Search This Blog

Monday, November 4, 2024

Constellation Surprises With 30% EPS Growth. Regulators Turn Cool On Amazon Nuke Deal

 S&P 500 nuclear energy giant Constellation Energy (CEG) reported better-than-expected third-quarter earnings and revenue while also narrowing its 2024 profit expectations early Monday even as energy regulators rejected a nuclear deal between Amazon.com (AMZN) and Talen Energy (TLNE) late Friday.

Constellation Energy saw Q3 earnings grow 28% to $2.74 per share while sales totaled $6.55 billion, up 7% compared to a year ago. Prior to Monday, analysts predicted third-quarter EPS earnings of $2.66 and revenue coming in at $5.71 billion.

The company on Monday also raised the midpoint and narrowed full-year 2024 earnings guidance to between $8.00 – $8.40 per share. In early August, Constellation Energy increased its full-year profit guidance to between $7.60-$8.40 per share for 2024. Constellation Energy's previous view was $7.23-$8.03 per share.

The company said Monday that its Q3 earnings increase was primarily due to its nuclear energy offerings and "favorable net market and portfolio conditions." The company's nuclear fleet produced 45,510 gigawatt-hours in Q3, up 3% compared Q3 2023.

"The importance of AI and the data economy to America's economic competitiveness and national security can't be overstated, and Constellation will do our part to meet the moment," Constellation Energy Chief Executive Joe Dominguez said in the earnings release Monday.

Dominguez added on the conference call with analysts Monday that the "intensity of our negotiations with hyperscalers and others keeps going up and up."

"Our entire team is focused on executing transactions and supporting data centers development," the Constellation Energy head said.

Constellation management also said on the earnings call Monday that base earnings will grow by at least 13% through 2030. In May, Constellation said it would grow profit by at least 10% through the end of the decade.

https://www.investors.com/news/nuclear-energy-sp500-constellation-energy-earnings/

'Leaked NBC Election Night Rehearsal Shows Trump Winning Swing States'

 by Steve Watson via Modernity.news,

Footage has leaked online of an NBC News dry run of election night, and interestingly it shows president Trump winning the swing states.

The mock election night scenario is accompanied by a chyron stating “THIS IS A TEST,” and has NBC anchors covering wins for Trump in key states like Michigan and Wisconsin.

“Right now, it looks like there’s a big crack in Michigan,” one of the anchors is heard saying.

“Saginaw, Michigan, this is really big for Donald Trump. Joe Biden won it in 2020, but this time it’s going to Trump. If he does that in Michigan, it’s a good sign for him,” one of them says in the clip.

Pointing to a map showing Trump heading to victory, an anchor comments, “Kamala Harris only has a couple of ways to get there,” pointing particularly to Pennsylvania.

The footage shows that even with Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Minnesota and Virginia voting blue, Kamala falls short with 247 electoral votes.

The leaked footage also suggests Republican gains in both the Senate and House.

Watch:

As we highlighted last week, a news station in Pennsylvania was forced to apologize for flashing up the US presidential election results in the state as part of a “test” that wasn’t supposed to be seen by viewers.

The ‘results’ showed Kamala beating Trump by 52 per cent to 47 per cent of the vote.

Most final polls are calling it for Trump. A fresh AtlasIntel swing state poll shows Trump leading in all seven states.

In 2020 they were the most accurate pollster, and now they also have Trump leading nationally by 2 points.

*  *  *

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/leaked-nbc-election-night-rehearsal-shows-trump-winning-swing-states

US Supreme Court to hear fight over Louisiana voting map with more Black-majority districts

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear a bid by Louisiana officials and civil rights groups to preserve an electoral map that raised the number of Black-majority congressional districts in the state in a legal challenge by a group of voters who called themselves "non-African American."

The justices took up appeals of a decision by a panel of three federal judges that found that the map laying out Louisiana's six U.S. House of Representatives districts - with two Black-majority districts, up from one previously - likely violated the U.S. Constitution's promise of equal protection.

The Supreme Court in May allowed the map to be used in Tuesday's election that will decide control of the House. Its decision to hear the appeal does not change that. The court is expected to hear arguments in the case and issue a decision by the end of June.

Stuart Naifeh, a lawyer with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, one of the civil rights groups involved in the case, said, "We look forward to continuing to defend the rights of Black voters to elect their candidates of choice in the Supreme Court."

The boundaries of legislative districts across the country are redrawn to reflect population changes every decade. The Louisiana case is the latest in a series of legal disputes over racial issues arising during this redistricting process.

The Republican-controlled Louisiana legislature approved the map in January after U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick in 2022 ruled that a map it previously had adopted containing only a single Black-majority congressional district in the state unlawfully harmed Black voters.

Dick concluded that this previous map likely violated the Voting Rights Act, a landmark 1965 U.S. law that bars racial discrimination in voting. Black people comprise nearly a third of Louisiana's population.

The Supreme Court in 2023 left Dick's ruling in place.

In January, 12 Louisiana voters identifying themselves in court papers as "non-African American" sued to block the redrawn map in Louisiana. A lawyer for the plaintiffs did not respond to a request to provide the racial breakdown of the plaintiffs.

The three-judge panel in a 2-1 ruling on April 30 temporarily blocked the map as an unlawful "racial gerrymander." The panel decided that the manner in which the districts were drawn likely violated the Constitution's 14th Amendment equal protection provision because race had been the legislature's predominant consideration in the map's design.

The amendment, ratified in 1868 in the aftermath of the American Civil War, addressed issues relating to the rights of formerly enslaved Black people.

Gerrymandering involves the manipulation of the geographical boundaries of electoral districts to marginalize a certain set of voters and increase the influence of others. In this case, the judicial panel sided with the plaintiffs who claimed the disputed Louisiana map unlawfully reduced the influence of these non-Black voters.

Two judges appointed by Republican former President Donald Trump were in the majority in the panel's ruling, with a judge appointed by Democratic former President Bill Clinton dissenting. Black voters tend to support Democratic candidates.

The panel had directed Louisiana's legislature to devise a new map by June 3, though the Supreme Court stepped in to allow the disputed map to be used in the 2024 election.

In their Supreme Court appeal, Louisiana officials had urged the justices to approve the disputed map and finally resolve the long-running litigation.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, praised the court on Monday for agreeing to hear the case.

"State legislatures have the responsibility under the federal Constitution to draw these maps," Murrill said. "Based upon the Supreme Court's most recent pronouncements, we believe the map is constitutional."

The Supreme Court in May made it harder to prove racial discrimination in electoral maps in a major ruling backing South Carolina Republicans who moved out 30,000 Black residents when they redrew a U.S. House district.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/us-supreme-court-hear-fight-144118484.html

Biden-Harris' Economic Time-Bomb

 by Daniel Lacalle,

The insane neo-Keynesian policies implemented by the Biden-Harris administration have created persistent inflation and record levels of debt with two objectives: to bloat Gross Domestic Product and jobs with public spending and government jobs.

The United States’ insane inflation is solely due to out-of-control spending and currency printing. Corporations, wars, or supply chains cannot cause aggregate prices to rise, nor can they consolidate the increase even at a slower pace. Although this can have an impact on individual prices, the only factor that causes aggregate prices to rise year after year is the decline in the value of the US dollar that the government issues.

Over 20.5% accumulated inflation over the past four years, government deficit spending has reached nearly $2 trillion annually despite record tax receipts and a growing economy, public debt has reached almost $36 trillion, and the monthly job figure includes an astonishing 43,000 new government jobs each month. In 2023, nearly 25% of all job gains were government ones, and the entirety of the growth of the labor force in the past four years came from foreign workers. The latest jobs figure is so poor it seems disingenuous to blame it on hurricanes and strikes, as if economists and forecasters had not considered those two factors in their estimates. Furthermore, the only factor that continued to increase uncontrollably was the number of government jobs, adding 40,000 new positions to an overall total of just 12,000 jobs. No wonder the labor participation rate and employment-to-population ratios remain below 2019 levels. Furthermore, in the latest GDP figure, government spending accounted for 30% of the annualized growth, while investment was basically stagnant. In the past nine quarters, government spending has been one of the top drivers of GDP growth, and its contribution to GDP in the third quarter of 2024 was the largest in a year.

This is upside-down economics in full swing. Private sector investment weakness, higher taxes for the productive economy and government spending and debt driving the economy. Of course, this never ends well.

The Harris-Biden administration arrived in January 2021, when the economy was bouncing back strongly. Instead of allowing the private sector to thrive, it embarked on a strategy of out-of-control spending and tax increases with two objectives: increase the size of government in the economy so much that the next administration would be unable to reduce it enough in four years. The second objective was to bloat growth and job figures so aggressively that the next administration will see a recession if it reduces public sector growth. You may ask yourself why they would do it if Harris intended to win the elections. If Kamala Harris wins, she will continue to expand the size of government, inflate prices through spending and printing, and blame companies and stores for these actions.

The Biden-Harris administration has left a massive time bomb for Trump and Elon Musk’s government efficiency office if they win. It will be almost impossible to avoid a recession if they cut discretionary spending and eliminate duplicate jobs. It is the same strategy that the socialists followed in Greece, Spain, and France, by the way.

However, the socialist strategy may backfire. The evidence is that citizens do not value Biden’s policies and the state of the economy. The approval rate regarding the economy is atrociously low, 39.8%, according to RCP. United States citizens do not believe that they are better off than in January 2021. Inflation, immigration, and rising taxes have crippled small businesses and families. Furthermore, a strong pro-growth strategy and lower taxes will likely boost the dormant investment figure, create jobs in the private sector, and help small businesses achieve critical mass and grow. In Argentina, Milei recognized the necessary actions and cautioned the citizens about the inevitable reduction of the bloated state. The Kirchner socialists left a more significant time bomb legacy than what Trump might inherit. The response has been overwhelmingly positive. Lower inflation led to lower taxation, an eight-month budget surplus, and rapidly improving public finances.

The biggest risk for the United States economy and the US dollar as the world’s reserve currency is out-of-control public spending and constant currency printing added to tax hikes. Healing public finances and reducing government jobs may have a temporary negative impact on GDP, but higher exports, investment, and private sector jobs will likely compensate for it, and the result will be better for the US dollar and American citizens.

More government is always poorer citizens. The potential of the United States economy’s private sector is much greater than the short-term negative impact of efficiency and budget control on headline GDP.

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/biden-harris-economic-time-bomb-warning-trump-musk

'US cybersecurity chief says disinformation surge hasn't impacted election'

 U.S. cybersecurity agency director Jen Easterly said on Monday that her department has not seen evidence of any activity that could impact the outcome of the election, despite a surge in disinformation.

She added that the 2024 election has faced an "unprecedented" amount of disinformation from foreign adversaries.

https://www.marketscreener.com/news/latest/US-cybersecurity-chief-says-disinformation-surge-hasn-t-impacted-election-48249500/

What Should Be Done for Student Victims of the Shots?

 A few weeks ago, I was contacted by Congressman Matt Rosendale who represents the Second District of Montana. His staff asked if I would support his new proposed bill called the University Forced Vaccination Student Injury Mitigation Act. In summary, the bill would require higher education institutions to pay the medical expenses for any student who was required or is currently required to take a Covid-19 vaccine to attend classes and who suffered a vaccine injury. Additionally, higher education institutions would lose all federal funds from the Department of Education if they do not comply with the legislation.

The student seeking payment of medical costs would submit a request that includes: a record of Covid-19 vaccination; a certification from a medical provider that the vaccine caused an injury or disease; and medical expenses for the student. Covered diseases include Myocarditis, Pericarditis, Thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and any other diseases the Secretary of Education determines to be associated with a Covid-19 vaccine. The institution of higher education would be required to accept the request and pay the injured student within 30 days unless there is insufficient evidence to support the injury or disease, or they have found evidence that the request is fraudulent.

No College Mandates has been tracking college Covid-19 vaccine mandates for the past several years. Colleges began announcing Covid-19 vaccine mandates in April of 2021. By the summer of 2021, over 1,000 colleges and universities had announced that students would be required to take these vaccines prior to fall enrollment. By December of 2021, nearly 300 of those colleges announced they would mandate a booster shot for spring enrollment even though it had become abundantly clear that the vaccines did not prevent transmission or infection. Even so, the colleges continued to peddle the propaganda that vaccination was the best way to protect the community. In fact, some of them still do. 

At this time, 17 colleges and universities still have Covid-19 mandates for the general population of students to enroll for the upcoming semester or to live in residential housing. Healthcare students are still largely required to take updated Covid-19 vaccines either under a mandate from their college healthcare program or the clinical partner that partners with their program. 

While all remaining college Covid-19 vaccine mandates are irrational, dangerous, and arguably criminal, some are even more egregious than others. For example, there is a consortium of colleges in California called The Claremont Colleges. The Claremont Colleges include five undergraduate liberal arts colleges and two graduate colleges. The campuses are small and connected, and the students share classrooms, dining halls, and one common student health center across all campuses. 

In other words, other than the colleges they were accepted into, there is not much that separates the student’s day-to-day life at the different colleges. That is unless you review the frequently asked questions under their entrance health requirements tab where you will find only one of the seven colleges, Pitzer College, requires “seasonal Covid-19 vaccines due annually by October 31.

It remains unclear who granted colleges the right to control students’ bodily autonomy and informed consent when they imposed Covid-19 vaccine mandates or what possessed the students to fall in line with their policies that were based neither on sound science nor ethical principles which colleges so proudly purport to defend in their mission statements. 

Quite simply, as the whole world went blind to common sense or scientific inquiry to justify extremely oppressive policies, college administrators were at the top of the machine that both created these coercive policies and facilitated their rollout, acting as if their policies would end the pandemic when they knew no such thing was possible. 

College administrators also knew from early data and their own internal tracking systems (most of which have been removed from college websites) that college students were at zero risk for severe injury or death from the Covid-19 virus. Millions of college students were infected and reinfected with the virus, but you’d be hard-pressed to find college students who suffered from severe illness or who died from it. 

College administrators knew their students never needed these vaccines. I have never once bought into the claims that they did the best they could with what they knew at the time. Their insane policies persisted no matter how many times No College Mandates put them on notice that the data didn’t support their policies, that injuries and deaths had resulted and will continue to result from their coercive policies, and that one day they would be held liable. 

So yes, it is past time to hold these colleges responsible for the injuries their policies caused. Without such accountability, college students and their families have no other recourse. This never had to happen. Every college student must retain the right to decide what medical treatments to receive based on consultation with their doctor, entirely free from coercion. 

I am thrilled to support the proposed legislation, but I have also expressed concerns with it. The bill seems to conflict with The Prep Act as colleges and universities are considered “covered persons,” and therefore immune from liability. I am unclear how this bill (if approved) would supersede that Act. 

Also, after consulting doctors who are treating the vaccine-injured, I hope the list of covered diseases would be expanded, and the Secretary of Education should not be the office that determines if the injury or disease resulted from Covid-19 vaccination. However, I have been assured that Representative Rosendale is open to amending the bill in the coming weeks to make it the most complete and effective. Most importantly, I have been informed that the bill is getting tremendous early support. 

The public is waking up to the sham of the Covid-19 pandemic and the harm that resulted from universal vaccination policies especially for those least at risk to develop serious illness or death from the virus. There have been few wins for college students that were stripped of their fundamental right to bodily autonomy, but the fight for justice continues, and it finally feels like justice might be on its way.

Assisted dying is a corruption of medicine

 Over the past 50 years, both the lay and medical communities in many Western nations have gradually accepted the idea of assisted dying. There is no guarantee that Britain’s MPs will follow suit when the assisted-dying bill comes before parliament at the end of November. But the momentum certainly appears to be on the side of assisted-dying advocates.

If the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – to give it its full title – does pass, practical measures must be adopted to protect patients as much as possible. Kim Leadbeater, the MP who proposed the bill, has insisted that adequate safeguards can be put in place, although many of the details in the bill are yet to be made public.

This is hardly reassuring. Other countries’ experiences have shown that maintaining strict safeguards for physician-assisted dying always fails. It is a certainty that if assisted dying is legalised, patients who shouldn’t die will die. But two factors do seem to offer patients at least some measure of protection: the eligibility criteria for assisted suicide and the role of physicians in the process. We can see this in the contrasting experiences of two places that have legalised assisted dying: Canada and California.

The populations of Canada and California, at around 40million each, are comparable. The overall demographics, while not identical, are similar, and there are no significant differences in the leading causes of death, overall death rates or access to palliative-care services. Yet the difference in the numbers of assisted deaths between Canada and California is huge. Between 2016 and 2021, California recorded 3,344 assisted deaths, while Canada recorded 31,664.

In fact, in 2021 alone, there were 10,064 assisted deaths in Canada. That accounts for 3.3 per cent of all deaths nationwide. That same year in California, there were 486 deaths, which account for just 0.15 per cent of all deaths statewide.

The first reason for the disparity is clear. The standard a patient has to meet before he or she is eligible for assisted dying is much higher in California than it is in Canada. In California, a patient must have a terminal illness, with death reasonably expected within six months. In Canada, there is no requirement for the patient to have a terminal disease and death does not have to be imminent. Indeed, under Canadian legislation, a patient can be eligible by claiming to be enduring ‘unbearable suffering’ from a medical condition. There is also no requirement for medical practitioners to have tried any other options to relieve a patient’s suffering. In Canada, a patient’s seeming willingness to die matters more than what they’re diagnosed with and what treatment they’ve received.

Unsurprisingly, the looser Canadian criteria drastically expand the number of candidates for assisted suicide. They also raise legitimate concerns about the safety of the disabled, those with mental illness or depression, and patients with chronic but not terminal conditions.

Social factors matter here, too. Is assisted dying really an ‘autonomous choice’ if it’s made by those who are vulnerable, facing dire poverty, inadequate social services or failing healthcare systems? Data from Canada suggest not. A recent expert committee reviewing euthanasia deaths in Ontario, Canada’s largest province, found that a significant number of people who received euthanasia lived in the province’s poorest areas. People requesting euthanasia were also more likely to require disability support and be socially isolated. As one doctor on the expert committee put it: ‘To finally have a government report that recognises these cases of concern is extremely important. We’ve been gaslit for so many years when we raised fears about people [accessing assisted suicide] because they were poor, disabled or socially isolated.’

There is a second major reason for the disparity between Canada and California – namely, the role doctors play. California only allows physicians to prescribe medications for patients’ oral self-administration once the patient has resolved to die. Physicians are not allowed to administer lethal injections. This accounts for the low number of patient requests that are actually carried out in California – in fact, just 1.9 per cent of all requests in 2021 ended in death. Most patients either change their minds or die before they find it necessary to consume their lethal medications. There were no recorded instances of doctors administering lethal injections in the 486 assisted deaths in 2021. In Canada, however, doctors play a far more hands-on role, administering euthanasia via lethal injections. Of the 10,064 assisted deaths in Canada in 2021, 10,057 were by lethal injection.

The Canadian law allows doctors to euthanise patients with impunity. Prosecutions for improper practice are non-existent. Commenting on cases in the Ontario report, Trudo Lemmens, professor of health law and policy at the University of Toronto, said medical professional bodies and judicial authorities appeared to be ‘unwilling to curtail practices that appear ethically problematic… Either the law is too broad, or the professional guidance is not precise enough, or it is simply not seen as a priority to protect some of our most vulnerable citizens.’

There is no greater power than that over life and death. This is what assisted-dying legislation grants to doctors. It cannot help but muddy the relationship between patients and physicians. Will patients look their doctors in the eye and wonder what is in the back of their minds when they recommend assisted suicide?

A tenet of the medical profession that dates back to Hippocrates of Cos is that ‘I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan’. Any legislation involving assisted dying surely compromises this responsibility to patients. As Dr Sonu Gaind, professor of medicine at the University of Toronto, put it, ‘what we’re doing in many cases is the opposite of suicide prevention’.

And there’s the rub. Legalising assisted dying undermines the very ethos of the medical profession. Whatever happened to ‘first, do no harm’?

Cory Franklin’s new book, The Covid Diaries 2020-2024: Anatomy of a Contagion As It Happened, is now available on Amazon in Kindle and book form.

https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/11/04/assisted-dying-is-a-corruption-of-medicine/