Fish Eaters Traditional Catholic Forum
May 25, 2013, 09:27:PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: The man still needs help!
 
   Fish Eaters    Forum Index   Forum Rules   Help Calendar Members Chat Room   Who's Chatting   Login Register  
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
 
Author Topic: USA still British Crown Colony?  (Read 7015 times)
catholicresistence
Guest
« on: May 23, 2006, 01:23:PM »

Long article, here is the link:

 

http://www.apfn.org/apfn/bcolony.htm

Logged
sean
Member

Posts: 50


« Reply #1 on: May 23, 2006, 01:44:PM »

HRH Queen Elizabeth II and her predeccessors do not hold any title which would lay claim to that land. It is a de facto concession to the rebels. 

Moreover, the British North America Act of 1867 makes no claim to the 13 colonies under section XI.

Logged
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #2 on: May 23, 2006, 02:45:PM »

Quote from: sean
HRH Queen Elizabeth II and her predeccessors do not hold any title which would lay claim to that land. It is a de facto concession to the rebels. 

Moreover, the British North America Act of 1867 makes no claim to the 13 colonies under section XI.

 

Interseting, will have to look into that sometime. I guess the Brits learned how off they were in violating the Magna Carta with AMerican colonists-a document inspired by Common Law.

 

(BTW- despite allegations to the contrary, I have no problem w/monarchies, just holier-than-though proponents of them. I have few skills, no talents and few places to run to-that is why I stay and fight here in USA. Check out my avatar if anyone thinks I do not have favorable views on Monarchies)

 

Best to you sir and thanks for the info.

Logged
catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #3 on: May 23, 2006, 02:46:PM »

Also, no problem generally with Elizabeth II, though would rather she skip over Charles for William-much better, needs a little more maturity probably.

 

Long live King William???

Logged
Catholicmonarchist
Member

Posts: 8


« Reply #4 on: May 23, 2006, 09:30:PM »

Mr. Christopher Ferrara, Esq. has just written an excellent piece entitled “Rebel Without a Cause” for the Remnant which looks at the myth of the so called conservative founding of the American republic, the American Founders whom he argues were just as radical and just as anti-Catholic as the French Jacobins, and their unjust war.   He defends George III against the false charge of tyranny.   He even finds time to throw a few punches at libertarianism.  Great read.

Logged


catholicresistence
Guest
« Reply #5 on: May 24, 2006, 08:53:AM »

Quote from: Catholicmonarchist
 

Mr. Christopher Ferrara, Esq. has just written an excellent piece entitled “Rebel Without a Cause” for the Remnant which looks at the myth of the so called conservative founding of the American republic, the American Founders whom he argues were just as radical and just as anti-Catholic as the French Jacobins, and their unjust war.   He defends George III against the false charge of tyranny.   He even finds time to throw a few punches at libertarianism.  Great read.

 

Will have to read-though I still maintain that most likely, the Founders were ignorant of true goals of masonary, except maybe Franklin- he was the one that urged Jefferson to change "sacred" to "self evident".

 

I also maintaing the Founders were the heirs of the Prots revolt and hence-were fed a lot of manure about the Catholic Church and their role in life.

 

I am reading a book now about John Adams, he details his loyalty to monarchy-just prior to Declaration-yet his loathing of Parliment. He was one of those that brought the Olive Branch petition directly to King George III, imploring him to intervene.

 

George III did not even look at it, nor the charges that Parliment purposly treaded on the Magna Carta rights-based on Common Law. George III to me was not the main problem, it was the Prime Minister and Parliment. As George III was not all that powerful-power had dissipated over the centuries from monarch to Parliment- he could probably do little if push came to shove. I blame Parliment and PM for any bad blood and the break. Even today, Britain is a police state-the Queen can do little as her position is even more precarious then George III.

 

Adams was always seen in his lifetime as pro-monarchist.

 

While Trad Catholics like to never tire of telling the rest of us how anti-Catholic the Founders were, they are silent about their heroes the British. Not long after the Revolution, restrictions on Catholics was lifted in this country-not Britain!.

 

We were-at best-2nd class citizens until 1829. Even then, we did not have equality in the law, business or ordinary life. To this day, Prince William cannot convert-he would lose the throne. Recent challenges to this have failed.

 

Just ask the Irish, they were given a choice by the missionaries for the official Church of England-we give you food, if and only if, you convert to Prots. Anti-Catholicism in the Kingdom was much longer and systemic-even now in some manners.

 

Don't even get me started on the Calvinists of Scotland!!!!

 

I would say, in closing, that most Founders had bad information and bad theology-like many of our neighbors today. The Brits controlled the Lodge and the Church in the Old Country.

 

Ferrera I respect, those that are willing to jump on the bandwagon of any American bashing I cannot. Though we are Catholic 1st and foremost-heading to our true homeland (Heaven), we are forced to live and operate here on Earth for now.

 

For me, I fight on as best as I can. I also will not be a bandwagoner for those academics that easily can go anywhere in the world to live/work, while I am stuck here making the best out of a human system.

 

My invitation is the same, if America is so bad from its core, leave......

 

I as a working man cannot and try to cling to the good. Despite the USA leading the way into the NWO, we have enough people willing to fight here-it is pretty much over in Western Europe-esp with Royals going to Bilderberger meetings.

 

 

I await the prophesized holy Catholic king to come over Europe.

 

My involvement in the Constituion Party is a means to an end, not the end itself. To end abortion, stop the slide into a tyranic despotism, etc. Hopefully, we can forstall God's judgment, or at least, save as many as possible.

 

Europe will suffer far more than us-esp led by the present crop of anti-Catholic Royals and civilian elected folks.

 

Well, that is my $0.02 and I leave you all for now...have work to do, fights to fight and prayers to say. Sorry for any misspellings, etc, as I am trying to crank out my thoughts with little time.

 

 

 

Logged
royalcello
Guest
« Reply #6 on: May 24, 2006, 09:03:AM »

Quote from: catholicresistence

Also, no problem generally with Elizabeth II



That isn't the position you were taking here.

Quote
though would rather she skip over Charles for William-much better, needs a little more maturity probably.

 

Long live King William???



That isn't how hereditary monarchy works.  Part of the point of the system is that no one--not even the monarch--chooses the next head of state, thus keeping the process free of any partisan pressures.  There is no provision in the British constitutiion for an heir to the throne to be "skipped" just because some people don't like him or his son is better looking or whatever.

I get sick of hearing this anyway.  Yes, Prince Charles committed adultery (like many kings, including some great Catholic ones) and is hopelessly naïve about Islam.  He is also one of the most insightful contemporary thinkers on issues such as architecture, education, history, hunting, and farming.  I think he will make an excellent king (within the confines of his modern position).  But ultimately neither his faults nor his virtues are relevant: he is the heir to the throne, and will be the next monarch, for better or for worse.  End of story.
Logged
royalcello
Guest
« Reply #7 on: May 24, 2006, 09:17:AM »

Quote from: catholicresistence
I blame Parliment and PM for any bad blood and the break.


No, however imprudent Parliament may have been, responsibility for the revolution lies with the revolutionaries.  

If British rule was so awful, how come a substantial minority of American colonists, the Tories/Loyalists, were opposed to independence?  My sympathies are with them.

Logged
royalcello
Guest
« Reply #8 on: May 24, 2006, 09:33:AM »

Quote from: catholicresistence
would say, in closing, that most Founders had bad information and bad theology-like many of our neighbors today.


You make it sound like the Founders were essentially innocent victims, tragically misled by....who, exactly?  Balderdash.  These were some of the most intelligent men of their time.  (Yes, I'm capable of recognizing that.)  They knew exactly what they were doing: revolting against their lawful sovereign for debatable reasons.  It doesn't matter if they weren't all formal adherents of Freemasonry or were not privy to the Craft's innermost secrets.  Their cause was Masonic in its essence.

King George III, in contrast, hated Freemasonry and tried to restrict its operations in England during his reign.
Logged
Catholicmonarchist
Member

Posts: 8


« Reply #9 on: May 24, 2006, 11:12:AM »

Freemasonry

 

I read recently that 53 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence were Freemasons.  Of those that were not masons how many of the Founders were free from Enlightenment thought? 

A Christian State

 

These men despised the Catholic Church and many even rejected the dogma that Christ is God, as did Adams, Jefferson, and Washington. 

 

In 1797 the Senate declared unanimously that

Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5
 
 
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.8 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines LLC