Is farmed salmon a guilty pleasure this Christmas?Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) appeared to be against Donald Trump's announced nominee for the Department of Defense, Pete Hegseth . But on Monday, Ernst met with him again and now pledges her support . “Pete committed to completing a full audit of the Pentagon and selecting a senior official who will uphold the roles and value of our servicemen and women and who will prioritize and strengthen my work to prevent sexual assault within the ranks," she writes in a statement. ALSO READ: 'It's offensive': Multiple senators object to Trump's plan to usher in Pete Hegseth Ernst is a survivor of sexual assault who has tried to stop sexual assaults in the military. She is also reportedly a top contender for the role should Hegseth's nomination fail. Hegseth's nomination has been plagued by revelations he was accused of rape in 2017 and amid accusations he has a drinking problem. He has also advocated against having women in combat roles. Hegseth claimed that the sexual encounter was consensual. His attorney, Tom Parlatore, has said his client entered into a confidentiality agreement with the accuser. "As I support Pete through this process, I look forward to a fair hearing based on truth, not anonymous sources," Ernst said. Other lawmakers have demanded that he swear not to drink while under the position after concerns that he was an alcoholic from former and current Fox colleagues. Ernst, a former Army National Guard member and a retired lieutenant colonel, indicated Thursday she wasn't ready to support Hegseth. A spokesperson for Ernst told Newsweek: "As Senator Ernst has said, she is not seeking to be secretary of defense, there is no 'campaign' against Pete, and is continuing the vetting process." Her comments led to social media backlash from MAGA allies, including Charlie Kirk, the founder of the nonprofit conservative Turning Point USA. "People in Iowa have a well-funded primary challenger ready against her. Her political career is in serious jeopardy," he threatened on X. Read the full statement here.US President-elect Donald Trump has threatened to demand control of the Panama Canal be returned to Washington, complaining of “unfair” treatment of American ships and hinting at China’s growing influence. Here are five things to know about the waterway connecting the Pacific and Atlantic oceans. – Panamanian operated – The 80-kilometer (50-mile) interoceanic waterway is operated by the Panama Canal Authority, an autonomous public entity. The Central American nation’s constitution describes the canal as an “inalienable heritage of the Panamanian nation” that is open to vessels “of all nations.” The United States is its main user, accounting for 74 percent of cargo, followed by China with 21 percent. Panama’s government sets the price of tolls based on canal needs and international demand. Rates depends on a vessel’s cargo capacity. “The canal has no direct or indirect control from China, nor the European Union, nor the United States or any other power,” Panama’s President Jose Raul Mulino said Sunday as he dismissed Trump’s threat. All vessels, including warships and submarines, are given a Panama Canal pilot. – National history – Panama’s independence from Colombia in 1903 is linked to the canal. Following the failure of French count Ferdinand de Lesseps to open a channel through the isthmus, the United States promoted the separation of the province of Panama and signed a treaty with the nascent country that ceded land and water in perpetuity to build it. After 10 years of construction and an investment of $380 million, the canal was inaugurated on August 15, 1914 with the transit of the steamer Ancon. Some 25,000 deaths from disease and accidents were recorded during its construction. The canal “is part of our history” and “an irreversible achievement,” Mulino said. – American enclave – Washington’s establishment of a “Canal Zone” — an enclave with its own military bases, police and justice system — gave rise to decades of demands by Panamanians to reunify the country and take control of the waterway. In 1977, Panamanian nationalist leader Omar Torrijos and US president Jimmy Carter signed treaties that allowed the canal to be transferred to Panama on December 31, 1999. “Any attempt to reverse this historic achievement not only dishonors our struggle, but is also an insult to the memory of those who made it possible,” former president Martin Torrijos, the general’s son, wrote on social media. Under the treaties, supported by more than 40 countries, the canal is deemed neutral and any ship can pass through. The only conditions are that ships must comply with safety regulations and military vessels from countries at war must not pass through at the same time. – System of locks – Unlike Egypt’s Suez Canal, the Panama Canal operates using freshwater stored in two reservoirs. A drought led to a reduction in the number of transits in 2023, but the situation has since normalized. The canal, which has a system of locks to raise and lower vessels, transformed global shipping. Crafts can travel between the two oceans in about eight hours without having to sail all the way around Cape Horn, the southern tip of the Americas. The canal allows a ship to shave 20,300 kilometers off a journey from New York to San Francisco. – Cash cow – Five percent of world maritime trade passes through the canal, which connects more than 1,900 ports in 170 countries. By the early 21st century, it had become too small, so it was expanded between 2009 and 2016. Today, the canal can accommodate ships up to 366 meters long and 49 meters wide (1,200 feet by 161 feet) — equivalent to almost four football pitches. It generates six percent of Panama’s national economic output and since 2000 has pumped more than $28 billion into state coffers. More than 11,200 ships transited the canal in the last fiscal year carrying 423 million tons of cargo. With 2,400 staff representing 100 different nationalities, AFP covers the world as a leading global news agency. AFP provides fast, comprehensive and verified coverage of the issues affecting our daily lives.
Samuel Musgrave and an unknown accomplice were captured on CCTV as they entered Out Out on Hartlepool Marina and stole £8,000 worth of goods. Teesside Crown Court heard how the 49-year-old was out looking for scrap metal when he carried out the opportunistic burglary on June 13. Nicci Horton, prosecuting, said the defendant stole a glass washing machine, pizza oven, slushie machine, a large screen projector and some stock. She said the defendant claimed that he believed the business had been abandoned and helped himself to the goods but ‘that was clearly not true’ as the bar was still up and running. Out Out in Hartlepool (Image: Google) Musgrave, of Kirkdale Street, Hetton-le-Hole, pleaded guilty to the burglary. Michael Cahill, mitigating, said his client had been working as a site manager but was now the carer for his elderly father. U8He said: “He was out looking for scrap and the temptation got the better of him when he saw the open door. “He went in with another person and he accepts that they stole those items together.” See more court stories from The Northern Echo by clicking here Don’t miss out on our biggest sale of the year! Get a full year of the Northern Ech o for only £25 or try 6 months for just £6 . Click here for details. Judge Timothy Stead sentenced Musgrave to eight months in custody suspended for 18 months. He added: “You have your father to care for, a 17-year-old daughter and a wife – it’s time to avoid this sort of temptation. “I’m not going to deprive you of your liberty today, there’s no point filling up prisons with sentences of this kind although if you do it again in the near future it will be different. Musgrave was also ordered to attend 15 rehabilitation activity requirement days and carry out 100 hours of unpaid work.More than 20 FREE and cheap things to do in Vancouver this winter
RAPT Therapeutics, Inc. RAPT shares are trading higher after the company disclosed a partnership with Shanghai Jemincare Pharmaceutical. The collaboration is for an exclusive license agreement to develop and commercialize RPT904, a novel anti-IgE monoclonal antibody worldwide, excluding mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan . RPT904 is designed to provide a potential alternative to omalizumab (Xolair), addressing allergic conditions such as asthma and chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU). As per the deal, Jemincare will receive a $35 million upfront payment, up to $672.5 million in regulatory and commercial milestone payments, and royalties on sales outside the Jemincare Territory. RAPT plans to focus on developing RPT904 for food allergies, while Jemincare is conducting Phase 2 trials in China for asthma and CSU. Jemincare has completed a Phase 1 study of JYB1904 in 56 healthy volunteers in China, evaluating safety, pharmacokinetics (PK), and pharmacodynamics (PD). Jemincare is now running two Phase 2 trials in China. The asthma trial focuses on PK and PD comparisons with omalizumab, with topline data expected in late 2025. The CSU trial targets safety and efficacy, with results anticipated in early 2026. Brian Wong, M.D., Ph.D., President and CEO of RAPT said, “We’re delighted to partner with Jemincare and excited by RPT904 and its potential to be a novel best-in-class treatment option for patients with food allergy. Omalizumab’s rapid uptake in food allergy since its approval earlier this year confirms the high unmet need and large opportunity in this growing market.” “RPT904 targets the same clinically validated epitope as omalizumab and combined with extended half-life, gives this molecule a best-in-class profile. We plan to initiate a Phase 2b clinical trial of RPT904 in food allergy in the second half of 2025.” In a separate release, RAPT Therapeutics disclosed a securities purchase agreement with accredited investors for a private placement valued at around $150 million . The agreement includes 100 million common shares priced at $0.85 each and pre-funded warrants for up to 76.45 million shares priced at $0.8499 each. The pre-funded warrants, exercisable at $0.0001 per share, are immediately exercisable and remain valid until fully exercised. The transaction is expected to close by December 27, 2024 , pending customary conditions. Price Action : RAPT shares are up 110.2% at $1.735 at the last check Monday. Read Next: Palantir Vs. Lockheed: A Tech-Fueled Showdown In The $850 Billion Defense Market © 2024 Benzinga.com. Benzinga does not provide investment advice. All rights reserved.Oracle Announces Fiscal 2025 Second Quarter Financial Results
CELH Investors Have Opportunity to Lead Celsius Holdings, Inc. Securities Fraud Lawsuit
Social media users are misrepresenting a , claiming that it gives schools permission to vaccinate children even if their parents do not consent. The ruling addressed a lawsuit filed by Dario and Shujen Politella against Windham Southeast School District and state officials over the mistaken vaccination of their child against COVID-19 in 2021, when he was 6 years old. A lower court had dismissed the original complaint, as well as an amended version. to the U.S. Supreme Court was filed on Nov. 19. But the ruling by Vermont’s high court is not as far-reaching as some online have claimed. In reality, it concluded that anyone the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act, or PREP, Act is immune to state lawsuits. Here’s a closer look at the facts. CLAIM: The Vermont Supreme Court ruled that schools can vaccinate children against their parents’ wishes. THE FACTS: The claim stems from by the Vermont Supreme Court, which found that anyone the PREP Act is immune to state lawsuits, including the officials named in the Politella’s suit. The ruling does not authorize schools to vaccinate children at their discretion. According to the lawsuit, the Politella’s son — referred to as L.P. — was given one dose of the Pfizer BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine at a vaccination clinic held at Academy School in Brattleboro even though his father, Dario, told the school’s assistant principal a few days before that his son was not to receive a vaccination. In what officials described as a mistake, L.P. was removed from class and had a “handwritten label” put on his shirt with the name and date of birth of another student, L.K., who had already been vaccinated that day. L.P. was then vaccinated. Ultimately, the Vermont Supreme Court ruled that officials involved in the case could not be sued. “We conclude that the PREP Act immunizes every defendant in this case and this fact alone is enough to dismiss the case,” the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling reads. “We conclude that when the federal PREP Act immunizes a defendant, the PREP Act bars all state-law claims against that defendant as a matter of law.” , enacted by Congress in 2005, authorizes the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services to issue a declaration in the event of a public health emergency providing immunity from liability for activities related to medical countermeasures, such as the administration of a vaccine, except in cases of “willful misconduct” that result in “death or serious physical injury.” A declaration against COVID-19 on March 17, 2020. It is on Dec. 31. Federals suits claiming willful misconduct are filed in Washington. Social media users described the Vermont Supreme Court’s ruling as having consequences beyond what it actually says. “The Vermont Supreme Court has ruled that schools can force-vaccinate children for Covid against the wishes of their parents,” reads one X post that had been liked and shared approximately 16,600 times as of Tuesday. “The high court ruled on a case involving a 6-year-old boy who was forced to take a Covid mRNA injection by his school. However, his family had explicitly stated that they didn’t want their child to receive the ‘vaccines.’” Other users alleged that the ruling gives schools permission to give students any vaccine without parental consent, not just ones for COVID-19. Rod Smolla, president of the Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert on constitutional law, told The Associated Press that the ruling “merely holds that the federal statute at issue, the PREP Act, preempts state lawsuits in cases in which officials mistakenly administer a vaccination without consent.” “Nothing in the Vermont Supreme Court opinion states that school officials can vaccinate a child against the instructions of the parent,” he wrote in an email. Asked whether the claims spreading online have any merit, Ronald Ferrara, an attorney representing the Politellas, told the AP that although the ruling doesn’t say schools can vaccinate students regardless of parental consent, officials could interpret it to mean that they could get away with doing so under the PREP Act, at least when it comes to COVID-19 vaccines. He explained that the seeks to clarify whether the Vermont Supreme Court interpreted the PREP Act beyond what Congress intended. “The Politella’s fundamental liberty interest to decide whether their son should receive elective medical treatment was denied by agents of the State and School,” he wrote in an email to the AP. “The Vermont Court misconstrues the scope of PREP Act immunity (which is conditioned upon informed consent for medical treatments unapproved by FDA), to cover this denial of rights and its underlying battery.” Ferrara added that he was not aware of the claims spreading online, but that he “can understand how lay people may conflate the court’s mistaken grant of immunity for misconduct as tantamount to blessing such misconduct.”
The Detroit-based manufacturer plans to merge the Cruise robotaxi vehicle unit with GM's technical teams to concentrate on developing advanced driver assistance systems for personal vehicles, a statement said. The company said it abandoned the Cruise project "given the considerable time and resources that would be needed to scale the business, along with an increasingly competitive robotaxi market." It marks a major turnaround for GM, which bought the Cruise startup in 2016 and has since spent billions of dollars to make the operation viable. "A robotaxi business is not General Motors’ core business," said GM CEO Mary Barra in a call with analysts. But Barra said GM's commitment to autonomous technology "is unwavering." The halt of operations comes a year after Cruise was forced to suspend all operations in San Francisco after one of its self-driving cars dragged a woman who had first been hit by a hit-and-run driver in the city. Cruise lost its operating permits from regulators, paused expansions into other states and laid off 900 employees -- a quarter of its workforce. Shortly before the incident, California authorities had allowed for expanded driverless taxi services in San Francisco, giving the go-ahead for Alphabet-owned Waymo and Cruise. Cruise's exit confirms Waymo as the dominant player in the business, which was valued at $45 billion after a fundraising round in October, according to Bloomberg. The company has been expanding its reach and currently runs robotaxi fleets in San Francisco, Phoenix and Los Angeles. And in a team-up with Uber, the company is planning to offer Waymo robotaxi rides in Atlanta and Austin. Amazon's Zoox meanwhile is conducting robotaxi testing in California and Las Vegas, while Elon Musk recently unveiled what he said was a robotaxi capable of self-driving, predicting it would be available by 2027. GM's strategic pivot comes as embattled automakers worldwide face mounting pressure to balance investments in emerging technologies with near-term profitability. The auto giant said that the restructuring is expected to generate annual savings exceeding $1 billion once completed in the first half of 2025. GM's share price was up by more than three percent in after hours trading on Wall Street. arp/dwCELH Investors Have Opportunity to Lead Celsius Holdings, Inc. Securities Fraud Lawsuit