What-If Scenarios

The popular teaching in public schools these days is that at the first Thanksgiving, the Pilgrims were celebrating their thankfulness to the Indians. Although there can be no doubt that they appreciated the help the Indians gave them, you don’t have to dig far into their writings to know that the Pilgrims were, first and foremost, expressing their thankfulness to God.

But what if the situation had been different? After all, initial customs – and the motives behind them – lay an important foundation for what’s to come. And, they tend to have a ripple effect as well, influencing the future in more ways than you might expect.

A fun and insightful family activity this Thanksgiving could be to talk about how things would have been different throughout American history, as well as today, if the Pilgrims had felt differently about who they had to thank for making it through that difficult first year. Here are some scenarios to consider:

What kind of foundation would have been laid for the future if, instead of feeling grateful toward God, the Pilgrims had focused their thankfulness on the Indians or their own leaders?

What if the Pilgrims had taken credit themselves for their successes?

What if the Pilgrims simply hadn’t felt thankful at all – for instance, if they had felt they deserved to succeed and were only getting what they were entitled to?

Hillary Clinton: I Will Change Our Country

In the spring of 1993, shortly after her husband and political benefactor Bill Clinton took office as the nation’s 42nd president, Hillary Clinton delivered the commencement address at the University of Texas.  In her speech, Hillary reiterated the theme that has been at the heart of her political vision from the start:

“We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West.”

“Remolding society.”  This is the terminology of a utopian socialist, one who seeks to remake society according to a narrow and dogmatic ideology that claims to eliminate injustice, poverty, and unhappiness, once and for all. Hillary’s ideology is an amalgam of New Left marxism and grievance feminism, the kind of unwholesome stew that is commonplace on elite college campuses.

Significantly, the term “remolding” — unlike such terms as “reform” or “renew” — reflects a sweeping rejection of society as it currently exists:  family structure (too patriarchal), economic organization (favors the rich), social practices (discriminate against women and minorities), and so on. In other words, someone who believes that society needs to be “remolded” is someone who, at bottom, cannot see any good in the American way of life — and someone who, if she could, would radically change that way of life.  Who doubts that this describes Hillary Clinton?

Lest anyone think that a more mature and experienced Hillary Clinton has tempered her political objective, consider her recent speech in Concord, New Hampshire, at an event over Labor Day weekend that her campaign titled “Change We Need.”  In her speech, Hillary forthrightly declared: “I will bring my experience to the White House and begin to change our country starting on Day One.”  That’s right:  Change our country.  As her official campaign website illustrates, Hillary means what she says.

The rest of this great article by Steven M. Warshawsky can be found at:

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/09/hillary_clinton_i_will_change.html

The Month Before Christmas

T’was the month before Christmas

When all through our land,

Not a Christian was praying

Nor taking a stand.

 

See the PC Police had taken away,

The reason for Christmas – no one could say.

 

The children were told by their schools not to sing,

About Shepherds and Wise Men and Angels and things.

 

It might hurt people’s feelings, the teachers would say

December 25th is just a “Holiday”.

 

Yet the shoppers were ready with cash, checks and credit

Pushing folks down to the floor just to get it!

 

CDs from Madonna, an X BOX, an I-pod

Something was changing, something quite odd!

 

Retailers promoted Ramadan and Kwanzaa

In hopes to sell books by Franken & Fonda.

 

As Targets were hanging their trees upside down

At Lowe’s the word Christmas – was no where to be found.

 

At K-Mart and Staples and Penny’s and Sears

You won’t hear the word Christmas; it won’t touch your ears.

 

Inclusive, sensitive, Di-ver-si-ty

Are words that were used to intimidate me.

 

Now Daschle, Now Darden, Now Sharpton, Wolf Blitzen

On Boxer, on Rather, on Kerry, on Clinton!

 

At the top of the Senate, there arose such a clatter

To eliminate Jesus, in all public matter.

 

And we spoke not a word, as they took away our faith;

Forbidden to speak of salvation and grace.

 

The true Gift of Christmas was exchanged and discarded

The reason for the season, stopped before it started.

 

So as you celebrate “Winter Break” under your “Dream Tree”

Sipping your Starbucks, listen to me.

 

Choose your words carefully, choose what you say

Shout MERRY CHRISTMAS, not Happy Holiday!

 

Impending doom… dogs know

Have you ever heard that a dog ‘knows’ when an earthquake is about to hit?

Have you ever heard that a dog can ’sense’ when a tornado is stirring up, even twenty miles away?

Do you remember hearing that, before the December tsunami struck Southeast Asia, dogs started running frantically away from the seashore, at breakneck speed?

Do you know that dogs can detect cancer and other serious illnesses and danger of fire?

Some how they always know when they can ‘go for a ride’ before you even ask and how do those dogs and cats get home from hundreds of miles away.

I ‘m a firm believer that animals – and especially dogs – have keen insights into the Truth.

And you can’t tell me that dogs can’t sense a potentially terrible disaster well in advance.

Simply said, a good ol’ hound dog just KNOWS when something isn’t right, when impending doom is upon us . . .

The Muslim Trojan Horse

This open letter from a former American student in Denmark contains a troubling message — and lesson — we can only hope that Americans will take to heart in reformulating our own immigration policy, before it is too late.

By Susan MacAllen

In 1978 & 1979 I was living and studying in Denmark.

But in 1978 – even in Copenhagen, one didn’t see Muslim immigrants. The Danish population embraced visitors, celebrated the exotic, and went out of its way to protect each of its citizens. It was proud of its new brand of socialist liberalism – one in development since the conservatives had lost power in 1929 – a system where no worker had to struggle to survive, where one ultimately could count upon the state as in, perhaps, no other western nation at the time. The rest of Europe saw the Scandinavians as free-thinking, progressive and infinitely generous in their welfare policies. Denmark boasted low crime rates, devotion to the environment, a superior educational system and a history of humanitarianism. Denmark was also most generous in its immigration policies – it offered the best welcome in Europe to the new immigrant: generous welfare payments from first arrival plus additional perks in transportation, housing and education. It was determined to set a world example for inclusiveness and multiculturalism. How could it have predicted that one day in 2005 a series of political cartoons in a newspaper would spark violence that would leave dozens dead in the streets – all because its commitment to multiculturalism would come back to bite?

By the 1990’s the growing urban Muslim population was obvious – and its unwillingness to integrate into Danish society was obvious. Years of immigrants had settled into Muslim-exclusive enclaves. As the Muslim leadership became more vocal about what they considered the decadence of Denmark’s liberal way of life, the Danes – once so welcoming – began to feel slighted. Many Danes had begun to see Islam as incompatible with their long-standing values: belief in personal liberty and free speech, in equality for women, in tolerance for other ethnic groups, and a deep pride in Danish heritage and history.

The New York Post in 2002 ran an article by Daniel Pipes and Lars Hedegaard, in which they forecasted accurately that the growing immigrant problem in Denmark would explode. In the article they reported:

“Muslim immigrants constitute 5 percent of the population but consume upwards of 40 percent of the welfare spending.”

“Muslims are only 4 percent of Denmark’s 5.4 million people but make up a majority of the country’s convicted rapists, an especially combustible issue given that practically all the female victims are non-Muslim. Similar, if lesser, disproportions are found in other crimes.”

“Over time, as Muslim immigrants increase in numbers, they wish less to mix with the indigenous population. A recent survey finds that only 5 percent of young Muslim immigrants would readily marry a Dane.”

“Forced marriages – promising a newborn daughter in Denmark to a male cousin in the home country, then compelling her to marry him, sometimes on pain of death – are one problem”

“Muslim leaders openly declare their goal of introducing Islamic law once Denmark’s Muslim population grows large enough – a not-that-remote prospect. If present trends persist, one sociologist estimates, every third inhabitant of Denmark in 40 years will be Muslim.”

It is easy to understand why a growing number of Danes would feel that Muslim immigrants show little respect for Danish values and laws. An example is the phenomenon common to other European countries and the U.S.: some Muslims in Denmark who opted to leave the Muslim faith have been murdered in the name of Islam, while others hide in fear for their lives. Jews are also threatened and harassed openly by Muslim leaders in Denmark, a country where once Christian citizens worked to smuggle out nearly all of their 7,000 Jews by night to Sweden – before the Nazis could invade. I think of my Danish friend Elsa – who as a teenager had dreaded crossing the street to the bakery every morning under the eyes of occupying Nazi soldiers – and I wonder what she would say today.

In 2001, Denmark elected the most conservative government in some 70 years – one that had some decidedly non-generous ideas about liberal unfettered immigration. Today Denmark has the strictest immigration policies in Europe. ( Its effort to protect itself has been met with accusations of “racism” by liberal media across Europe – even as other governments struggle to right the social problems wrought by years of too-lax immigration.) If you wish to become Danish, you must attend three years of language classes. You must pass a test on Denmark’s history, culture, and a Danish language test.

You must live in Denmark for 7 years before applying for citizenship. You must demonstrate intent to work, and have a job waiting. If you wish to bring a spouse into Denmark, you must both be over 24 years of age, and you won’t find it so easy anymore to move your friends and family to Denmark with you.

You will not be allowed to build a mosque in Copenhagen. Although your children have a choice of some 30 Arabic culture and language schools in Denmark, they will be strongly encouraged to assimilate to Danish society in ways that past immigrants weren’t.

In 2006, the Danish minister for employment, Claus Hjort Frederiksen, spoke publicly of the burden of Muslim immigrants on the Danish welfare system, and it was horrifying: the government’s welfare committee had calculated that if immigration from Third World countries were blocked, 75 percent of the cuts needed to sustain the huge welfare system in coming decades would be unnecessary. In other words, the welfare system as it existed was being exploited by immigrants to the point of eventually bankrupting the government. “We are simply forced to adopt a new policy on immigration.

The calculations of the welfare committee are terrifying and show how unsuccessful the integration of immigrants has been up to now,” he said.

A large thorn in the side of Denmark’s imams is the Minister of Immigration and Integration, Rikke Hvilshoj. She makes no bones about the new policy toward immigration, “The number of foreigners coming to the country makes a difference,” Hvilshoj says, “There is an inverse correlation between how many come here and how well we can receive the foreigners that come.” And on Muslim immigrants needing to demonstrate a willingness to blend in, “In my view, Denmark should be a country with room for different cultures and religions. Some values, however, are more important than others. We refuse to question democracy, equal rights, and freedom of speech.”

Hvilshoj has paid a price for her show of backbone. Perhaps to test her resolve, the leading radical imam in Denmark, Ahmed Abdel Rahman Abu Laban, demanded that the government pay blood money to the family of a Muslim who was murdered in a suburb of Copenhagen, stating that the family’s thirst for revenge could be thwarted for money. When Hvilshoj dismissed his demand, he argued that in Muslim culture the payment of retribution money was common, to which Hvilshoj replied that what is done in a Muslim country is not necessarily what is done in Denmark. The Muslim reply came soon after: her house was torched while she, her husband and children slept. All managed to escape unharmed, but she and her family were moved to a secret location and she and other ministers were assigned bodyguards for the first time – in a country where such murderous violence was once so scarce.

Her government has slid to the right, and her borders have tightened. Many believe that what happens in the next decade will determine whether Denmark survives as a bastion of good living, humane thinking and social responsibility, or whether it becomes a nation at civil war with supporters of Sharia law. And meanwhile, Americans clamor for stricter immigration policies, and demand an end to state welfare programs that allow many immigrants to live on the public dole. As we in America look at the enclaves of Muslims amongst us, and see those who enter our shores too easily, dare live on our taxes, yet refuse to embrace our culture, respect our traditions, participate in our legal system, obey our laws, speak our language, appreciate our history…we would do well to look to Denmark, and say a prayer for her future and for our own.

Pastor Chuck Baldwin on behalf of Ron Paul

By Pastor Chuck Baldwin

November 6, 2007

NewsWithViews.com

Recently, Iowa pastors gathered to hear my presentation in Des Moines on behalf of Republican Presidential candidate Ron Paul. After listening to me, they then heard ten-term Republican Texas Congressman Ron Paul himself.

Integrity: that is the issue drawing millions to Ron Paul, including young people. The night before I spoke, nearly 700 students gathered at Iowa State University in Ames to hear Dr. Paul. One of those students wrote me recently. His name is Nathan Rockman. He wrote, “As a columnist for the Iowa State Daily here on campus, I have seen first hand what can be described as Ron Paul fever. Since Dr. Paul visited this past Friday, his message of freedom and liberty has been spreading through campus like wildfire . . .”

Ron Paul doesn’t recruit artisan spin writers and bloggers to wear down those who might question his past dealings. He doesn’t need to. There are no missing hard-drives, ethics violations, and taxpayer funds used for personal use that need to be spun away. He still refuses to participate in the lucrative Congressional pension fund and returns a portion of his Congressional office budget back to the U.S. Treasury each year.

This kind of integrity moved Pastor Hartman, the students at Iowa State University, and many more like them.

Ron Paul has been fighting for the right to life from the beginning of his public career. Dr. Paul is rock-solid on pro-life. After all, he has helped over 4,000 women deliver their babies into the world in his obstetrics practice in Lake Jackson, Texas. He proposed the “Sanctity of Life Act of 2005″ (and 2007), which would require that “human life shall be deemed to exist from conception, without regard to race, sex, age, health, defect, or condition of dependency.” Has he recently discovered these pro-life convictions? Not at all. Congressman Paul introduced the Human Life Amendment in Congress in his very first term of Congress, a couple of years after Roe v. Wade was first handed down.

Is Ron Paul a libertarian, as some use in a throw-away line, often intended to move the listener to discard him without thought? Yes, on areas of fiscal, economic and judicial liberty, he is. But, he is also a social conservative and a Constitutionalist.

Ron Paul’s priorities are right with marriage. He and his wife, Carol, have been married for more than fifty years. He believes marriage should be between a man and a woman and defends that principle with his vote, where and when he has the Constitutional authority to do so. For example, Dr. Paul strongly supports the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Candidly, though, Ron Paul does not believe (and neither do I) that the U.S. Government needs to be defining that which God has already defined in His Word.

Where pastors often become confused about Ron Paul is that when he is resisting the unconstitutional centralization of our federal government, he is often perceived as being anti-family. Many in these pro-family movements themselves have been co-opted into believing that the solutions to our family problems come in the form of more unconstitutional federal legislation and programs. And when one does not agree with these unconstitutional remedies, they conclude that he or she is “anti-family.” Such people mean well but are confused.

America would be much better off if we Christian pastors taught the need for Christ-honoring resistance–at the local level–to anti-family federal intrusions. We should call on our congregations to vote out of office any judge who passes rulings designed to pervert the Biblical family. That doesn’t take a Constitutional amendment. It just takes courageous pastors and people who understand that judges, too, must respect the Constitution and our Christian heritage.

In fact, adherence to the Constitution protects our freedom of speech and assembly; our freedom of worship; our right to keep and bear arms; our right to a trial by jury; the right to be secure in our own homes against police overreach; our right to witness for Christ in public, as a Christian; the right to own property; the right to not be deprived of life or property without due process of law; the right to face our accusers, and the right to keep government local and limited.

Keeping government local and limited is the cornerstone doctrine of American government. Ron Paul understands this more than any other candidate running today.

Most of the problems that we are now dealing with socially, culturally, financially, etc., stem from America abandoning the basic founding principle that “the government that governs least governs best.”

Accordingly, America’s commitment to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has been (and is being) systematically stripped from us–not by State legislatures, but mostly by agencies of the federal government.

Consider how it has been federal courts that have banned prayer in school, and legalized abortion and homosexual marriage. Even in the liberal State of Massachusetts it was the courts (along with a compliant liberal governor, Mitt Romney), that forced acceptance of homosexual marriage upon the people.

The solutions to these problems do not reside in more federal legislation. All that does is strengthen the scope and power of the federal judiciary.

The only ones who have anything to fear from Ron Paul are those who believe in Big Government.

You see, Ron Paul is actually calling on us pastors and Christians to stop seeing the federal government as one “in whom we live and move and have our being.” Jesus Christ is our Savior and Lord, not the federal government. Have we not, in a material way, set up the federal government as our functional Lord and Savior? When we look to the federal government to solve our moral and spiritual problems, that is exactly what we are doing.

When it comes to the war in Iraq, I firmly believe that Christian conservatives have been duped by the neocons. Dr. Paul–an Air Force veteran and proponent of a strong national defense–opposed the unprovoked and pre-emptive invasion of Iraq, and rightly so. Time has certainly vindicated Dr. Paul’s principled position. There was a much better way to deal with al-Qaeda.

Soon after 9/11, Congressman Paul introduced H.R. 3076, the September 11 Marque and Reprisal Act of 2001. According to Paul, “A letter of marque and reprisal is a constitutional tool specifically designed to give the president the authority to respond with appropriate force to those non-state actors who wage war against the United States while limiting his authority to only those responsible for the atrocities of that day. Such a limited authorization is consistent with the doctrine of just war and the practical aim of keeping Americans safe while minimizing the costs in blood and treasure of waging such an operation.”

This is precisely what President Thomas Jefferson did when America’s ships were confronted with Barbary pirates on the high seas.

If the United States government had listened to Ron Paul, we would not have lost nearly 4,000 American soldiers and Marines, spent over $1 trillion, and gotten bogged down in an endless civil war from which there is no equitable extraction. Furthermore, had we listened to Dr. Paul, Osama bin Laden would no doubt be dead, as would most of his al-Qaeda operatives, and we would be less vulnerable to future terrorist attacks, instead of being more vulnerable, which is the case today.

One thing that Pastor Hartman brought up in our meeting in Iowa was the sentiment of many Christians and pastors to defend Israel. Dr. Paul stated that he did not believe that we do Israel any favors and we actually weaken Israel by our constant meddling and intervention. I agree.

Ron Paul is not Israel’s enemy. And neither is he the enemy to Christian liberty and constitutional government.

Ron Paul’s non-interventionist and constitutional foreign policy approach would help, not hurt, Israel to resolve tensions with their neighbors. Remember, Israel has more nuclear missiles to defend themselves than all of the Middle East nations combined. Believe me, Israel knows how to defend itself. And know this: America’s constant meddling curses Israel more than it blesses.

Also consider this: according to published reports such as this one in the Houston Chronicle, Ron Paul is receiving more donations from military personnel than any other Presidential candidate in either party. Think seriously about this. Our active duty and retired military personnel clearly endorse with their own contributions Ron Paul’s non-interventionist position above all others.

In the end, if the candidate is a sincere Christian, he will all the more readily obey his or her oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. After all, does not our Lord tell us that our yea is to be yea and our nay is to be nay? In other words, genuine believers are to be true to their word. How, then, could a true Christian make a promise before God and the American people to preserve, protect, and defend the U.S. Constitution and then turn around and ignore that promise?

Ron Paul lives his Christian faith and takes his oath to the Constitution seriously. What more could we ask for in a Presidential candidate? Every Christian pastor should seriously consider Congressman Ron Paul. Here is his website: www.ronpaul2008.com

© 2007 Chuck Baldwin – All Rights Reserved

Ft. Collins Boulderized: the Task Force that Denied Christmas

By Sheriff Jim Alderden

Ft. Collins is becoming more like the imbecilic borough of Boulder than many would like to admit; where social agendas substitute for common sense.

Last week, Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly righteously ridiculed the recommendations of Ft. Collins’ Holiday Display Task Force on The O’ Reilly Factor. For the uninformed, the Task Force recommended that only “white lights and secular symbols not traditionally associated with any particular holiday” be permitted. It further recommended “removing red ribbons from wreaths and removing stars and ornaments from trees.” Acceptable symbols of winter include “snowflakes, snowmen, snowballs, ice skates, skis, penguins, polar bears, white lights, etc.” (Penguins? This is dangerous territory. What about those of us who were traumatized by Danny DeVito’s performance as Oswald Cobblepot in Batman Returns? Skis? What about the poor who can’t afford to go skiing? How elitist and insensitive!) The Task Force managed to avoid any reference to Santa Claus, AKA St. Nick, but one would assume the jolly old gentleman would be banned due to the association of saints with religion.

While the secular progressives have tried to take Christ out of Christmas, supported and bolstered by the ACLU which is waging its own Jihad against Christianity, the majority of Americans, including those living in Larimer County and Ft. Collins, recognize and value our Christian heritage. Valuing our heritage while being tolerant of other religions!

Let us not forget that the separation of Church and State is a fairly modern creation of the Supreme Court, not the views of our Founding Fathers and certainly not expressly found in our Constitution. Our Founding Fathers fought in part for the right of citizens to freely express their religious beliefs. Express – not suppress. It seems that government at all levels is more interested in suppressing Christian beliefs. The recommendations of the Holiday Display Task Force are clearly designed to suppress the thanksgiving and joyfulness of Christians for the birth of Jesus Christ.

In the interest of political correctness and cultural diversity, the Ft. Collins’ Holiday Display Task Force caved to the left and denied the faith and heritage of the majority. It’s in vogue.

I would love to visit Israel some day. In a Jewish country, I would expect to see symbols such as the Star of David and Menorahs in the public square. In an Islamic country, one would expect to see symbols representing the faith of their nation. Why in America, a country founded on Judaic Christian values, would we exclude symbols of our faith from the public square? Why not display a Nativity scene?

The fact that we are even engaged in a discourse of whether Christmas trees and Christian symbols of faith should be allowed on city property is absurd. When one is sliding down a slippery slope, there comes a time to dig in your heels, grab the nearest branch, and hold on for dear life. Our country, and sadly our own community, has reached that point where people of faith and good conscience can no longer stand silently while a belligerent minority usurps our heritage and dictates how and where we express our religious freedoms. It is time to make a statement–to grab that branch, in this case a pine bough.

Most of the members of the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office are Christians and celebrate Christmas. We pray for the continued safety of our brothers and sisters in blue, and recognize that the laws we are sworn to uphold have their very foundation in the laws laid down by God through Moses. Our criminal codes are based on Judaic Christian doctrine. To deny that by restricting symbols of Christian faith on public property is beyond the pale. In recognition and celebration of Christmas, members of the LCSO will be displaying a Christmas tree – not a holiday tree – on our front lawn at 2501 Midpoint Drive. We will be decorating the tree on December 1 at 10:00 a.m. and invite members of the public who share our faith or object to government intrusion into our religious freedoms to join us.

In order to ensure that no tax dollars are spent on this “unauthorized” display, donations of lights and ornaments will be gratefully accepted. Might I suggest that red ribbons, stars, angels and multi-colored lights would be in order? We will strive for (dare I say) “uniformity,” not diversity, and request the largest and brightest LED lights, size C-9 ¼. ($9.99 at Walgreens with 50% off the second set.). Lights, decorations and donations can be dropped off at our headquarters and left in the lobby or vestibule at any time. (No frightening penguins.) Please attach your name so appropriate thanks and recognition can be given in our Bull Sheet publication. Donations for Santa Cops, to ensure a joyous Christmas for disadvantaged children in our community, will also be accepted. Please join our LCSO family and share our joy on December 1. Refreshments will be provided.

November 14, 2007

http://www.co.larimer.co.us/sheriff/bulls_Eye/BullEye.htm

Great answer to a dumb question from someone at CBS!!!

Katie Couric, while interviewing a Marine sniper, asked:

“What do you feel when you shoot a terrorist?”

The Marine shrugged and replied, “A slight recoil.”  

 

Lee Marvin, U. S. Marine

Hollywood liberals have been a bit offended that the actor, Lee Marvin, is buried in a grave at Arlington National Cemetery.

In a time when many Hollywood stars served their country in the armed services, often in rear echelon posts where they were carefully protected, only to be trotted out to perform for the cameras in war bond promotions, Lee Marvin served in battle.

Lee Marvin enlisted in the U.S. Marines, saw action as Private First Class in the Pacific during World War II. During the battle for Saipan, in June 1944, he was wounded, in the buttocks, by fire which severed his sciatic nerve.

Marvin received a Purple Heart and in 1987 was buried at Arlington National Cemetery.

America’s service men and women don’t flaunt what they do; they quietly go about their day-to-day lives, doing what they do best, protecting the freedoms that we all enjoy.

Look around and see if you can find one of those service men or woman. Take the time to thank them for protecting your freedom.

A Southern Nevada Man trumped the IRS in federal court by challenging the dual monetary system.

On a 106-degree May afternoon in 2003, government agents raided several establishments belonging to Southern Nevada businessman Robert “Bobby” Kahre. With guns drawn, officials held more than 20 handcuffed workers in the sun without water as agents collected records and other materials.

Kahre hadn’t committed a crime. He had upset the Internal Revenue Service by paying his workers based on the face value of gold and silver coins, versus the market value in the Federal Reserve system (the value of the coins in U.S. paper dollars). Even though the coins were in circulation, displayed a face value, and were regulated by Congress, the IRS’s confusing and endless tax code did not determine how to handle these gold and silver coins if used for payroll. The tax code only references dollars. It does not distinguish between coined money and paper money.

Kahre didn’t opt for the precious metal bullion system without first doing his homework. He consulted monetary experts, engaged in extensive research, and even met with congressmen. Kahre’s conclusion was simple: While the currency in the precious-metal system was greater in value than the currency in the other system, as money and a medium of exchange, the law knows no difference between the face value of both currencies.

The IRS expected Kahre to report his workers’ earnings based on the coins’ market value in the Federal Reserve system. Instead, he didn’t report or pay anything at all because the face value of the coins fell below the reporting threshold. The IRS alleged that Kahre and the other defendants paid at least $114 million (based on the Federal Reserve system) to workers. The use of these coins in trade is a direct challenge to the fiat money system now in place.

“Bobby Kahre is the only person in the world I know of with the courage to do that,” said Joel Hansen, a Las Vegas attorney who represented one of the nine defendants in the case.

While the purpose of the case was to identify the intent of the defendants, the trial that followed tested America’s dual monetary system and further validated that the U.S. greenback is quickly becoming more and more a worthless piece of paper.

In 1985, Ron Paul and other congressmen challenged our country’s currency system, which was monopolized by Federal Reserve Notes (FRNs) — the familiar greenbacks in American wallets. The congressmen successfully pursued the Gold Bullion Coin Act, which required the U.S. government to mint and place gold coins in denominations of $50, $25, $10 and $5 into circulation based on demand. The coins are made of 91.67 percent pure gold.

The ultimate purpose of the act was to allow Americans to invest in gold. However, it also brought sanity back to this country’s monetary system by establishing a dual system. Instead of the Federal Reserve solely providing the money supply by endlessly printing FRNs, the U.S. government now minted and circulated precious metal coins.

In the mid-’90s, Kahre began exercising this alternate system. He compensated workers for their labor in the form of these gold and silver coins versus FRNs. The workers calculated their income and tax liability based on the face value of the coins.

One gold coin with a face value of $50 currently equals $806 in FRNs. If a worker earns a $50 gold coin each week, that person takes home an annual income of $2,600 based on the precious metal system, which is below the income-tax reporting threshold for an employee. However, the value of the coins in FRNs — $41,912 — is not. That’s the basic idea.

The IRS did not fancy Kahre’s gold-and-silver payroll system, and after seven years of operating his family businesses in this fashion, he and eight others found themselves as defendants in a Las Vegas federal courtroom. Kahre was charged with 109 counts of tax-related crimes, varying from tax evasion to willful failure to file and conspiracy to evade taxes. Fifty-two other counts were divided among the other defendants.

While the case was about the intent of the defendants, it raised several issues. There was the issue of whether or not Kahre’s workers were considered independent contractors, who are responsible for paying their own taxes, or employees, who have their taxes withheld by their employer each pay period. Then there’s the issue of America’s dual monetary system. If there are two monetary systems, and the value of one system’s currency is greater than the other beyond its face value, what is the standard for determining the value of taxable income?

No Federal Court of Appeals has ever ruled that the gold coins in question must be reported to the IRS based on FRN market value.

“The defense showed that the defendants believed in good faith that a Federal Reserve Note is not the standard because Congress created the dual monetary system,” Hansen said. “The defendants believed that gold and silver coins are just as legitimate and legal as our other tender, the FRN.”

Kahre certainly caught the attention of the IRS. In addition to operating his businesses via the gold-and-silver payroll system, according to testimony at the trial, he helped 35 other contracting companies do the same.

But even though Kahre and his colleagues followed the dual monetary system mandated by Congress, the IRS didn’t care. To America’s most feared agency, the bottom line was Kahre’s workers weren’t taxed enough for their labor.

Based partially on cases that pre-dated the 1985 Gold Bullion Coin Act, the judge in the case did not allow defense attorneys to argue that Kahre was justified to pay workers based on the face value of the coins. Based on case law, the court concluded that income had to be calculated based on the FRN fair market value, rather than upon the face value.

A flaw with some of those cases was that each referred to double-eagle gold coins, which Franklin D. Roosevelt outlawed in 1934. Those coins are no longer in circulation like the coins minted by the U.S. government following the 1985 Act. The double-eagle coins were deemed to be property for tax purposes in those old cases.

Of course, the judge’s rule was binding upon the parties and was followed by the defense attorneys at the trial. Hansen, under the good faith belief defense, was able to present evidence that his specific client, Alex Loglia, who performed research work for Kahre, did not have intent to commit tax crimes. This interesting twist allowed jurors to still hear the argument that Kahre was justified to pay workers based on the face value of the coins. The U.S. Supreme Court had long before ruled, in the Cheek case, that a good defense in a tax-evasion case is a person had good faith in not following certain tax laws.

“The Supreme Court said, if they don’t have criminal intent, then they are not guilty of tax evasion,” Hansen explained. “That doesn’t mean you don’t have to pay the tax, but it means you didn’t commit a crime and won’t go to jail for a felony.”

In 2005, Loglia penned a paper that earned him an ‘A’ from his law school professor Jay Bybee (who just happens to also be a 9th Circuit judge) on the gold-coin issue and the separation of powers. His paper took the position that, under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 5 of the Constitution, Congress alone had the power to coin money and set its value.

Loglia’s position was that the judicial branch does not have this power.

“The judge applied those old court cases, but we were still able to make the argument that Alex was not criminally liable because he believed in good faith in the use of the face value of the gold and silver coins for tax purposes,” Hansen said. “Loglia’s 100-page legal paper was great evidence for the jury of his good faith belief.”

Beyond the courtroom, there is another significant issue with the Kahre case — it gives attention to the ever-decreasing value of the Federal Reserve Note.

One Euro is now worth $1.45 in FRNs. A Chinese Yuan buys the same as $1.34 in FRNs. Even the Canadian dollar is now more valuable than our paper currency. Compared to the American buck, it’ll buy seven cents more in goods and services.

“Because of how much stronger the Euro is compared to an American FRN, the Federal Reserve just pumped up to $50 billion of FRNs into Federal Reserve banks to prop up the banks,” Hansen said. “But when they do that, every dollar that you have in your pocket is now worth less.”

However, America’s other monetary system — gold and silver coins — does not decrease in value. It becomes more valuable in terms of FRNs. Americans, though, rely on the FRN, and its rapid decline will sooner than later decimate the middle class, Hansen said.

Take socialist Karl Marx’s theory, for example. He believed the most effective way to obliterate the middle class involved a system of progressive taxation coupled with inflation. In the Federal Reserve’s case, if the bank continues to inflate the currency so that everybody moves into higher and higher tax brackets, eventually everybody will pay 30 to 40 percent of their income to taxes in Federal Reserve Notes, all while the FRN decreases in value due to inflation.

“By using the gold coins, Kahre was beating Karl Marx, the socialists and the liberals who want people to pay more and more so they can have bigger and bigger government,” Hansen said. “Kahre challenged the whole system and that’s why the IRS came down so hard on him and his associates.

“The IRS doesn’t want this going on; they want you to use their fiat money and be forced into higher tax brackets through progressive taxation coupled with inflation. That way there’s no limit on the money they can issue and inflate.”

On Sept. 17, after four months of trial and days of deliberation, the Las Vegas federal jury returned with its verdicts. The courtroom was crowded as the IRS and Department of Justice filled the entire area on their side of the chambers with its officials.

Hansen was uncertain of what to expect. He just hoped that the jurors listened closely to the evidence presented.

“I could tell in the closing arguments, as I was watching the jury, that they were sympathetic to what I was saying. But what they were going to do, I did not know,” he recalled. “I think the government, because it had packed the courtroom, was confident they were going to get numerous guilty verdicts.”

Rather, jurors delivered zero guilty verdicts. Three defendants, all workers, were acquitted as well as Kahre’s mother, who worked as a runner for her son’s businesses. Two other defendants were partly acquitted — the jury hung on one count each. The jury also hung on all counts faced by Kahre, Loglia and Kahre’s sister, resulting in mistrials.

“I’m telling you that I have never seen such a dejected group of people leave a courtroom in my life,” Hansen said of DOJ and IRS officials. “They were shocked. Of course, we were pleased.

“The thing is, they had 161 counts and they did not get a guilty verdict on a single one. They got a big goose egg. We didn’t get not-guilty verdicts for everyone, but the government didn’t get anything.”

The IRS was supposed to notify the judge in late October if the agency intended to retry the five defendants on the charges that resulted in a hung jury. The government waffled, indicating they would pursue another grand jury and issue superceding indictments. More information will be known by mid-November.

Looking back, Hansen recalls what may have been a key turning point in the trial. The government called three accountants to testify. The defense asked each one, “What is the proper way to calculate income for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code if you are paid in a gold coin that has a $50 face value on it?” All three of them responded, “I do not know; I’ll have to research that.”

“One of them had a masters degree in taxation!” Hansen observed, saying their answers made it difficult to prove the defendants willfully committed tax crimes. “If accountants and masters of taxation don’t know the answer to this question, how in the world can they expect anything different from an ordinary person who is confronted with a dual monetary system created by Congress?”

Hansen believes it was uncalled for to prosecute Kahre and the other eight defendants criminally. The case revolved around a complicating and confusing legal issue. It should have been handled civilly, Hansen said, but the IRS wanted to make an example of these defendants because the federal government simply doesn’t want anyone paying a lower tax than what the feds determine should be paid.

“If a coin says it is a $50 gold piece, and it says ‘In God We Trust,’ and the law says that it is legal tender, and it is in circulation, isn’t it reasonable for people to think that they can calculate their tax liability based on that?” Hansen asks. “If a tax accountant can’t answer that question, how can a common worker be guilty of a crime? The outcome of this case is a magnificent victory for those of us who believe that the United States of America should have an honest monetary system.”

by Mike Zigler

http://www.liberty-watch.com/volume03/issue08/coverstory.php