migration for well over a decade now, and it has gotten me a… pic.twitter.com/8aeAxzXsLz

— Dries Van Langenhove (@DVanLangenhove) June 20, 2025

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…