Best of Bob

What is Money?

Mon, 27 Dec 2010 19:00:00 -0700

Definition of Money: In the 1990s here at Bob Enyart Live, I wrongly claimed that justice required a return to the gold standard, whereby currency was formerly backed by reserves of precious metals. Years ago you could return a $10 bill, also called a gold certificate, to a bank and receive a certain amount of gold. After studying and thinking about money for years, reading economic texts and reflecting on the Bible, asking questions of internationally renowned economists, I now know that the definition of money is not gold or silver (although they can be used as money). But money is more like a transferable IOU. Most accurately, money is the accounting of transferable incomplete transactions. That is what money actually is. You can see the rest of this at KGOV.com/money...

* Post-show Note: You're invited to also see our KGOV Political Spectrums chart and program.

Today’s Resource: You can enjoy one or two of Bob Enyart’s entertaining and insightful videos each month, mailed to you automatically, simply by subscribing to the BEL Monthly Topical Videos service! Also, you can check out the other great BEL subscription services!

Ken Hoagland vs. Bob on Nat'l Sales Tax

Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:00:00 -0600

* Ten Objections: Bob gave National Sales Tax author Ken Hoagland the first eight objections below to the FairTax, a National 22% Sales Tax (and he kept the last two objections for this list):

1. No Right of Conscription: The government does not have the right to force a businessman to become a tax collector, something that millions rightfully hate. Hoagland Reply: Just like Neal Boortz and other FairTax leaders over the last twenty years on BEL, Hoagland could not give a defense for this. And of course, excusing an injustice by saying we already do this is simply an admission that the proponent has no answer. (Boortz said he'd look into this point, and four years later, he's still looking into it.)

2. The FairTax Continues Confiscatory Taxation: The FairTax Solution's own description admits, "The FairTax produces the same amount of revenue" as the current oppressive tax system. Bob Enyart argues that the biggest problem with taxes in America is the horrendous amount of money taken. Regardless of how it is taken and of where the money comes from, giving absurdly vast tax revenues to a bloated socialist government is like giving heroin to an addict. Ken agreed with that lesser point, but he missed Bob's bigger point. "You're rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic when you change the method of confiscatory taxation but continue to rob the country of trillions of dollars." Hoagland Reply (this is the best BEL could make of it; listen to the show to get Ken's exact words): Ken justified the government's over-taxation throughout a man's life as a defense for the confiscatory amount of taxes raised by his own FairTax Solution. The argument appears convoluted and seems to go like this: Because the government has taken so much from a worker for fifty years, we propose continuing to take this money from everyone so that the government can pay us all back for the money it has taken from us all our lives. Huh? Bob responds to that: Valid tax reform would both cut the amount of taxes and remove injustices in the collection system (see 1 above).

3. Fraud Enticement to Strangers: A sales tax entices millions of strangers, who briefly meet, to conspire together to defraud the government, fueling an illicit underground economy with far more interactions between individuals. Why? Because we all buy and sell from a hundred times more people than we employ. This systemic encouragement for strangers to conspire to defraud the government makes a terrible impression on the children who grow up around such transactions and it generally undermines respect for government itself. Hoagland Reply: Disagreed that the buying and selling relationship will give opportunity to more people to defraud the government than the employment relationship does. (Ken probably misunderstood the point.)

Listener's comment: "From what I have seen in Canada, Bob Enyart is right on the money. This 22% tax seems downright socialist, and the scheme is filled with other pitfalls. Our 7% to 15% sales taxes in Canada has created a vast underground economy. Bob is right when he says that a sales tax will encourage strangers to conspire to commit tax fraud. Since the implementation of the 7% Goods and Services Act Revenue Canada doubled the number of auditors it employed. Also, in communities that are close to the boarder, a number of Canadians do their shopping in the United States to avoid our 15% sales tax. This has caused our customs service to become more concerned with the collection of the 7% GST than securing the border."

4. Start-up Impediment: A sales tax makes it far more difficult to enter into business, especially for the poor, the young, and those with less business capability. Not only do they have to meet all the demands of operating a competitive and profitable business, but the government forces them, for each transaction, to calculate a sales tax, to collect the tax, to segregate those funds, to resist temptation to use those funds in emergencies, to remit those funds, and to keep records of all those transactions. Hoagland Reply: The current system is bad, to which Bob replied, "Of course it's bad, so let's not fix it with something else that's bad."

5. Vastly Greater Transaction Cost: There are a billion sales transactions per day, but vastly fewer income tax transactions, which means that there is a far greater transaction cost to a sales tax than to an income tax. So the cost of processing 400 billion sales tax transactions per year is more than processing perhaps four billion income tax transactions per year. Hoagland Reply: The current system is bad, to which Bob replied, "Ken, your arguments are sounding to me like the man once a week beats a woman and says, "I used to beat you twice a week. What are you complaining about?"

6. Conflict of Economic Interest: Government will obsessively encourage spending and borrowing, rather than increased incomes, saving and investment. Hoagland: Bob raised this at the end of the show so Ken had no time to reply. Neal Boortz said this was a valid argument.

7. To Not Tax the Poor Hurts Them: Families earning under $30,000 annually should be able to walk down the street with their heads held high. However, the Fair Tax completely exempts those earning less than $27,000 from paying any tax, and so they will not have ownership in our society. The poor need to pay the same percent, as they will with a flat income tax, the same as everyone else, especially to build their own self respect. Hoagland Reply: The poor won't be exempted because everyone gets the "prebate" which is a monthly government check to a hundred million households to give everyone the amount of money that a "poor" family would pay monthly in taxes. Bob replied that this "prebate" was calculated specifically so that those with incomes under $27,000 would pay no taxes, so as with most of Bob's questions, Ken was not answering the question nor the objection, but just repeating details or changing the subject and not being responsive. Those making $25,000 a year need to pay taxes also.

8. You Don't Need a Sales Tax to Eliminate the IRS: A flat income tax does not require a tax collection agency. People can simply remit their taxes, just as a hundred million households currently pay their rent, utilities, cable bills, etc., and as businesses under an unjust sales tax would remit taxes. People are people, whether they own a business or not. Just do away with the IRS. Hoagland Reply: Ken didn't really have time to respond to this.

Two Bonus Points :)

9. It's the UnFair Tax: Paying a 22% sales tax on new goods is grossly unfair comparing the middle class to the poor and the super wealthy, with the unfair burden falling on the middle class, as it generally does with all creative economic proposals. With the "FairTax", the lower class pays no taxes. The super rich, who easily spend only a small percent of their income get taxed only on that small percent of their income. Whereas, the middle class gets taxed on approximately half of its income, all of which they spend just to survive.

10. God Did It: The Scriptures record God's solution to the problem of equitably and efficiently collecting revenue from the entire population for a centralized fund. God implemented a flat income tax of ten percent to fund the operations of the priesthood.

* Bob's Assessment of Ken Hoagland: Human beings have limitations on our ability to quickly comprehend and respond to arguments. Clearly, Ken Hoagland, like anyone else, would have a hard time responding to substantive objections like the ones above while hearing them in a quick radio interview. However, this is the third leader in the FairTax movement that Bob has interviewed, and it has become obvious that, to their credit, not one of them will say that the government has the right to force a man to become a tax collector. Debate over. Bob Enyart wins, and the national sales tax loses. These debates illustrate a specific, and then a general observation: Specifically, these FairTax leaders have not considered these substantive objections to their proposal and they are not comfortable thinking in terms of right and wrong, but rather, they use moral relativism: we're already doing this, etc. The general observation is that authors, talk show hosts, political activists, and the population at large has generally lost the ability to think in terms of right and wrong.

* Listen to Bob and Neal Boortz: Hear also Bob's FairTax debate with national spokesman and libertarian talk show host Neal Boortz. On air Boortz said he thought he did well in answering Bob's objections and promised the audience that he would link to his debate on KGOV from his own website. Neal Boortz broke his promise and to this date he has not kept his word and has not linked to his debate with Bob.

Today's Resource: Sometimes we Christians need a push forward to grow spiritually. After forty years as a Christian, these Growth Pack teachings represent Bob's best effort at disciplining other Christians to mature in his or her relationship with God!

Former BYU Professor Leaves Mormonism Pt. 2

Wed, 27 Nov 2013 19:00:00 -0700

Bob Enyart and Doug McBurney discuss the Book of Mormon and the untenable claims of the Latter Day Saints (LDS) church. Post-show note: Dr. Wilder says that she expects Mormons to officially endorse homosexuality (see kgov.com/superfluous-list), for without a true biblical foundation, they are vulnerable to every form of wickedness. And regarding the LDS generally, see kgov.com/mormonism, and for their sinful yet open support for abortion see prolifeprofiles.com/lds. And see Part 1 of our interview with Dr. Wilder.

Today's Resource: Learn the Key to the Plot Twist

Order Bob Enyart's best-selling book, The Plot! Or, you can listen to his seminars on The Plot and The Tree! Or get the entire set of all five of Bob'sPlot Bible Study Albums or check out The Plot Boys for Bible students of all ages! You'll love this powerful teaching through Scripture as you see that the overview of the Bible really is the only valid key to its details!

Former BYU Professor Leaves Mormonism

Tue, 26 Nov 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* On Mormons: Bob Enyart and Doug McBurney interview Lynn Wilder who taught young people preparing to be Mormon missionaries. Hear Dr. Wilder's encouraging testimony of the power of God to save even someone even from the depths of a cult. (See also kgov.com/cults.)

* The Pro-Abortion Mormon "Church": See also all the excuses the LDS church offers for the intentional dismemberment of unborn boys and girls, at ProlifeProfiles.com/Mormonism. Also, consider that the false teaching of the Book of Mormon regarding one of its central claims, that pre-Columbian American Indians were primarily of Jewish ancestry, has been falsified.

See also:
- Part 2 of Bob's Interview with Lynn Wilder
- Secret Recording of Bob Enyart talking to Mormons
- Bob's interview with Mark Cares, Speaking the Truth in Love to Mormons
- Bob's interview with Mark Cares (Part 2)
- Bob's interview with Matt Wilder of Adam's Road
- Screenshots from the official Mormon "church" website listing the kids they say you can kill
- Bob's interview with Brannon Howse on David Barton and Mitt Romney
- Bob debates an ex-Mormon polygamist
- Brigham (liked-'em) Young and so did Smith (just below)
- Coins and monetary units, every coin in the Bible has been excavated whereas the fake monetary units in the Book of Mormon of course have never been confirmed
- The BEL program, What Mitt Romney's Mormon Relative Says
Bonus: Here are some notes from that BEL program, What Romney's Mormon Relative Says:

* Bill Keller, Gregg Jackson & Bob Enyart: These three Christian activists present some of the uglier aspects of Mitt Romney's Mormonism including the cult's longtime claim, as reiterated by Marion Romney at the LDS General Conference, that Mormonism uniquely teaches that God the Father was once a man who grew up on a planet similar to Earth. Weird and heretical.

* God the Father was Once a Man said Brigham Young: Not speaking of the incarnation of the Son but speaking of the Father, LDS president, prophet, and successor to Joseph Smith, Brigham Young, said, "The idea that the Lord our God is not a personage of tabernacle [body] is entirely a mistaken notion. He was once a man. Brother Kimball quoted a saying of Joseph [Smith] the Prophet, that he would not worship a God who had not a Father... He [God] once possessed a body, as we now do..." -President & Prophet Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 9 see exmormon.org

* More Brigham Young: "...the Father of Heights... Yes, he was once a man like you and I are and was once on an earth like this, passed through the ordeal you and I pass through. He had his father and his mother and he has been exalted through his faithfulness, and he is become Lord of all. He is the God pertaining to this earth. He is our Father." -President & Prophet Brigham Young, 14 July 1861 see exmormon.org

* Mormon Prophet and President Lorenzo Snow:
Again, not speaking of the incarnation but of the Father, Snow said, "I had a direct revelation of this. ... If there ever was a thing revealed to man perfectly, clearly, so that there could be no doubt or dubiety, this was revealed to me, and it came in these words: "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may be." - President & Prophet Lorenzo R. Snow, Unchangeable Love of God see exmormon.org

* Mormon "Church" President Equivocates: LDS president Gordon Hinkley in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle lied and then equivocated...
Q: There are some significant differences in your beliefs. For instance, don't Mormons believe that God [the Father] was once a man?
A: [Lying] I wouldn't say that. There was a little couplet coined, "As man is, God once was. As God is, man may become." Now that's more of a couplet than anything else. [And equivocating] That gets into some pretty deep theology that we don't know very much about.
Q: So you're saying the church is still struggling to understand this?
A: Well, as God is, man may become. We believe in eternal progression. Very strongly.

* Brigham (liked-'em) Young and so did Smith: Some early Mormons denied that their earliest leaders were polygamists and it was claimed that Brigham (liked-'em) Young introduced the practice. Young had 55 wives. He married ten teenagers while in his 40s including 15-year-old Clarissa Decker when he was 42 and 16-year-old Lucy Bigelow when he was 45. Also, from age 41 to age 66, Young married 23 women in their 20s. Finally in 2014 the Mormon "church" acknowledged that their founder Joseph Smith had up to 40 wives (some historians put it at 49), taking single and even married women. The church claims that some of these marriages were without physical relations, which they would seeing that Smith's youngest bride, Helen Kimball, was only 14, the marriage listed by Smith's own clerk as one of the women the founder married in early May 1843. Helen would later write:

[My father] asked me if I would be sealed to Joseph … [Smith] said to me, 'If you will take this step, it will ensure your eternal salvation & exaltation and that of your father's household & all of your kindred.['] This promise was so great that I willingly gave myself to purchase so glorious a reward.

Lorenzo Snow, mentioned above, the fifth president, 1989 - 1901, only had nine wives, though a number of them were teenagers half (and much less than half) his age.

Recall that the Koran includes Mohammad's warning to his first wife that she faced eternal punishment for objecting to him lying with the young Coptic servant girl whom, allegedly, "Allah" had "made lawful" to him, so too, Joseph Smith dictated a similar warning to his first wife Emma in the founder's "inspired" Doctrine and Covenants. And we see above that though 14-year-old Kimball wasn't threatened she was similarly manipulated nonetheless.

* Mitt Romney's Second Cousin Once Removed: "...like begets like [i.e., reproduction after its kind; an organism begets similar organisms] and that for the offspring to grow to the stature of his parent is a process infinitely repeated in nature. We can therefore understand that for a son of God to grow to the likeness of his Father in heaven is in harmony with natural law... This is the way it will be with spirit sons of God. They will grow up to be like their Father in heaven. Joseph [Smith] taught this obvious truth. As a matter of fact, he taught that through this process God himself attained perfection. From President Snow's understanding of the teachings of the Prophet on this doctrinal point, he coined the familiar couplet: "As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become." This teaching is peculiar to the [LDS] restored gospel of Jesus Christ." -Elder Marion G. Romney, General Conference, October 1964 see exmormon.org

* No Cities, No Money: Archaeologists and historians have confirmed the existence of scores of biblical cities. However, the No true Scotsman informal fallacy notwithstanding, not a single one of the 38 cities mentioned by Joseph Smith in the Book of Mormon have been recognized by any notable secular historian or archaeologist. And while every coin in the Bible has been found and documented, none of the monetary units described in the Book of Mormon have ever been found.

* Mormonism Falsely Claims that Indians are Jews: One of the central historical claims of the Book of Mormon, as stated in its introduction as late as 1981, is that Jews were "the principal ancestors of the American Indians" and that would include the Aztecs, Incas, Mayans, Navajos, etc., are Jews. This false teaching states that some Jews left Jerusalem by ship in about 600 B.C. and built a great civilization in the Americas. Also wrongly about the Americas, "The whole face of the land had become covered with buildings" (Mormon 1:7) including with “fine workmanship… in machinery, and also in iron and copper, and brass and steel, making all manner of tools” (Jarom 1:8; 2 Nephi 5:15) with “silks… oxen… cows… sheep… horses… donkeys… elephants…” (Ether 9:17-19) and "shipping and their building of ships, and of synagogues" and “swords… shields… head-plates… armor…” (Alma 43:18-19; Ether 15:15). None of this is true.

* The Lembas: An African tribe, the Lembas, have long been believed to be descendants of the Jews, for they circumcise, keep the Sabbath and the dietary law, and in their DNA they possess the Jewish genetic marker, being perhaps the descendants of King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. DNA research shows that American Indians are not related to the Jews, nor closely related to any Semitic peoples or the descendants of Shem, but rather, that they are primarily of Hamitic stock, from Asian people, having migrated to the Americas not by sailing the Atlantic but by crossing the Bering Straight.

* Genetics Confirms Actual Biblical Relationships: In contrast to genetic predictions based on the Bible, those based on the Book of Mormon fail. Regarding the origin 4,000 years ago of people groups descended from Abraham, Dr. Jonathan Sarfati quotes the director of the Human Genetics Program at New York University School of Medicine, Dr. Harry Ostrer, who in 2000 said:

Jews and Arabs are all really children of Abraham … And all have preserved their Middle Eastern genetic roots over 4,000 years.

This familiar pattern, of the latest science corroborating biblical history, continues in Dr. Sarfati's article, Genesis correctly predicts Y-Chromosome pattern: Jews and Arabs shown to be descendants of one man.

* Likewise, Jewish Priests Share Genetic Marker: The journal Nature in its scientific correspondence published, Y Chromosomes of Jewish Priests, by scientists from the University of Arizona, Haifa (Israel's) Technical Institute, and University College of London, who wrote:

These Y-chromosome haplotype differences confirm a distinct paternal genealogy for Jewish priests.

As expected, genetic science does not reinforce but rather contradicts Mormon claims. The obvious falsehood extends beyond genetics to culture, religion, and history. Contrariwise, because the Judeo-Christian Scriptures are true, mountains of evidence corroborate their historic claims. Regarding Jewish priests, Dr. Sarfati adds to the above that, "These Jews have the name Cohen, the Hebrew for priest, or variants like Cohn, Kohn, Cowen, Kogan, Kagan, etc." and that, "Even today, it is possible to identify the Levites, because they have names such as Levy, Levine, Levinson, Levental..."

* If You Fear Obama, You'll Vote for Romney; If You Fear God, You Won't: Don't fear Obama. Fear God, for that is the beginning of wisdom! Besides, Obama is Romney-lite. And because Romney has already implemented policies that are so destructive that Obama only dreams of accomplishing such things, therefore, a vote for Romney is a vote for Obama.

Today's Resource: Meet the Apostle John. He was the youngest of the Twelve. And at the time of this writing, he's now one of the last remaining. If you were an eyewitness to Christ's earthly ministry, what would concern you decades after the resurrection? From the battles that John fought we can learn lessons that will help us as we ourselves fight for the truth and battle false teaching within the church. By looking at "the things that differ," we can know what details in John's three epistles applied to the circumcision believers of his day and which of his teachings apply directly to us. Available on this 4-DVD Video Set and also in audio on MP3-CD or MP3 Download.

* THE CONCLUSION OF THE MATTER: Make sure you don't miss Part 2 of Bob Enyart's great interview with former BYU professor Lynn Wilder.

Leading Cancer Researchers Blaming Abortion

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* A Second National Cancer Institute Researcher Reports Abortion Link.

* Breast Cancer Rates Going Up, Especially the Deadliest Kinds: The London Daily Mail, the Journal of the American Medical Association, WorldNetDaily, the New York Times, and new studies out of China and France have been reporting the terrible increase in breast cancer rates, often of the most deadly types of breast cancer, such as TNBC and the metastizing types, and and that is especially for women who've had abortions and women taking oral contraceptives. Bob Enyart is joined in studio by Leslie Hanks, president of American Right To Life and Karen Malec, director of the Abortion/Breast Cancer Coalition.

* First NCI Senior Researcher to Reverse Herself: Louise A. Brinton, largely responsible for getting the government-funded National Cancer Institute to deny the abortion-breast cancer link, has co-authored a new study which describes significant risk factors, including "induced abortion." The study also says that these risk factors are "consistent with the effects observed in previous studies on younger women." Endocrinologist Dr. Joel Brind of NYC's Baruch College joins Bob Enyart and Doug McBurney toward the end of the program to discuss this dramatic development! Also, hear about the 320% increase in risk for women taking the birth control pill to develop TNBC, Triple Negative Breast Cancer, a particularly aggressive and treatment-resistant cancer. Learn more at AbortionBreastCancer.com. Update: Further, while the U.S. study shows that abortion is the "best predictor of breast cancer" two more studies, now from China and Turkey, also show the link between breast cancer and abortion.

* Second National Cancer Institute Scientist to Confirm Abortion Link: "Pro-choice" Janet Daling has reported that “[A]mong women who had been pregnant at least once, the risk of breast cancer in those who had experienced an induced abortion was 50 percent higher than among other women.”

* Sources:

- London Daily Mail: Abortion 'triples breast cancer risk': Fourth study finds link
- Christianity Today: Rising breast cancer rates caused by abortion, birth control pills, says experts
- WorldNetDaily: Evidence Mounts: Abortion, Birth Control Cause Cancer
- "Risk Factors for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer," Brinton, et al., American Assoc. for Cancer Research, 2009
- Dr. Brind's reporton this NCI researcher's peer-reviewed paper
- AmericanRTL.org/cancer.
- CRTL's Race for the Cure Protest
- Abortion/BreastCancer.com
- The New York Times: Study Sees More Breast Cancer at Young Age
- Journal of the American Medical Association, Feb. 2013: Incidence of Breast Cancer With Distant Involvement Among Women in the United States, 1976 to 2009

* From Previous Interviews with Dr. Joel Brind: The baby is not part of the mother's body. How do we know that? Half the time the fetus is a boy. Always the mother is female. Her son’s Y chromosome cannot be part of mom. He’s a genetically distinct individual. And whether it’s a baby boy or girl, the baby is not the woman’s body, but has his or her own body within mom. As Dr. Brind explains, the unborn baby’s first cry for food is actually a pheromone signal, from one organism to another. A hormone is a chemical signal between organs within an organism, but the baby’s request is a human pheromone. So while still traveling toward the womb, the fetal cry lets mom know the baby’s already hungry! (Hear Joel Brind in studio with Bob Enyart.)

Today's Resource: Please consider emailing this helpful description of Focus on the Strategy II to another Christian who may be an asset in the personhood movement after viewing this groundbreaking DVD!

March is BEL Telethon Month

We're at $1,800 of our $25,000 goal. Thank you! Please consider one or more of our monthly subscriptions that will not only help support BEL, they will also help to better understand the Bible and equip you to be a better witness to those around you.

1. Monthly Sermons on audio CD. For many years we have offered the sermons on MP3-CD, but now you can get the Monthly Sermons on standard audio Compact Disc that will play on any CD player, including the one in your car. All of the sermons from the month will be sent to you in a multiple CD album.

2. Monthly Bible Study Videos - You will receive a months worth of weekly Bible studies each month. These video Bible studies are great for starting a family Bible study of even a neighborhood study.

3. Monthly Sermon Videos - You will receive all sermons from the month will be sent to you on DVD. Video is a great way to watch the sermons with your family.

4. Monthly Bible Study Audios on MP3- CD.

5. Monthly Sermon Audios on MP3-CD.

6. Monthly Topical Videos - Each month your will get one of Bob's great topical videos.

7. Best of Bob - Each month you get the best 8 shows of the month on MP3-CD.

8. Monthly TV Classics

9. Monthly Donation

* Free Gift: When you subscribe to any monthly subscription or monthly donation, or a one time donation of $50.00 or more, we will send you as a gift your choice of any BEL video or audio resource from our KGOV Store.

Order online or call 303-463-7789 or 1-800-8Enyart.

Bob Answers Life's BIG Questions

Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* Life’s Big Questions: Bob’s co-host Doug McBurney asks Bob some of life’s BIG questions. You know, the questions that college professor might rhetorically ask his students on day one of classes. Tune in to hear the answers that should be coming from the professors, the politicians and the pastors!

The Clue that Breaks the Ramsey Case

Tue, 29 Jan 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* DNA Update -- History Repeats Itself: Twice now Boulder District Attorneys have misled the public in the JonBenet Ramsey murder case. [KGOV updated this report on Oct. 28, 2019.]

- DNA Not from a Single Intruder: In 2016 Boulder's Daily Camera and Denver's 9News obtained the crime scene DNA report and their undisputed analysis found that in two of the three DNA specimens, the "a 3rd person's genetic markers" were present. The Camera's headline: DNA in doubt: New analysis challenges DA's exoneration of Ramseys. Further, from USA Today, "three forensic experts who examined the DNA test results and lab reports used by [D.A. Mary] Lacy say they do not support her conclusion. For one thing, a sample on [JonBenet's] underwear identified as coming from 'Unknown Male 1' may in fact be a composite from multiple people". That the DNA was not of a single person but from multiple people removes the "best evidence" for the intruder theory. Further, District Attorney Lacy had been told that the foreign DNA was from multiple people and not from a single intruder! Yet in 2008 Lacy became the second Boulder D.A. to grossly mislead the public, in her case through confirmation bias by withholding the whole truth and implying that the DNA pointed to a single intruder. Of course, this brand new revelation, DNA specimens on JonBenet's underwear from multiple persons, reinforces the theory of the case argued on air for two decades by Denver radio talk show host Bob Enyart.

- Grand Jury Votes to INDICT the Ramseys: The previous district attorney in liberal Boulder, Alex Hunter, in 1999, effectively lied to the nation, mislead everyone into believing that the Ramsey Grand Jury had not voted to indict the parents. The Denver Post quoted Hunter, "The grand jurors have done their work extraordinarily well... we do not have sufficient evidence to warrant the filing of charges against anyone who has been investigated..." But as not revealed until 2013 by the newspaper of record, the Boulder Camera, with this headline: JonBenet Ramsey grand jury voted to indict parents in 1999! This revelation startlingly fulfilled a predicted parallel with the murder case of Robert Redford's daughter's boyfriend. As lead detective Steve Thomas wrote in his bestselling 2000 book JonBenet, "Hunter can continue to dodge questions about what really happened. But it took fifteen years to learn of the deal that was made that cripplled the Thayne Smika grand jury, and no lie can live forever." Prediction confirmed. So the Ramsey grand jurors, even without hearing from the lead detectives and without summoning John and Patsy, voted to indict them with multiple felonies including child abuse resulting in death, as is consistent of course with this BEL report, The Clue the Breaks the Case.

JonBenet Ramsey

District Attorneys Hunter and Lacy grotesquely misled the public, illustrating that the bureaucracy in an easy-on-crime college town cannot be trusted. (For example, Hunter admitted his city plea-bargained more than 93% of its cases. But that included nearly 100% of its felony cases, such as requiring only three years probation, served in the Caribbean no less, for the fugitive caught 11 years after slitting from ear to ear the throat of a man on the Pearl Street Mall. Hunter also cut a deal to not prosecute the murderer of the boyfriend of Robert Redford's daughter.) So consider instead this report (or listen to today's Bob Enyart Live) from a long-running Denver talk radio program that airs on Colorado's most-powerful radio station, the 50,000-watt AM 670 KLTT. So from our own efforts toward obtaining justice for JonBenet prior to God's coming day of judgment, we submit to you:

The Clue that Breaks the Case

Some evidence in the JonBenet Ramsey murder points toward her parents and other evidence seems to clear them. If the whole truth could be discerned, it would explain every piece of evidence, because real events produced every bit of the crime scene. Sometimes, a single key opens many doors, and one piece pulls the puzzle together. JonBenet's murderer inadvertently put the key piece of evidence into the ransom note.

On Christmas night 1996, at 755 15th Street (retagged now as 749 15th St.), in the Boulder Colorado mansion of her parents, John and Patricia Ramsey, JonBenet was murdered. Death resulted from both a severe blow to the head that fractured her skull across the length of her head, and by strangulation with a cord tightened with a broken stick around her neck. The six-year-old girl had also been vaginally assaulted prior to her death. Consider the following observations:

Ransom note on tight spiral stairway

· Patsy Ramsey called 911 at 5:52 a.m. on Dec. 26 telling police that her daughter was missing and that she had found a ransom note. Patsy told the police that while walking down their back stairs, a spiral staircase, she found the note laid out in three pages across one of the lower steps. Investigators had a hard time reenacting Patsy's steps on the steep, tight spiral stairway without falling or stepping on the note. (A few months later, reading the handwriting sample from JonBenet's 20-year-old half-brother John Andrew Ramsey, the detectives noted a familiar theme heard from family and friends. "I think it was someone that had intimate knowledge of my family and how we lived day to day. [For example, why] would they leave the ransom note on the back staircase instead of the front?")

· Boulder's 911 operator Kim Archuletta says, "I just remember having that sunken feeling... The problem was, if you hear the frantic in her voice when she's speaking to me, where she couldn't even answer my questions, it immediately stopped... it sounded like she said 'Okay, we've called the police, now what?' And that disturbed me... To me, it seemed rehearsed…"

· At 5:55 a.m. neighbors Fleet and Priscilla White are called to the Ramsey home, along with other friends. (Incidentally, before 6:45 a.m., John Ramsey telephoned his pilot.)

· Detectives found a partial draft of the ransom note in the home, and the legal pad on which the final ransom had been written on three of seven pages torn from the center of the pad. And although it may seem too obvious even to point out, realize that unlike in the JonBenet Ramsey murder:
- a kidnapper doesn't write the ransom note in the house
- a kidnapper doesn't write that he respects his victim's business
- a kidnapper doesn't molest the victim in the house
- a kidnapper doesn't kill the victim in the house
- a kidnapper doesn't ask for money for a corpse
- a kidnapper doesn't hang out writing and rewriting a note
- a kidnapper doesn't leave the victim behind in the house
- a kidnapper doesn't forget to call to arrange to get the ransom money
- a kidnapper doesn't break in on Christmas risking family stay overs
- a kidnapper doesn't put oversized underwear found in the house on the victim
- a kidnapper doesn't bring someone to the crime (3rd person's DNA on a stain), and
- a kidnapper certainly doesn't do ALL of the above.
A predator, likewise, doesn't break in to molest a child while the parents are home and he sure doesn't stop to write a ransom note. (If it helps to think through these observations, replace the word kidnapper above with "intruder". And as Det. Thomas has asked, "Would an intruder take the trouble to fake an elaborate kidnapping to disguise a murder?")

· Ransom note excerpts: "Mr. Ramsey, Listen carefully! We are a group of individuals that represent (sic) a small foreign faction. We respect your bussiness (sic) but not the country that it serves. At this time we have your daughter in our posession (sic). She is safe and unharmed and if you want her to see 1997, you… will withdraw $118,000… I will call you between 8 and 10 am tomorrow to instruct you on delivery. The delivery will be exhausting so I advise you to be rested. If we monitor you getting the money early, we might call you early to arrange an earlier delivery of the money and hence an earlier pickup of your daughter. Any deviation of my instructions will result in the immediate execution of your daughter. … You can try to deceive us, but be warned we are familiar with Law enforcement countermeasures… You and your family are under constant scutiny (sic) as well as the authorities. Don't try to grow a brain John. … Don't underestimate us John. Use that good, southern common sense of yours. It's up to you now John! Victory! S.B.T.C."

· The note's time element indicates it was composed around midnight. "At this time we have your daughter… I will call you [by] 10 am tomorrow…"

· Consider the phrase, "I advise you to be rested." A kidnapper would not normally give such advice to his victims. And as the detectives have pointed out, no one urges "sleeping people" to get rest.

· The ransom note refers to JonBenet 14 times but never by name. In typical "distancing fashion", and like the 911 call itself, the note states for example, "if you want her to see 1997" avoiding the personal, "If you ever want to see JonBenet again..." The "ransom" note uses the clearly fake "we" but a few times the writer forgets that ruse and just writes "I".

· The letter, abnormally long for a ransom note, would have taken 21 minutes just to write, plus the time to compose and to write the draft version.

· After the note was complete, Patsy's pad of paper was returned to its place on her hallway desk and the pen used was also returned to its place by the phone in the kitchen, the actions of either a very tidy intruder or a mother dispersing the office supplies she used to write the note.

· The ransom demanded a relatively small ransom, exactly equal to Mr. Ramsey's annual bonus as president and CEO from Access Graphics, the billion-dollar company that he helped launch.

· Detectives found Ramsey handwriting samples in the home that were similar to the style on the "ransom" note.

· The note's immediate misspellings and grammatical error: bussiness, posession, represent[s], were intended to establish the author's ignorance. But, assuming the misdirection was accomplished, the author slid into a more natural use of terms that belie a better education. Adequate, attache, countermeasures, and hence betray the attempted deception. Scutiny for scrutiny was the final reminder of being uneducated. The Ramseys later public use of not only "hence", but the even somewhat less common "and hence", and the particular way in which they used the phrase, are consistent with Ramsey authorship.

· Considering the possibility of an intruder, the police looked for but saw no footprints around the house or outside its windows or in the frost coating of the balcony outside JonBenet's room. Photographic evidence and the early local news reports contradict the later claims that the weather and yard condition were insufficient for an intruder to leave footprints. (Boulder's daily weather data available since 1897, not available officially for December 1996 from the Boulder-located NOAA, yet perhaps preserved here.) Reportedly, the evening of December 25th saw very light snow in Boulder with a temperature range on the 26th from 30 to 53 degrees Fahrenheit. However, neither the lawn nor the slowly melting snow recorded the footprints of any intruder. (By the way, with Boulder at 40 degrees N and the winter Sun low in the sky, the shadows at the Ramsey's east-facing house timestamp this Dec. 26th crime scene photo as just after noon.)

· A room on the opposite side of the basement from JonBenet's body had a wooden casement window with broken glass. John Ramsey indicated that previously he had broken that pane to break into the house. Detectives noted that window had a dusty sill and a large unbroken spiderweb in its upper left corner. (Officers had noted likewise throughout the house cobwebs and painted-closed and undisturbed dust and debris on window sills.) However, regarding the claim of an intruder, the city's police chief later wrote, "Most investigators do not believe there was a legitimate point of entry. It is unknown how an intruder may have gotten in. [Colorado Springs investigator] Lou Smit always believed it was the basement window, but we did not agree with him, as the dust and spider web were undisturbed." Smit in the photo, right, attempted to vindicate the parents but instead makes it obvious that the dust and web disprove the favorite version of the intruder theory. (An accomplished detective, Smit began investigating the Ramsey case with one of the greatest possible biases. He had received alcolades for solving a 1991 case arresting a professed serial murderer who confessed to killing a 13-year-old girl whose father had been wrongly suspected. As though he were reworking the case that made him famous, he once again proclaimed a suspected father innocent, this time, after less than three days in Boulder.)

· There were no signs of forced entry. The alarm system had not been activated. Four people were known to be in the house that night, JonBenet, her parents and her nine-year-old brother Burke. The parents didn't search their son's room for a possible intruder and instead left him alone there throughout much of that day.

· A paintbrush handle was broken in two to make from one half the garrote used to strangle the daughter. Identified by the matching broken ends and multicolored splatter, the other half of the brush was found in a nearby basement room put away in Patsy's plastic tote box that contained her painting supplies. (This was similar to all the "putting away" instances in the crime. The murderer put away into their separate places both the pad and the marker used to write the "ransom" note, and closed two doors, first the one to JonBenet's bedroom and lastly, where someone gently wrapped her in a blanket "like a papoose", as John put it, the door to the basement's far storage room. That door was not only closed but fastening shut with a latch.) On the floor next to Patsy's paint supplies box were the very splinters showing where someone fashioned the murder weapon.

· The Boulder police have no evidence pointing to Burke and have never considered him a suspect in the strangulation (see photo of garrote knot) murder of his sister. (The lack of upward drag marks on the child's neck indicates that she was strangled only and not dragged with it by Burke as some have claimed.) Of course physically, he could have swung the flashlight that may have been what cracked her skull. But that does not explain the complete lack of personal affection toward their daughter in the "ransom" note, such as the fourteen references to her but never by name. The Ramseys knew Boulder, Colorado was a bastion of liberalism. Burke injuring his sister would lead to a frantic 911 call, not to the staging of a molestation (see the Bloomingdale's underwear, below) and murder scene. Even if the sister had died, and especially with the army of lawyers the family could afford, the city would view it as accidental killing of a sibling by a nine-year-old child and Burke would probably not be punished at all. Also, the parents would realize that their well-being would be vulnerable, for decades to come, on Burke not blurting out the truth and exposing them. Further, the sibling theory does not explain the extraordinary behavior of the parents and letting their warning fester for years, of "hold your babies tight" because there's a murderer on the loose.

· Detective Linda Arndt, who had arrived before 8:30 a.m. became the only law enforcement officer on the scene after the other officers had left at 10:30 a.m. until the discovery of the body at 1:05 p.m., remembers Mr. Ramsey's demeanor when he initially greeted her as not distraught nor even upset, but cordial.

· Arndt says that the Ramseys did not spend those morning hours in each other's company. While typically, parents cling to one another when a child is injured or killed, Patsy stayed in the sunroom with friends and John stayed mostly in his den, and read his mail in the kitchen (and as he later admitted, snuck off to the basement at one point).

· When asked that morning who might be responsible for the crime, John gave police the name of an employee; and Patsy gave the name of one of her housekeepers. Really.

· Arndt says that 10 a.m., the ransom note deadline, passed unnoticed. She says that the Ramseys did not remark whatsoever regarding the fact that the kidnapper had not called. This was a full three hours before John Ramsey "discovered" his daughter's body.

· Arndt says that she asked the Ramseys and their friends to examine the ransom note for clues, and that almost everyone offered ideas to her except Mr. Ramsey.

· Linda Arndt, who by all appearances months later had a nervous breakdown over the case, says at the time that she was confused about why the Ramseys would not speak to her.

· Arndt suggested Mr. Ramsey search the home. (Up to that moment, at 1 p.m., he hadn't even looked into each room in their house for his daughter.)

· The only FBI agent on the scene that day, Ron Walker, has stated that, "Virtually every staged murder scene that I have seen, the perpetrator manipulates the arrival of friends or other family members, who are then put in a situation where they actually discover the body, or they are with the perpetrator as the body is discovered." So at this point John Ramsey grabbed his friend Fleet White by the arm and "made a beeline" for the basement door, there discovering JonBenét's body.

· When they came upon the corpse in the basement, Ramsey ripped the duct tape from her mouth and picked up the 47 inch long, 45 pound body. The sticky side of the tape had a perfect imprint of the young girls lips, but no indication of a protruding tongue or any effort to dislodge the tape. Thus the tape was used as a prop in staging a scene to make it look like the girl was being abducted.

· A cord was tied, far too loosely to restrain a living child, on the dead girl's wrists to stage an abduction scene.

· The circuitous route to the basement wine cellar where the body was "found" would be very difficult to navigate by a stranger, especially at night, especially if the child had been struggling, and especially when the staircase light switch is not in an expected location on a wall, but above and behind someone entering the stairs. Patsy's mother Nedra Paugh repeated to the detectives what had become a theme from family, a former nanny, and friends. "You couldn't find the basement in that house if you didn't know where it was. You know it was down, but which door would you go through to find it? There's a lot of doors that look like a basement door in that house."

· When Fleet White ran upstairs shouting for an ambulance, Priscilla White and Barbara Fernie left their friend on a couch and hurried toward the comotion but Patsy stayed where she was.

· Arndt saw Mr. Ramsey carrying the body from the basement, JonBenet's unsupported arms extended above her head, and realized that rigor mortis had set in, and that she had been dead for some time. Arndt quotes the father as telling her just then, "It has to be an inside job."

· Such rigor mortis sets in after about six to twelve hours. There was also the scent of decomposition.

· Patsy said her daughter went to bed wearing a red turtleneck although that was found balled up in her bathroom and she was instead wearing what she had worn at the Christmas party, a white pullover. (Patsy for years dealt with severe bed-wetting and similar challenges with her daughter. Detectives took note of this while considered the change of clothes and the unanimous opionion of their pediatric panel that JonBenet suffered previous abuse.)

· At 1:30 p.m. a detective overheard John Ramsey talking by phone to his pilot and arranging a trip to Atlanta that evening for himself, his wife and son. Det. Sgt. Larry Mason told him, "You can't leave."

· Literally, within only a few hours of finding their daughter's dead body, the Ramseys began assembling their team of many lawyers and private investigators. John hired separate attorneys for him and Patsy. They paid for lawyers for a number of other family members, and very early even hired a high-powered public relations expert. In the early days of the case the Boulder police unwisely treated the Ramseys like nothing other than victims. Yet apparently it never occured to John or to his very capable private investigators, who were hard at work by the day after the murder, to share anything, not even "a shred of their findings", with the police who were at work searching for whoever did this to JonBenet.

· From the autopsy, the coroner Dr. John Meyer found evidence of sexual assault from the previous night: a small abrasion and small amounts of her own blood in both her underwear and vagina. Three medical experts consulting for the police say that the injuries were also consistent with prior sexual abuse. As the Denver Post reported, the Dec. 27 autopsy "found scraping and swelling of the child's vaginal area, as well as a series of scrapes on the back of her right shoulder, left lower back and left lower leg. Sheila Rappaport, a Denver prosecutor who tries individuals accused of sexually assaulting or killing small children, said such a pattern is indicative" of such assault. (Because skull fractures often do not produce bleeding, the minimal blood from JonBenet's large fracture does not indicate whether she had first been strangled.) A black light helped reveal that her body had been wiped clean but that a residue of blood was left on her thighs. (Also, the paintbrush handle that was used as a ligature had a broken-off tip never found at the house.) "Cause of death of this six year old female is asphyxia by strangulation associated with craniocerebral trauma."

· In an unguarded moment during an online chat in 2015 in a forum which he thought was relatively private, Boulder Police Chief Mark Beckner placed more focus on the parents than he normally would. He wrote, "We know from the evidence she was hit in the head very hard with an unknown object, possibly a flashlight or similar type item. The blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness, which could have led someone to believe she was dead. The strangulation came 45 minutes to two hours after the head strike, based on the swelling on the brain. While the head wound would have eventually killed her, the strangulation actually did kill her. The rest of the scene we believe was staged, including the vaginal trauma, to make it look like a kidnapping/assault gone bad."

· John Ramsey says that he had carried a sleeping JonBenet from the car straight to her bed that night. The coroner found something in her stomach "which may represent fragment of pineapple." The party she attended that night had served no pineapple, but police found a bowl of pineapple on the Ramsey's dinning room table, with only Patsy's fingerprints on the bowl and spoon.

· The murderer draped one of JonBenet's blankets around her body. That blanket held a pubic hair not linked to any family member. Unidentifiable DNA material, not from a single intruder, but a "composite from multiple people", was on her underwear and beneath her fingernails. Also, DNA "on her long johns appear to come from JonBenet and at least two other people, not one". An unidentifiable palm print of unknown age was on the wine cellar door. The panties on her body were too large for JonBenet and with her long johns, contained a stain with male DNA which could not be linked to any house member but which was later linked, in 2008, to DNA on the waistband of the long johns that she was also wearing. (It is true of course that even new clothing can come with DNA present, but new clothes don't come with DNA in stains, as with JonBenet's clothing.)

· Upon viewing the body, Patsy exclaimed that she had never before seen the underwear on her daughter's corpse. Detectives later found out that Patsy had recently purchased that very pair of underwear at Bloomingdale's in New York for her 12-year-old niece, but that JonBenet begged to have it kept for her, so Patsy put it away to save it for her. Prior to the murder, even friends of the family knew of this underwear story. If Patsy did recognize the distinctive underwear, and was lying, then she was trying to point the police to the exculpatory evidence, which she knew had been planted. The underwear alone proves the case. (Recovery of such vital evidence occurred despite Boulder's untrustworthy and obstructionist district attorney running interference for the Ramseys, for example, by repeatedly denying search warrant applications and hindering investigators' standard efforts to obtain credit card and telephone records, etc.)

· Officer Barry Harkopp interviewed next door neighbors and reported that Scott Gibbons saw strange lights and movements coming from the kitchen area around midnight; and neighbor Melody Stanton awoke her husband around midnight after hearing a scream, and he stated he heard "the sound of metal clashing against cement." The Ramseys say they heard none of this.

· Police found a Ramsey family flashlight on the kitchen counter, which was not normally kept on that counter, but nearby.

· On Dec. 27, 1996 Patsy Ramsey, being exhausted and lying down, reached up and touched the face of a friend, Pam Griffin, the woman who had made JonBenet's pageant costumes. Griffin thought Patsy was delirious when she asked, "Couldn't you fix this for me?" as though a sewing machine could bring back her daughter. She then remembers Patsy saying, "We didn't mean for this to happen" and Griffin got the definite feeling that in her weakened condition, Patsy had revealed that she knew who the killer was.

· Regarding the ransom note, no fingerprints were found on it even though it was "read" by the Ramseys and moved by them, yet multiple fingerprints from Patsy were found on the pad the pages were taken from. Patsy said only that she didn't recall if she ever touched the note, ran upstairs with it, etc.

· Two minutes of Patsy refusing to acknowledge recognizing her own handwriting on the photos of herself and JonBenet in her own family's photo album. On one of Patsy as a baby she wrote, "This [was] me when I was first born. That's my Mom and the doctor."

· Police experts analyzed handwriting samples from 73 persons in and around the case and only one person could not be ruled out. On March 5, 1997, John Ramsey and Burke were cleared as writers. The investigators believe Patsy wrote the note and on April 14, 1997, they request from her a fifth handwriting sample. An expert used by the FBI assessed for the Boulder PD that after the crime, only one person of those investigated made a conscious effort to change their handwriting. Compared to her previous writings, after she had received a copy of the ransom note, Patsy changed her handwriting habits including for example her distinctive way of writing the lowercase 'a'.

· In addition to her special sign-off and indentation similarities found by detectives, an ABC 20/20 program from 20:10 to 21:30 presents some of over 200 similarities found, including surprising idiosyncrasies, between Patsy's handwriting, with those in the ransom note. (When you reach 21:30, you may want to come right back here so you don't miss the most extraordinary evidence!)

· Similarities between multiple ways of forming As and Bs can be seen here as well as similarities forming the letter q like the number 8, the "te" connection, a sharp-pointed c, and the use of a misplaced capital L. With Cina Wong, the same handwriting expert interviewed by 20/20, Investigation Discovery produced this 2-minute ransom note analysis:

· The Ramseys have often resisted cooperating with the ongoing investigation, as for example, on Feb. 19, 1997 when they refused to allow police to interview John's oldest son, John Andrew. A known feud developed early on between the detectives and District Attorney Alex Hunter. Potentially, the FBI or Colorado's attorney general could have brought obstruction of justice charges against Boulder district attorney officials and perhaps even charged Hunter himself with being an accessory after the fact. The unlawful leaking of crucial evidence to the team of lawyers which John Ramsey began assembling within a few hours of the discovery of his daughter's corpse, and the constant blocking of the most routine investigative tools, such as a search warrant for credit card records, would be only the start of the evidence against them. Accusations of conflict of interest suggested the reason for Hunter's frequent conflict with detectives and sheltering of the Ramseys. For example, on Jan. 16, 1998, the Ramseys refused a police request for a second interview, but on June 25th allowed Hunter's office to question them. (This was very possibly done to give the D.A. an excuse to not call them as witnesses before the grand jury, which would have been a much more serious questioning.)

· Linda Wilcox, a housekeeper, described the Ramseys, upon finding a flood in their home, Patsy panicking, and John as controlled but "furious," so filled with "rage" that his eyes "almost changed color." The Denver Post in a nuanced piece, about material reported in the tabloids, indicates nonetheless that another former "housekeeper Geraldine Vodicka... says Mrs. Ramsey was paranoid that her husband 'would be tempted by any pretty young girls he came in contact with.' Therefore, women hired for the household staff had to be 'heavier, older and less attractive' than Mrs. Ramsey..."

· Whereas the pad and pen used to create the "ransom" note, and the 4.5 inch stick used in the ligature strangulation, from Patsy's paintrbrush, and its matching half, had all been found in the house, other items were never recovered. The duct tape roll and any remainder of the cord used were never found in the Ramsey mansion. Likewise, a footprint one foot from the body made in concrete dust from a High-Tec brand boot could not be linked to any shoe in the house. In his well-reasoned theory of the case, Boulder detective Thomas argues that in the early morning hours Patsy left the house to dispose of these items. In our theory of the case, presented just below, John Ramsey was the parent who left the house, leaving behind Patsy to finish writing the "ransom" note, while he disposed of these items and ran one other errand.

· Four fibers on the duct tape have been linked to the black and red jacket that Patsy wore the night before. (It took many months for detectives to get just some of clothes worn that night by the Ramseys. Consider also the single beaver hair, of all things, found at the crime scene that detectives long believed might be matched to the elusive fur boots Patsy had worn that night.) When Patsy greeted an officer at 5:55 a.m. she was wearing the same velvet black pants and jacket she had just worn to the previous evening's Christmas party and her make-up was still on and her hair was still done. Patsy maintains that she dressed that morning prior to finding out that JonBenet was missing. Yet it took the police more than a year to get the clothing the Ramseys were wearing the night before, just as it took months to get their credit card bills and phone records. And Patsy did not change her outfit from one day to the next on two days of TV interviews, which the police interpreted as an effort to manipulate people into thinking that such was her common practice.

· Prosecutors often fail to convict parents who murder a child, because most people cannot even imagine committing such a crime. Sadly, however, Susan Smith drowned her two young boys, just as thousands of parents have murdered their own children, and countless fathers have molested their daughters.Such brutality does happen, and society’s mindset disregarding such behavior results in more victims.

· As a six-year-old beauty queen, JonBenet was dressed provocatively by her mother and coached to saunter like a seductress.

· Lie detector exams, though not admissible in court, can help an investigation yet the Ramseys refused to submit to a law enforcement arranged polygraph. John took offense at being asked by Det. Steve Thomas to take such a test and stated that he thought he might fail because of his guilt at not protecting his daughter. They even refused to submit if the test were conducted by the FBI. Instead, they made a public fanfare of results after their private lawyers arranged their own examinations, the first of which was "inconclusive" and by their second private examination, they "passed".

· Parents have often killed their children and motives include any or a combination of these: anger that becomes unpremediated rage that gets "out of control"; blaming a child for the parents' behavior; aftermath of sexual abuse; mother's jealousy of daughter. JonBenet's actual murder and kidnap scheme came about to cover up an initial crime.

KGOV's Theory of the Case

Much of the "ransom" note is inconceivable from the perspective of an intruder. For example, no kidnapper pays a compliment of "respect" to the business of the victim's family, as the JonBenet ransom note does to the Ramsey business. But the clue that breaks the case is the phrase, "I advise you to be rested." No theory of an intruder can explain that phrase, nor much of the above evidence against the Ramseys. However, that key phrase explains the evidence, both the inculpatory and the apparently exculpatory. And it shouts that the parents killed their daughter and then worked to throw the police off the trail. Thus the ransom note is practically a confession. And likewise, the Ramsey answer to the question whether or not either of them got up after going to be that night, instead of saying yes or no, their written evasive answer was, "Neither has a memory of doing so."

On that Christmas night, after Patsy put her son to bed, something prompted Patsy to fly into an outburst of rage against JonBenet. Perhaps John had begun to sexually abuse his daughter. Regardless, one form of destructive behavior led to another and at midnight, in a burst of anger and emotion, Patsy grabbed a nearby flashlight and struck her daughter in the head, cracking her skull. The forceful "blow knocked her into deep unconsciousness" which at first could have led the parents "to believe she was dead." Perhaps assuming that their daughter was dead or irreversibly dying and that they could not save her, they set their minds to work on how they could save themselves. Regardless of this horror, neither was willing to give up their millionaire lifestyle. So John and Patsy began to conceal their crimes by staging the scene to look like a kidnapping gone bad. First, they strangle her, which both gets rid of her, and makes what would have been an accidental death appear to be deliberate. Then they planned to dispose of any damning evidence, but realized that, without evidence pointing to someone else, they would be the only suspects. (The misdirection gave opportunity to more than a dozen false confessors and led to the investigation of 200 potential suspects including an electrician, a homeless sex offender, and a former college professor who had just played Santa Claus for JonBenet.) So, if they were to survive, the resourceful Ramseys would have to rework the crime scene to point to an intruder.

They decided to write a ransom note, which John began dictating to Patsy. As they wrote the note they also made a list, or at least mental notes, of what evidence they must dispose of, and what evidence they could gather and plant to divert attention. Their note had to take into account that: it might take them hours to rework the crime scene; the neighbors may have already noticed the commotion and might watch the house or even call 911; John needed to leave the house to dispose of the roll of duct tape, the spool of cord, the tip of the broken paintbrush, the High-Tec boots, the four practice ransom note pages never found, etc.; neighbors may notice them stirring in the house or might see John driving away or returning way past midnight.

Even though they risked being seen, they were not ready to dump their best alibi. The plan they rapidly concocted called for them to tell the police that they were asleep all night, and heard nothing. Their desperation to avert justice led them to try that alibi. Thus, they planned to "wake up" at 6 a.m. and call the police. However, a neighbor or even an officer in a patrol car might have seen John Ramsey up at 3 a.m. Their wording in the note guarded against that risk. If that worst-case scenario occurred, Patsy could then admit: "Yes, we found the note last night. We were afraid to call the police because of the death threat. John rushed out in desperation to find JonBenet, and I searched the house. Then when John returned without her, we reread the note, I advise you to be well rested, and realized that we had better go to bed to get the rest we needed for the next day. When we woke up, thinking more clearly, we realized that we needed help, so we decided to called 911. But we thought it better not to mention that we had been up desperately looking for her last night."

With that pretext, they went to work. John found a pair of unused shoes, and made a footprint next to the body. He then took those shoes, the oversized underpants, and other damning evidence with him as he left the house around 1:30 a.m. He went out of find a public restroom, at a nightclub, a gas station, a diner, or even at a striptease joint or, preferably, an adult bookstore with video stalls. Somewhere along his journey he dropped the damning evidence in the trash. At the restroom, he used the panties that Patsy had recently purchased to pick up a pubic hair, and then rubbed a stain onto the underpants. Meanwhile Patsy decided to rewrite the ransom note, and she authored the final, personal, contradictory lines, "Don't try to grow a brain John. … Use that good, southern common sense of yours. It's up to you now John!" Patsy then saw the broken parts of the paintbrush that John had overlooked and she hid them among her art supplies. Later, Mr. Ramsey returned to the house, planted the lone pubic hair on the blanket, put the stained underwear on the body, and broke the basement window and disturbed the sill (which he later pointed out to Fleet White).

The unidentifiable DNA material on the underwear and under her fingernails was likewise collected by John, but could also have been collected in a day of normal child's play. In his unguarded moment online, police chief Beckner, who had headed up the Ramsey investigation, described the possible sources of that DNA to include "Intentional placement". (If that DNA material had come from an intruder, that would suggest that JonBenet fought and struggled, getting the attention of her neighbors, but not her parents.) To help explain to the police how they could have slept through the attack, Patsy Ramsey had taped their daughter's mouth shut.

Some may think this plan too involved for the Ramseys to pull off. However, John had built a successful defense contracting business, and Patsy had long ago managed to become Miss West Virginia. Further, they had help. Book author and FBI criminal profiler John Douglas wrote Mind Hunter, which reads in part like the JonBenet case in the use of duct tape, ligatures, and similar phrases in its ransom note. Investigators found that hardback in the Ramsey's bedroom.

After rechecking the crime scene, the Ramseys went to bed to rehearse their story. Neither slept that night, neglecting their own advice.

Whose?

Bob Enyart
1-800-8Enyart / 303-463-7789
Bob@KGOV.com

* Hear the Conclusion: You're invited to hear also Part 2 of The Clue that Breaks the Case and see this also at ShadowGov.com/ramsey-case-solved.

Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? We are featuring our classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar and our important videos God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources!

40 Years in the Wilderness

Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* You'll REALLY Want to See our Special Label DVD: For the tragic 40th anniversary, you'll want to order our Forty Years in the Wilderness pro-life strategy documentary on DVD. Please call 1-800-Enyart (836-9278) and ask for the Forty Years (since Roe) DVD!

* Personhood Oklahoma: The battle to restore the God given Personhood of the unborn child continues with introduction of the 2013 Personhood bill in Oklahoma!

* Richard Nixon: Racist Child Killer: Bob quotes RE-publican president Richard Nixon as he ruminated upon the necessity of child killing.

* Get Out of the Wilderness: Bob & co-host Doug McBurney discuss the RE-publican Supreme Court opinion that claimed that killing kids was constitutional (despite the 5th & 14th amendments, which abortion violates), its wicked influence 40 years later, and a strategy for social tension that can end the “legal” murder of innocent people in America.

* Rush Limbaugh, Water Carrier: Doug Quotes Rush Limbaugh’s 2006 promise to stop carrying water for the RE-publican party (when they abandon conservative principles). And here we are 6 years later with Limbaugh practically becoming “Aqua Man” for the Romney campaign.

* Ray Lewis the Chosen One? A truthful tweet by an NFL wife continues the “drip, drip, drip” of social tension percolating just below the surface of the national consciousness regarding the fact that one of the Super Bowl teams is led by a murderer… Then Bob and Doug make the biblically correct pick for the 49ers.

* Who’s Got the Sheriff? With dozens of sheriff’s across the country formulating and signing letters to Barry HO, pledging never to infringe upon their citizen’s 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms, Doug and Bob wonder how long it will be before a brave sheriff somewhere recognizes his responsibility to defend the Right to Life mentioned in the 5th & 14th Amendments?

The Painful Truth about the Emancipation Proclamation

Tue, 01 Jan 2013 19:00:00 -0700

* On the 150th Anniversary of the Proclamation, the Surprising Truth: Today, on the 150th anniversary of the Emancipation Proclamation, Bob Enyart and guest Jamie Schofield analyze the meaning and actual intent of that sad document. For this was no abolitionist policy (as a contemporaneous report in the Rocky Mountain News makes clear), but an example of moral compromise that ended in failure.

The Proclamation was actually comprised of two announcements, not just one. The first half – the preliminary proclamation – set the policy and gave a deadline of 100 days. It was addressed not to the common citizens of the nation or to the Union military, but rather to the states in rebellion at that time. What was Lincoln’s declared policy on slavery at that time? He made that very clear in a letter to Horace Greeley on Aug. 22, 1862, just days before the issuance of the preliminary proclamation:

If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.

Lincoln’s goal was not the abolition of slavery but rather the preservation of the Union, and if that meant keeping slaves in bondage everywhere, he would support and practice exactly that. And this non-abolitionist stance is reflected in the text of the Emancipation Proclamation.

The Preliminary Proclamation, September, 1862

In short, the stated intent and purpose of this policy was to offer the Confederate states the opportunity to keep their slaves if they would choose to stop rebelling within a 100-day deadline. Essentially, it said that if your state ceases its rebellion against the union, you may keep your slaves.

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America, and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim and declare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for the object of practically restoring the constitutional relation between the United States... That on the first day of January in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free;

Any state still in rebellion against the Union on Jan. 1 would be subject to the Proclamation, which would declare any current slaves in those areas to be free. The stated goal was not to free any slaves, but rather to preserve the Union. Was it a success? Before hearing the answer, Bob predicted that such a policy would bear no fruit, and he was right. In fact, not a single state took Lincoln up on his offer. By its own standard, the Proclamation was an abject failure! In fact, all the proclamation did in that regard was to infuriate the Confederate states more than ever, deepening their resolve to reject the Union.

Perhaps even worse, the preliminary proclamation also explicitly ordered slaves to be returned to their slave owners in specific circumstances, thus actually ordering the enforcement of keeping such men in bondage:

Sec.10. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia, from any other State, shall be delivered up, or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except for crime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claiming said fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor or service of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and has not borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, nor in any way given aid and comfort thereto;

In other words, if a slave escaped to an area controlled by the Union, all a Southern slave owner had to do was show up, give an oath (no evidence required) that he was the lawful owner of that slave, and swear that he had never taken up arms against the Union, and then “here’s your slave back.”

The Emancipation Proclamation, January 1, 1863

This document was the culmination of the policy already given 100 days earlier. Not a single Confederate state had taken Lincoln’s offer to cease rebellion and keep their slaves. Therefore, this document declared (largely symbolically) the slaves in those non-Union-controlled areas to be free. But, at the same time, and as one should expect in such a compromised and non-abolitionist policy, it also explicitly listed all of the areas in the U.S. where slaves would be kept in bondage. Thus, this policy actually authorized the continuing wicked enslavement of innocent men, women and children, for example in many counties in Louisiana, especially around New Orleans, as well as in the newly-forming West Virginia.

Many abolitionists of the day decried the Emancipation Proclamation, rightly pointing out its moral compromise. Lincoln’s own secretary of state, William Seward, commented that "We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free." Unlike Lincoln, Seward knew the atrocities of slavery firsthand, having been raised by a slave-owning family. "I early came to the conclusion that something was wrong... and [that] determined me to be an abolitionist."

On the other hand, in their coverage of the Proclamation, the now-defunct Rocky Mountain News here in Colorado celebrated on their front page the fact that this policy was not abolitionist, and mocked abolitionists who disagreed with it, praising Lincoln for going against the “radical” abolitionists. The newspaper wrote:

“The last mail... brought scores of Eastern and Western papers with similar recommendations. The voice of the press is almost unanimous in its approval. That is a pretty correct index of popular opinion, and we may therefore set down that almost the entire loyal States endorse the action of the President. It must be expected that the ultra Abolitionists will kick against it, as too conservative [not going far enough] for their radical views. Let them squirm! ‘Honest Abe’ has shown that he will be no tool of theirs.”

How were slaves freed and slavery abolished, then?

It’s important to note that the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t outlaw slavery anywhere. It declared current slaves in those areas to be free, in areas where the Union had no control. It essentially “freed” them in word only, and was largely a symbolic gesture. As the Union military moved through the Confederate states in rebellion, they did free slaves they encountered. In truth, they could have done this with or without the Proclamation. The Proclamation was simply used as an excuse to do it, but they would have been right to do it, regardless. Lincoln gave orders to the Union Army to free those slaves, apart from the Proclamation, which wasn’t addressed to the Union Army, but to the Confederate States themselves. He could have ordered the Union Army to do this without such a proclamation. And even if Lincoln hadn’t issued that order, it would have still been right for Union forces moving through the South to free those slaves, anyway. If you are a military unit and have taken over an area from the enemy, and you find men who have been kidnapped and brutalized by the people there, the right thing to do would be to free those victims. The Proclamation didn’t free anyone, although it did serve as a political excuse to do so.

What of the abolition of slavery, then? That was accomplished later, in some areas at the state level, and in the rest of the nation through federal action. Unlike in the Emancipation Proclamation, in all of these cases it was a principled, no-compromise, abolitionist policy that required the complete abolition of slavery in each state.

For example, West Virginia (which had ironically seceded from Virginia while the latter was seceding from the Union) wasn’t allowed to join the Union as a new state unless their constitution abolished slavery without exception. In Maryland, Arkansas and Louisiana in 1864, they abolished slavery at the state level as their citizens ratified new state constitutions. In Missouri in January of 1865, that governor abolished slavery via executive order. In all other Southern states, slavery was ultimately abolished through the ratification of the 13th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, in December of 1865.

In all of these cases, it was a no-compromise policy that we would describe today as “pro-personhood.” Slavery was ultimately abolished despite the pro-slavery policy of the Emancipation Proclamation, not because of it.

Today's Resource: Have you seen the Government Department at our KGOV Store? We are featuring Bruce Shortt's vitally-important book, The Harsh Truth about Public Schools. And also, check out the classic God's Criminal Justice System seminar, God and the Death Penalty, Live from Las Vegas, and Bob on Drugs DVDs, and our powerhouse Focus on the Strategy resources!

Where's Bob Costas When You Need Him?

Wed, 12 Dec 2012 19:00:00 -0700

* Where's Bob Costas: Without Bob Costas available to urge a ban on scissors, Bob Enyart turned instead to God's Word, and found out a lot about self defense and the principles of criminal justice.