Romney Wins Delaware to end Gingrich’s last stand

Open thread: Romney’s victory speech

and Gingrich’s last stand;

Update: Romney wins Delaware

 by Allahpundit  at   HotAir:

Ed’s right, of course, that tonight is an anticlimax but there are still two good reasons to turn on cable news at 8 p.m. One is the Romney coronation. Excerpts from his prepared remarks:

Four years ago Barack Obama dazzled us in front of Greek columns with sweeping promises of hope and change. But after we came down to earth, after the celebration and parades, what do we have to show for three and a half years of President Obama?

Is it easier to make ends meet? Is it easier to sell your home or buy a new one? Have you saved what you needed for retirement? Are you making more in your job? Do you have a better chance to get a better job? Do you pay less at the pump?

If the answer were “yes” to those questions, then President Obama would be running for re-election based on his achievements…and rightly so. But because he has failed, he will run a campaign of diversions, distractions, and distortions. That kind of campaign may have worked at another place and in a different time. But not here and not now. It’s still about the economy …and we’re not stupid.

Two is the fittingly surreal saga of whether Newt will signal an end to his campaign. Last night he told NBC, “I think we need to take a deep look at what we are doing,” and hinted that he might be done if he loses badly in Delaware, where he’s been campaigning lately. A source elaborated on that for NRO this morning, insisting that he’d have to finish at least a close second to Romney there to keep going. Then came the tamp-down from “campaign insiders,” who told Byron York that Newt won’t quit tonight no matter what happens.

Team Gingrich sees three possible scenarios. The first scenario is that Gingrich wins Delaware. “That’s a signal to conservatives and Tea Partiers and grassroots activists that there still is a conservative they can send to Tampa,” says the Gingrich aide. “And it sends the message to Romney that it’s not time to turn to the general election.” No one knows whether the winning scenario is at all plausible; there has been no polling of Delaware, with its tiny Republican population and 17 delegates.

Next comes the middle-road scenario in which Gingrich narrowly loses Delaware. “That’s where we do well enough that it demonstrates there’s a chink in Romney’s armor,” the aide says. When asked what “well enough” means, the aide answered, “Within a couple of points — a close loss.”

The worst-case scenario is that Gingrich loses big in Delaware.

If they lose, says the source, they’ll “reassess” things but Gingrich will continue on to North Carolina to try to pick up another southern state. I really hope he pulls it off tonight in Delaware, just because I’m itching to watch a victory speech from bizarroland in which Newt boldly proclaims “game on” in the primary while literally everyone else in the GOP is pivoting to Obama. It’ll be an instant classic. A little taste from his chat with reporters this afternoon: “I think it’s a very substantial mistake for Governor Romney to be pretending these primaries aren’t occurring, and for him to be having ‘a general-election speech’ tonight in New Hampshire. He’s the front-runner, but he’s not the nominee, and I think it’s a little insulting to the people of these states.” C’mon, Dover tea partiers: If you made it to the polls for Christine O’Donnell, you can make it there to guarantee one last Gingrichian stemwinder. And even if not, I think Newt will probably find enough encouragement in PPP’s poll showing him within 10 of Romney in Texas to plow ahead anyway. My hunch is that he wants one more big win, one more right hook to Romney’s jaw, before succumbing.

Here’s his new video message aimed squarely at Santorum voters in North Carolina. Speaking of which, how much longer until Team Sweater Vest climbs aboard Romney’s “Anybody But Obama” Express? According to CNN, a meeting’s likely to happen early next month to discuss the role “social conservatives, tea party activists and blue collar Republicans will play in the campaign and in the Romney administration.”

Click below for video of Newt Gingrich appealing to North Carolina voters to vote for traditional marriage:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/24/open-thread-romneys-victory-speech-and-gingrichs-last-stand/

 

Former Obama Greens Czar, Communist Van Jones, Claims Obama Too BiPartisan

Most Communists over the past century have been sneaking around the halls of power pretending what Barack Hussein Obama pretends, that they are for the people and the people must hate the rich, because the only thing that really matters in life, since there is no God, is that everyone, except Communists are to be made equal.

Wow, what a sentence.

But in the Obama administration friend and advisor Bill Ayers is quite open about his Marxism.   He makes not effort hiding the criminality of traditional Marxism, the reason in the past theses guys had to sneak around……

Marxism traditionally stived to gain power by any means necessary, both fair and foul…whatever it took to establish the “People’s Party”.      Single women looked forward to the security.  Ambitious Marxist bureaucrats, especially the male ones,  obeyed every law and nuance of the driver Marxists, where everything was foul, to live a life that made a difference.

Some lives of the ambitious were made very short……but guys have a tendency to take risks that might be life threatening, especially if their lives are disgustingly meaninless and boring.

The human male, not the female, was born to problem solve.

And along comes Van Jones who joins the Obama administration as Czar of the Greens as a bragging Communist, which matches his anti white racism remarkably well.

When the pot spilled that Obama had hired a bragging Communist for the Green Czar job, pretending Obama and friends claimed no Democrat at no time had any  idea nowhere  that anyone in the Obama midst would broadcast his or her love, or my God,  MEMBERSHIP  in the Communist Party.    Democrats generally remember that ‘Communist’ is not a very sweet name.

Democrats under age 50 don’t have much of a clue about anything significantly American.    They have been feminized to feel things out.    History and Truth are only matter of opinions.

Get to know Van Jones for the Communist and racist part both.   He has become a well known mouthpiece and leader for the political realities of the Obama underground.    Click below for a touch of the Van man claiming (with evidence?)  Barry has become bipartisan:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/04/24/van_jones_obama_let_the_tea_party_set_him_up_by_being_so_bipartisan.html

Dennis Prager Still Upbeat about America Despite Obamatime

Why America is Still the Best Hope

 by Dennis Prager at  dennisprager.com:

 

ShareThis

 

Does it break some unwritten rule for a columnist to bring his readers’ attention to his own book? If so, I ask your indulgence. But, after nearly a thousand columns and twelve years since my last book, I hope readers will forgive me for noting that today, April 24, 2012, HarperCollins is publishing the culmination of a lifetime of thinking and years of the most challenging writing of my life.The book is “Still the Best Hope: Why the World Needs American Values to Triumph.” It is an argument on behalf of the moral superiority — and universal applicability — of American values.There are three big ideas –n or religions, if you will — competing for humanity’s allegiance: Leftism, Islamism, and Americanism. I argue that the American value system — what I call “the American Trinity” — is the best system ever devised for making a good society.

The problem is that most Americans cannot identify these values, and therefore cannot fight on their behalf. In the meantime, the alternatives, Leftism and Islamism, have been spreading like proverbial wildfire, largely because their adherents know exactly what they are fighting for.

I do not fault Americans for not knowing their distinctive values. No one taught them what they are. And the problem is not new. Even the so-called “greatest generation,” the World War II generation, had not been systematically taught these values.

I only came to realize what these values are in the way medical researchers sometimes happen upon a major discovery — by chance. One night, as I emptied my pockets, I stared at the coins I had removed, and, lo and behold, there they were: America’s values. The designers of all of America’s money — paper and coin — had been telling me and every other American for well over a century what America stood for. And I hadn’t noticed:

“Liberty,” “In God We Trust,” and “E Pluribus Unum” (“From Many, One”).

No other country has proclaimed these three values as its primary values.

“Liberty” means the individual must be as free as possible. And this is only possible when the state and government are as small as possible. The freer the state is to do what it wants, the less free the citizen is to do what he wants. In sum, the bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

“In God We Trust” means that a good society is only possible when the great majority of its citizens feel morally accountable to a God that is morally judging and a religion that is morally demanding. If men are to be free, they must control themselves. And if a moral religion doesn’t control them, the state will try to. If men are not God-fearing, they will be state-fearing. And, as I show repeatedly in the book, every American founder believed that. Even the so-called “deists.”

This is one reason why, as America and Europe have become more and more secular, the state has become more and more powerful.

“E Pluribus Unum” means that whatever one’s race or ethnicity, everyone who becomes a citizen of America is to be regarded first and foremost as a fellow American. This explains why America has assimilated people of every background more rapidly and successfully than any other country in the world. Because E Pluribus Unum means that race and ethnicity don’t matter.

The “unum” also means that all Americans embrace their American identity. Ethical nationalism — a nationalism that is rooted in liberty and God-based morality — is part of the American values system — and it is eminently exportable. We who believe in American values not only want other nations to retain their national identity, we want them to celebrate it. The more Australian Australians feel, the better. That so many young Brits no longer strongly identify as British is one of the reasons for Britain’s decline.

These magnificent American values are applicable to virtually every society in the world. But Americans cannot export values they do not themselves know or believe in. And that is why I have devoted so many years to writing “Still the Best Hope.” Because Abraham Lincoln was right when he said that America is the “last best hope of earth.” It was true in 1862. And it is true today.

(In the Twin Cities, the Dennis Prager Show is aired by Salem Radio, 1280 AM from 11AM to 2PM Monday through Friday.)

Thomas Sowell’s Look at the Zimmerman Case

Who Is ‘Racist’?

By Thomas Sowell

Whatever the ultimate outcome of the case against George Zimmerman for his shooting of Trayvon Martin, what has happened already is enough to turn the stomach of anyone who believes in either truth or justice.

An amazing proportion of the media has given us a painful demonstration of the thinking — and lack of thinking — that prevailed back in the days of the old Jim Crow South, where complexion counted more than facts in determining how people were treated.

One of the first things presented in the media was a anscript of a conversation between George Zimmerman and a police dispatcher. The last line in most of the transcripts shown on TV was that of the police dispatcher telling Zimmerman not to continue following Trayvon Martin.

That became the basis of many media criticisms of Zimmerman for continuing to follow him. Only later did I see a transcript of that conversation on the Sean Hannity program that included Zimmerman’s reply to the police dispatcher: “O.K.”

That reply removed the only basis for assuming that Zimmerman did in fact continue to follow Trayvon Martin. At this point, neither I nor the people who assumed that he continued to follow the teenager have any basis in fact for believing that he did or didn’t.

Why was that reply edited out by so many in the media? Because too many people in the media see their role as filtering and slanting the news to fit their own vision of the world. The issue is not one of being “fair” to “both sides” but, more fundamentally, of being honest with their audience.

NBC News carried the editing even further, removing one of the police dispatcher’s questions, to which Zimmerman was responding, in order to feed the vision of Zimmerman as a racist.

In the same vein were the repeated references to Zimmerman as a “white Hispanic.” Zimmerman is half-white. So is Barack Obama. But does anyone refer to Obama as a “white African”?

All these verbal games grow out of the notion that complexion tells you who is to be blamed and who is not. It is a dangerous game because race is no game. If the tragic history of the old Jim Crow South in this country is not enough to show that, the history of racial and ethnic tragedies is written in blood in countries around the world. Millions have lost their lives because they looked different, talked differently or belonged to a different religion.

In the midst of the Florida tragedy, there was a book published with the unwieldy title, “No Matter What … They’ll Call This Book Racist.” Obviously it was written well before the shooting in Florida, but its message — that there is rampant hypocrisy and irrationality in public discussions of race — could not have been better timed.

Author Harry Stein, a self-described “reformed white liberal,” raised by parents who were even further left, exposes the illogic and outright fraudulence that lies behind so much of what is said about race in the media, in politics and in our educational institutions.

He asks a very fundamental question: “Why, even after the Duke University rape fiasco, does the media continue to give credence to every charge of racism?”

Harry Stein credits Shelby Steele’s book “White Guilt” with opening his eyes to one of the sources of many counterproductive things said and done about race today — namely, guilt about what was done to blacks and other minorities in the past.

Let us talk sense, like adults. Nothing that is done to George Zimmerman — justly or unjustly — will unlynch a single black man who was tortured and killed in the Jim Crow South for a crime he didn’t commit.

Letting hoodlums get away with hoodlumism today does not undo a single injustice of the past. It is not even a favor to the hoodlums, for many of whom hoodlumism is just the first step on a path that leads to the penitentiary, and maybe to the execution chamber.

Winston Churchill said, “If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost.” He wasn’t talking about racial issues, but what he said applies especially where race is involved. 

Comment:   Let us hope that occasionally in today’s America and its Washington government, that Truth Will Out!

 

Copyright 2012, Creators Syndicate Inc.

What American Industry Isn’t Obama Crippling?

Regulations on Industrial Boilers Would Cost Billions

from the National Center for Policy Analysis:

In early 2011, President Obama signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to take a pragmatic approach when creating new, costly regulations.  Yet the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) set of proposed regulations on industrial boilers (known as Boiler MACT) do not adhere to this requirement, says Adam Peshek of the Reason Foundation.

The proposed regulation would seek to control the emissions of boilers across the country in a number of different sectors.  The goal, according to regulators, would be to reduce Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) of all kinds — a broad goal established by the Clean Air Act.

• The regulation separates boilers into two categories: major sources and area sources.
• Major sources are facilities that emit 10 tons per year or more of any single HAP, or 25 tons per year or more of any combination of HAPs.
• Area sources, on the other hand, are simply facilities that emit less than this.
• According to EPA, there are approximately 13,840 major sources and 187,000 area sources in the United States.

The regulation distinguishes between boilers that are already in use and new boilers, allowing for some degree of grandfathering.

• Previously existing sources would be required to have standards “at least as stringent” as the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of other existing sources.
• New sources would have to meet the emission limitation achieved by the source with the greatest emission controls.

Nevertheless, the size of the public outcry at the regulation should be an immediate sign that the regulation might cause more harm than good.  When it was posted for comment online, there began a flood of criticism from industrialists and politicians alike, decrying the enormous costs of the rule.

• In April 2010, EPA received nearly 5,000 comments, including comments of concern from hundreds of United States representatives, 56 senators and over 20 current governors.
• An EPA cost-benefit analysis found that the major source regulations would impose an upfront cost of $9.5 billion and an annual cost of $2.9 billion.
• Industry estimates, meanwhile, pegged compliance costs to be as high as $20 billion.

Source: Adam Peshek, “The Boiler MACT Project: Regulation for the Real World,” Reason Foundation, April 2012.

For text:

http://reason.org/files/boiler_mact_epa_regulations.pdf

For more on Environment Issues:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_Category=31

Lefty David Moberg writes Obama can win without the white working class.

Who Needs the White Working Class?

Democratic campaign strategists debate which voters are worth wooing.

BY David Moberg    at In These  Times:

“Once a key constituency of the New Deal coalition, since the 1950s the white working class has consistently voted against Democratic presidential candidates — and their own interests.

In the likely presidential face-off this fall, President Obama will rely on support from a core of young voters, single women, African Americans, Latinos, highly educated voters, liberals and – though often forgotten – union members. Mitt Romney will count on lopsided votes from social and religious conservatives, wealthy business-oriented voters and the anti-Obama crowd – from virulent haters to frustrated voters ready to blame whoever holds power.

Up for grabs is the white working class, which constitutes a key segment of the electorate, especially in the important Midwestern states that are likely to decide what now looks like a close race.

Turning Obama’s current narrow lead in most polls into a victory will depend on voters like those who showed up for the March 20 Illinois primaries at Harnew Elementary School in Oak Lawn, a working-class suburb southwest of Chicago.

Tom Van Loon, a 53-year-old union elevator constructor, wearing a tan Guinness cap as protection against an unseasonably hot sun, has been out of work three years and exhausted his unemployment benefits. He blamed “the banking and mortgage industries” for his plight, not Obama, whom he backs. “My analysis is it’s like sliding down an icy mountain,” he explained. “First, you have to stop the slide, then you work back up. Obama had adverse conditions – not only what he was given to deal with but the opposition to everything he was doing.”

Teacher Maribeth Matuszak said that Obama should tax the rich more to “bring back the middle class.” Political independent Sandi Tickle, a customer service representative, said she was taking a Democratic ballot and backing Obama partly out of anger toward the Republicans: “I don’t like people trying to impose their religious views on my life.” And while bringing her daughter to the polls to cast her first vote, Julianne Touhy approved of Obama’s record but still hoped for greater progress on her two main issues – “money and war: lack of the first, while we should have less of the latter.”

But Obama detractors showed up as well. An angry retired salesman could only sputter, “Get him out,” as his long-suffering Democratic wife quietly explained he had been a Republican all his life. Shirley Gambino, a retired retail clerk, grew up as a Democrat in the neighborhood of former Chicago Mayor Richard J. Daley. But she increasingly voted for Republicans after Reagan, believing they better kept their promises. She and her son – president of a small manufacturing firm, who criticized Democrats for supporting teachers, taxes and trade unions – both voted for Rick Santorum.

“I don’t like everything he says, but I don’t know about Romney,” she said. “There’s something about him I just don’t trust. I think he has all this money. Does he really care about the little people? Santorum seems like a family man.” The Democrats say they’re the party of the little people, I told her. “They’re giving too much to the little people and making the middle men pay for it,” Gambino replied. “I don’t approve of single mothers with four or five children.”

During the primary, Romney has fared worst with Republican voters who do not have a college degree or make less than $50,000 a year – common, if inadequate definitions of “working class.” His weakness with workers – compounded by the anti-union overreaching of Midwest Republican governors and what pollster Stanley Greenberg calls the “collapsing Republican brand” – may open the white working-class door slightly to Obama.

Yet decades of repetition of conservative economic ideology has shaped the thinking of workers whose experience might otherwise provide a contrary view. Greenberg has found that the standard GOP messages (such as Romney’s) on economic freedom and cutting taxes appeal to white voters without a college degree more than Democratic messages about strengthening the middle class and increasing opportunity. At the same time, American workers’ pragmatic progressivism shows through in other polls: three-fourths of white workers want government to reduce inequality, and 55 percent are concerned that not everyone gets an equal chance in life, for example.

Bloc by bloc, vote by vote

Late last year, a debate erupted about whether the Obama campaign should write off the votes of non-college-educated whites. Political analysts Ruy Teixeira and John Halpin argued that Obama could win – despite a landslide loss of the white working class – if he retained his 2008 share of the growing number of white college graduates (or kept the same, lower share of both white college grads and non-graduates that John Kerry won in 2004). The debate over which voting blocs to pursue is also about whether to focus the campaign regionally on new opportunities in the South (such as Florida and North Carolina) and the West (Nevada and Colorado) that rely heavily on communities of color, or on perennial industrial Midwest battlegrounds like Ohio, where white workers make up much of the swing vote.

The white working-class share of the population is shrinking as minority populations grow and more whites graduate from college. Yet in 2008, 56 percent of voters, according to exit polls (compared to 73 percent of all adults, according to the census) had not graduated from college. Moreover, 39 percent of voters were non-college whites – a significant bloc. Nevertheless, sociologist Michael Zweig finds that the working class – people who work for others with limited control over their own work – remains steady: around 62 percent of the labor force, including workers who complete five-year apprenticeships, or even college or higher degrees.

Once a key constituency of the New Deal coalition, since the 1950s the white working class has consistently voted against Democratic presidential candidates – and their own interests. This was especially true in 1972 and in every federal election since 1980, when most white workers have identified with the GOP despite its promotion of anti-labor policies that work against them.

Explanations for the shift vary – backlash against black gains; decline in union membership and influence; diversion from economic interests to conservative social values; a political myopia about which party produces the greatest long-term gains for workers; a rebellion against perceived material costs of Democratic policies regarding taxes, the environment, and eliminating poverty; and Democrats’ neglect of populist, progressive policies to help increasingly stressed moderate-income workers. Yet the relative success that unions had in keeping their members’ support primarily for Democrats, even with sometimes superficial education, also demonstrates the potential for a progressive bloc of white working-class voters.

While he campaigns partly on accomplishments like saving the auto industry, Obama faces his own problems with non-college white voters. He lost the “white working class” to John McCain in 2008 by 18 points, according to CNN, but still won a larger share of non-college white votes than Kerry did in 2004, although Obama was the first Democratic presidential victor to lose that constituency by double digits. In the 2010 congressional shellacking of Democratic candidates, Republicans ran up a 30-point advantage among non-college whites, as key Obama constituencies stayed home while anti-Obama forces voted in droves. Yet voting varied greatly by region: Teixeira and Halpin calculate that in the battleground Midwest and Rust Belt, Republicans had only a two-percent edge among working-class whites, but averaged a 17-percent advantage in competitive Southwest states and a 28-point margin over Democrats in competitive Southern states.

While the Obama campaign has attacked the Republican “war on women,” it has not targeted as explicitly the GOP “war on workers.” “It’s possible to win back white working-class voters, maybe not to get back all the way, but a long way, if the economy improves,” says Hart Research pollster Guy Molyneux. A March NBC poll, for example, showed Romney ahead of Obama among white working-class voters by only five percentage points.

The promise of economic fairness and solidarity that could win over many white workers holds broad voter appeal. It also offers the potential of healing some of the divisions of the working class that are among the main barriers to a more progressive politics in America.”

‘Tyranny is Never More than a Generation Away’….Mike Adams’ “My First Amendment Class”

MY FIRST AMENDMENT CLASS

by Mike Adams    at    Townhall:

Author’s Note: I’ll be speaking at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio on April 19. The event will start in Harrison Hall, room 111, at 6 p.m. The speech is called “Three Liberal Assaults on Free Speech (and Three Conservative Solutions).”Because it is about free speech in public forums, the speech is free and open to the public.

Tyranny is never more than a generation away. Those who wish to impose tyranny prey upon the ignorance of those they wish to subjugate. Knowing that it is easier to deprive people of their rights if they are unaware of their rights, academic elites often forsake their responsibilities in order to further their own political goals. In other words, they seek to preserve ignorance, rather than advance knowledge.

Against this backdrop, last spring I decided to dedicate an entire course to teaching the First Amendment. I’m writing this column to show one way it can be done and to show how it has been received by students. I hope other professors follow a similar path. Our students need to know what they risk losing if they remain indifferent to their God-given rights.

I originally intended (pun originally intended) to call my course “The First Amendment and Original Intent.” I also intended to use David Barton’s book Original Intent as a text. Additionally, I planned on covering 53 U.S. Supreme Court decisions. You can imagine how well that proposal went over. There was a predictable administrative “suggestion” that I change the title of the course. This was followed by a “suggestion” that I use a couple of texts written by avowed Marxists.

I successfully fought both the effort to change the course title and to “suggest” Marxist texts. In the wake of that success, I am left wondering whether a Marxist professor has ever had a capitalist administrator “suggest” that he teach using Adam Smith, Milton Friedman, or Thomas Sowell. These administrators are very predictable. Dripping with hypocritical condescension, they see academic freedom as a one way street.

But I prevailed – at least until a crisis emerged. An error in scheduling resulted in a request for me to cancel the First Amendment class and teach one of our senior seminars, which is required for graduation. The crux of the problem was that only one 25-student seminar was being offered – although there were fifty seniors graduating from our department. (Author’s note: I am not certain why we choose to call a class of 25 a “seminar” but that is beside the point).

The “First Amendment and Original Intent” course could not be used as a senior seminar for criminology graduates because it simply was not sufficiently crime-related. So I created a course called “The First Amendment and Crime” and did so in just a couple of months. That meant spending hours every day reading and re-reading a new set of Supreme Court cases and developing special oral and written requirements for graduating seniors.

The result has been highly satisfactory. It is not difficult to fill an entire semester calendar with courses relating the First Amendment to the issue of crime. Consider the following:

*Our first important free speech cases – Abrams, Whitney, and Gitlow (just to name a few) – began a long struggle to determine the appropriate limitations on the right to advocate illegal conduct, including violent revolution. This struggle would last for fifty years before the Court finally settled on the Brandenberg test.

*Defining obscenity has proved to be a difficult task for the Court. Between the Roth and Miller cases, the Court would battle for 16 years before deciding on one test for defining obscenity. During this struggle, Potter Stewart would famously quip that he could not define hard-core pornography but that he knows it when he sees it! The court has also dealt with zoning issues relating to adult theaters. This is all tied in with the secondary effects (crime) that often flow from the presence of adult books stores and topless bars.

*In recent years, cases like Mitchell v. Wisconsin have tested state penalty enhancement statutes that consider race bias at sentencing hearings following criminal trials. The implication of these laws for hate speech legislation cannot be lost upon even the most casual observer of Supreme jurisprudence.

In addition to teaching those crime-related First Amendment cases, I have also taken the time to teach students about Rosenberger v. Rector, Wisconsin v. Southworth, and NAACP v. Alabama – and other cases dealing directly or indirectly with student rights. Against this backdrop, I also assign the students to a semester-end project dealing with the erosion of free speech rights in America. This is where things have become very interesting.

On the first day of class, students were asked to respond to the same question, which is “Who is responsible for censorship in America and who is being censored?” This question is asked in order for them to contemplate a hypothesis for their semester project. It has produced varied hypotheses, such as the following:

*The religious right is responsible for a disproportionate amount of censorship in America. That censorship is primarily directed towards atheists.

*Atheists are the most censorious people in America. Their censorship is generally directed towards Christians.

*Public universities restrict expression to a greater degree than private universities. First Amendment violations at public universities are usually directed towards religious rather than secular speech and organizations.

*Conservative Catholics are less tolerant of free speech than politically liberal Catholics.

After students form a hypothesis in Part I of their paper, they must get down to business. In Part II, they must turn to scholarly sources in order to explain (theoretically) their proposed hypothesis. In Part III, they must examine empirical evidence in support of (or opposition to) their hypothesis.

Since many of my students have decided to study campus free speech issues, they will soon have to evaluate and critique academic studies of campus censorship. When they do, they will find that the topic has been ignored by scholars at our institutions of higher learning. Imagine that: universities rarely speak about the issue of free speech at universities. (However, they do talk about free speech problems occurring elsewhere).

I’ve gotten the ball rolling by teaching specifically about First Amendment issues. But what we need now is an entire course explaining why censorship is so much worse among academic elites than among normal Americans. We could call it “The Sociology of Censorship.” But that will never happen. The censors of sociology would never allow it.

Comment:   Academes in the social sciences these days think and usually speak very highly of themselves.  They are highly proud of their religion, atheism.     If one traces through the evolution of these modern witch doctors, one  realizes  it is still the age-old battle for power and wealth between the producer of wealth and the world of conartists who try to take away what the producer  produced.     

Marxism is today the music which is sung at the American university whether Catholic, private or public.    The once honored  American academic intellectual class who actually taught at university or college has been replaced by religious zealots, the Marxists and their atheism.

Today in America, the State supports only one religion, and that is Marxist-atheism.     The State, no longer separated from ‘Church’, but essentially the same political and social authority now can pack punch it its political dishonesty, especially at university.

Friend, one time high school teacher colleage, and fellow conservative, Mark Waldeland send the above article.