ArchiveArchive
Censorship Computer Handcuffs Freedom Internet

Censorship leads to genocide: After they burn the books, they murder the masses

Leftist Democrats and the outgoing Obama administration pushing for so-called “’Net Neutrality,” which they claim is necessary because the Internet is supposedly not neutral at the present time, are really just pushing for total control and the ability to censor political opposition.

That’s what Dave Hodges, creator and host of The Common Sense Show, believes and, what’s more, he says it’s just a prelude to mass murder, based on past historical events of a similar nature.

While the Internet has not been around in its present form for more than a couple decades, authoritarians and dictators throughout history have attempted to erase history that does not serve them well through mass book burnings, the destruction of founding documents and other records. What generally followed was mass murder.

Today, this is being accomplished either through Internet censorship or actual shutting down of the Internet by governments. As Hodges noted on his website, quoting a Brookings Institute study, “there were over 50 instances of Internet shutdown and many of the shutdowns were associated with government violence against the citizens of that country” in 2016.

In a revealing video, Hodges discusses the report, which noted first and foremost the economic impact of the shutdowns: $2.4 billion.

The shutdowns did not go unnoticed by the world’s foremost diplomatic entity, the United Nations. The UN Human Rights Council passed a non-binding resolution that condemned intentional shutting down or disruption of domestic Internet access by governments.

Though many member states supported the resolution, the governments of several nations including Saudi Arabia, Syria, India, Morocco, Brazil, Iraq, Pakistan, the Republic of Congo, Bangladesh, Algeria and Turkey shut down Internet or mobile service, often for long periods.

In his report for Brookings, Darrell M. West, vice president and director of the think tank’s Governance Studies, as well as founding director of the Center for Technology Innovation, said he found 81 short-term Internet shutdowns that took place in 19 countries between July 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016.

“The majority of these blackouts occurred in the Middle East and South Asia, with India, Iraq, non-ISIS Syria, and Pakistan accounting for 71 percent of recorded instance,” he wrote in a press release describing the study’s findings.

West noted that Internet disruptions and shutdowns curb economic growth, cost governments tax revenue, stifle innovation and undermine the confidence of businesses and consumers in the affected countries. “As Internet-powered businesses and transactions continue to grow, they represent an increasingly significant portion of the global economic activity,” he wrote, adding that if shutdowns persist, then damage from them will get more severe.

But as Hodges notes, there are human costs to shutdowns as well as economic costs. For example, when authoritarian governments want to limit their citizens’ ability to report abuses internationally, they often begin their repression by first shutting down the only way people can communicate to the global population, via social media and other methods. (RELATED: Learn how to resist government propaganda and tyranny at Resist.news)

Then again, countries like North Korea and China regularly curb Internet access or limit/ban it altogether. What goes on inside North Korea is largely unknown to the outside world because its dictatorial leader, Kim Jong Un, locks down outside access so tightly, leaving him free to heap abuses on his people at will.

Hodges noted that the Brookings Institute study also found that the Internet shutdowns also went “hand in hand” with atrocities. In his study West noted that the UN Human Rights Commission’s resolution cited “promotion, protection, and enjoyment of human rights on the Internet” as its motivation for passage.

The UN panel also noted that failure to keep the Internet free of government control and accessible to the people was a violation of international human rights law.

Hodges, in his video, also said that such dangers are inherent even in the United States, where President-elect Donald J. Trump will have a difficult time getting full control of the Executive Branch’s vast bureaucracy.

“He’s facing endemic corruption that’s a hundred levels deep in these agencies, and under civil service law, he can’t get rid of everyone,” Hodges said.

See his full presentation below, and read more breaking news about the collapse of society at Collapse.news

J.D. Heyes is a senior writer for Natural News and News Target, as well as editor of The National Sentinel.

Sources:

TheCommonSenseShow.com

Brookings.edu

YouTube.com

Bugout.news

Collapse.news

GMObama

Obama’s new policy registration may very well have ended all non-GMO agriculture in the US

President Obama’s pen has stayed so busy signing executive orders (EO) that it’s surprising it hasn’t yet run dry, and as his days in the Oval Office wind down, he has added another one to his lengthy list of such orders. The recent “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats” EO is particularly significant in that it may have put a halt to all non-GMO agriculture in the United States.

Key points of the EO

Section 1 of the EO includes some disturbing points:

“As articulated in the National Strategy for Countering Biological Threats and implemented in Presidential Policy Directive 2 (PPD-2), promoting global health security is a core tenet of our national strategy for countering biological threats. No single nation can be prepared if other nations remain unprepared to counter biological threats; therefore, it is the policy of the United States to advance the Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA), which is a multi-faceted, multi-country initiative intended to accelerate partner countries’ measurable capabilities to achieve specific targets to prevent, detect, and respond to infectious disease threats (GHSA targets), whether naturally occurring, deliberate, or accidental.” [Emphasis added]

Coordinated effort with military backup

Section 2 of the EO states that the “Council” will include personnel from a multitude of federal government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Homeland Security, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The Department of Defense (DOD) may “facilitate implementation and coordination of Department of Defense programs to further the GHSA, as well as provide technical expertise to measure and evaluate progress in countries the United States has made a commitment to assist.” In other words, the military will enforce this EO if deemed necessary.

Connection to GMOs

How does this tie in with GMOs? The government claims that farm animals are supposedly infected (but typically are not) and must be slaughtered to make way for their “vastly upgraded” counterparts, which are genetically engineered and thus patented and owned by global organizations. The public receives a fear-based agenda riddled with hysteria over disease threats, and they respond to that by willingly going along with the GMO agenda. It’s a convenient agenda for the powers that be, as it allows them to maintain tight control of the food supply while attempting to obliterate small and organic farms.

Unrealistic aims and better alternatives

The EO is titled “Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats,” but achieving a world like that is unrealistic.  Infectious disease threats have always existed on this planet. The title implies a fear of infections, which is portrayed in the popular music video Vaccine Zombie by Mike Adams. As the lyrics say, “I’m afraid of invisible germs … .” Rather than promoting GMOs and toxic initiatives to address infectious disease concerns, a more effective approach involves educating people to lead healthy lifestyles through nutrition and other immune system-fortifying natural strategies.

Action steps

Don’t be fooled by the impressive- and altruistic-sounding title of this EO. Spread the word about GMO dangers by working to inform family and friends through intelligent conversations and the sharing of relevant online content. We can take back our food supply and end the danger of GMOs for ourselves and future generations. Stay tuned as the GMO issue continues to unfold, and be grateful that Obama’s days of signing his name to oppressive executive orders are rapidly winding down as the January inauguration approaches.

Sources:

NaturalBlaze

WhiteHouse

NaturalNews

congress

We need constitutionally mandated term limits for Congress

Shortly after Donald Trump became the president-elect of the United States, the phrase “drain the swamp” became a common statement. With such an unconventional candidate winning the hearts of the people to the point where they selected him to be the leader of the free world, many people were left hopeful that a lot of changes would be made in Congress and with the entire political system.

“Draining the swamp” meant getting rid of the politicians that had held office for far too long – the people who had gotten way too comfortable in their positions and were no longer behaving in behalf of America’s best interests. It is no longer a healthy relationship to be in. Things need to change desperately in many respects, but enabling term limits is definitely one of the most important.

David A. Lieb of the Associated Press reports, “During the past three years, eight states have passed resolutions calling for a convention that would go beyond a balanced budget amendment to include other fiscal restraints, term limits for Congress and federal officials, and unspecified restrictions on federal power. Though still far from the two-thirds threshold, supporters of those causes believe the Republican rise to power could help their movement grow rapidly.”

It’s unfortunate that the political system has the ability to infect people in a way that seems to suck all the integrity out of them, but that is historically what it appears to do. Politicians that take office become more concerned with being reelected than actually working on behalf of the American people. This becomes a major problem, because they then morph into career politicians who spend their entire lives in Congress.

With all of the new changes that are coming to the United States, there is no better time than now for term limits for everyone in Congress to come into play. Donald Trump has hinted that this is one of his goals as president, but this is one that is easier said than done. Should he not make an executive decision to enact term limits, this would be extremely difficult to pass through Congress. After all, the people voting on this would be the ones directly effected by it – and would almost definitely say no.

We should all be hopeful for change, but we definitely need to demand such change as well. It is time to drain the swamp – once and for all.

Sources:

Hosted.AP.org

TimesUnion.com

Courier-Journal.com

Journalism

New cyber-intelligence leaks reveal US government targeting journalists

Wikileaks has published thousands of leaked emails from a US cyber-security contractor. Whistle-blowing journalist Barrett Brown was released from federal prison as a result, but the emails discussed targeted journalists and governments. In February of 2011, emails belonging to HBGary Federal were obtained by hacking collective Anonymous. Wikileaks has now published those emails in a searchable database containing over 60,000 emails.

The newly released emails were a dedication to Brown, who spent almost two years behind bars for reporting on the HBGary leaks and the 2012 hack of the private intelligence company Stratfor. Wikileaks published some 5.5 million emails from that hack between 2013 and 2014. Brown was sentenced to 63 months in federal prison for obstruction of justice, threatening a federal officer and being an after the fact accessory. Included in the HBGary Federal emails was a company proposal to spy on Russia with mobile devices and wireless sniffers. This hinted at the NSA’s capabilities prior to Edward Snowden’s 2013 disclosure.

Emails showed that HBGary executive Greg Hoglund proposed sniffing operations in Russia by targeting cell phone carriers Mobile TeleSystems and Vimpelcom. “NSA has all the collection resources you could imagine; CIA likewise has operatives coming out the wazooo. What they don’t have is an ability to manage complex campaigns,” Hoglund wrote.

HBGary’s CEO Aaron Barr added to the proposal by mentioning a plan to infiltrate groups and governments with fake personas on social media. “I will create a few personas for the executive members of the company so there can be some email traffic. You will at some point be able to use this guy’s accounts as compromised,” Barr wrote. “If this looks too big we could probably pitch this as a whitepaper to either a large defense contractor like ManTech,” he added. Barr had to resign from HBGary after scandal followed the 2011 hack. The HBGary Federal subsidiary was shut down and Virginia-based ManTech ended up purchasing HBGary.

Plantir Technologies at one point teamed up with HBGary to target Wikileaks and its volunteers. The project was pitched to Bank of America prior to Wikileaks releasing some of the bank’s documents. Plantir is a big data analysis company that serves the US military and intelligence communities. It’s founder Peter Thiel is a major backer of Trump and now a member of his transition team.

Strategies to go after journalists who supported Wikileaks showed up in a 2010 email from Barr to Plantir engineer Matthew Steckman. Among the proposed strategies was disinformation, a strategy that creates messages with the intent of sabotaging or discrediting the opposing organization. The presentation proposed submitting fake documents and then calling out the error. The tactic was used against Wikileaks when it started publish emails from John Podesta.

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

TheHill.com

Capitol

The cashless society is Big Government’s end game for absolute control over everyone

The end game of the federal government is to enslave all the people of the United States.

This is not some crazed conspiracy theory – this is something that is totally obvious once you look at the evidence that continues to pile up in support of the belief. By continuing to pass laws and regulations that make it increasingly difficult for average Americans to succeed in both life and business, the feds ensure that people will never truly be able to break free unless they want them to do so.

So what is the easiest way for the powers that be to keep all of us locked down? Many believe that by enabling the cashless society they have quietly been inching towards that goal for quite some time now.

In an article published in The Daily Sheeple, Dylan Charles writes, “To some, convenience and trendiness are the greatest selling points of a digital currency, but in order to make it obligatory for everyone, there must be a public safety threat included in the sales pitch, so that the government can claim that it is acting in our best interests when they force us to accept a digital currency.”

Should we be forced into a cashless society like the globalists desire, there would be virtually nothing preventing them from imprisoning us. When you have cold, hard, physical cash money, the government has a much more difficult time prying it from your hands than if it were digital currency. A cashless society operated by the federal government is significantly different to Bitcoin, a currency that has been supported by many libertarians and conservatives.

Regardless of how you view the legitimacy of Bitcoin, everyone should be investing in precious metals like silver and gold instead of merely in paper money. Should the economy collapse completely, the dollar will become virtually worthless. If you don’t have any other valuable assets, the results could be devastating. Considering the current state of the world today, there is very little standing between us and the inevitable societal collapse.

Should it arrive in the coming days, weeks or months, you will most definitely need something to barter and trade in order to make life in a crumbling world safer and more secure. The last thing you will want to have done should this happen is to have given in to the federal government’s ridiculous cashless society scam. Do not make that mistake, folks; you will live to regret it if you do.

Sources:

TheDailySheeple.com

Slate.com

taxes-e1460610068135

Obama hopes to increase the death tax by bypassing congress

You’ve most likely heard the adage, there’s nothing certain but death and taxes.  So now, President Obama and his White House minions think it’s good policy to increase the taxes when one dies. These death taxes come in two forms. The estate tax, which taxes the value of a property owned, and an inheritance tax, paid by those who inherit the property.

According to a report in Forbes, America’s current death tax rate is 40%, which is the “fourth highest rate in the industrial world.” But Obama wants to increase this to 68%, which would put America’s estate tax rate as number one in the world, even though other nations are in the process of  “reducing or repealing” their estate taxes. Having the highest death taxes in the world is not a coveted position.

While Whitehouse.gov touts that what they are creating  is “a simpler, fairer tax,” there’s no proof that this move will in any way help the dwindling middle class. In fact, Taxfoundation.org states that the opposite is true. Repealing the death tax could “lead to the creation of 150,000 jobs” and in time “increase federal tax receipts by $8 billion.” Sounds like something our present economy could use.

CNS News reports that death taxes are a “deterrent for leading a better life.” This is especially the case for family – owned businesses, as Obama’s new policy regulations would make it more difficult for families to use the “valuation discount” which currently in effect.  If these discounts are removed, like Obama wants, a family owned business might have to be sold just to pay the taxes. This leads to job losses and the destruction of wealth accumulated over a lifetime.

Obama is not asking Congress to take up legislation on this matter. He’s bypassing them completely. And no where is there any word or hope of simplifying our lives with a flat tax. The new recommendations are already published as guidelines on the Treasury Department’s website. Comments from the public are being accepted until November 2, 2016. In addition to death taxes being increased, Obama’s Treasury Department are also looking at closing tax loopholes available in trusts.

There are many ways to destroy a nation. Decimating the hard earned wealth of families is just another notch on Obama’s belt.

 

Sources:

Forbes.com

Whitehouse.gov

TaxFoundation.org

CNSNews.com

FederalRegister.gov

 

DEA

How the DEA became the biggest pro-drug, pro-crime gang in America

Historically, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has been an extremely controversial organization. While the brainwashed sheep likely believe them to be a trustworthy group that is preventing our children from getting hooked on drugs, those who have been paying attention should be well aware of the numerous assaults on personal freedom the federal group has been engaging in over the years.

How, exactly, they reached this point is a fascinating story.

The DEA was first formed back in 1973 under then-President Richard Nixon as a way to combat the now-infamous War on Drugs. While they should have known back then — decades after alcohol prohibition proved to be a colossal flop — that trying to outlaw mind-altering substances was a huge mistake, that didn’t stop the DEA from waging on for decades after.

Now, unfortunately, they are stronger than ever and have become a drug-peddling gang that has completely bastardized their original intent. While their original intent wasn’t exactly a good thing in the first place — especially given what we now know about cannabis — what they have grown to be in the years following their creation is nothing short of disgusting.

See, the War on Drugs and alcohol prohibition were both instilled for one reason: to leech money out of the American people’s pockets. The federal government was and is well aware that the average American engages in some form of drug use — whether it be cannabis, alcohol, or something else — and an overwhelming majority use them relatively responsibly. But there’s money to be made when these things are criminalized.

By catching and fining users of drugs and alcohol, the DEA was able to become extremely profitable. The fact that they were infringing on the personal liberties of their country’s people was irrelevant because they were making absurd amounts of money.

Over the years, as they always do, the organization has gotten greedier and greedier — going to even greater lengths in order to make a little bit more dough. There’s substantial evidence to prove that the DEA has actually been funding gangs, drug kingpins and other criminal organizations for decades now.

By funding the operations of criminals, the DEA has more people to catch, fine and incarcerate, which makes for substantially larger profits for them.

This is, in a nutshell, how the federal government works in 2016. They don’t care about the American people. Our livelihood is of no concern. They merely want to collect more and more money from us in an attempt to profit off of the “laws” that we break by engaging in a personal freedom. It’s insane, unconstitutional and, frankly, un-American.

If our Founding Fathers could see what the government they fought so hard to keep grounded has become, they would surely be turning over in their graves — graves that the DEA would probably break into in search of a gram of marijuana.

 

Sources:

CharlesHughSmith.blogspot.com

TheFreeThoughtProject.com

Business-Man-Search-Binary-Code-Computer

Clinton Aide Abedin Sent Classified Documents Using a Personal Email Account

Huma Abedin, Hillary Clinton’s aide-de-camp, may have more problems than a sexting husband.

Abedin forwarded classified national security email through an unsecured personal account, according to the latest batch of emails released through Judicial Watch.

Jerome Corsi for WND writes that of the 160 emails contained in the batch, 110 were forwarded to Abedin through redacted email addresses. The content of all the Abedin emails released to Judicial Watch were redacted to one degree or another, indicating the information was of a sensitive nature. Many of the emails were completely redacted or denied entirely.

“In other words, almost half of the emails that Abedin forwarded to her unsecured personal account have information the State Department deems too sensitive to be seen by members of Congress or the American people,” Corsi writes.

While the email addresses were largely redacted under a State Department personal-privacy exemption, one document reveals the address [email protected], an apparent oversight.

Prior to the Judicial Watch release this week, it was unconfirmed Abedin had used a personal email account to forward email containing classified information.

Abedin not only sent sensitive information through her personal email account but also stored classified documents in her car. According to The Washington Times, she asked an aide to move classified documents from the front seat of her car to the trunk, which she considered a “secure” place.

“I’m going to have ambassador ride on next drive,” she told Clinton staffer Lauren Jiloty in an email. “There’s a bunch of burn stuff in the pocket of my front seat. Can u put it in trunk.”

The emails also show Abedin and another Clinton associate, Cheryl Mills, parceled out favors to top Clinton Foundation donors at the behest of executives at the foundation. One of the released emails reveals donors were expected to work through Abedin.

New York real estate mogul Benjamin Ringel, who donated $25,000 Clinton Foundation, acknowledged the process of going through Abedin to request favors. Ringel sought a letter of support and was told by Abedin that was not permissible.

“If the crown prince of Bahrain wanted some face time with Madam Secretary, or a sports-entertainment executive needed a visa for a British soccer player (with an unspecified criminal background), or Bono demanded access to the international space station, it was, apparently, Huma Abedin’s problem,” writes Eric Levitz of NYMag.com.

Prior to the latest revelations and the batch of heavily redacted emails, Abedin was questioned by the FBI about Clinton’s private email server. “Abedin was interviewed for about two hours at the FBI’s field office in Washington on April 5, according to the source, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

“Most legal experts, including a number of former federal prosecutors, believe that Clinton faces little risk of being prosecuted for using the private email system to conduct official business when she served as secretary of State,” the newspaper added.

Indeed, this is precisely what happened.

In July, FBI director James Comey refused to recommend criminal charges in the email server case. Comey said Clinton’s conduct did not amount to “intentional misconduct or indications of disloyalty to the United States or efforts to obstruct justice.”

“We are pleased that the career officials handling this case have determined that no further action by the department is appropriate,” said Brian Fallon, the Clinton campaign spokesman. “As the secretary has long said, it was a mistake to use her personal email and she would not do it again. We are glad that this matter is now resolved,” The New York Times reported.

Sources

WND.com

WashingtonTimes.com

NYMag.com

LATimes.com

NYTimes.com

soda

Berkeley’s soda tax boondoggle enriches city, does not reduce obesity

It is undoubtedly not healthy to drink sugar and fructose corn syrup-laden soft drinks.

Instead of allowing people to make their own health decisions, however, increasingly government is stepping in to make those decisions for them, usually through taxation.

In California last November, 75% of the votes cast on Measure D in Berkeley were in favor of taxing soft drinks at the rate of one cent per ounce. For a liter bottle of soda, the tax amounts to nearly 34 cents.

Granted, this is not a large amount of money. However, it speaks volumes about the attitude of people who believe government has the right to tax the consumption habits of citizens.

Advocates framed the taxation vote as a battle between “communities of color and their kids” and “Big Soda.”

“The community in Berkeley took on Big Soda and prevailed, against all odds. The American Beverage Association poured over $2.4 million dollars into our city and expected to crush the effort like they had so many others. But our community coalition held firm and fought back with the power of relationships: grassroots organizing, volunteers, and thousands of conversations between neighbors, parents, and friends. This victory belongs to all of us,” proclaims the Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition, an organization supported by the NAACP, Latinos Unidos, and the Berkeley Federation of Teachers.

It’s also a big win for government.

The tax generated $116,000 in revenue in the first month of its operation, according to Councilman Laurie Capitelli. The windfall was pumped into Berkeley’s General Fund.

The city did not meet its goal of reducing consumption, however.

“In light of the predictions of the proponents of the tax, as well as in light of the previous research, we expected to see the tax fully passed through to consumers,” said John Cawley, professor of policy analysis and management and of economics in Cornell’s College of Human Ecology. “In contrast, we find that less than half, and in some cases, only a quarter of it is. This is important because the point of the tax was to make sugar-sweetened beverages more expensive so consumers would buy, and drink, less of them.”

Instead of buying soda in Berkeley, many consumers may decide to go elsewhere to avoid the tax and in the process endanger business in the city.

“The reason for this surprising result could be related to the fact that it’s a city tax and therefore store owners have to be concerned about the ability of consumers to shop at stores outside of Berkeley,” Cawley added. “Concerns about cross-border shopping could contribute to a low pass-through of the tax.”

Despite the failure to reach its goal, advocates celebrated.

“We believed that we would succeed, and we delivered. And most importantly, we delivered for the children of Berkeley,” said Councilwoman Lindo Maio, who obviously believes government has the right to make decisions for children, instead of their parents.

Children and their families will fight obesity despite the effort, according to Cawley.

“There is an economic rationale for taxes when consumption of the good imposes negative externalities, and obesity costs taxpayers billions each year in medical care costs in the U.S.,” Cawley said. “A sugar-sweetened beverage tax is a very narrow approach to internalizing the external costs of obesity, because there are many other food and drink items that are also energy dense and lack nutritional value. But to the extent such a tax helps internalize the external costs, there is an economic rationale for it.”

If that were the case, the money would be used for nutrition, healthy eating programs and medical costs associated with obesity.

Instead, the tax money will continue to be deposited in the city’s general coffer.

 

Sources:

Berkeley Healthy Child Coalition

Cornell Chronicle

Obama

Obama officials violate ethics pledge, meet with top lobbyist Google

On January 21, 2009, Obama issued Executive Order 13490, “Ethics Commitments By Executive Branch Personnel.”

The “Revolving Door Ban” section of the order states appointees “will not for a period of 2 years from the date of my appointment participate in any particular matter involving specific parties that is directly and substantially related to my former employer or former clients, including regulations and contracts.”

The EO is not worth the paper it is written on.

At least four White House staffers who previously worked for tech giant Google met with former coworkers within a year of leaving the corporation, reports Watchdog, a non-profit at the Franklin Center for Government & Public Integrity.

The officials include Megan Smith, Alex Macgillivray and Mikey Dickerson.

The prohibited meetings were discovered when two databases, the Revolving Door database and the White House Meetings database, were compared.

The data shows four White House officials held at least 19 meetings with Google employees and the meetings occurred within a year of the officials leaving the corporation. Two of the officials met with former coworkers the same month they transitioned from Google to the White House.

None of the officials are on a list of people granted waivers to the pledge.

Campaign for Accountability said the meetings “raise questions about President Obama’s commitment to keep business interests from exercising undue influence on his administration,” notes Watchdog.

It isn’t the first time White House officials met with former coworkers. In 2010, Deputy U.S. Chief Technology Officer Andrew McLaughlin, a former Google employee, was reprimanded for professional email exchanges and for violating restrictions on contacts with the corporation.

Techpresident noted at the time:

Most notable among the latter were a pair of conversations with the Director of U.S. Public Policy for Google about mobilizing Google’s resources to respond to negative press mentions. Those breaches, according to a memo by OSTP Director John Holdren, “implicated” the Federal Records Act and the President’s Ethics Pledge signed by McLaughlin upon his employment as an Obama administration point person on innovation and Internet policy, within the White House Office of Technology and Science Policy.

Google’s relationship with the Obama administration is remarkably close. Over the last seven years, the tech giant has provided expertise, services, advice and personnel for vital government projects, according to a report by The Intercept. “No other public company approaches this degree of intimacy with government,” writes David Dayen.

Over the last few years, Google has pulled out all the stops in its Washington lobbying effort.

In 2015, it spent $16.7 million on government influence peddling, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. It has remained near or at the top of corporations in lobbying expenses since 2012.

“But direct expenditures on lobbying represent only one part of the larger influence-peddling game. Google’s lobbying strategy also includes throwing lavish D.C. parties; making grants to trade groups, advocacy organizations, and think tanks; offering free services and training to campaigns, congressional offices, and journalists; and using academics as validators for the company’s public policy positions. Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google’s parent company, was an enthusiastic supporter of both of Obama’s presidential campaigns and has been a major Democratic donor,” writes Dayen.

 

Sources:

The White House

Watchdog

Techpresident

The Intercept