CBN-taxes-Daniel-Pilla

By Nancy Thorner – 

In what turned out to be perfect timing, tax expert, Heartland Institute Policy Advisor, and author Daniel J. Pilla was the featured speaker on April 27 at the Heartland Institute on the same day Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and National Economic Council Director Gary Cohn were sent out by President Trump to reveal his tax plan at a White House press conference briefing. Watch Pilla’s presentation at Heartland here.)

Director Cohn called the Trump’s tax reform package the most significant tax reform legislation since 1986, and one of the greatest tax cuts in American history – while fully anticipating attacks “from the left and right” over the plan, whose aim, he said, was to “create jobs and economic growth.”

Speaker Background: Dan Pilla – ‘Premiere Expert on IRS Procedures’

For over three decades, Daniel J. Pilla has been the nation’s leader in taxpayers’ rights defense and IRS abuse prevention and cure. Widely regarded as one of the country’s premiere experts in IRS procedures, he has helped countless thousands of citizens solve personal and business tax problems they thought might never be solved. Pilla has seen every type of tax problem and believes “there is no such thing as a hopeless tax problem.” See here for Pilla’s comprehensive site, the Tax Freedom Institute, which is dedicated to “Understanding Your Taxpayer Rights and Solving Your Tax Problems.”

Pilla is the author of 14 books, dozens of research reports and hundreds of articles. His work is regularly featured on radio and television as well as in major newspapers, leading magazines and trade publications nation-wide. Dan is also a frequent guest on major talk radio programs where he is heard by millions of people each year. His fast-paced interviews provide hard hitting answers to even the toughest questions, as is demonstrated in this YouTube video of Pilla delivering his very entertaining and passionate lecture to Heartland members and friends.

Pilla on Trump’s Tax Plan

Pilla initially questioned whether Trump’s tax plan could be considered radical tax reform, as Heartland Director of Communications Jim Lakely posited in his introduction. Pilla said it wasn’t “radical,” and explained how tax reform has never been a problem in the action sense of the word. He explained his opinion by presenting examples of several attempts at tax reform since 1986, the high mark of the Reagan Revolution.

In the 1990s, he said, there were four major tax reforms in three years. From 2001 to 2015, there were 5,900 tax law changes made to the Internal Revenue code – and this only led to massive confusion. Pilla called the tax code “hideous” – citing its complexity as the reason for so much cheating, even labeling tax complexity as the number-one problem for tax payers. Pilla spoke about a 1998 law which maintained that the IRS must submit to Congress a report on tax law complexity. Only two reports were submitted, both before 2002, indicating that the required report is too difficult for the IRS to produce.

Trump Tax Reform Proposals Pilla Likes

Pilla suggested that several of Trump’s proposed tax reforms are, if not “radical,” a great improvement – which would improve compliance, eliminate complexity for taxpayers, and encourage economic growth.

  • Repeal of the Alternative Minimum Tax, in which government can tax an individual at a higher rate if government decides you haven’t paid enough tax in your initial filing. This “second system” kicks in, and then the taxpayer is obliged to pay the higher result of filing, basically, twice.
  • Repeal of estate and gift tax, which was a part of the Bush tax law (as long as you died in 2010), but was part of 10-year plan and has been phased out. Pilla spoke of the tax as fiscally insignificant and immoral. Less than one-half of one percent of federal revenue is generated by this tax, yet its audit rate is the highest of all other taxes. The immoral premise is that you have no right to pass along to your heirs what is left of your estate after you have already paid all of its taxes.
  • Repeal of a 3.8 percent capital gains surtax (a tax levied on top of another tax) that was to pay for free healthcare. Pilla noted the economic law that what you tax more, you get less of – i.e. high capital gains taxes curtail individuals from selling assets, which spurs economic activity. People hold on to their assets rather than pay the capital gains surtax.

Other Positive Elements of Trump’s Tax Plan

Pilla also spoke highly of these other aspects of the Trump tax plan:

  • Reducing the current seven income tax brackets to just three: 35% on high side; 10% on low side.
  • Eliminating standard deductions, except for mortgage and charitable contributions.
  • Reducing corporate tax to 15 percent. Pilla noted that United States now has the highest corporate income tax in the industrialized world (a top marginal rate of 39 percent). He also explained that corporations don’t pay taxes. Who pays? People do: the owners of the company (stockholders), employees making do with fewer workers, and consumers who pay more for the good being produced. Job-creating small businesses that account for their owners’ personal incomes would likewise benefit by having their top tax rate go from 39.6 percent to the proposed corporate tax rate of 15 percent. Pilla’s suggestion: Reduce the corporate tax rate to ZERO PERCENT.

Several times Pilla reminded his audience that what was presented by Trump’s financial team was only a thumbnail sketch of Trump’s tax plan, only the first volley, so expounding in length about Trump’s tax plan today might not matter much in a few weeks. For him, he said, it would be like tilting at windmills, trying to guess what the final plan will look like.

The Folly of ‘Revenue Neutral’ Tax Cuts

Pilla signaled that the Democrat Party – and some Republicans are of the same ilk – would be a significant hurdle to getting Trump’s tax plan enacted by insisting that any tax plan be “revenue neutral.” That would nullify all the benefits of tax cuts, and only end up shifting the tax burden. It is unfortunate that over time the federal government has come to believe that it owns all of our money and too many people have accepted the idea that government has the right to tell us how much of our money we can keep.

What happened, Pilla said, to providing for the “General Welfare” as set forth under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defense and general Welfare of the United States”? Whereas the General Welfare clause should place limits on government spending, the contemporary view is that Congress’s power to provide for the “General Welfare” is a power to spend for virtually anything that Congress itself views as helpful.

Pilla suggested a novel idea for many legislators: cutting spending across board by 3 percent from our bloated federal government to pay for tax cuts, which would amount to just 3 cents on every dollar the government spends.

Pilla was not pleased that the complexity of the IRS tax code – already cited as the No. 1 tax problem for tax payers by the IRS itself – has not been addressed by a single talking head, nor does Trump’s tax plan address the issue. The Pilla solution: If the problem is not addressed, “bulldoze the tax code and start over again.” 

The IRS in Crisis

Although many individuals try to comply with the tax code, they find it too complicated to do so. The IRS should be offering assistance to those who wish to comply, he said, and enforcing the law against only those who are genuinely resisting compliance. A lot of innocent tax payers in the formal category only receive lip service from the IRS.

Cited by Pilla: The IRS fields more than 100,000 phone calls a year from Americans with questions about complying – many who simply want to set up a schedule for paying their taxes or inquire about refund – but they can’t get through to anyone at the IRS who can help. Millions more choose to walk in to IRS offices and receive help with tax problems. How ironic that the IRS has closed 300 offices – and those remaining open were informed not to answer questions during the tax season. What a dismal message the IRS is sending tax payers when in trying to pay their taxes they can’t get through.

Pilla noted that 42 percent of the IRS budget goes for enforcement, while less that 20 percent is spent on tax-payer assistance. This doesn’t make sense, because 98 percent of tax payment made to the IRS are “voluntary” payments complying with the tax code. In contrast, only 2 percent of taxes collected are the result of enforcement action.

Did the adoption of a Taxpayer Bill of Rights by the Internal Revenue Service on June 10, 2014 become a much-anticipated cornerstone document to provide the nation’s taxpayers with a better understanding of their rights?

What about the law to appoint an IRS Commissioner? Given the way the IRS tax code was treated during the past two years under IRS Commissioner John Koskinen who condoned Lois Lerner’s Tea Party Scandal? Instead of firing Koskinen, Trump kept him on, despite the ire of many Republicans who wanted Koskinen impeached. An IRS commissioner can be removed at the will of a president. Dan Pilla said Trump should have taken such action.

Q&A with Dan Pilla

On the incomprehensible U.S. Tax Code: A tax code that contains four million words is a good sign that corruption will exist, and it does!

On a “tax holiday” for overseas profits, which is part of Trump’s tax proposal: A tax holiday could only be a good thing in its impact. Some $3 trillion is parked off shore and could be brought back by American companies. This money represents capital to expand.

On getting rid of the income tax: The taxes on income levied by the federal government brings in 98 percent of federal revenue. Eliminate the income tax and instead impose a national consumption or sales tax.

Advertisements

Goldilocks1

By Nancy Thorner – 

When it comes to human-caused global warming, most people think there are two camps: “alarmists,” those who acknowledge it, and “deniers,” those who deny it. But this is far from true.  There are credible scientists – such as those at The Heartland Institute’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) last month – that accede to the existence of some global warming taking place, but question to what extent man is to blame.

For instance, participants and scientists at Heartland’s conference, S. Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, maintain that a warmer planet will be beneficial for mankind and other species on the planet and that “corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.” Meanwhile, other reputable scientists attending ICCC-12 believe a period of cooler weather looms ahead in the not-too-distant future because of the lack of sunspots.

Now there is another camp, the “lukewarmers” as defined by Dr. Pat Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knapperberger. Both are recognized environmental climate scientists who believe that man-made global warming is real, but they refuse to buy into the politicized pseudoscience that has increasingly been used to buttress the case that global warming is also likely to be dangerous. In their book, Lukewarming: The New Climate Science That Changes Everything, Michaels and Knappenberger, refer to themselves as “lukewarmers,” and expose many myths about climate change.

In a way the lukewarming view of climate change set forth by Michaels and Knappenberger relates to the English Fairy Tale, The Story of The Three Bears. Goldilocks, in tasting the porridge that had been left to cool by the bears while they took a walk in a forest, found the Great Big Bear’s porridge too hot, the Middle-sized Bear’s porridge too cold, while the Little Wee Bear’s porridge was neither too hot or too cold.

The too-hot temperature of the Great Big Bear’s porridge is the same claim made by climate change alarmists like Al Gore and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, who falsely predict catastrophic occurrences unless drastic measures are taken. The lukewarming concept of climate science introduced by Michaels and Knappenberger, represents the neither too hot or too cold porridge of the Little Wee Bear – or, just the right approach.

Michaels, the director of the Center for the Study of Science at the Cato Institute, explained all this as a featured speaker April 19 at The Heartland Institute where he talked about his book. Michaels is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists and was program chair for the Committee on Applied Climatology of the American Meteorological Society. He is the author or editor of six books on climate and its impact, and he was an author of the climate “paper of the year” awarded by the Association of American Geographers in 2004.

While introducing Michaels, Heartland Institute President Joe Bast expressed with apparent delight, three happenings of note in the past 100 days:  1) The election of Donald Trump as president, whose accomplishments are acceding expectations – such as Trump cutting EPA spending by 31 percent, which was long overdue. 2) Heartland’s latest climate conference (ICCC-12) held in Washington, D.C. in March – which attracted 300 participants without a formal invitation being sent. The conference featured 40 speakers attracted 55 members of the media, most of whom heretofore had not been interested in what Heartland had to say on the topic. 3) Heartland sending some 350,000 copies of Why Scientists Disagree with Global Warming to science teachers in K-12 and colleges, as well as 400 CEOs. The message: There is no consensus on global warming. The media and some activist teachers organizations have chosen to respond with accusations that Heartland’s mailing is an attempt at brainwashing – a notion Bast thoroughly rebutted.

 Michaels Explains his Lukewarmer Thesis

Michael’s remarks, tailored to his slide presentation, showed time and again the misuse of the flawed, always too-hot climate models, and the tremendous incentives that exist for their continued misuse. So it follows that unreasonable and unnecessary climate policies have been based on the too-hot and frequently manipulated climate models. Clearly, he said, if the climate models can’t properly simulate the past, they can’t be relied upon for the future – and are a terrible basis for energy and economic policy.

Other aspects of the Michael’s Lukewarmers Camp include:

  • Life thrived on Earth through hot time and cold, mostly with much higher CO2 concentrations and warmer temperatures than we are experiencing in the current era. This enhanced CO2 allows plants to take advantage of warmer temperature. Tropical rain forests have greatly increased because of the increase in CO2.
  • Market forces compel adaptation to all kinds of change, including slight changes in climate. Even if the United States continues to burn half of its corn production, the rest of the world still is able to produce tremendous amounts of food to meet the needs of its growing population.
  • Health effects of climate change on the U.S. are negligible and are likely to remain so. Forty-six percent of all U.S. deaths directly attributable to weather events from 1993 to 2006 were caused by excessive cold; 28 percent were from excessive heat.
  • After 75 years of rapidly increasing CO2 emission, hurricanes have responded only lukewarmly. Severe weather is a characteristic of earth’s atmosphere and every day some kind of story or extreme event will (and likely will) be associated with global warming. Even if the issue of the day were global cooling, such extreme weather events could be made to fit that paradigm, too.
  • Arctic ice has declined before, even in the last century before humans had put very much CO2 into the atmosphere. The Arctic was even ice free for long stretches, both before the end of the last ice age and afterwards.  The Washington Post on November 11, 1922 reported of hitherto unheard-of temperature in the Arctic zone. The seals were finding the water too hot and great masses of ice had been replaced by moraines of earth and stones. Nevertheless, there’s always plenty of ice in the Arctic Ocean, even in the beginning of the fall when it reaches its minimum extent.
  • As for the survival of the iconic polar bear, the polar bear has weathered – and maybe even prospered – during many periods when the Arctic summer’s end was ice free.
  • The Paris Climate Treaty is an unenforceable document that requires its signatories to prepare new “determined contributions” every five years, counts all warming since the Industrial Revolution as having been caused by greenhouse gas emissions, uses the mean sensitivity of the UN climate models, and requires an immediate cessation of all carbon dioxide emissions (fossil fuels) to meet its aspirational goal of keeping future warming below 1.5 degree C. This reduction in potential warming is operationally meaningless, and would result in a lukewarm agreement meant for a lukewarm world, in which only the United States and the EU stand to be harmed.

Michaels predicted a new warming of only six-tenths to a quarter degree by the end of the 21st century.  Accordingly, it makes no sense to plan for and then take measures to prepare for an event that has only a finite chance of happening, but which would greatly reduce our standard of living and further destroy this nation’s economy.

To watch the entire presentation by Michaels, click here.

Comments


Comments

Watkins - #2By Nancy Thorner – 

What did the American Founders actually intend for the country and does it even matter today?

William Watkins, Jr., as the featured speaker at The Heartland Institute’s Wednesday evening free series of event, spoke about his book, Crossroads for Liberty: Recovering the Anti-Federalist Values of America’s First Constitution. Watkin’s book takes a surprising and thought-provoking look at the American Revolution, the Articles of Confederation, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and asks what we can learn from them.

William Watkins, Jr. is a research fellow at the Independent Institute. He received his B.A. in history and German summa cum laude from Clemson University and his J.D. cum laude from the University of South Carolina School of Law. He is a former law clerk to Judge William B. Traxler, Jr. of the U.S, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He has served as a prosecutor and defense lawyer and has practiced in various state and federal courts. Other books include Judicial Monarchs: The Case for Restoring Popular Sovereignty in the United States, and the Independent Institute books, Reclaiming the American Revolution: The Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions and Their Legacy; and Patent Trolls: Predatory Litigation and the Smothering of Innovation. 

William Watkins, Jr. introduced by Jim Lakely, Director of Communications at The Heartland Institute

William J. Watkins, in Crossroads for Liberty, rescues the Articles of Confederation from obscurity and condemnation. Watkins does not claim that the Articles constituted a perfect system, but it was a much better system than has been portrayed in history books.

For many years, the Articles of Confederation have been taught in American History class as having created too weak a central government, that it accomplished nothing, and that thankfully it was scrapped and replaced with the U.S. Constitution. Not so, according to Watkins. The Articles needed some reform, but it was a credible document before the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Watkins likewise cleared up a misconception held by many that the Revolutionary War was all about taxation, brought to a head with the Boston Tea Party. Not true, he said. The argument was about sovereignty. Where did it lie? Did it lie in the British Parliament, or would individual states be able to govern themselves. In the Declaration of Independence, King George III of England was mentioned as the recognized power of authority whose removal was necessary for local state assemblies to achieve local rule.

Articles of Confederation Empowered State Governments

As to why the Articles of Confederation were adopted in the first place, patriot leaders at the time didn’t want some far off government telling them what to do concerning local matters. The Articles of Confederation were designed to let the people of each state govern themselves, while forming an alliance to maintain their independence. Delegates couldn’t serve more than three years out of a six-year period. In this way, legislators would feel the bit of the laws they passed.

In the aftermath of the Revolutionary War, Federalists like Alexander Hamilton began to express dissatisfaction with the Articles of Confederation, thinking it a hopelessly weak common government for the United States that needed replacement. Others, like anti-federalist Patrick Henry, strongly voiced how under the Articles of Confederation its government had put an army in the field for seven years to defeat the mighty British Empire. Said Henry: “Ditching the Articles of Confederation would only lead to an increasingly centralized government that would eventually result in weak states dictated to by a centralized government.”

Using the same reasoning as proclaimed by Patrick Henry, Watkins noted how the goals of the Articles of Confederation had been met:

  • Great Britain was defeated. Hadn’t the British Navy ruled the world?
  • Self-government and the states had been preserved.

But economic hardship did exist in the aftermath of the Revolutionary War due to the cost of achieving freedom from Great Britain – i.e. hard cash was limited, the protection of the British Navy was lost, as was the right to trade with the British West Indies. 

Ratification of Constitution Hinged on a Bill of Rights 

Federalists won the argument. Led by Federalist Alexander Hamilton, who believed a Constitution with a federal system of government could accomplish the same thing without the deficiencies in the Articles – and who further argued that because the Articles of Confederation were committed to states’ rights reform of the Articles was not possible — a Constitutional Convention was needed. Subsequently, a Constitution was written during the summer of 1787 in Philadelphia by 55 delegates to a Constitutional Convention that was called ostensibly to amend the Articles of Confederation (1781–89), the country’s first written constitution.

The new Constitution was submitted for ratification to the 13 states on September 28, 1787. It was ratified by nine states in June of 1788, as required by Article VII. The date of March 4, 1789 was set by Congress as to when the new government would begin operating, with the first elections under the Constitution held late in 1788. 

Why did four of the 13 states refuse to ratify the Constitution when first submitted to them? As Watkins explained, one of the many points of contention between Federalists and Anti-Federalists over the Constitution is that it lacked a Bill of Rights that would place specific limits on government power. Although nine states had ratified the Constitution by June of 1788, the key states of Virginia and New York would only ratify the Constitution after James Madison promised that a Bill of Rights would be added after ratification.

Two states, Rhode Island and North Carolina, refused to ratify without a Bill of Rights. In June 1789, Madison proposed a series of amendments to be debated in the first Congress. These amendments to the United States Constitution (10 of them) became known as the Bill of Rights.

Rough Sailing for the Newly Adopted Constitution of 1787

Watkins enumerated three lies that angered segments of the American population after they had been assured that certain things would not happen with the ratification of the Constitution.

1st lie

Farmers were told that the excise power in the Constitution wouldn’t be used except in unusual situations. The Whiskey Rebellion was a response to the excise tax proposed by Alexander Hamilton, who was Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury in 1791. In January 1791, President George Washington’s Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton proposed a seemingly innocuous excise tax “upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same.” What Congress failed to predict was the vehement rejection of this tax by Americans living on the frontier of Western Pennsylvania. By 1794, the Whiskey Rebellion threatened the stability of the nascent United States and forced President Washington to personally lead the United States militia westward to stop the rebels. Learn More

2nd lie

It was the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798, signed into law by President John Adams, that when put into practice became a black mark on the Nation’s reputation. People were lied to again. In direct violation of the Constitution’s guarantee of freedom of speech, the Sedition Act permitted the prosecution of individuals who voiced or printed what the government deemed to be malicious remarks about the president or government of the United States. Fourteen Republicans, mainly journalists, were prosecuted, and some imprisoned, under the act.

3rd lie

Alexander Hamilton’s claim that the Articles of Confederation were useless, and the only remedy was to draft a new governing document.

Anticipated Fears about 1787 Constitution Were Not Speculative in Nature 

Watkins suggested that our Constitution of 1787 is not the greatest gift of political science that the world has ever seen.

1. How can one size fit all with a nation of 50 states?

2. How can a national government be in charge of 300-plus million Americans? 

3. Shouldn’t individual states serve as laboratories of experimentation and policy making?

4. Does James Madison’s worry about the accumulation of power, which, he said “in one place is paramount to tyranny,” seem justified?

5. How can “We the People” monitor those we elect given the super-sized districts they represent? Watkins believes that the present system of limiting the House of Representatives to only 435 members is detrimental to limited government, for as the population expands those representatives become increasing disconnected to the very people they are supposed to be representing.

6. Can representative government even exist in a country of this size?

A massive shift of power happened when Senate members were elected. The Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution – proposed by the 62nd Congress in 1912 – established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

As Watkins stated, the Founding Father reasoned that only licentious behavior and luxury could destroy the Constitution. Some 230 years later, this long-ago fear has been realized, as the founding principles of this nation have been eroded and cast aside in the interim. 

Human nature is flawed, and, as noted by Jefferson, “the chains of the Constitution” were needed, but what can now be done? As reasoned by Watkins, we certainly cannot return to the Articles of Confederation, nor is it possible to return to the Constitution, at least not as it was first conceived by our Founding Fathers.

Watkins suggested that general education is needed so the public, and especially young people, come to realize that the Socialism spouted by Bernie Sanders, embraced without even realizing what was being offered, is an evil and unworkable system of government.  

Selected Questions and Answers

Q: Why was the American Revolution different from revolutions in other nations?

A: Our revolution was based on the Rule of Law, whether sovereignty existed with the King of England or with state assemblies, which gave us a foundation upon which to base our government. The American people perceived that things were out of kilter and had to be restored.

Q: Is an Article V Convention a realistic plan? Is this an efficient way to address some of the flaws in our Constitution?

A: Watkins didn’t think it wise to take what we have and then trust that the results will be positive. As Watkins notes in his book: “There never have been enough states requesting a convention and this is for good reason. First, no one knows whether such a convention would be limited or unlimited in its scope. If the states requested a convention to consider proposing a balanced budget amendment, would the convention be prohibited from also offering amendments on matters such as abortion or capital punishment?” Watkins adds, “A convention could result in much chaos and constitutional uncertainty.”

“On paper,” Watkins laments, “they [the states] could demand a convention, but in reality Congress holds all the cards when it comes to constitutional change.” Instead, Watkins argues that “the states need the ability to propose and consider amendments without the involvement of the national legislature or the risk associated with a convention.” 

Q: Why the need for the Bill of Rights? 

A: People and states were fearful of a new federal government having too much power. 

Watch here the YouTube video of William J. Watkins, Jr. discussing his insightful book, Crossroads for Liberty. 



Screen Shot 2017-03-31 at 8.45.56 AM
Heartland Institute’s President and Founder Joe Bast

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Obama administration used concern over “global warming” as a false flag operation to advance it’s left-wing agenda to “transform” the country’s energy sector. This makes global warming policy — not global warming itself — the greatest threat facing this nation. This was one of the themes of The Heartland Institute’s Twelfth International Conference on Climate Change (ICCC-12), held in Washington D.C. on March 23-24, 2007.

According to Heartland President Joseph Bast in opening remarks, the election of Donald Trump on November 8 opened a new chapter in the global warming debate, creating hope that a new pro-environment, pro-energy, and pro-jobs agenda will be created to benefit the American people.  ICCC-12 was the first major conference on climate change to take place after Trump’s election, and its 40-some speakers presented the science and economics that are the foundation of that new agenda.  Speaker after speaker rejected the policies and claims of President Barack Obama and showed optimism about the possibility of dismantling these policies now that Donald Trump is in office.

Of note is that four special awards were presented to those who had made huge contributions to the Climate Debate.

  • Col. Walter Cunningham is best known as pilot of Apollo 7, the first manned flight test of the Apollo Program to land a man on the Moon. 
  • J. Scott Armstrong, Ph.D., a professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, was applauded for his research on forecasting.
  • Myron Ebell, director of energy and environment policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute and chair of the Trump administration’s EPA transition team.
  • Dr. John Barrasso, M.D. (R-WY) is chairman of the Senate Committee on Environments and Public Works (EPA).  Unfortunately Barrasso was unable to attend to receive his award in person because of the House debate on replacing Obamacare.

Three Republican legislators were scheduled to appear at ICCC-12, but only Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas) could attend in person.  Senator Barrasso, M.D., a reward recipient, received his award In absentia, while Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma made his remarks through a video presentation. Unfortunately, many legislators were tied up in their respective Chambers during ICCC-12, House members with repealing Obamacare and Senate members in dealing with Chief Justice nominee, Judge Neil Gorsuch.

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute welcomes guests

Joseph Bast, president and CEO of The Heartland Institute, welcomed an enthusiastic group of 300 attendees. The meeting included eleven panels and five plenary sessions offering views on such topics as climate science, environmental economics, and the relationship between fossil fuels and human prosperity, the environment; human health; and world peace.

On Heartland’s agenda was an impressive group of keynote speakers including Lord Christopher Monckton for his wit and humor as well as mastering of mathematics and statistics; Patrick Michaels, a climate scientist with the Cato Institute who has written numerous books on the subject; Roger Helmer, a member of the European Parliament; and Heartland Science Director Jay Lehr, who delivered a presentation he and others at Heartland had prepared to deliver to President-elect Trump in person.

Bast related how EPA Director, Scott Pruitt, recently remarked on CNBC that human activity is not the primary activity of the global warming that we see. More good news followed when Bast recounted a remark made by Trump’s budget director when announcing that global warming activities were not going to be funded because the president doesn’t think the issue is important. 

Climate “realists” have won the public opinion debate, Bast claimed. He cited survey data showing most Americans don’t believe human activity is responsible for most global warming, further stating that “42% of Americans don’t want to spend a dollar more to prevent global warming.”  Bast then related how the Trump administration has proposed cutting EPA funding by 1/3, and how the subsidies shoring up the wind and solar industry are soon to be on the cutting block. Without those subsidies, wind and solar energy would be unaffordable. Britain, Spain, Germany, and Australia are all cutting back on their sustainable energy funding, Bast said.

Breakfast, Thursday, March 23:  Keynote Address, Jay Lehr, Ph.D., Senior Fellow and Science Director of The Heartland Institute  

Following opening remarks, Joe Bast spoke about the 20-minute presentation The Heartland Institute was asked to prepare and present to explain global warming to President-elect Trump. Jay Lehr, PhD. was selected to share Heartland’s compilation of facts based on sound scientific research to President-elect Trump. Lehr’s direct presentation never happened, but Heartland’s message was shared with others in the Trump administration.   

With this in mind, Mr. Bast called Dr. Jay Lehr to the podium to present Heartland’s slide presentation as prepared for President-elect Trump. Lehr, who delivers one or two addresses a week all across the country, was described by Bast as the most popular speaker expressing climate change realism in the country today. 

Dr. Jay Lehr’s Powerpoint Keynote Breakfast presentation addressed the elimination the EPA and turning its functions back to the states to legislate.  Dr. Lehr playfully suggested that he might be paying penance for a 1971 crime, for when joining the Nixon administration he helped create the EPA. As Dr. Lehr remarked:  “For 10 years the EPA did some good work, but since 1980 no good has come from the EPA.” 

As to devolving the EPA, Dr. Lehr states the following reasons:

  • The states are eminently capable of, and should be responsible for, the protection of our air land water.
  • His plan migrates that responsibility from the EPA to the states over a 5-year plan, and thereby materially alters the existing structure of the EPA, which is worthy of serious consideration.

Lehr went on to explain how there are 14 separate offices within the EPA, each having their own staff and budgets, but only 5 of the offices deal with the environment:  1) Office of Water; 2) Office and Air and Radiation; 3) Office of Chemical Safety and Emergency Response; 4) Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; and 5) Office of Research and Development. 

What’s more, two of the offices belong in the Bureau of Indian Affairs 1) Office of American Indian Environmental Affairs and 2) Office of International and Tribal Affairs, while seven more of the offices within the EPA are entirely non-scientific in nature: (Office of Policy; Office of General Council; Office of Chief Financial Officer; Office of Environmental Information; Office of Administration and Resource Management; Office of the Enforcement and Compliance Management; and Office of the Administrator).

According to Dr. Lehr, only 4 useful pieces of EPA legislation were created in its first ten years of existence from 1971 to1980.  They are:  

1.  Water Pollution Control Act (later renamed as the Clean Water).

2.  Safe Drinking Water Act, Resource Conservation and Recover Act, Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (which covers deep mining too).

3.  Clean Air Act, Federal Insecticide Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). 

4.  Comprehensive Environmental Response compensation and Liability Act (Superfund).

As to the reach and size of the EPA, Lehr cited 15,000 employees spread between Washington DC and 10 regional offices and a few research centers, with a total budget of $8.2 billion.  Most importantly, what are taxpayers getting for the $8.2 billion budget of the EPA?  No actual environmental protection is produced.  This is all done by the 50 State Agencies. 

Given such a dismal record by the EPA, these stated conclusions are sound and need to be implemented by the Trump administration:  

  • We must aggressively trim, restructure and eliminate multiple programs within the federal system that have any association with the god of Sustainability, especially and starting with the EPA. 
  • It is incumbent upon use to strive to deliver the truth to the American people with good science, properly constructed legislation, and policy-making that is grounded in the Iron Law of Regulation.

Dr. Lehr asked each participant to set a target to change the minds of 5 people in a year who believe in global warming. With 200 individuals in the room, 1,000 individuals would be reached.

An addendum to article  

President Donald Trump on Tuesday, March 28, 2017, issued an “energy independence” executive order to undo several of the Obama administration’s climate change regulations. 

Happening so soon after Heartland’s successful ICCC-12 event in Washington, D.C., Trump’s sweeping executive order on Climate Policy, sorely needed, was greeted with much acclamation and applause.   

  • Orders the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to review and repeal, or revise, the Clean Power Plan is the backbone of President Barack Obama’s climate agenda, requiring states to transform their electricity mix away from conventional fuels toward renewables.
  • Eliminates the use of the “social cost of carbon.” This figure, called the “social cost of carbon,” is a dollar amount that federal agencies apply to different regulations to calculate the “climate benefit” of abated co2 emissions. In 2015, the social cost of carbon was said to be $36 per ton.
  • Rescinds moratorium on new coal leases and methane emissions from oil and gas operations on federal lands. Under Obama, the Department of Interior would not issue new coal mining leases on federal lands until the agency conducted a more comprehensive environmental review that included the estimated effects the lease would have on global warming.
  • Repeals guidance on agencies taking global warming into account when conducting National Environmental Policy Act reviews.  The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies to conduct comprehensive environmental assessments for a wide range of projects, including permitting of infrastructure.

Live stream archives:  All sessions and speakers at ICCC-12 can be viewed here at Heartland’s Live Stream Archives.

Future articles by Nancy Thorner dealing with Heartland’s ICCC-12 will cover Fossil Fuels and Human Prosperity, Fossil Fuels and World Peace, Climate Politics and Policy, and Sustainability.

Shutterstock_166583426-e1487855722339

By Nancy Thorner – 

Vaping: How Government Regulation Can Kill Innovation was the topic of The Heartland Institute’s continuing series of Wednesday evening events that are available free to the public. Featured speakers were Dr. Brad Rodu of the University of Louisville and Pamela Gorman of Smoke-Free Alternative Trade Association (SFATA). They discussed vaping from a scientific and industry perspective. 

Dr. Rodu is a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville, where he is a member of the James Graham Brown Cancer Center and holds an endowed chair in tobacco harm reduction research.  He is also a senior fellow at The Heartland Institute.  For the past two decades Dr. Rodu has been in the forefront of research and policy development regarding tobacco harm reduction.

Pamela Gorman is executive director of SFATA, the largest trade group representing and protecting the interests of the vapor industry. She has worked in the vaping and tobacco industries for nearly a dozen years. As an elected official in Arizona, Ms. Gorman served terms in both the state House and Senate.

What are E-cigarettes?

E-cigarettes are becoming an increasingly popular alternative to traditional combustible cigarettes.  Many countries around the world (such as England) are recommending these vapor products as a tobacco harm reduction solution, while the United States government and local authorities have been trying to regulate these products out of existence. 

Health professionals have long known that the smoke created by combustible cigarettes, rather that the nicotine, is what makes smoking harmful.  Smokeless tobacco and e-cigarettes provide a much safer and healthier alternative delivery system for nicotine.  

Dr. Brad Rodu introduced by Jim Lakely, Director of Communication at The Heartland Institute

A slide presentation was used to address the following issues:

1.  Poison reports by the American Association of Poison control Centers in 2015, showed that out of 547,286 reported exposures submitted, E-cigarettes came in very last at 0.5%.  At the high end were Cosmetics and personal care products (26%) and Household cleaners (21%).  

2.  Claims about E-cigarettes are exaggerated, such as, they are not loaded with toxins; they are not poisoning our children; they are not a gateway to teen smoking; they do help smokers quit; and indooteens.

  • Important to promote use as widely as possible as a substitute for smoking.
  • Passive exposure:  no evidence of signifir bans are not necessary. 

    3.  E-cigarette vapor contain nicotine, at various levels or none; water; propylene glycol and /or vegetable glycerin (both are in many consumer products and are FDA approved).  Propylene glycol is used to create artificial fog in theaters, concerts.

    4.  Nicotine and Caffeine are both addictive, but they can be used safely.  Both enhance concentration, performance levels, provide a sense of well-being and elevate mood.  Neither cause intoxication, nor are they not linked to any major disease.  We consume caffeine in coffee, tea and cola drinks.  Nicotine is delivered through smoking cigarettes and E-cigarettes, but it is the smoke created by combustible cigarettes smoking, not the nicotine that is dangerous.

    5. Medication to rid addition to combustible cigarettes provides only a temporary bridge to abstinence; it’s expensive; the very low dose of the medication is unsatisfying for smokers; there is only a 5% success.

    6.  The British are more informed than Americans about the use of E-cigarettes, which has led to a differing treatment of E-Cigarettes in the US.   The FDA, CDC, and the NIH all claim:

  • No evidence that e-cigs help smokers quit.
  • No evidence that e-cigs are less hazardous than cigarettes.
  • E-cigs might renormalize smoking and make it e a gateway to smoking among teens.
  • Only safe, effective methods should be used or quitting smoking.
  • E-cigs to be regulated exactly as cigarettes.

7.  The Royal College of Physicians & Public Health in England in 2015 found the following: 

  • Effective as aid to quit smoking.
  • E-cigs are not renormalizing smoking or serving as a gateway to smoking among
  • cant harm to bystanders. 

Pamela Gorman kicked the smoking habit with E-cigs

Once a smoker herself, Ms. Gorman’s used E-cigarettes to quit smoking.  She is now fighting for the free market principles in the vaping industry.  Like Pamela Gorman, nine million individuals have chosen to put down combustible cigarettes and instead use E-cigarettes.  Gorman put aside cigarettes in 2013, never picked one up again, and would find turning back distasteful.  

It was on June 22, 2009 when the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) was signed into law.  It granted the FDA authority to regulate the manufacture, distribution, and marketing of tobacco products, as a way to protect the public and create a healthier future for all Americans. 

Restrictions created by the Tobacco Control Act:

The Tobacco Control Act does not:

The law makes clear that FDA’s role is to regulate and protect the public health, but it places a few restrictions on FDA’s powers. FDA cannot:

  • Require prescriptions to purchase tobacco products.
  • Require the reduction of nicotine yields to zero.
  • Ban face-to-face sales in a particular category of retail outlets.
  • Ban certain classes of tobacco products.

The Deeming Rule 

A big blow came to the vaping industry when almost overnight action taken by the Food and Drug Administration on 04/25/2014, to be made effective August 8, 2016, classified E-cigarettes in the same category as cigarettes (a combustible product) to be regulated like a tobacco product.  Called the Deeming Rule”, overnight E-cigarettes became tobacco rolled in paper.  The Facts on the FDA’s New Tobacco Rule.

According to Ms. Gorman, the vaping industry has a lease on life until August 8, 2018, when the FDA will prohibit 99.9%+ of vapor products on the market,” then all will go dark unless something is done. The new regulations are of concern for the e-cigarette industry, as approval of products offered will cost small companies millions of dollars that they cannot afford. 

If the FDA’s current approach is implemented, producers would be required to remove every single product from the market and submit expensive and burdensome applications for the chance to allow their products to stay on the market after the August 8, 2018 date.  There are 3,200 separate products and each one must go through separate testing that could cost $300,000 per application.  Then too, some of the studies required could take as long as 8 years. The Smoke-Free Alternatives Trade Association says the average vape shop makes $26,000 in monthly sales, which doesn’t leave a lot of room for new costs to be incurred.

As to the effectiveness of E-cigarettes, a report published on the National Center for Biotechnology Information’s website showed that vaping has helped decreased the smoking rates among 21 to 35 year-olds. 

Help solicited from public

Federal level: A new bill (HR 1136) has been introduced by Reps. Tom Cole (R-OK) and Sanford Bishop (D-GA) that would change the predicate date in the FDA’s deeming regulations. The legislation is called the FDA Deeming Authority Clarification Act of 2017.  Changing the predicate date will not prevent the FDA from having approval authority over products introduced after the new predicate date, but it allows all current products to remain on the market without applying for marketing approval. Existing products will still have to meet safety and marketing standards imposed by the agency.  Co-sponsors are needed

Join  CASAA.org (Consumer Advocates for Smokefree Alternatives Association).

Heartland publicationVaping, E-Cigarettes, and Public Policy Toward Alternatives to Smoking by Brad Rodu, DDS; Matthew Glans, and Lindsey Stroud.  Pdf download available. 

The Smoking Status quo is unacceptable.  Although the American anti-smoking campaign is 51 years old, according to the CDC there are 39 million smokers in the U.S., with 480,000 deaths every year in the U.S.

If the status quo continues, in the next 20 years 9.6 million Americans will die from smoking.  All will be adults over 35 years of age.  None of them are now children. 

Tuesday, March 21, 2017

Screen Shot 2016-10-21 at 2.54.19 PM

By Nancy Thorner – 

The Heartland Institute hosted a “Stop Fed Ed” event at the Andrew Breitbart Freedom Center on Wednesday, October 12. The event featured Cora Weber, who discussed her role in the grassroots effort to stop Common Core and (eventually) eliminate the federal Department of Education.

Ms. Weber is a second-generation home-educator, single mom of six, and president of the Illinois chapter of the United States Parents Involved in Education (USPIE.ORG). For nearly 15 years, Cora has worked as an advocate for children by promoting awareness of the socialist progressive agenda in government schools. Weber is currently developing an initiative to guide and encourage religious institutions to adopt a more central role in the education of America’s children.

As president of the Illinois chapter of USPIE, Weber is aligned with the STOP FED ED movement, a campaign led by parents, taxpayers, and educators committed to ending the U.S. Department of Education and Common Core, returning control over education policy to the states, where it belongs. Michelle Malkin serves as an advisor to STOP FED ED and there are 33 chapter presidents. The names and contact information for state chapter presidents can be located by checking this website.

As Heartland’s project manager for education transformation Lennie Jarratt said in his introductory remarks, “Liberals believe that government is the answer to everything instead of the free market.” As to why there is a federal department of education, it’s certainly not about children, Weber said. Control through federal dollars amounts to big business. The experiment with federal control of local public schools has gone on for half a century, and it has failed. Children have suffered by being treated as rats in some social engineering laboratory.

The fight against Common Core has exposed the failures of those trying to force a federally-based one-size-fits-all curriculum on states and local school districts. Even strong Common Core supporters realize the name is toxic and have accepted the premise that the federal government should not be dictating curriculum.

Remarks by Cora Weber

Weber’s initial remarks were accepted with nodding agreement by those in attendance: “The present system is stifling instead of letting children flourish.” Weber discussed the background Department of Education: In 1867 the U.S. Congress passed legislation to establish the first Department of Education. President Andrew Jackson signed the legislation that created the department with miniscule staff, resources, and power. It was a non-cabinet-level agency with a mission of improving American education by disseminating sound education information to local-and state-level authorities. In 1979, Jimmy Carter created an independent, cabinet-level U.S. Department of Education as a political favor to the teachers’ unions. It was not linked to the Interior Department or the Federal Security Agency (FSA), as the Department had been since its founding in 1867. Few remember that in 1980, Ronald Reagan campaigned for the presidency on a platform that included abolishing the U.S. Department of Education, as the department had failed to deliver either better test scores or more rigorous curriculum dedicated to academic excellence.

With the establishment of a cabinet-level Department of Education (DOE) came a 60 percent increase in education funding by 2015, but for what? In 1980, the department’s budget was $11.5 billion. By 2015 the DOE’s budget had mushroomed to $67 billion – a 600 percent increase – with these negative results:

  • stagnant test scores
  • huge bureaucraciesmassive
  • increases in the cost of education

In Retrospect: From 2003 to 2015, when Common Core was up and running in many states several years prior to 2015, the 8th grade proficiency level in math and reading was deplorable at 33 percent. Alabama, which traditionally has scored in the low 30s, dropped to 30th in the nation – making the state worse off than it had been before Common Core. 

Weber asked: If the results from federal imposed education is so dismal, why don’t state leaders just say to the federal government, “We don’t want your little crumbs”?  Some wonder how states will survive without federal education dollars. Here’s how: 91 percent of education funding comes from state and local funds. The federal government provides 9 percent. – but with that 9 percent, the feds control 100 percent of the classrooms. Consider also the millions of man hours that are required to meet federal education mandates. Also, sending funds to D.C. and back to states is not efficient.

ESSA as Stealth Replacement for Common Core

Unfamiliar to many attendees were Weber’s remarks about the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), legislation signed by President Obama on December 10, 2015, to rewrite the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and replace the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).

NCLB breaks Common Core down into 11 different programs, which must all link with Common Core standards. There are many faults with the bill, which fails to fix the problems in Common Core. A required survey actually asks children how many times they carry a gun or a knife, and whether or not they wear a seat belt. Such personal information should be none of the government’s business! 

There was likewise a $25 billion increase in the funding of NCLB and a 2 percent yearly increase after that with no sunset. Despite glaring faults, which were noted at the time, Senate education committee Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) praised the bill to his fellow senators in a bipartisan agreement made with Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Because NCLB gives unprecedented power to the Secretary of Education, even if a state wants to establish its own educational standards, they must align with the 11 NCLB programs – which the Secretary of Education can then reject if he finds them lacking. Also troubling is that private companies were called in to create the eleven programs.

Cora Weber Pegs Department of Education As Unconstitutional

Providing guidance is an important part of what Weber seeks to do when making her presentations. She wondered why we are willing to let bureaucrats in Washington, D.C. define the term, and determine what education should look like. Weber further stated: “The Department of Education is unconstitutional.”How so? Because the 10th Amendment directs that powers of the federal government not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution shall be left to the states or the people. There is no Department of Education in the Constitution. “Nowhere in the Constitution is the federal government delegated the power to regulate or fund elementary or secondary education,” Weber said.

She also emphasized how the educational system needs to “align with principles that never change, and not the system that bureaucrats are trying to impose upon the people.” Weber further warned that home-schoolers are not immune from Common Core, which promotes relativism and socialism, as colleges are more and more requiring that students be educated in the Common Core method through admissions testing. The good news is that the free market is coming up with solutions to circumvent what is happening. To find out what a child needs to know to graduate for high school check here. The requirements for graduation in Illinois are quite lenient. 

What Can We Do to Help Stop Fed Ed?

Suggestions from Cora Weber include:

Q&A with Cora Weber 

Question: This nation was founded on the rule of law. What happens when individuals with great power and clout are seen as being above the law?

Answer:  This nation must return back to the Constitution which represents the foundation of our nation. Law affects every sphere of our society as set forth in our Constitution. Presently, Weber is reading George Orwell’s 1984 to her six children. It is important that great literature be taught, because it defines who we are, where they came from, and where we are going.  

Question: How can we circumvent Common Core?

Answer: Weber discussed a “badge-based system.” When a course is completed, and the student has demonstrated that he/she knows the material, a badge is awarded which can then be taken by the child wherever he goes. Churches, at one time, were very prominent in schooling children, and we must once again take up this mantle. It doesn’t cost all that much money to educate children well. But there is a problem: Many churches are seeped in humanistic outreach and grounded in progressive ideology. There are however, lots of fine courses for free on-line.

View here the YouTube video of The Heartland Institute’s Stop Fed Ed event with Cora Weber of USPIE.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9PglRPYiC8

Coming Events at The Heartland Institute

3939 N. Wilke Road

Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004

Free, with supper included, but registration is required.

Oct 26, 2016

Women in Politics

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Listen, learn, and get inspired from women who are shaping free-market governing policies in America just days before the 2016 United States presidential election.

Nov 2, 2016

Alex Newman: Crimes of the Educators

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Come join Alex Newman, co-author of Crimes of the Educators, as he discusses his exposé of crimes perpetrated by the education establishment against the American people and, especially, against American children.

Nov. 9, 2016

Heartland Movie Night: ‘The Call of the Entrepreneur’

5:30 PM – 7:30 PM

Don’t face your uncertain, post-election future alone. Face it with friends at The Heartland’s Institute’s next ‘Movie Night.’


51prc1Mn0RL._UX250_   By Nancy Thorner – 

On September 28, 2016, Robert Buchar – associate professor of cinematography at Columbia College in Chicago – spoke at The Heartland Institute about his film, The Collapse of Communism: The Untold Story. The film makes a compelling case that the dissolution of the Soviet Union did not bring about the end of global communism.

A political refugee and defector from Czechoslovakia in 1980, Buchar is also the producer of the documentary, Velvet Hangover, which is about Czech New Wave filmmakers, how they survived the period of “normalization” and their reflections on the so-called Velvet Revolution of 1989. He is also the author of Czech New Wave Filmmakers in Interviews, as well as And Reality be Damned… Undoing America: What The Media Didn’t Tell You About the End of the Cold War and Fall of Communism in Europe., which was available for purchase at the event. I highly recommend that book.

Prior to Buchar’s comments, an eight-minute excerpt was shown from his 2012 documentary, which took him eight years to finish. The film unearths the uncomfortable truths that explain the dark forces on the horizon for this nation. View the trailer here.

Buchar began his speech by asking the audience: “Why is it important to known about the fall of communism, when it’s something that happened 27 years ago?” It’s because most young people today have no idea what communism really means. Those who are older will recall how the ideology of communism killed more than 100 million people during its 70 years of dominance over vast swaths of the globe. Yet when communism supposedly collapsed in 1989, the media failed to question where those responsible for the atrocities had fled. It would be folly to believe that millions of communists became capitalists and good citizens overnight. 

Buchar noted how the communists didn’t disappear, but instead became leaders of a new system. This can be observed by noting the makeup of the political parties in former Soviet satellite countries. All were created by and are run by former communists. Thus communism adapted and morphed, developing into what was perceived as a new and seemingly acceptable political system in order to survive and continue its mission.

Because of the West’s own naiveté, the West now has to live in what has become a transformation of communist philosophy. This explains how Bernie Sanders was able to attract so many followers in his failed bid for the presidency in the 2016 election cycle.

Buchar also mused how some people on the left believe the Cold War never existed, claiming it was just propaganda, while conservatives believe the Cold War was won by the West. Accordingly, it would be difficult for conservatives to accept the perestroika deception, because in doing so, they would have to denounce the victory they proclaimed happened.  

Why the rise of socialism around world?

But if the West really won the Cold War, how to explain the rise in socialism around the world? Although the international terrorism advanced and supported by the KGB did end after the Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, it exploded again in 1996, taking on the forms of Islamic terror and anti-Americanism. As such, Moscow’s deception machine lives on, and has even intensified.

How could this have happened? The West performed in the exact way KGB strategists had anticipated by lowering its guard, eliminating the counter intelligence, awarding Russia millions of dollars, and even accepting Russia as an equal partner. Buchar also noted that notorious double-agent Aldrich Ames was CIA Chief for the Soviet Bloc countries, and all captured Western spies were executed with the exception of one, Oleg Gordievsky.

And what about Marc Rich, the person in charge of supplying millions of dollars to Russia that disappeared down a black hole. He is now living who knows where, after having been being pardoned by Bill Clinton in the very last minutes of his presidency. As Buchar noted, the CIA and MI6 officials both agree that KGB/FSB spying now is higher than ever. Regardless of what it is called – whether the continuing Cold War or Cold War 2 – the global communists’ quest for world domination will continue as long as the they remain in charge of the Kremlin.

Americans to blame

Unfortunately, the American people know little or nothing about Russia’s current political system, the economies of former Soviet satellite countries, or that foreign forces are shaping their lives. At the same time, many Americans know little about what is happening politically in their own nation, believing all to be just fine and dandy.

Buchar explained how the quest to destroy capitalist America started in 1922 shortly after the Comintern was established in Moscow. But why hasn’t Marxism/Socialism been discredited by now given all of its pathetic failure, carnage, genocide and misery? Trying to educate Americans about the threat to their nation is most often met by blank stares of disbelief, he said.

Buchar spoke of a student of his who believed that if communism was done right, it could work – which is very common among young people whose schooling emphasizes this nation’s flaws, rather than the spirit of the American people who built this nation, and who bled and died to preserve the God-given rights of freedom and liberty.

Socialism’s attraction

As to why the idea of communism/socialism is still and has always been attractive, especially to the economically disadvantaged masses, people do love nice dreams. As espoused by Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton, everybody will get what they need. Free college education and the forgiveness of college debt is now being dangled in front of young people to entice them to vote Democrat.

As Buchar sees it, the goal is more to disturb and destroy Western democracy, specifically in America, rather than to install socialism. Buchar also noted how The Communist Manifesto is still selling very well on Amazon. Stated below is what Nikita Khrushchev said to Vice President Richard Nixon back in 1959: 

“You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.”

According to Buchar, our nation is getting close to that point today. The problem, as Buchar sees it: “The left has a clear goal, the long term strategy, and a well-established network around the globe. They are well organized, disciplined, and devoted to achieve their goal under any circumstances. Conservatives, on the other hand, have no goal or strategy.”

Some Americans are so blinded by political correctness that it has becomes almost impossible to agree on who their enemy is, let alone be able to come up with a successful counter-strategy.

Buchar believes this nation is headed for trouble: a brand of globalism or the establishment of the so-called New World Order which is being pushed by the elites of both parties. They are pulling out all the stops to keep the White House in control of the Democrats, so the long term strategy of those who fostered the deception that Communism died in 1987 can succeed in its planned journey by tricking millions of Americans into believing that socialism is the way of the future.

Understanding what happened between 1989 and 199l – the so-called Collapse of Communism – the key to understanding what is facing this nation today.

Watch the video of Buchar’s presentation at The Heartland Institute, including the clip from his film, here.

Warning issued 32 years ago by Soviet defector and KGB operative unheeded

32 YEARS AGO (1984) Soviet defector and KGB operative Yuri Bezmenov, specializing in the fields of Marxist-Leninist propaganda and ideological subversion, warned us about the silent war being waged against America as part of a long term plan to take over and destroy the American system and way of life.

This youtube video, KGB DEFECTOR YURI BEZMENOV’S WARNING TO AMERICA, reinforces Robert Buchar’s remarks made at The Heartland Institute on Wednesday, September 28, 2016.

In watching the clip you will realize that Bezmenov is describing EXACTLY what’s happening in America today, where by Obama and his gang of Marxist usurpers who now have control of your government are just the culmination of a very long term plan, but are the ones who are about to bring it into fruition.

G. Edward Griffin’s shocking video interview in which Yuri Bezmenov decides to openly reveal KGB’s subversive tactics against western society as a whole: Yuri Bezmenov:  Deception Was My Job

Yuri Bezmenov explains in detail his scheme for the KGB process of subversion and takeover of target societies at a lecture in Los Angeles in 1883: Yuri Bezmenov: Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society

This is REAL, it is happening now, and it has happened before. November’s presidential election could very well be the turning point for this nation.  Is this new brand of communism really favored by the American people?  It’s frightening to think that a majority of voters might elect to live under a repressive and controlling government.