A Republic, If We Can Keep It

As much fun as it is watching the main stream media fall all over itself to explain away the historic loss of the recent election, the discussion regarding the supposed “hacking” of the election is a very dangerous turn in a series of very dangerous accusations.

Consider the danger of the government silencing voices on the internet simply because they may be wrong, different or biased?  As it always is with liberal prescriptions for fixing anything, it is not the end state that is so disagreeable as it is the method by which they propose to arrive at this fictitious utopia.  It always involves taking away someone’s liberty or rights.  This is just par for the course for the political party built on the rationalization of slavery and ruling elites.  The Democrat playbook has not changed at all over the course of its history.  They sincerely believe that they are better suited to run the lives of ordinary people than the people are themselves.  They are the party of arguing that slavery was good because it improved the lives of blacks as compared to their lives as unenlightened savages in Africa.  This new promise of an internet free of “false news” is built on the same concept – Americans are ignorant savages and they would be better off in the “new” internet where we can control what they read and watch.

Where is the respect and deference to individual liberty and individual rights?  Where are the concerns for the Bill of Rights?  Where is the ACLU when the freest form of communication in generations is under threat by a political party bent on silencing the voices of opposition that speak so freely in this domain?  Noticeably silent.

And now this – the Russians are coming!

Of all the reasons the democrats and their media minions have created to avoid dealing with the clear rejection of their politics and of Obama’s agenda for the last eight years, this is the most dangerous in terms of real impact not only to our nation but to the geopolitical reality as well.   Accusing a foreign nation of interfering in our election is fraught with dangers.  They are questioning the integrity of our own electoral process.  It is endlessly fascinating to watch the Democrats flip from a position that the election was valid and accusations of tampering where ridiculous (as long as Hillary was winning) to now claiming that it was obviously hacked because Trump won.   Of note is that they are not accusing the Russians of changing votes or falsifying ballots, but through hacking and releasing emails they unduly influenced the election results.  Let’s be clear, they are saying that because someone (supposedly the bad ruskies) released the truth about the democrat political machinations and efforts into the election rather than the false narrative the Democrats were publicly releasing, this had an undue and bad influence on the election.  In other words, because we learned the truth about the Democrats, the election was unfair.

Is the truth now a danger to the electoral process?  That’s blatantly ridiculous on its face.  That hackers are doing the work of the media is a slap in the face of the traditional media.  Their failure to act as true news agencies tasked with asking the tough questions of all candidates from an objective viewpoint has directly led to the rise of new media platforms via the internet.  Americans want a fair fight, a level playing field.  They do not want a media that is biased, subjective or cheer-leading for a particular political party.  They want falseness illuminated, conflicts of interest divulged and cheating exposed.  They love rooting for the underdog, but despise a cheater or liar.  Americans still believe in honor and integrity.

The democrats and the media no longer have either.  So they are resorting to the basest of appeals – “we lost because Trump cheated”,  well HE didn’t actually cheat, but he is benefiting from someone else cheating . . . and that’s the Russians!  They want him elected! So they cheated!”

As with all accusations from the democrat party, they are great on the WHAT (accusations are easy) but missing the WHEN, WHY, HOW and the PROOF.  That is the proper role and duty of any journalist but it is also the hard work of journalism.  They avoided it entirely with Obama and attempted to do the same with Hillary, but the American public had learned a lot from the failures of the media during Obama’s elections and determined to not rely on the media in the next election. Instead, they sought out new avenues for news and information.  This is what the media and the democrats recognize as the true source of Hillary’s defeat.  They could not from the conversation or control the narrative to push her into power.  Instead they ran into a brick wall of social media based communication that Trumped her false narrative by exposing the truth via leaked emails.

We learned that Hillary cheated, lied, had two faces (public and private) and put American lives at risk for the sake of protecting her ability to control who knew what or read what in her emails.  She was determined to hide the truth from the American people, even if it was benign and harmless truth, and this propensity for lying and hiding is what lost her the election because the new media was doing the work that the traditional media should have been doing all along.

So, the traditional media has learned its lesson and it now returning to true journalism, right?  Well, not actually.  They are still in the tank with the democrat party and are doubling down on the cheating accusation.   They are purposefully continuing to ignore the truth about what was revealed in the emails or the risks and failures of Hillary’s email scandal or the Clinton Foundation issues of foreign influence on American politics.   Those topics alone should completely disqualify Hillary from the White House.  But the media refuses to see that.

Instead they are joining the chorus of Democrat hacks who are clamoring for censorship on the internet to silence those voices they disagree with and in the case of the media threaten their monopoly on news dissemination in the US.   They are not stepping up to do their job better and more objectively. They are choosing to become more politicized and more demagogic in their hatred of average Americans as represented by their choice of Trump.  They are continuing all of their best practices – name-calling, guilt by association, ad homen disparagement, straw man attacks and of course violence.

The media is not being violent themselves, yet.  But they are playing a dangerous game by magnifying the bought and paid for protests of the democrat machine as somehow upright and justified while simultaneously hyping the “dramatic rise” of hate crimes (again long on accusation short on proof) caused by the right.  And they are especially focusing on the fringe wackos that always exist in any election cycle and thus trying to guilt average voters into renouncing their choice of trump.  You can’t possibly have meant to vote for trump – look they are doing a NAZI salute – you’re not a Nazi right?

So hold fast America.  We started a revolution and the fight is not over yet.  We rejected the progressive agenda, we rejected the erosion of our rights and liberties, we rejected the political party establishment of the right and the left, we rejected the false narratives and biased reporting of the MSM – now is not the time to lose heart.

Stand firm!  We have to fight for our rights and freedoms harder than ever before, but as the election has shown, we have power to actually accomplish what we need to accomplish as long as we continue to hold everyone accountable – including Trump.  You must still ignore the inane bleating of the press.  You have to ignore the slings and arrows of accusation.  You have to avoid the reactionary demands of the losers and focus on why we are where we are today.  This is the moment the American people regardless of any label related to identity politics, joins together for individual liberty and American Freedom.  We are a Republic, if we can keep it!


Trump Should Ignore the Media

The mainstream media must now earn the trust of the American people or face extinction as a source of news in this country.  Donald Trump owes his astonishing victory to his brilliant plan to take his message directly to the American people via social media and mass rallies.  Recognizing early on that he could not allow the main stream press to define his candidacy, he manipulated their coverage and dominated their broadcast time and print space, but did not rely on them to communicate.  Instead he used them to foil any focus on Hillary’s message while simultaneously avoiding their efforts to monopolize the view the American people had of him and his message.

As he did throughout his campaign, President Trump should continue to avoid the beltway pundit class and the mainstream media and continue to take his message directly to the America people.  The press and pundits have proven themselves incapable and, even worse, unwilling to treat conservatives fairly, honestly and objectively.  Until such a time as they address this failing of their responsibilities as journalists, they should not be given any special consideration as a communication source.

Hearkening back to Roosevelt’s fireside chats, the most effective method of communication for President Trump will continue to be direct and unfiltered.  The reliance on the press has been ruined by their insistence on filtering and interpreting everything via their biases and agendas.   Trump has proven that new media is much more effective than reliance on traditional media and he should not surrender this important victory despite the weeping and wailing coming from the swamp!  Now more than ever clarity of message is critical to conservatives and their efforts to undo some of the more onerous accomplishments of the progressive elitists in government and media such as Obamacare.

The talking heads on tv and cable can continue to chatter to themselves, but the American people are no longer listening.  However, these supposed paragons of journalistic integrity will not willingly or easily relinquish the power and influence they have come to expect.  They are trying, in cooperation with their friends and allies among the progressive political class, to silence and censor the voices of the new media by painting with the broad brush of “fake news.”  By using the random and rare example of some unknown hack publishing an blog or YouTube site,  they mean to color and brand every conservative voice as hateful, bigoted or whatever label they can make stick so that these voices will be drowned out and silenced forever.

We cannot allow this to happen.  Even if we must protect the free speech rights of the most vile and spiteful leftist, socialist, progressive or anarchist out there, we must not allow free speech to be restricted any further.  The internet is the freest form of mass communication invented outside of the human voice itself and we cannot allow the leftists and progressives to encroach a single step further on this fragile freedom.   We must protect all free speech or we cannot protect any free speech.   Kudos to Trump for recognizing the unique opportunity offered by the new media, and lets all work together to ensure new media remains free media!

Consider the Source

It has been interesting watching the progressives and party establishment types along with their academic and media acolytes striving to come up with a plausible answer as to why they lost the past election cycle.   I am not just referring to the election of Donald Trump, but also to the complete evisceration of the left’s influence in Congress, state governorships and state legislatures as well as in local elections.

Dad and I pondered on what the series of explanations they would provide would ultimate be.  We did not have long to wait.   First was an attack on the voters by calling them “racists, deplorables, misogynistic, xenophobes, islamaphobes, homophobes” ad nauseum.    It was the same failed approach they had used throughout the election cycle.  Trump is a populist who is dredging up the worst of the worst to vote.  Well, that has proven to not be the case.  Those that voted for Trump come from every city, county and state across the Union.  We are not haters, but we are sick of being talked down to, ignored and belittled by the left and even our supposed party leadership.    We do not care about ethnicity, religion, sexual preferences or any other label the left likes to use to divide the country.  We do care about the poor decisions being made in our name.  We do care about the surrender of our sovereignty and individual rights to the globalists and central bankers of the world.

Second came the threat of violence (bought and paid for by the left’s donor class) to try to taint the outcome as being unrepresentative of the actual “will of the people.”   This quickly proved itself untrue as well as the violence, hatred and bigotry spewed forth by the supposed “protestors” exceeded anything the left had accused Trump supporters of doing.

They also simultaneously tried to play up the fear factor.  Trump is going to deport your family, Trump is going to take away gay rights, Trump is going to establish a white supremacy-based government and wage war on minorities  – run for your lives!!  All hogwash and blatant lies again.  Every time they tried to dredge up some new scare, the intranet and social media dove into every accusation and proved them false again and again.

That brings us to the latest attack.  A variation on the theme of the Russian hackers, they now blame Hillary’s monumental loss to . . . wait for it . . .  Fake News!!  That’s right, we were all duped by Russian hackers and Putin spies into believing false stories about Hillary.  All I ask is consider the source.

Remember – this is the same media that told you Trump would not last the primaries.  They told you Trump would never win the primaries. They told you he couldn’t run an effective campaign because he was hostile to the media.  They told you he would not perform well in the debates.  They told you he would not get any Latino, Black, LGBTQ or women votes.  They told you he had all but lost the election before the voting started.  They told you there was no path to 270 for him.  They told you he would implode under scandals.  They told you he was promoting sexual assault.  They told you he was a racist.  They told you so many things that were not true.  They made up stuff. They created false news based on false leads based on lies.  And this was just what they told you about Trump.  What they told you about Hillary was just as false.

Now where is the proof in the pudding?  Where is the list of false stories?  Where is the tabulation of how they uncovered false news reports and countered them with the true facts?  Well, I’m waiting?

Here is the crux of it.  America does not trust the media.  They went so far into the tank for Hillary that no one in their right mind could ever trust them again to report the news factually and without bias.  As they lied and dragged what was left of their tattered reputations through the slime and filth of their own lies and deceptions, America turned to new sources.  Reputable sources.

The left cannot stand this.  In order for progressives and socialists to accomplish their goals they have to able to control the narrative.  They cannot abide Americans being given the facts and deciding for themselves, because logic and facts are never on their side.  They have to “frame” the conversation and control the flow of information.  Perfect example is the supposed scientific consensus on Man-caused (anthropomorphic) Climate Change.  It is only a majority consensus of those that agree with the supposition that man is changing the climate.  That’s it.  It is not a poll and measure of all climatologists or atmospheric scientists.  It is an agreement on the results of studies conducted by the people who conducted the studies.  “Me and Tom ran this study and we agree that it proves the conclusion we set out to prove.  We also completely agree that we are right.”

So the progressives and establishment had to attack the counter—media.  What better way to do that than to accuse them of being false new sites, bought and paid for by the . . . wait for it . . . Russians!  And then sadly we learned that the fake media (Washington Post) had to admit that their story about the fake news was actually a fake story after all.  So the liars and deceivers in the mainstream media cannot even effectively frame their new competition without it backfiring on them and proving them to be the true source of fake news yet again.  They want to censure the right’s new alternative media because they have to control the narrative.

Please consider the source when the media accuses the alternative media and watch how quickly they move to censorship and defamation to try to convince the public to only trust them.  You see, the plantation based and slavery—themed mindset has never left the Democrat party.  They still believe that they should be allowed to control everything and if they do not approve of it then it must be destroyed, silenced or discredited.  But conservatives?  We don’t call for censorship or banning or anything like that.  We simply call for a voice of our own to counter their voice.  We are happy to have debate and dialogue because we know truth will win out.  As Dad has famously said “Truth never fears a challenge!”

Consider the source – where have all of the falsehoods and lies emanated from for the last few decades?  That’s right.  The mainstream media who acts as the communication arm of the progressives and establishment elites.

Quid Est Veritas?

Ever since Pilate asked that question of Jesus, secular scholars and petit academicians have struggled to formulate an answer.  Jerome, pondering that question in the Latin version of the Scriptures stumbled upon the only answer.  By simply rearranging the letters, and neither adding nor subtracting from them, he discovered that “the answer to the question is in the asking”, thus “Quid est Veritas?” is answered “Est vir, Qui Adest!”  The Scriptures also state very emphatically, “the truth is in Jesus Christ”—since the “in” is in italics we know it was supplied by the translators and is not in the Greek text and thus it should read, “the truth is Jesus Christ,” (Eph. 4:21) and Jesus Christ stated, “I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes to the Father except through Me,” (John 14:6)

Based on those texts, underscored by Jerome’s discovery, when asked to write my philosophy of education out in three sentences or less, I formulated it this way:

“On the rocky and sometimes fearsome path one travels between being a ‘pupil’ and being a ‘student’ it is essential to grasp the awesome fact that ‘truth never fears a challenge,’ and to realize that as Christians we possess the liberty to challenge the existing order of things through critical analysis, and are charged with the responsibility to become the creative, thinking opinion leaders that this world so desperately needs.”  If a student will accept that challenge we can then begin to educate and train him (I refuse to bow to the PC crowd) in becoming a virtuous and disinterested servant- leader which, in turn, is a step toward becoming a Christian Statesman.

The first step in that process is for the student to understand what Truth Is—truth is objective and knowable.   Truth is not relative; there are not multiple “truths” with each person selecting his or her own set.  Truth also is absolute: if something is true it also is absolute—conversely, if something is absolute, it also is true.  To state that something is absolutely true or that one believes in absolute truth is merely to dabble in “repetitious redundancies.”  It stands, therefore, that there cannot be conflicting “truths”—your “truth” cannot be true if it conflicts with or stands in contradiction to my “truth,” and vice versa, assuming that one of our “truths” aligns with Truth and the other’s does not.

A glaring example of the foregoing is the recent publication of a Constitutional Law supplemental text entitled The Godless Constitution in which authors Isaac Kramnick and R. Laurence Moore, state that they have dispensed with the usual footnotes and references in the interests of brevity.  The truth behind that lie is that there are no references from the Constitution, its authors, its early commentators, or its documentation that would support such an absurd concept as the authors purport to “prove” through their abjectly non-scholarly, opinion-only work.  The authors simply state that the Constitution is Godless because they state that it is (some 200 years after the fact and ignoring all of the documentation, freely available, that totally and flatly disproves their thesis).   The Christian principles of our founders are, in Al Gore’s words, “an inconvenient truth” to those who refuse to be honest in their research in order to promote a society free from the restraints that truth necessarily imposes upon them.

The false teaching that truth is “relative” has but one goal and that is to destroy the whole concept of Truth (to which one must be finally accountable) and thereby allow the development of a society for whom there is no final accountability.  Our Founding Fathers understood that concept quite well and insisted that no one was fit for public office who would not affirm a belief in God and in judgment after death.  They had seen the corrupting influence of power, and without doubt would be in agreement with Lord Acton, who later wrote in the Confederate War era, that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”  If one were to be entrusted with public (governmental) power, one must recognize that he must give a final accounting of his use or misuse of that power to the One from whom that power derives, the One who is All Power.

It is but a small step backward from teaching that there is no final accountability to teaching that there are no consequences for one’s behavior.  If there is no accountability to a final ultimate Authority, then man is the only arbiter—and society must then attempt to bring behavior under control by appealing to its citizens to, as Nietzsche says, “be true to the earth.”  But if my truth allows me to participate in whatever I choose, then your truth needs to be tolerant and allow my behavioral manifestations of my truth for, “Who’s to say what’s right or wrong?  If it’s right for you who can say it’s wrong?” Without a proper concept of truth, there is no standard but man for man’s actions.

Even thinking proponents of the false religion of evolution know, as was stated by one such scientist in a television interview, “of course there is no scientific evidence for evolution, but the kids have to be taught something so that they can enjoy their sexual freedoms” (the statement was so fascinating that I forgot to write down the reference—very un-scholarly, I know).  Recognizing that truth is objective and knowable frees one from the shackles of secular philosophy and enables one to genuinely use the scientific method of investigation—observing what is there unfettered by philosophy of science falsely-so-called (which dictates that observation must be bent to fit itself–and woe be to the thinking scientist who fails to bend his observations to fit the philosophy).  In Isaiah, God says to man, “come now and let us reason together,” and the Psalmist says, “The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork.”  D. James Kennedy, recently deceased pastor of the Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Florida, quoted an astronomer who said, “…the more you study (observation unfettered by philosophy) this thing (the Universe) going infinitely outward (telescopically) and infinitely inward (microscopically), the more you become convinced that is the result of one, single, gigantic mathematical thought—it had to be done all at once, or it could not have been done at all.”

Of course evolution is going to fall by the wayside, discarded on the trash heap of other failed philosophies that have tried to pervert truth for self-serving, anti-Bible, God, and Christ (or humanist) interests and it will be replaced by another of the same failed genre, ad infinitum, ad nauseum.  That is of no particular concern to me because

“Truth Never Fears a challenge.”


Quid est Veritas? Est vir, Qui Adest!

Where Did American Education Go?

Asked Dr. Smith with a mischievous twinkle in his eye, “Say, Chuck, why, with all your credentials and intellect, are you still teaching at that Christian college with its low salaries?”

The setting was an impromptu coffee-with-conversation meeting with my former professors in
my Ph.D. program at the University of Tennessee; Dr. Smith was the one remaining true conservative in that august group of scholars.  The obviously loaded question came near the end of a quite refreshing dialogue among a group of well-read, highly educated gentlemen who respected each other and who valued—yea, treasured—honest intellectual exchange, an admitted rarity in American colleges today.  Due to the small size of most offices, we had retired to an unoccupied classroom for our gathering.

“The primary reason, Dr. Smith, is that I do not like to be censored in what I teach—I value the reality of the concept called ‘academic freedom.’”

One of our colleagues took the bait and replied, “you’re not really serious, are you?”  He, like the others, made the false assumption that being on the faculty of a Christian institution meant that one is obviously censored in what can be taught and by implication, what can be thought.

“Oh yes, I am very serious.  I refuse to be censored in what I can teach because I firmly believe that ‘truth never fears a challenge.’ Now, you guys obviously think that you are the ones with academic freedom, but let me ask you, when was the last time you had the freedom to take Jesus Christ or the Bible into the classroom with you?  I, on the other hand, can take Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, Mao Tse-Tung, or anybody else or any other philosophy with me for an honest dialogue to compare and contrast any and all such ideas with truth.”

That was followed by a pause, and receiving no rejoinder, I continued to my concluding statement.

“Furthermore, a few moments ago when we were discussing various things and the topic of conversation came to Affirmative Action, why did you guys drop your voices and look down the hall to see if anyone was perchance listening to your true feelings about that policy?”  Now, with a twinkle in my eye, I concluded, “If you guys want to prostitute your credentials and your intellects for a higher salary that’s your business…but as for me, I refuse to do so.  That’s why I am still teaching at a Christian university.”  And, with a gentlemanly good-naturedness, we adjourned the meeting so they could get back to their classes, promising to continue our dialogue in the near future.

That last paragraph illustrates a point made by Maj. Gen. Josiah Bunting III, USA (Ret’d) in his book, An Education for Our Time, to wit: “America’s colleges are incapable of delivering what America needs today.”  Part of the reason they are so incapable is that they have violated their very reason for existing—honest intellectual inquiry of all sides of an issue in an open forum where ideas can be discussed, compared, contrasted against truth—objective and knowable truth.  Example, the pathetic performance of the uneducated automatons at Columbia University when someone with an opposing viewpoint is invited to speak to them—such speakers are shamefully shouted down by the puppets of a non-education system. The same happens at other major “universities” as well.

I enclosed that word in quotes to draw attention to the fact that such institutions cannot be called Universities and should be referred to as arrogant, robot-producing propaganda agencies.  The word University derives from the root Universe, which means: “Single sentence.”  That single sentence is: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.”  A University is an institution for the study of that Universe, a study made possible because that God has deemed to reveal Himself and His creation to man, whom He created with the necessary intellectual capability to receive that revelation and to engage in scientific inquiry (“Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord…”)  The scientific method of investigation is a marvelous tool for just such a study, a tool properly used demonstrates the marvelous, ordered complexity of His creation.  Misused, that tool is used to propagandize the automatons of the propaganda agencies into the false religion of evolution.  True Universities have the freedom to acknowledge that evolution is both a philosophical lie and a scientific impossibility, which has been absolutely proven by the scientific study known as microbiology: Charles Darwin said that if irreducible complexity can be found, evolution will be proven false—microbiology proves just that by showing that the “simple” single-cell animal is a highly complex arrangement of equally complex machines…irreducible complexity.  Evolution is not just dead, it was stillborn at its inception, but that conversation cannot even be conducted in the classrooms and auditoriums (which means a “room for hearing”—not “jeering”) of their universities, so-called.  Darwin’s statement, found in Origin of Species, reads: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

It is obvious to the most casual observer why that last thought is being denied through some pretty complex sophistry on the part of philosophers (otherwise known as scientists) today—just look at the magnitude of the superstructure they have constructed upon the lie of evolution.  Even the U.S. Government has become involved in violating the First Amendment by requiring that the religion of evolution be taught in the public schools while denying the teaching of anything Christian on the falsely interpreted and un-Constitutional doctrine of “separation of church and state.”  Look also at the Smithsonian Institute’s Museum of Natural History—from the front door to the exit, all one has is model after model preaching the religion of evolution.  The entire superstructure of American education, from elementary to post-graduate studies is now resting firmly on the foundation of that religion, and it is supported by an atmosphere of violent opposition to any voice that deviates from the prescribed religious dogma.

Where did American education go?  It got swallowed up by the religious dogma of the lie of evolution and its supporting political philosophy of Marxism—Darwinism/Marxism.

Truth Never Fears a Challenge

Dr. Murphy

He who knows not, and knows not that he knows not, is a fool.  Shun him.

He who knows not, and knows that he knows not, is simple.  Teach him.

He who knows, and knows not that he knows is asleep.  Waken him.

He who knows, and knows that he knows, is wise.  Follow him.

                                                                                      Arabic Apothegm

Why Do We Have Bureaucracies

Why Do We Have Bureaucracies?

That question opened a new semester in a graduate seminar on public administration.  In answering the question, the twelve of us were to introduce ourselves, tell what we were doing, why we were taking that particular seminar, and so forth.  The instructor was the son of a Baptist preacher and the grandson of a Baptist missionary, and the class was required for my MA at Oklahoma State University.

“Well, of course there are no absolutes…” opined a young lady trying to sound erudite but not quite reaching to that level.  I wanted to insert, “are you absolutely certain that there are no absolutes?  After all, your statement is an absolute,” but I held my peace until my turn came.

“My name is Charles Murphy, I am pastor of a fundamental Baptist church, registrar of a fundamental Baptist college, and assistant professor at that college,” which introduction got their attention and curiosity.  “The reason we have bureaucracies,” I continued, “is because we have a characterless people, and a characterless people have to have someone to tell them what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare.  However, the problem has been exacerbated by the fact that we have only other characterless people to put into those places of authority, so now we are in the untenable position of having characterless people telling other characterless people what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare.”

Stated the professor: “I can accept that if you can define character.”

“Character is doing right because it’s right to do right, regardless of the circumstances,” I replied.

Asked the professor, “By whose standard?”  I thought he’d never ask!

I pulled my Bible from my briefcase, they went into cardiac, and I stated, “I have a Standard—a Standard of absolute (for her benefit) right and wrong. Now, admittedly, there are some things in here that are in grey areas that are somewhat debatable, and I love to debate them, but it is a Standard of absolutes nonetheless.”

Seeing there was no comment coming from either the students or the professor, and since I still had the floor, I continued: “I think I am safe in assuming that most of you, if not all, claim to be liberals in your philosophy, am I right?”  They nodded ascent.  “Well then, according to your reasoning, there is no Creator, no afterlife, no judgment after death and therefore in your system it is not that you have not ‘found the answers,’ it is rather that there are no answers to be found because all that is at the end is a cold, dark, silent universe.”  The silence was deafening until the professor called for a coffee break.

Is it not passing strange that our Founders with all their wisdom did not mention, conceive, write about, or make provision for bureaucracies when they wrote and adopted the Constitution?  Were they really unaware of how much we need government agencies to tell us what to do, when to do, where to do, how much to do, when to stop, and when to apply for welfare?  Could they have been so ignorant of our inherent mental retardation that requires us to have government agencies to tell us that toys with small breakable parts are dangerous for our infants?  Surely they must have been aware that we are so incompetent that we have to have government agencies involved in the design and function of our toilettes?  And, how could they not have been acutely aware of our need for government Entitlement Programs to ensure that those of us who do not want to work are entitled to the paychecks of those of us who do work?  I find it hard to believe that they did not know, when writing the First Amendment, that we do not even need God because we have government and Visa/Master Card.  How could they have been so short-sighted as not to know that it takes a government to raise a child because parents are so obviously incompetent?  Did they not know, with all their experience and wisdom, that we absolutely must have government agencies watching over our every breath, every bite, and every drink we take from morning to night, yea rather, from the cradle to the grave?  And what sort of communal stupidity caused them to come up with such insane, meaningless dribble for their mottos such as “Live Free or Die!”?

Eureka!  Now I know why we have bureaucracies–we have bureaucracies because we are too lazy or too stupid to make our own decisions in life!

Truth Never Fears a Challenge!

Dr. Murphy