Activists on terror lists

[Tormod]

Without wanting to start a firestorm, I wonder if Naomi Wolf wasn't too far off after all.

 

The Maryland State Police classified 53 nonviolent activists as terrorists and entered their names and personal information into state and federal databases that track terrorism suspects, the state police chief acknowledged yesterday.

 

washingtonpost.com

 

It shows how easy it is to lose your freedom in a Democracy when someone takes their job too seriously.

[Racoon]

Freedom of Speech is eroding in America.

 

You can find numerous examples where either protesters were unlawfully detained for advocating/expressing an idea..

Or the Police have underminded protests in order to break them up and turn it into a fiasco to further a politcal agenda

 

[TheBigDog]

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled. That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty: and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise, or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanour, and on conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court, may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour, in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

 

SECT. 2. And be it further enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter, or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered, or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering, or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either House of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either House of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States; or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the Constitution of the United States; or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act; or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

 

SECT. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in the publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

 

SECT. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, That the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

This was passed by congress and signed by President Adams in 1798. Times have changed and we are a much more established nation now. Back when this was passed the Vice President was the person who came in second during the presidential election. This acts served the purpose of allowing criticism of Thomas Jefferson (criticism of the VP is not listed as a crime) while making it a crime to criticize the President or the Congress.

 

Why do I bring this up? Because things we do today cannot always be the worst things that have ever happened. That policy swings with time and is governed by the framework of the Constitution. There is no guarantee of a mistake free society, only that we will eventually recognize and correct our mistakes. The sedition act was written with an expiration date that helped to prevent it being reviewed by the Supreme Court, but during its lifetime people were indeed prosecuted over speaking their political minds. This was not putting a person on a list, this was prosecution and it was far worse than the infringements of speech rights in our current time.

 

Oh yeah, we survived. It was not good, but it was not the end.

 

Bill

[Tormod]

I guess the text you quote only goes to show that the democratic rights in the US are extremely fragile and that they can be taken away on whim if anyone representing the government thinks that you may act against it.

 

The "mistakes" made by the opposing party here are kind of hard to spot. Is it acceptable that an overzealous bureaucrat or field agent spies on his own co-citizens no matter what they are doing? It appears to me there is no safety valve mechanism in place here.

 

Who draws the limits? When a "mistake" is made against a person or group of persons, and that mistake causes them to be listed as "enemies of state" for simply disagreeing with the politics that the state represents, then when would you say it stops being a mistake and start becoming a trend? When does denying people a right become oppression?

[pgrmdave]

I don't know that I would say they're fragile - they have waxed and waned throughout the years, but they have never been taken away for long, and we have always increased our rights. It's kind of like the stock market. Day to day we sometimes are up, sometimes are down. Sometimes we even lose a LOT over the course of a few days, weeks, or months. But in the long run, the trend is positive.

[Tormod]

My point is mostly that if someone can take away your rights and the government is free to define which freedoms you can enjoy when, and which groups of people should be barred from those freedoms - is it a real democracy?

 

The activists is a case in point. They are no threat to your country. They are a *part* of your citizenship and your constitution gives them the right to be activists. But then someone decides that they need to be placed on a terrorist list and suddenly they are unable to travel, get credit etc. It becomes very difficult to get off that list again.

 

It is practically the same as saying that they are guilty of treason until the opposite is proved. Is nobody seeing this point?

[REASON]

Is nobody seeing this point?

 

I am. And it should be obvious to everyone.

[jackson33]

During periods in American History, usually in time of War or in the protection of people in high office, Constitutional Rights have been altered or suspended. Lincoln and FDR, were both more active in that process than Bush has ever been.

 

There is a fine line between social activism and/or terrorism in the name of some ideology. It's become the duty of the general public to report any person showing or demonstrating any desire to cooperate or participate in activity that could harm the US, its people or the ability for government to operate. It's then up to Government, be it State or Federal to CHECK out these reports, follow through, ignore or place on standby any person mentioned. Those 53 individuals (non violent not material) were processed and for whatever reason fit some current policy. I might add, 99% of all those on that list or any such list are non violent when placed on a list and that if anyone is deemed violent, they would be on other more restrictive list probably being sought for that violence.

 

Factually, any person listed and many are that are neither violent or activist have the right to seek recourse. They can be dropped off the list and if a source for being placed there, can take action against that person, group, government or organization for Liable and seek damages, if any.

 

One more thing; Every police department in the US TODAY and over at least the past 100 years, has a local list of people complained about by their fellow citizens. Every department dealing on any social issue, keeps list of potential fraud or criminal activity by handlers or recipients, including the IRS. This Terrorist list is given far to much mention and there is no telling how often the actual use of the list has successfully been used...IMO.

[questor]

We do have crime in this country..and home-grown terrorists, and murders. William Ayers comes to mind. These people blow things up and kill people. When activists gather, how are the police to know if they will blow things up or are just gathering peacefully? I would assume that when they stage their gatherings they are looking for publicity? Why not have them on a list or even publish it in a newspaper? Has their presence on the list harmed their life in some way? I would think they have recourse to have their names removed unless they actually commit a crime. Frequently these gatherings result in fires, property destruction and personal injury, I see nothing wrong in knowing who they are. I do not think they should be listed as possible terrorists unless their group is so disposed. A permit is usually issued and I would think all members of the group should be named and the purpose of the gathering. I look with disfavor on having them block public streets and hiways to carry on their protest.

[Moontanman]

We do have crime in this country..and home-grown terrorists, and murders. William Ayers comes to mind. These people blow things up and kill people. When activists gather, how are the police to know if they will blow things up or are just gathering peacefully? I would assume that when they stage their gatherings they are looking for publicity? Why not have them on a list or even publish it in a newspaper? Has their presence on the list harmed their life in some way? I would think they have recourse to have their names removed unless they actually commit a crime. Frequently these gatherings result in fires, property destruction and personal injury, I see nothing wrong in knowing who they are. I do not think they should be listed as possible terrorists unless their group is so disposed. A permit is usually issued and I would think all members of the group should be named and the purpose of the gathering. I look with disfavor on having them block public streets and hiways to carry on their protest.

 

Questor, it doesn't bother you that activists with no violent history or connection with violence were listed as terror suspects? These people could have been denied many of their rights as US citizens for being on this list. Oh, wait, I forgot you are a Neo-Conservative, of course this doesn't bother you, none of the activists were Conservative activists, only Liberals! Well hell why didn't we just shoot them and nip this problem in the bud? What if your Conservative views resulted in you being put on a terror suspect list? I bet you would squeal like a little girl. Questor when the rights of the people you dislike are harmed by the majority you open the door for the possibility of your rights being limited by your views. Get real Questor, even though I think your stance on most things is dangerous to the country as a whole I would never agree to limiting your rights in anyway. To do so is Un-American, it's the American way to disagree with our government and our leaders, it's a uncommon and wonderful thing that we can do this, we must not allow our rights to disagree, sometimes vocally and with great passion, with the powers that be to be infringed. We should be glad of these rights while we grit our teeth and allow the BS spouted by the other side go in one ear and out the other.

[CraigD]

We do have crime in this country..and home-grown terrorists, and murders. William Ayers comes to mind. These people blow things up and kill people.

Questor, you appear to be claiming that William Ayers – who readily admits to having been involved in the blown up many things, perhaps most famously a women’s lavatory on the fourth floor of the Air Force wing of the Pentagon – has killed or been involved in the killing of a human being.

 

:) Is this your intention? If so, can you back up the claim that Ayers or any other member of the Weather Underground Organization of which Ayers was a member was responsible for the death of anyone other than three of their members in the March 6 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion?

 

I don’t mean to be confrontational in this request, but gather that you are better acquainted than I am with right wing writing that might contain such claims, and would like to know if and where such claims appear.

When activists gather, how are the police to know if they will blow things up or are just gathering peacefully?

Although I’m not a police officer, nor do I know any who are involved in crowd control decision making, I suspect that US police operate under the assumption that people at large gatherings will not blow things up because there is, to the best of my knowledge, almost no recent history of this occurring.

 

Because of incidents such as the 1999 “Battle of Seattle”, I suspect police are wary of and prepared for large scale vandalism and looting. From conversations with DC Park, Capitol, and Metro police (there are an amazing number of overlapping police jurisdictions in Washington, DC, these three being in my experience the most communicative), I understand that they consider bombs to be more likely to be directed against large gatherings of protesters than by them, and focus much attention and training toward the detection of a bomb such as the 7/27/1996 Atlanta Olympics bombing, which killed 2 and wounded 111 in a crowd of spectators (not protesters). Like the act of domestic 4/19/1995 Oklahoma City bombing (the most destructive and fatal act of domestic terrorism in US history) the Atlanta bombing was the act of a US Army veteran with an undistinguished military career. Thus, I’ve been told, police are more worried about terrorist acts against anti-war protestor than by them.

I would assume that when they stage their gatherings they are looking for publicity? Why not have them on a list or even publish it in a newspaper?

Having been involved in organizing several protests, I can attest that the one of the primary purposes of most protests is to attract media attention. Although I’ve read advertisements for protests in such newpapers and the DC City Paper and Takoma Voice, I’ve never been involved in the planning of a protest that took out a newspaper add. The primary reason for this is financial. Effective event advertisements in large circulation newspapers is very expensive, and the protests in which I’ve been involved had essentially zero budgets, depending entirely on individuals to do such things as produce, photocopy, and distribute fliers. Since the widespread popularity of the internet in beginning in the late 1990s, websites and email word-of-mouth distributions are, I understand, an even more cost effective organizing technique.

 

In short, most protest organizers would be delighted to have huge multi-page adds in major newpapers, but unless newpapers adopt a polity of charitable donation of such adds, are unlikely to be able to afford them.

Has their presence on the list harmed their life in some way? I would think they have recourse to have their names removed unless they actually commit a crime.

This depends very much, I think, on what list you’re name appears. Since many law enforcement watch lists contain only names, it also depends on what your name is – if you have the misfortune to share a name with someone who’s activities resulted in the placement of your name on many of these lists, you will be subjected to the same law enforcement handling as that person.

 

The most significant US watch system, AFAIK, is the US TSA’s CAPPS. Details of this list, including whether you are on it, and how to get off it, are considered national security secrets, and difficult to obtain. Consequence of being on it range from being subjected to more than the usual security checks before being allowed to board a commercial airliner, to being unable to travel by commercial airline at all, consequence I would describe as mildly to very harmful.

 

It’s also important to understand that these watch systems employ criteria other than your name or other identifying information appearing on a list. In particular, as late as July 2006, a personal friend and former coworker of mine related to me that he’s almost always subjected to lengthy pre-flight screening, usually including one or more interviews, and has been told the reason for this is because of his last name, which is Hussein (the same as the executed former president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein). On several occasions, this resulted in delays so long that he was required to stay overnight – at his own (eventually private company reimbursed) expense – and resume screening and interviews the next day. As he is a IT project manager who, when I worked with him, traveled several times a month from Maryland to California, this was an appreciable financial burden both to him, and to the people and companies who worked with him.

 

When he inquired with TSA and DHS officials, and ultimately offices of the DHS and State Department, he was eventually told that the only way he could avoid this was to legally change his last name, which for personal reasons, he was unwilling to do. He joked, however, that were he actually a terrorist, he surely would find it worthwhile to legally change his name, or use forged ID.

 

Frequently these gatherings result in fires, property destruction and personal injury, I see nothing wrong in knowing who they are.

:) Again, questor, I’d like to see your sources for the claim that US protest gatherings “frequently” result in fires, property destruction, and personal injury. How many such gatherings occur each year? How many of them result in the damage you claim? How does the incidence of such damage compare for protest gatherings compare to that of gatherings such as sports events and spring break?

 

Another issue is that, in the case of most large and small protests, no organizer possesses in advance or after the event a list of attendees, or in most cases even an accurate estimate of their numbers. Because attendees are neither employees nor paying customers of organizers, no legal requirement for such lists exists. Even cooperating with police, organizers are often unable to estimate attendance numbers for large events with better precision that +/- 25% (for example, see the October 16, 1995 “Million Man March”, which Park Police estimate had 400,000 attendees, organizers 1,500,000 to 2,000,000, and a academic team of researchers 837,000 +/-20%).

 

I look with disfavor on having them block public streets and hiways to carry on their protest.

Having been caught up several times not only in blocked street but in overwhelmed mass transit while commuting to work in Washington DC, I can relate to your disfavor. However, even when protesters have no intention of creating congestion, with large gatherings, it’s largely unavoidable, like adverse weather, and one of those things that urbanites simply must learn to live with.

 

I’m unaware of a US protest ever physically blocking a limited access highway, other than by causing backup of cars exiting the highways, or causing rubbernecking slowdowns. Again, questor, if you can cite an instance of this occurring, I’d find it informative. Otherwise, I must regard such a mention as unfounded and disingenuous.

[questor]

I am not opposed to free speech. I am opposed to large gatherings of people who come to make a party from this privilege and force the taxpayer to clean up after them. I am opposed to gatherings that use confrontation and civil disobedience to make a point, who subject the police to personal danger and the public to inconvenience. If they have a point to make, why do they need over 10 or 20 people? Is it to be a civil request for policy change or a threat by virtue of crowd size to force their own solution? If you live near DC, I'm sure you are aware of the Million Man March which cost thousands of dollars to clean up even though it was a peaceful gathering. It also resulted in denying public use of the Mall during the march. On the destructive side, what about the two IMF demonstrations in which there was substantial property damage and violence.

This Fall, tens of thousands of people will converge once again on Washington, DC to militantly reject capitalism and capitalist institutions like the World Bank and IMF. The people of Washington will turn out to reject the politics of power and will take collective action to reclaim their lives. You can find out more starting with this page.

and

Mobilization for Global Justice

Come protest, demonstrate, dance, make music and make your voice heard with tens of thousands of people in the streets of Washington D.C. Sept. 25 to Oct. 2 to denounce the exploitative and destructive policies of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.

Link to both above quotes: Fighting the Octopus: 2002 World Bank and IMF Protests - Washington, DC

 

As I recall, these events resulted in rock throwing, confronting police and numerous arrests. I see no reason why the right to express yourself has to be corrupted by violence, property damage and blocking public rights of way.

[CraigD]

I am not opposed to free speech. I am opposed to large gatherings of people who come to make a party from this privilege and force the taxpayer to clean up after them.

You are then, questor, opposed to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

It’s illegal to litter, vandalize, or otherwise make a mess of public property in Washington DC. Nonetheless, whether by attendees of an organized event such as the 10/16/95 “Million Man March” or not, littering and vandalism occurs, and must be cleaned up after. Your suggestion that laws should be made prohibiting peaceable assembly because it results in increased cleanup labor suggest to me that you badly misunderstand the intent and usual legal interpretation of the First Amendment.

 

Also, as you often do, you’ve made many claims in this thread that you’ve not backed up with links or references, even though I’ve specifically asked you to do so, in compliance the site rules. Speaking as a moderator, I must ask you to stop doing this. If you don’t, you will likely find that your right to post at hypography – which is not guaranteed by the First Amendment or any other relevant legal document – will be abridged.

 

Many of your claims, such as

It [the “Million Man March”] also resulted in denying public use of the Mall during the march.

I know to be false – in the case of this one, because I was there, and was able cross the Mall with no difficulty – though my right to throw Frisbee there was infringed upon.

[questor]

Here is what I said..

I am not opposed to free speech. I am opposed to large gatherings of people who come to make a party from this privilege and force the taxpayer to clean up after them. I am opposed to gatherings that use confrontation and civil disobedience to make a point, who subject the police to personal danger and the public to inconvenience.

 

Here is what you said..

You are then, questor, opposed to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

How do you segue from what I said to what you consider to be my belief?

 

How was the traffic and the parking at the Mall during the March? How many days did it take to clean up the mess?

[freeztar]

Here is what I said..

I am not opposed to free speech. I am opposed to large gatherings of people who come to make a party from this privilege and force the taxpayer to clean up after them. I am opposed to gatherings that use confrontation and civil disobedience to make a point, who subject the police to personal danger and the public to inconvenience.

 

Here is what you said..

You are then, questor, opposed to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

How do you segue from what I said to what you consider to be my belief?

I've bolded some phrases in the above quotes. questor, our knowledge of your beliefs is limited to what you type on this forum.

 

“the right of the people peaceably to assemble” means that people have a Constitutional right to "use confrontation and civil disobedience to make a point". To think otherwise would seem to suggest a disfavor of peaceful assembly.

How was the traffic and the parking at the Mall during the March? How many days did it take to clean up the mess?

 

What does traffic and litter collection have to do with the topic?

[CraigD]

Here is what I said..

I am not opposed to free speech. I am opposed to large gatherings of people who come to make a party from this privilege and force the taxpayer to clean up after them. I am opposed to gatherings that use confrontation and civil disobedience to make a point, who subject the police to personal danger and the public to inconvenience.

Here is what you said..

You are then, questor, opposed to “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment.

How do you segue from what I said to what you consider to be my belief?

You stated that you are opposed to large gatherings to which certain condition other than being “peaceable” applies, such as “coming to make a party” or “forcing the taxpayer to clean up after them”. You have stated, therefore, that you oppose some peaceable assemblies of the people, from which I inferred that you oppose “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”.

 

That the First Amendment guarantees peaceable assemblies of the people, regardless of their purpose, is an important point of interpretation of the Constitution. There is no requirement that a protected assembly be only for the purpose of, say, supporting a candidate for office, or, as is included later in the Amendment, only “to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment not only protects the right of the people to, say, assemble to protest a war or celebrate the inauguration of a President, but also to discuss baseball cards or walk around in silly hats.

 

That said, the Constitution doesn’t guarantee that the US government will provide a nice place for large demonstrations and/or celebrations. The National Mall is a national park, administered by an agency of a Cabinet office of the Executive, the National Park Service. Though such regulation would be required to undergo a process determined by public law, which includes public review and comment, if the NPS director were to conclude that large organized gatherings on the Mall were messing the Mall up too badly, he could prohibit them, just as he is able to limit the maximum number of campers allowed into Yellowstone. He or a subordinate can also, I know from personal experience, require organizers to post a cash or other bond as assurance that no unreasonable harm is done a particular park – though I’ve seen several instances of NPS making, then withdrawing, a bond requirement at the mere threaten of suing in civil court over it. Congress could even eliminate the NPS altogether, leaving such matters to local government and private landowners – though such action would likely prove unpopular with their constituencies, and disadvantageous to their political careers.

How was the traffic and the parking at the Mall during the March?

There are only a few dozen parking spaces actually on the Mall side of the streets bounding it, and only a few hundred on the other, “museum” side, so, except on non-event weekdays, parking at the Mall is always hit-or-miss. On 10/16/1995 (if I recall those long-ago events correctly) parking was temporarily prohibited, as is usual for large events. Good tree-hugger that I and mine are, we almost always take the Metro, so are little concerned about parking.

 

However, even if a peaceful gathering were ruinous to parking, the Constitutional guarantee of it is unaffected. We, the people, are guaranteed the right to peaceably assembly. No such guarantee exists concerning the right to ample parking. :)

How many days did it take to clean up the mess?

I don’t know. I wasn’t back in the area ‘til 4 days after the event, at which time everything looked tidy. AFAIK, the event didn’t impact the budget or staffing plans of NPS, DC or the federal government, or any of the many police departments, all of whom are pretty good at the pre, during, and post for such events.

 

In your general mentions of “the taxpayer expense” of events like the Million Man March, questor, I think you overlook that local DC and surrounding MD and VA business and the people in them – who are substantial local and federal taxpayers - depends significantly on tourism. Far from feeling abused by such gatherings, we like, welcome, and encourage them. A million marching men or women, regardless of their politics or lack thereof, are also a million buying, hotel/motel staying customers.

[questor]

To clear up some misconceptions..

William Ayers and Bernadine Dorn..

Questor, you appear to be claiming that William Ayers – who readily admits to having been involved in the blown up many things, perhaps most famously a women’s lavatory on the fourth floor of the Air Force wing of the Pentagon – has killed or been involved in the killing of a human being.

 

Is this your intention? If so, can you back up the claim that Ayers or any other member of the Weather Underground Organization of which Ayers was a member was responsible for the death of anyone other than three of their members in the March 6 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion

 

30-Y.O. Unsolved SF Murders Reopen (Bernadine Dohrn suspect in murders of two police officers?)

KRON 4 ^ | 10-10-2003 | KRON 4

 

Posted on Thursday, October 09, 2008 11:36:06 AM by jrooney

 

The unsolved murder of two San Francisco police officers has languished as cold cases for 30 years until now. A federal grand jury has been looking into the murders.

 

And now, sources tell us, those investigators have identified potential suspects: former members of two militant groups in the '60s and '70s -- the Weather Underground and the Black Liberation Army, people who've been out of the spotlight for decades. The most prominent among them is Bernadine Dohrn, a former leader of the Weather Underground and now a law professor at Northwestern University in Illinois.

 

In the early '70s, some of of the group led by Bernadine Dorhn escaped to the west coast. Dohrn was on the FBI's 10 Most Wanted list. J. Edgar Hoover called her "the most dangerous woman in America."

link:30-Y.O. Unsolved SF Murders Reopen (Bernadine Dohrn suspect in murders of two police officers?)

 

also..

Bill Ayers the wonderful Marxist murder co-conspirator.

October 6, 2008 by Colonel Robert Neville

Filed under Op-Ed

 

This (left) is Police Officer Waverly Brown, a fifteen year veteran and the only black man serving in the NYACK Police Department in 1981. In that year, Officer Brown and his partner Seargent Edward O’Grady were murdered by freaks from the Black Liberation Army and the Weathermen, Bill Ayers old Glee Club.

 

The BLA and the Weathermen were friends in terror. They first robbed a Brinks van and murdered the guards. Later they were approached by Officers Brown and O’Grady. The two Policemen were then murdered by members of the BLA and the Weathermen.

 

Ever get the feeling that all those boring, stupid and narcissistic radical fakes of the 60’s and 70’s knew their parents and their own affluence would bail them out in the end? And it has. Just as it did entirely the repulsive Patty Hearst. Thus Bill has much in common with Peppermint Patty. They both were active members of pointless unproductive groups of mostly affluent brats who believed in murdering anyone including successful black people to make the world a er, “better place”. Ah, you mean Marxist Hell hole, don’t cha? I know ya do. But not for them though, eh?

 

This (right) is Bill Ayers, the charming Weatherman terrorist. Unlike more than ten Police Officers, Bill was not murdered by middle-class misfits and ghetto bottom feeders. “Guilty as hell, free as a bird. America is a great country”, he [Ayers] said.” August 2001, Chicago Magazine [article: No Regrets

 

and...

 

Shortly after the Days of Rage riot, the Weathermen risibly “declared war” on the United States. The sheer pretentiousness of these junior Bolsheviks was vaguely laughable. But they were deadly serious. Dohrn constructed and planted an anti-personnel bomb containing heavy metal staples and metal projectiles on the window ledge of a police facility, killing one officer, Bryan V. McDonnell, and severely wounding and permanently blinding another, Robert Fogarty. Their families never recovered. Ayers laughingly and emphatically admitted his participation and Dohrn’s skill in placing the fatal bomb

link: Family Security Matters » Publications » Exclusive: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn – Friends of Barack Obama

 

These people are now college professors and friends of Obama