Daily Archives: January 7, 2021

Georgia elections, blue wave bad for Big Tech, analyst says – Fox Business

Posted: January 7, 2021 at 5:31 am

Firsthand Funds co-founder and President Kevin Landis on investing in tech in 2021 from streaming platforms and electric vehicles to exercise tech.

Should the Senate come under Democratic control, which ishow the polls are trending, this would be viewed as a negative for the Big Tech companies, such asApple, Amazon, Facebook and Google, one analyst believes.

Hence the drop in the Nasdaq Composite Wednesday.

Wedbush Securities analyst Dan Ives said it's likely there will be "much more scrutiny and sharper teeth around FAANG names" with both houses of thelegislativebranch under Democratic control.

"While momentum for business model breakups of FAANG names have been gaining steam over the past few years within the Beltway and EU, it lacked any political strength to make significant changes outside of political grandstanding events," Ives wrote in a note to clients."This all changes now in the eyes of the Street with the risk of business model scrutiny from tech giants Amazon, Google, Apple, and Facebook now in a brighter spotlight, which adds more risk to the overall tech sector in our opinion."

SILICON VALLEY COMPANIES TOP LIST OF SOURCES FOR OSSOFF DONORS

Wedbush has outperform ratings on the aforementioned companies, with a $160 price target on Apple, a $3,900 price target on Amazon, a $320 price target on Facebook and a $1,850 price target on Google-parent companyAlphabet.

Fox Newsprojectsthat Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock defeated incumbent Republican Sen. Kelly Loeffler, while the race between RepublicanDavid Perdue and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff was too close to call.

Earlier this week, FOX Business reported thatGeorgiaDemocrats Ossoff and Warnock benefited from donations coming out of Silicon Valley, ascompanies likeAppleandAmazonwere at the top of the lists for sources of donations to their campaigns.

Aggregated data from the Center for Responsive Politics showed that Ossoffreceivednearly $952,685 from peopleassociated with Alphabet Inc.,$295,794 fromApple, $275,864 from Microsoft, $225,313 from Facebookand$255,115 from Amazon.

Those five companies comprised five of Ossoff's top six donation sources. The University of Calfornia was the exception at number two. The same was true for Warnock, who received $747,340 from Alphabet, $392,942 from the University of California, $233,187 from Apple, $222,348 from Amazonand $174,394 from Facebook.

GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE

Though the Senate coming under Democratic control could be seen as a "political shocker" according to Ives, the analyst believes that "major legislative changes and breakups" will be difficult to achieve, given the slim majority that would be held by the party.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE STORIES ON FOXBUSINESS

"We still remain firmly bullish on tech stocks for 2021, however, the Senate turning Blue could tame the tech rally until the Street gets a better sense of the legislative agenda under Biden heading into the rest of 2021/2022," Ives added.

Though the Big Tech companies may experience negative investor sentiment in the interim, Ives believes it could be a windfall for those with electric vehicle exposure, such as Tesla, General Motors and suppliers, as a "more green-driven agenda" is in the cards over the next few years.

"We believe a doubling down on EV tax credits and further consumer incentives and government initiatives around the EV sector will be on the horizon which is a major positive for Tesla, GM, Fisker, and other auto players/EV supply chain (QS, etc.)," Ives added.

FOX Business' Samuel Dorman contributed to this story.

Read the original:

Georgia elections, blue wave bad for Big Tech, analyst says - Fox Business

Comments Off on Georgia elections, blue wave bad for Big Tech, analyst says – Fox Business

VCs dispense with niceties during Capitol riots: Never talk to me again – TechCrunch

Posted: at 5:31 am

It was hard not to feel emotional today, as the world watched for more than four hours as rioters stormed into and throughout the Capitol building in Washington to disrupt the certification of the election win of incoming U.S. President-Elect Joe Biden. Theyd been encouraged earlier in the afternoon by outgoing President Donald Trump to head to the building and protest what he falsely claimed yet again was a stolen election, a lie he began to spread the evening of the U.S. election in November.

While members of Congress called on Trump to make a statement rebuking the rioters actions from their undisclosed locations, he instead encouraged his supporters over Twitter, writing of the sacred landslide election victory that was so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots and later posting a video in which repeated his lies about a landslide election that was stolen from us.

It was the first time in American history that supporters of the losing presidential candidate forcibly disrupted the official counting of electoral votes, as noted earlier in the evening by PBS. And while Trumps tweets were later deleted by Twitter for repeated and severe violations of our Civic Integrity policy, the move was viewed by many as too little and too late, including by Silicon Valley investors, a wide number of whom let loose their fury toward the outgoing administration and its enablers.

A lingering question is whether the ignominious day one on which a dozen Senate Republicans and dozens more Republican House members had planned to object to the certification of the election results will begin to polarize people further or whether, following Trumps departure, some of that fury begins to subside instead.

Some investors, at least, say their anger has always had more to do with basic human decency, which seemed frequently to take a backseat during the Trump administration.

Deena Shakir of Lux Capital used to work for the Obama administration and is transparent about her political perspective on Twitter. But she says of todays events that they are not about politics. What we have witnessed is an affront to democracy, an assault on American history, and a gruesome reflection of the divided nation we live in.

Hunter Walk who cofounded the venture firm Homebrew and today tweeted, dont be putting [Trump son-in-law and White House advisor] Jared Kushner on cap tables when this is all said and done echoes the sentiment. Im not afraid to have a strong public voice on issues I consider to be urgent and essential human rights questions.

As for whether the shock of today might make it harder to fund or partner with a team who supported Trumps ascendency, Walk suggests it wont, that business is business. We fund wonderful entrepreneurs and employ no purity tests on whether they agree with us 100%. Im certain weve backed people who sit to our political left and to our political right thats not an issue for us and not an issue for them.

To the extent that Walks public political stance may turn off some talented founders who would just prefer their investors shut up and write checks, thats ok, too, says Walk. We dont believe we need to compromise our values in order to be successful.

Shakir meanwhile suggests that she doesnt always have the luxury of tuning out politics entirely. For one thing, she considers those who terrorized the nations capital all afternoon angered perpetrators of a jingoistic, supremacist ideology that is not only normalized but actually incited by the highest branch of our government and amplified via social media.

More, she notes, Given my focus on healthcare, so much of my own thesis development and so many of my conversations have inevitably been informed by the pandemic, whichfor better or worsehas become politicized.

Try as she might to bifurcate politics from work, its futile right now, Shakir says. These events and policies inform our present and our future, affect the markets that value our companies, and contribute to trends and white spaces.

Today, she adds, they also reflect our values as a nation and as human beings.

Read more here:

VCs dispense with niceties during Capitol riots: Never talk to me again - TechCrunch

Comments Off on VCs dispense with niceties during Capitol riots: Never talk to me again – TechCrunch

Facebook and YouTube remove Trump video calling extremists special – TechCrunch

Posted: at 5:31 am

Facebook and YouTube have removed a video posted by President Trump telling rioters who stormed Congress we love you. The same video was left online but blocked from being shared by Twitter just minutes ago.

A great deal of video and content from the chaotic scene in Washington, D.C. can be found on social media, but Trumps commentary was spare. His posts suggested the rioters remain peaceful, well after they had broken into the Capitol buildings and Congress had been evacuated.

At about 5 PM Eastern time, Trump posted a video in which he reiterated that the election was stolen but that you have to go home now. Go home, we love you. Youre very special.

On Twitter this was soon restricted, with a large warning that this Tweet cant be replied to, Retweeted, or liked due to a risk of violence.

Guy Rosen, VP of Integrity at Facebook, wrote on Twitter that this is an emergency situation and we are taking appropriate emergency measures, including removing President Trumps video. We removed it because on balance we believe it contributes to rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence.

At Facebook there is some precedent for one of Trumps posts being removed. In August, the company took down a video in which Trump stated that children were almost immune to COVID-19, a dangerous and false claim not supported by science.

As Twitter and Facebook crafted bespoke policies to address threats to the election leading into November, YouTube mostly remained quiet. In early December, a month after the election, the company announced that it would begin removing content that made false claims that the U.S. election was affected by widespread fraud or errors. YouTubes decision to remove the presidents video on Wednesday aligned with that policy.

We removed a video posted this afternoon to Donald Trumps channel that violated our policies regarding content that alleges widespread fraud or errors changed the outcome of the 2020 U.S. Election, a YouTube spokesperson told TechCrunch, noting that the video is allowed if accompanied by proper context for educational value.

This story is developing.

See the original post:

Facebook and YouTube remove Trump video calling extremists special - TechCrunch

Comments Off on Facebook and YouTube remove Trump video calling extremists special – TechCrunch

The NYSE will delist three Chinese telecoms after all – TechCrunch

Posted: at 5:31 am

The New York Stock Exchange announced this morning that it will be delisting three major Chinese telecom companies, a move that it first announced last week before seeming to reverse course on Monday.

This is all happening in response to the Trump administrations broader order barring U.S. investment in companies that support the Chinese military. (Trump has been trying to ban TikTok through a separate order.)

Why the double reversal? To be fair to the NYSE, in its first reversal, the exchange had only said it would allow the telecoms to continue trading while it evaluates whether the executive order applies to them.

Now it seems that the further evaluation is complete. In todays announcement, the NYSE said its making the decision after receiving new specific guidance confirming that yes, the executive order does apply to China Telecom, China Mobile and China Unicom.

As a result, trading of all three stocks will be suspended on the exchange as of 4 a.m. Eastern time on Monday, January 11. The move is seen as largely symbolic, as the telecoms trading volume via the NYSE only represents a small percentage of their total tradable shares.

See the rest here:

The NYSE will delist three Chinese telecoms after all - TechCrunch

Comments Off on The NYSE will delist three Chinese telecoms after all – TechCrunch

Rep. Cori Bush plans bill to expel GOP lawmakers who tried to overthrow election – Business Insider – Business Insider

Posted: at 5:30 am

Rep. Cori Bush is planning to introduce legislation that would expel members of Congress who attempt to overturn the results of the US presidential election, the newly elected Missouri Democrat said on Twitter Wednesday.

"I believe the Republican members of Congress who have incited this domestic terror attack through their attempts to overturn the election must face consequences," Bush said. "They have broken their sacred Oath of Office."

Bush's tweet came in response to theviolent siege of the US Capitol building by pro-Trump rioters on Wednesday, following an incendiary speech by the president and plans by hundreds of Republican lawmakers to protest Congress' certification of the Electoral College votes, as well as months of escalating rhetoric and baseless legal challenges.

The proposed bill would direct the House Administration as well as Ethics Committees to investigate and determine whether lawmakers "who have sought to overturn the 2020 Presidential election have violated their oath of Office to uphold the Constitution," or House rules, "and should face sanction, including removal from the House of Representatives."

Trump and Republican lawmakers had planned a last-ditch, and long-shot attempt to overturn the results of the election which President-elect Joe Biden won by directly challenging state's slates of electors in Congress. At least 12 members of the Senate planned to join a slew of House Republicans in mounting a formal challenge to multiple slates of electors from states that voted for Biden.

Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri led the pack byannouncing on December 30 his intention to challenge slates of Electoral College votes, specifically calling out the influence of "Big Tech" as well as Pennsylvania's state election laws that he opposed.

Three days later, 11 other GOP senators led by Sen. Ted Cruz said in a joint letter that they would also raise objections to "disputed states" that voted for Biden until Congress votes to appoint an election commission to conduct "an emergency 10-day audit" of the election results. It is unlikely that Congress will agree to do so, and it remains unclear what the "emergency audit" would entail.

The letter's signatories included Sens. Marsha Blackburn and Bill Hagerty of Tennessee, Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana, Sen. Steve Daines of Montana, Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma, Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Sen. Roger Marshall of Kansas, and Sen. Tommy Tuberville of Alabama.

Sen. Kelly Loeffler of Georgia, who lost her reelection bid on Tuesday to Democrat Raphael Warnock, also separately announced her intention to challenge electoral votes on January 4.

Grace Panetta and Sinad Baker contributed reporting for this story.

View original post here:

Rep. Cori Bush plans bill to expel GOP lawmakers who tried to overthrow election - Business Insider - Business Insider

Comments Off on Rep. Cori Bush plans bill to expel GOP lawmakers who tried to overthrow election – Business Insider – Business Insider

The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute

Posted: at 5:25 am

If youve routinely endorsed conservative policies and candidates, but now find that rightwingers have become chauvinistic, fiscally irresponsible and intolerant, consider the libertarian alternative.

If youve previously embraced liberal policies and candidates, but now find that leftwingers have pushed identity politics and socialist bromides, consider the libertarian alternative.

Libertarians have praised President Trump for progress in the Middle East, success against ISIS, reduced troop levels abroad, lower taxes, less regulation, and the confirmation of judges who appreciate individual rights and limited government. On the other hand, we have criticized Trump when he derides our intelligence agencies, cozies up to dictators, alienates our allies, and exacerbates global tensions. Weve also been troubled by his xenophobic immigration policies, protectionist trade barriers, punitive drug policy, excessive focus on the culture wars, and exploding federal spending.

Libertarians will support PresidentElect Bidens plans for criminal justice reform, immigration liberalization, civil rights, social permissiveness, revitalizing American diplomacy, reducing our military commitments, and nonproliferation. On the other hand, we will vigorously oppose higher taxes, more regulations, affirmative action, Medicare for all, the Green New Deal, expanded welfare, free college, ballooning entitlements, ahigher minimum wage, and judges who think the Constitution is amalleable document that courts can exploit as an alternative to legislation.

In essence, libertarianism is the political philosophy of personal and economic freedom. We believe that capitalism is the most efficient and morally defensible means of allocating scarce economic resources. Philosophically, we subscribe, as did Thomas Jefferson, to the idea of unobstructed liberty within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. Governments role is to secure those rights, applying sufficient coercive power but no more than the minimum necessary to attain that objective.

Put somewhat differently, we should be free to live our lives as we choose, as long as we dont interfere with other people who wish to do the same. Of course, individuals can never be completely selfsufficient. Thats why we sometimes need rules, enforced by government, to make peaceful cooperation possible. The risk, however, is that rules too extensive will produce asystem of special favors that extracts largesse for the politically connected at the expense of the rest of us. By contrast, libertarianism relies on spontaneous ordering minimizing the role of acommanding power that might preempt freely chosen actions.

Libertarians are not opposed to reasonable safety regulations, selective gun controls, or sensible restrictions in other areas. Moreover, we recognize that markets are not perfect. But neither is government. The relevant standard against which to compare our current framework is not autopian world in which justice is ubiquitous and all inequities have been systemically purged. Instead, we have to look at the current environment versus one in which regulations would be more pervasive meaning that some problems might be solved, but other problems would no doubt multiply.

Among those other problems: disincentives to innovate, favors to special interests, increased cost, reduced growth, governmentconferred monopolies, anticompetitive barriers to entry, restricted consumer choices, higher prices, overlapping and confusing laws, abuses of public power, and excessive resources devoted to politicking and lobbying.

How, then, can someone who views the left as excessively collectivist and the right as excessively authoritarian join with libertarians in advancing socially liberal and fiscally conservative goals? One way is to vote for candidates who come closest to promoting proliberty policies. Given the current political mix, those candidates will not be pristine libertarians. But its not necessary to agree with libertarianism acrosstheboard in order to move public policy in the right direction.

Second, alibertarian movement might be buttressed by supporting legislation and other political actions that foster personal autonomy and limited government. Such support policyspecific rather than candidatespecific could be in the form of lobbying, communications with government officials, letters to the editor, or donations to likeminded organizations.

Finally, theres the outside prospect of forming aviable third party. Two obvious hurdles complicate that approach. First, campaign contributions are presently limited to $2,800 per candidate per election. Effectively, that precludes all thirdparty candidates except those who can selffund. Second, 48 of the 50 states award presidential electors on awinnertakeall basis. Only Maine and Nebraska assign electors, in part, district by district. Consequently, candidates who have no chance of winning astatewide popular vote will not be able to garner any electoral votes.

Regrettably, therefore, fashioning an undiluted libertarian alternative will take time and effort. But incremental progress toward favorable public policy is practicable, opportune, and indisputably worthwhile. Lets get the ball rolling.

View post:

The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty - Cato Institute

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on The Libertarian Alternative | Cato @ Liberty – Cato Institute

Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change – Niagara Gazette

Posted: at 5:25 am

The New York State Libertarian and Green parties are calling foul for the change of rules for third parties running candidates in New York state.

Cody Anderson, the chair of the Libertarian Party in the state of New York, said his party, along with the New York Green Party, had filed a preliminary injunction in a federal lawsuit to have the State Board of Election cease implementing changes to Election Law passed in Part ZZZ in U.S. District Court Southern District of New York.

If we lose, and I dont think we will, but if we lose, it will be nearly impossible to get back on the ballot, Anderson said.

The changes

In 2018, the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Independence Party and the SAM Party all receivedmore than50,000 votes each for their candidates in the governors race. Before Part ZZZ, this secured each of them a party line in the 2022 election.

However, the rules have now been changed, according to Duane Whitmer, a former-candidate on the Libertarian line. And he said thats not fair, or even legal.

Under the new rules, the ballot access that these parties earned through 2022 was removed, Whitmer said. In 2020, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, the thresholds were changed, and these parties needed to reach a higher threshold in 2020 in order to maintain ballot access.

That higher threshold was 171,000 votes for their presidential candidate, about 2% of the votes cast in New York for the nationwide election, said Whitmer.

Part ZZZ stipulated that instead of securing 50,000 votes for each partys candidates for governor and thereby becoming a recognized political party for four years with a ballot line, that time was sliced in half to two years and included the race for president. Candidates nominated by third parties in both the presidential election and the gubernatorial election must gather 130,000 votes or 2% of the vote in New York whichever was higher to keep their parties on the ballot line.

This knocked down all four of the third parties mentioned to square one petitioning to get on the ballot that they'd won the right to be on already.

What now?

"We had had ballot status originally in 1996," said Gloria Mattera, co-chair for the New York Green Party. "We had really kept building the party with petitions of tens of thousands of signatures. We ran local candidates, myself included several times. ... We'd maintained ballot status for three gubernatorial cycles.... We're working hard to overturn this unfair law."

If the parties loses the lawsuit, Libertarians and Greens will have to collect 45,000 signatures, up from 15,000, to run a candidate for governor.

If they win the lawsuit, the party will only need petitions from about 5% of registered Libertarians or Greens in New York.

We can lie down and take it after fighting for ballot access (for years), Anderson said. Or we can stand up and fight it. Fight it all the way to the Supreme Court if necessary.

We are making critical coverage of the coronavirus available for free. Please consider subscribing so we can continue to bring you the latest news and information on this developing story.

See the original post here:

Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change - Niagara Gazette

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian and Green parties cry foul over ballot change – Niagara Gazette

Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties – The Daily News Online

Posted: at 5:25 am

A cynical power play by two tired old parties.

Thats what leaders of the states two largest third-parties are calling a provision slipped into the state budget that seeks to make it harder for third-party platforms to make it on the state and national ballots.

The Libertarian Party and Green Party filed a motion in federal court Tuesday for a preliminary injunction against the provision.

The provision, Part ZZZ, is the rider to the New York State budget, passed in April under cover of the pandemic, that increased vote and petitioning thresholds required for minor parties in New York state to obtain and maintain automatic ballot access, party leaders say.

In the motion, the parties asked the court to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction directing Defendants not to apply the new voter and petitioning thresholds from Part ZZZ and continue to apply the previous party definition.

This preliminary injunction is about protecting the Constitutional rights of the Green and Libertarian Parties, but more than that we intend to protect the rights of all New Yorkers to democratic choice in our elections, said Gloria Mattera, New York co-chair of the Green Party. The move by Governor Cuomo and the Legislature in the budget was clearly done to eliminate those choices and to do so as rapidly as possible. We reject their cynical power play.

The budget provision changes how minor parties achieve ballot status.

Currently, minor parties need 50,000 votes for their candidates for governor, a mark that will allow the parties to qualify for the ballot every four years.

The Green and Libertarian parties have both established the right to be on the ballot, based on the previous rules.

The new rules would require minor parties get 130,000 votes, or two percent, of votes cast to remain on the ballot. The provision also requires qualifications to happen every two years, instead of every four.

The provision came from Jay Jacobs, chairman of the state Democratic Party. He initially called for the required votes to be set at 250,000.

Jacobs, in an article in The New York Times, said the change was aimed at reducing voter confusion and rooting out corruption.

The Green and Libertarian parties filed a lawsuit in July in the Southern District of New York that claims the new provision alleges infringement upon First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to organize, identify, and vote for minor parties under the United States Constitution, and that the new voter and petitioning requirements are therefore unconstitutional.

The suit has yet to be heard, prompting the parties to seek an injunction.

The Libertarian Party has been the fastest-growing third-party in the country and leaders say the new rules will damage its status.

We maintain that the unconstitutional actions of the governor and legislature have caused irreparable harm to the Libertarian and Green Parties, as well as to other minor parties in New York State, said Cody Anderson, chair of the Libertarian Party of New York. Rather than allowing the governor to use the state Board of Elections as a tool to punish his political enemies and consolidate his power, we have asked the courts to recognize the violation of our 1st and 14th Amendment rights, to enjoin the Board of Elections to cease implementation of Part ZZZ, and to allow us to continue offering voters principled alternatives to the two tired old parties.

Locally, Chase Tkach, chair of the Libertarian Party of Orleans County, said she, too, is appalled at the efforts to block third parties.

The actions taken by the Board of Elections are meant to suppress voters, said Tkach, who in 2019 received more than 12 percent of the vote for a seat on the county legislature. Im confident we will win.

Read more here:

Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties - The Daily News Online

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Libertarian, Green parties file injunction in lawsuit aimed at state efforts to quell third parties – The Daily News Online

Yellow Gadsden flag, prominent in Capitol takeover, carries a long and shifting history – The Conversation US

Posted: at 5:25 am

Flown by many protesters at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, the Gadsden flag has a design that is simple and graphic: a coiled rattlesnake on a yellow field with the text Dont Tread On Me. But that simple design hides some important complexities, both historically and today, as it appears in rallies demanding President Donald Trump be allowed to remain in office.

The flag originated well before the American Revolution, and in recent years it has been used by the tea party movement and, at times, members of the militia movement. But it has also been used to represent the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Navy, the U.S. mens national soccer team and a Major League Soccer franchise.

As a scholar of graphic design, I find flags interesting as symbols as they take on deeper meanings for those who display them. Often, people use a flag not because of what is explicitly displayed, but because of what the person believes it represents though that meaning can change through time, and with ones perspective, as has happened with the Gadsden flag.

The flags origin isnt entirely clear. It seems to begin with a simple illustration accompanying an essay by Benjamin Franklin in 1754, 20 years before American independence. The image, possibly drawn by Franklin himself, portrays the American Colonies as parts of a divided snake, simply stating Join, or Die. The essay it accompanied addressed the major current issue for British colonists in North America: the threat of the French and their Native American allies.

Later, as the American Revolution took shape, the image took on a new meaning. Colonists hoisted various flags, including ones depicting rattlesnakes, a distinctly American creature believed to strike only in self-defense. The flag commonly known as the First Navy Jack had 13 red and white stripes, and possibly a timber rattlesnake with 13 rattles, above the words Dont Tread On Me.

In 1775, as the American Revolution began, South Carolina politician Christopher Gadsden expanded on Franklins idea, and possibly the red-and-white flag as well, when he created the yellow flag with a coiled rattler and the same phrase: Dont Tread On Me.

For most of U.S. history, this flag was all but forgotten, though it had some cachet in libertarian circles.

The First Navy Jack version resurfaced in 1976 on U.S. Navy ships to celebrate the nations bicentennial, and again after 9/11, though today that flag is reserved for the longest active-status warship. Its use remained largely apolitical.

In 2006 the slogan and the coiled snake saw some commercial use by Nike and the Philadelphia Union, a Major League Soccer team.

Around the same time, though, the flag took on a new political meaning: The tea party, a hard-line Republican anti-tax movement, began using it. The implication was that the U.S. government had become the oppressor threatening the liberties of its own citizens.

Perhaps as a result of the tea party movement, several state governments around the country offer a Gadsden flag license plate design. At least some of those plates charge additional fees for the special plate, sending proceeds to nonprofit organizations.

The Gadsden flag has appeared at other political protests, too, such as those opposing restrictions on gun ownership and objecting to rules imposed in 2020 to slow the spread of the coronavirus. Most recently the flag has been flown and displayed at some post-election protests, including events where demonstrators called for officials to stop counting votes and both inside and outside the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., during the counting of the electoral votes on Wednesday.

Because it is commonly flown alongside Trump 2020 flags and the Confederate battle flag, some may now see the Gadsden flag as a symbol of intolerance and hate or even racism. If so, its original meaning is then forever lost, but one theme remains.

At its core, the flag is a simple warning but to whom, and from whom, has clearly changed. Gone is the original intent to unite the states to fight an outside oppressor. Instead, for those who fly it today, the government is the oppressor.

[Deep knowledge, daily. Sign up for The Conversations newsletter.]

Read more:

Yellow Gadsden flag, prominent in Capitol takeover, carries a long and shifting history - The Conversation US

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on Yellow Gadsden flag, prominent in Capitol takeover, carries a long and shifting history – The Conversation US

17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make: Should I enroll in another party? – syracuse.com

Posted: at 5:25 am

Syracuse, N.Y. About 17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make by Feb. 14, according to letters that went out in recent days:

They can keep their current enrollment status in the Green, Independence, Libertarian or Serve America Movement party. That means they can still vote in 2021, but only in the general election, not in primaries, elections officials say.

Or, these minor party members can chose to enroll in one of the four remaining parties on New Yorks ballot: Democratic, Republican, Conservative or Working Families.

Lastly, the voters can also choose to become a non-enrolled voter another category that means theyre not enrolled in any party and limits voting to general elections.

The options come after four of the six minor political parties in New York failed to get enough votes in 2020 to automatically qualify for a ballot spot this year.

In past years, the minor parties had to get 50,000 votes during a gubernatorial race to remain on the ballot.

But a change last year made securing that spot harder for the smaller political parties.

Now, minor parties must get 2% of the vote in a presidential or gubernatorial year. That threshold set last November was about 173,000 votes, according to the states certified election results.

These four parties fell well short of that in the Nov. 3 election in New York.

Statewide, just 60,234 Libertarians voted for Jo Jorgensen. Another 22,587 Independence members voted for Brock Pierce. The SAM party didnt run a presidential candidate.

And Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins, of Syracuse, got 32,753 votes in New York.

The ballot change doesnt mean the parties are going away.

Also, no voter registered in these parties will lose their ability to vote, Elections Commissioners Dustin Czarny and Michele Sardo said.

If they choose not to make a change, they will still be registered and the county will continue to track their current party status, Sardo said.

That could be important if the parties re-qualify for ballot status in 2022, the next gubernatorial race.

But going forward, these voters wont be allowed to vote in primaries in the other four parties, Sardo and Czarny said.

To be eligible to vote in 2021 primaries, the deadline to change your registration is Feb. 14.

Got a story idea or news tip youd like to share? Please contact me through email, Twitter, Facebook or at 315-470-2274.

The rest is here:

17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make: Should I enroll in another party? - syracuse.com

Posted in Libertarian | Comments Off on 17,000 Onondaga County voters have a decision to make: Should I enroll in another party? – syracuse.com