Aggregator

Bitcoin Jumps As CLARITY Act Odds Surge In Prediction Markets

Zero Rss
3 weeks 3 days ago
Bitcoin Jumps As CLARITY Act Odds Surge In Prediction Markets

Bitcoin is sharply higher, ignoring the meltdown in gold and other dollar-sensitive assets, on a surge in prediction market optimism that Washington may finally pass a crypto market structure bill, with odds rising to multi-week highs on Monday and Polymarket.

Polymarket bettors put the chance that the Clarity Act will be signed into law this year at nearly 30% Monday morning, up from just 12% earlier in September. That’s the highest level since early August, according to the event contract’s dashboard.

As a reminder the Senate is scheduled to hold a crucial procedural cloture vote on the crypto-focused Clarity Act on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, at approximately 2:15 p.m. ET. The bill requires 60 votes to advance.

Overnight, Senate Republicans released the "final" draft of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which they said incorporates "substantive changes" requested by Democrats, the Block reported. President Trump was also reported to have agreed to ethics restrictions in the bill that would limit crypto-related dealings by officials and their spouses.

Stablecoin rewards, previously a key sticking point in negotiations, also appear to have been addressed.

Under the latest draft, the Treasury secretary would have authority to impose a circuit-breaker on stablecoin rewards for up to 18 months after enactment, if stablecoins were deemed to be driving substantial deposit outflows from community banks.

Following the draft's release, market-implied odds of the bill passing this year rose from 22% to 30% on Polymarket.

Additionally, traders put the odds of passage before July 1 at 53%, versus 30% Thursday, after the contract briefly surged to 69%. The chance of legislation becoming law before April most recently stood at at 45%, roughly double Thursday's 23%.

Bessent helped with a post on X:

"I’ve said many times that the CLARITY Act is essential to ensuring America wins the global race for new technology.

That’s the reason Congress passed the GENIUS Act: to ensure that stablecoin infrastructure, a revolutionary financial technology, will be built in America..."

While markets clearly show traders see a clearer path for crypto legislation ahead of Tuesday's key procedural vote in the Senate, there's still plenty of road between a favorable vote and a presidential signature.

According to CoinDesk, Tuesday's Senate cloture vote requires 60 senators, forcing the measure to draw bipartisan support. Clearing that threshold would be an important political milestone, but it would not amount to final Senate passage. 

Lawmakers could still face a lengthy amendment process of the bill. Any changes would also have to be reconciled with the House before legislation could head to the president, while the congressional calendar adds another source of uncertainty.

The next move belongs to the Democrats, because this wasn't a negotiated package, one analyst said.

Jaret Sieberg, a financial policy analyst for TD Cowen, said the Democratic lawmakers may not see enough here to justify getting on board, so he maintained a 25% chance of Clarity Act passage on Monday.

"We are not convinced the updated ethics language Senate Republicans released last night is substantive enough for moderate Democrats," he wrote in a note to clients.

The problems for Democrats: President Trump would still be able to maintain his crypto investments, even if they're structured in a blind trust, so it doesn't sever him from the industry he has such an influence on. And the powers for state attorneys general to sue remain very narrow, with no direct actions possible against the president. Also, Trump would tout a yes vote as a major personal victory, Sieberg said, potentially carrying a political cost for the November elections.

On the positive side, Sieberg noted, the changes could give Democrats a little more political cover if they wanted to support the bill, and bankers may feel more comfortable with it because of the extra protections it gives their deposit accounts from customers running to stablecoins.

He said that because the administration hasn't yet offered Democrat nominations to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission, those could be offered up to sweeten the deal in a final negotiation.

And while the odds of Clarity act passage have failed to rise above 50%, even the modest move observed was enough to push bitcoin up nearly $2000 to just shy of $80K, the highest since Friday's post-CPI "band aid" response.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:20
Tyler Durden

EPA Poised To Scrap Power Plant Carbon Standards

Zero Rss
3 weeks 3 days ago
EPA Poised To Scrap Power Plant Carbon Standards

By Robin Lawrence, of UtilityDive

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin is expected to formally rescind carbon pollution standards for fossil fuel power plants today, according to multiple media reports.

The repeal would complete the Trump administration’s elimination of climate policies enacted under the Obama and Biden administrations and could prevent future administrations from regulating greenhouse gases emissions from power plants, according to The New York Times.

Climate Mayors and C40 Cities are among the municipal and environmental groups that have opposed the repeal, which the EPA first proposed in June 2025. “GHG emissions from fossil fuel-fired power plants contribute significantly to costly and detrimental fiscal and public health impacts for cities across the United States,” the groups, along with the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law, stated in an Aug. 7, 2025, letter to the EPA. 

The Mount Storm Power Station, a coal-fired power plant in West Virginia, on July 13, 2026

The EPA has initiated rollbacks of greenhouse gas emissions standards since President Donald Trump took office. Environmental groups and local governments have filed multiple lawsuits attempting to halt the actions.

In September 2025, EPA proposed a rule to end the Greenhouse Gas Reporting Program, which requires over 8,000 facilities and suppliers in the U.S. to report their greenhouse gas emissions annually.

Twelve cities and counties joined a coalition of 24 states in a March lawsuit challenging the EPA’s repeal of its 2009 endangerment finding, the underpinning for greenhouse gas regulation under the Clean Air Act.

Also in March, a coalition of 21 states and local governments filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s repeal of the 2024 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards Rule. That lawsuit also challenges EPA’s rollback of real-time continuous emissions monitoring at power plants, alleging it violates the Clean Air Act.

In their August 2025 comments opposing the EPA’s repeal of power plant greenhouse gas emissions standards, Climate Mayors, C40 and the Sabin Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School said that cities nationwide “rely on the 2024 Carbon Pollution Standards to help protect them from costly and dangerous impacts to infrastructure and public health, and to augment their work to mitigate and adapt to climate change.”

The most acute effects of greenhouse gas emissions are often felt in cities, the letter states. “Moreover, federal regulation of power sector GHG emissions not only reduces emissions from regulated power plants, but also has the indirect effect of reducing emissions from other sectors that use electricity, including the building and transportation sectors, which are the top two sources of GHG emissions in U.S. cities,” the groups state. 

EPA estimated last year that repealing emission guidelines and carbon capture requirements would save the power sector about $1.2 billion a year, and repealing 2024 amendments to mercury emissions standards would save power plants about $120 million a year.  

When it issued the standards in May 2024, EPA found that the regulations would deliver $370 billion in net benefits over two decades, the Institute for Policy Integrity at the New York University School of Law said.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that EPA has an obligation to control greenhouse gas emissions from power plants under the Clean Air Act,” Dena Adler, senior attorney at the Institute for Policy Integrity, said in an emailed statement Monday. “The power sector is the second-largest U.S. greenhouse gas emitter. Leaving this pollution unchecked ignores the Supreme Court, puts the public at risk, and flagrantly violates EPA’s legal responsibilities.”

The EPA has not responded to a request for comment.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:10
Tyler Durden

State Seizes Girl After Catholic Parents Refuse To Call Her A Boy

Zero Rss
3 weeks 3 days ago
State Seizes Girl After Catholic Parents Refuse To Call Her A Boy

Authored by Steve Watson via Modernity News,

A Massachusetts family has spent nearly two years fighting the state for custody of their daughter after a public school socially transitioned her behind their backs and child-welfare officials treated the parents' refusal to play along as the crime.

Joseph and Arlene Kutzko, devout Catholics, say staff at Algonquin Regional High School began treating their daughter Sophie as a boy without telling them. In December 2024, when Sophie was 15, the Department of Children and Families removed her from the home because her parents would not recognize her as male.

Physical-abuse claims against Joseph were later deemed unfounded. That did not stop a permanent restraining order or DCF cutting off contact after the couple still would not use a male name and pronouns.

? OMG. In a terrifying case, these Catholic parents in Massachusetts had their daughter TAKEN AWAY by the state because they refused to let her transition and affirm her as a BOY

The school went behind their back to teach her gender ideology, and the counselor did it without... pic.twitter.com/HC4kGYPdMD

— Eric Daugherty (@EricLDaugh) September 14, 2026

Sophie is now 17. The family says the state housed her in a boys' dormitory, denied her Sunday Mass, and put her on birth control and psychiatric drugs. Officials are now seeking court approval for high-dose testosterone.

The Kutzkos want her home and a full psychological evaluation first. Their attorney, Vernadette Broyles, is also pressing Congress so that a parent's refusal to medically or socially transition a child is never branded "child abuse."

The pattern is not unique to one Massachusetts high school. In Ludlow, parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri alleged Baird Middle School socially transitioned their children in secret, used opposite-sex names and pronouns at school, and used legal names when speaking to mom and dad. The First Circuit sided with the district. The Supreme Court declined the case in April 2026.

IDENTITY CRISIS: Parents Stephen Foote and Marissa Silvestri claim their child was encouraged by Ludlow Public School officials to adopt a new name and different gendered pronouns. https://t.co/oo5jLS0ifw pic.twitter.com/EBUeyZ1q8n

— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 17, 2022

That pipeline - school secrecy, then state power - is the same one Trump's Justice Department has been chasing in Illinois. In May, the DOJ opened investigations into 36 Illinois districts accused of helping children change genders without telling parents and of pushing sexual-orientation and gender ideology without opt-out notices.

Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said: "This Department of Justice is determined to put an end to local school authorities keeping parents in the dark about how sexuality and gender ideology are being pushed in classrooms." She added: "Supreme Court precedent leaves no doubt: parents have the fundamental right and primary authority to direct the care, upbringing, and education of their children."

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker called the probe "a sham aimed at punishing states President Trump does not like."

Illinois Democrats had already shown where they wanted the law to go. House Bill 4876 would have redefined an "abused child" to include a minor denied "gender-affirming services" - puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, or surgery - and allowed DCFS to take children from parents who objected. Doctors who treated minors without parental consent would have been shielded from liability.

Shannon Adcock of Awake Illinois warned: "In Illinois, parents who are considered child abusers can lose custody of their children if in this case they do not affirm transgender drugs, surgical procedures such as penis and breast removal." She added: "If a minor opts for this, and you as a parent deny that, that means that you are considered an abuser of a child."

Child abuse in Illinois can carry a $25,000 fine and 15 years in prison. On Joe Rogan's podcast, Dr. Phil McGraw said of the medical associations backing youth transition: "I have never seen those organisations sign off on anything with less information as to whether or not it does long-term harm of anything in my life. And when I ask about that, when I bring that up, then they immediately label you as transphobic."

Oregon shows what happens when the policy is affirmation-first and parental consent is optional. A study of insurance records found Oregon minors far more likely than the national average to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria and put on cross-sex hormones.

Roughly 1 in 240 girls and 1 in 630 boys received those hormones by age 17 - about three times the national rate for girls and twice for boys, higher still at ages 14 and 15. Oregon adopted WPATH standards, expanded Medicaid coverage with little or no age floor, and passed shield laws letting 15-year-olds consent without parental notification.

There was no matching collapse in youth suicide to justify the surge. The White House under Trump has called changing a minor's gender "child abuse" and "medical malpractice." CMS has since moved to cut federal Medicaid and CHIP dollars for puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and related surgeries for minors.

Over the pond in the UK, a draft ban on "conversion practices" threatens parents, teachers, and doctors with unlimited fines and five years in prison. Equalities Minister Olivia Bailey said: "Conversion practices are driven by the false belief that being LGBT+ is shameful and can be forcibly changed. No-one should face abuse just because of who they are."

Critics say ordinary parental caution - telling a daughter she is a girl, or citing the Cass Review's finding that the evidence for puberty blockers is "remarkably weak" - could be recast as a crime. Official school guidance still allows social transition for children as young as four.

Helen Joyce of Sex Matters said schools have "indoctrinated children" for a decade and that officials "actually need to de-radicalise a whole generation of teachers." Maya Forstater called the idea that a child can start school as a girl and leave as a boy "a dangerous fairytale."

Taxpayer-funded groups have written the playbook. LGBT Youth Scotland, which has taken nearly £1 million a year in public money, advised Scottish schools that "it is best to not disclose information to parents or carers without the young person's permission." Coming-out templates taught children how to change their name at school. Teachers were told not to "deny their identity."

Simon Calvert of the Christian Institute said: "The idea that a teacher can just decide on the spot, the first time a kid speaks to them about gender confusion, to socially transition them by using whatever pronouns or name the child wants, is clearly wrong." He added: "The idea that they can try to keep their parents - and therefore their doctors - out of the decision is not just wrong, it is unprofessional."

The Kutzkos are still in court. A school started a secret social transition. The state took the girl, isolated her from her faith, and now wants to inject testosterone. That is not safeguarding. It is the state substituting itself for the family.

Any district that hides name and pronoun changes from parents should lose federal dollars until the policy is reversed. Parents - not counselors, not DCF, not activist charities - direct the upbringing of their children.

* * *

 

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 17:00
Tyler Durden

Jen Terry speculates on status of Melanie Moreno and Sincere Rhea’s relationship post-‘Love Island USA’: ‘Don’t think they’re together right now’

NY Post
3 weeks 3 days ago
Jen Terry stopped by the Page Six studio to catch up with “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts Danny Murphy and Evan Real about which remaining “Love Island” season 8 couples will be endgame. So take a sip of Pom Wonderful Antioxidant Super Teas, our sponsor, as this bombshell spills it all on her co-stars Melanie Moreno and...
mliss1578

Jen Terry speculates on status of Melanie Moreno and Sincere Rhea’s relationship post-‘Love Island USA’: ‘Don’t think they’re together right now’

NY Post
3 weeks 3 days ago
Jen Terry stopped by the Page Six studio to catch up with “Virtual Reali-Tea” co-hosts Danny Murphy and Evan Real about which remaining “Love Island” season 8 couples will be endgame. So take a sip of Pom Wonderful Antioxidant Super Teas, our sponsor, as this bombshell spills it all on her co-stars Melanie Moreno and...
Page Six Video

Who will be the face of the Clippers after Kawhi Leonard trade?

NY Post
3 weeks 3 days ago
Trading Kawhi Leonard did more than remove the Clippers’ best player. It eliminated their last convincing claim to having a franchise centerpiece. That loss feels especially severe after the NBA punished the Clippers’ salary-cap violations with a $30 million fine, leadership suspensions and the forfeiture of five first-round picks. While Brandon Ingram, Gradey Dick and...
Ryan Anderson

Lindsay Clancy Juror Admits To Feminist Motives Behind Trial

Zero Rss
3 weeks 3 days ago
Lindsay Clancy Juror Admits To Feminist Motives Behind Trial

It's not surprising, but it is discouraging how accurate the conservative analysis of the Lindsay Clancy trial has become.  Every suspicion has proven correct about the jury and every fear about their motives is proving more substantial.  The trial itself symbolizes a disastrous miscarriage of justice in favor of ideology; it offers proof that in an age of social media and political cultism, finding an impartial jury is increasingly impossible. 

Thanks to the "rogue juror" the deliberations did not lead to a calculating child killer going free (in Massachusetts, patients incarcerated in mental health facilities get a review and the possibility of release every six months). However, that juror has come under relentless attack from the media, from Clancy's defense team and from the other jurors involved in the case. 

Their primary argument?  That the rogue juror was "not following the rules of reasonable doubt" and was not acting impartially.  As more information has been released in regards to jury proceedings, it's becoming clear that there was a large group of jurors who came into the case with an agenda and these jurors pressured the others to conform. 

One anonymous female juror insinuated as much during an interview with local media. 

  

As many critics predicted, there was an ideological push behind the jury's refusal to view Clancy as a criminal, despite ample evidence indicating she had planned the murders in advance.  They ignored this evidence in favor of claims that she had been struck with a temporary "postpartum psychosis" and was completely unaware of her actions.  In other words, Clancy was immediately held up as a victim; perhaps more of a victim than the three children she killed.  

Women killers often use the postpartum claim as a defense because, at bottom, it's impossible to disprove.  In the state of MA the prosecution has the added difficulty of presenting "reasonable doubt" that Clancy is lying about going momentarily insane; a state of mind which is ultimately up for broad interpretation by the jury.  And, if the jury already has an agenda, then making such a case regardless of the evidence is pointless.

Juror Paula Devlin, who has been making the rounds in mainstream media and the same juror who helped to dox the rogue juror, indicates that she and other jurors viewed the case through a feminist lens.  Their goal?  To use Lindsay Clancy's trial as a "turning point" to further the aims of women in general. 

During her next media tour stop, juror Paula Devlin says the mostly female jury knew the Lindsay Clancy trial could create change to “make it better for other women.”

“We knew that this was a turning point, and this would be something that could change something to make it… pic.twitter.com/4aBlCDzeUx

— Collin Rugg (@CollinRugg) September 13, 2026

“Even though we didn’t know what was going on outside of our little bubble that we were in, we knew that this was a turning point and this would be something that could change something to make it better for other women in the future for other families. You know, justice for those children. Is this never happening again?” 

It should be noted that jurors are required to decide a case based only on the evidence in front of them, not on their personal feelings or ideological leanings.  This language is an echo of the language used by feminist groups rallying in Clancy's defense online and in protests.  The idea that the case is about "all women" rather than a single child murderer, has poisoned public discourse. 

Devlin's claim that the jurors "didn't know what was going on outside of their little bubble" is also a misrepresentation of reality.  The jury was not sequestered.  They went home every night to speak with their friends, family and go online.  There is little chance they were not being influenced by the political circus surrounding the trial.

How do 11 jurors ignore evidence showing that Lindsay Clancy sent her husband on errands, used online apps to calculate how long his drive would take, then she killed each child one by one in the basement, then she took a call from her husband in the middle of the murders and faked as if everything was fine?  All of this was due to a perfectly timed psychotic break, which psychologists argue is not possible?

The truth is, feminist movements have decided to exploit Clancy's case, to use it as a weapon to further their political aims.  One of these aims is to create a two-tier legal system in which women avoid all punishment and accountability, because men are either directly or indirectly to blame for every crime committed by a woman. 

Not to spoil the fun and everything, but if we lived in a patriarchy, and the patriarchy is so awful and evil and to blame for everything…..wouldn’t Lindsay be in prison? 😬 pic.twitter.com/5Mw6Wek40L

— Natalie Jean Beisner (@NJBeisner) September 13, 2026

This might seem like low IQ insanity, but this is all part of a highly organized effort to destroy the western world.  The plan?  To undermine the morals and principles of the west through relativism - And women are particularly easy to target and brainwash. because of their propensity for group-think.  

The Clancy trial represents a turning point, yes, but not in the way feminists believe.  Rather, it is an event that has shocked western men and caused many to reconsider ideas of "equality" and liberal society.  After the trial, "Repeal the 19th" was trending on social media for days.  Americans are starting to think maybe abandoning "patriarchy" and putting women on a pedestal was a bad idea.

Tyler Durden Mon, 09/14/2026 - 16:40
Tyler Durden

zero rss