Pro Rege Papers

The labor unions used to be a plague on the United States. They were extremely violent in the 1880’s and ‘90s, and practically ruled business in the U.S. until Ronald Reagan stopped them with his fortitude. They are still very influential in Europe.

One of the things that I have thought is very interesting is that the main fight of labor unions is not against employers, though that is part of it, but against other non-union employees.
Unionism is based on socialism. They probably wouldn’t say it outright, but they believe in the basic doctrine of Karl Marx’s communism: that the common workers are being oppressed by the employers and/or capitalists. This is based on Marx’s labor theory of value: that an object receives all of its value from the labor put into it. According to Marx, the workers do most of the wealth producing, but they receive very little of the benefits; the employers and capitalists do. Thus there is a great injustice.

Now, that’s not very good economics. There are many other factors in value besides the labor put into the product. Anyway, the unionists believed this basic communist premise, and set about to get for themselves more of what they saw as the profits of their labor. So they joined together and used intimidation to get better wages, fewer work hours, etc. from their employers.

The conflict comes to a head when the unions get those terms of easy work. They attempt to establish a monopoly on the labor in a certain field of expertise. They try to make the employers agree to only accept union members as employees. They exclude and take violent action against those who are willing to work for the standards and wages of the company, rather than the union. When the union calls a strike, they try to prevent other workers (called by the unionists “scabs”, “rats”, or “strikebreakers”) from coming to the company to relieve the labor shortage. This is when violence takes place.

If you look at the episodes of the 1880’s and ‘90s, you see what kind of things labor unions can do when they have the opportunity. You can see some of the crazy ideology that they put forward. Just read some of the accounts of the Great Railway Strike of 1877, or the Haymarket Riot of 1886, or the Homestead Strike of 1892, or the Pullman Strike of 1894. The unions have moderated in terms of violence since then, but the basic ideology is the same.

After WWII until the 80s, the unions had almost established complete control over large companies. They wielded so much power of the strike with all their members that the large companies were forced to bargain out deals or face a massive strike that would devastate their company. This carried on until Ronald Reagan came into office. He decided that enough was enough and that government was going to stand up to these people, at least the government employees.

When the Air Traffic Controller’s Association struck in 1981, Reagan just held out and refilled the posts with spare workers and willing controllers that agreed to work extra hours. After a while, the union members started to come back to the job because they couldn’t hold out without money for long. Then the private companies got the idea and started doing the same thing. Over the years, they gradually broke a large amount of the power of the labor unions.

GavinO just posted a really good article by LiveScience on a bunch of creation-evolution stuff.

I recommend you read it.

“Marxism is the opiate of the people”

I’m tired of people saying that Christianity is against science because Galileo was killed by fundamentalists. That is a commonly perpetrated lie that many people who don’t know the history believe. Thankfully Axinar seems to know the true story, but maybe some of you don’t.
After many years in the Christian Church, with the development of the hierarchy, and other things that departed from the clear teaching of the Bible, the Roman Catholic church as we know it today came about. This organized church at Rome, with the pope as its head, embraced the teachings of Aristotle, Plato, (to a certain extent) and other Greeks. Aristotle, as is widely known, set forth formally the theory of geocentrism. The Papists accepted this view, and made it an official doctrine of the Church.

However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the earth revolves around the sun. It implies it several times, (e.g. in Joshua) but God did that so that people before Galileo could understand what He was saying. It would sound silly to an ancient Eastern man to say, “the earth stopped rotating, and therefore the day became longer.” It wouldn’t make any sense. Even we today say the sun rises in the East and sets in the West. We don’t say, “2 hours after earthturn I’ll meet you at the park.” We say, “2 hours after sunset I’ll meet you at the park.” We say it even though the sun isn’t actually moving, we are. The Bible contains other references to facts that were not widely believed then. For example, Isaiah 40:22 speaks about the Earth being round.

Anyway, Galileo provided further proof that the Earth orbits the sun, not vice-versa. He published his works, and was nearly executed by the Papists for “heresy.” The Roman Catholics persecuted heliocentrists without discussion or consideration, just stating the official position of the church. Evolutionists are academically persecuting creationists without discussion or consideration, just stating the official position of secular science. Makes you wonder.

Roman Catholics are by no means fundamentalists. They are (in my opinion) not even Christians. Johannes Kepler, a key heliocentrist and proposer of the Planetary Laws of Motion, was a fundamentalist.
So don’t say anymore that Christianity and the Bible is opposed to science.

You know it really shows where this country is when the Motion Picture Association of America gives a film a PG rating for Christian elements in the plot.

Alex and Stephen Kendrick direct Facing the Giants, a movie about the struggles of a football team in the South. There is an evangelical component in the movie that earned it a PG rating for adult themes. Apparently the MPAA believes that Christianity should not be something children are exposed to, along with violence, bad language, and nudity. Yes, that stuff is poisonous. Look at all the lives that have been ruined by the Christian message. Heaven forbid that parents should let their children see THAT!

That’s nonsense of course, but it just shows the direction this country is inching toward.

There is a major flaw in the evolutionary theory. It has to do with the ability to pass down a trait that has mutated.

Suppose that (somehow, this in itself is beyond scientific consideration) a mutation occurred in the just the right spot, with just the right genes, at just the right time in an animal to give him a “good” trait. You now have an animal with a structure that resembles the final form we see today (e.g. the long neck of a giraffe). That long neck is by itself on an animal, without any support structures. The “mid-giraffe” does not have a 2ft. long heart to pump the blood all the way up there, nor does it have strong enough legs to carry the extra weight and get away from enemies. Thus, the “mid-giraffe” dies, and the evolutionary trail ends.

So, an evolutionist would say, the genes for the support of that neck would have mutated simultaneously with the long neck. Now, the kind of radiation exposure necessary to generate such mutations in so many spots would kill the animal easily. But let’s suppose that somehow he escaped unscathed from all that radiation. You now have an animal that is alone in the world with a highly developed system. There is no other animal nearby that has the same type of characteristics. The giraffe cannot mate with anyone, so the evolutionary trail ends with him.

So, an evolutionist would say, the mutations happened little by little over a long period of time. But then the support structures would not be there. Then you go back to step 1. You can’t say that all of the changes necessary mutated slowly together, because then the animal still wouldn’t have anyone to mate with. If you say that two animals “co-mutated,” you’re just crazy. It’s impossible that two animals would have the exact same mutations and be able to mate with that kind of genetic load. It’s just impossible.

By the way, where was the source of radiation during all this? I thought the ozone was supposed to be thicker in the past. Fewer mutation-causing ultra-violet rays would have gotten through, lessening the chance of evolution.

The facts just don’t add up for evolution.