Primary Objectives
Stop the polarization of America
Stop the domination of the Democratic and Republican parties over our political system
Shut down the Federal Reserve system
Return America's gold to Fort Knox and have it audited
Have Congress and the IRS, in a public forum, reveal the law that requires Americans to pay a direct, unapportioned tax on their labor.
Make computerized voting illegal in all 50 states
Keep the internet free and out of the control of large institutions
Rescind the law called the Real ID Act so Americans never have to carry a National ID Card
Make it illegal to implant RFID chips in human beings
Educate juries to the fact that they have the right to determine the law as well as the facts of a case
Educate juries to the fact that they are not obligated to follow the instructions of a judge
Stop Globalization because it is the path to a one world government
Protect our borders
Restore the environment
Put an end to the Patriot Act
Sign up millions of Americans so we can accomplish our objectives

Polarization of America here refers to the two party system, with dems and reps fighting for their party and not what is good for America.  It takes the focus off the problems and places it on party loyalty.  

There are a number of organizations who are trying to get the people educated about jury duty.  Here is one article available.

http://www.barefootsworld.net/trial01.html

I am surprised by some of your disagreements, Gilbert.

Ah, but not cooperating with him is an excellent thing, too.

'Ah, but not cooperating with him is an excellent thing, too.'

Remember: We have a duty, as Catholics, to obey our rulers in everything but sin.  To rebel against them otherwise is to violate the Fourth Commandment.  In which case, you will be no better than the very system with which you take issue.

Absolutely.  Our Lord being the pre-eminent example of rendering unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, etc.

This might entail martyrdom.  As Catholics, we should accept the reality of that possibility.

'BUT, Gilbert, you are forgetting that Our Lord woed the scribes and pharisees and whipped the thieves out of the temple.'

Yes, He did.  And they had Him crucified.


'And John hassled Herod.'

Yes, he did, too.  And he was beheaded.


'OK, here's my stand. I don't believe in rebellion, but I don't believe in standing idly by while evil goes on, either. Conundrum! The fine line.'

We must do all we can to remain loyal to our authorities *so long as they do not command us to commit sins*.  _That_ is the fine line.


'Now for authority. Two things. We know that these people have become the authorities through nefarious means, but it was our sins that brought them down on us. I believe that when we chased God out of this country we threw open the door for satan. Maybe we don't agree on this, but let's proceed like we do.'

All authourity comes from God.  Even bad authority.  The bad authority we have is permitted -- by God -- in order to teach us a lesson: that without Him, we will get exactly nowhere.

You are correct in that we permitted this to happen, but it didnt start with our chasing God out of the country: God was never in this country.  He was forbidden entry by the First Amendment.

The only way out of this situation is prayer.  Not rebellion.  Rebellion is exactly what got us into this mess.


'So here we are under the thumb of satan's brood and by means of various devices they are destroying us. Some laws they changed, some laws they threw away, but a lot of them are still on the books just being ignored (like cohabiting). Some of the things they say are laws, aren't laws at all. They simply proceed as if they are. Ostensibly we are a country under rule of law, so anything done under law can not be considered rebellion. Anything done outside the law is criminal (which is why we are all criminals today, mostly unaware).'

Which is exactly why I think it will come down to martyrdom.


'The things they do outside the law, should we not charge them with? Should bad laws not be changed? Should good laws not be enforced? Russo quoted something I hadn't heard before: Silence is golden, but when it comes to your freedoms, it's yellow.'

'Freedom' to do *what*, exactly?


'I should have said I was surprised by your disagreements and undecideds, but my brain is at half mast today. The only thing you disagreed with was getting rid of the computer vote count and going back to the paper count.'

The problem with computerised voting -- or any voting, for that matter -- is that too many people are entitled to vote.  Yes, I think that there should be no computerised voting, but I also advocate restricting the franchise to armed, adult, literate, male, Catholic Freeholders having attained to the age of twenty-one years.  Perhaps a stipulation should be added to that, further restricting the franchise to honourably discharged veterans of the armed forces.

Yes, that means that I think women shouldnt vote.  Nor should children.  Only men should vote, and very few men at that.

I also think that if the Constitution is to work properly, then the only people for whom we should vote directly are our Representatives to Congress.  The Senators should be appointed by their States and the President should be elected by the Electoral College.

I also think that all state and federal public officials should have their oath of office administered by a Catholic bishop; all local public officials should have theirs administered by at least a priest.

Of course, none of this will matter if the country remains non-Catholic.  Nothing we do will have a lasting effect.


'And the ID thing. You have no problem with them being in the middle of your life, tracking you, controlling you, using what you do against you? I do.'

Well, for instance, I'm not sure I see the problem with keeping an eye on violent criminals, sɛҳuąƖ criminals, illegal aliens, etc.  I also see no problem with a national ID.  The thing is, we already have one: it's called a Passport.  We could just use that.  I do not think we should add yet another federal programme which will mean creating another federal bureaucracy which will mean more taxes.

As far as the country being polarised between the Democrats and the Republicans goes, that is a total non-issue: There is no practical difference -- except, perhaps, time -- between the Democrats and the Republicans.  I definitely advocate polarising American society: between Catholic and non-Catholic.  But, more than that, I advocate that we convert our fellow countrymen.

'The things they do outside the law, should we not charge them with? Should bad laws not be changed? Should good laws not be enforced?'

Really, this is a very complex topic: i.e. determining what is outside the law and what is not.  Any government that defines its own limits *has no limits*.  (That has been the case in the United States since at least 1865, when the federal government removed, by force, the ability of the state governments to check federal power.)  Therefore, nothing, theoretically, is outside the law.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean by 'charging' them.  If you mean 'holding them accountable', then I absolutely agree with you.  The manner by which a mature, rational, armed, virile electorate holds its public officials accountable is by either voting them out or removing them if they refuse to yield.

Let me clarify my position: I do not advocate rebellion or anarchy.  Bad laws should definitely be changed and good laws should definitely be enforced.  But I do not advocate rebellion to achieve those ends because, by rebelling, you lose your own moral authority.

For society to change and become truly Catholic, *people* need to convert.  Perhaps that means the masses.  Perhaps that means the de facto aristocracy.


'Freedom to do what, exactly? Live, with all that entails. Must we get into details?'

I ask 'Freedom to do what, exactly?' because Freedom for its own sake is what we have now.  Children are 'free' to rebel against their parents; wives are 'free' to rebel against their husbands; men are 'free' to rebel against each other; and all because we are 'free' to rebel againt (i.e. ignore) God and His Church.  If by 'Freedom' you mean the Freedom to commit Sin without consequences, then I am against such a concept.

If by 'Freedom' you mean the Freedom to publically acknowledge the Kingship of Our Lord Jesus Christ over our society, then I am all for it.

Honestly, Gilbert, what do you think I am?  A dirty old woman?  I am well aware of what the world calls freedom, which is not what I call freedom.  Freedom to me is the ability to live unhindered spiritually and physically as you build a home, a career, a family, a community, a country.  To not be taxed, bullied, silenced or tricked into corners or the grave.  I could do better than this, but it's off the top of my head.

Rule of law is not complex.  Laws are enacted by the legislature, interpreted by the courts and enforced by the executive branch.  Right now the enemy has gotten in quite a few bad laws, such as abortion on demand, which need to be changed.  They have quit enforcing good laws, such as those against ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity, which need to be enforced.  And they pretended that there were laws even though those laws have never been voted into existence, such as the income tax.  This last is outside the law, illegal, criminal and those who do such things should be treated no differently than anyone else who operates outside the law.  How can this be complex?  

I could pretend there was a law sentencing all men with the name Gilbert to death.  If I were in such a position of authority to pull it off, you'd be history.  I would be a murderer in a right thinking society because that is what my "pretend" law is.  There are those who consider Bush a war criminal, and I think they have some grounds.  Should he not be "charged" if sufficient grounds are found?  Impeachment would get him off our backs, but I really think he should be tried, not just voted out.

I'm curious about your meaning of "loyalty to the authorities".