A new report reveals Facebook as the largest corporate lobbying spender in the U.S. in 2020.
The Public Citizen report reveals the social media platform spent $19,680,000 to lobby in 2020, placing it nearly $1,000,000 above Amazon, the second-highest spender.
“Big Tech has eclipsed yesterday’s big lobbying spenders, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. In 2020, Amazon and Facebook spent nearly twice as much as Exxon and Philip Morris on lobbying,” the report adds.
During the 2020 election cycle, Big Tech also spent a record-breaking $124 million in lobbying and contributions to candidates. Much of this growth is linked to Amazon and Facebook, which increased lobbying and campaign spending from 2018 to 2020 by 30 percent and 56 percent, respectively.
[Of course this doesn’t include Zuckerbuck’s personal election grift-encouragement contributions in excess of $350M]
🔗National Pulse article
The Public Citizen report reveals the social media platform spent $19,680,000 to lobby in 2020, placing it nearly $1,000,000 above Amazon, the second-highest spender.
“Big Tech has eclipsed yesterday’s big lobbying spenders, Big Oil and Big Tobacco. In 2020, Amazon and Facebook spent nearly twice as much as Exxon and Philip Morris on lobbying,” the report adds.
During the 2020 election cycle, Big Tech also spent a record-breaking $124 million in lobbying and contributions to candidates. Much of this growth is linked to Amazon and Facebook, which increased lobbying and campaign spending from 2018 to 2020 by 30 percent and 56 percent, respectively.
[Of course this doesn’t include Zuckerbuck’s personal election grift-encouragement contributions in excess of $350M]
🔗National Pulse article
The National Pulse+
Facebook Spends More on Lobbying DC Than Big Pharma and Defense Industry Giants.
A new report reveals Facebook as the largest corporate lobbying spender in the U.S. in 2020. The Public Citizen report reveals the social media platform spent $19,680,000 to lobby in 2020, placing it nearly $1,000,000 above Amazon, the second-highest spender.…
Trooper offers an outstanding breakdown (below) of this ruling:
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no right to carry - either openly or concealed in public. In addition to HI, this ruling may impact RTC laws in AK, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT
The US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has ruled that there is no right to carry - either openly or concealed in public. In addition to HI, this ruling may impact RTC laws in AK, CA, AZ, OR, WA, & MT
Forwarded from trooper
Okay... Let me break-down the scope, basis, context, and impact of the 9th Circuit en banc ruling of the Hawaii 2A Carry case... first... cool your heels and put your sabre back in the scabbard... second... I will provide my 'trooper the non-attorney Patriot" point of view on what to expect from this ruling.
Scope: The case is centered on jurisdiction and discretion within the State of Hawaii exclusively. This ruling does not affect or change or apply to any of the other States within the 9th Circuit purview. AZ.. you are safe, Okay?
Basis: The basis of injury or harm is that a US Citizen, and Resident of Hawaii - with no criminal record or other disqualifying concerns with respect to possessing or bearing (carrying) a firearm - was denied permission to carry his firearm from the State of Hawaii, or some agency of that State.
Context: The context of this case was based on a US Citizen's right to keep and bear arms... BUT... the 9th Circuit scaled-down and limited the context of their ruling, and rationale for their ruling - to the State of Hawaii exclusively-- and including an extension of prior Statehood Authority (prior to Hawaii's Statehood) to give credence to laws or ordinances that were in effect or imposed on Citizens of Hawaii prior to Statehood. This is VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT!
Impact: The impact of this decision is that the case will likely appeal to SCOTUS - and SCOTUS will likely do one of three things:
1) Let the ruling stand/or do not hear the case BECAUSE it was adjudicated in the context of State's Rights and does not have bearing on Constitutional Law.
2) Hear the case because it DOES have conflict or bearing on undecided constitutional law.
3) Most likely outcome: Return the case back to the 9th Circuit because he ruling is flawed in the sense that it did not address the constitutional rights of a citizen who was denied those rights - it went off on a tangent and rationalized the rights of a territory before it became a State -- which may be relevant to some other discussion, but not to the scope and basis of injury that was brought before the court.
What to Expect: I expect that the SCOTUS will turn-back the case because the 9th Circuit masterfully poison-pilled this gun rights case by framing it as a States Rights case - so that has a double-edged sword effect for our Second Amendment concerns...
The GOOD News is that the other States cannot use this Hawaii case to rationalize banning carry or changing any existing laws to ban carry based on the legal rational and opinions written by the 9th Circuit to support their argument.
The BAD News is that we are effectively back at square one on a SCOTUS-pure constitutional 2A case.. which I think the Hawaii case was... but the Leftist Justice(s) also know that, so they wrote a red herring opinion to deflect this off into some oblique direction - away from the fundamental US Constitutional and Inalienable Rights that a US Citizen must have extended to them, regardless of their State or prior State-Territory History.
That prior State-Territory History argument is key, because the 9th Circuit opinion, in effect, says that since it was law for the Tribal Kings (government) to throw virgins into volcanos to appease the Law of the Tiki Gods... then the State of Hawaii retains that right, just as they retain the right to counter the US Citizen's Bill of Rights.
I am hoping that the SCOTUS U-Turns this case on those grounds.
So.. not to worry. This is Leftist brinkmanship - not a 2A threat outcome.
Scope: The case is centered on jurisdiction and discretion within the State of Hawaii exclusively. This ruling does not affect or change or apply to any of the other States within the 9th Circuit purview. AZ.. you are safe, Okay?
Basis: The basis of injury or harm is that a US Citizen, and Resident of Hawaii - with no criminal record or other disqualifying concerns with respect to possessing or bearing (carrying) a firearm - was denied permission to carry his firearm from the State of Hawaii, or some agency of that State.
Context: The context of this case was based on a US Citizen's right to keep and bear arms... BUT... the 9th Circuit scaled-down and limited the context of their ruling, and rationale for their ruling - to the State of Hawaii exclusively-- and including an extension of prior Statehood Authority (prior to Hawaii's Statehood) to give credence to laws or ordinances that were in effect or imposed on Citizens of Hawaii prior to Statehood. This is VERY IMPORTANT CONTEXT!
Impact: The impact of this decision is that the case will likely appeal to SCOTUS - and SCOTUS will likely do one of three things:
1) Let the ruling stand/or do not hear the case BECAUSE it was adjudicated in the context of State's Rights and does not have bearing on Constitutional Law.
2) Hear the case because it DOES have conflict or bearing on undecided constitutional law.
3) Most likely outcome: Return the case back to the 9th Circuit because he ruling is flawed in the sense that it did not address the constitutional rights of a citizen who was denied those rights - it went off on a tangent and rationalized the rights of a territory before it became a State -- which may be relevant to some other discussion, but not to the scope and basis of injury that was brought before the court.
What to Expect: I expect that the SCOTUS will turn-back the case because the 9th Circuit masterfully poison-pilled this gun rights case by framing it as a States Rights case - so that has a double-edged sword effect for our Second Amendment concerns...
The GOOD News is that the other States cannot use this Hawaii case to rationalize banning carry or changing any existing laws to ban carry based on the legal rational and opinions written by the 9th Circuit to support their argument.
The BAD News is that we are effectively back at square one on a SCOTUS-pure constitutional 2A case.. which I think the Hawaii case was... but the Leftist Justice(s) also know that, so they wrote a red herring opinion to deflect this off into some oblique direction - away from the fundamental US Constitutional and Inalienable Rights that a US Citizen must have extended to them, regardless of their State or prior State-Territory History.
That prior State-Territory History argument is key, because the 9th Circuit opinion, in effect, says that since it was law for the Tribal Kings (government) to throw virgins into volcanos to appease the Law of the Tiki Gods... then the State of Hawaii retains that right, just as they retain the right to counter the US Citizen's Bill of Rights.
I am hoping that the SCOTUS U-Turns this case on those grounds.
So.. not to worry. This is Leftist brinkmanship - not a 2A threat outcome.
Forwarded from Lauren Boebert
Liberals keep saying it’s easier to buy a gun than it is to vote, but I don’t seem to remember when the government sent me an AR-15 in the mail.
No Enemies
You have no enemies, you say?
Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure,
Must have made foes! If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,
You’ve been a coward in the fight.
~Charles Mackay
You have no enemies, you say?
Alas! my friend, the boast is poor;
He who has mingled in the fray
Of duty, that the brave endure,
Must have made foes! If you have none,
Small is the work that you have done.
You’ve hit no traitor on the hip,
You’ve dashed no cup from perjured lip,
You’ve never turned the wrong to right,
You’ve been a coward in the fight.
~Charles Mackay
Green Bay Officials Turn Down Request to Testify on March 31 After they Gave Dem Operatives Access to Voting Room and Internet Network During Election — They Say They’re Busy
🔗GP article
🔗GP article
The Gateway Pundit
Green Bay Officials Turn Down Request to Testify on March 31 After they Gave Dem Operatives Access to Voting Room and Internet…
Green Bay Mayor Eric Genrich Earlier this month Wisconsin Spotlight reported that former top Democrat operative Michael Spitzer-Rubenstein was given keys to the KI Center ballroom in Green Bay, Wisconsin where absentee ballots were stored and counted…
Michigan Election Integrity Updates
Zuckerbucks & CTCL
A recent investigation by MLive revealed that, just as in Wisconsin (and other left-leaning states), the nearly $400 million grant from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, to “support election administration in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic,” helped Michigan facilitate the 2020 election. And just like in Wisconsin, the funds were given directly to local election officials by the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Live (CTCL). As reported by UncoverDC, the grant required the recipients to consent to specific conditions or return the money.
Besides the pending case in Antrim County, which is mentioned below, there is at least one other unresolved lawsuit in Michigan. Still in the discovery phase, the suit is filed against SoS Benson in the state Court of Claims by voters who allege local clerks violated election law when they accepted grant funds (from organizations like CTCL) to govern elections without state monitoring, guidance, or oversight. That lawsuit is currently scheduled to be concluded by July 16.
Antrim County Case
Attorney Matt DePerno is still waiting to receive a wide assortment of records from SoS Benson, including election spending documents and conversations with big tech companies (like Facebook and Google, who are listed as key funders at CTCL) that the plaintiff maintains were involved to manipulate the election.
🔗Uncover DC Article
Additionally, in an interview posted on 3/15, DePerno stated that he was issuing subpoenas for 8 other Michigan counties.
🔗Link to DePerno interview
Zuckerbucks & CTCL
A recent investigation by MLive revealed that, just as in Wisconsin (and other left-leaning states), the nearly $400 million grant from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg and his wife Priscilla Chan, to “support election administration in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic,” helped Michigan facilitate the 2020 election. And just like in Wisconsin, the funds were given directly to local election officials by the non-profit Center for Tech and Civic Live (CTCL). As reported by UncoverDC, the grant required the recipients to consent to specific conditions or return the money.
Besides the pending case in Antrim County, which is mentioned below, there is at least one other unresolved lawsuit in Michigan. Still in the discovery phase, the suit is filed against SoS Benson in the state Court of Claims by voters who allege local clerks violated election law when they accepted grant funds (from organizations like CTCL) to govern elections without state monitoring, guidance, or oversight. That lawsuit is currently scheduled to be concluded by July 16.
Antrim County Case
Attorney Matt DePerno is still waiting to receive a wide assortment of records from SoS Benson, including election spending documents and conversations with big tech companies (like Facebook and Google, who are listed as key funders at CTCL) that the plaintiff maintains were involved to manipulate the election.
🔗Uncover DC Article
Additionally, in an interview posted on 3/15, DePerno stated that he was issuing subpoenas for 8 other Michigan counties.
🔗Link to DePerno interview
UncoverDC
Election Integrity Updates: Michigan Judge Rules Sec. of State Benson Broke The Law, Other Lawsuits Move Forward - UncoverDC
A Michigan Judge has ruled that Sec. of State Jocelyn Benson broke the law when she unilaterally issued rules related to absentee balloting.
Liberty Overwatch pinned «Audit updates from Liz Harris of Arizona and Bill Bailey of Michigan Liz Harris: The AZ Senate is not going to announce the name of the audit firm. It’s going to be an umbrella company that will oversee a huge diverse team. There will possibly be someone…»
Liberty Overwatch pinned «JUST IN: Republican-Controlled Wisconsin Assembly Authorizes Investigation of 2020 Presidential Election 🔗GP article»
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Tucker can’t keep a straight face😂
This media is not supported in your browser
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Senator Cotton also struggling with a straight face: “Almost anyone would be better qualified than Kamala Harris. She can’t even organize a one-car funeral.”
Media is too big
VIEW IN TELEGRAM
Cruz🔥“This bill is the single most dangerous bill this committee has ever considered.”
Approximately 42 million people want to migrate to the United States, according to Gallup Chairman Jim Clifton, who conducted a poll spanning 33 countries in Latin America and the Caribbean
🔗Gallup
🔗Gallup
Gallup
42 Million Want to Migrate to U.S.
As the U.S. again experiences a surge of migrants on its southern border, Americans will look to their leaders for a plan to move forward.
RT @TCPigott: THREAD Today when discussing the border crisis, Joe Biden said of Kamala Harris, "When she speaks, she speaks for me." Given Harris' far-left immigration positions, that should concern every American. In 2018, Harris compared ICE officers to the KKK. https://t.co/h1iW3UG52W
Twitter
Ronna McDaniel
Kamala Harris is trying to launch her 2020 campaign off of comparing ICE officers to the KKK, and it's absolutely disgusting. https://t.co/l6DrpbbQ2k