Burt Prelutsky

In an article for the NY Post, my friend, historian Ronald Radosh, informed the world that NYU was hosting a six-hour conference devoted to "Academic Freedom in the 1960s." On the face of it, it sounds like the sort of boring event where most of us are relieved not to know any of the participants, thus freeing us of any obligation to attend.

But, according to Radosh, all of the speakers are leftists. Among them are historian Ellen Schrecker, who has argued that while many of those accused of spying for the Soviet Union during the Cold War were guilty, "they did not subscribe to traditional forms of patriotism" and because they were acting on behalf of a cause in which they believed, they weren't "betraying their country."

And let us never forget that Lillian Hellman once rushed into a New York cocktail party and breathlessly announced, "We've been invaded." She was referring to Hitler's double-crossing Stalin and attacking the Soviet Union.

Another speaker at the NYU event is Prof. H. Bruce Franklin, who wrote in his book, "The Essential Stalin," that "I used to think of Joseph Stalin as a tyrant and butcher who jailed and killed millions…But to about a billion people today, Stalin is the opposite of what we in the capitalist world have been programmed to believe….To these people, Stalin is one of the greatest heroes of modern history, a man who personally helped win the liberation of the people of China, Vietnam, North Korea and Albania."

Can you imagine how many years of scholarship it took this moron to conclude that the people in those countries are liberated? Not too surprisingly, the author's biography for the Stalin book describes Franklin as "a revolutionary who is also a professor of English." In which persona do you imagine Prof. Franklin engages his students?

Folks, these are the people indoctrinating your children. And what's more, many of you well-meaning ninnies have mortgaged your futures to help pay their salaries.

Closer to home, I recently received an announcement that the Writers Guild of America was hosting a panel discussion devoted to the topic of global warming. Not a debate, understand, but a five-member panel of pinheads who, even after the exposure of the East Anglia hoax and when even the most devout members of Al Gore's cult have begun referring to "climate change" to account for the cooling that has been taking place over the past decade, my guild insists on proudly proclaiming its ignorant fanaticism.

Recently, I was forwarded an article allegedly written by Dr. Walter Williams. After looking into it, I couldn't find any evidence that he was the guilty party. In a way, I was disappointed because I occasionally like to call out a fellow conservative just to prove that I value principles over partisanship. But in another way, I was sorry to think that someone I admire as much as Dr. Williams could be so goofy.

That being said, someone actually wrote an article, "No Matter What," which is being widely circulated, in which the writer contends that Obama cannot be defeated in 2012. He actually insisted that regardless of who the Republican nominee is, no matter what the unemployment rate is, no matter the price of gas, no matter the economy, no matter the situation in the Middle East, Obama can't lose.

He bases all this on what he regards as simple math. He begins by stating that blacks and college-educated women will vote for Obama. He adds that liberals, Democrats, Hispanics, union members, Big Business, the media, Jews, Muslims, American Indians, homosexuals and, finally, a majority of Independents, will also troop out on Election Day to deliver their votes.

To which I say, with all due respect, hogwash! It's true that blacks will bestow 90% of their votes on Obama. They'd also give 90% of their votes to Bill Maher, Joy Behar or Bugs Bunny, for that matter, if he had a (D) after his name.

College-educated single women will vote for Obama. If they're married, it's far less likely.

By separately listing liberals, Democrats and blacks, the author of the piece is counting the same people two or three times. As I understand it, unless they happen to live in Illinois or Minnesota, those clucks only get to vote once.

Hispanics did give two-thirds of their votes to Obama. But if you subtract California from the total, it's much closer to 50-50, and there's no reason to believe that Obama will do as well the second time around.

Union members, Jews and homosexuals, have all been accounted for under the headings of Democrats, liberals and college-educated women. It would be like my insisting that Obama is sure to lose because Republicans, conservatives, right-wingers and Tea Party members will all vote against him.

Big Business and the media supported Obama in 2008, but he was still trailing McCain six weeks before the election, and would have lost to the worst campaigner since Michael Dukakis if the economy had waited two more months before tanking.

When it comes to American Indians, I guess this fellow has a point because, as we all know, as the Cherokees go, so goes the nation.

While I don't know which tea leaves the fellow has been reading, every poll I've seen indicates that at least 20% of the Independents who went for Obama in 2008 have no intention of repeating that boneheaded mistake in 2012.

If whoever wrote "No Matter What" gets in touch with me, I'm quite willing to make a wager that Obama will be dethroned in 2012.

Finally, I certainly hope that Obama and Defense Secretary Gates mean it when they say that America will have no boots on the ground in Libya.

In what is possibly a related news item, the Pentagon recently requisitioned 200,000 pairs of moccasins.