Mr. Baisley rightly notes that the first amendment only restricts prohibits the government from restricting free speech. He should further qualify that as the Federal Government, i.e. Congress. The misapplication of the 14th amendment has created the current confusion. However, originally the Bill of Rights only restricted the action of Congress, or the Federal Government. Therefore, no Constitutional problems were created by local ordinances prohibiting pornography or obscenity.

Apparently, only conservatives can actually spell "Constitution".

I'll go 1 better than Dr. Williams who said: "With but a few exceptions, schools of education represent the academic slums of most any college. American education could benefit from slum removal, eliminating schools of education." I say we eliminate public education and the whole country will benefit from it.

Fire departments put out fires and limit property damage, they do not prevent fires. Police departments (in the upside down world of liberals) do not proactively prevent crime and protect citizens, they are there to investigate after the fact. It is not the teacher's job to educate your children until you hire him. Public education takes away the parents' responsibility for their children's education and gives it to the state. Can you say brainwashing?

Dan Mitchell did not use the word "them" anywhere in this column. It first appears in your comments. Try sticking to the subject at hand.

This is incoherent drivle.

The idea that workers who don't join the union are moochers is nonsense. If the union negotiates a contract that covers non-union workers that's their fault. On the other hand, unions create a scarcity of high paid union labor thereby artificially creating an excess of low paid non-union labor. So in fact unions are not helping non-union workers. Not joining the union is not mooching. Further, there is no reason to believe that improvements in working conditions would not have happened without the unions.