Most Affordable States to Start Your Business

Now more than ever, aspiring entrepreneurs are pursuing their passions and looking for ways to start a business. One of the key considerations when starting a business is keeping costs low and profits high. Choosing the right place in which to open up shop can make a significant impact on the bottom line.

If you’ve been considering opening a business in the USA, some states will be more profitable than others. Here are the most affordable states in which to start your business.

Considerations

Before you learn which states are the best for entrepreneurs, you need to understand the elements that play a role in affordability. Some implications affect the business itself, while others have an indirect influence by affecting the business owner.

Some key considerations include:

  • Taxation – some states have higher taxes than others. Choosing a state with lower taxation means you keep more of the money you’ve earned.
  • Entrepreneurial environment – is the area in a state of economic growth? These are essential components of market research when choosing a home state.
  • Funding opportunities – what are the startup costs in this area when compared to funding opportunities? Some states promote entrepreneurship by offering grants and loans.
  • Labor market – depending on your business venture, you may require specialized or highly-educated workers, which are more affluent in some states.
  • Cost and quality of living – will you be able to afford to live in the state you work when you consider housing, groceries, and utilities? Also, the safety of the area, school options, and more.

By weighing these factors, you’ll be able to determine which state is best for your business. Keeping these concerns in mind, here are some of the most affordable states in which to start a business.

Texas

Texas is at the top of the list for affordability when considering a new business. First and foremost, cities in Texas– Houston and Austin, to name a few– have been booming in recent years. This influx of people and skilled workers has created ample opportunity for aspiring entrepreneurs.

Texas encourages entrepreneurs to open up shop in the Lonestar State with grants and funding options to support their endeavors. This is backed further by free resources, like the Texas Entrepreneur Networks, which helps business owners find investors.

Finally, utilities are affordable in Texas. The electricity plans for Texas are deregulated, creating an open market situation resulting in savings for the end-user. As Texas is such a great place to live and work, it’s the number one state for opening a new business.

Utah

Utah is another state in which to give serious consideration to opening a business. It’s one of the best states in terms of resources for business owners and offers some of the most accessible financing options. Grants and loans are abundant in Utah, and it boasts a higher economic growth rate for small businesses than Texas.

As far as the cost of living goes in Utah, it’s perfectly average in comparison to the rest of the states, ranking 27th overall. While things like groceries, utilities, and transportation are slightly lower than the national average, housing is the tipping point. The median home cost in Utah is slightly over $100,000 more than the national average.

Fortunately, Utah is also one of the best states to rent in. The average rent in Utah is about $200 less per month than the national average. Between the financing options and rent affordability, Utah is a worthy contender for the most affordable and profitable state in which to start a business.

Colorado

Colorado is an entrepreneur’s dream. With low taxation and startup costs, it’s no wonder why so many Millennials are immigrating to Colorado to pursue their business goals. This state boasts a burgeoning labor force, with over fifty percent of residents holding a bachelor’s degree at minimum. In fact, Colorado is one of the most educated states in the country.

The cost of living in Colorado is slightly higher than the national average. This is primarily due to the prices in Denver and some of the more affluent areas. However, as it is a highly educated area, the average income is slightly higher than the national average, as well.

Due to the startup culture in Colorado, there are a lot of incredible resources for entrepreneurs. Denver Startup Week takes place every September and is both an educational and networking opportunity that can open doors for entrepreneurs and investors. The education tracks address everything from business growth, to being a founder, to specific industry concerns.

Make Your Move

While these are the top three affordable states for starting a business, there are many other options. Choosing the right place to start your business builds a strong foundation for growth and success.

Entitlement Liabilities Are a Graver Threat to the Next Generation of Americans Than Climate Change

On January 31, 1940, Miss Ida Fuller received a check for $22.54. She was the first person to retire under the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) scheme, better known as Social Security. At the time of her retirement in 1939, she had paid just $22 in Social Security taxes. Ms. Fuller lived to be 100, cashing over $20,000 worth of Social Security checks.

If she had only paid $22.54 in contributions, where did the $20,000 Ms. Fuller received in Social Security payouts come from? It came, as it does now, from the taxpayers of the day. As of 2019, your employer deducts 6.2 percent of your wages up to $132,900 a year, matches this amount, and sends it to the Social Security Administration (SSA). The SSA deposits this with the Treasury, which spends it and receives Treasury bonds in return. This is the fabled trust fund that guarantees Social Security.

But these Treasury bonds are simply IOUs redeemable against the income of tomorrow’s taxpayers. When one of the Treasury bonds held by the SSA falls due for payment, the Treasury can only get the funds to meet this liability by taxing, borrowing (taxing the taxpayers of tomorrow), or printing money (imposing an inflation tax). In each case, what really guarantees Social Security is not the money you paid in but the earnings of today’s or tomorrow’s taxpayers.

Such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees. When the program began, every 100 workers were supporting three retirees.

This favorable ratio encouraged politicians to be more generous. Originally intended to cover only about 50 percent of all workers, Social Security was expanded even before Ida Fuller received her first check to provide benefits for dependents of retired workers and surviving dependents. In the post-war years, Social Security grew further. Disability benefits, payable as early as age 50, were added in 1956, and during the 1950s coverage was extended to other previously excluded workers, making it essentially universal. Congress passed across-the-board benefit increases of 7 percent (1965), 13 percent (1967), 15 percent (1969), 10 percent (1971), 20 percent (1972), and 11 percent (1974). In 1972, benefits were tied to the Consumer Price Index, yielding an annual “cost of living adjustment.”

In 1965, Medicare was signed into law, establishing a heavily subsidized federal health care program for the elderly. Former President Harry Truman and his wife received the first Medicare cards without paying a cent in Medicare taxes.

Like Social Security, Medicare is financed by a payroll tax of 2.9 percent split between employer and employee, up from 0.7 percent in 1966. Like Social Security, that money gets paid right out to meet current expenses, which were vastly expanded by passage of Medicare Part D in 2003. And like Social Security, such a pay-as-you-go scheme could chug along well enough as long as there were lots of workers relative to retirees.

Two things derailed that. US birth rates fell from births 3.65 births per woman in 1965 to 1.80 in 2016, and life expectancy rose from 68 in 1950 to 79 today. Together, this meant ever more retirees relative to the workers supporting them. By 2017, 100 workers were supporting 25 retirees.

These shifting demographics have shredded the solvency of the “trust funds.” Social Security is estimated to run out of reserves in 2034, after which benefits would have to be reduced by about 25 percent to keep spending within available annual revenue. Over 75 years, Social Security has an unfunded liability of $13.9 trillion.

The Medicare hospital insurance trust fund will run out of reserves in 2026. Medicare’s second trust fund, for physician and outpatient services and for prescription drugs, is permanently “solvent” because it has an unlimited call on the general fund of the Treasury—the incomes of future taxpayers. Premiums paid by the beneficiaries will cover only about 25 percent of program costs; the rest of the spending is unfinanced. Medicare’s overall unfunded liability over 75 years is more than $37 trillion.

The taxes levied to fund Social Security have already risen drastically. In 1937, the Social Security tax rate was one percent on earnings up to $3,000 ($53,449 in 2019 dollars) to be matched by the employer. By 1971 it was 4.6 percent on earnings up to $7,800 ($49,411 in 2019 dollars). It now stands at 6.2 percent up to $132,900.

This is only going to get worse. According to Census Bureau projections, by 2030 each 100 working-age Americans will be supporting 35 retirees, and this could rise to 42 by 2060. Another way to think of this is to calculate the number of retirees each worker must support. In 1946, the burden of one retiree was shared between 42 workers. Today, according to the SSA, roughly three workers cover each retiree’s Social Security and Medicare benefits. By 2030, however, there will be only two workers supporting each retiree.

In other words, a working couple will have to support not only themselves and their family but also someone outside the family thanks to Social Security and Medicare.

To make Social Security solvent again, the payroll tax rate would need to be hiked immediately from 12.4 percent to 15.2 percent, or Social Security benefits would need to be cut on a permanent basis by about 17 percent. According to economists Roger LeRoy Miller, Daniel K. Benjamin, and Douglass C. North:

[F]or Social Security and Medicare to stay as they are, the payroll tax rate may have to rise to 25 percent of wages over the next decade. And a payroll tax rate of 40 percent is not unlikely by the middle of the twenty-first century.

Teenage climate activist Greta Thunberg recently made international headlines with an impassioned speech to the United Nations in which she complained that her future had been stolen by inaction on climate change. An American Ms. Thunberg’s age could say the same about entitlement spending on Social Security and Medicare.

By the expanding eligibility for and hiking the benefits of a pay-as-you-go system while at the same time having fewer children to fund it, the generations preceding that child have left a fearsome financial obligation. Either taxes will go up sharply for the workers of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living, or benefits will go down for the retirees of tomorrow, lowering their standard of living. One group is going to feel pretty angry.

These problems were foreseen even as politicians were hiking payouts. In 1978, the economist Paul Samuelson wrote:

[O]ur Social Security system is also an actuarially unfunded system…there is no obligation for this generation to have children at the same rate as did previous generations. Therefore, when those born during the baby-boom period of the ‘50s reach retirement age in the next century, their stipends will be felt as more of a burden by the thinner ranks of the then working population

We are on the brink of inter-generational strife. We have the political shortsightedness of decades past to thank for that.

COLUMN BY

John Phelan

John Phelan is an economist at the Center of the American Experiment and fellow of The Cobden Centre.

RELATED VIDEO: The Living Wage Makes It Harder to Make a Living.

EDITORS NOTE: This FEE column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Liberal Policy Failures Are the Reason for Socialism’s New Appeal

Multiple forms of socialism, from hard Stalinism to European redistribution, continue to fail.

Russia and China are still struggling with the legacy of genocidal communism. Eastern Europe still suffers after decades of Soviet-imposed socialist chaos.

Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea, and Venezuela are unfree, poor, and failed states. Baathism—a synonym for pan-Arabic socialism—ruined the postwar Middle East.

The soft-socialist European Union countries are stagnant and mostly dependent on the U.S. military for their protection.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


In contrast, current American deregulation, tax cuts, and incentives, and record energy production have given the United States the strongest economy in the world.

So why, then, are two of the top three Democratic presidential contenders—Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren—either overtly or implicitly running on socialist agendas? Why are the heartthrobs of American progressives—Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y.; Rashida Tlaib, D-Mich.; and Ilhan Omar, D-Minn.—calling for socialist redistributionist schemes?

Why do polls show that a majority of American millennials have a favorable view of socialism?

There are lots of catalysts for the new socialism.

Massive immigration is changing the demography of the United States. The number of foreign-born U.S. residents and their children has been estimated at almost 60 million, or about 1 in 5 U.S. residents. Some 27% of California residents were born outside of America.

Many of these immigrants flee from poor areas of Latin America, Mexico, Africa, and Asia that were wrecked by statism and socialism. Often, they arrive in the U.S. unaware of economic and political alternatives to state socialism.

When they reach the U.S.—often without marketable skills and unable to speak English—many assume that America will simply offer a far better version of the statism from which they fled. Consequently, many take for granted that government will provide them an array of social services, and they become supportive of progressive socialism.

Another culprit for the new socialist craze is the strange leftward drift of the very wealthy in Silicon Valley, in corporate America and on Wall Street.

Some of the new progressive rich feel guilty about their unprecedented wealth. So they champion redistribution as the sort of medieval penance that alleviates guilt.

Yet the influential and monied classes usually are so well off that higher taxes hardly affect them. Instead, redistributionist taxation hurts the struggling middle classes.

In California, it became hip for wealthy leftists to promote socialism from their Malibu, Menlo Park, or Mill Valley enclaves—while still living as privileged capitalists. Meanwhile, it proved nearly impossible for the middle classes of Stockton and Bakersfield to cope with the reality of crushing taxes and terrible social services.

From 2008 to 2017, the now-multimillionaire Barack Obama, first as candidate and then as president, used all sorts of cool socialist slogans, from “spread the wealth around” and “now is not the time to profit” to “you didn’t build that” and “at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

Universities bear much of the blame. Their manipulation of the federal government to guarantee student loans empowered them to jack up college costs without any accountability. Liberal college administrators and faculty did not care much when graduates left campus poorly educated and unable to market their expensive degrees.

More than 45 million borrowers now struggle with nearly $1.6 trillion in collective student debt, with climbing interest. That indebtedness has delayed—or ended—the traditional forces that encourage conservatism and traditionalism, such as getting married, having children, and buying a home.

Instead, a generation of single, childless, and mostly urban youth feels cheated that their high-priced degrees did not earn them competitive salaries. Millions of embittered college graduates will never be able to pay off what they owe—and want some entity to pay off their debts.

In paradoxical fashion, teenagers were considered savvy adults who were mature enough to take on gargantuan loans. But they were also treated like fragile preteens who were warned that the world outside their campus sanctuaries was downright mean, sexist, racist, homophobic, and unfair.

Finally, doctrinaire Republicans for decades mouthed orthodoxies of free rather than fair trade. They embraced the idea of creative destruction of industries, but without worrying about the real-life consequences for the unemployed in the hollowed-out, red-state interior.

Add up a lost generation of woke and broke college graduates, waves of impoverished immigrants without much knowledge of American economic traditions, wealthy advocates of boutique socialism, and asleep-at-the-wheel Republicans, and it becomes clear why historically destructive socialism is suddenly seen as cool.

Regrettably, sometimes the naive and disaffected must relearn that their pie-in-the sky socialist medicine is far worse than the perceived malady of inequality.

And unfortunately, when socialists gain power, they don’t destroy just themselves. They usually take everyone else down with them as well.

(C) 2019 TRIBUNE CONTENT AGENCY, LLC.

COMMENTARY BY

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, and author of the book “The Second World Wars: How the First Global Conflict Was Fought and Won.” You can reach him by e-mailing authorvdh@gmail.com. Twitter: .

RELATED ARTICLES:

Next Generation of Americans Will Embrace Socialism If We Lose ‘War on History’

History Has Shown That Socialism Isn’t the Cure

Russia Became a Communist Hellhole Because of This Man

Problematic Women: Allie Stuckey on Millennials, Mentors, and Motherhood


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

This is us! A person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than someone under 35.

This commentary was received from a longtime international friend of ours. A thoughtful commentary indeed:

The typical U.S. household headed by a person age 65 or older has a net worth 47 times greater than a household headed by someone under 35, according to an analysis of census data released Monday. They like to refer to us as senior citizens, old fogies, geezers, and in some cases dinosaurs. Some of us are “Baby Boomers getting ready to retire. Others have been retired for some time. We walk a little slower these days and our eyes and hearing are not what they once were. We worked hard, raised our children, worshiped our God and have grown old together. Yes, we are the ones some refer to as being over the hill, and that is probably true. But before writing us off completely, there are a few things that need to be taken into consideration.

In school we studied English, history, math, and science, which enabled us to lead America into the technological age. Most of us remember what outhouses were, many of us with firsthand experience. We remember the days of telephone party-lines, 25 cent gasoline, and milk and ice being delivered to our homes. For those of you who don’t know what an icebox is, today they are electric and referred to as refrigerators. A few even remember when cars were started with a crank. Yes, we lived those days.

We are probably considered old fashioned and outdated by many. But there are a few things you need to remember before completely writing us off. We won World War II, fought in Korea and Viet Nam. We can quote The Pledge of Allegiance, and know where to place our hand while doing so. We wore the uniform of our country with pride and lost many friends on the battlefield. We didn’t fight for the Socialist States of America; we fought for the “Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. We wore different uniforms but carried the same flag.

We know the words to the “Star Spangled Banner, America, and America the Beautiful by heart, and you may even see some tears running down our cheeks as we sing. We have lived what many of you have only read in history books and we feel no obligation to apologize to anyone for America .

Yes, we are old and slow these days but rest assured, we have at least one good fight left in us. We have loved this country, fought for it, and died for it, and now we are going to save it. It is our country and nobody is going to take it away from us. We took oaths to defend America against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and that is an oath we plan to keep. There are those who want to destroy this land we love but, like our founders, there is no way we are going to remain silent.

It was mostly the young people of this nation who elected Obama and the Democratic Congress. You fell for the “Hope and Change” which in reality was nothing but “Hype and Lies.” You youngsters have tasted socialism and seen evil face to face, and have found you don’t like it after all. You make a lot of noise, but most are all too interested in their careers or “Climbing the Social Ladder” to be involved in such mundane things as patriotism and voting. Many of those who fell for the “Great Lie” in 2008 are now having buyer’s remorse. With all the education we gave you, you didn’t have sense enough to see through the lies and instead drank the ‘Kool-Aid.’ Now you’re paying the price and complaining about it; no jobs, lost mortgages, higher taxes, and less freedom. This is what you voted for and this is what you got. We entrusted you with the Torch of Liberty, and you traded it for a paycheck and a fancy house.

Well, don’t worry youngsters, the Grey-Haired Brigade is here, and in 2016 we took back our nation. We may drive a little slower than you would like, but we get where we’re going, and in 2020 we’re going to the polls again by the millions.

So the next time you have the chance to say the Pledge of Allegiance, stand up, put your hand over your heart, honor our country, and thank God for the old geezers of the “Gray-Haired Brigade.”

Footnote: This is spot on. I am another Gray-Haired Geezer signing on. I will circulate this to other Gray-Haired Geezers all over this once great county.

Can you feel the ground shaking??? It’s not an earthquake, it is a:

STAMPEDE!!!!

You and I are Members.

In God we STILL trust!

Over 99% of Americans Have Access to Health Coverage

Last month’s Census Bureau report on the uninsured overlooked an important point: More than 99% of Americans have access to health coverage, regardless of their income or medical condition.

The overwhelming majority of those lacking insurance could have obtained coverage but did not enroll.

Many of those with lower incomes may not sign up for subsidized coverage because they know they can receive care at little or no cost to themselves even if they remain uninsured until they arrive at a clinic.

Those in the top two income quintiles may remain uninsured because government intervention in health insurance markets has created a menu of unattractive products at unattractive prices.


The demand for socialism is on the rise from young Americans today. But is socialism even morally sound? Find out more now >>


Either way, Americans across the income spectrum deserve a better approach to health care.

Understanding the Challenge

It’s critical that policymakers understand the distinction between lack of coverage and lack of access to coverage.

A Kaiser Family Foundation analysis of last year’s Census Bureau report found that, of the estimated 27.4 million non-elderly people who were uninsured in 2017:

  • 6.8 million (25%) were eligible for Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program, but not enrolled.
  • 8.2 million (30%) were eligible for Obamacare subsidies but did not enroll.
  • 3.8 million (14%) declined an offer of employer-sponsored coverage.
  • 1.9 million (7%) were not eligible for subsidies because they had income more than four times the federal poverty threshold, which put them in the top two income quintiles.
  • 4.1 million (15%) were ineligible for subsidies because they were not lawful U.S. residents. Their situation is a matter to be settled by immigration policy, not health care policy.
  • 2.5 million (9%) were under the poverty line but ineligible for federal assistance. They represented just 0.7% of the population.

These 2.5 million lawful U.S. residents ineligible for federal assistance lived in states that had not expanded Medicaid eligibility to non-elderly, non-disabled adults with incomes up to 138% of the federal poverty level.

Here, it is important to draw a second crucial distinction: between access to coverage and access to care.

These 2.5 million individuals are eligible for free care at 3,000 federally-funded health centers in the nonexpansion states and 11,000 nationwide. In addition, all public and nonprofit hospitals are required to have programs to provide free or low-cost care to low-income patients.

These hospitals can enroll low-income people in Medicaid when they show up for care, which is another reason some Medicaid-eligible people wait until they need to see a doctor to sign up for their free coverage.

Flawed Laws Make It Harder for the Uninsured to Get Covered

The federal government has not done a good job of covering those who are eligible for assistance.

A recent Heritage Foundation report examined the Kaiser study and another by the Department of Health and Human Services. Heritage found that while 8.2 million people claimed Obamacare subsidies in 2017, an additional 8.2 million people who were eligible for those subsidies remained uninsured.

That means that only half the people eligible for subsidies claimed them. The heavily regulated individual policies are unattractive to millions of people, even at steeply discounted prices.

Things are even worse among the unsubsidized, who have dropped individual coverage at an alarming rate. Between 2015 and 2018, the number of unsubsidized people with individual coverage fell by half, from 7.9 million to 3.9 million.

Millions remain uninsured, not because the federal government is doing too little, but because it is doing (and spending) a lot and doing it badly.

Americans Deserve a Better Approach to Health Care

Advocates of expanding government control of health care take the Census Bureau’s estimate of the number of uninsured out of context. They use it as a call for government to do more.

Some advocate government takeover of health care financing, as in “Medicare for All.” Others seek further expansions of Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare subsidies. Still others will call for the creation of a “public option,” a government-run insurance company that “competes” with private insurers.

But these are all line extensions of an already-failing approach.

A new approach is needed, one rooted in a better understanding of the problem.

Working together, dozens of health care analysts and policy leaders have developed such an approach.

The Health Care Choices Proposal would convert the $1.6 trillion in Obamacare entitlement spending into grants to states. States would use these fixed allotments to establish consumer-centered programs that make health insurance affordable regardless of income or medical condition.

It also would: expand health savings accounts, which help people save tax-free for routine medical expenses; write into law Trump administration regulations that expand consumer choices; and address high medical costs through choice and competition.

And it would require states to establish programs that concentrate public resources on people with pre-existing medical conditions. In states that have obtained federal waivers to establish such programs, people have seen substantial premium reductions.

The proposal would enhance health care choices for all Americans, including those with low incomes. And it would reduce premiums for individual policies by up to one-third.

The Health Care Choices Proposal represents a commonsense approach to solving an uninsured problem that is poorly understood.

Originally published in National Review.

COMMENTARY BY

Doug Badger is a former White House and Senate policy adviser and is currently a senior fellow at the Galen Institute and a visiting fellow at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .

Jamie Bryan Hall is a senior policy analyst in empirical studies at The Heritage Foundation. Twitter: .


A Note for our Readers:

With the demand for socialism at an all-time high among our young people—our future leaders and decisionmakers—the experts at Heritage stopped and asked a question that not many have asked:

Is socialism really morally sound?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you and our fellow Americans better understand the 9 Ways That Socialism Will Morally Bankrupt America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

The Revolutionary and anti-Constitutional 1941 Lend Lease Act

“It’s not a choice between war and peace. It’s a choice between war and endless war. It’s not appeasement. I think it’s better even to call it American self-interest.” – Former CIA agent, Michael Scheuer

“When we look at how, constitutionally, only Congress can declare war, and that is routinely ignored. Not NATO or the UN, but Congress has to authorize these endless wars, and it isn’t.” –  Edward Snowden

“If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.” – President James Madison


Few people have heard of the “Lend-Lease Act” and its revolutionary change to our Constitution. In his 1961 Farewell to the Nation Speech President Dwight D. Eisenhower stated, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.”  But it’s not just the military industrial complex, it’s the Soviet agents who long ago infiltrated the upper echelons of our government and gave us this unconstitutional legislation.

The Lend Lease Act

The Lend Lease Act was proposed in 1940, and President Franklin Roosevelt signed it into law on March 11, 1941.  It was the principal means for providing military aid to foreign nations during WWII.  The act authorized the president to transfer arms or any other defense materials for which Congress appropriated money to “the government of any country whose defense the President deems vital to the defense of the United States.”  Despite strong protests from isolationists, the Act passed by wide margins in the House and Senate.

FDR signs the Land-Lease Act in 1941 to give aid to Britain and China. President Roosevelt (FDR) sold the Act to the American public as aid to Great Britain, but in reality Lend Lease aid to the Soviet Union was a priority that superseded all other allies’ military needs, including our own.

American aid to the Soviet Union included weapons, ammunition, tanks, oil, fighter aircraft, trucks and jeeps, and materials for the making of the atomic bomb including uranium. (Sound familiar?) In addition, lavish personal items and great quantities of food, including 200 million pounds of butter, were sent while at the same time America had strict rationing of goods.  Our patents, including military blueprints also reached the Soviets in the hundreds of thousands.  It was indiscriminate aid to the Soviet Union.  (American Betrayal chapter 2, Diana West)

Executive Power

The Act allowed the president alone to make the decision regarding transferring materials to beleaguered nations without payment as required by the Neutrality Act of 1939.  It also skirted the thorny problems of war debts that had followed World War I; Britain had defaulted on $3.5 billion. The Neutrality Act of 1937 did contain one important concession to Roosevelt: nations were allowed, at the discretion of the President, to acquire any items except arms from the United States, so long as they immediately paid for such items and carried them on non-American ships—the so-called “cash-and-carry” provision. The revised 1939 Act allowed arms to be sold, but once America entered WWII, the Act became irrelevant.

The Johnson Act of 1934 also prohibited the extension of credit to countries that had not repaid U.S. loans made to them during World War I—which included Great Britain who desperately needed funds to fight Hitler. But it was Russia’s Stalin who wrote to FDR asking him to help the Britain.  If Britain fell to the Nazis, the Soviet Union would be next.  In securing aid to the UK, Stalin had more time to ready his red army for war.

Over the course of the war, the United States contracted Lend-Lease agreements with more than 30 countries, dispensing some $50 billion in assistance.  The agreements signed by the United States and the recipient nations laid the foundation for the creation of a new international economic order in the postwar world and it has continued until now.

Isolationists, such as Republican senator Robert Taft, opposed it. Taft correctly noted that the bill would “give the President power to carry on a kind of undeclared war all over the world, in which America would do everything except actually put soldiers in the front-line trenches where the fighting is.”  Now, however, without action by Congress, the President is allowed to send military support of any kind, including our troops, to any country deemed “vital to the defense of America.”

Soviet Agents

In Diana West’s books, American Betrayal and The Red Thread she exposes the revolutionary and anti-constitutional Lend Lease Act.  The three Soviet agents behind the Act were Armand Hammer, Harry Hopkins and Harry Dexter White.

In The Red Thread, West states, “We may now regard Lend Lease as the founding document of the ‘new world order’ that arose in the aftermath of WWII, its heaviest cornerstones laid by covert Soviet agents Alger Hiss at the United Nations and Harry Dexter White at the International Monetary Fund.  The sea change (with Lend Lease) came in making ‘any country’s defense’ vital to our own.”

Hiss was also president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and was involved in the establishment of the United Nations both as a U.S. State Department official and as a UN official.

What no one but a few intelligence professionals knew was that in the early 1940s our government had recorded thousands of coded messages from Soviet agents in Washington and New York to their Moscow superiors.  In later years they decoded those messages proving Hiss and White were indeed Soviet spies as charged. Under their code name, the “Venona Papers” are now available to everyone through the Library of Congress.

President Truman knew in 1950 about the Soviet agents as did Eisenhower who was elected after him, along with a select group of Washington elites, but no one seemed to care.  There was a conspiracy of silence that continues to this day.

Armand Hammer

In his book, Dossier: the Secret History of Armand Hammer, Edward Jay Epstein calls Hammer a traitor.  By 1940, British intelligence had developed a lengthy dossier on Hammer.  It identified him and his associates as part of the Soviet “secret regime” in the West.  Earlier that year, it had even monitored the movements of his brother Victor in Egypt (then a British protectorate) on the suspicion that the Hammer Galleries were a front for the Soviet intelligence service.  Yet American history still refers to Hammer as an industrialist (CEO of Occidental Petroleum) and philanthropic.

Nineteen years earlier, Hammer had a meeting with Lenin, who sought to break the isolation of the Soviet Union by making him his “path” to American business.

At the time, Hammer was acting to influence America knowing that if Britain fell to the Nazis, the Soviet Union would be next.  He went directly to President Roosevelt through his wife Eleanor.  Hammer had contributed substantial funds to FDR’s reelection campaign, but had also personally financed an extraordinary radio dramatization which promoted the achievements of FDR’s New Deal.  He sent Eleanor a copy of the recording and that opened the door for him to promote the Lend Lease to FDR regarding aid to the UK, and ultimately to Russia.

Hammer came armed with a large volume of editorials from U.S. newspapers from October 1940, the fruits of a survey he had commissioned to show that newspapers favored financial aid to Great Britain.  He convinced FDR that he would gain popular support by effecting Hammer’s plan.  FDR put him together with his personal advisor and secretary of commerce, Harry Hopkins.

FDR sent Harry Hopkins who was to be the czar of Lend Lease to New York to meet with Hammer on the plan.  Hopkins later flew to London to discuss the plan with Churchill and a few months later Hopkins negotiated the destroyers-for-bases swap with the British. This laid the precedent for waiving restrictions on military aid for those nations fighting Hitler.  When Hitler invaded Russia in June 1941, this opened the door to Lend-Lease for the Soviets.

Harry Hopkins

Harry Hopkins was referred to as the co-president with FDR.  He was unelected and unconfirmed and according to Life Magazine, a one-man cabinet.  He was also the architect of FDR’s New Deal.  He slept in the White House in the Lincoln bedroom and worked at Lincoln’s desk.  He was FDR’s constant traveling companion, was with him for breakfast and before he nodded off to sleep at night.  And Soviet agent Harry Hopkins was the boss of the Lend Lease program.  It was the lifeline to the Soviet war with Hitler and it was run via the Kremlin from inside the Roosevelt White House and bypassed the State Department.

As a devotee of Marx, in 1941 Hopkins wrote, “When a democratic victory is won, then the great wealth of the world must be shared with all people.”  Sounds like our democratic presidential candidates of today.

In a message dated May 29, 1943, Iskhak Akhmerov, the chief Soviet “illegal” agent in the United States at the time, referred to an Agent 19 who had reported on discussions between Roosevelt and Winston Churchill in Washington at which the agent had been present. Only Harry Hopkins meets the requirements for this agent’s identity. Akhmerov, in a lecture in Moscow in the early 1960s, identified Hopkins by name as “the most important of all Soviet wartime agents in the United States.”

Victor Kravchenko

Victor Kravchenko was a Soviet official who defected to America.  Hopkins wanted him sent back to Russia, but FDR was afraid Kravchenko would be murdered by the Soviets.  Kravchenko wrote two books on the horrors of life in the USSR prior to Solzhenitsyn’s defection.

He had been at the Soviet headquarters of Lend Lease in Washington.  After the war, he testified before Congress that the Soviet Lend Lease operation he defected from and that was located only three blocks from the White House, was the Soviet spying, thieving and ransacking Commission.  They succeeded in stealing as many industrial and military secrets as possible.  (American Betrayal, Chapter 5, Diana West)

Harry Dexter White

Harry Dexter White was an American economist and senior U.S. Department of Treasury official. He was the first head of the International Monetary Fund and played an important role in formation of the World Bank. He was also a Soviet secret agent—”the most highlyplaced asset the Soviets possessed in the American government.”

White was the assistant secretary of the treasury in the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and caused incalculable harm to the United States. In “Operation Snow,” White did everything within his power to scuttle the peace efforts of the forces within the Japanese government that were striving to avoid war with the United States. He authored an ultimatum adopted as official policy by FDR that upped the ante of belligerent acts Roosevelt was directing at Japan.

Through the infamous Lend-Lease program, White helped facilitate the transfer of billions of dollars in aid to Stalin.

In Albert Weeks’ book, Russia Life-Saver, Lend-Lease Aid to the U.S.S.R. in World War II, a book drawing on Russian revisionism, he tells us that White was “one of the main drafters of the administration’s side of the Lend-Lease particulars, especially as Lend Lease was to be extended to the Russians.

But Weeks also tried to destroy patriot Major George Racey Jordan who was the supervisory expediter of Soviet Lend Lease aid and was stationed at Great Falls, Montana, the hub of the Soviet pipeline.  Jordan saw that atomic secrets were being sent to the Soviets.  Weeks, in his book, claimed it was unverifiable myth, but Jordan wrote a book on what he kept and saw in his diaries.

While providing the Soviets with every possible assistance, White was doing everything to cut off aid that had been appropriated by Congress to assist our ally Chiang Kai-shek’s anti-communist government in China. White was a key operative in treachery that pushed China into Communist hands.  Today, we see Hong Kong’s demonstrations for freedom from Communist China where the demonstrators fly and carry the American flag and sing our national anthem.

Conclusion

Our President brought home the soldiers at the Syrian border and quietly reduced our forces in Afghanistan by 2,000Andrew Bostom and Cliff Kincaid tell us not to romanticize the Kurds, that our President is doing exactly what he promised his supporters he would do.

Trump was raised on Norman Vincent Peale’s positive, pro-freedom, pro-capitalist, anti-totalitarian ideology. His family attended Peale’s church.  Andrew Bostom writes, “President Trump’s own muscular anti-totalitarianism stands in stark contrast to the hard left—even overtly Communistsympathies of the cabal of anti-Trump putschists aligned against him.”

FDR’s ideology of building a democratic world via Lend Lease is coming to an end through Donald Trump.  For nearly 80 years, America has sent taxpayer dollars and our soldiers to foreign lands. Trump promised to get us out of this nation-building business and he’s doing it.  The globalist elite of both parties are enraged.

© All rights reserved.

Watch: THANK YOU for rebuilding our country! [+Video]

President Donald J. Trump traveled to Pittsburgh yesterday, where he spoke to workers in America’s booming energy sector at the Shale Insight Conference.

The last time President Trump spoke at the conference was on the campaign trail in 2016. Back then, American energy was under relentless assault—not from some foreign enemy, but from our own Federal Government. The previous Administration made it its mission to stifle growth with crippling regulations aimed at energy producers. These policies did nothing to advance “green energy,” but they did cost many workers their jobs.

American energy dominance is a powerful symbol of President Trump’s larger mission for our nation: “Instead of relying on foreign oil and foreign energy, we are now relying on American energy and American workers like never before,” he says.

“I’m here with the incredible people who fuel our factories, light up our homes, power our industries, and fill our hearts with true American pride,” he added. “With unmatched skill, grit, and devotion, you are making America the greatest energy superpower in the history of the world.”

Energy superpower is no exaggeration. Here are some of the facts and numbers behind America’s energy boom under the Trump Administration:

  • The United States is now the world leader in oil and natural gas production.
  • Crude oil reached a record high in production last year—and is projected to set another record this year.
  • Ditto for natural gas: Production is on pace to set a record high in 2019, the third straight year of such a record.
  • In 2018, coal exports reached their highest level in 5 years.

It wasn’t a mystery figuring out how to get America back on top globally—it just took a President willing to abolish the counterproductive war on American energy workers. The Trump Administration ended job-killing policies put in place under President Obama, like the Clean Power Plan and “stream protection rule.” It pulled America out of the fraudulent, ineffective, and one-sided Paris Climate Accord. And it has opened up federally owned land and offshore areas for exploration and production.

President Trump also believes in building world-class infrastructure that puts more Americans back to work—no matter what the far left tries to block. His Administration has approved permits for the crucial Dakota Access and Keystone XL pipelines, for instance.

Back in 2008, Democrats actually offered a startling preview of what was to come. “If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them,” then-Sen. Barack Obama explained. He was telling the truth: By the time President Trump took office, more than a third of all coal mining jobs had vanished.

The left is at it again, but this time there’s even less pretending about their true motives. If implemented, the “Green New Deal” would be the most radical takeover of America’s economy ever contemplated. The ultimate goal is to eradicate all production of oil, coal, and natural gas in the United States—and millions of jobs along with it.

President Trump made clear yesterday that he will never let that happen. That’s because he knows who built this great country—and it wasn’t wanna-be socialists in Congress.

“I will never stop fighting for you, because I know that you are the ones who are rebuilding our nation. You are the ones who are restoring our strength. You are the ones renewing our spirit. And you are the ones who are making America greater than it has ever been before.”

Thanks to President Trump, the war on American energy is over.

ReadThe President’s full remarks to energy workers in Pennsylvania.

Green New Deal = Hugo Chavez’s Constitution?

After noting that a former chief of staff for socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez admitted that her “Green New Deal” is not about climate but changing the entire economy, Steve Milloy at Breitbart News drew up a list of similarities between it and the constitution ushered in by late Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez in 1999.

Milloy found similarities between the two plans in the areas of sustainable agriculture, education, markets, health care, housing, clean environment, social costs of human activity, no emissions, guaranteed jobs, work safety, unions, trade policy, and indigenous populations.

“Their common source,” Milloy notes, “is likely a United Nations document called the ‘International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,’ which was passed by the UN General Assembly in 1966 at the behest of the Soviet Union. The UN Covenant itself can be traced back to the Stalin-written Soviet Constitution of 1936.”

And just like Chavez’s and Stalin’s constitutions, the socialist vision of the Green New Deal will lead to economic ruin and untold human misery.

Hugo Chavez

In 1992, Hugo Chavez attempted a military coup of Venezuela. His revolutionary power grab failed and he was jailed until 1994 when he was freed by a presidential pardon. He was elected president in 1998 and has gradually increased his power and armed his personal militia.

Chavez has many links to violent terrorist organizations and totalitarian dictators. On Oct 12, 1999, Chavez was the guest of Communist China. While in China, he declared: “I have been very Maoist all of my life.” Like the Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean hosts of past WFYS meetings, Chavez is a proud Communist and an enemy of the USA.

To learn more about Hugo Chavez, click on the profile link here.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Metals Needed for Carbon Neutrality in Short Supply

Here’s Why Californians Pay Way More for Gasoline Than Everyone Else

EDITORS NOTE: This Discover the Networks column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Amazon Worker Strike in California Inspires Another Minnesota Worker Strike

Hey, I am just reporting the news. Don’t assume I am in any way feeling bad for Amazon!   See my previous posts on Somali workers protesting in Minnesota.

The Awood Center helped organize the walkout.

From The Verge:

Amazon workers in Minnesota walk out in protest over part-time work

A day after The Verge reported on Sacramento Amazon workers protesting Amazon’s strict time-off rules, more than 60 Amazon workers in similar roles in an Eagan, Minnesota, warehouse walked off the job. During the two-and-a-half-hour protest, workers demanded the lifting of the 30-hour-per-week cap, a more respectful work environment, and a less strenuous workload.

The Sacramento and Eagan employees work in Amazon delivery stations, which are smaller warehouses that sort packages for delivery routes. Delivery stations are staffed almost entirely by part-time employees who receive no medical insurance and can be fired for taking more than 20 hours off without pay per quarter.

“We are not allowed to work more than 30 hours per week, even though there’s more work,” said a worker in a video of the walkout posted by Workday Minnesota. Amazon would be required to offer employees who work more than 30 hours a week medical insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The worker went on to say that they must lift heavy boxes and take time off without pay if they get injured. “We have no value here, they treat us like we are not human.”  [Golly! Was Obamacare just a way to let the big guys like Amazon avoid paying medical insurance?—ed]

Nimo Omar, an organizer with the Awood Center, a nonprofit focused on East African workers that has been active in organizing Minnesota Amazon employees, attended last night’s walkout. Omar said the workers demanded a more respectful work environment and complained of heavy workloads and close monitoring, including managers knocking on the door if they spent more than several minutes in the bathroom. Like the Sacramento workers, they also felt Amazon’s unpaid time-off policy was inflexible and demanded the option to work more than 30 hours a week.

The Eagan delivery center and nearby fulfillment center in Shakopee, Minnesota, have emerged as hotbeds of worker activism within Amazon’s distribution system. Many of the workers are Muslim immigrants from Somalia and elsewhere in East Africa, and in the summer of 2018, they began protesting that the pace of work and time-off system made it difficult to observe Ramadan. Amazon met with the organizers, but workers say the company didn’t address their concerns. They staged a strike during Prime Day this year over the increasing pace of work and other issues.

[….]

Before the Eagan workers walked out, the Awood Center posted a message to Facebook saying workers in Minnesota were dealing with the same issues as those in Sacramento.

Shortly after 9PM, more than 60 workers walked off the job. According to the Awood Center, the employees agreed to return to work two and a half hours later when the manager on site agreed to talk to his boss about their demands.

The Awood Center said in a Facebook post that all truck deliveries for the night were canceled due to the backlog created by the walkout.

Will Amazon eventually cave to demands? We will be watching!

Just so you know, most Somalis in the US today are here through the US Refugee Admissions Program and federally-funded refugee resettlement contractors like the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service placed them in Minnesota

.I’m so glad to have RRW back!  Here is a post I wrote in 2011 explaining how Minneapolis became Little Mogadishu.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Feds Bust 18 International Gang Members Stealing Millions Via ATM Skimmers

United Nations Running Out of Money!

Michelle Malkin on the SPLC/CAIR and Media Lemmings

NBA Proves That Corporate Social Activism Is All About the Dollars

EDITORS NOTE: This Frauds, Crooks and Criminals column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Companies Push Liberal Social Agenda At Supreme Court

  • A sprawling alliance of big businesses is pushing the Supreme Court to rule for gay rights and DACA recipients in a pair of landmark cases. 
  • The cases ask whether President Donald Trump’s attempts to terminate DACA are lawful, and whether federal civil rights laws cover LGBT employees. 
  • Supporters of the effort include Amazon and Facebook.

A coalition of brandname Fortune 500 companies, trade associations, and tech giants have intervened in a pair of marquee Supreme Court cases, urging the justices to rule for liberal social positions.

The businesses filed amicus (or “friend of the court”) briefs asking the justices to declare that President Donald Trump’s bid to rescind the Deferred Actions for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program is unlawful, and that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act protects LGBT workers.

Signatories to the briefs include Amazon, Best Buy, Cisco Systems, Facebook, Google, and Hilton. Those businesses collectively employ millions of workers and comprise trillions in revenue, according to the briefs.

Amicus briefs serve two functions — developing legal arguments not addressed by the parties to a case, and providing facts that help the justices better understand the environment around particular issues.

That the high court has adopted a pro-corporate bent since Chief Justice John Roberts’s confirmation is something like an article of faith on the left. Those critics point to evidence that the justices take the position endorsed by business lobbies like the Chamber of Commerce about 70% of the time. The DACA and gay rights filings represent a slight shift in usual amicus activity, in that business groups are filing in support of liberal outcomes. How businesses’ recent alignment with progressive social positions might factor in to those critiques is an open question.

Ending DACA will hurt GDP, businesses warn 

Some 143 businesses submitted an amicus brief warning the justices that rescinding DACA will hurt GDP, exacerbate a gap in the labor market, and diminish consumption.

“Eliminating DACA will inflict serious harm on U.S. companies, all workers, and the American economy as a whole,” the brief reads. “Companies will lose valued employees. Workers will lose employers and co-workers. Our national GDP will lose up to $460.3 billion, and tax revenues will be reduced by approximately $90 billion, over the next decade.”

Among other economic benefits, the brief explained that DACA recipients can help fill a growing gap in the labor market. Job creation is outpacing the supply of workers, the brief noted, creating a shortfall for DACA recipients to fill. A 2017 study found that many top Fortune 500 companies, including signatories to the brief, employ DACA recipients.

“At least 72 percent of the top 25 Fortune 500 companies employ DACA recipients — including IBM, Walmart, Apple, General Motors, Amazon, JPMorgan Chase, Home Depot, and Wells Fargo, among others — as do many others, including Uber and Lyft,” the brief stated.

Rescinding DACA could also hurt consumption, thereby slowing economic growth. A grant of deferred action lets beneficiaries obtain employment or move into secure positions, thereby increasing their spending power. A September study pegged the purchasing power of DACA households at $24.1 billion.

The Chamber of Commerce joined the big business DACA brief.

The DACA case is similar to last term’s litigation over the Trump administration’s bid to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census form. As in that dispute, lower courts have said Trump’s explanations for terminating DACA are inadequate. Unlike the census case, however, no party disputes the president’s fundamental authority to end the program.

The Court will hear arguments in the case, Department of Homeland Security v. University of California No. 18-587, on Nov. 12.

Protections for gay workers are good for the bottom line

About 20 states and dozens of municipalities have adopted laws barring workplace discrimination against LGBT people. Title VII, the federal civil rights in employment law, does not explicitly name sexual orientation (gays and lesbians) or gender identity (trans people) among its protected characteristics. A group of 206 businesses argued in an amicus brief that the absence of a single, federal regime leaves a patchwork of inconsistent laws that confuse gay employees and undermine efforts to cultivate a diverse workforce.

“By confirming that sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination are prohibited under Title VII, this Court would remove an artificial barrier that restricts the free flow of resources, ideas and capital,” the brief read.

The businesses claim a diverse workforce enhances their ability to connect with consumers. The buying power of LGBT people in particular has surpassed $900 billion, the brief noted.

Robust civil rights laws are similarly essential for attracting and retaining top talent, the employers argued. LGBT people are less likely to take positions in areas without gay-friendly workplace non-discrimination laws, or could leave workplaces perceived as exclusive. Departure of LGBT employees costs companies about $9,000 per employee, or about $8.9 billion per year in aggregate, according to a pair of studies.

“In a survey of the top 50 companies in the Fortune 500 and the top 50 federal government contractors, for example, the overwhelming majority of the top-performing, most innovative companies connect policies prohibiting sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination with a better bottom line,” the brief read.

The Trump administration is supporting the employers.

The justices heard arguments in the cases — Bostock v. Clayton County No. 17-1618 and R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes v. Stephens No. 18-107 — on Tuesday. Trump’s two appointees, Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, appeared to hold the balance of power.

COLUMN BY:

Kevin Daley

Supreme Court correspondent

Supreme Court correspondent, usually filing from the Palm. News, jiggery-pokery: @KevinDaleyDC

RELATED ARTICLES:

How California and Foreign Carmakers Got in Bed to Keep Crony, Obama-Era Rules

The Supreme Court Will Decide Whether Encouraging Illegal Immigration Is Protected Speech

Andrew McCabe Opens Up About Steele Dossier, Origins Of Trump-Russia Probe

Tucker And Patel: NBA Takes A Stand Against Freedom

Rudy Giuliani Explains Why He Has No Reservations About Trump’s Ukraine Call

EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Caller column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved. Content created by The Daily Caller News Foundation is available without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.

Trump Rids Major U.S. Container Port of Chinese Communist Control

Under a long-term deal sealed by the Obama administration, a Chinese Communist company was set to control the second-busiest container port in the United States. In an unreported Trump administration victory, the Communists are out after a drawn-out national security review forced a unit of China-based COSCO Shipping Holdings Co. (Orient Overseas Container Line—OOCL) to sell the cherished container terminal business, which handles among the largest freight of imports into the U.S.

It all started with a 40-year container terminal lease between the Port of Long Beach in southern California and Hong Kong. The Obama administration proudly signed the agreement in 2012 giving China control of America’s second-largest container port behind the nearby Port of Los Angeles. One of the Trump administration’s first big moves was to get the Communists out of the Port of Long Beach. After a national security review and federal intervention, the Long Beach terminal business, which handles millions of containers annually, is finally being sold to an Australian company called Macquarie Infrastructure Partners. That essentially kills China’s decades-long contract with the Obama administration.

The deal never should have been signed in the first place considering the facility’s size, significance and the national security issues associated with a hostile foreign government controlling it. The southern California port is the premier U.S. gateway for trans-Pacific trade, according to its website, and handles trade valued at more than $194 billion annually. It is one of the few ports that can accommodate the world’s largest vessels and serves 140 shipping lines with connections to 217 seaports around the world. The facility encompasses 3,200 acres with 31 miles of waterfront, 10 piers, 62 berths and 68 post-Panamax gantry cranes. In 2018, the Long Beach port handled more than 8 million container units, achieving the busiest year in its history.

Removing Chinese Communists from this essential port is a tremendous feat and a huge victory for U.S. national security. You’d never know it because the media, consumed with the impeachment debacle, has ignored this important achievement. The only coverage of the finalized transfer is found in Long Beach’s local newspaper, which published a brief article omitting important background information on the Trump administration’s work to take back the terminal from the Communists. The story makes it seem like a regular business transaction in which “a Chinese state-owned company, reached a deal to sell the terminal, one of the busiest in the port, for $1.78 billion.” The piece also quotes the Port of Long Beach’s deputy executive director saying that the transaction process was intricate and involved one of “our most valuable port assets.” Buried at the bottom of the article is a sentence mentioning that the U.S. government, which regulates mergers for antitrust and security reasons, stepped in and required COSCO to sell its rights to the container terminal.

In the last few years China has bought cargo ports throughout the world, including in Latin America, the Indian Ocean and Mediterranean Sea. Chinese-owned ports are located in Greece, Italy, Spain and other European locations. In sub-Saharan Africa there are dozens of existing or planned port projects funded or operated by China, according to a study that highlights the threat the Chinese investments present to U.S. influence in the region. One troubling analysis points out that “COSCO’s commercial expansion has created leverage for Beijing — leverage that has already resulted in countries that host COSCO ports adopting China’s position on key international issues.”

RELATED ARTICLES: 

Omar Files For Divorce Five Weeks After Telling Reporter On Video That She Wasn’t…

NewsLink: Judicial Watch’s Background Notes on the Obama State Department’s Lawlessness

EDITORS NOTE: This Judicial Watch column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

Artificial Intelligence: Will It Replace Small and Large Businesses?

Artificial Intelligence (AI) is truly shaping the future of the business world. In 2017, 61% of businesses started using the technology. AI-based apps have emerged, from machine learning to natural language processing, and predictive analytics.

With such an immense capability and power, will AI replace human intelligence in business operations?

Artificial Intelligence: A Solution for Big or Small Businesses

Artificial Intelligence involves the creation of machines or software programs capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. From digital voice assistants like Siri and Alexa to the super-helpful navigation tools like Waze, AI has totally made a huge impact on the daily lives of consumers.

AI may appear like a costly investment for businesses but many of those who have implemented this technology has seen amazing results. Whether you’re running a small enterprise or a large organization, you can incorporate AI in a myriad of ways.

Data Insights

Target marketing is the way to attract more clients and increase a business’ revenue. But in order for this strategy to work, companies should learn how to obtain and analyze data to understand the market and customer behavior. AI has an enormous role in predictive analysis – a strategy that incorporates a variety of statistical techniques, from data mining to historical facts, and predictive modeling to forecast events.

Cost Reduction

Marketing can be an expensive undertaking, especially for small businesses. Without enough funds, it can be challenging to implement a full-blown approach to advertising. Since AI-based systems optimize marketing strategies, they greatly help bring down marketing costs. Through predictive analysis, businesses can strategically allocate funds on marketing campaigns that will give them the highest return.

Customer Service

The use of chatbots has incredibly improved customer experience. This AI-based application enables businesses to provide real-time responses to customer queries and minimizes agent transfers. A chatbot involves automated routing categorizes issues accurately and instantaneously. Moreover, it promotes quick resolution for customer problems and helps reduce costs due to lesser overhead.

Nonetheless, virtual assistant applications will not replace human intervention. Chatbots are helpful for answering simple questions like the shipping status, order cancellations, or bookings so that human agents can focus on more complex problems.

Improved Business Function

Many businesses today leverage AI to improve business functions and profitability. From streamlining production or manufacturing to scaling marketing and customer service – the possibilities are endless. AI applications can also be used for essential things like data security, vendor relations, inventory management, and so much more. Meanwhile, automation tools greatly reduce costs and labor, and improved efficiency in many companies. We’ve also seen how advanced robots work alongside humans in many settings.

Will AI Replace Human Intervention in Small and Large Businesses?

No, not at all. However, AI has changed and will continue to change the way companies do business. The human brain is still much more powerful and will take charge of designing algorithms, creating software systems, and building IT infrastructure. However, AI will serve an important role particularly in processing and analyzing troves of data in split seconds. AI-based systems can present meaningful data insights that humans can use to make crucial business decisions.

Additionally, AI-based applications will not replace human intervention in customer support, particularly in resolving complex issues (as discussed earlier). Rather, they will serve as a helpful extension of customer service.

Can AI be Used by Small Businesses?

Many entrepreneurs think that AI is an expensive technology that only large corporations can afford. Well, the truth is that even small businesses can take advantage of it. They don’t have to break the bank to implement AI-based systems in their organizations. Through cash advance online or, business financing even small businesses can integrate machine learning and AI into their operations. The key is to leverage existing platforms and ready-made solutions.

Conclusion

Technology has gone a long way in helping businesses reach their goals. The advent of artificial intelligence has delivered profound benefits to companies across all industries. From streamlining operations to improving customer service and marketing efficiency, AI serves as a powerful tool for increasing profitability.

However, it shouldn’t be treated as an alternative to human resources, rather, a helpful extension of the human brain. When used responsibly, AI can dramatically transform any business – big or small.

RELATED VIDEO: Will AI become your personal oracle?

To learn more about Offrs.com click here.

What You Need to Know About the Transgender Case at the Supreme Court

This interview, which is lightly edited, originally aired on “Problematic Women.”

Lauren Evans: Welcome back. Virginia and I are in the studio today with religious liberty superstar Emilie Kao. Emilie is an attorney and director of the Richard and Helen DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society at The Heritage Foundation and has spent the past 14 years fighting for religious liberty. Welcome to the show, Emilie.

Emilie Kao: Thank you, Lauren.

Evans: There’s a case that will be heard by the Supreme Court where a man who identifies as a woman is alleging sex discrimination after being fired from their job at a funeral home. Can you tell us more about this case, Emilie?

Kao: Yes. The Harris Funeral Homes case originated when a male employee of a funeral home wanted to start presenting as a woman. He wanted to start dressing as a woman, and the funeral home has a sex-specific dress code, which is legal.

The funeral home owner, Thomas Rost, was very concerned, not only about his employees, his female employees, who might have to share bathrooms with the male employee, but also about the effect on the people whom the funeral homes serve. Because these are people who are grieving at a time when they’re very focused on their emotional loss, and it could be very distracting and even disturbing for them to see a man dressed as a woman.

So when the employee refused to comply with the dress code according to his sex, they decided to part ways with him and offered him a severance package.

What happened next was that the employee and the EEOC, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, got involved and sued the funeral home. And the case has percolated up through the courts. They lost in the lower court and now it’s gotten to the Supreme Court.

Virginia Allen: Emilie, I want to ask you just to provide a definition for sexual discrimination.

Kao: The correct way to understand discrimination on the basis of sex—it is when one person is treated more disfavorably than a person of the other category.

So if you have a person who is male who is treated worse than a person who’s female because of their sex, that is sex discrimination. If you have a female who is treated worse than a male, that is sex discrimination.

Sex discrimination is not merely when you treat two people differently because we treat males and females differently all the time. That’s why we have some of the other sex-segregated spaces and events that we’ve talked about before. That’s why we have sex-segregated bathrooms. We have sex-segregated sports. Because the courts and the American people have realized men and women are different, and so there’s nothing discriminatory about having sex segregation in appropriate ways, sex-segregated spaces, sex-segregated events that involve a person’s physical capacity.

But what the people in the Harris Funeral Homes case are arguing on behalf of the employee who is identifying as transgender is that he was treated more poorly because of his status as a person who identifies as transgender.

He’s a male who wants to dress as a female. He’s a male who wants to use female restrooms. But that is not sex discrimination because the funeral home would have treated somebody of the opposite sex the same way if they manifested in the same way that this employee is.

So if you were a female employee of that funeral home and you wanted to identify as a male and use the male restroom and wear the male clothing that’s required by the dress code and be referred to as a male, the treatment would be the same of that female employee. So that’s why this case does not actually qualify for the sex discrimination category.

Evans: What was crazy to me about this case is that no laws were technically broken, correct?

Kao: Well, the claim of the EEOC and the employee is that the funeral home owner has violated the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex.

The whole theory of the transgender-identifying employee is that sex actually means gender identity, which there’s nothing in the text that says gender identity. But they have a theory that sex should mean gender identity.

So they’re essentially saying that the EEOC can redefine sex, and they now want the Supreme Court to redefine sex. And the Supreme Court should stay in its own lane, which is to interpret the law, not make the law, which is Congress’ duty.

Allen: So, Emilie, this case is going to come before the Supreme Court on Oct. 8, where it will decide, hopefully, whether federal civil rights law that bars job discrimination on the basis of sex protects transgender people. What do you think we can expect?

Kao: I think you can expect from the funeral home side that they will say Congress should stick with the original public meaning of what the word sex meant in 1964. And that is it established a way of interpreting the law that the court should refer to the original public meeting, which means, what did a regular person in the general public understand sex to mean, not what did a particular member of Congress think?

I think everyone pretty much agrees that in 1964, the word sex meant biological sex, male or female, not a person’s subjective self-perception of their gender, which is what gender identity means.

So I think that there will be a lot of discussion about the procedural part, which is, what is the correct role of the Congress versus what is the correct role of the courts?

As your listeners may know, the Congress has actually been trying to amend the Civil Rights Act recently through the Equality Act to add the classes of sexual orientation and gender identity. So the fact that the Equality Act is being introduced in Congress sort of begs the question, “Well, if sex already meant gender identity, why would you have to add it through this legislation?”

We also know that through the decades, Congress has actually dealt with the question of gender identity. Sometimes they have added it to legislation like the Violence Against Women Act, but sometimes they have declined, they have projected the addition of the term gender identity. So the historical record’s pretty clear. Congress knows that gender identity and sex are two different things.

Allen: So if SCOTUS rules that gender identity does not apply to federal civil rights law, will that create a roadblock for Congress to move forward with the passage of the Equality Act?

Kao: I think it will clarify what the current understanding of the Civil Rights Act should be, and I think it will make it more difficult for the EEOC to continue to politicize these cases. But I don’t think it will make it more difficult in a procedural sense for Congress to try and pass something like the Equality Act.

However, I do think it could make the public support for something like the Equality Act change. Because I think one of the interesting things about this case is that it will bring to the forefront some of the issues that we’ve talked about, how gender identity essentially erases women as a coherent category in the law.

We’ve seen the manifestation of this in several cases like the homeless shelter in Alaska. They were sued because they would not allow a man into a space that was reserved for women who’d been battered, and abused, and trafficked. The whole theory behind the male plaintiff’s case was that he was being discriminated against on the basis of gender identity.

So we see from that case that when you introduce the idea of gender identity, it erases the protections in the law for women, for their safety, and privacy. And there are a number of other cases with women’s sports and with, unfortunately, a girl in a public school in Georgia being sexually assaulted after the school adopted a transgender bathroom policy.

Allen: Emilie, I’m glad that you brought up the Alaska case about the homeless shelter. I want to get into that for a moment. Let me just give a little bit of background to our listeners if they’re not familiar.

The Hope Center is a Christian nonprofit women’s homeless shelter in Anchorage, Alaska. Right now, we have some great news that we just received this week that they are now free to continue serving homeless women without the threat of looming legal action or even being shut down.

The reason why that threat arose to them was in January 2018, a drunk and injured man dressed in a pink nightgown tried to gain access to the Hope Center. During the day, the center does serve men and women by providing them with meals, laundry, and shower services, job skills training, and clothing. But in order to provide a safe space for homeless women, the shelter at night does only house women.

So when this intoxicated, biological man identifying as a woman came knocking on the center’s door after hours, the Hope Center sent the individual to the hospital to get the care he needed. They even paid for the taxi. But then the Hope Center faced a complaint from the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission claiming that the center had discriminated against this individual because of his gender identity. This appeared to be an attempt to attack the center’s Christian beliefs.

At that point, the Christian nonprofit legal defense firm Alliance Defending Freedom stepped in to help and they filed a lawsuit in federal court on the center’s behalf. In August, that court issued an order that temporarily stopped the city from misplaying this law against the Hope Center.

So, Emilie, I want to ask you, how big of a win is this, and do you think this is actually the end of this case or will there be maybe an appeal?

Kao: I think it’s a very big win, not only for the Hope Center but for similarly situated women’s shelters and other spaces for women around the country. I think it’s a great precedent. My understanding is that there was a settlement. So if there was a settlement, I don’t expect that this will be relitigated.

Evans: One thing that I’ve learned since this case has come out is that Anchorage actually has a higher than normal population of women who have been sex trafficked because it’s kind of a middle point between Russia and the United States. So … these women, they need a safe space.

How unique is this case, and are faith-based women’s homeless shelters under attack pretty much everywhere?

Kao: Unfortunately, this is not a totally unique case because we’ve also seen a case in California called Poverello House, I believe it is a secular women’s shelter, where the women were forced to shower with a man who was apparently making, they allege, lewd comments toward them in the showers.

It was actually the women in that case who sued because they did not want to be housed with a man and have to share intimate facilities with a man.

So I think that, unfortunately, wherever we see these laws that have sexual orientation and gender identity in addition to the other protected categories, there is the possibility that women’s safety and privacy will be compromised in spaces that used to be for their protection.

Evans: The name of the act is the Equality Act, and it puts, I think, our listeners and people who believe in religious liberty in a hard place when somebody is like, “Man, why aren’t you for equality?”

So what is kind of misunderstood about this case, and what are some talking points that our listeners can use when put in this hard place of wanting to love all people but wanting to protect women?

Kao: I think the term equality has been misused. I think that one basic thing you can say is that all people have dignity and deserve to be treated with respect. All people have equal status, but not all ideas have equal status. And we don’t have to agree on all ideas.

What the Equality Act would do is basically adopt a government orthodoxy on sexual orientation and gender identity. Now, those two categories are distinct from many of the other categories that are protected in the Civil Rights Act. So if you think of race and sex, those are both biological and immutable traits. Gender identity is a person’s subjective perception of their own sex, which people have the freedom to believe that, but people also should have the freedom to disagree with that, to say, “Well, I think you actually are either a male or a female,” and they don’t believe in gender fluidity.

Then, the category of sexual orientation, again, that also involves a person’s behavior or their conduct, which we are free to have different opinions about behavior and conduct. That is not an immutable characteristic. So, unfortunately, what the Equality Act would do is it would lead to a government orthodoxy, and that will lead to the punishment of dissenters.

Some of those dissenters will be people who have religious convictions. Some of those dissenters will be people with moral convictions. And some of those dissenters, as we’ve seen from the women who oppose the Equality Act, their objections are based on science and based on concerns for women’s safety, and privacy, and equality.

So, unfortunately, the Equality Act would establish a nationwide orthodoxy and punish disagreement.

Allen: Emilie, with cases like the Hope Center case, do you see this as the left weaponizing anti-discrimination law and then using that to attack faith-based organizations?

Kao: I think that the treatment of people of faith over the past few years by the left, especially by organizations like the Human Rights Campaign and actually some members of Congress, has been incredibly intolerant.

You look at some of the rhetoric, the way that they describe people like Jack Phillips, the baker from Colorado. In Colorado, some of the government officials compared him to a Nazi and a slave owner. When you look at the targeting of organizations, businesses like his, with boycotts and picketing and not only that but death threats, harassing phone calls.

That’s, unfortunately, not an isolated incident. We’ve seen that with many of the wedding vendor cases, many of the cases involving sexual orientation and gender identity. There’s been verbal harassment, and economic threats, boycotts, and also sometimes threats of physical violence.

So, unfortunately, I think our culture is at a point right now that the left’s intolerance of religious beliefs about sexuality, and marriage, and even sex differences is increasing. So the use of these laws to punish people for disagreement, I think, is part of an overall picture of increasing intolerance toward people who simply hold the view that marriage is between a man and a woman and that there are two sexes, male and female.

Evans: Emilie, we talk a lot on the show about the Equality Act and these transgender issues, but at the end of the day, we’re blessed in the United States to have the First Amendment that protects our right to religious liberty. A lot of people in the world don’t have that First Amendment protection, and you [look at] a lot of issues talking about international religious freedom. And I know President Trump made a speech … at the U.N. about international religious freedom.

Can you give our listeners kind of an update about what’s going on around the world with these religious freedom issues?

Kao: President Trump gave a landmark speech and elevated religious freedom at the U.N. General Assembly to a level that it’s never been elevated before, which is very critical because the U.N. tends to downplay the importance of religious freedom even though over 80% of the world’s population lives under serious restrictions of religious freedom. So it really put the U.N. on notice and many of the countries that are the worst violators of religious freedom on notice.

I thought a particularly interesting part of the event that he held was to spotlight the survivors of religious persecution, and some people who were there had family members who are still in prison in places like China and Iran.

So I think that the Trump administration has added at the U.N. General Assembly to the work that it’s been doing for the past few years with the International Religious Freedom Ministerial Summit that Secretary [of State Mike] Pompeo and Ambassador-at-Large for International Religious Freedom Sam Brownback have hosted.

They’ve done a great job on building multilateral cooperation. Their summits have brought together government leaders from over 100 countries, and it has fostered more cooperation in places like the Middle East, and Asia, and Europe to combat religious freedom violations.

Allen: Emilie, I want to take just a moment to let you share a little bit about an event that’s happening at The Heritage Foundation next week. Earlier in the show, Lauren and I took some time to talk about the epidemic of child abuse through child pornography. And there is an event that you’re hosting next week at Heritage that addresses this crisis. Could you tell us a little bit more about that?

Kao: Thanks, Virginia. Yes, we are very concerned about this growing epidemic of children being sexualized by adults through culture, and education, and health care. Sometimes, this is actually as a result of government-led initiatives, which means that it is actually the use of taxpayer money.

So we will be looking at issues like pornography and trafficking, also the introduction of comprehensive sexuality education in public schools, the introduction of sexual orientation, gender identity curriculum, the transgender policies, and private facilities like bathrooms and locker rooms, and the increasing politicization of health care for children with gender dysphoria that’s leading to harmful treatments of testosterone and surgeries on children. So we will be bringing together thought leaders from around the country to discuss these issues with one another.

Hopefully, this will be a great way for parents to learn about what they can do. We’ll be introducing the national parent resource guide on the transgender trend, which is a very helpful tool for parents, gives them practical steps that they can take if a transgender policy is being introduced in their school district, ways that they can talk to their school, and it tells them what their rights are.

So we’re really looking forward to bringing together all of these experts from around the country to find solutions to this growing epidemic.

Allen: When is the event taking place, and how can people register?

Kao: The event is Wednesday, Oct. 9 from 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. They can watch online, and they can register on the Heritage website. We will have three panels on culture, education, and health care, in that order.

>>> On Wednesday, Oct. 9, The Heritage Foundation and Family Policy Alliance will co-host a Summit on Protecting Children from Sexualization to examine these issues in-depth. The summit also will debut the National Parents Resource Guide on the Transgender Trend. RSVP for the event or watch the livestream here.

We really encourage all parents to tune in at some point to this summit because it will give them an overview of how children are being targeted for sexualization, will give them practical tools to fight back, and it will introduce them to some of the federal and state policies that can help solve some of these problems.

Evans: If you are a podcast person, all Heritage events are turned into podcasts. You can listen to it. It’s almost immediate, usually takes an hour or two for us to get it uploaded. Also, a lot of the participants in the panel will be doing interviews with The Daily Signal, which will run throughout the week and probably into next week.

Allen: Thank you so much, Emilie, for joining us. We really appreciate your time and you sharing your expertise with us.

Kao: Thank you.

COLUMN BY

Lauren Evans

Lauren Evans is the multimedia producer for The Daily Signal and The Heritage Foundation. Send an email to Lauren. Twitter: @laurenelizevans.

Virginia Allen

Virginia Allen is a contributor to The Daily Signal. Send an email to Virginia. Twitter: @Virginia_Allen5.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Podcast: What to Expect in the New Supreme Court Term

‘Hundreds’ of young trans people seeking help to return to original sex.

Rep. Adam Schiff’s Impeachment History

Reactions to My Tweet Reveal the Ignorant Brutality of Young Socialists and Communists

The President Is Right: We Must Clean Up America’s Cities


A Note for our Readers:

In the wake of every tragic mass shooting or high-profile incident involving gun violence, we hear the same narrative: To stop these horrible atrocities from happening, we must crack down on gun laws.

But is the answer really to create more laws around gun control, or is this just an opportunity to limit your Constitutional right to bear arms?

The researchers at The Heritage Foundation have put together a guide to help you better understand the 8 Stubborn Facts on Gun Violence in America.

They’re making this guide available to all readers of The Daily Signal for free today!

GET YOUR FREE COPY NOW! >>


EDITORS NOTE: This Daily Signal column is republished with permission. © All right reserved.

How much does your ISP spend on lobbying?

Internet service providers in the United States have spent more than $1.2 billion on lobbying since 1998, and 2018 was the biggest year so far with a total spend of more than $80 million.

Comparitech researchers compiled and analyzed 51 ISPs’ lobbying expenses from the US Senate’s Lobbying Disclosure Act database, which dates back to 1998.

Here are the highlights of our analysis:

  • 2018 was the biggest year yet for ISP lobbying at $80 million.
  • Top spenders include AT&T, Verizon, and Comcast, which have amassed lobbying expenses of $341 million, $265 million, and $200 million, respectively since 1998.
  • Since 2011, yearly spending on lobbying across all ISPs hasn’t strayed below $72 million.
  • The largest amount spent by any provider in any year was AT&T in 1999, at almost $23 million. AT&T’s acquisition of Ameritech Corp accounted for much of this, and the merger eventually led to the creation of America’s largest telecom company.
  • Total spend from 2016 to 2019 is set to exceed lobbying expenses between 2012 and 2015, which totaled $295 million.
  • Lobbying in favor of mergers and acquisitions accounted for many of the biggest expenses for individual ISPs in a single year.
  • $1.2 billion has been spent by ISPs on lobbying since 1998.

CLICK HERE FOR ISP Spending on Lobbying, by year.

Top 25 ISP Lobbying Spenders in 2018

ISP 2018 Lobbying Expenses
AT&T $15,820,000.00
Comcast $15,072,000.00
Verizon $10,489,000.00
Charter Communications $9,390,000.00
Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile USA – 2007) $8,105,000.00
Cox Enterprises $3,450,000.00
CenturyLink $3,360,000.00
Sprint Corporation $3,130,000.00
América Móvil $2,270,000.00
DISH Network $2,060,000.00
Ligado Networks $1,710,000.00
Viasat, Inc. $890,000.00
Frontier Communications $526,583.00
Granite Telecommunications $510,000.00
U.S. Cellular $500,000.00
Altice USA $400,000.00
Puerto Rico Telephone Company $360,000.00
General Communication, Inc (GCI) $320,000.00
Iridium Communications $210,000.00
Liberty Cablevision of Puerto Rico $200,000.00
ATN International $180,000.00
C Spire $120,000.00
Telephone and Data Systems, Inc (TDS) $110,477.00
Mediacom Communications $90,000.00
Level 3 Communications (Now CenturyLink) $85,000.00

What is ISP lobbying?

Lobbying expenses include any money used to influence local, state, or federal legislators and regulators. According to the IRS, that includes expenses incurred to participate or intervene in any political campaign for or against a candidate for public office. Attempts to influence the public about elections, legislative matters, and referendums also count as lobbying.

Much ado has been made about big telecom’s influence on politics, particularly when it comes to prominent issues like broadband privacy and net neutrality. Many politicians and their organizations receive campaign donations from telecoms. A separate study of contributions made in the last election cycle shows that despite big telecom giving to both sides of the aisle in the past, those contributions now almost always go to Republican candidates.

In exchange, telecoms have the ear of lawmakers and regulators at the local, state, and national levels. They lobby against smaller competitors. They lobby against online privacy laws in towns and states. They lobby the FCC for less industry regulation. They lobby financial regulators to push through mega mergers. And lobby groups even go to court for ISPs, in some cases suing states that try to enforce their own net neutrality rules.

According to OpenSecrets.org, Telecom Services spent $1.6 billion on lobbying since 1998. That includes companies other than the 51 in our list, hence the larger number. It’s the 12th biggest industry in America when it comes to lobbying expenses.

Top 5 ISP Lobbying Spenders

The ISPs that spent the most on lobbying since 1998 are all household names:

  1. AT&T = $341,167,168
  2. Verizon = $264,973,043
  3. Comcast = $200,199,323
  4. Sprint Corporation = $80,759,621
  5. Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile USA since 2007) = $69,617,598

Top 5 ISP Lobbying Spenders in 2018

These ISPs spent the most on lobbying last year:

  1. AT&T = $15.8 million
  2. Comcast = $15.1 million
  3. Verizon = $10.5 million
  4. Charter Communications = $9.4 million
  5. Deutsche Telekom (T-Mobile USA) = $8.1 million

Top 5 ISP Lobbying Expenses in One Year

ISPs lobby the government for multiple reasons, but the big ticket items usually involve mergers and acquisitions.

  1. AT&T in 1999 = $22,960,000 (acquisition of Ameritech Corp)
  2. AT&T in 2006 = $22,405,497 (acquisition of BellSouth)
  3. Verizon in 1998 = $21,260,000 (trying to get approval from the FCC to offer long-distance services)
  4. AT&T in 2011 = $20,230,000 (attempted merger with T-Mobile)
  5. Comcast in 2011 = $19,260,000 (acquisition of NBC Universal)

Notes and limitations

Cable One, Rise Broadband, and Stealth Communications haven’t been included as no lobbying expenses were found.

Smaller organizations that submitted lobbying expenses, but were below the threshold, haven’t been included as the specific figures are not available.

Any reports submitted that are below the threshold and don’t have specific figures have been omitted. These are denoted in our data by “$0.00” to indicate the fact that there were lobbying expenses in this year by the company but we don’t have the exact figures.

ISPs and their subsidiaries

These are the ISPs and their subsidiaries included in our analysis:

Adak Eagle Enterprises LLC

Adak Telephone Utilities

Altice USA

Altice USA, Inc, Altice USA (CABLEVISION), Altice Group, Cablevision Systems Corporation (S.A)

América Móvil

Tracfone Wireless

American Broadband & Telecommunications

No subsidiaries.

AT&T

AT&T, Inc, BellSouth Corp, SBC Communications, Ameritech Corp, Southwestern Bell, Excite@Home, AT&T Broadband

NOT other subsidiaries that don’t relate to internet services.

ATN International

No subsidiaries.

Avantel S.A.

No subsidiaries.

Bluewater Wireless

No subsidiaries.

C Spire

Cellular South

CenturyLink

CenturyTel Service Group, Qwest Communications, Embarq Corp, CenturyTel, Inc.

Charter Communications

No subsidiaries.

Chickasaw Telephone

No subsidiaries.

Cincinnati Bell

No subsidiaries.

Comcast

Comcast Cable Communications

Some subsidiaries (i.e. NBCUniversal Media) not included as not relevant to ISPs.

Consolidated Communications

FairPoint Communications

Cordova Telephone Cooperative

No subsidiaries.

Cox Enterprises

Cox Communications/California

Cricket Wireless (Subsidiary of Leap Wireless)

2007 – 2012 for subsidiary Cricket Wireless, 1999 – 2006 for Leap Wireless

Cricket Wireless is a subsidiary of AT&T but not included in AT&T figures.

Deutsche Telekom / T-Mobile USA

From 2007 Deutsche Telekom has operated as T-Mobile USA. However, was also lobbying as its parent company, Deutsche Telekom, prior to this (back to 2000).

DISH Network

Echostar Communications.

Some subsidiaries not included (i.e. Echostar Satellite as it’s for TV/movies/music)

Farmers Telephone Cooperative

No subsidiaries.

Frontier Communications

Electric Lightwave

Known as Citizens Utilities until 2000 and Citizens Communications from 2000 to 2008.

General Communication, Inc (GCI)

No subsidiaries.

Gila River Telecommunications

No subsidiaries.

Granite Telecommunications

No subsidiaries.

HughesNet

Hughes Network Systems – subsidiary of Echostar Corp.

Some other subsidiaries not included as not relevant to ISPs.

Iridium Communications

Subsidiary, Aireon LLC, is related to air transport so omitted.

Level 3 Communications

Acquired by CenturyLink in 2017, completing in 2018.

WilTel Communications

Ligado Networks

Part of Harbinger Capital Partners. Previous name LightSquared, Inc.

Mediacom Communications

No subsidiaries.

Mescalero Apache Telecom, Inc.

No subsidiaries.

Nex-Tech

No subsidiaries.

NineStar Connect

No subsidiaries.

Pixius Communications

No subsidiaries.

RCN Corp

Bought by TPG Capital which may explain why no figures from 2010 onwards.

Silver Star Communications

No subsidiaries.

Smithville Communications

No subsidiaries.

Sprint Corporation

No subsidiaries.

Suddenlink Communications

Bought by Altice USA in 2016, hence no data from this date.

TDS

Inc. Parent – Telephone & Data Systems, Inc. (2008 and prior)

Totah Communications

No subsidiaries.

U.S. Cellular

Part of the above company but has separate lobbying expenses.

Verizon

Verizon Wireless, Verizon Business, GTE Corp, Bell Atlantic

ViaSat, Inc.

Up to and including 2010, the industry the company was lobbying was Defense Electronics so not included.

Windstream Communications

No subsidiaries.

WorldNet Telecommunications

No subsidiaries.

RELATED ARTICLE: Companies Push Liberal Social Agenda At Supreme Court

EDITORS NOTE: This Comparitech column is republished with permission. © All rights reserved.

VIDEO: What is the future of Artificial Intelligence? Will AI become your personal oracle?

National Association of REALTORS held a conference in Seattle. One of the speakers talked about artificial intelligence (AI) and how it will inevitably impact everyone. According to the National Association of REALTORS:

Watch Offrs.com Founder, Rich Swier, present on Predicting What Every Home Owner Will Do Next (Starting with Listing Their Home) at iOi Summit 2019 in Seattle, WA. Since 2012, offrs.com has been a leader in Big Data and Predictive Analytics for real estate agents and brokerages nationwide.

Offrs.com serves thousands of real estate professionals from major national franchise brands and large independent real estate brokerages across the U.S.

Will AI become your personal oracle?

Watch:

To learn more about Offrs.com click here.

RELATED ARTICLE: Google – creator of covert ‘god-like’ AI tool