Pro Rege Papers

Two of the favorite appellations leftist liberals use to describe conservatives are “NAZI!” and “FASCIST!” In doing this, liberals show that they don’t want to pay attention to history. They just blurt out what sounds interesting and incriminating against Bush and Republicans. They don’t examine the sharp contrasts between Nazis and Conservatives, Hitler and Bush, Germany in the 1930s and America in 2006. The fact that they (and the MSM) are even permitted to rant and rave about this is proof in itself that we are not equal to the Nazis. We are far from the condition Germany was in under Hitler.

Fascists, Nazis, and practically every other totalitarian dictatorship stifle all dissent to their regimes. They take control of all media outlets and sources of information. They take over and/or direct the companies to do their will. They carry out their agenda with brutal force and intimidation. They use the military for operations on the people, as well as to expand their domain. They consolidate all control of government in a central location. They create a one-party system with fake, staged elections.

Does any of this sound like the Bush administration or conservativism? Just because they tapped phone calls and Internet records (which is not very kosher, I’ll admit) looking for terrorists doesn’t mean that they are Nazis. It means that they overstepped their authority. The New York Times and all the leftist bloggers are free to criticize Bush as much as they want. The Bush administration has not imposed military rule over the country; they have not instituted a secret police; they have not gotten rid of the Democratic Party, they still acknowledge state and local governments.

We have a Constitution that is designed to keep people from taking totalitarian power. But liberals are doing all they can to ignore or “interpret” away those restrains on a central, broad government. One of the main points of conservativism is limited government. Liberals today are working toward socialism, which takes more of our freedoms away and resembles Fascism much more than conservativism. But we don’t call them Nazis, because that would not be completely accurate. (It is also considered and insult, as well. No one who is interested in a sensible discussion should insult the other side wrongly.)

If you disagree with the President, disagree with the President, (so do I on some issues) don’t slander him or characterize him as something he is not. Articulate your thoughts and pay attention to history as you make comparisons. Remember, he is our President, and he deserves respect as such.

Many people believe or are coming to believe certain parts of Dan Brown’s book, The Da Vinci Code. This book contains many lies about divinity of Christ. The recently translated Judas Gospel is also urging people in the same direction.

One of the primary lies that The Da Vinci Code perpetrates that people believe is that Jesus was made God by the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. They say that before 325, practically no Christian believed that Jesus was divine. Some of them also believe that it was a very narrow vote that made Jesus God.

People who say this reveal a blatant ignorance of history as well as Christianity and the Bible. The Gospels, all of which being written before 70 AD, testify that Jesus is divine. The whole New Testament, for that matter, which was written in the 1^st century, assumes and/or says plainly that Jesus is divine. After the writing of the Bible, and before the Council of Nicea, you have theologian after theologian, preacher after preacher who is documented as saying that Jesus was divine.

The whole point of Christianity, as opposed to Judaism, is that Jesus is divine, not just a good man. People in the early Church were converted from Judaism to Christianity. If the divinity of Christ were not widely accepted, they would have stayed in the synagogue. The unbelieving Jews persecuted the Church because they viewed the doctrine of the divinity of Christ as blasphemy. They murdered Christ because He declared himself to be God. (By the way, if Christ said it, wouldn’t that kind of dictate it for Christianity?) It is a central doctrine of Christianity.

The Council of Nicea was held in 325 to oppose an error introduced by Arius, a heretic from North Africa. He said (as the Jehovah’s Witnesses say today) that Jesus was not eternal or divine, but subordinate to God. This crafty, handsome, and superficially intelligent man started to hold sway with some pastors. The Council of Nicea was called to unify the Church on that issue. Athanasius, a bishop from Alexandria, led the way in opposing Arius’ theology. The vote was 250+ to 2. That’s closer than the chances a Republican has for getting elected in Boston.

If you characterize the whole of early Christianity by one heretic in the 4^th century, you’re getting an extremely skewed view. You can’t describe the whole by an exception.

Russia has this thing with dictatorships. They can’t get rid of them. They come, one after another, and the Russians do nothing about it.

Russians have this fatalist attitude toward hardship in their lives. They just accept it, and don’t do anything about it (besides maybe drowning it in vodka). They allow strongman after strongman to dominate their lives. The Russian Orthodox Church also has much to do with this mentality. Its form of church government is largely a dictatorship. That system is impressed upon the people’s minds day after day. The Russian Orthodox Church is very influential in government as well. Have you ever noticed that the Kremlin is filled with Russian Orthodox cathedrals?

So let’s look at the history. Russia was a group of freezing, pagan Slavs all through history until 988; when their ruler, Vladimir I, adopted Eastern Orthodoxy as the official religion. There’s nothing like getting off to a bad start.

In 1237, Mongolian raiders invaded and destroyed Kiev, the capital of Russia at that time. The Russians continued under that occupation for a long time until some forward-thinking man decided that it was possible to overthrow an oppressive government. So they rebelled, succeeded in recapturing Kiev, and established a monarchy with the capital at Moscow.

The Czars (the Russian word for Caesar) ruled the land until 1917. They were extremely oppressive. They ruled the people (who were reduced to serfs) as feudal lords for about 450 years. They kept power by stifling all opposition, and periodically using pogroms (massacres and deportations) to keep the population free of radicals and ethnic minorities.

In 1917, Vladimir Lenin, influenced by Marx’s communism, organized a revolt that ousted the czars and set up a communist state in Russia. He used the same tactics as the czars to stifle opposition. The USSR continued for 80 years, exporting its communism to Eastern Europe and Asia, killing off or sending to the gulag all dissenters, and doing all the things that a proper tyrannical state should.

Then, in 1989, the Poles stood firm against their Communist oppressors, starting a chain of events that lead to the liberation of Eastern Europe, and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991.

Now, we have Vladimir (a very popular name among Russians) Putin, who is systematically wiping out all antagonism to his “administration.” The government now owns all of the TV stations, and is forcing the radio stations to not broadcast The Voice of America, The Voice of Free Europe, or other free media outlets. They control the newspapers, and are advancing their agenda in a way that we have seen is very popular among Russian rulers.

Get ready for Russia to become totalitarian again.

Socialism is being accepted in America. Slowly but surely it is coming about. It has slowed a little since the ‘80s, but it is gradually enveloping America.

In the United States, we prefer the gradualist (or evolutionary) socialism. This is opposed to the revolutionary socialism espoused by Karl Marx, also known as communism. Communism declares that there is a huge gap between the rich capitalists and the poor workers, and therefore the poor workers need to rise up against the capitalists and take over the economy, thereby equalizing wages for all and ushering in a worker’s paradise. They need to abolish government in one fell swoop and have the collective decide things (for some of the ideology behind socialism in general, read the beginning of my post on labor unions).

Gradual socialism on the other hand, while accepting the basic premises and views of revolutionary socialism, prefers to bring about the change in a different way. This form says that government should be used to gradually bring down capitalism by the use of laws, labor unions, court decisions, etc. The government should gradually get rid of private property, take over certain services and industries, and increase taxes so that eventually the middle class will be destroyed, the rich brought down, and everyone will be poor together.

Essentially, you have two different methods of accomplishing the same thing.

The Fabian Society in Britain is a prime example of this latter type of socialism. You can see the results in the modern-day UK. I saw an Englishman’s comment on a blog recently, talking about how you have to have a TV license from the government in England if you want to watch TV or video feeds on the Internet. Just imagine: All of us living in the good ‘ole USA are watching TV freely and without government harassment, while our fellow men in Britain are paying the government for the privilege to watch the BBC (which itself has a monopoly on TV and radio programming in the UK).

In the United States, utopians and muckrakers had much influence on convincing the American mind that there were horrible evils being perpetrated by the big companies on the people. Americans began little by little to accept the basic premises of socialism, while rejecting the results. They began to view government intervention as the only way to solve problems in society. While they hated and rejected anything that actually called itself socialism, they accepted programs that advanced the socialist agenda. That’s why you won’t find anyone today who calls himself or his program socialist. They know that they won’t be able to pass it, so they put it under the guise of “democracy” or “nationalism” or some other innocent-sounding word.

The gradualist socialism was carried out by the Populists, Progressive Republicans, and Democrats, consecutively. The Democratic Party today is the main driving force behind many socialist programs. Though now Republicans are being drawn in as well. We need to stop the gradual overtaking of our country by socialism.

Many people call the War of Independence the “Revolutionary War”, or the “American Revolution.” They compare our independence with other guerrilla wars that thugs and criminals propagate. However, the word “revolution” does not necessarily apply to what we did in 1775-1781.

A revolution refers to a complete turn-around of all society. It is an abolishment of all that was before. It is a 180 change in direction. This is the sort of thing that happened in France and Russia. The government was abolished, society was completely changed, and institutions destroyed. Revolution is a proper term for that type of rebellion.

However, the War of Independence was not a bunch of lunatics going around burning houses down and murdering people. It was an organized rebellion against an authority that had over-stepped its boundaries. The events of 1775 were the culmination of a long train of abuses by the British. In response, we organized the Stamp Act Congress, the First Continental Congress, and the Second Continental Congress to combat the oppression of the English king. The leaders of our rebellion were respected men whose aims were not to destroy the lifelines of society. Our war was merely for the purpose of changing government.

John Calvin said that a revolt against the established government is acceptable when that power has been abusive for a long time. He also said that the leaders of the rebellion should be “lesser-magistrates” who understand the workings of government. That way, the result will be an organized government that accomplishes the ideals of the rebellion, and not anarchy or tyranny. This model set forth by Calvin is what happened in the United States. We reformed government; we didn’t destroy it. That is why the War for American Independence has been one of the most successful rebellions in history. All others (e.g. Haiti) go nowhere. Sometimes they actually make things worse.

The declaration of Independence is one of the greatest works of all time. In commemoration of its adoption by the Second Continental Congress, here is the transcript:

In Congress, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. —That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, —That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

• He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

• He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

• He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

• He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

• He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

• He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

• He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

• He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

• He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

• He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

• He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

• He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

• He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

1. For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

2. For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

3. For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

4. For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

5. For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

6. For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences

7. For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

8. For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

9. For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

• He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

• He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

• He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

• He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

• He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The 56 signatures on the Declaration appear in the positions indicated:

Column 1
Georgia:
Button Gwinnett
Lyman Hall
George Walton

Column 2
North Carolina:
William Hooper
Joseph Hewes
John Penn
South Carolina:
Edward Rutledge
Thomas Heyward, Jr.
Thomas Lynch, Jr.
Arthur Middleton

Column 3
Massachusetts:
John Hancock
Maryland:
Samuel Chase
William Paca
Thomas Stone
Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia:
George Wythe
Richard Henry Lee
Thomas Jefferson
Benjamin Harrison
Thomas Nelson, Jr.
Francis Lightfoot Lee
Carter Braxton

Column 4
Pennsylvania:
Robert Morris
Benjamin Rush
Benjamin Franklin
John Morton
George Clymer
James Smith
George Taylor
James Wilson
George Ross
Delaware:
Caesar Rodney
George Read
Thomas McKean

Column 5
New York:
William Floyd
Philip Livingston
Francis Lewis
Lewis Morris
New Jersey:
Richard Stockton
John Witherspoon
Francis Hopkinson
John Hart
Abraham Clark

Column 6
New Hampshire:
Josiah Bartlett
William Whipple
Massachusetts:
Samuel Adams
John Adams
Robert Treat Paine
Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island:
Stephen Hopkins
William Ellery
Connecticut:
Roger Sherman
Samuel Huntington
William Williams
Oliver Wolcott
New Hampshire:
Matthew Thornton

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.