The Weathermen: William Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn

Comments

[Lala]

Chris Cosgriff / PoliceLink

October 13, 2008

Editor's Note: With the recent headlines mentioning the Weather Underground, the focus has been on who said what and who did what when. What has been overlooked, and seemingly forgotten, is the sacrifice of three real American heroes. This article's only purpose is to honor those three fallen heroes.

If you've been keeping up with the presidential race then you've likely heard mention the accusations and denials from both campaigns about alleged ties between Senator Barack Obama, the Democratic candidate for president, and Bill Ayers. Plenty has been written about their relationship from both sides of the campaign, and I have absolutely no interest in exploring that relationship further.

I am interested only in honoring the memories of three fallen police officers and holding responsible those who actually planned and committed these murderous attacks against the American people and our criminal justice system.

Ayers, who has long held a position as a college professor in Chicago, has a surprisingly nefarious past. He happens to be the founder of a domestic terrorist group called the Weather Underground, which he has written about extensively in his own memoir, Fugitive Days: A Memoir.

The Weather Underground was responsible for bombing several government targets throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, including the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, and a building used by the New York City Police Department. To finance their domestic terrorism activities the group also conducted "traditional" robberies, which occasionally led to murder.

What you don't usually hear in modern-day news coverage of the group, is that three of those murders were of police officers killed in the line of duty.

On February 16, 1970, a bomb exploded at a San Francisco, California, Police Department substation, fatally wounding Sergeant Brian McDonnell. McDonnell died of his wounds two days later. A second officer, Robert Fogarty was partially blinded by the bomb's shrapnel. Although the case has never officially been solved, members of the Weather Underground, including Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn, were prime suspects.

On October 20, 1981, several members of the Weather Underground undertook the robbery of a bank to finance their terrorist activities. During the robbery the group murdered an armored car guard and two members of the Nyack, New York, Police Department - Officer Waverly Brown and Sergeant Edward O'Grady,. a Vietnam War veteran. Unlike with Sergeant McDonnell's murder, this case was quickly solved and several members of the group were sentenced to lengthy prison terms.

Sergeant McDonnell, Officer Brown, and Sergeant O'Grady were just three of over a dozen law enforcement officers killed by radical, domestic terrorist groups during the 1970s and 1980s. Their memories may be forgotten by those who killed them and walk free - whether through lack of arrest and prosecution in McDonnell's case or having served their sentences in Brown's and O'Grady's cases - but they will never be forgotten by their brothers and sisters in law enforcement.

[mary]

You know they make it sound as though there were no deaths at all on the MSM.

[Fred Beloit]

Everyone knows squirrels are crazy. "Nutty as a squirrel." "Squirrely".

"1 dictionary results for: squirrely

"Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
squir·rel·y /ˈskwɜrəli, ˈskwʌr- or, especially Brit., ˈskwɪr-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[skwur-uh-lee, skwuhr- or, especially Brit., skwir-] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective Slang.
eccentric; flighty.
Also, squir·rel·ly."

I therefore propose the moniker "Secret Squirrel" as a candidate for the Most Appropriate Sock Puppet Moniker of the Year.

[Rambo]

BIRDS OF A FEATHER, FLOCK TOGETHER...

[Lala]

There is a lot of info, including photos, at this link -

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/2069095/posts?page=73

From David Horowitz's FrontPageMag.com/DiscoverTheNetworks.org:
"On October 20, 1981 -- long after the Weather Underground had ceased to exist -- former Underground member Kathy Boudin and her soon-to-be husband, David Gilbert, were accomplices in the robbery of a Brinks armored car in Nyack, New York. In the course of that heist, one Brinks guard and two Nyack police officers were murdered. Also involved in the robbery was Judith Clark, who had served a prison term for her participation in the 'Days of Rage.' Boudin hired attorney Leonard Weinglass, a law partner of her father, to defend her in the case.

Weinglass arranged for a plea bargain whereby Boudin pled guilty to one count of felony murder and robbery, in exchange for a prison sentence of twenty years to life. She was paroled in 2003, however, over strong opposition from New York State police. Gilbert remains in New York's Attica State Prison, having refused to bargain.

In 1985, former Weather Underground members Susan Rosenberg (who also was implicated in the Nyack robbery [Brinks truck robbery/murder]) and Linda Evans were apprehended while transporting 740 pounds of explosives which they both acknowledged were slated for use in additional bombings. Rosenberg was sentenced to 58 years in prison, Evans 40; President Bill Clinton pardoned both women in January 2001."

[mary]

You know, it is kinda scary when the blond anchor on CNBC says "we are kind of turning into a socialist country now, I mean with all this talk of redistribution of wealth"

[mary]

Lala, I remember being horrified by Clinton's eleventh hours "pages of pardons".

[chris]

This news is so very timely and relevant. Hey, I hear that President Kennedy wants to send guys to the moon! Do you believe that!

[seekeronos]

It is a fait accompli: Obama will be president.

The Rothschilds and their Illuminati minions have won this part of their internal conflict with the Rockefeller Illuminatists.

At this point, it would almost seem futile to even go out to vote (or so the MSM would have us believe) - ACORN has millions of homeless in key battleground states multi-registered and multi-early-voted for their socialist masters.

Let us prepare to greet our new dark overlord, and hope that the worthless GOP can reform itself well enough in the next four years to have a chance of taking back the Congress and the White House in 2016, provided that Obama and the DemCong™ haven't reduced us to African Banana Republic levels of poverty and irrelevance by then...

[Lala]

Mary,
How about when he pardoned the FARC people? That was to get the Hispanic vote in New York for Hillary.

[seekeronos]

meant to say 2012, not 2016 above... I don't suspect Obie will be a two termer, on account of the idea he is likely a "disposable president" much like Carter was.

He'll put us deeper and further along the road to internationalist, neo-liberal, corporatist socialism than the Bushes ever could have hoped for, but will also shoulder much of the blame in decades to come for wrecking the nation.

Bush will be a hero by comparison, after Obama and his minions are done finishing off the destruction of the middle class and the small-time rich...

[chris]

"The Rothschilds and their Illuminati minions"

Oh lordy - a Jesus freak and a conspiracy nut all rolled into one. I think that the Almighty (or maybe someone in a black helicopter) commanded you to say 2016. See, its a prophecy!!! Woooo!!!

[Fred Beloit]

Beelzebub, Beelzebub, Beelzebub:
"It is a fait accompli: Obama will be president."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYYxDt_tUzM&feature=related

[Rambo]

McCain will be President.

Most people are disgusted and angry at the state of things, so they're going to make McCain "work for it" - but thinking people secretly understand that an Obama admin would be too risky for this country/world.

It is decidedly "P.C." to talk up on Obama, to don the bumpersticker, and pretend to be "open minded".
This is why Obama's "poll numbers" are higher.

But in Americans' secret heart of hearts, people know they will wind up voting for McCain on Nov. 4th.

Some voters might even brag to friends and colleagues that they voted for Obama , afraid of being branded a "racist" if they admit the truth.

Yes, many would be happy to have a black president in the near future - but Obama's politics are simply TOO RADICAL and TOO RISKY!

[hdtv]

Why would peer pressure influence an answer to a random pollster and not the poll on Nov 4th?

I think you better prepare yourself for a real and likely possibility.

[LOL]

keep dreaming rambo.

As for seeker, wow where to begin with the sheer idiocy. You really are living in a fantasy world, you realize that right?

You also realize neo-liberal and socialism are pretty opposite in their objectives too? You wingnuts don't even know the meaning of the things you say you're so stupid.

[Lala]

Neo-liberalism from Wiki -

In the United States, "Neoliberalism" also refers to a political movement in which prominent members of the American left (such as Michael Kinsley, Robert Kaus, Mickey Kaus, and Randall Rothenberg) embraced some free market positions such as anti-unionism, free market economics, and welfare reform.[2] This term should not be confused with new liberalism, a term used in the United States.

[Lala]

More from Wiki -

Broadly speaking, neoliberalism seeks to transfer control of the economy from state to the private sector.[3] The definitive statement of the concrete policies advocated by neoliberalism is often taken to be John Williamson's[4] "Washington Consensus", a list of policy proposals that appeared to have gained consensus approval among the Washington-based international economic organizations (like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank). Williamson's list included ten points:

* Fiscal policy discipline;
* Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform – broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization – liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by law and relatively uniform tariffs;
* Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
* Privatization of state enterprises;
* Deregulation – abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions; and,
* Legal security for property rights.

Chicago School economists are known for:

* Supporting school vouchers. Proponents assert that voucher systems would promote free market competition among schools of all types, which would provide schools incentive to improve. Successful schools would attract students, while bad schools would be forced to reform or close. The goal of this system is to localize accountability as opposed to relying on government standards.
* Supporting Milton Friedman's negative income tax or basic income.
* Supporting competition law.
* Supporting decriminalization of drugs and prostitution. In 2005, Friedman and more than 500 other economists called for discussions regarding the economic benefits of the legalization of marijuana.[5]
* Supporting paid/volunteer defense instead of conscription. Milton Friedman would later state that his role in eliminating the draft was his proudest accomplishment.[6]
* Chicago School economists opposed Copyright Term Extension Act and filed an amicus brief in Eldred v. Ashcroft.[7]

The Austrian School is a heterodox[8] school of economics that advocates adherence to strict methodological individualism. Proponents of the Austrian School hold that the only valid economic theory is logically derived from basic principles of human action. Alongside the formal approach to theory, often called praxeology, the school has traditionally advocated an interpretive approach to history.

Proponents of praxeological method hold that it allows for the discovery of economic laws valid for all human action, while the interpretive approach addresses specific historical events. On the other hand, critics of the Austrian school contend that its methods consists of post-hoc analysis and do not generate testable implications, and so fails falsifiability.[9][10] During its history the position of the Austrian school within economics profession has changed several times from the center to the fringe. Currently its position lies between mainstream and heterodox economics.[11]

Austrian School theorists, like Ludwig von Mises, insist that praxeology must be value-free. That the method does not answer the question "should this policy be implemented?", but rather "if this policy is implemented, will it have the effects you intend?" However, Austrian economists often make policy recommendations that call for the elimination of government institutions - anarcho-capitalist solutions. These recommendations are similar to, but further reaching than the minarchist ideas of Chicago School economists. Both schools advocate strict protection of private property, and support for individualism in general, and are often cited by conservatives, laissez-faire liberal, libertarian, and Objectivist groups for support,

[Lala]

And then there is this dispute against Wiki -

'Neo-Liberalsim and Classic Liberalism are not the same thing' or 'This article is contradictory or wrong'

Most so-called Neo-liberals (who are actually classic Liberals before socialist-collectivists co-opted the word in the US) are oppossed to the international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, like Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were self proscribed Classic Liberals or just Liberals. By this articles definitions of Neo-Liberalsim tearing down a nation's sovereignty by supporting free trade agreements, then it is not the same thing as traditional liberalism or classic liberalsim, but a hybrid that involves government intventionism where classic liberalsim only allows enough government policy to prevent monopilies and the erosion of national sovereignty. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[Lala]

And then there is this dispute against Wiki -

'Neo-Liberalsim and Classic Liberalism are not the same thing' or 'This article is contradictory or wrong'

Most so-called Neo-liberals (who are actually classic Liberals before socialist-collectivists co-opted the word in the US) are oppossed to the international organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and The World Bank, like Murry Rothbard, Lew Rockwell and Ron Paul. F.A. Hayek and Ludwig von Mises were self proscribed Classic Liberals or just Liberals. By this articles definitions of Neo-Liberalsim tearing down a nation's sovereignty by supporting free trade agreements, then it is not the same thing as traditional liberalism or classic liberalsim, but a hybrid that involves government intventionism where classic liberalsim only allows enough government policy to prevent monopilies and the erosion of national sovereignty. J. D. Hunt (talk) 16:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

[Totally Heterosexual Conservative]

How funny is it that Secret Squirrel's post may or may not be parody? I'm pretty sure it is parody, but then I read the rest of the paranoid ramblings that follow from Fred, seekeronos, et al and then I'm not so sure any more.

I hear that Obama fathered not one, but TWO black children. Scary right?

[Worst President Ever]

"but Obama's politics are simply TOO RADICAL and TOO RISKY! "

As opposed to guys like Bush and Cheney who during their eight years in office were such great leaders that our great nation is in near financial collapse at their feet.

Republicans have no one but themselves to blame for the hollowed out shell of a party that's soon to be exiled from power by the voting public.

[seekeronos]

Maybe I got it wrong, but I certainly do not equate neoliberalism with the Classic Liberalism of the Austrian School or that princples of Drs. Ron Paul or Takahiko Soejima.

It is funny how English -- and especially vocabulary relating to politics -- is so easily distorted over a short time. Therefore, if there is a better word than "neo-liberalism" to describe the sort of corporatist welfare envisaged by Obama AND McCain both... where the poor are squeezed, the middle class and the lesser rich are squeezed within inches of their lives, and the mega-rich (net worth > $100M USD) are the immediate beneficiaries, do let me know and I shall apply it forthwith.

My understanding of "neoliberalism" thus far, is characterised by an adherence to those sets of policies, which while on their face may seem to be progressive, are actually in the service of the various hyper-elites: multinational corporations and other concerns who are more oriented toward the eventual dissolution of borders and the merger of states into multi-national regional blocs (such as the EU or the Arab League or MercoSur, or the NAU/SPP) which will ultimately be subordinated to a single planetary governmental construct (likely to be, but not necessarily, the UN).

The net result of all this globalization is the robbery of wealth from the working and middle classes, and particularly the "lesser rich" (typically the $1M to $10M net worth people), and bleeding that tax revenue a wee bit for "social programmes", but most of it going into the coffers of programmes to benefit the hyper-wealthy: namely, the destruction of national trade barriers, and ultimately, borders altogether.

Global socialism, and its "diet version", global social democracy, are but two unusual prongs in a very diffuse, multi-tentacled neo-liberalism that effectively seeks government for the elites, of the elites, by the elites ... while closing down the any venue of entry into this hyper-elite class (think Rothschild/Rockefeller levels of eliteness) to the common folk.

They have a certain nefarious aspect about them, namely mind control, which can be said the same of that other curious relic from the Dark Ages - the Roman Catholic Church, and its offspring which have fallen under its ecumenist sway (the mainline Protestant churches, and a number of so-called "evangelical" churches). This is part of the "great Apostasy" or "Falling Away from the Faith" that Jesus warned us about.

Consider the relative grandeur that the prelates and popes have long enjoyed (the Vatican is still regarded as being one of the wealthiest entities on the planet), on down to the pittances allowed to the Protestant church "leaders", including brain-poisoned Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury... or even the amusingly monikered "Creflo Dollar" and good ol' Left Reverend Jeremiah Wright -- who lives in the gigantic Odyssey Country Club mansion in Tinley Park. Or the poofy-haired TV freakshow duo, Paul and Jan Crouch and their sickening "prosperity gospel" ministry that defrauds widows and foolish people alike.

In this sense, the "staged religion" has become much like the antichrist who has seated himself in the Temple of God to deceive the saints of God - the true Christians.

For those who liked Bill Maher's crappy movie "Religulous", the other major form of mind control comes from "secular humanism", which at its most extreme forms come in various socialist and communist flavours:

Global communism/the 3rd and 4th International were failed early attempts at inducing the masses to accept the idea of internationalising everything as its ultimate goal. However, it never really got terribly far from Russia, Red China, and a large handful horrifically broken post-colonial African and Latin American states that sucked either at Russia or China's teats.

In Soviet Russia, the commissars themselves along with the Party elite lived in relative splendour compared to the non-party members or even the rank and file of the party.

Red China is much the same way: the only successful "Western style corporations" are lead or chaired by either high-ranking party members, or by folks tightly connected to the Party.

In a very strange sense perhaps, "neo-liberalism" may be closely related to "neo-conservatism" in that I've understood that the roots of these two ideas are fairly close: the original neo-cons were largely disaffected or converted Trotskyites, a good number of them (but certainly not all) being of Ashkenazi Jewry, many of who had drunk deeply from the heady liquor of Adam Weishaupt and his 18th century Illuminatist teachings that they were the conservators of Lucifer's light; that is, only they (the Illuminatists) were qualified to lead the world from the dark ages into a new age of Luciferian greatness. Today's neo-cons are closely aligned to the Rockefeller family, which arose in the mid-19th century quite to the surprise of, and later the backing of, the Rothschilds and their supporters amongst the European Royalty.

Now, the rub in all of this is that a single planetary government is very unlikely to form for the following reasons:

(1) The Kings of the East ---

- (a) Red China won't play ball, because it wants a substantial stake in the crumbling remains of America's soon to be broken hegemony, especially in the Pacific. Red China also has its own ideas for running the world, and longs to resume its "rightful" place as the Middle Kingdom around which all other nations revolve, and spitefully so, after being (certainly in her own eyes) humiliated by a bunch of "red-haired barbarians" (read: Anglo-Saxons). And she certainly has the military wherewithal to resist being subjugated as it once was by the Western Elites. It remains largely closed to any deep levels of Illuminatist interference due to its very tightly closed cultural borders.

- (b) India - while not as racially, historically, or ideologically driven as Red China, it too seeks its place in the sun, and will likely ally (with steep reservations) itself for a season with China if it is sore pressed. However, as a former dependency of the UK, and an economic partner with the USA, it may be more susceptible to pressures from the Illumanitists than China.

- (c) Japan - most susceptible to Illuminatist meddling, given its close alliance with the USA. The elder Rockefeller is said (by Dr. Soejima) to have sought Japanese help with keeping the American economy from failing. There is also quite a bit of interest in certain ancient Jewish artefacts which may have come to rest in Japan (the details of this are too long to post here, see link at http://www5.ocn.ne.jp/~magi9/isracame.htm ) on the part of the Rothschilds and other Illuminatist disciples.

If any substantial evidence linking the Japanese (particularly the Hata Clan who supposedly emigrated from ancient Israel to Japan) along with physical artefacts unique to ancient Israelite culture, it would be a very remarkable find, to say nothing of proving once again how God has used the Jews/Israelites to spread the knowledge of Himself to every corner of the earth.

Will the Japanese continue to side with the USA? This largely depends on whether or not we are willing to continue to prop up their military (arguably, neither needed nor particularly welcomed by the Japanese) and if there is a significant transfer of wealth and interest on the part of the Illuminatists to Japan.

Prime Minister Tarō Aso has stated that he would "welcome the Jews" very warmly, although this suggestion was taken by many in the Japanese media under a context that he regards them as something of a "lucky charm", given their historic affluence and the blessings that Jews tend to confer upon those nations who welcome them.

(2) America - may not necessarily go quietly off into the night. If things really get ugly here domestically following a protracted period of steep economic deprivation, the leaders may decide to conjure up that faithful standby to juice up the economy: war. There are plenty of wars and conflicts to be fought in Africa, or Russia might rear up its foul head and start to make trouble in its near abroad, or perhaps intervening in the Middle East directly against US "interests".

(3) Russia - a resource loaded giant able and willing to flex its muscles in a grand, rather bully 19th century sort of way - with 21st century technology. Quite unpredictable too, and right along with its marginal ally and sometimes useful proxy Iran... quite willing to stir up trouble against Israel: anti-Semitism is deeply rooted in Russian culture.

(4) Middle East - may be destabilised in the short run if America (and with her, most of the world) has a catastrophic economic collapse. After all... SOMEONE has to buy all that oil, and oil money does wonders for keeping foamy-mouth Wahhabi cult members happily preoccupied with blowing up things in other countries, instead trying to depose the Sa'ud "monarchy".

Therefore, while as long as a single planetary government remains out of reach for our modern-day Nimrods and their devoted cult followers -- be they of any flavour of compromised Christianity, or socialism, or outright authoritarianism... the hyper-rich powers that be who tend to orchestrate these messes will be content with what I have until now deemed to be "neo-liberalism" -- governing in their interests of keeping us sheep fat, dumb and happy with the crumbs... and themselves firmly in control of the overwhelming majority of the global wealth.

Again, if there is a better word to describe this tendency toward the destruction of national sovereignty and personal liberty allied with the hyper-accumulation of wealth to a few very elite families... please advise and I'll correct myself in the future.

[Fred Beloit]

I've asked this fool, Mr Ever, as well as several of his distinguished colleagues, on several occasions to tell us how Bush/Cheney accomplished this remarkable feat: "...who during their eight years in office were such great leaders that our great nation is in near financial collapse at their feet."

So far Mr Ever he has failed to give us any clue. Is that because he is modest? Shy? Reserved? No, it is because he has no clue to offer. He is simply like the rest of the liberal rabble, full of high charges and dudgeon but irreversibly obtuse.

[Fred Beloit]

Here, Mr Ever, are the culprits who are at fault for the mortgage disaster (not that you will actually read it). (Link provided by Dan to Fausta's blog.)
http://faustasblog.com/?p=6908

Keep the lie going, Worst, as usual, even though we have some of the Dem perpetrators on video to refute your lie. The truth has never troubled you Dems before, why be different now?

[Worst President Ever]

Please, explain how Bush/Cheney have upheld the priciples of conservatism over the eight years they've been in power.

1. Doubled the defict, taking Clinton's budget surplus and turning it into the largest budget deficit in history. Fiscal Conservatives PAY FOR WHAT THEY BUY. They don't pass it off on their kids.
2. Passed major extensions of entitlement programs.
3. Did more to promote socialism than probably any politican in history - Bush just started the nationalization of our banking system.

[Worst President Ever]

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/53802.html

McClatchy's review of federal housing data found that the private sector, not the government or government-backed companies, was behind the boom in risky subprime mortgages, which are high-cost loans to low-credit borrowers.

Private lenders issued more than 84 percent of all subprime mortgages in 2006, including nearly 83 percent of subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers, McClatchy found.

During the subprime boom of 2004 through 2006, Fannie and Freddie went from holding a high of 48 percent of subprime loans sold into the secondary market to holding about 24 percent, according to data from Inside Mortgage Finance, a specialty publication cited in the story. One reason for the drop is that Fannie and Freddie were subject to tougher standards than many of the unregulated private sector payers.

In 2005 and 2006, the private sector securitized almost two thirds of all U.S. mortgages, supplanting Fannie and Freddie.

[seekeronos]

WPE, the above is the main reason that I am inclined to see both parties as two heads on the same, hideously deformed beast.

Neither can be trusted for a grain of salt, and that is why if I had my way I'd vote for third party candidates - if only more people would wake up to the Corruptocrats and start running for, and voting for Constitutionalists and Independents who support proven, paleo-conservative, America-first policies.

[Peggy McGilligan]

Every crime depends on someone not waking up too soon, and indeed in most cases most of us wake up too late. William C. Ayers and his ilk moved into the academy in masse during the 1990s. The press simply declines to cover the story; but it's huge. So, lets talk higher education. Outcome Based Education ensures the Politically Correct de jour, a means of actually graduating from college. Its called “social justice.” Take William Ayers. Besides drugs, he knows domestic terrorism. It's more than a way to stay stoned, firmly ensconced in the 70s. Just look at Ayer’s bourgeois neighborhood. You should have a t-shirt sporting a big red star. Professor Ayers also decides education policy. Ayers does much more damage to America than he ever could with mere explosives. The faculty sets the tone at any university. “Education,” says Ayers, “is the motor-force of revolution”

Hillary Clinton’s old mentor and comrade-in-arms, Saul D. Alinsky would be doing back flips. President Bill Clinton pardoned Weather Underground Organization members Susan Rosenberg and Linda Evans. Today, WUO founder William Ayers teaches “social justice” & “education reform” at the University of Illinois, Chicago. During the Vietnam War, while John McCain endured a North Vietnamese prison, a draft dodging “Slick Willie” participated in "teach-ins" against the VN War, while visiting the former Soviet Union. No worries though, if Barack Obama wins, Hillary Clinton could wind up with a Supreme Court nomination. Wish I was making this up.

Ayers, another self-professed “communist street fighter” decides who will graduate. We don’t need no stinking core curriculum. We don’t need no accountability, say educators. It’s part and parcel of the “culture of mendacity” manifested by the Left. This is the face of higher education. A first class political reeducation. And, these people are dead serious. In true Trotsky fashion, Bill Clinton expanded home ownership for the new Democratic demographic with PC loans, as worthless as the aforementioned PC diplomas. In short, “economic justice.” Another formula for disaster: a flood of worthless diplomas on the job market. “From each according to his ability to each according to his need.” In 1995 Barack Obama and Bill Ayers got together to focus on education; Bill Clinton proclaimed himself the education president. It was a paradigm shift. Yet Clinton never boasts his role as catalyst, not a single time: never: http://theseedsof9-11.com