Think these foods are good for you? Take a closer look at who gets them on the shelves.
After a blissful holiday season, investors' focus has shifted to the fourth quarter reporting cycle.
As the long-awaited civil trial of a lawsuit brought by families of Sept. 11 victims against the Saudi government, Saudi Arabia’s lawyers asked the US judge presiding over the case to throw out lawsuits claiming agents in the Saudi government helped al-Qaeda carry out the terror attacks in New York and Washington, arguing the victims haven’t provided any evidence to back their cases. The Daily News reported that Attorney Michael Kellogg said lawyers for the Sept. 11 families have submitted 4,000 pages of materials as part of the suit accusing Saudi Arabia of providing material support to Al Qaeda ahead of the terror attacks. "Conclusions, speculation, hearsay are not enough," Kellogg told US District Judge George Daniels at the hearing in Manhattan on Thursday. "But there are no significant facts or evidence in the materials," Kellogg said. The families of hundreds of victims who died during the attacks filed the landmark suit last March, six months after Congress passed a bill known as Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism, or JASTA. Thanks to the law, a federal appeals court in New York late last year revived part of a $1.68 billion lawsuit against Iran's central bank, Bank Markazi, by families of soldiers killed in the 1983 bombing of the US Marine Corps barracks in Lebanon. The legislation, which was famously opposed by the Obama administration, opened the door for Americans to take legal action against countries that support terrorism. However, Kellogg said the families seem to be taking the position that the law enabling their lawsuit provides all the cover they need to avoid it being quashed by a judge. "The whole pitch seems to be JASTA itself is enough to see them over the line," Kellogg said. Sean Carter, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, argued there’s extensive evidence that the Saudi rulers funded certain charities despite knowing that they funneled money to Al Qaeda. Of course, as we reported in July 2016, Congress released a long-classified report - the fabled “28 pages” - that was left out of the official 9/11 Commission report. The secret documents were part of the 2002 congressional investigation into the Sept. 11 attacks. They had previously been classified since the report's completion. Democrats hailed the release as vindication for the Saudis, but some of their contents would suggest otherwise. For example, the pages revealed that a telephone number found in the phone book of al-Qaeda operative Abu Zubaida, who was captured in Pakistan in March 2002, was for an Aspen, Colo., corporation that managed the "affairs of the Colorado residence of the Saudi Ambassador Bandar," the documents show. Osama Bassnan, who the documents identify as a financial supporter of two of the 9/11 hijackers in San Diego, received money from Bandar, and Bassnan's wife also got money from Bandar's wife. "One at least one occasion," the documents show, "Bassnan received a check directly from Prince Bandar's account. According to the FBI, on May 14, 1998, Bassnan cashed a check from Bandar in the amount of $15,000. Bassnan's wife also received at least one check directly from Bandar." The top two members of the House Intelligence Committee - including Trump antagonist Adam Schiff - at the time cautioned that much of the information in the newly released pages were not "vetted conclusions." Schiff said he hopes the newly released pages will reduce the continued speculation over Saudi involvement. "I hope that the release of these pages, with appropriate redactions necessary to protect our nation’s intelligence sources and methods, will diminish speculation that they contain proof of official Saudi Government or senior Saudi official involvement in the 9/11 attacks," Schiff said in a statement. "The Intelligence Community and the 9/11 Commission...investigated the questions they raised and was never able to find sufficient evidence to support them. I know that the release of these pages will not end debate over the issue, but it will quiet rumors over their contents — as is often the case, the reality is less damaging than the uncertainty." Kellogg even pointed to the report, saying it conclusively showed the Saudi government was not involved with 9/11... In making his case for the suit to be scrapped, Kellogg also pointed to the findings of the 9/11 Commission report, which he said cleared Saudi Arabia of funding the attacks. The controversial report concluded that the panel “found no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually” supplied money to Al Qaeda. But it did say that unidentified wealthy Saudi sympathizers, as well as Saudi charities, helped to finance the terror group. "The 9/11 commission report, including its conclusions, is legitimate evidence before this court," Kellogg said. However, Sean Carter, a lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, cited a CIA report naming a Saudi-backed charity as one of the principal financiers for the terrorist network. Carter, the lawyer for one of the plaintiffs, referenced a CIA report that he said named a Saudi-backed charity as a principal funder of a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. "In the course leading up to 9/11, it was Saudi money that...allowed them to maintain an organization," Carter said. The suit filed in March says Saudi Arabia assisted the 9/11 hijackers “through a network of the kingdom’s officers” and funneled money to terrorists for years through a number of charities. The kingdom “actively supported Al Qaeda in its final preparations” for the terror attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, the suit adds.
Authored by Jack Burns via The Free Thought Project, In yet another test of the U.S. Constitution’s protected freedom of speech, the Constitution Club at Southern Illinois University (SIU) inflated a giant beach ball and asked students to come by, grab a sharpie, and write whatever they felt like writing on the ball. The students’ free speech rights exercise was quickly interrupted by campus police who informed the club members they had received complaints about the ball and the group would need to stop their activities. According to Campus Reform, the reason SIU chose to attempt to stop the demonstration was that campus police said the students did not go through the proper channels to be able to hold the demonstration: Executive Director of University Marketing and Communications Doug McIlhagga telling Campus Reform that the activists were in violation of the university’s policy “governing freedom of expression and demonstration activities.” “The demonstrators didn’t follow the proper University procedure for a public forum by going through the Vice Chancellor of Administration’s Office for approval,” he elaborated. “We normally get the ‘Request For Use Of The Designated Public Forum’ form. However in this particular instance, we did not.” Ultimately, the group was allowed to continue with their free speech demonstration but not before having to make contact with campus police to explain their actions. The SIU police did not appear to want to interrupt what the group was doing but were under marching orders from their superiors. “This is not considered like a public place,” one campus police officer told the students. “Right now, we’re going to have to put the ball away … it’s freaking a lot of people out … people are reporting that they’re scared of the beach ball, and what’s going on here.” At issue is whether or not a university campus, a public facility, is, in fact, private property or public property. If it is public property, then the group should not be compelled to go through any channels of approval. Instead, the group is subjected to what some consider an arbitrary process, which attempts to secure the outside approval of a third party (in this case, the Director of University Marketing and Communications) to get the blessing for what the Constitution already allows. It is not the first time a group on campus has been accosted by police for attempting to assert their free speech rights. As TFTP reported last January, several college students were arrested for passing out pocket-sized copies of the U.S. Constitution and signing students up for membership in their conservative student organization. The incident occurred at Kellogg Community College in Battle Creek, Michigan, and involved members of Young Americans for Liberty who were arrested on Sept. 20, 2015, and charged with trespassing. Brandon Withers and Michelle Gregoire were arrested and spent nearly 7 hours in jail for their unapproved distribution of the U.S. Constitution and for allegedly attempting to recruit others to their club. The “offenses” resulted in demands the students remove themselves from campus property. The students refused to leave and were arrested by campus police and charged with trespassing. According to The Washington Times, Scottsdale, Arizona-based “Alliance Defending Freedom,” a nonprofit legal organization that “advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith,” filed a lawsuit on their behalf Wednesday in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan. Senior ADF counsel Casey Mattox issued a statement wherein ADF claims their clients’ constitutional rights supersede any unlawful school rules denying them such freedoms. Kellogg Community College had established several rules regarding the exercise of free speech and has established a free speech zone. Additionally, the distribution of materials, according to the college, must be approved first by the department known as Student Life. In other words, the exercise of students’ first amendment rights according to the U.S. Constitution is regulated by the public school’s Student Life department. And the school defines free speech as “solicitation,” another activity which must be pre-approved.
They may be one of the wealthiest families in the world, but Queen Elizabeth II and other royal family members are known for some frugal ways.
Tyson Foods (TSN) gains from surging demand for chicken, beef and prepared food products. Further, the company has plans to strengthen its position in the meat substitute market.
They may be one of the wealthiest families in the world, but Queen Elizabeth II and other royal family members are known for some frugal ways.
In a bid to go beyond chocolate and gain a solid footing in the fast-growing market for healthy snacks Hershey Co. (HSY) inked a deal to acquire Amplify Snack Brands.
**Should-Read**: The end of the second volume of Sidney Blumenthal's _Political Life of Abraham Lincoln_: **Sidney Blumenthal**: Wrestling With His Angel: The Political Life of Abraham Lincoln Vol. II, 1849-1856: "When [Lincoln] hurtled on a train to Bloomington for the founding of the Illinois Republican Party on May 29, 1856, it was a familiar trip to a place he had visited many times to practice the law... >...the home of his friends David Davis and Jesse Fell. >But this time the uproar of events heralded his entrance. On May 21, [Senator] David Atchison led an army of nearly one thousand pro-slavery Missourians under a red banner inscribed “Southern Rights” into the free state town of Lawrence to ransack it. The next day, in the Senate, while Charles Sumner sat writing at his desk, Congressman Preston Brooks of South Carolina battered him with a cane, nearly killing him, in retribution for Sumner’s mocking of Brooks’s cousin, Senator Andrew Butler, patriarch of the F Street Mess, in his speech entitled “Crime Against Kansas.” Two days later, on May 24, along Pottawatomie Creek in Kansas, John Brown and his band of volunteers hacked five pro-slavery men to death.... >Lincoln’s political education was long,...
The Zacks Analyst Blog Highlights: Berkshire Hathaway, Salesforce, Schwab, BNY Mellon and Kellogg
A sparkling account of how a colourful cast of lawyers and jurists changed the world order by striving to consign conflict to historyWhen was the last time the United States Congress declared war on anyone? Not this century – despite US forces seeing action in (among other places) Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia – nor any time in the second half of the last. Vietnam passed undeclared, so did Korea: those were extended military engagements. You have to go back to June 1942 when, in one busy day, joint resolutions were passed declaring a state of war between the “government and the people of the United States” on the one hand, and the governments of Romania, Hungary and Bulgaria on the other. There were in total more declarations of war during the second world war – several dozen at a rough count – than there have been around the world since. Self-evidently, the world has seen plenty of fighting since then, and a fair bit of war too. It just looks as though diplomats and politicians have got out of the habit of formally declaring the end of peace and the start of hostilities.Hathaway and Shapiro’s sparkling book asks how this happened and what it really meant. They take as their starting point a long-forgotten moment in the interwar era’s long history of worthy but meaningless resolutions – the 1928 Kellogg-Briand pact to outlaw war. This pact had, it is fair to say, been dismissed with a quiet chuckle by virtually every historian of the past few decades who even noticed it, and the authors take another good, hard look at what was behind it, arguing surprisingly persuasively that it may have been a lot more consequential than anyone had thought. They see the pact as ushering in nothing less than a new world order in which war – and the spoils of war – came to be regarded as illegitimate. Some of the most powerful countries in the world adopted constitutions that outlawed any recourse to war at all. And, most importantly for Hathaway and Shapiro, the world’s chief international body, the United Nations, largely banned the use of force by its members. Continue reading...
Top Stock Reports for Berkshire Hathaway, Salesforce & Schwab
Lower volume and higher input costs might offset the benefits of General Mills' (GIS) cost-saving plans in Q2. However, margins are likely to improve sequentially.
General Mills' (GIS) sales decline is expected to narrow down in Q2, as the company continues to focus more on sales growth, banking on product innovations.
Tyson Foods (TSN) strengthens protein-packed food category by raising stake in Beyond Meat. The deal is likely to augment meat substitute products offerings.
Несмотря на ничтожно малую узнаваемость бренда, производитель шоколада Guittard Chocolate из Сан-Франциско может дать фору и перспективным новичкам, и признанным гигантам шоколадного бизнеса
В сельском хозяйстве и пищевой промышленности занято более одного миллиарда человек в мире или треть всей рабочей силы.