Month: October 2018

Shares of leftwing cereal maker Kellogg Co. fell by more than 7 percent Wednesday after the company said it expects profits to be flat for the year, a retreat from its earlier projection of 5 to 7 percent growth.

Kellogg’s stock was down as much as 9.6 percent in morning trading but recovered some of the early losses as the broader market moved higher.

The company said its profits were hit by investment in single-serve packages of its snacks like Pringles. The company is spending money in an attempt to grow its snacks as sales of its breakfast cereal products continue to decline.

As Breitbart has reported, Kellogg is effectively controlled by a leftwing foundation:

Every time an American family picks up a box of Kellogg’s cereal at the grocery store, it is contributing to the wealthy radical leftwing foundation that agitates for open borders, supports George Soros’s Open Society Insitute, and other leftwing causes.

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation is the largest shareholder of the Kellogg Company. According to its 2016 tax filing, the Kellogg Foundation’s trust owns approximately $5.2 billion of stock in the company, about 20 percent of the company’s equity. The other large holders are mostly passive investors such as mutual funds and their ownership is a fraction of the foundation’s. That means that the foundation effectively controls the famous cereal company…

Last year, the Kellogg Company called for a blacklist of Breitbart, saying that the news organization did not reflect its values. This prompted a #dumpkellogg’s boycott in response that AdWeek described as inflicting huge damage to the company’s reputation.

It is not just cereal purchases that contribute to the leftwing causes championed by the Kellogg Foundation. Purchases of Pringles, Pop Tarts, Cheez-Its, Keebler and Famous Amos cookies, Eggo waffles, and Morningstar Farms veggie burgers all help fund the Kellogg Foundation’s political activism.

The foundation has donated millions to the Mexican nationalist organization, La Raza — the group founded to “reclaim” the southwestern United States for Mexico. In 2015, the foundation gave $2,400,000 to the National Council of La Raza, Breitbart reported.
Kellogg executives say they are investing in marketing the snack products with the goal of boosting sales. The sell-off in the stock may indicate that investors doubt this strategy will pay off. Sales of its snacks, the company’s biggest unit, fell 3.5 percent in the most recent quarter.

Sales of Kellogg’s U.S. breakfast foods dropped 1.3 percent during the third quarter.  A recall of 1.3 million cases of Honey Smacks cereal, which were potentially tainted with salmonella, dented sales during the quarter.

Kellogg wants to increase prices but faces consumer resistance to paying more for the same products. To outwit consumers, Kellogg “said companies have to get creative with pricing, using new package sizes and new flavors to justify price increases,” according to the Wall Street Journal.

“The days of straight list price increases are gone. It would lead to a decrease in consumer demand,” Mr. Cahillane told the Journal.

 

 

Imagine the horror: you’re a 12-year old kid preparing to buddy up with a fellow player on Fortnite in an attempt to defeat 98 other players and win the battle royale when you discover that she’s not what she seems…

You thought the cowgirl with an absurd pickaxe and a submachine gun was a kid of about your own age. But in fact, it’s some creepy old guy who just wants to lecture you on climate change instead of destroying opponents, building bases, and showing off their dance moves.

This is not a fictional scenario. This actually happened and the creepy old guy is actually boasting about it. (h/t Eric Worrall)

After hearing an 11 year-old’s Fortnite video got more views than a climate change lecture, Henri Drake had an idea.

A red haired cowgirl grabs a submachine gun from a building and as she runs away from the oncoming storm, the player in control starts talking about the impact CFC emissions have on global warming.

“We basically have since banned those materials… but we found out last year that the concentration of these gases in the atmosphere is increasing again.”

The cowgirl is Henri Drake, a casual gamer and climate scientist from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and the game is Fortnite, a crazy popular multiplayer shooter game.

It’s a strange mix, but by creating the ClimateFortnite Twitch channel Henri is hoping to use the games popularity to explain global warming and climate policy to a wider audience.

He’s not going it alone, there’s other scientists either playing with him or just hanging around to answer the questions thrown out by viewers. Scientists like Chris, a masters student at Boston University, who is on hand to field a question about the Paris climate agreement thrown out at the start of one game.

It gets worse:

It’s a strange mix, but the ClimateFortnite Twitch channel Henri created is using the game’s popularity to teach people about global warming and climate policy.

He streams video of him playing the game with other climate scientists and they all take turns answering questions from the audience.

When a question about the Paris climate agreement comes up you hear Chris’s voice over the mic, a masters student from Boston University. He starts explaining who could fill the void if the US pulls out of the Paris agreement as the team skydives out of the Battle Bus, the way every Fortnite game starts.

Chris names several countries while landing in Pleasant Park, “China is obviously a large emitter,” before Henri interrupts to direct the team: “Let’s go north-east side.”

Chris continues as the team meets up, “Because [China is] such a large impact on the global economy and global emissions they’re someone to watch.”

“Give me a child until he is seven and I will give you the man”, said the Jesuits.

But even Ignatius Loyola at his most fanatical would have stopped short of propagandising kids during a game of Fortnite.

 

Twitter allowed Cesar Sayoc, the man who allegedly sent apparent bombs to public figures around the country this month, to post more than 240 threats towards 50 different people on its social network without sanction. Meanwhile, the media managed to temporarily force free speech social network Gab offline after it was revealed that the Tree of Life Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting suspect had an account on the platform.

According to CNN, an analysis discovered that “Sayoc tweeted more than 240 threats directed to at least 50 public officials, news organizations and media personalities.”

“The threats, and Twitter’s apparent inaction regarding them, raise new questions regarding social media and radicalization,” CNN declared, adding, “In this instance, Twitter may well have provided Sayoc with the material that radicalized him, and then it stood idly by as that radicalization led to hundreds of threats.”

Some of Sayoc’s threats reportedly included, “Your Time is coming,” “Your days are over,” “your (sic) next,” and “Hug your loved ones real close everytime U leave your home,” while he also sent pictures of decapitated goats to users.

CNN’s report did not include all of Sayoc’s targets on Twitter. Sayoc tweeted violent images of man-eating crocodiles to liberal Fox News contributor Rochelle Ritchie, a fact mysteriously left out by CNN, which instead focused on anti-Trump celebrity Kathy Griffin, who admitted she hadn’t even read the threat tweeted to her.

Free speech social network Gab, however, was forced offline this week after media outlets and figures blamed the platform for allowing Tree of Life Pittsburgh Synagogue shooting suspect Robert Bowers to make anti-Semitic comments on his account — where Bowers also made several posts attacking President Trump and the MAGA movement, which he perceived as Jewish.

Despite this, Gab has a strict policy against threats and illegal content, and in contrast with Twitter, immediately issued a statement condemning Bowers and expressing sympathy for the victims following the crime.

Gab is currently offline, after its web host Joyent gave the social network just 48 hours to migrate elsewhere.

Domain service GoDaddy also forced Gab to immediately move to another service.

Having mastered fake news, now the media are trying out a little fake history.

In the news business, new topics are always popping up, from the Logan Act and the emoluments clause to North Korea. The all-star panels rush to Wikipedia, so they can pretend to be experts on things they knew nothing about an hour earlier.

Such is the case today with “anchor babies” and “birthright citizenship.” People who know zilch about the history of the 14th Amendment are pontificating magnificently and completely falsely on the issue du jour.

If you’d like to be the smartest person at your next cocktail party by knowing the truth about the 14th Amendment, this is the column for you!

Of course the president can end the citizenship of “anchor babies” by executive order — for the simple reason that no Supreme Court or U.S. Congress has ever conferred such a right.

It’s just something everyone believes to be true.

How could anyone — even a not-very-bright person — imagine that granting citizenship to the children of illegal aliens is actually in our Constitution?

The first question would be: Why would they do that? It’s like being accused of robbing a homeless person. WHY WOULD I?

The Supreme Court has stated — repeatedly! — that the “main object” of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment “was to settle the question … as to the citizenship of free negroes,” making them “citizens of the United States and of the state in which they reside.”

Democrats, the entire media and House Speaker Paul Ryan seem to have forgotten the Civil War. They believe that, immediately after a war that ended slavery, Americans rose up as one and demanded that the children of illegals be granted citizenship!

You know what’s really bothering me? If someone comes into the country illegally and has a kid, that kid should be an American citizen!

YOU MEAN THAT’S NOT ALREADY IN THE CONSTITUTION?

Give me a scenario — just one scenario — where the post-Civil War amendments would be intended to grant citizenship to the kids of Chinese ladies flying to birthing hospitals in California, or pregnant Latin Americans sneaking across the border in the back of flatbed trucks.

You can make it up. It doesn’t have to be a true scenario. Any scenario!

As the court has explained again and again and again:

“(N)o one can fail to be impressed with the one pervading purpose found in (the 13th, 14th and 15th) amendments, lying at the foundation of each, and without which none of them would have been even suggested; we mean the freedom of the slave race, the security and firm establishment of that freedom, and the protection of the newly made freeman and citizen from the oppressions of those who had formerly exercised unlimited dominion over him.”

That’s why the amendment refers to people who are “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States “and of the state wherein they reside.” For generations, African-Americans were domiciled in this country. The only reason they weren’t citizens was because of slavery, which the country had just fought a civil war to end.

The 14th Amendment fixed that.

The amendment didn’t even make Indians citizens. Why? Because it was about freed slaves. Sixteen years after the 14th Amendment was ratified, the Supreme Court held that an American Indian, John Elk, was not a citizen, despite having been born here.

Instead, Congress had to pass a separate law making Indians citizens, which it did, more than half a century after the adoption of the 14th Amendment. (It’s easy to miss — the law is titled: “THE INDIAN CITIZENSHIP ACT OF 1924.”) Why would such a law be necessary if simply being born in the U.S. was enough to confer citizenship?

Even today, the children of diplomats and foreign ministers are not granted citizenship on the basis of being born here.

President Trump, unlike his critics, honors black history by recognizing that the whole purpose of the Civil War amendments was to guarantee the rights of freed slaves.

But the left has always been bored with black people. If they start gassing on about “civil rights,” you can be sure it will be about transgenders, the abortion ladies or illegal aliens. Liberals can never seem to remember the people whose ancestors were brought here as slaves, i.e., the only reason we even have civil rights laws.

Still, it requires breathtaking audacity to use the Civil War amendments to bring in cheap foreign labor, which drives down the wages of African-Americans — the very people the amendments were written to protect!

Whether the children born to legal immigrants are citizens is controversial enough. But at least there’s a Supreme Court decision claiming that they are — U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. That’s “birthright citizenship.”

It’s something else entirely to claim that an illegal alien, subject to deportation, can drop a baby and suddenly claim to be the parent of a “citizen.”

This crackpot notion was concocted by liberal zealot Justice William Brennan and slipped into a footnote as dicta in a 1982 case. “Dicta” means it was not the ruling of the court, just a random aside, with zero legal significance.

Left-wing activists seized on Brennan’s aside and browbeat everyone into believing that anchor babies are part of our great constitutional heritage, emerging straight from the pen of James Madison.

No Supreme Court has ever held that children born to illegal aliens are citizens. No Congress has deliberated and decided to grant that right. It’s a made-up right, grounded only in the smoke and mirrors around Justice Brennan’s 1982 footnote.

Obviously, it would be better if Congress passed a law clearly stating that children born to illegals are not citizens. (Trump won’t be president forever!) But until that happens, the president of the United States is not required to continue a ridiculous practice that has absolutely no basis in law.

It’s often said that journalism is the first draft of history. As we now we see, fake news is the first draft of fake history.

To test it, VICE News applied to buy fake ads on behalf of all 100 sitting U.S. senators, including ads “Paid for by” by Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer. Facebook’s approvals were bipartisan: All 100 sailed through the system, indicating that just about anyone can buy an ad identified as “Paid for by” by a major U.S. politician.

What’s more, all of these approvals were granted to be shared from pages for fake political groups such as “Cookies for Political Transparency” and “Ninja Turtles PAC.” VICE News did not buy any Facebook ads as part of the test; rather, we received approval to include “Paid for by” disclosures for potential ads.

Vice news contacted Facebook for comment on their most recent test, the company admitted that they had indeed made a mistake in approving the ads but still defended their verification system:

“If Facebook is going to claim to verify who’s paying for political ads, they need to actually do the work,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, in a statement to VICE News. “Clearly it needs to do far more to combat fraudulent and false content, both in paid advertisements and viral posts.”

Facebook confirmed that the 100 “Paid for by” disclosures in the names of U.S. senators should never have been approved. But the company argues that its “Paid for by” feature has brought a new level of transparency to political advertising, and cautioned it’s just one piece of its efforts, along with a searchable Ad Archive.

“We know we can’t do this alone, and by housing these ads for up to seven years, people, regulators, third parties and watchdog groups can hold these groups more accountable,” said Facebook Director of Product Management Rob Leathern in a statement.

Read the full article by Vice News here.