Public Notice Calling For The Repentance Of Douglas W. Phillips

I’ve been contacted by a number of people, some of them representing various Christian organizations, who have asked me to provide them with a brief one-page statement documenting some of the more serious sins and moral failures of Doug Phillips.

The reason I keep getting asked for this is obvious. Many people who share our concerns about Doug Phillips are referring friends and family and members of their organizations to my blog. However, there’s now so much to read that it can be a bit overwhelming. Having a highly condensed overview of some of the most significant aspects of our Doug Phillips’ story could prove to be a useful tool in “Exposing Doug Phillips’ Ecclesiastical Tyranny.”

If you’d like a pdf version of this Public Notice, suitable for emailing, you can download it here.

Public Notice Calling For The Repentance Of Douglas W. Phillips

List Of Charges:

  1. In 2004, Doug Phillips produced and sold the deceptive documentary, “Raising the Allosaur.” In the video, Mr. Phillips claims that a group of home school families was responsible for “the biggest dinosaur discovery of the year.” So much public controversy arose from the “documentary” that Mr. Phillips pulled it from the market without explanation, in spite of the fact that the video produced significant revenues for Vision Forum, Inc. Mr. Phillips has never repented or even offered a public explanation for the numerous misleading statements and misrepresentations in the video. 1
  2. As a self-appointed, unordained, sole elder of Boerne Christian Assembly, Mr. Phillips pronounced an “excommunication” on a member family of his church in 2005. 2 The “excommunication” was vindictive and appears to have been motivated over a difference in political views. 3 The “trial” was conducted without any due process in what can only be described as a Kangaroo Court. The accused were tried in absentia. No witnesses were called. No defense was afforded the accused. No specific, detailed list of charges was made. No evidence was provided. Any actual valid excommunicable sins had already been repented from, including a pre-conversion sin that had been repented of fifteen years prior. 4 A prominent Pastor has since described the excommunication as “the Salem Witch Trials.” The family has attempted ever since to be reconciled with Mr. Phillips, but he has refused all offers to meet with them, thus confirming his vindictiveness.
  3. After being “excommunicated,” the entire family was shunned, including the family’s children. The children were never charged with any sins. Yet they, too, were punished. One of the daughters had received an award as a runner-up in a Vision Forum writing contest, but Mr. Phillips ordered that her name be removed from the Vision Forum web site.
  4. Doug Phillips is known as a leader in what is known as the “Patriarchy” movement. However, his conduct as a pastor makes it apparent that he is more of a misogynist than a Patriarch. “Let the women keep silent” (1 Cor. 13:34) is taken to such an extreme at BCA that women cannot make prayer requests or even introduce their guests. Women aren’t even permitted to get the elements of the Lord’s Supper for themselves. If their husbands aren’t present, they must be served by another man, or one of her sons, even if that son is too young to take the Lord’s supper himself. Mr. Phillips’ treatment of women is degrading and demeaning, and he does not treat them as fellow heirs of Christ Jesus. 5

Many of Mr. Phillips’ other views and practices are far more than just controversial, they are extremist and unbecoming of a pastor and a well-known Christian spokesman who many look to for godly leadership. 6 This notice calls Mr. Phillips to public repentance and to make restitution to the numerous Christians that he has harmed and offended.



143 Responses to “Public Notice Calling For The Repentance Of Douglas W. Phillips”

  1. Brenda Says:

    It is a lot of money. I understand (unverified) that the cost was $1200 the second year…Most families only sent a parent with one child, etc. I think that the only large family there was the Phillips family.

  2. Brenda Says:

    Cynthia, its okay.

  3. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Cynthia Gee says, “I’d be willing to bet that what happened to Mark and Jen at BCA is only one of the SKELETON in the Visionforum[sic]/Phillips closet, the SKELETON that got out and is now parading around…”.

    Hey! The Epsteins could recover some of their losses here, by charging $1000 per head for a one week “DP-Dino Dig” website, don’t you think?

    There might be a huge market among “home-schoolers” and even atheists and Darwinists and stuff, for that week-long “dig”!

    Just an idea.

  4. David M. Zuniga Says:

    (Please, grasp the humor. Trying to lighten the tone in the discussion, I just had to jump on that bit about skeletons. It was just too tempting. I’m not actually suggesting anyone host a Dig-Doug week!)

  5. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Seriously, let me quote here a portion of a book by David E. Fitch, called “The Great Giveaway: Reclaiming the mission of the Church…”:

    This whole blog is (I think) a public call for a church leader’s repentance, in response to a church leader’s public excommunication of a Christian couple. So this excerpt from Fitch’s book seems to fit perfectly:

    “Because evangelicals are so sermon-centric, we are tempted to think good therapy happens by taking good notes in the pew. But ironically, the more we concentrate on good biblical instruction as central to the Christian life, the less we talk to each other about our lives and especially about sin. Most of our “small group” processes are either inductive Bible studies or involve more intense, scholarly study of the Bible that never deals with the emotional and character issues that are destroying our lives.

    “It is a testament to know how unsafe the church has become for sinners that we rarely discuss with each other our sin and failures and seek the healing of the Holy Spirit. Rarely do we have confession and repentance in our “small groups”. We need to find safe places where we can share our lives, confess our sins, receive scriptural wisdom, and be prayed for. To do this, we cannot just get together and simply share our sins and quote Bible verses at each other. We must retrieve from therapy the needed skills to practice biblical confession and bring it under the lordship of Christ. This is of utmost importance to the future of spiritual formation in the evangelical church.”

    I have written many scathing notes to the author in the margins of Fitch’s book; I definitely don’t agree with some of his stuff. But this chapter dealing with how clinical psychology has taken the place of the ministry of the body of Christ, is a good chapter.

    Other superb books on how messed up the Church has become, and how to recover it:

    – Frank Viola’s “Pagan Christianity: The roots of our modern church practices”

    and ESPECIALLY for those having suffered under abusive, legalistic “leadership”:

    – Frank Viola’s “Who is Your ‘Covering’?”

  6. David M. Zuniga Says:

    Incidentally, I am NOT disparaging the ministry of Boerne Christian Assembly at all. As I’ve said elsewhere, in the dozens of times we’ve fellowshipped there over two years, we have seen almost every aspect of the New Testament church meeting modeled in real life, at BCA. It has been wonderful. But of course not perfect; no local church is.

    I was only meaning to comment above about mediation, reconciliation, and public confession; I thought that excerpt was fitting.

  7. Karen Bennett Says:

    Would someone please tell me about Doug Phillips. Give me a website or something to read specific stuff. I do homeschool and I recieve his catalog but I don’t know much about him. Actually nothing other than the books he sells.

  8. Vik Says:

    Karen, what exactly do you wish to know? This website tells everything (just read the articles, not the comments or you’ll be here forever).

    Doug was once a wonderful man whose head grew and who has gotten way too big for his britches. It’s unfortunate, because last Christmas most of my kids’ gifts came from Vision Forum. I really hope he wakes up; I’d hate to see all the charisma go down the tubes.

    Read the articles here, which will give you many documentations plus links to Doug’s own blog.

    Sometimes I rail on him because I’m so upset with him, but really, the whole thing makes me very sad. There is so much to admire about him if he weren’t so power-hungry and paranoid. He is a lawyer, and does like to dramatize everything, FYI.

    In any case, nobody will tell you not to buy his books, but many of his materials try to turn women into fleas to be squashed. I am in no way a feminist, and am extremely conservative, but I am not a doormat.

    You’ll get opposing opinions here, so it’s best to read the articles yourself, do a little googling, and make a decision–or not.

  9. Vik Says:

    David Z, that’s interesting stuff up there. I’ve found the opposite of what Fitch says to be true, however: People stand up in church or Bible studies and give “testimonies” which are nothing but times to air dirty laundry–sometimes to the point of making me blush! I think we need lots more Bible and a lot less boo-hooing. But I’m not the emotional type either, so it just may be me.

    I confess my sins to God. If I were struggling in some area, I might ask a very trusted (very, very trusted) female to pray with me or help me. I think emotionalism hurts churches. It drives me nuts–even the emotional, sappy music churches play these days. I know the Bible says to confess your sins to one another, but I’m not sure how that plays out in real life. People might hold it against you or laugh. At least we don’t want to be indiscriminate as to whom we tell.

    That all said, one thing I like about liturgical churches (which I don’t attend) is how the congregation participates in the service, rather than merely listening to a bunch of people play music “specials” followed by a “lecture”. I enjoy sermons, just wish services were more participitory.

  10. Vik Says:

    I’m not saying that there is no place for counselling. There IS, and Doug should have done that.

  11. Mark Epstein Says:

    David Z. quoted: “Because evangelicals are so sermon-centric, we are tempted to think good therapy happens by taking good notes in the pew. But ironically, the more we concentrate on good biblical instruction as central to the Christian life, the less we talk to each other about our lives and especially about sin.”

    How apropos! We were told that BCA provided Jen and me “hundreds of hours of [marital] counseling,” which occurred during the sermons from the pulpit! Yes, just another example of how far BCA strayed from the normative pattern of Christ’s redemptive work found in the gospels. Sermons now constitute marital counseling despite the repeated NT documentation of Christ’s one-on-one interaction with sinners.

  12. K. Says:

    Hi Jen:
    I did not say the following, not sure who did but was not me 🙂

    “K: “Who made YOU the beginning and the end of all knowledge in the universe regarding bring someone to repentance in such a public manner?”

    Well, as Morgan so eloquently explained, I did not use those terms with anybody here, nor do I begin to think that of myself. However, would you rather have a warning straight from the horse’s mouth, or would just like to hear bits and pieces of this story floating around the homeschool community for years, with no one ever knowing the truth? Which do you think would be more advantageous? I choose the eye witness’ account.”

  13. K. Says:

    So my point is, the Epsteins’ actions for me have been a blessing…as well as the other participants here have been a blessing. I have learned a lot about ‘what is really out there’, and let me tell you from my vantage point:

    Christianity is a pretty scary place right now

    Morgan: I could not agree with you more.

  14. Vik Says:

    K said:
    “Well, as Morgan so eloquently explained, I did not use those terms with anybody here, nor do I begin to think that of myself. However, would you rather have a warning straight from the horse’s mouth, or would just like to hear bits and pieces of this story floating around the homeschool community for years, with no one ever knowing the truth? Which do you think would be more advantageous? I choose the eye witness’ account.”

    Of course anybody would want to have an eye-witness account of everything. But unless we’re God (wink) we can’t be everywhere at once. Eventually we’ll have to do our own research, form our own opinion, draw our own conclusions, and admit we were wrong if we find our conclusions were wrong. At some point, we have to decide which “horse’s mouth” we think is telling the truth.

    We can’t keep saying, “Well I wasn’t there.” Since none of us were, we just have to do the best we can with what we know. And if several of us had been there, you can bet that the same would each have varying interpretations. Chances are, there would still be debate. Just like now.

  15. David M Zuniga Says:


    I agree; please don’t read my total support of Fitch’s book, into the fact that I quoted a section of it. As I said, I made tons of marginal notes, both praising and excoriating his insights.

    The thing about “liturgical services” is that to make the meeting of the Church into a “service” is to make a beast of human manufacture that will turn ugly from nose to tail. It will grow scales and horns and exude more ‘atmosphere’ with every passing year. This is the way of things with mens’ institutions.

    I’m sure we agree that we would like to abide as the local church did in Paul’s time. Read his description of the ‘one another’ ministry in the Corinthian church; although we know that many (I’m sure not all) of the men of the church took part as the Lord moved, only SOME were given to teaching; others to exhortation, others to prophecy, and so on.

    I’m sure some were clueless, new believers. Some were deeply flawed and sinful men and women, than as now. And ALL were sinners.

    What I’m getting at is that the ministry of Biblical counseling must be Biblical; if it has to do with “tough stuff” (sin) it needs to be done in order, and following Biblical patterns, not making the meeting of the saints into a sickening soap opera.

    You know, this place could have been just such a thing!


    But is it?

    The first day I came on this blog, I felt that was the case; a railing woman and her railing, vindictive husband! But as I stayed longer and engaged (and railed…and was duly chastised for it by my sisters), I found that the principles being contended for were indeed important, even if the method and message occasionally over the top (to my sensibilities).

    But I also found myself and these women and men… BEING the Church! This has been edifying to me, for the very reason that I love the man who is being so excoriated.

    So what have I done? I have joined in an ‘unbiblical’ confrontation method with Doug, by laying out some of his faults as I see them. I only say ‘unbiblical’ because if I find my brother in a fault, I am supposed to follow a particular order of redress, beginning with private confrontation. However, in this case there are so many issues of plain, public judgment that it is no sin against ME, but is a failure of good judgment (in my view) by a public man in his public ministry.

    However: are those ‘failures’ disqualifying to his work? No, indeed; not in my view. I’ve already described them; none of them is very important, but what they add up to is an air of ‘plastic banana’ showmanship or of extolling the virtues of presidents and prime ministers that are just as well NOT publicly lionised. In fact, the real value would be to further expose the truth about such men.

    For instance, why is it not the ‘Reformed’ men who are writing excellent investigative original-source journalism on Dishonest Abe Lincoln, and on the mendacity and intrigue that led us into The War to Enslave the States…and every American war since? It’s not as though this material is secret; the public domain is FULL of research materials for likely HUNDREDS of great books laying open the duplicity and godlessness that led to all that carnage.

    Christians still wave the flag for George Bush — and for the 19-year-old circuit-sinewed, sunglass-sporting technowarrior who steps on the neck of the 58-year-old Mohammedan father…in his own home — partially because he was trained to unthinkingly honor butcherous, godless men like Dishonest Abe and Winston Churchill!

    Patriotism and “the red-white-and-blue” can actually be quite an abomination; doing nothing to forward the testimony of today’s Christian Church in the eyes of unbelievers, new believers, or those seeking to find a hero, a good book to read, or what-have-you.

    This is one of the major problems I have with Doug’s message to American children. Not that the virtues themselves are wrong: far from it! But even an inner city gang member fights for true honor, with true courage, to the death. Ideas have consequences.

    I think THESE things are the blood and sweat and meal and fodder of the Church, and we do well to pursue them, through narrow places if need be.

    Like this one.

  16. David M Zuniga Says:

    I think I was over the top with the “plastic banana” comment; that wasn’t nice, or helpful.

    Since Doug’s VF ministry is primarily to (younger) children, it is extremely effective to use props, costumes, and such. Kids eat that stuff up; what I would have given to have some of the stuff that’s now available through Vision Forum, when I was a kid!

    I should have limited my critique to not glorifying war heroes quite so much. This whole area is one of nuance and unintended consequence.

    Yes, we definitely teach boys and young men that war is a part of human existence, and on occasion becomes every man’s duty. One of the messages that I most appreciate from Doug, perennially, is that women are NOT to be placed in war, or allowed into that theatre, by their fathers, brothers, or husbands. That message I absolutely support.

    But there is an entire gaping lacuna in education here; in American history and constitutional thinking, as relates to war and peace, defense of the home and community, versus fighting foreign wars! Almost everyone who trains up their own children at home knows the long and bloody history of Mohammed’s followers, and of the papal armies that opposed them in the Crusades. They know about Washington’s Farewell Address admonition against ‘foreign entanglements’ — and the colonists’ aversion to a standing army!

    So, should the men of the Church be so gung-ho to don uniforms and traipse off across the world to kill, when there is absolutely NO strategic or defense purpose therein?

    Should entire families of Christians, for many generations, consider a life in “the military”, an honorable way to make one’s living? If so, can they provide support for this from the New Testament? From the writings and discussions of our colonial founders or pre-Constitution-era leaders?

    Methinks this is NOT a biblical honor; it is a contrivance, and an employment program for millions of otherwise unemployable government-school graduates, rather than have them roaming the street in gangs. The military has been used thus since the times of Greece, Sparta, and Rome…and will be used now and in the future for the same purpose: to channel those carnal young men into killing someone else, rather than the neighbor, or his daughter.

    This is no secret, but the mystery of iniquity. The Christ-follower does not do well to further hide such a mystery under a glaze of “honor”.

    I’m not speaking here of defending one’s own family or hearth, of course. But war-making actually PAYS. It pays well, all up and down the line. It makes a good salary and benefits, and a glorious career, even for generations in some families disposed to it. But it isn’t fitting for Christ-followers. It is indefensible in the New Testament ethic that Christ came to bring us.

    THAT is the nuance — an entire ethical world! — that Doug and Vision Forum would do well to place in the balance, opposite honor, in military questions.

  17. David M Zuniga Says:

    To you sisters who think “Christianity is a pretty scary place right now”, I could not disagree more.

    Since the King rose again to establish His seat at the right haand of the Father on high, there has NEVER been such an exciting period in Church history!

    Presently, there are more true followers of The Way of Christ in China, than there are in these fifty States, and the Church there is growing at a dizzying pace. In the nations of Africa, in Indonesia, Pakistan, India, and across the Middle East, churches are secretly being planted in homes. Christ is changing the lives of women by the MILLIONS who never in their lives felt human before!

    Across Latin America and Eastern Europe, former Roman Catholic strongholds are being torn down, letting in the fresh air and sunshine of Jesus Christ’s gospel!

    Men — by the MILLIONS — are learning the principle of headship; of actually leading their wives and children…rather than letting a tribal leader, priest, or shaman lead them. They are learning that like their wives, they too have real value: if they can only learn Scripture, they can TEACH their wife and children…they can actually have real purpose in life!

    This is happening at a rate in China alone of one new Christian church approximately every eight minutes.

    Now all of this can lead us Americans to maunder in our cups at the sin and decay around us on every side; at our fat, useless evangelical amusement parks…

    or it can lead us to prayerfully gather as men and women of The Way, to see how we might leave those places, gather wherever Christ provides, and join our brethren worldwide in this marvelous EXPLOSION of His Church!

    If we choose the latter course, we will find that we have much to offer our brothers and sisters: just simple issues of history (providing translations of excellent books), ethics and law (by working through any of the many mission organisations that provide direction), economics (i.e., how to start a micro-business so a man can work for a living by producing a needed commodity), not to mention helping young church leaders grow in ecclesiology, soteriology, and solid theology and rid themselves of syncretisms, et al.

    I think we have many of these chaotic messes in the American church because we have too much money, time, and stuff on our hands. If we’d stop navel-gazing and nit-picking…if we’d stop being so ‘Reformed’…we might join the rest of the Church that needs so much: bursting at the seams, in fulness of joy.

  18. Jen Says:

    David Z: “But I also found myself and these women and men… BEING the Church! This has been edifying to me,”

    Then much good is being accomplished here as well. I pray that this is truly a place where iron sharpens iron, man and woman together, since we are not in an assembly of the church. I pray that you can see here that it is possible to disagree, even disagree vehemently, and still do so in a way that honors Christ. I thank you for respecting the tone of this blog, as I have read some of your other materials and know that this is a change of pace for you.

    I also appreciate the fact that you are obviously thinking through some of the issues here. You bring up some other issues for us to consider as well. There is a lot of give and take going on here lately, a lot of “one anothering” in an unusual way. It is a breath of fresh air to me.

    For someone who seems to despise labels so much, I was surprised at your use of the term “Christ-follower.” 🙂

    I’m not sure you really understand Doug’s thoughts on war, though. Yes, he honors war — a lot. But as for the current war, last time I checked, he was opposed to it. Do you think that we cannot “defend” our country when our attackers retreat to foreign soil? What do you think the psychological implications would have been had we not defended ourselves after 9/11, on both sides of the fence?

    That is a very interesting point about whether or not Christians should make a career out of being in the military. What exactly does the Bible say about that?

  19. Morgan Farmer Says:

    David says:
    “To you sisters who think “Christianity is a pretty scary place right now”, I could not disagree more.”

    Morgan says:
    See my post on the next article in answer to Jean. I am sick of having to qualify myself as not being a theonomic moron…theonomic, dominionist christianity IS SCARY. If you don’t think so then you need to really start blog and article trotting a lot more…..

    “If we’d stop navel-gazing and nit-picking…if we’d stop being so ‘Reformed’…we might join the rest of the Church that needs so much: bursting at the seams, in fulness of joy.”

    I agree. I am pretty sick of the ‘reformed label’ myself.

  20. David M Zuniga Says:

    Then don’t use it.

    At least not until you’ve reformed! 🙂

  21. LAS Says:

    David Zuniga,

    Your statements about “Christ-followers” being in the military are breathtaking in their arrogance.

    Thank God that my humble, hard-working, God-fearing career-officer husband is out there right now defending your right to voice your misguided opinions.

    Personally I think you just like to “hear” yourself “talk” and wouldn’t have the guts to share your sentiments as your wrote them above face-to-face with members of the military.

  22. Pope Blastus XVII Says:

    Think about both the inaccuracy and the arrogance of self-labeling as ‘Reformed’.

    Those who use the term as the first name of their church, club, denomination, et al — are the direct doctrinal and praxis descendants of Luther and Calvin. You see all the hubbub and row about drinking and anathemas and lawsuits flying around those circles today? Guess what…same deal in Luther’s and Calvin’s time!

    But my first point is that ‘Reformed’ is supposed to indicate that they fixed what was broken with the Roman Catholic (anti-) Church. They DIDN’T.

    And because they didn’t, a lot of plain old Christians (that didn’t use denominational names and have lawyerly hierarchies) during that period, were KILLED by the followers of Luther and Calvin. Foxe’s Book of Martyr’s is a bitty, abridged version that only covers the Christians killed by Rome. Thielemann vanBraght’s much larger “Martyr’s Mirror” also covers the ENTIRE gamut of martyrdom…from the early Church onwards, showing that “the reformation” began with the disciples of Christ, and never let up!

    That huge tome also shows that many of the martyrs were ruined, jailed, beaten, pursued, anathematised, and killed by Luther’s and Calvin’s followers. All in the name of the purity of the Church, of course. This — as much as we hate to admit it — is the heritage of the “Reformed Faith”, you see.

    As you know, I think that Tax Honesty is a mega-story for this American century: most people never really owed a federal income tax; basically (there’s more to it) they owe it the minute they sign a self-assessment and return under penalty of perjury. That’s fraud and entrapment and so it’s really illegal even if you DO sign it, and self-assess. As I’ve said, 67 million of us are non-filers and Nontaxpayers; we’re no longer stuck on stupid. Didn’t even take that much reading, but it did take SOME.

    This is Reformation, on the ground in real time: you look into the face of the mendacious tyrant and you say, “NO MORE!” Most ‘Reformed’ guys I have challenged with Tax Honesty have grabbed their skirts and run for the hills, echoing “render unto Caesar” over their shoulder!

    Yes…alas, ‘Reformation’ tarries! Since $2,700,000,000,000 per year is a whole lot of cash and corruption, it defines American family life at every turn. That’s the extent of the Tax Honesty deal…LOTS of people are now non-filers, and to their SHAME, the ‘Reformed’ guys are not among us!

    A whole period of American history was lost in the ‘memory hole’…but not any more, thanks be to God. THIS is Reformation!

    Similarly, there is an entire period of Church history where thousands of believers were ostracised, ruined, imprisoned and killed by ‘Reformed’ guys. They call it “the Reformation” (everybody does; even the heathen curricula). Anyone of any church, group, town, canton, or nation during that period who wouldn’t wet their babies and call it baptism was (and still is) referred to under a collective epithet: “Anabaptist”.

    Were there some really daft, deranged people during that time, who also happened to not like wetting babies and calling it baptism? Yep; sure were. They were “Anabaptists”, too.

    It’s as big a mega-story as the Tax Honesty deal: this whole ‘Reformed’ debacle. Most Reformed guys have not the slightest inkling of these things; it’s down the memory hole for them; they really are ignorant of so much.

    But don’t ever try to get them to admit it! They’ll call you Anabaptist and be done with you.

  23. David M Zuniga Says:


    I do not doubt for a moment that your husband is humble, hard-working, or God-fearing. But he is no more defending my rights presently, than is the Man in the Moon, defending them. If he is, then he has my permission to leave off defending me today! I don’t need such “defense”.

    I also refuse to argue with you; I certainly don’t expect you to agree…any more than I expect the founder of a 15-partner CPA firm to agree to Tax Honesty! With chips in the game (your life, livelihood, and entire family ‘honor’) in the game, there is no way you can be objective. I do not fault you for that, and totally understand your defending your husband’s job!

    No one is more belligerent in defense of their career and family heritage than military families, except perhaps mafia families. I know it is futile to ask you to step out of your military-defense postue just long enough to go back, re-read my post, and consider what is actually being SAID. Not what you FEEL in response to it.

    Grace and peace,

    D.M. Zuniga

  24. David M Zuniga Says:


    Apparently, you think we “followed our attackers” back to Iraq. That’s an interesting theory since all of the hijackers (we are told) came from places other than Iraq.

    But Iraq was just opening its new Oil bourse (market)…denominated in Euros, versus US dollars….Gosh, I wonder if THAT had anything to do with it? Ron Paul delivered a trenchant, accurate analysis of that whole aspect, on the floor of the House sometime last year. Great analysis of our REAL reason for starting the Afghanistan and Iraq conflagrations.

    Note the layout of the pipeline routes across Afghanistan…and the old Russina bases we’ve taken over. Interesting! There is so much history from 1917 onwards that has to be considered whenever you talk about the Middle East. I highly recommend Chris Catherwood’s book, “Churchill’s Folly: How Winston Churchill Created Modern Iraq”.

    It will simply blow you away.

    My regular job is architectural engineering; I design buildings. Including, of course, their M/E/P and structural systems. Over the years, I’ve been called on to do a little structural forensics but I certainly am no expert. All of that granted, I studied the Pentagon and New York attacks from a purely structural forensics standpoint, and find dozens — perhaps hundreds — of anomalies.

    A few of these, in my view, indicate that the story the government proposes for the destruction of the three WTC buildings, for instance, are so incredible as to be laughable, truly.

    But here is the point at which the wise citizen will stop and turn once more to history, to Scripture, and to common sense. There are countless “911 Hoax” conspiracy books — and a plethora of websites — trying to get Americans all exercised about this matter.

    I see NO point in such argument and speculation; all it does is keep Americans at one another’s throats long enough for the military-industrial big boys to set up the contracts, agreements, bases, and political allegiances they were looking for all the time. The deed is done, while Americans argue over who lit the fuse.

    Yes: while college professors and authors argue vehemently over who killed the first 3,000 people and turned Americans into flag-waving, blood-lusting buffoons…America becomes more deeply mired in a 1,300-year-old unwinnable war that has already claimed the lives of HUNDREDS of THOUSANDS of people that would not have ever lifted a finger against you or me, for any reason!

    True national defense would be less than 25% of what we have now, but as I said, there are those millions of young men with testosterone and a government-school ethic. If they aren’t in the military, where will they be? Prison? Looking for a new burger-flipping job every 90 days? OK, so they’re in the military, making a great career.

    But you can’t have all these men and all this materiel unless you USE it from time to time. Aircraft don’t do well when they sit in the hangar, and aerospace firms don’t do well without regular new orders for fire control systems, electronic countermeasures, missiles, etc.

    It’s all about careers and paying the bills, and using this stuff. People die; get over it.

    Don’t worry: Jesus would approve if He was here.

  25. LAS Says:

    David Zuniga,

    Your assumptions about my reasons for defending my husband’s career choice further illustrate your arrogance and lack of knowledge on the subject. You would be surprised as to what my opinions are as I am well aware of many of the failings of the military having bitterly experienced them first-hand. I choose to only voice my criticisms and concerns when I think it would be constructive and helpful to the military and country as a whole.

    Also, our “stakes” are not in his military career (which could be riffed at any time). And any honor is not found on our own through a military career, but we do give honor to our Savior and our “chips” rest with God and his provision. My husband had a civilian job before his military career and would be able to get another civilian job is he needed to. We always keep our options open in case we think God is leading us in another direction.

    I’m not interested in arguing with you either as I haven’t quite decided whether I think your are just an arrogant blowhard or really take all the stuff you write seriously.

    I just couldn’t let your outrageous and ignorant statements go unchallenged, and I do enjoy a good exchange!

  26. David M Zuniga Says:

    Well, LAS, I doubt you’ll get a good exchange with an outrageous ignoramus like me. But I’m glad you do enjoy trying anyway, and I’m truly glad to hear your husband is not ‘career military’.

    Again as I said before…I didn’t want to sound snotty by saying “try some reading comprehension, madam!” but please re-read what I actually wrote and see if that’s what you understood me to say?

    I did not besmirch military generally, and certainly not defensive military action. Or preparedness.

    Self-defense, even community defense, is Biblically defensible (we could use Augustine’s “just cause”, or other regulative norm). But the military as a lifetime vocation is extremely hard to defend, ethically. There are exceptions, of course.

    In our day, there is of course a huge realm of defensive technology (intelligence, countermeasures, etc) and armament that is simply needed to offset the abilities of other nations who might take advantage of weakness at home. I have no qualms about having a first-rate national defense perimeter.

    But when you start doing the “force projection” required to cover all commercial and personal contingencies (corporate operations around the world; American vacation enclaves in oddball points of the globe, etc) you get into incredible cost escalation, and ethically unsupportable “defensive” attacks that would have been totally avoided if yahoo entrepreneurs were left to their own devices when drilling or digging or opening new sweat shops in Timbuktu.

    Huge difference between Biblical, defensible use of military force — and what we’ve been doing since Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, et al.

    Don’t even get me started on TR…if you people think Doug Phillips is a posturing guy, he’s a model of humility compared with old TR! Talk about a self-made ‘hero’; second only to Churchill in being able to knowingly, willfully kill tens of thousands, and “look good” doing it. “War is Hell”, no doubt about it; yet some men lust for it as for nothing else.

    OK, OK…”outrageous” and “ignorant,” I’m also delinquent at my design desk! I’m out of here.

    Grace and peace.

    David Zuniga

  27. David M Zuniga Says:


    Just one more thought experiment, RE purely pragmatic consequence, completely ignoring ethical cause. File it under “Unintended consequences for the next 30 years in America”:

    Imagine that next week, tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, armed and equipped to the teeth, started doing a sweep of your city, wall to wall. Let’s say they started obliterating buildings, moving street-to-street, and came in and blew your dear husband away, but left your three sons, age 18 months to 5 years…to live.

    Let’s say that you and your daughter and three little sons watched it all; saw them destroy everything you ever owned…bullet-riddled and ruined.

    No power, no water, no phone service.

    Let’s say they camped out in your town, and announced that they may not leave for YEARS; and you found out (through the grapevine…remember, no TV, phone, power, etc) that they were doing the same in every major American city!

    Let’s say you never, ever had anything against them before…and you never did anything to hurt them…and you just wanted them to go away and let you forget all the horror they wrought on your city and your nation.

    And let’s say you were (by God’s grace) able to forgive these bloody Russian troops and forget this nightmare, somehow.

    Do you think your sons would?

  28. Jen Says:

    David, now your little war scenario is sounding WAY too much like Doug Phillips’ voting scenarios, which are just as full of logical fallacies! You make a good point, BUT what crime has LAS’ husband committed? Or what crime has her husband’s country committed? Is LAS constantly living in fear? Is she in some sort of bondage? Does she need rescuing? Does she even agree with her husband’s (wicked) lifestyle which has put his whole family in danger? Do you see where your argument breaks down?

    You said, “Apparently, you think we “followed our attackers” back to Iraq. That’s an interesting theory since all of the hijackers (we are told) came from places other than Iraq.”

    Where’s the money, David? Ah, there we are — back to the money again! Where’s the funding for those terrorists? I think the whole thing is extremely complicated, and I agree with a lot of what you have to say about the oil, but there was also some unfinished business there that Daddy foolishly left undone and the son had the opportunity to take the glory for what Daddy started — Doug should approve!

    I think your argument about this really being a very long religious war and we come in like knights in shining armor to rescue all those poor souls is your strongest point in all this. Some of them are truly grateful for their freedom, but will it last? How can it when the internal fighting is stronger than the execution of one ruthless dictator?

    Is everything right about this war? No. Is everything right about any of our wars? Probably not. But have you ever wondered why the Lord calls Himself a Man of War? And why all little boys will make weapons of nearly everything they can get their little hands on, even if their parents forbid them from playing with weapons? Perhaps God made men that way? And just so you know, I’m one of the writers on Doug’s blog who wrote against women in the military — that was before he kicked me out, of course.

    As for career military men and maintaining a national defense, how strong do you think our defense would actually be if we were not prepared to defend ourselves with a full army at a moment’s notice? I think it is precisely the fact that we have a large military that keeps our enemies away.

    But I don’t really take a strong position on all this (my husband does, though), so that’s probably all I will have to say about this.

  29. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen, Jen, Jen…there you go again.

    MY argument does not break down at all. If you think it is somehow our duty to go and kill all the Mohammedans of the world, then you make us as much the sons of Hell as the Mohammed-following jihadist is.

    Let’s first approach this “military” issue from the underlying principle: allegiance, nationalism, and culture. Using a purely Biblical ethic, we can clear away a lot of legend and nationalist propaganda, and get down to where we really live in terms of ethics, morality, economics, etc

    As a sovereign State among the nations of the world, the State in which you (the reader) live has a legal/ethical federation with 49 other States in a constitutional republic. But in terms of Christian mores, the States of this union are as disparate as any other collection of 50 sovereign nations of the world.

    Face it, we do not have a common culture: from the most “prairie muffin” Christianity and prudishness to the most horrifyingly barbarism on public display: you find it ALL in these 50 States today. To maintain that we are still “one nation under God” is worse than mere anachronism or government propaganda; it is self deception of the first water.

    In this age of diaphanous political borders and collapsing redistributionist governments, the “patriot” and the blind nationalist (regardless his political or religious allegiances) are reeling. The blind allegiance to “patria” is simply not keeping up with the march of technology.

    You and I can talk to our brethren any day of the week, whether they live in Pyongyang, Peking, Paris, or Peoria…and governments can do very little about it, praise be to God. Of course, this all has far-reaching effect on governments and their militaries.

    Corporate plunderers learned this long ago; in fact, right after the fall of the Medieval guilds. Mercenary men of means now have no patriotism at all; their allegiance is to their family portfolio. Period.

    The average clueless ‘voter’ does not realise that since at least the end of WWII, the shrewd politician’s allegiances are precisely aligned with the corporate chieftain/plunderer: his allegiance is to his family portfolio. And to his photograph appearing in tomorrow’s paper.

    I say all of that, believe it or not, to say that we have no business with a huge standing army and massive offensive “power-projecting” military. You seem to think that we are supposed to have our 19-year-old technowarriors over in Kabul, standing on the neck of the 56-year-old Muslim father in front of his 4-year-old son…in his own house! — because that man is living a “wicked lifestyle”!

    What business is it of mine, to send otherwise unemployable, heavily-armed goons to destroy that man’s city just because I feel that he follows a misogynistic pedophile false prophet who manufactured a false and bloody religion? Do you HONESTLY think Christ would approve America’s tactics of so “converting” the Middle East?

    Don’t you understand that this is not the game at all, and that George II just used his ‘Christianity’ as the cover to facilitate the same Middle East plunder that’s been going on since Winston Churchill took out a map of the Middle East and CREATED the borders of “Iraq” with a red marker?

    I have had quite a few Muslim acquaintances, and some of them I count as friends. They are respectful, much quieter than Americans (for the most part), and truly full of questions, once we drop our pretences. There are horrible jihadists in the Muslim camp, as there are horrible jihaadists in the ‘Christian’ camp. “We” have killed far more of them, than they have killed of “us”.

    But when I say “we”, I don’t at all include myself in that militaristic, nationalistic mob of flag-wavers, waving the good old Red-White-and-Blue. If Texas hadn’t been so broke before we asked to be annexed, I doubt we would have even joined the larger republic. Heck, Texas is bigger and wealthier and more populous than most of the nations of the world. I think we’d have done just fine on our own.

    Texas is “like a whole nother country” indeed compared with California, Massachussetts, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, etc… most Texans have as much in common with those folks, as we do with folks in Italy or France. We all use the same currency, but so do the nations of Europe.

    I think it’s unchristian, barbaric, and destructive to have a huge national military machine that we have…and especially to use military force to “convert” those with whom we do not agree.

    Jesus Christ does NOT need the help of technowarriors to build His Church on earth, really.

  30. David M Zuniga Says:

    So back to “honor”.

    The honorable thing for Christians to do is to wisely follow the money, and reform our lives. By (lawfully, after due diligence) becoming Nontaxpayers, we finally find the citizens’ DIRECT, 100% effective method to “downsize government”, for real.

    If every American who did not (by law) owe a federal income tax, stopped filing and starting tomorrow refused to let the IRS skim their paychecks, total federal revenues would drop by over $1 trillion per year, and the UberMilitary “force projection” machine would shrink to only a true DEFENSIVE military.

    More than that, Mommy would come home from her career, and Daddy would forget looking over his shoulder for the IRS al-Qaeda all the time.

    You see, Jen? There really IS a War on Terror going on. We’re just fighting the wrong al-Qaeda! While we send our sons to kill foreigners in their own living rooms and turn their sons against us forever, the domestic enemies of the U.S. Constitution and the Rule of Law are laughing all the way to the bank, with really fat congressional pensions and family estates.

    So are the big boys at McDonnell Douglas, Huges Aerospace, Martin-Marietta, Boeing, Hallibutron, Brown & Root, et al, ad nauseam.

    In his “Military Industrial Complex” farewell speech 40 years ago, President Dwight Eisenhower warned us about this devastating domestic enemy — this “DC al-Qaeda” growing like a virulent cancer in the Pentagon and in fact inside the whole DC Beltway, and the corporate boardrooms of America. But the insipid Donkeys-vs-Elephant Christian has been too busy fighting the “anti-war liberals”, to listen to President Eisenhower’s warning, or the lessons of history.

    Thus, we are doomed to repeat them.

  31. David M Zuniga Says:

    Incidentally, I’m writing a book called “This Bloodless Liberty”, and making all of these points. My manuscript is far too lengthy; I’m excising and editing and trying to get it under 200 pages.

    So if you think my ‘reforming the Reformed’ and Tax Honesty and War To Enslave the States positions have merit (I also spend a great deal of time on training children at home versus institutionalising them) then you don’t need to take notes here. Just buy my book from Xulon Press.

    If I ever get it finished! 🙂

  32. Jen Says:

    David: “I say all of that, believe it or not, to say that we have no business with a huge standing army and massive offensive “power-projecting” military. You seem to think that we are supposed to have our 19-year-old technowarriors over in Kabul, standing on the neck of the 56-year-old Muslim father in front of his 4-year-old son…in his own house! — because that man is living a “wicked lifestyle”!

    No. Again, that is NOT what I am saying. My point is that you were comparing apples to oranges in your little scenario.

    “What business is it of mine, to send otherwise unemployable, heavily-armed goons to destroy that man’s city just because I feel that he follows a misogynistic pedophile false prophet who manufactured a false and bloody religion? Do you HONESTLY think Christ would approve America’s tactics of so “converting” the Middle East?”

    My, you have such a high opinion of the military! And you wonder why I don’t want you to have a conversation with my husband?

    I supported (as in past tense) the War for two reasons: I believe there was direct funding from Iraq to the terrorists who attacked our nation; and I believe Iraq violated their terms of agreement with us from the first ground war that Pres. Bush should have finished correctly the first time around.

    I do not think we are there to “convert” anyone. Our democratic approach is obviously not working, and it will never work as long as the war amongst themselves is a religious war. I think there are some major problems in how we have handled the whole situation over there, but I admit that I don’t know the solution.

    I am pleased that what man meant for evil, God has used for good, and that doors of opportunity have been slightly opened to share the gospel over there.

    Here is a quote someone sent me today that I thought apropos:
    “It appears we have appointed our worst generals to command forces, and our most gifted and brilliant to edit newspapers! In fact, I discovered by reading newspapers that these editor/geniuses plainly saw all my strategic defects from the start, yet failed to inform me until it was too late. Accordingly, I’m readily willing to yield my command to these obviously superior intellects, and I’ll, in turn, do my best for the Cause by writing editorials – – after the fact.”

Robert E. Lee, 1863

    If you are writing a book, then I hope to be able to help you fine-tune your focus. I wish you great success!

  33. David M Zuniga Says:

    No, I was NOT comparing apples to oranges, and thank you for continually bolstering my cases, Jen.

    You display perhaps the worst reading comprehension of any adult with whom I’ve ever conversed, and a penchant for answering every new piece of information you learn with a reflex action: some idea you wanted to get across to “your public” beforehand.

    In other words, you refuse to answer questions and engage in rational discourse by simply learning from what you read. Instead, you continue on the point you were earlier trying to make, oblivious to the matter under discussion. You would make a splendid political debater.

    On the grounds of New Testament Christian ethics or Augustine’s timeless “Just War” rules of engagement, we simply had no reason to go to Iraq. NONE.

    I promise only to make this one post on the WTC “Iraq Attack” hoax, and I will not discuss it further; as I said, it’s a clever sidewhow to keep Americans fighting about something that is immaterial to the larger picture. There is a purpose in keeping us arguing for years about who made the WTC buildings collapse: so we will lose sight of the bigger picture.

    As I said, the 9/11 attacks would likely have happened without the apparent ‘US government complicity’ that all the “911 Truth” websites and books claim. But WTC buildings 1, 2, and 7 would not have collapsed.

    The only three buildings to collapse flat were those leased by Larry Silverstein and covered by a multi-billion-dollar insurance policy…oh, and also containing several million pages of IRS, SEC, and CIA documents. Interesting that several buildings that experienced much worse fires right on the same blocks…didn’t collapse at all, but had to be brought down later?

    As I said, my 30+ years in structural design and forensics (but no high-rise experience, admittedly) still predisposes me to believe that the three WTC collapses — the first three high-rise structures in world history to collapse by fire, even by jet-fuel fire — had to be “helped along” by someone and something other than those Arabs in jetliners.

    The more I studied the evidence presented by both sides, the more I realised the government’s story was full of holes…and the more I saw that it DOESN’T MATTER!

    Regardless of your insipid theories about ‘following the money’ to Iraq (totally insupportable; you might follow it to Saudi Arabia or Syria, but NOT Iraq), the “911 disaster” was NOT the result of unaided jihadists flying airliners.

    Three totally pulverising collapses of steel frames into very, very small pieces — and pyroclastic clouds of vaporised concrete stretching well over a mile from the towers themselves…and multi-ton sections of structural steel embedded deeply into high-rise buildings 2.5 blocks away…simply are not the result of an airliner “hit”, or a fire.

    But all of that 9/11 argumentation is a RED HERRING. The Iraq war serves NO defensive purpose for America.

    It is a rabbit trail, just as McKinley’s “USS Maine” explosion was just a pretence for America to make the largest strategic additions to our offshore empire, and had NO defensive purpose for America;

    …just as Woodrow Wilson’s yawning through the sinking of the Lusitania was just a pretence to get us into a world war that made several hundred families and crowned heads VERY wealthy, but served NO defensive purpose for America;

    …just as FDR’s “shock” at the ‘surprise attack’ on Pearl Harbor (that we knew about days in advance) was just a pretence to get us into another world war to save England’s bacon…and again make several hundred families VERY wealthy, but served NO defensive purpose for America;

    …just as LBJ’s “surprise” and “anger” at the Vietnamese boat supposedly firing on the USS Maddox in the Tonkin Bay was just a pretence to get us into yet another war that made hundreds of millions of dollars for the war machine and had absolutely NO defensive purpose for America!

    Anywhere on earth, no matter what the (supposed) basis for being there: if a foreign force kills and maims the fathers and destroys homes…the sons will remember. You can rationalise, theorise, and fantasize all you like about the 9/11 debacle and the Iraq War. Ron Paul is the only national spokesman with the brains and guts to call that spade a spade, using his knowledge of the American patterns and lessons of history.

    Give it up, Jen. Oh…and “fine-tune your focus”! 🙂

  34. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen, did my response to you get dumped, or are you still ‘moderating’ it, perchance? It never got posted.

  35. David M Zuniga Says:

    Whooops…spoke too soon! I do that a lot.

  36. Jen Says:

    David, I will admit that I moderated you at first, since I had just read that long thread of yours and I saw how you dealt with Mikhail Sergeyovich Deskjockyi! I was concerned about that kind of language coming here. But I un-moderated you when I saw that you conducted yourself like a gentleman here (well, mostly!) However, WordPress has a lot of problems with sending legitimate comments to SPAM, so I have to constantly retrieve them there. All of yours seem to be going there right now. Every day it’s a different person. Today is your turn!

    I will be glad to shut my mouth on the war in Iraq, but I will have to say (in all lack of seriousness, of course), that you are sounding more like Kent Hovind every day with all your conspiracy theories. (Don’t throw anything at me! I’m just kidding!!!) That’s all right, though; I’m used to hearing these conspiracy theories.

    Whistleblower published a great issue debunking all those theories. You might want to check it out.

    This subject is NOT my forte, so I shall defer to my husband on this topic from now on. (Reminder to husband: be kind.)

  37. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen, I should not have been so harsh on you, about your reading comprehension. I know you are an extremely bright and capable woman; I was venting, in calling it a lack of ‘reading comprehension’.

    The Iraq War had a purpose; nothing to do with the silly story about WMD and terrorists. I feel that our military and industrial planners felt that the US government needs to be in the Middle East in a big way, given the economic and strategic value of all that oil and gas and no principles of private property attached to all those natural resources.

    That’s the irony of the Islamist false religion: it does not allow for a civil state or government; only for theocracy and tribal chieftains in the mold of Old Mo himself. Private ownership (i.e., of mineral rights to all that oil) is unheard of in the Muslim “faith”; it’s basically the law of the jungle, with the sword being the law.

    The religious guy with the most swords — and willingness to kill his own brother or mother if necessary — and with a really convincing religious “faith”…is the guy that gets the most followers. Kind of like American televangelists but with no government around to keep things nice.

    Thus, given our tenuous strategic ties in the Saudi royal family and the hatred of westerners in the Wahhabi sect of Islam (the majority religion of the country where our main strategic emplacements are: ‘Saudi’ Arabia), we really needed to get some cheap, big assets on the ground.

    The first deal (and a smart one, too!) was to go raid Afghanistan…they’re all killing one another anyway, what the heck, right? Play like you’re giving them a great form of government (which will never be legitimate in the eyes of followers of Old Mo) and women’s rights and stuff…meanwhile, scoop up all the old Russian airfields with 12,000 foot concrete high-capacity runways, and make your bulk-oil pipelines to the Caspian Sea with nice military air-cover.

    A great deal all around. Except that people really don’t like other people (from the other side of the world) playing around with their cities and homes and countryside and minerals, as though they own them, just ’cause they have more powerful “swords”. So, sooner or later, people like the Persians (remember them? They were a great world culture, millennia before America ever existed!) were going to put their foot down on all this American land-grabbing and bloodshed.

    See, a Mohammedan doesn’t mind killing his own brother or neighbor. He’ll kill anybody he likes, for almost no reason. But if YOU have the temerity to kill his brother….watch out!

    That is why I think it is really, really stupid that we ever went to Iraq. I know it had nothing to do with the 9/11 baloney, and everything to do with oil and gas. But little kids in Islamic cultures are no different than little kids in any other culture: witness the rage in the ‘African-American’ community that still seethes just under the surface, for our atrocities to the great-great-grandparents of that enraged Black kid today.

    Now, why should a Muslim kid be any different? And why would you take any kind of pride in our “projecting power” around the world as we do? It’s unsupportable. Most Americans know this in their hearts; Christians know it most of all.

    I agree with you, Jen; we have not yet seen the end of this, and God can bring much good out of the deaths of the many. The Muslim must know that we love him/her, and we want only the best for him/her. Our government is at war with their people (they don’t have ‘governments’ in our sense of the word), for the purposes of industrial interests. Our president talks about “democracy”, even though it’s a form of government that our founding fathers DESPISED.

    But under the surface, in hidden corners of certain homes, there are small groups of followers of this Jesus Christ, Son of God. They speak a different kind of life; an alien physics and a new economics!

    Please, beloved Muslim: the Lord God, He is One!

    Christ, His Son calls you to soften your heart, and live!

    The followers of this Christ, wherever in the world we may live (yes, even in America!) are your brothers and your sisters. Though we do not know you, we pray for you each day! If our government is at war with you, we are not! Your religious leader was a bloody and misguided man, and you must repent that religion if you would EVER know peace!

    May the LORD bless you and keep you;

    The LORD make His face to shine upon you, and be gracious unto you;

    The LORD lift up His countenance upon you and give You peace.

  38. Jen Says:

    I know I said I wouldn’t say anymore about this, but…well, I changed my mind.

    I agree with you about the oil and the money. I think that was ONE of the reasons for the war. But I don’t think it was primary. Yes, Saddam helped finance the terrorists. Yes, Iraq broke their promises not to have chemical weapons. They had LOTS. And, yes, I am purposefully not addressing all your theories, but I would be interested in hearing what you think brought those buildings down.

    And there is obviously a huge difference between taking a defensive position (I still think our greatest defense is a good offense) and an offensive war. We call this war defensive, but it really is more offensive, I’ll grant you that. (I’m all for States’ sovereignty, but when we are united, we are stronger, in some ways. I’m sure this will elicit some response from you, but you should know that I think the South was right in fighting for their individual State’s rights.)

    I’m not really going to say much more on this, though, because I probably have an unfair advantage: my husband gets all the classified documents on this. No, he hasn’t disclosed anything he shouldn’t, but I can put two and two together once in a while, low reading comprehension or not. (Hmm. I wonder why I scored so incredibly high on reading comprehension on my military entrance exam. That must have been anomaly. That and the SAT score. Well, and the other intelligence tests and my college grade point average and … Never mind. I accept your apology! I don’t always follow your train of thought, but you keep missing my points as well, too. Chalk it up to our very different communication styles. I am sure you are much better versed in some areas than I am. I hope I can learn much from you.)

  39. David M Zuniga Says:

    Boy, you are GOOD at inciting ongoing argument!

    I said I didn’t want to get into the 911 debacle itself, and I explained why: IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT BROUGHT THEM DOWN. THE QUESTION IS WHY!?

    After we were fully engaged (and all of America’s factories were running at full-tilt, making literally billions of dollars for the companies involved) in WWII, did it really matter whether FDR knew about that Japanese flotilla steaming across the Pacific for 11 days before its “surprise” attack on Pearl Harbor?

    There are several very heavily documented books proving that FDR knew the Japanese were on the way, but Adm. Husband Kimmel got to be the fall guy. None of that mattered, once the blood-lust was up and we had a ton of young punks (like my Dad!!) over there “defending America!”

    We didn’t HAVE to get hit at Pearl; we (and especially Churchill) WANTED us to get hit, so we’d get into Europe’s war. FDR came through for “Uncle Joe” Stalin (as Churchill and FDR used to call their pal).

    So, as to what brought down those buildings: see all of my “engineer posts” at The American View forum. I’ll not reiterate all of that here. Suffice to say, it wasn’t airplanes. It’s physically impossible.

    I know your husband has a direct line to the Pentagon and everything, and it’s all very hush-hush. But the government’s line is a load of hooey.

    The WTC collapses are bad enough; engineers will be shaking their tongues at that government story for generations. But the Pentagon “hit” is even more unbelievable. The government’s story (“aircraft landing gear made that charred, 15-foot-diameter hole through three concrete walls, each 2 feet thick!”) is really laughable. Really it is, even though people died in there.

    If the Pentagon’s airborne threat warning system was really as lousy as it would have had to be to allow that jet to fly into the Pentagon (after the WTC attacks and with the nation on high alert!) — that’s our nation’s top military target and headquarters building! — then I’d say we’re the softest target on earth.

    We’d better not anger Mexico too much more; if our government’s hokey story about 911 is to be believed, then on their worst day, the Mexican air force could pretty much destroy every major target in America!

    The airborne alert, target acquisition, and fire control systems near the Pentagon can shoot down anything that flies, if it’s identified at a threat. In that time period, any object flying towards the Pentagon should have been automatically classified as a threat. That airplane/missile/whatever was never acquired or engaged.

    But DOH! it just so happened that ONLY that wing of the Pentagon happened to be undergoing construction upgrades, “hardening” it against just such attack!

    Doh…aren’t these coincidences amazing?

    Yeah, you’re right. Let’s keep pounding every city in Iraq, and move on over to Iran after that. We got Afghanistan, let’s move on down to Pakistan, Kurdistan, and all the other stans! Jen says “a good offense is the best defense”!

    Lord, have mercy on us idiots.

  40. Jen Says:

    Actually, I was asking to hear it from an engineer’s perspective. I thought that might be a new angle.

    I do know about Pearl Harbor and agree there’s probably some truth there.

    No, I think Libya should be next. Don’t ask me why and we’ll be done here.

    Thank you for the compliment. Is everyone who disagrees with you an idiot? That’s OK. I’m used to hearing that. You’ll have to try a whole lot harder than that to offend me.

    I guess I am so used to hearing conspiracy theories around here (my home), that I automatically play devil’s advocate when I hear them. I am sure there is a grain of truth in them, but I’m not going to buy them hook, line and sinker.

    My guess is that there is partial truth on both sides. Sound familiar?

  41. David M Zuniga Says:

    I was NOT calling you ALONE an idiot; I was referring to the whole “nuke the ragheads” culture in this republic!

    From the forensics (structural mechanics, physics, defense logistics & technology) standpoint, the US government’s story about how the 911 attacks came about is just too silly to even engage. It’s preposterous.

    There are dozens of well-researched, well-documented book written by credentialed scientists and investigative journalists making the same assertion. I would not attempt to try to feebly duplicate their documentation on this little blog, for I am not qualified to do so, I haven’t the time, and it’s unneccessary.

    Jen, physics didn’t take a holiday on 9/11/01; it is only the last in a long series of mendacious US government hoaxes on the American people, stretching back to Dishonest Abe’s hijinks at Fort Sumter, when he decided not to listen to William Seward, and took General Fox’s advice instead. No one was killed at Sumter, you may recall…and no one was wounded. There was NO defensive reason AT ALL to start that war. The only reason to do it, was to break the back of not only the South but ALL the sovereign States.

    The plan worked wonderfully, as history proves. The republic was ripped in two by civil strife — and now it was Donkeys-vs-Elephants…a nation at war with itself. This was necessary so that the disciples of Hamilton and Clay, who always liked a bigger pot to dip out of, could plunder a much larger population with many fewer (ahem) “political contributions.

    Avarice, fecklessness, and mandacity in political life is as old as the Caesars (and older). The 911 debacle is a rat’s nest of government deceit and alien physics; the very fact that so many gaping holes were seen in the government line, and are still being followed up by investigative reporters is simultaneously refreshing (we still have a semblance of a free and independent press, even though the legacy media is totally co-opted) while also depressing (99.7% of the American people don’t even recognise the issues involved, and are as easily duped as we have been since Lincoln’s War).

    That’s why I said, referring to this population collectively, “Lord, have mercy on us idiots”. We simply do not read; and a people that does not read (critically and redemptively, not recreationally) will fall prey to monsters, as we have.

    If you have a blanket animus for the Muslim, that is somewhat understandable, given God’s “curse” on Ishmael, that wild man whose hand would always be against his brethren. God knew in advance that Mohammed was going to forge a blood-lust “religious” system and turn against the whole world.

    History proved, for twelve hundred years and more, that God’s decree on the line of Ishmael was perfectly accurate. But for the past 145 years and more, America has been doing its level best to give the mad Mohammedan a run for his money, as the world’s blood-lust power.

    Christians should repent our belligerence. The best way to do this, in my view, is to drain a trillion dollars or so out of that DC al-Qaeda’s coffers every year, and force this government back to the size and scope we demanded of it when We The People gave it life.

    The monster first turned on us, and since McKinley and Teddy Roosevelt’s time, turned also on the rest of the world. Will we who name the Name of Jesus Christ, now turn on the world, and simultaneously claim to be seeking to “save it”?

    It is not only the follower of Mohammed who speaks out of both sides of his mouth. Christ came to put all of this to shame; for God’s sake, please read. Think. Love the unsaved and the unwashed; don’t kill them — especially when they have no conceivable way to hurt you, ever.

    Sorry; I said I was out of here but as usual, Jen pushed my button.

    Blessings on your houses.

  42. Jen Says:

    Well, David, I will admit that you have challenged my thinking. I wish I had the time to read and study as much as I’d like to. While you have given me pause to consider that there might be something to what you are saying, I do get tired of hearing about a conspiracy behind every bush, or at least every governmental bush, that is.

    “The best way to do this, in my view, is to drain a trillion dollars or so out of that DC al-Qaeda’s coffers every year, and force this government back to the size and scope we demanded of it when We The People gave it life.”

    The problem I see so far in your solution to Big Brother is that it only applies to some. In what you lay out, our family does not qualify. My question is why should only some people pay income taxes, if only those who you say the code requires to do so, while no one else needs to? What kind of a reformation is that? I can certainly understand optional use taxes, such as for cigarettes, where one chooses whether or not to pay those taxes by whether they buy those goods or not. But this delineation of income taxes that you have extracted from the code seems to impose taxes almost randomly. As much as I am opposed to affirmative action, your plan stinks if it means we have to pay all the (income) taxes and you (who are not obligated) get to pay none. What kind of a reformation is that?

  43. David M Zuniga Says:

    Jen, I didn’t write the laws; Congress does. I am talking about the total effect on the American family; on life in America, if millions more Americans who do not (according the the Tax Code) owe an income tax, simply stopped being terrorised into self-assessing and paying one anyway.

    A) the size of the federal government would diminish significantly, along with waste, fraud, and overregulation, and

    B) millions more American families would know the same freedom that the tens of millions of us Nontaxpayers and non-filers know. That “freedom” includes not having to spend an incredible amount of time keeping records for, and running scared from, the DC/IRS al-Qaeda.

    I was not talking about whether particular cases are “fair” or not. If you think it’s “unfair” that you have to pay a federal tax and I do not, then stop engaging in a revenue-taxable activity called out in the Code!

    The Tax Code is clear about who does and does not owe an income tax; only a “taxpayer” (someone subject to any internal revenue law) can have a taxable year (Sec. 441(b)(1). A “taxable year” is a year in which one has taxable income.

    One can find those taxable activities that generate taxable income – that make a person a ‘taxpayer’ under the Internal Revenue Code, by simply reading the Code:

    One owes a federal income tax if one falls into any of a number of privileged activities and situations:

    – If I live in D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, or the Northern Mariana Islands;

    – If I’m involved in manufacture or sale of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms;

    – If I’m an officer or employee of the federal government;

    – If I operate a merchant vessel;

    – If I’m a nonresident alien or a principal of a foreign corporation with income derived from sources within the United States;

    – If I’m a resident alien lawfully admitted to a State of the Union, the District of Columbia, or an insular possession of the United States;

    – If I entered a voluntary withholding agreement for government personnel withholding either as an ‘employee’ (3401(c)) or an ‘employer’ (3401(d)) (See 26 CFR §31.3402(p)-1);

    – If I’ve ever been notified by the Treasury Financial Management Service that I was responsible for administration of government personnel withholding (26 U.S.C. § 3403), or have applied for and received a Form 8655 Reporting Agent Authorization certificate;

    – If I’m an officer or employee of the Treasury or any bureau of the Dept of the Treasury subject to IRS authority related to submission of collected taxes delegated by Treasury Order 150-15;

    – If I receive items of taxable income from foreign sources;

    – If I receive foreign mineral income;

    – If I receive income from foreign oil and gas extraction;

    – If I receive income from a China Trade Act corporation;

    – If I receive income from a foreign controlled corporation as fiduciary agent of the corporation;

    – If I receive income from insurance of U.S. risks under 26 U.S.C. 953(b)(5);

    – If I receive taxable items of income from operation of an agreement vessel under section 607 of the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, as amended;

    – If I receive items of income from a public works contract subject to Federal income and Social Security tax withholding;

    – If I own stock in, do business with, or have anything else to do with a corporation in which the [Federal] United States of America owns stock. (See notes following 18 U.S.C. § 1001. Chapter 194, 40 Stat. 1015);

    – If I receive wages, remuneration, or other compensation as an officer or employee of an oceangoing vessel construed as an American employer;

    – If I receive gambling winnings from the District of Columbia or insular possessions of the United States;

    – If I receive items of income from maritime (international) trade in alcohol, tobacco or firearms;
    – If I receive items of income from production and/or distribution of alcohol, tobacco or firearms in the District of Columbia or insular possessions of the United States;

    – If I receive any items of income from activities taking place within an “internal revenue district” as such districts have been established under authority of 26 USC 7621 (U.S. Customs ports);

    – or if I receive items of income from maritime (international) trade in opium, cocaine or other controlled substances…

    Apparently you and/or your husband are in one of the categories named above. But I am not. And the average American, living in one of the 50 sovereign States and engaged in any activity of common right as most of us are, will find no section of law establishing a legal duty to file, and no section of law making him a ‘taxpayer’.

    I don’t see anything “unfair” about that. And yes, if 100 million more Americans decided to perform the due diligence and exercise the courage required to stop being terrorised by the IRS al-Qaeda, and stop bloating the federal Leviathan to five times its legal size…that WOULD INDEED be a reformation, and you are silly to suggest otherwise.

  44. Jen Says:

    David, thank you for explaining why you think it is fair for only some of us to pay taxes. My husband is a federal employee and has been his whole adult life. I guess we shall continue to pay income taxes.

    However, my full response to you can be found here.

  45. David M Zuniga Says:


    Please stop misrepresenting what I’ve said. I think it’s “fair” for everyone to obey the law. With regard to federal income taxes, the law makes certain activities and categories of residence a taxable event. If you don’t want to have a legal duty to keep records, file forms, or pay income tax, it’s really very simple: don’t engage in those activities!

    Just how is this “unfair”, Jen? You yourself say that your huband has been on the federal payroll “his whole adult life”; most of us, on the other hand, have had to compete in the parketplace with our products and services. So we are free, and Mark is not — because he chooses to work for government.

    How you can consider this “unfair” is beyond me. To be sure, there are scoundrels and cheaters in America — both filers and non-filers — but I’m sure the nonfiler community (now estimated at 67 million Americans) are no more lawless or “unfair” than those who still file IRS forms, and who still self-assess and sign promissory documents under penalty of perjury…all without having the least idea what the law actually requires of them.

    Ignorance is costly, Jen. I don’t see any unfairness in that at all.

    Your full response (linked above) also received my full response in the same place. Like Michael Dullea on The American View Forum, you continue to either “play dumb”, or simply shill for the fraud and terrorism.

    Tell me, why is it that you consider a multi-trillion-dollar fraud “fair”?

  46. Cynthia Gee Says:

    David, you speak as though working for the government is wrong somehow. But somebody has to do it.
    And, if the only folks to pay income taxes were those whom you claim are legally bound to do so, the country would collapse.

  47. David M Zuniga Says:


    That’s utter nonsense.

    The Constitution allows federal government to do only a limited number of things by law, but most Americans believe that it can do everything…and that their income tax dollars pay for it.

    Both beliefs are dead wrong, Cynthia.

    1) Any power (office, regulation, program, agent) that the federal government is currently exercising over the People and the 50 States, that is not clearly enumerated in its lawful powers in the U.S. Constitution, is ILLEGAL. Yes, I do think doing illegal things is wrong! 🙂

    2) In 1983, President Reagan’s blue-ribbon Grace Commission reviewed the federal budget and recommended ways to reform corruption. Regarding your “fair share” tax dollars, they said

    “…100% of what is collected is absorbed solely by interest on the Federal Debt…all individual income tax revenues are gone before one nickel is spent on the services taxpayers expect from government.”

    3) Even if you DID assume that “government needs the money”: when you take only those powers enumerated in the Constitution to federal government, you reach a total revenue required of perhaps $500 billion annually (and that includes a robust defensive military nowhere contemplated by the framers). If every individual who did not owe the federal tax in fact would not PAY it, federal revenues would drop by about $1 trillion per year.

    In other words, the corrupt porkers would STILL be taking in $1,200,000,000,000 annually over and above what is needed to fund the LAWFUL, enumerated powers of the federal government!

    You call this a “collapse”? What, you mean a diminution in the gargantuan, over-regulating police-state and federal bureaucracy that regulates how much your toilet can drink and what species of spotted mouse can eat your federally-subsidised wheat?

    Gracious me! Next, I’ll be suggesting that we actually return to sound, Constitutional (precious-metal-backed…GASP!) currency!

    Perish the thought… 🙂

  48. David M Zuniga Says:


    I do not ever suggest that anyone should “do as I say”. I only suggest that if we are to remain a free people, we must: a) be good stewards of the time, talent, and wealth that God provides each of us; b) defend the Constitution and rule of law because they will not defend themselves, especially with those trillions floating around for the skimming; c) always tell the truth; d) never break laws unless they require us to violate God’s laws; and e) NEVER fear terrorists.

    You have posited that the DC al-Qaeda needs all that $2.7 trillion per year or it “will collapse”; I say that letting al-Qaeda collapse is PRECISELY what we should be praying and working for!

    Among those 67 million non-filers, many are surely not filing by just staying “under the radar”, avoiding detection but actually believing that the law requires them to stay in that “fair share” line for their turn being gang-raped by ruthless men.

    I think that a people unwilling to even perform their due diligence, deserve as many turns in the line as they get! As harsh as God’s judgment on their ignorance and apathy may seem, an ignorant and apathetic nation will receive that judgment, and no mistake.

  49. David M Zuniga Says:

    No more Tax Honesty banter; folks will think me a blog-hog, and I will waste as much of this week as I did of last week! I can’t afford it; I don’t work for government.

    Back to the subject of this thread: I call on Douglas W. Phillips to repent of dodging this vital tactical issue, while selling swords and shields for boys to learn to fight for “justice and honor”. They don’t need a rubber sword; they just need to see daddy stand against corruption when it’s really scary to do so.

    It’s true enough that once daddy does his homework, he finds that The Wizard of IRS is just a feeble little short guy in baggy underpants behind the curtain. So it’s really not bravery at all — just plain old citizenship.

  50. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “1) Any power (office, regulation, program, agent) that the federal government is currently exercising over the People and the 50 States, that is not clearly enumerated in its lawful powers in the U.S. Constitution, is ILLEGAL.”

    Does the Constitution actually say this, or is that your interpretation? I know people who say that the use of musical instruments in Church is wrong, because the New teasament does not specifically allow for their use.
    Such an argument is illogical.

  51. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “I say that letting al-Qaeda collapse is PRECISELY what we should be praying and working for!”

    Heaven forbid! If the federal government collapsed, every wingnut in the country would make a bid for power — the socialists, the fascists, the wingnut reconstructionists, the Christian ID and Kinist nuts — you name it, they’d all have a dog in that fight — and I’d high-tail it to Canada!

  52. David M Zuniga Says:



    Are you telling me that the federal government is NOT limited to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, but I’m just being “legalistic” by applying what is known as The Regulative Principle, to the government?

    What, the Constitution is a wax nose?

  53. David M Zuniga Says:


    In the first place, most of the functions of “government” that you deal with every day (roads, bridges, schools, trash pickup, water & sewer treatment, etc) have nothing to do with the federal government — except the “postal roads” which we could extend to include all federal highways.

    All the rest of what gives order to our life in common is the rightful bailiwick of the family, the Church, and the local, county, and state civil governments.

    As i said before: before The War to Enslave the States, this republic was a very different place. Many would argue that there was not enough centralisation and standardisation before Lincoln’s War; that the stronger military and regulatory might of the federal government used against the people of the 50 States was actually a GOOD thing.

    Now the federal government camel is fully in the tent, and it’s a mess. In the first place, the federal government would NOT “collapse” if Tax Honesty reaches critical mass; there will just be a lot of very different estate planning going on among 535 Washingtonians, and their staffs, and the companies that feed from their trough, and the European handlers that own them.

    If those millions of paychecks can’t be skimmed with impunity, the Congress will try their next trick: a “revenue neutral” sales tax. Then with this “FairyTax”, we will truly be on the fast track to economic ruin.

    But that’s a chapter we haven’t opened yet; perhaps by God’s grace, we never will.

    Tolle, lege.

  54. Cynthia Gee Says:

    Does the Constitution expressly and specifically prohibit the federal govenment from exercising “any power (office, regulation, program, agent) over the People and the 50 States, that is not clearly enumerated in its lawful powers in the U.S.” ?

    Yes or no?

  55. David M Zuniga Says:

    You appear to be suggesting that We The People, in enumerating (circumscribing) the powers of the central government we were forming, were actually doing the opposite: leaving it to determine the extent of its own powers.

    Don’t be preposterous! The writings of the framers make their intentions clear: they were designing a LAW of LIMITATION on the powers of what everyone at that time feared would become another Tyrant Government.

    The (mis-named) ‘Anti-Federalists’ were actually the ones who believed in a true federation; the ‘Federalists’ were those who wanted a stronger central state. As is ever the case in history, the political winner got to choose the nametags: the anti-federal Hamiltonians and central banking types got to keep the name “Federalists”.

    But nobody is going to propose, with a straight face, that the U.S. Constitution gives the federal power no limits but the imaginations of bureaucrats and demagogues!

    Only ignorant, cowed citizens can give such power. And you do.

    But you shouldn’t.

  56. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “…before The War to Enslave the States, this republic was a very different place. Many would argue that there was not enough centralisation and standardisation before Lincoln’s War; that the stronger military and regulatory might of the federal government used against the people of the 50 States was actually a GOOD thing.”

    You might say that. If it weren’t for the “regulatory might of the federal government”, a lot of folks might still be slaves, or would at least be using separate schools and drinking fountains.

    The Bible says that “rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil….. Rom 13:4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to [execute] wrath upon him that doeth evil.”

    The South legally but immorally held slaves, and they illegally and immorally drew first blood at Fort Sumpter. They proved that they were morally incapable and unworthy of self rule, and so the Civil War ensued, and the South got spanked.
    The South continued to rebel against the “laws” of decency and morality by passing Jim Crow laws, by winking at lynchings, and by enforcing segregation. Again and again they proved that they needed a strong federal govenment to protect their weaker citizenry from the folks who held power at the county and state level, and so the feds rose to the task, gaining power each time.
    This country may have started out as a group of mostly self-govening states, but due to the misdeeds and untrustworthyness of some, it has been necessary to curtail the freedoms formerly enjoyed by all.

  57. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “You appear to be suggesting that We The People, in enumerating (circumscribing) the powers of the central government we were forming, were actually doing the opposite: leaving it to determine the extent of its own powers.”

    No, I said no such thing.
    I’m no Constitutional lawyer, but even I can see that the Constitution, as written, neither forbids the federal govenment from exercising any power “over the People and the 50 States that is not clearly enumerated in its lawful powers in the U.S.”, nor does it give the federal government unbridled freedom to determine the extent of its own powers.
    It’s not an either/or situation, David.

  58. David M Zuniga Says:

    Fort Sumpter [sic] drew no blood. None were wounded, much less killed.

    African slavery in America was a horrible inhuman injustice, but during the period 1861-65, how is it that 19 other nations managed to abolish that inhuman institution without ripping a nation in two via war?

    So let me get this straight: the same Leviathan that now regulates almost every aspect of your life from cradle to grave — the vast majority of which regulation and “power” falls NOWHERE in the enumerated powers we granted it — and that now enables and defends the “rights” of abortionists to mutilate and saline-burn to death in utero over 47 MILLION Americans…just happens to make it “necessary to curtail the freedoms formerly enjoyed by all”?!

    God, have mercy.

  59. Mark Epstein Says:

    Not to be a pain in the backside….however, the US Constitution does not say anything about the federal government spending tax dollars to develop the internet with American universities. Yet, that is exactly what it did and we are using its offspring even now to write on Jen’s blog.

    Although the internet was developed as a redundant communication infrastructure in case of nuclear war, its design was not for prosecuting a war (providing for the common defense) but for maintaining communication between civil authority — you, know, the guys who write tax law!

  60. David M Zuniga Says:

    Really? It’s not either/or? OK, if we have actually given the federal government “limited but unlimited” powers, THAT would be “both/and”, Cynthia.

    Or would you care to enlighten me on the tertium quid that eludes me?

  61. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “Fort Sumpter [sic] drew no blood. None were wounded, much less killed.”
    “To draw first blood” is an expression, one of the meanings being “to attack first”; the expression often carries connotations of unprovoked attack.

    “African slavery in America was a horrible inhuman injustice, but during the period 1861-65, how is it that 19 other nations managed to abolish that inhuman institution without ripping a nation in two via war?”

    That could have happened here too, but the South hardened their hearts. They were afraid of losing their human property, so when Lincoln won the election, they responded by attacking Ft. Sumpter and seceding.

    “So let me get this straight: the same Leviathan that now regulates almost every aspect of your life from cradle to grave ….…just happens to make it “necessary to curtail the freedoms formerly enjoyed by all”?!”

    The South sinned, and refused to conduct themselves in a Christian and civilized manner. They proved that they could not be trusted to honor the governmental equivalent of gentlemen’s agreement, and so they forfeited the right to be treated as “gentlemen”.
    The Federal government, faced with exercising control over a bunch of rogue states, changed to fit its new job description, and gradually evolved into what it is today.

    What we are seeing is the inevitable result of SIN.

    “God, have mercy.”


  62. David M Zuniga Says:

    Cynthia, please read Thomas Jefferson’s “Kentucky Resolutions” (ca 1798-99). This was the spirit of the thing back then (in that instance, the Alien & Sedition Acts) and I think Adams himself understood quite well what Jefferson posited in that resolution, which was reiterated by Madison in the Virginia Resolution of ’99.

    The New England States, of course, fought Jefferson and Madison; the Northeast money powers already owned a Hamilton-Clay mercantilist economy without borders for its industrial interests (as, in all fairness, the South tried to do for its agricultural interests).

    But as soon afterwards as The Embargo Act of 1807, some New Englanders changed their tune quickly to join in the States’ Rights (Nullification/Interposition if you will) principle, and again during the drum-beating and saber-rattling for The War of 1812 (shades of Dubya…).

    We The People never meant to create Frankenstein’s Monster. If we would enforce the Tax Code against its supposed “enforcers” and collectors, the till would be half its present size, and a world of evils would be avoided for lack of funding.

    But of course that wouldn’t sufficiently curtail freedoms, I guess. (Have to curtail all those freedoms, dont you know! Sheeeeesh.)

  63. Cynthia Gee Says:

    What America was “back then”, and what it later became are two very different things. The founding fathers were idealists.

    You are an idealist, David, and so am I — we would have fit in nicely with Jefferson and the rest. But the slaveowners in the South trod those ideals in the mud, and so the federal government had to change the way they operated to fit the situation. I never said that that was a good thing, but it was necessary, because of sin (sort of brings to mind the story of the Golden Calf).

    The sin situation hasn’t changed much, either. If the federal government fell tomorrow, here are some of the folks who would come crawling out of the woodwork in a bid to take power….

  64. Morgan Farmer Says:

    Cynthia …. you need to issue a barf bag warning with that link.

    As a Jewish person you can imagine….. sometimes freedom really is not very nice.

  65. David M Zuniga Says:

    Seriously, madam: if you think the War to Enslave the States was about African slaves, you haven’t even begun to read the primary sources of that period.

    Please, begin with Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address.

    I am no partisan for “the South”, and I carry no water for “Southrons” and White Supremacists who to this day speak of minorities as though they are sub-human. I can only speak for Texans (my own ‘country’, if you will; all I’ve ever really known, where I was born and hope to die) in saying that very, very few Texans ever owned slaves.

    But the North-South split was the tactical hope of the Hamilton-Clay mercantilists who always wanted a Leviathan State in America like those of Europe. That way, the crafty mercantilist needs buy and control only one potentate rather than twenty.

    This was never supposed to be our form of government. After Cromwell surrendered at Yorktown, George III had to sign THIRTEEN Treaties of Paris with THIRTEEN sovereign colonies. During our entire history under the Articles of Confederation, statesmen inveighed against any return to the despotism of central government.

    Indeed, when the Delegates were sent to Philadelphia, it was ONLY for the limited purpose of “improving” the Articles of Confederation, but of course retaining the sovereignty of the States that had been so hard-won since the first “blood was drawn” (figuratively and literally) in the late War for Independence.

    Instead, as Patrick Henry said when he “smelt a rat”, the Delegates, led by a tenacious Hamilton-and-Clay faction, designed a whole new form of government…not at all what they were sent to do in Philadelphia! Our Constitution for the united States of America was well beyond what those delegates had been authorised to do by We The People.

    “Oh, but that was God’s grace on America!” you may say, speaking of our marvelous Constitution.

    Yes…so why do you defend the wholesale gutting of it?

    Only if we cease violating

  66. David M Zuniga Says:

    Only if we cease violating the spirit of Christian liberty that undergirded that law of limitation, will we be worthy of our forefathers.

    Your hideous White Supremacist liks notwithstanding. Talk about a straw man! As if to downsize the federal Leviathan, would automatically somehow make you and your family in danger of being overtaken by every nutty faction in America!

    OK, seriously; now we have truly wasted a Monday. What preposterous defence you raise for continuing the IRS check-skimming scam. How very, very silly.

    You see, it’s not either-or, sister. We can actually have responsible citizenship AND smaller central bureaucracy and police state. It’s both-and, Cynthia.

    Good evening; thanks for the exchange.

  67. Cynthia Gee Says:

    “OK, seriously; now we have truly wasted a Monday. What preposterous defence you raise for continuing the IRS check-skimming scam. How very, very silly.”

    Who said that I was using this argument as a defense for income taxes?

    Nor have I ever, as you stated, “posited that the DC al-Qaeda needs all that $2.7 trillion per year or it “will collapse”.

    I SAID, that “if the only folks to pay income taxes were those whom you claim are legally bound to do so, the country would collapse”,
    to which you replied,
    ” letting al-Qaeda collapse is PRECISELY what we should be praying and working for!”

    The rest of my argument has been a defense of the necessity of having a strong federal government, not the income tax. Certainly the govenment does not need as much money as they are recieving, but they do need far more to operate than the guidelines which you suggest would provide; AND letting the government collapse, and letting the anti-government fringe take over, IS NOT an option in my book.
    God Bless America!

  68. David M Zuniga Says:


    See the “Church Strengthened” thread, for my plug of constitutional scholar Dr. Edwin Vieira’s book, and my idea for a series of AMERICA AGAIN! rallies on the 4th of July, 2010 to let WE THE PEOPLE of our communities “take over” our own homeland defense, as was the intention of the framers, and as is provided in our Bill of Rights!

    God Bless America, indeed!! As for me, if you wish to maintain a “strong federal government” that regulates every aspect of life and facilitiates the murder of 46 million innocents, you are simply wrong. And for the second time, Tax Honesty (breaking the Congress’ IRS check-skimming scam) will NOT “let the government collapse” but it will force the DC al-Qaeda style skimming operation to collapse, along with the “legal counterfeiting” operation owned by the Federal Reserve stockholding families.

    “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” Ben Franklin

    “Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil: that put darkness for light, and light for darkness…” Isaiah 5:20a

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: