"Head Knowledge" v. "Heart Knowledge," Charlie Kirk, and The Age of Entitlement Ch. 1 by Chris Caldwell

Today we take a brief look at what exactly Charlie Kirk did on college campuses--let's describe that well, ensconced as it was within and reacting to the cultural trend of anti-intellectual laziness that produced the need for that work, sometimes cloaked in the phrase "head knowledge" as opposed to "heart knowledge." Jesus never denigrated knowledge; instead he commanded us to love God with all of our minds. Charlie was animated by living out that command as best he could. Charlie was animated by living out that command as best he could and inspiring others to do the same by means of a spectacle or performance which when done well as it usually was attracted crowds. This is not the means by which head knowledge is usually cemented into a person's being, however. That process is hard and often boring. Ax me how I know. This episode includes a reading from the 1925 1st edition of "Streams in the Desert", January 4th. The episode culminates in our regular programming which is the beginning of a transformative reading and fair use of Chris Caldwell's "The Age of Entitlement" published by Simon and Schuster in 2020. We'd like to thank Chris Caldwell for writing it, Simon and Schuster for making it available, and encourage you to purchase your own physical copy of the book so that you can follow along. Please support brick and mortar book dealers, you local book dealers. I'd like thank my former political philosophy student Matt Stone (Phil M03: Social and Political Philosophy at Moorpark College, Spring 2008) for purchasing my copy of the book for me and supporting TRP podcast. Lets me a culture that values good authors and good books, physical books, and honors and rewards publishers for making those books available for us to read and to think about. Please support this author and this publisher. The Republican Professor is a pro-political-phenomeonology-done-right podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

I began recording this episode with knowledge that Charlie Kirk had been seriously wounded at a college campus. During the recording of the episode, right in the middle thereabouts, I found out he died, and so what was to be just the next in a series on Duncan v. Bonta, a final episode on VanDyke's powerful dissent to that en banc 9th Circuit case in March of this past year became a reaction to his assassination. So, therefore, this episode is in honor of Charlie Kirk. This episode includes a reading from the 1925 edition of "Streams in the Desert", January 3rd. In part D of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue and finish covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 4 of 4 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This is part 2 of 2 of a fair use and transformative reading of an essay in one of my favorite publications. This is an engagement with an essay by Dr. William Voegeli, one of my favorite writers on American Politics, entitled "Now What? The Democrats After 2024" in Winter 2025 Claremont Review of Books pp -8-14, going from the bottom of p. 9 in the print edition through page 14.. The piece is accessible to the public at https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/now-what/ Kesler, Editor of the CRB, was one of my Ph.D. professors at Claremont Colleges (4 courses). We want to thank Claremont Review of Books for making this material available. Go to ClaremontReviewofBooks.com to subscribe for a very reasonable price and get the hard copies with aesthetically pleasing artwork and thoughtful though accessible essays in your physical mailbox. This episode includes a reading from the 1925 edition of "Streams in the Desert", January 2nd. The Republican Professor is a pro-Claremont-Review-of-Books, pro-correctly contemplating-contemporary-American-Politics, pro-Streams-in-the-Desert-original-edition-from-1925 podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

We're doing a fair use and transformative reading of part of an essay in one of my favorite publications. This is an engagement with an essay by Dr. William Voegeli, one of my favorite writers on American Politics, entitled "Now What? The Democrats After 2024" in Winter 2025 Claremont Review of Books pp 8-9. The piece is accessible to the public at https://claremontreviewofbooks.com/now-what/ Kesler, Editor of the CRB, was one of my Ph.D. professors at Claremont Colleges (4 courses). We want to thank Claremont Review of Books for making this material available. Go to ClaremontReviewofBooks.com to subscribe for a very reasonable price and get the hard copies with aesthetically pleasing artwork and thoughtful though accessible essays in your physical mailbox. This episode includes a reading from the 1925 edition of "Streams in the Desert", January 1st. The Republican Professor is a pro-Claremont-Review-of-Books podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

For Part 4b of this deep dive we continue the Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024) decision that overruled Chevron (1984), Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court starting from from his page 7 Roman Numeral II.A and B to the top of page 13 through to Roman Numeral II.C in the Slip Opinion. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf (603 U.S. _____ (2024) of the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice Roberts. We will pick up with Chief Justice Roberts' Opinion for the Court at the top of his page 13, Roman Numeral II.C next time. Donate a gift to keep the podcast going on Venmo at-sign no space TheRepublicanProfessor or https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather Warmly, Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. The Republican Professor Podcast The Republican Professor Newsletter on Substack https://therepublicanprofessor.substack.com/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/podcast/ https://www.therepublicanprofessor.com/articles/ YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/@TheRepublicanProfessor Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheRepublicanProfessor Twitter: @RepublicanProf Instagram: @the_republican_professor

On 19 August 2025, the US 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the Democrat Legislature in New Mexico on the 7-day "cooling off period" wait for firearms. And the 3 judge panel split along Republican/Democrat lines , 2 to 1, with both George W. Bush and Trump Republicans on the same side of the Constitution against an Obama judge. Here's a link to the decision. For some reason, the text I was reading on the podcast didn't display properly on the YouBoob recording, but you can follow along here. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/sites/ca10/files/opinions/010111284574.pdf We begin that story in a two part series here on The Republican Professor podcast. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-the-Second-Amendment's-moral-and-legal-boundaries, anti-silly-prohibitions podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

Part 4: We continue our timely coverage of Pope Leo XIII 's Rerum Novarum numbers 15 thru the end of 19 in his continued condemnation of Socialism and collectivism against the individual rights of employers, workers and families in 1891, when Socialism was increasingly popular in intellectual circles, setting the stage for the statisms of the 1900s. The Republican Professor is a pro-getting-theology's-application-to-public-policy-correct podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D. Support the podcast. Buy me a cup of coffee or ten here : https://buymeacoffee.com/lucasj.mather

This episode of TRP Podcast is dedicated to Uncle Tom Luckey of Humbolt, Tennessee. Today is his funeral at Antioch Baptist Church in Humbolt, not far from the farm on which he grew up and worked his entire life. The time stamps for Uncle Tom comments are as follows: 1) at the beginning, 2) minute 42-43, 3) the one hour mark, 4) and at the very ending few minutes. The rest is about why Gorsuch is wrong in Bostock v. Clayton County Georgia (2020)(part 5 in a series) about his faulty assumption that unexamined and unexplained transgenderism premises about sex and gender are properly included under "sex discrimination" language in Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act -- a real hoot. Part 5: We continue our in-depth examination of sex, gender, and separation of powers in the US Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County, GA 590 U.S. 644 (2020): the Republican dispute, how to understand it, and what to do about it. We cover Gorsuch's Opinion for the Court through his Roman Numeral III.A , and stop at his III.B. We'll cover his III.B next time. Part 5. The Republican Professor is a pro-separation-of-powers-rightly-construed podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

This is Part 5 in a series noting that 2025 is the 40th Anniversary of Harvard University Press' 1985 publication of Richard A. Epstein's "Takings: Private Property and the Power of Eminent Domain." We continue our celebration of this anniversary with a fair use and transformative reading, finishing chapter 3 in what Richard calls "Philosophical Preliminaries." He titles chapter 3 "The Integrity of the Constitutional Text" because he's taking a look at political philosophy and the American constitutional order, how these things interact. Every college student should read this book. It's a superb introduction to the political philosophy of the American regime. Praise the Lord. We'd like to thank Harvard University Press for making this material available and Richard Epstein for writing it. Make sure you buy the book and follow along. It's very important for you to have your own copy on your own bookshelf, and to begin to master this material. Support your local book dealer. See if they have a copy of it, or if they'd mind keeping an eye out for you. I always encourage buying physical books, objects you can have, hold, cherish, learn from, display on your bookshelf as a topic of conversation, things you can pass on to the next generation with your notes in them, things that do not depend upon electricity. Toward that end: Go to Harvard University Press for more selections available for purchase. Please support the publisher and your local booksellers. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-contemplating-property-rights podcast. The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.

In part C of VanDyke's Republican dissent in our series of dissents in the en banc resolution of Duncan v. Bonta (Ninth Circuit Federal Court of Appeals, 20 March 2025), we continue covering his reductio ad absurdum form of argument. This episode is part 3 of Judge VanDyke's epic dissent to that resolution which caught a lot of controversy because part of his dissent was a link to the following website : https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/23-55805/opinion , which, as you'll see, does not go to the Ninth Circuit federal government website but instead goes to YouTube, the Ninth Circuit's YouTube channel. The link for the en banc opinion of the Court as well as the dissents covered here can be found here : https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/03/20/23-55805.pdf These materials, the text and the video linked within the text of Judge VanDyke's dissent are in the public domain and have no copyright restrictions upon them. I have done the best I could, given the technology, to make a fair use of them with a transformative reading for educational purposes only. The controversy around the video includes not merely that Judge VanDyke, a Trump appointee to the Court, included video as a supplement embedded within his dissent, which he (and the Court) clearly consider to be official parts of his dissent, but what he filmed there in the federal courthouse in Reno, Nevada (probably, since that's where his chambers are according to the US Ninth Circuit's seniority website). He filmed, in his chambers, wearing his black robe, with views on the video to the tune of hundreds of thousands, a tote bag with his own guns, his own handguns, real firearms. He mentioned that the firearms used for the video were rendered inoperable, unloaded, and safe for purposes of the educational part of the dissent. He claimed to be filling in missing background information useful for understanding the record before the court, not for supplementing the record per se with his, the Judge's, testimony -- something that would be not only unusual but inappropriate. I'd love to hear what you think in the comments. The Republican Professor is a pro-correctly-articulating-civil-liberties podcast. Therefore, welcome Judge VanDyke . The Republican Professor is produced and hosted by Dr. Lucas J. Mather, Ph.D.