Due to inheriting a set of tapes of my Grandpa Mather and the unique and powerful role he played in my own life, I’m trying a series of episodes on The Republican Professor podcast, in the business series as well as what I call on YouTube “TRP Backstory.” I’m learning alot from the tapes about how my Grandpa thought about his own role in the company as a model of civic engagement. Some of these recent tapes given to me by Kerri Marquadt (thank you, Kerri) who owned and operated 7 of the restaurants including for a time the Cheyenne WY location, evidence that Grandpa thought of these like a monthly podcast for the staff and managers of the nationwide chain. And the types of topics he chose are all in line with the topics on this podcast. Enjoy !

Lucas

Here is the first one in the series. There will also be some shorter clips uploaded to TRP Facebook page, so look for those if interested.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. is the producer and host of The Republican Professor Podcass based in Southern California.

Here it is:

“As I studied the presidency and the Court, and noticed the role of discretion in the evil vile wickedness I witnessed in the primary and secondary sources, I also noticed the role of discretion in the goodness. Often courage was required for a person filling one of those roles to exercise their discretion in their institutional role to do the right thing. Often, it was pressing the boundaries of what they could get away with. Often, it was not popular. But it was right. And it was the wisdom in the design of the institution that protected them at the time. And I think, that was the hand of Divine Providence.

The Adjunct Professor role is a relic of the old professor which is a wise design (my ancestors founded Harvard and Yale--look up Yale wiki and search “Mather”), the way the thing was originally designed, and it still has certain features of it, although the democrats are constantly trying to destroy the role (and the people in it). There are certain things that a wise, courageous Adjunct Professor can do in that role that press the institutional boundaries almost to the breaking point. But I hear Michael Uhlmann’s voice in the background (a Reagan West Winger)--presidents who don’t risk impeachment probably aren’t very good presidents. The branches were designed to fight each other. When they fight, that’s good. That’s what they are supposed to do. It’s not dysfunction--it’s proper function. That’s what the three branches were designed to do. (It’s amazing to me how many people are still so ignorant of that fact--people who say Washington is dysfunctional--it’s only dysfunctional if you don’t fight).

So, the normative role of the Adjunct Professor is, at times, to make people hate you. In the present crisis. I did not seek out this role. It found me. It took many years for me to figure this out. And I don’t wish for total war, or even a limited war. But, to quote an old soul,

‘Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.’”

The last quotation is from Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address, March 1865. Just weeks before he was murdered by a Democrat and then immediately replaced by a Democrat from Tennesee, where the Klan started later that same year.

Below is a TRP Podcass episode on Lincoln’s Second Inaugural , Biblical themes within.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D., is the producer and host of The Republican Professor Podcass. One can find the podcast by looking it up.

Here’s Dr. Wolfe’s comments https://lawliberty.org/dispatching-humphreys-executor/

Below is the first episode in the series on Thach’s 1922 Johns Hopkins PhD dissertation.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. is the producer and host of The Republican Professor podcass.

I’ve also described on the podcast my Grandfather’s influence on me, and on Pastor Rob, Charlie Kirk’s pastor. Charlie Kirk was murdered by a movement that, due to demonic influence, confused the minds of people that did not understand him, that chose—and I use that word deliberately because this is a misunderstanding that carries with it moral culpability—that chose not to understand but to destroy. Dialogue is the key to understanding. They chose destruction instead.

My Grandfather mentored Charlie Kirk’s pastor, Rob McCoy, and he in turn did both funeral services for my Grandfather at this church you’re about to see in the video. Pastor Rob did the gravesite service as the second service for my Grandfather’s memorial. He preached about my Grandfather at this church on this channel you’re about to see on Memorial Day weekend of 2025.

This same Rob McCoy, the one Dennis Prager had on his fireside chat, got this South Korean pastor out of prison with Vice President Vance’s help.

There are powerful forces, some within our churches, who actively oppose the worship of God in church. Who are on the side of choosing to misunderstand something that could be understood with dialogue. Who are on the side of destruction.

Here is an example of a Republican in South Korea, a Korean man. Given the utter brutality he went through in his own country to stand up for the Gospel and the freedom to go to church, the first time he cried was at 29:45. And what caused him to cry at 29:45? This was a man trained as an assassin in Special Forces. Was it the brutality ? No. It was that he was so grateful that he could protect the value of God, the value of the Gospel, despite the horrific conditions of his confinement, the kind that Senator John McCain would call “torture,” though Vice President Chaney called them “enhanced interrogation techniques.”

This is what Leftism does. It seeks not to understand but to destroy instead. It actively opposes understanding by opposing dialogue. It prefers censorship and the use of the government to prevent church attendance. There are those among us in the United States today who also prefer censorship and the use of the government to prevent church attendance.

But as this pastor shows, the Lord has other plans and invites our cooperation.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, PhD is the producer and host of The Republican Professor podcast.

The interviewer was a Biden administration official in the Commerce Dept. doesn’t hesitate to disagree with him on some things, but he holds fast. It’s great.

He is unapologetically Republican and it’s refreshing.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D., is the producer and host of The Republican Professor Podcast.

1) Democrat alt-Leftist Fascists on campus are highly organized, violent , and are not held accountable by law enforcement in this town, or on this campus . Self defense is difficult because arms are prohibited by the same party. He was at Berkeley and described the situation thusly : we had to hold the square or it was over . There was no law for 3 hours—none. Criminal assault with a deadly weapon happened hundreds of times and they were not allowed to defend themselves . Criminal arson (but I repeat myself), criminal battery, criminal vandalism (again, I repeat myself), theft, etc., as well as numerous civil rights violations occurred without any account. Merely having a Republican professor dialogue can trigger this organized, inane, dumb criminal response , and the University will let it happen because they are the same political party as the alt-Left fascists.

2) Many many people on campus want more safe (genuinely) dialogue and want to have more clarity in many issues of the day. There is much room for growth if the criminal Left (but I repeat myself) are held at bay.

3) These kids need guidance badly. They are doing the best they can but they are right now discriminated against systematically. They need a faculty advisor for even a room for weekly meetings. They didn’t have one until I said yes. (Our first meeting was 6 months ago). They still do not have approval for a room. The college Democrats have the support of the faculty, administration, law enforcement, and the majority of students who are Dem by non rational osmosis.

I finally said , the College Republicans will be meeting in my office. You now have a room. I will find the chairs from other offices . To do this, I have to not tell my colleagues .

I spend 2 hours just in guidance —what is good , bad, worthwhile, true, false, etc. But I go out on a limb to do this.

The university is one of the most Satanic places in America , colleges and universities. My vision is to break that in 2, then in 3. Generally speaking , those ambivalent are really on the side of the Democrats, the status quo. In the present crisis in education , there is no neutral ground.

I recently looked up my supervisor on FB. First time i’ve done that. It was one anti-Republican rant after another . This person is a six figure bureaucrat who can’t lose the job, who decides winners and losers in terms of part-time faculty like myself. It is a very tenuous situation, as usual. But just as I did at LMU , I just cannot stay silent . I’m thinking about posting my letter of application to LMU here in FB so you can see some of the stuff I documented for the philosophy dept in my letter of application —where I narrated what it was like to work at that university as a Republican professor and for the students .

I didn’t get invited back for the fall for the first time in 12 years. This despite the fact that I’ve only become a better professor , not worse. This despite the fact that I’ve slowly began giving students the grades they really earned. In other words , I started to ignore the institutional pressure to inflate grades. Well, it’s never been more apparent to me just how much I was right —they didn’t invite me back.

The corruption on campus is so bad, I have to believe the stench of it reaches Heaven. I want to be on tha right side of this, not the convenient side. I wish they were the same side . I hope sometime in my career I could enjoy a few years of that.

But right now, I have to tell you: I do what a i do at great risk. I am very vulnerable . I don’t have a home in California. We rent . I don’t see ownership —something my parents took for granted to a certain extent —possible in So Cal. We have spent enormous time and energy and resources preparing for our roles here. I hope it gets better. But I do this with no expectations that it will get better. I do it out of duty to God and country. We are in the thick of it here. It is relentless pressure. With no rainbow for us in sight.

The Lord cares for us and has met our needs in the past . I hope he continues to do so in the future . I just point this out because so many have an unclear, if not false view , of our situation . I’m only asking for continued prayer and to explain why I ask for it. And I really appreciate it.

I can’t tell you how humbling it is to receive it and to see someone like myself walk into the fire, day after day, in this inferno, and come out unscathed . As I read Paul in 2nd Corinthians, the things he describes—the fear , the challenges —I feel weekly and have for years. Years. I only say this so you have a fuller picture of what life is like here in California for an Adjunct Professor who is Republican. My humor is a coping mechanism . My wrath is righteous. My use of FB is to historically and philosophicallly document my life here as I see things on campus and in our culture.

If I boast in my sufferings , I have a great example to follow. And so I do. It’s not to be histrionic. It’s not to be a drama queen . Or king . It’s to be historical . I don’t want this moment or time of my life to float away unaccounted for. And to me, this is dramatic because history tends to be so.

Hopefully it’s beneficial to you some how, some way.

Grace and peace be unto you today.

~Ljm

Originally published to FB on Sat. 14 Oct. 2017 at 5:40pm

[The professor smiled and then furrowed his brow, and gently grunted. It was a gentle grunt. His eye sparkled, like Santa].

Like, my other professors don’t really do that.

[The professor’s other eye sparkled, like an elf].

But then again they don’t really cover these issues in as much detail.

[The professor smiled again , then grunted , like the Three Wise Men did when they disembarked from their camels].

Do you know what I mean ? Like..., the student said.

The professor said, I *think* so. I’m maxing out my “N” on the Myers Briggs right now but I’m about to hit the “S” pretty hard, he said.

She said, huh?

Intuitively, yes, I hear you. Ironically , though, you mean the opposite of what you’re saying.

I do?, she said.

Yes, I think so. But I want to be very delicate and gentle as I point that out. So that you see it for yourself, the professor said.

Okay, she said.

Point what out, she said.

She continued , Well, we talk about a lot of quote un quote controversial issues, right ? [She raised her fingers up and moved two on each hand.] A lot of partisan issues. You know?

I do, the professor said.

Of course you do, she laughed. But I can’t tell if you are a Republican.

[The professor’s face was still].

I mean, you’re pretty much the only professor I can’t tell.

Because ?

Because you say both sides so well. You make Republicans sound so good, too. It’s freaky. I feel like you wouldn’t even mind if I thought you were a Republican . Or if someone called you one .

[The professor changed positions like Mary about to give birth, wincing].

Did I offend you ? she asked.

No ! Heavens no.

Because I mean it as a compliment .

Okay , yeah. Sure, yes, the professor said. I ran today and I’m a bit sore, sorry. It’s not you, it’s these shoes.

[She looked at him].

Well, he said. What you really mean, isn’t that you can’t tell what I am, but that you can, he said.

Wait, why?

Because , you just said.

What? [She smiled].

No one else charitably describes the Republican view.

[His ears twitched, like a burro in the stable at the sight of an angel].

No, but you do describe both sides so clearly and well. Like beyond the normal, you know , rhetoric or bumper stickers .

So I describe the Democrats well?

Yeah, very clearly . Like super clear. It actually helps me see the weaknesses, cuz usually their views aren’t clearly expressed.

Did you just call me CuZ?

LOL no but so wouldn’t mind if you were my cousin.

Thanks , he said.

I think I feel like you are a Republican .

Ah, he said, perking up. Why’s that.

Because , now that I think about it, none of my other professors would like to be confused with a Republican , even on accident .

Ah, yes. There’s that.

Yeah, she smiled . I guess that’s my guess if I had to guess .

So the only professor you have who teaches both sides well is the professor who you think is the Republican .

Oh shit...I guess so...lol ...wait ! I guess I did say that sort of .

We’ll I don’t want to put works in your mouth , he said. But...

No I basically did say that. So, maybe you’re a Democrat who just like really respects Republicans ?

No you are right, I am a Republican .

I knew it !, she screamed . I knew it! I effing knew it (except she said the f word).

So I was right —you did know , even though you said you didn’t , the professor said.

Oh, I see what you meant. Oh yeah [she said as her eyes went up and to the left, then right]. Yeah.

Okay then, the professor said. Anything else?

No.

I’ll see you next class then ?

Yeah.

Okay, see ya.

Bye professor , she said as she got her phone out and started typing really fast.

[And the professor prayed for the class , and several students by name. And he gathered his Adjunct bag, and moved toward the water fountain to fill up his water bottle and make his way down to the car. And he kept praying over the campus as he went . So that by the time he got to his Adjunctmobile, with no AC and that dent from last summer , and the dried coffee dips on the top of the trunk from 4 weeks ago, he said, In Jesus’ name, amen. And then he drove away like a bat outa hell].

Originally published to FB on Mon. 23 April 2018 at 6:19 pm

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. is producer and host of The Republican Professor podcass.

Beck has just made history. He’s secured the first ever non-resident conceal carry firearm license issued by the Honolulu Police Department.

I myself was subject to these onerous restrictions in the City and County of Honolulu in my early adult working and college life. I lived downtown before I was married and I continued to live in the County of Honolulu (which extends to the entirety of the island of O’ahu, even outside of “town”, the locals’ name for the City of Honolulu) after I was married and during my college time there. (And before I was married).

So, this is a really really exciting development for me to see in my lifetime.

Way to go, Alan !

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D., is the producer and host of The Republican Professor Podcast.

Dr. Mather is doing a series on The Republican Professor Podcast honoring the 250th anniversary of the United States of America (U.S.A).

The series began two months ago and focuses on Biblical issues in the American Founding in a continued discussion of “Reading the Bible with the Founding Fathers,” by Dr. Daniel L. Dreisbach, D.Phil., J.D., who came on the podcast in 2022, and whose work continued to be discussed at length on TRP Podcast in Fall 2024 around Thanksgiving.

In addition, Dr. Mather is focusing on one issue in Constitutional Law for the series, that of executive power. This line is an extended discussion of Charles C. Thach, Jr.,’s Ph.D. dissertation at Johns Hopkins in 1922, made available by Liberty Fund, called “The Creation of the Presidency 1775-1789: A Study in Constitutional History.” This discussion takes us through the immediate challenges that faced the “revolutionaries” in 1776. They were at war without a Chief Executive. They’d been traumatized by monarchy, and by Parliamentary tyrannical vortex. So, what to do ? How to conduct war so as to win ? And how to govern effectively and justly during and thereafter. That’s the story Thach tells, and it’s a wonderful interaction to be sure.

Check out the series if you haven’t already.

Take good care. God bless you guys. We’ll see you on the next one.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. is the producer and host of The Republican Professor podcass.

I’m not sure what you mean.

This. It says 15/25.

Okay ...

So, why’d you take off 10 points?

Well, I didn’t “take off” any points . I just recorded how many points were there, as far as I could fairly tell.

But, isn’t that a minus 10?

No, it’s a 15/25.

Yes, professor , you took the points off.

I didn’t take *anything*, off or on for that matter .

—

[The professor continued]: Listen to what you’re saying . What you’re accusing me of . It assumes you had 25/25 when you turned it in .

I thought it was perfect , okay professor?

I see that you thought that. But I’m the one grading it. And you have to prepare it for me, according to my standards , and our standards have to match up if your grade and my grade are going to be similar, right ?

I guess so .

And when you tell yourself that I took something that was yours, you’re implying that I did something wrong , which might have been the case . I can be wrong . I don’t mind that. But I took a look at it a second time. And you never earned those 10 points . And I can’t “take” what was never there . I’m not sure what criteria you were using.

I thought I was using the same criterias.

Well, take this for example, right here: the answer is on the first page of the second chapter. The first page. And the criteria include: accuracy according to class lecture and the reading. It’s not accurate.

That’s why you took off the points ?

That’s why you never earned them, in this case.

Okay. So...?

So maybe read the book .

I did.

Maybe master the book. Read it until you know it.

[The sun just rose , cracking rays of light into skull].

[And she went away pondering and treasuring up these things in her heart].

Originally published to FB on 25 Oct 2017 at 634 pm

Editor’s Note: Philosophers pronunce “Berkeley” as “Barkley” when referring to the man who was the namesake of the university town. So Professor Mather has adopted the same phonetic ambiguity in the discussion.

The full discussion from which this clip is taken is available under that date on The Republican Professor podcass.

Dr. Lucas J. Mather is the producer and host of The Republican Professor (TRP) podcass.

It’s amazing the basic things I have to explain.

He said, he wants a chance to make up those points he missed in the exam. Maybe not all of them but up to a B.

So I shared with him that he has exactly one chance to get a B on the midterm, and that’s during that midterm.

Maybe like a second chance.

So I said that there are no true second chances in life. Each chance you get , you won’t get another one . You either take advantage of the chances you have, when you have them, or they are gone , one by one.

He looked at me as if I had just read his Tarot cards or his palms or something .

I didn’t lose my temper today, but there was a slight temptation . I dropped an F bomb.

I also told them that I don’t hold grudges . But I also told them I am aware they are evaluating me. I am acutely aware of the perverse—the utterly perverse—incentive structures for adjunct faculty . Which is why I see what I see—the low standards, the entitlement, the ignorance that results. I said, I want your high evaluation . They looked at me as if they wouldn’t give that to me. The exam was hard. There is no extra credit . (The exam was not hard, they don’t take notes or do the reading).

So I looked back at them. I said, I was in the Navy. And the ocean is a mean, angry place sometimes. But we went into the storm. Right into it. Through it . And you guys are a frustrated ocean. I’m cutting right through it to the other side. It’s more important for me to get your bad evaluation if I have to because I did what no other professor or corrupt administrators expect and held firm to the standards , than to receive your positive evaluation for doing what you want me to do, which is not right, and not good for you.

And I grabbed a piece of paper and marked off 15 min increments starting today—I want to see everyone in office hours.

And boy they hated that.

I didn’t bother to tell them I don’t get paid for those office hours . And it eats time into my emails and PhD proposal.

But they can only handle so much adult interaction. They wouldn’t understand it even if I told them, they are so insulated.

We broached the minimum wage today . For many of them, it’s their first foray into real life.

Politics is next !

Originally published to FB Tues 24 Oct 2017 at 644 pm

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. is the producer and host of The Republican Professor podcass.

I went into a local coffee shop in an upscale, professional part of town , one I used to study and grade in all the time, but which has changed owners and concept. The door had two signs : something to the effect that this was a woman owned business and an Asian owned business .

And so I walked in and inquired of the new menu , and it naturally came up that I had noticed lots of changes there, including the signs on the door , and wondered the significance of it aloud.

And she said (for she was a woman —the real kind)*, that historically there weren’t many of either of those ?

[I’m not sure why she put the question mark at the end of the sentence ? Kind of like you’re not sure why I put the question mark on the end of the last sentence I just wrote. Or this one ? ]

And I said, what do you mean by historically?

You know , like, in America, it’s predominantly white male businesses...

And I said —and this was a friendly chat—what I mean by historically is “in history.” And by that I mean in the past. The human past. But sometimes that’s ambiguous. When does history start ? That has nothing to do with America. America is a land mass.

Yes I know America is a land mass.

That has a fraction of the number of people that Asia has had “in history,” including American Indians’ ancestors, who spent some number of generations of time in Asia .

Yes I’m aware that the Native Americans came over from Asia .

That’s not true, I said.

And she was making an espresso drink and she said umm.

Native Americans are born in America, by definition. That’s why I’m one, and you are , too, if you’re born here , so no Native American “came over from Asia.” That’s false . Some Native American ancestors did. Anyway, I was talking about the Indians.

Uh , okay I—

So are you saying that historically , Asians don’t own Asian business in Asia ? Cuz that’s not my understanding of—

No I mean *here*, she said. Obviously Chinese people own businesses in China.

And all over the world wherever Chinese people have gone, I added helpfully. South America, Africa, Europe, Malaysia, etc.

(She just looked at me).

And there’s a lot of Chinese people . In history, who are business owners . And that’s just Chi-Na. Not even all of Asia . So I just wondered what the significance of the sign was . I mean, it’s not meant as a coupon or anything, so.

Well like I said, with the historical context here, where it’s been predominantly certain people in charge for a long long time—there’s now power structures , new power structures that are allowing new possibilities.

So you’re saying that all that time the Indians controlled this land right here, they didn’t let women own businesses. By women I mean real women. The Indians could tell the difference.

Um that’s offensive.

Okay. What specifically?

Alls I’m saying is that . I’m saying, I’m sorry how could you not know that’s offensive?

What’s offensive? Something’s offensive *to you*?

Yes.

How could I know that ? I don’t have access to your private thoughts until you share them.

What you said about the Indians—the Native Americans knowing what “real women” are.

Why is that offensive?

[She had trouble with that one]. Well —

And I did mean American Indian, not Native American. There is a difference.

How so?

Are they the same, I asked?

One is more respectful?

Respectful of whom?

Native Americans.

I’m native to Colorado, which is in America, ergo I’m native American. I don’t feel respected more by the term. Especially if it conflates me with American Indian, which I most certainly AM NOT. It’s actually disrespectful, potentially. And more important, it’s confused .

Well how ....hmmm...you got me there.

Not trying to “get” anyone. How’s that coffee coming ?

It’s almost ready thank you for your patience . What do you do?

You mean for work? Or during the day ?

For work ! You work at night ?

No I sleep at night. Well, I read, then sleep. I brush my teeth if I had a cigar , which isn’t normal , just sometimes.

So what do you do for work?

Employment?

Yes.

I’m mostly unemployed.

What did you do before.

I helped people think clearly and confidently.

As a professor ?

Yeah .

Okay, whipped cream?

Sure.

When you say “real women” some people get offended .

Why?

It’s just not polite.

Well you know how some men claim to be women ?

[She looks around]. Sure .

The Indians had the same thing, I said.

Huh ? No they didn’t !

Yes they did. How much do you know about them?

Uh.

Name one tribe from this area, Mrs. Historically.

Uh, this area , she said, handing me the drink. Like,

Within 200 miles.

I’m blanking .

Native Americans are individuals, I said. Indians came in tribes . C’mon! Name a tribe from this area.

Oh, this , The casino , what’s it called . Is that a tribe ?

I said, uh you’re killing me. I can name a dozen off the top of my head.

Tell me about the women thing .

Well for instance the Karankawas.

She said, the wha?

The Karankawa tribe is one of the earliest tribes encountered by Europeans in present day Texas by Spanish explorers. Those are the earliest records we have. Other tribes have since just disappeared, they were so fragile . Or they were swallowed up by other tribes. They had some men who thought they were women —gender dyspohria. It’s in the DSM V, the current diagnostic manual for disorders. They had that in the 1500s.

[She looked at me like I was not an alien for the first time].

Nothing new, I said. But anyway you were saying the significance of the sign out there on the door is that the Indians didn’t let women own business for hundreds of years here? And then ?

And the Europeans came and

Allowed women to open businesses, I said, pointing to the business .

Well, yeah, after we, you know . Fought for our rights .

Why didn’t “you” fight for your rights sooner, if that was the sufficient condition for this significant event?

Because we couldn’t .

Ah.

You don’t like the signs , she said inquiringly.

Eh. I don’t think you need them. Is it a reason to patronize the establishment?

It could be, she said.

Makes you sound like you don’t believe in your product. Sounds like you lack confidence.

How so?

Do men advertise their business as men owned ?

No.

Don’t need to.

[She thought about it a long time]. [I sat down and read awhile].

[When I left I saw her taking the signs down].

*[remember when all you had to say was the first part ?]

Copyright Lucas J. Mather, 2021
All Rights Reserved
Originally published to Facebook on Wed 3 Nov 2021 at 12:39 am

Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D., is the producer and host of The Republican Professor podcast.

By Lucas J. Mather

Republican professors exist on college campuses. I am an example. Not all of us are Christians, but Christianity prepared me in a unique way to frame and conceptualize my educational vocation on the campuses in Lost Angeles, Ventura, and Orange counties for the last 15 years.

The thing I noticed right away on the campuses was how political they were. They were and are institutional arms of the Democratic Party in America.

Every time I was hired, I somehow slipped through the cracks as a Republican. And I was almost immediately confronted, in some way or another, with the Democratic requirements that I didn’t meet.

Certain topics I was supposed to avoid, I didn’t. Certain things I was supposed to support, I didn’t. Certain things I was supposed to look the other way on--corruption, political and financial--I didn’t. Grades that were supposed to be inflated, didn’t get inflated after a time--this was the most surprising temptation for me: the Democrat requirement to inflate students’ grades, and to water down the material so that nobody is ever offended except the really good students.

In the midst of this, I was confronted with weaponized moral contempt towards Republicans, and in some cases, toward religious believers, believers in God, Christian believers, believers in the eminently respectable view that God created people, equally, with inherent, inalienable rights (which has always been a Republican principle since the beginning of our movement against slavery and now against abortion and is the true expression of our country’s founding principles, rightly understood).

Weaponized moral contempt means that , when you disagree with them, they call you evil. They constantly question your motives, before even getting to know you or hearing your side of things, in order to shut you down and win a political battle. Winning means, for them, creating Democrats. For me, winning means giving the student the tools to understand the world for themselves: winning hearts and minds of the most vulnerable intellects on the campus, the ones that the campus receives tax support in order to form into capable, disciplined, wise and knowledgable citizens.

As a Republican professor in the face of this weaponized moral contempt used in place of constructive, fruitful, respectable argument and debate, I took it to heart. As a Christian, it bothered me. Was there anything to this moral contempt that we face on campus? Is it deserved? Why is it so pervasive? I really wondered, what’s wrong with me? Why do I see the world so differently? I felt, at times, shame for my difference. Because of this weaponized moral contempt.

In the Christian tradition, we are taught that the heart of man is wicked. That includes women. It’s not to be trusted. It’s deceitful. As bearers of the divine image, though, we are bearers of rights and have inherent dignity and worth--each of us, equally.

And we learn from the Bible, for example, the Psalms, that God pursues us, protects us, and that we can be safe asking the Lord to redeem us, to search us, to know our hearts and to root out the unrighteousness that is within us. The Lord doesn’t want us to live in shame.

So I spent some quality time in the woodshed. And I don’t just mean the academic woodshed, though been there and done that. (Military, too). I mean the spiritual woodshed. That’s where the dark things, the intimate things, are laid bare.

And it came to pass , after various iterations of this, in my walk with God on the campuses as an educational officer of the State of California, the county of Ventura, the city of Lost Angeles, and various wealthy private liberal arts colleges, that I feel like the Lord told me something.

I felt the Lord say to me, when I was tempted to inflate grades in order to appease Democrat overlords and underlings (for whoever evaluates you is your boss, and you get evaluated from top and bottom as a Adjunct Professor), that this was wrong. It was clearly wrong.

And I felt like I heard him tell me, don’t do it anymore, not even a little bit.

And things began to fall into place for me--I noticed a pushback from the Democrats, the people of weaponized moral contempt--that I can only describe as corrupt from the pit of hell. The entitlement that the students had gleaned from the Democrat culture and campus bared its ugly teeth.

Why are there so few Republicans on campus? Where are they? Why are the ones who are there so quiet, so acquiescent, so eager to please?

Why are there so many who look the other way at the corruption and the intellectual rot? The wasting of tax money, the inflation of tuition and grades?

The college degree has never been more expensive, and yet worth-less, than it is now.

The students come out of college with the most predictable skill: they know how to be a Democrat. They are very good at that.

That was the purpose of the training, apparently.

I felt the Lord remind me of how Jesus started out--with 12 disciples, a special few: it started out very small, this new thing the Lord was doing in our world.

And that very small movement of the Spirit in history was almost immediately and overwhelmingly opposed with weaponized moral contempt. But we know from the Gospels, and later Acts, that that moral contempt was from the pit of hell.

The gates of hell used weaponized moral contempt to try to road block the Lord’s work in history at nearly every turn. And at nearly every turn, the very small number of people chosen for this work were assaulted with opposition from the same.

The character of evil, as it comes through the pages of the Scriptures, is personal, is predictable, is constant, is defeat able by very small faithful people of God.

I’m a small person--I’m just an Adjunct Professor. A lowly servant on the campuses, standing up to Satanic weaponized moral contempt from the pit of hell.

So then the question came for me: I am to take up my cross, my electric chair, and follow him? Will I have the courage to do that, in this ministry?

And the over arching character of my Educational ministry, I am joyous to say, was yes. Yes, I did have that courage. Yes, I did struggle with doubt. Yes, I was alone, and lonely. Yes, I looked into my own soul and saw my foibles. Yes, the Democrat machine slammed into me time and time again. Yes it felt like I would be crushed, time and again. And again, and again.

But Christianity helped me see that moral contempt isn’t itself good evidence that the One who opposes you is on the true and righteous path. Democrats have always had a lot of moral contempt, on college campuses, directed at us few Republicans, at tax payer expense much of the time. And I took the possibility that I was wrong to heart. I looked within. I stared, for a long time. I asked the Lord, teach me to search out the arguments, the issues, the positions, in this academic political environment: who are you, here, Lord, in this place? What is the way forward?

I believe the Lord showed me: you’re being opposed like the ones who were opposed in the New Testament. You’re being opposed by the One who opposed those who abolished slavery in America. You’re being opposed by those who defend abortion today, just as they defended slavery and segregation yesterday. It’s the same force in opposition to you.

That was incredibly powerful to me. It’s why I was able to successfully teach over 180 university and college courses in this politically and academically corrupt environment.

You’re with me, he said. And I’m with you. Greater is he who is in you than he who is in world.

He is still showing me that. It is still hard.

If you come upon forceful opposition, even with strong , overpowering institutionalized moral contempt, examine yourself in the Lord. Ask him to show you your heart.

It may just be that you’re part of a remnant who is threatening the very gates of hell, in this life.

Photo art donated by Aaron C. Nabaum, 2020

Originally published to LJM public FB page 18 Oct 2018 at 2:23 pm

A recent happening.

The professor held up a flyer of someone climbing up to take down a Confederate flag. The title of the event was, “Dismantling Hate.” The professor looked out to the crowd of students and asked a question :

How many of you love hatred? Raise your hands.

[No hands were raised].

How many of you hate hatred. Sit there and look bored if so, the professor continued.

[The looks on their faces. They eventually smile and wave and wink, etc. Most stop for a second, confused].

Think about this title: “Dismantling Hate.” [The prof continued]. As if hate was the enemy. But what about that? Should we hate hatred? Do you hate hatred? What is hatred?

[Total silence, which is not normal. They are really stumped. Which is odd. It’s such a simple question].

Okay, I’ll define it for you, the prof said. Hatred is a settled disposition to dislike something intensely. I’ll say it again: hatred is a settled disposition to dislike something intensely. It’s dislike, intensified and stabilized. Codified, if you will.

[No one likes this topic. They all dislike it. Intensely].

So, isn’t that how you’re supposed to feel about hatred itself? And how’s that work? Your number one priority is to dismantle “hate”, because you hate it so much. Look at her, going after the Confederate flag. She obviously hates it. Which makes this whole flyer...ironic. And stupid, really.

[Nothing. No action. The students are dumbfounded. None of them have thought about this. Some of them look slightly embarrassed].

Do you hate this conversation we’re having?

It’s awkward, a student sheepishly said.

Do you hate awkwardness?

Yes.

That hate hasn’t been dismantled yet, I see, the prof said, smiling.

[The students smiled]. I guess not.

This flyer fundamentally misunderstands the Confederate civilization, in my opinion. What a characature of the South.

[The students were all listening intensely].

Look, the prof continued. Who loves kids? Anyone? Is that a weird question? I love kids. Who’s with me?

[Several students raise their hands.]

Yeah, but I don’t think they should be able to vote. Do you?

[Crinkled brows.]

I love dogs. I LOVE DOGS. Who’s with me?

[Several hands go up--actually, all hands go up. They know the prof is a dog guy].

I don’t think that dogs should be able to vote.

[Several students are trying hard to keep up].

Notice, I didn’t mention hate at all. The opposite, in fact. I love kids. I love dogs. But , I don’t think that they should be allowed to vote. I’m entertained by both. I think both are important beings. They both have their place in the world. And that is a judgment I have made based on my experience of both kids and dogs. I am rational in that judgment. It’s made without the slightest bit of hatred in my mind.

Are you with me, the prof aksed.

{Yes, they said].

You are closer to understanding the Confederate mindset than you ever have been. Just include blacks. Higher up than dogs and kids. But too low to vote. And many have hatred toward blacks. Sure. But they’re part of life. And some are entertaining. And they are important for various reasons in the economy. Hatred: that takes a lot of energy. A lot of energy. You can survive on it. It was a mindset. A judgment. An intellectual judgment. You could argue with it, if you were so inclined, just like you could argue about kids and dogs. I may not listen to you about dogs and kids. It has nothing essentially to do with hatred. It does have to do with justice.

[The students were starting to see the the light.]

I’m more interested in justice than hatred. How about a flyer that says, dismantling injustice?

[The students are starting to get it].

Because, I have a confession: I hate injustice. I hate it. I have hatred. I don’t want *that* dismantled. Let’s stop confusing the kids, here. You guys are already confused. At your state of intellectual molestation, whether you can legally vote or not, you shouldn’t be. You don’t know anything. For God’s sake.

[The students smile. ONe or two take slight offense. Those happen to be the ones who’ve proven they know the least].

I don’t mean to offend anyone. Hey. You gotta start paying attention. What are so many people over here so worried about the Confederate monuments for, over there? What is the object of your hate?

The prof continued: How many of you know that every single one of those Confederate monuments were erected by Democrats. Every single one of them. And they were tolerated by Republicans. But they were erected by Democrats. All of them. The object of your hatred is not hatred. As if that makes any sense. The object of your hatred is the Democratic Party.

[Stunned silence].

But that is too awkward to say directly. So, we talk around that by ignoring history, and talking instead of “Dismantling Hatred.” Friends, hatred will never be dismantled. And if you hate injustice...if you hate evil, it shouldn’t be.

So, the professor continued, instead of talking about “hatred,” lets talk about evil. Let’s talk good and evil. This is after all an ethics class. So, let’s cut right through the bullshit and start getting enlightened. There is an awful lot of darkness in education and we’re going to start to put a stop to that.

[Some of the best series of questions and answers I have ever seen began that day. And students put away political correctness and began learning for a change. And you know what? They liked it.]

Originally published to Facebook Friday 20 Oct 2017 at 11:31 pm

The section prior to discussion of Iran is a mention of the tragedy of lives lost in Ukraine.

[Background: Russia and Iran go back decades into the Cold War. The stronger Iran is, the stronger Russia is, and vice versa.]

This all goes together, not separately, with the discussion of getting bodies back from Gaza from October 7, 2023, an attack on Israel from Iran. It’s all together in the 2026 State of the Union before a clear threat to Iran from the president. It’s all clearly laid out for anyone to see.

Backrgound: Russia opposed Israel going back decades into the Cold War, along with Iran.

“And we’re working very hard to end the 9th war …”

That’s where the segment signaling US threat to Iran is properly located, in context.

CSPAN starting at 1:21:44 .