This country was founded as a republic.  The whole democracy shmear was pasted over it by the masonics in recent years.  

I fail to see how the founders and the first amendment were anti Catholic.  And especially how humanism was founded with the founding of America.  In my opinion it is good that gov't stay out of everythng they can because of its potential power, and as they say, power corrupts.  Catholics were happily spreading the faith in this country until gov't got into it and started promoting evil religions.  Gov'ts simply aren't qualifed to be spiritual leaders.  Its only purpose is to defend the country and provide infrastructure.

We trace the masonic takeover of this country to Wilson.  The only good thing that can be said of him is that he repented in tears.  But he didn't speak for America.  He was a masonic puppet and mouthpiece.  What Our Lady of Good Success said was that these things would come from the masons.  

I didn't quite finish this.  The author's skewing and skipping caused so many errors I couldn't stomach it.  But I see where st. gilbert gets his catholic supremacy from.

St. gilbert, would you believe me if I said I'm a Catholic American?  I'm a Catholic American.  Can't wait to see the next thing you ascribe to me.

All true Catholics are Catholic supremiciststs?  Not in the sense that supremicist is used today.  One can believe that Catholicism is the only true religion without disenfranchising everyone else.  You sound like the religious leaders in Jesus' time.  Why are you hanging out with those sinners?  You should be like us, arrogant and power mad.  If you won't be like us, we will strip you of everything.  Agree with us or you'll be sorry.  

How about free will, st gilbert?  If you think like God or He thinks like you, why hasn't HE stripped all these people of their evil freedoms and put only armed, adult, male Catholics in power?  Does He approve of forcing people into Catholicism or making their life a disenfranchised misery?  I would have the authorities answer for criminal behavior and you wouldn't, but you would consider them criminal for not defending a faith they don't believe in.  Isn't that what conversion is about?

You deny history when you say Catholics haven't been converting people in this country.  Yes, they had some setbacks and persecutions, but they were as free to do those things as the Protestants were.  To their credit they did not.  I think they saw something you don't---that God wants people to come willingly to Him, not perforce.  The truth is, the Catholic Church did well in this country and we had our time to convert people.  You deny the truth when you say God was never allowed in this country because of the first amendment, solely because the first amendment didn't provide for Catholics alone.  If God was not allowed in, then all the Catholic Churches, Masses and people were sans God.

Our formal descent into a democracy by your criteria alone places it in the twentieth century.  Indifferentism vs. theocracy.  Why the heck didn't God start the Church out in a Catholic country?  Why didn't the Catholics of America make sure this was a Catholic only country?  Why, why, why doesn't God, who has all the power, just Make everyone Catholic?   You are about one step away from Noahidism---become a Noahide or we chop off your head.

If the gov't defended the faith they would be spiritual leaders.  They are men in need of conversion.  We Catholics are supposed to be in office.  So who didn't run and who didn't vote them in?

I've heard rumors that this country was founded by freemasons, etc., but I've never seen proof.  I have read some of the founding fathers writings which sounded like they knew and kept the ten commandments.  I've seen the material they used in the schools back then and I've known old people who didn't come from anti christian homes.  The fruits in the early years were not bad.

I'm going to let you go on pretending that I issued a death threat, because every time you mention it, it reminds me of how juvenile you are.  Besides, I also know that you have created me in your own mind and will hear nothing to the contrary.

'St. gilbert, would you believe me if I said I'm a Catholic American?'

The more you describe your position to me, the more I would be inclined not to believe you.  You have yet to advocate a Catholic position.


'All true Catholics are Catholic supremiciststs? Not in the sense that supremicist is used today.'

Yes, all true Catholics are 'Catholic supremacists' in that they wish to see the True Faith defended, exclusively, by the laws of their country.  They wish to see Our Lord Jesus Christ reign _supreme_.


'One can believe that Catholicism is the only true religion without disenfranchising everyone else.'

Clearly, you need to read more about the Faith and the Social Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ the King.


'How about free will, st gilbert?'

How about it?  I dont think I have advocated a position that would deny free will.


'If you think like God or He thinks like you, why hasn't HE stripped all these people of their evil freedoms and put only armed, adult, male Catholics in power?'

It is precisely because you do not (apparently) think as a Catholic, that you do not grasp the concept of Free Will.

God permits bad government in order to teach us the lesson that, without God, nothing truly good will come.


'Does He approve of forcing people into Catholicism ormaking their life a disenfranchised misery?'

You are attempting to compare two completely different concepts.

No, of course God doesnt approve of forcing people into the Faith against their will.  Neither do I.  That would of course be against Free Will.

As to the concept of 'disenfranchised misery', would you consider the Catholic peoples of Europe during the height of Christendom to be 'miserable'?  Even if you did, would it matter *one bit* if they lived a miserable life *BUT DIED AND WENT TO HEAVEN*?

Your focus is on almost purely humanistic, temporal concerns.  This is why you dont perceive the weakness in the position that you advocate.


'I would have the authorities answer for criminal behavior and you wouldn't, but you would consider them criminal for not defending a faith they don't believe in.'

No, now you are mis-stating my position.  Of course I would have authorities answer for criminal behaviour.  The question that begs is, 'To whom would these authorities answer?'

Also, no, I wouldnt consider a non-Catholic authority criminal for not defending a faith in which they did not believe.  However, I would not have non-Catholic govern Catholics in the first place.


'You deny history when you say Catholics haven't been converting people in this country.'

You deny logic, common sense, and the Faith itself when you say that Catholic Tradition has made any significant impact here in America.


'Yes, they had some setbacks and persecutions, but they were as free to do those things as the Protestants were.'

_That_ is precisely the problem: heretics were permitted to spread their errors.


'I think they saw something you don't---that God wants people to come willingly to Him, not perforce.'

Of course I see that.  However, again, you are confusing the issue.  The issue is not a matter of whether or not people convert of their own free will; the issue is whether or not a Catholic society has the right to maintain itself as explicitly Catholic.


'The truth is, the Catholic Church did well in this country and we had our time to convert people.'

No, that is anything but the truth.  The fact of the matter is that this country was founded by Protestants, Freemasons, Deists, and Pagans and has been anti-Catholic since its inception.  That the Church made *any* inroads in such a hostile environment is, frankly, a miracle.


'You deny the truth when you say God was never allowed in this country because of the first amendment, solely because the first amendment didn't provide for Catholics alone.'

No, I speak facts: since the First Amendment expressly forbids the Catholic Church as the only true Church with the right to exclusive legal protection, it denies the Faith *by definition*.  It tolerates every form of heresy, schism, etc. right along with what is left of Catholicism.  I.e., it demotes the Faith to just another religious denomination.

That is most decidedly not a Catholic position to adopt.


'If God was not allowed in, then all the Catholic Churches, Masses and people were sans God.'

Now you are arguing ad absurdam.  Of course, those truly Catholic Churches here in the U.S. have God in them, so to speak.  However, that is despite the First Amendment, not because of it.


'Why the heck didn't God start the Church out in a Catholic country?'

If you are trying to perceive the mind of God, a better person to ask would be Him.


'Why didn't the Catholics of America make sure this was a Catholic only country?'

Because the country was founded by Protestants, etc. and not by Catholics.


'Why, why, why doesn't God, who has all the power, just Make everyone Catholic?'

Because that would deny Free Will.


'They are men in need of conversion.'

That is the only issue apparently upon which we agree.


'I've heard rumors that this country was founded by freemasons, etc., but I've never seen proof.'

Even if proof were offered, my guess is that you would deny it.


'I have read some of the founding fathers writings which sounded like they knew and kept the ten commandments.'

Rebellion against authority is forbidden by the Fourth Commandment.  The Founding Fathers rebelled.  It is as plain as that.


'I'm going to let you go on pretending that I issued a death threat, because every time you mention it, it reminds me of how juvenile you are. Besides, I also know that you have created me in your own mind and will hear nothing to the contrary.'

I am beginning to conclude that reasonable discourse with you is impossible.

I recommend that you pray and think seriously about your positions, because what you are advocating is anything but Catholic.  This will become a problem if you intend to speak with other Catholics assuming you are coming from the same set of assumptions.


God bless you.

The fact is that this country was founded by anti-Catholic Masons. That is true and easily provable. The same minds behind the American Revolution were at the same time working with French Masons for the next step which would be the removal and complete destruction of the Catholic Church and Monarchy in France.
This country of course being built on the premise that there would be no government imposed form of religion most especially Jefferson said nothing that had a hierachy to run the religious institution like the Catholic Church or even King Henry's own Church of England.
Jefferson was not Christian and in fact took a razor to the New Testament and formed a version that he liked that had no mention of any miracles performed by Christ. Why? Miracles like Christ performed clearly show He was God.
John Adams hated Catholics so much he wrote about it many times to his wife,Abigail. He had a bizarre fetish in that he would attend the Catholic Mass and sit in the backround watching something he loved to hate.

Mrs. Hertz does a far better job than I will in telling this but here goes: Even the early flags of this country show the allegiance to evil. Our Lady of Guadalupe appeard to Jaun Diego whose name in his language is Eagle. The Flag of Mexico has the Eagle, (St. Juan) holding the serpent (Satan) in his claws. Among the early flags of this country is the prideful Serpent saying to the Empress of the Americas, "Don't Tread On Me." Too bad we know that she will as God has said so in the Bible. So to the name of the tavern these Masonic Sons of Liberte was the Green Dragon a well known Masonic Club. Guess what? The Boston Tea Party was just a bunch of drunken Masons bent on starting a war that really was not just. Even if George was Protestant he was the rightful Monarch something Masons hate and a very devout man, surely something Masons detest.
I guess the current war is just another party started by a bunch of drunken Masons trying to cause trouble and why ? Same as the very first revolution the goal is world government.


I think that Trinity mentioned that she was not aware of how deeply rooted the start of this country is in Masonry.
I only know what I do from reading Solange Strong Hertz books and Dr. Drolesky's columns as well as being a subscriber to the Remnant.

'Among the early flags of this country is the prideful Serpent saying to the Empress of the Americas, "Don't Tread On Me."'

Wow... I never thought of that.  Whether or not it was intentional, it certainly does seems somewhat ironic.


'I only know what I do from reading Solange Strong Hertz books and Dr. Drolesky's columns as well as being a subscriber to the Remnant.'

Unfortunately, in order to discover the Catholic truth to our culture's and civilisation's decline, one cannot trust mainstream, contemporary sources and must be more discerning even with older, 'fringe' sources.


'Next, I would study how Catholic Governments worked in the "Dark Ages."  I bet they got that name form modernists teaching in our Upper Levels of Lower Learning called University.'

The Dark Ages were anything but.  The name 'Dark Ages' was given to the Early Mediaeval period by revisionist, Protestant and Enlightenment 'scholars' who wanted to deride the fact that thought the pagan Roman Empire fell (in the West) in a political sense, the Church carried on the Roman traditions and served as an unifying element for Christendom for the next 1,000-1,500 years or so.  Protestants *hate* the very possibility that anything in the Middle Ages could have been considered beneficial because -- you guessed it -- there was no Protestantism: everyone in Christendom was _Catholic_ and the Western world was generally unified and at peace.


'They were in fact a perfect example of how the government, a monachy, worked together with the Holy Catholic Pontiff in running the government handling disputes and taking care of the people. It is because the ideal government would only work according to the teachings of the one True Faith and a Catholic Pontiff that the modernists would say they were the Dark Ages because they hate the Church Christ started.'

That indeed has a lot to do with it.  I wouldnt go so far as to say the the Middle Ages were 'perfect', but they were almost infinitely more perfect than what we have today, except in a material sense perhaps.  Society was hierarchical, everyone knew their place and their responsibilities to each other and to God.  Families were tighter, kingdoms were stronger, the Church was respected.

Compare that to now.  The family is all-but abolished in any traditional sense, there are no real kingdoms left, and the Church is anything but respected.


'Then I was able to say I became enlightened. And that is not what is usually meant by enlightenment actually modernists are going towards darkeness as in the Prince of Darkness.'

Modernism is, as Pope St. Pius X described it, the synthesis of all heresies, including Protestantism, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, Socialism, Communism, Liberalism, and Feminism.  It is wholly opposed to the Divine Order, to Divine Authority, to Tradition, to anything that would strive towards the Reign of Our Lord Jesus Christ over human society.  Modernism is totally humanistic, whereas Catholicism is totally theocentric.


'When I first started teaching I was using Seton materials. Then as I taught and read I kept learning that there was something that was true behind everything. That truth only comes from the Catholic Church.'

That is absolutely true.

The key to understanding the world is, in my opinion, to try to step back, look at the pattern of our history from the beginning, starting with Creation, and trace the long pattern of rebellions against God that began with Lucifer-cuм-Satan.  Lucifer wished to be 'like the Most-High' (i.e., he wanted to be considered at least the equal of God Himself if not greater), rebelled, and with his rebel angels-cuм-demons was cast out of Heaven for his arrogance.

Satan corrupted Adam, through Eve, in the Garden of Eden.  They rebelled against God's commandment not to eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge and were cast out of Eden.

When God came to us as Our Lord Jesus Christ, the Pharisees rejected Him.  The key to understanding that episode is that Our Lord identified them as being of their father, the Devil.

And so the pattern goes.  The same diabolic forces that rejected God from the beginning have been usurping His Son and His Church throughout history.  Satan has been waging his war against the Faith (i.e. against God) by proxy, using the Pharisees and their descendants.  If you study each of the key events in the undermining of the authority of the Church -- ex., the eastern Schism, the protestant rebellion, Fɾҽҽmαsσɳɾყ, the American & French Revolutions, Communism, Socialism, Liberalism, Feminism, and Modernism -- you will see representatives of the same people with the same rebellious attitude at every step of the way.

And they know it.  Which is why they try to outlaw discussion of it or, at a minimum, intimidate people who have 'connected the dots' into silence.


'She is very frustrated that no one who can is calling for a Crusade. The only problem is that the Holy Father can only do that and I think the first one that needs a conversion is Benedict.'

Your thinking on the matter is clear.  The only person who can put a stop to the madness is the Pope.  Unfortunately, he has not risen to the occasion.  Which is why he needs our prayers.