Tag: Bill Ayers

Oh No! Bill Ayers Is No Longer In Love With Barack Obama… Thinks He’s A War Criminal!

Bill Ayers: Let’s Face It, Obama Should Be On Trial For War Crimes – Hot Air

And, he’s quick to add, so should every other president of the past century. A fun clip for many reasons. One: Because Ayers is such a far-left caricature, you can bait him all day long knowing to a virtual certainty what his responses will be. The two RCP guys can’t suppress their smirks at how easy it is. There’s a 99 percent chance that he’s going to call O a war criminal and a one percent chance that he’s going to betray his anti-war ethos by defending O’s drone policy out of pure personal loyalty. Either way, it’s news. Two: It’ll never stop being amusing watching leftists express their disappointment in Hopenchange. Obama skeptics had to endure a lot of self-congratulatory piety and messianism from the other side in 2008. Five years later, the faithful are split between those like Ayers who see O as having betrayed The Cause and all the Democrats who’ve contorted themselves into supporting things like NSA surveillance chiefly out of partisan allegiance. They still believe in Hopenchange, it’s just a… different Hopenchange, one which requires collecting Americans’ phone and Internet data. No more messiah, whichever camp you’re in.

Three: The fact that Ayers is quick to mention O’s curiosity when asked what he likes about him is, knowingly or not, almost a goof on Jane Mayer and the liberal intelligentsia for giving Obama a pass on style points for his foreign-policy aggressiveness. As I said once before, it’s a straight line from David Brooks admiring the crease in O’s pants to Mayer et al. deciding that U.S. drones firing missiles at unknown people on the ground in Pakistan is kinda sorta okay because Obama’s smart, thoughtful, morally conflicted about all this, etc. He’s a well-educated, right-thinking liberal who has his stuff together. He’s a lot like them. They trust him. Ayers, at least, refuses to give O a pass on those grounds, although I leave it to you to judge from the clip how deeply troubled he is by Obama’s sins. (“I like him personally. I mean, he’s a really good guy.”) Four: Are we really watching a guy who got off scot-free for domestic terrorism, then crowed about it by declaring that he was “guilty as sin, free as a bird,” complain that someone else isn’t being sufficiently punished for terrorism? What?

Anyway, slow news day. Click the image to watch.


Click HERE For Rest Of Story


12 Terrorists Who Are Now (Or Were) University Professors

12 Terrorists Who Are Now (Or Were) University Professors – Fire Andrea Mitchell

Note: the information in the following article is derived from THIS one written by Ryan James Girdusky.


Did you know that there at at least Twelve former members of domestic terrorist groups indoctrinating college students as professors? Twelve may be a bit on the conservative side, but there are at least this many who are or have been professors at American colleges. The most recent of course is Kathy Boudin at Columbia University. Here are the others from Viral Read:

Bill Ayers and his wife Bernadine Dohrn. You’ve heard enough about them I’m sure. Ayers was a professor at the University of Illinois before retiring to his shithole in Chicago. His wife Bernadine Dohrn is still teaching at Northwestern Law.

Howard Machtinger was charged with conspiring to bomb the Detroit Police Officers Association Building and was on the run from 1973 to 1978. Machtinger now works for the School of Education at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Mark Naison was a part of SDS and was part of the Columbia University occupation in 1967 and 1968. He was arrested in 1969. Mark Naisonhas been a professor at Fordham University for the last 43 years.

Eleanor Raskin Stein was a member of the Weather Underground. In 1979 her home was raided for bomb-making materials In 1981 Eleanor Raskin Stein was arrested and prosecuted for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution. Stein began to teach at the State University of New York in Albany and then later at Albany Law School. She currently is an administrative law judge.

Mark Rudd was the spokesman for students in the Columbia student revolt of 1969 and Weatherman. Rudd avoided a long prison sentence due to a technicality. Now retired, Mark Rudd was a math instructor at the Central New Mexico Community College.

Jamal Joseph, formerly Eddie Joseph or Black Panther Eddie was part of the Black Panther group that were arrested for conspiring to blow up railroad lines, department stores and the Botanical Gardens. The Panther 21 were found not guilty. Jamal Joseph is a professor at Columbia University.

Ericka Huggins was the founder of the New Haven Black Panthers in 1969. According to court testimony Huggins was present and assisted in torturing Rackley; another Black Panther member, George Sams, implicated Huggins in the call to murder Rackley. Huggins’ charges were dismissed after the jury was unable to reach a verdict. Ericka Huggins is currently a professor at Laney & Berkeley City College and has been an invited lecturer at Stanford and Cornell.

Angela Davis had several close ties to the Black Panthers but was never a member. Davis spent time on the FBI’s Top Ten Most Wanted List. She had purchased a shotgun two days before it was used in a hostage situation, which left six people dead. She would later be acquitted and run for Vice President in 1980 and 1984 under the Communist Party USA ticket. Angela Davis is a Professor Emerita from University of California, Santa Cruz in the History of Consciousness and the Feminist Studies departments.

David Hilliard was a Black Panther Chief of Staff. Hilliard was convicted on two counts of assault with a deadly weapon in 1968. David Hilliard is currently a visiting instructor at the University of New Mexico.

And last but not least:

Steve Best – technically, not an accused terrorist. Best is the founder of the Animal Liberation Press Office which acts as the media office for several animal rights groups, including the Animal Liberation Front, which is a domestic terrorist group. In 2004, the British Home Office told him that they intended to use counter-terrorist measures to prevent him from speaking at an animal rights rally in the UK. Steve Best is a philosopher professor from the University of Texas at El Paso.

Why are domestic terrorists allowed to indoctrinate our so called future? What’s next? Is Dzhokhar Tsarnaev going to be teaching at Berkeley in the year 2036?

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Terrorist Bill Ayers Confirms That His Friend Barack Obama Began His Political Career In Ayers’ Living Room

Bill Ayers Confirms What Obama Has Denied – WorldNetDaily

Weatherman domestic terrorist Bill Ayers is now confirming what the White House has previously denied – that he held a fundraiser in his living room for Barack Obama.


That 1995 meeting was said to have launched Obama’s political career.

In an October 2008 interview on MSNBC host Chris Matthews’ show, Robert Gibbs, a spokesman for Obama’s presidential campaign, categorically denied the fundraiser was ever held.

Matthews asked Gibbs: “Did [Ayers] have a fundraiser for [Obama], or not?”

Gibbs, who would become the White House spokesman, replied: “No, he did not have a fundraiser for our candidate as he said ten seconds ago.”

However, in an interview last week with the Daily Beast, Ayers recalled that fundraiser.

Stated Ayers of his relationship with Obama: “We were friendly, that was true; we served on a couple of boards together, that was true; he held a fundraiser in our living room, that was true; Michelle [Obama] and Bernardine were at the law firm together, that was true. Hyde Park in Chicago is a tiny neighborhood, so when he said I was ‘a guy around the neighborhood,’ that was true.”

Does this explain infamous Ayers living-room meeting?

Is the socialist-oriented New Party the missing link at the center of that now infamous 1995 Obama fundraiser in Ayers living room in Chicago?

It was at that meeting that New Party member Alice Palmer announced she wanted Obama as her successor as state senator since she was stepping down to run for Congress.

WND has found that in the July 1996 edition of the New Party’s newsletter, the New Party news, the controversial party announced “the Illinois New Party capped off a month-long house party drive in Chicago.”

Further review of New Party literature from 1995 and 1996 finds that so-called house parties were regularly utilized by the New Party to introduce candidates to leading party activists as well as to raise money and recruit new members.

It is known that single-payer activist Quentin Young, who advised Obama on healthcare when the politician was a state senator, was present at the parlor meeting at the Ayers’ residence.

WND reported that Young was listed by the New Party as an early party founder and builder.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” Young was quoted as saying. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Chicago-based blogger Maria Warren was also present. She wrote that she remembered watching Obama give a “standard, innocuous little talk” in the Ayers’ home.

“They were launching him,” Warren wrote, “introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread.”

It would make sense that the New Party sponsored the get-together in Ayers’ living room for Palmer’s announcement.

Palmer was the New Party’s signed candidate for office. The New Party, which had partnered closely with ACORN, was mobilizing support for Palmer among its constituents and the larger Chicago progressive community.

New Party founder and Marxist activist Carl Davidson recalled screening Palmer and signing her up to the party.

Wrote Davidson:

In the next two elections in the city… the New Party has taken a slightly different approach. It organized a citywide candidates forum and invited a number of progressive candidates. Of those responding, two were of special interest, Alice Palmer and Willie Delgado… Both Palmer and Delgado attended the [New Party] forum and were thoroughly questioned by 70 or so New Party members. At the close, both publicly signed a “contract” with the New Party… Two weeks later, the New Party formally endorsed them and is now mobilizing support.

How was the New Party mobilizing the stated support for Palmer at the time, an effort that Palmer wanted transferred to Obama?

WND reported the New Party had such a close relationship with ACORN that at one point the two shared an office address, fax lines and email addresses.

ACORN led the New Party’s mobilization and voter drive efforts. In progressive circles at the time, the New Party was considered the de facto political wing of ACORN, a group with which Obama long maintained a close relationship.

Ayers and Dohrn, meanwhile, traveled in the same political circles as New Party leaders, making it even more likely the duo could have hosted a New Party house meeting. The duo were key supporters of Palmer.

In 1994 Dohrn and Bill Ayers were listed on a “Membership, Subscription and Mailing List” for the Chicago Committees of Correspondence, which was co-chaired by New Party founder Davidson.

WND found that Chicago activists Joe Iosbaker and Stephanie Weiner were also listed as New Party leaders.

Iosbaker is a University of Illinois-Chicago office worker and a union steward for his SEIU local. His home was raided by the FBI in September 2010 reportedly as part of a terror probe investigating material support for jihadist groups.

Together with other activists raided in the same probe, Iosbaker and Weiner are founders of the so-called Committee to Stop FBI Repression, which protested the FBI raids.

Another founder of the committee whose home was part of the same raid is Hatem Abudayyeh, the executive director of the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

WND was first to report that Obama, while serving as a paid director of the far-left nonprofit Chicago Woods Fund, provided two grants to the AAAN. Obama served at the Woods Fund alongside Ayers.

AAAN was founded by a longtime Obama associate, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi. Khalidi’s wife, Mona, is president of the Arab American Action Network.

The New Party, meanwhile, is coming under increased scrutiny after new information emerged further indicating Obama was a member of the party in the 1990s.

The New Party was a 1990s party that sought to elect members to public office with the aim of moving the Democratic Party far leftward to ultimately form a new political party with a socialist agenda.

In 2008, Obama’s campaign denied the president was ever a member amid reports, including from WND, citing the New Party’s own literature listing Obama as a member.

Information uncovered in recent weeks, including Obama’s signed contract with the New Party, further establishes the president’s membership with the controversial organization.

Socialist goals

The New Party, established in 1992, took advantage of what was known as electoral “fusion,” which enabled candidates to run on two tickets simultaneously, attracting voters from both parties. But the New Party disbanded in 1998, one year after fusion was halted by the Supreme Court.

The socialist-oriented goals of the New Party were enumerated on its old website.

Among the New Party’s stated objectives were “full employment, a shorter work week and a guaranteed minimum income for all adults; a universal ‘social wage’ to include such basic benefits as health care, child care, vacation time and lifelong access to education and training; a systematic phase-in of comparable worth; and like programs to ensure gender equity.”

The New Party stated it also sought “the democratization of our banking and financial system – including popular election of those charged with public stewardship of our banking system, worker-owner control over their pension assets [and] community-controlled alternative financial institutions.”

Many of the New Party’s founding members were Democratic Socialists of America leaders and members of Committees of Correspondence, a breakaway of the Communist Party USA.

Last month, WND reported on a 1996 print advertisement in a local Chicago newspaper that shows Obama was the speaker at an event sponsored and presented by the Democratic Socialists of America, the DSA.

WND first reported on the event in 2010.

Obama listed as New Party member

In 2009, WND reported on newspaper evidence from the New Party’s own literature listing several new members of the New Party, including Obama.

Earlier this month, Kurtz, writing at National Review Online, reported Obama signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

In 2008, Obama’s Fight the Smears campaign website quoted Carol Harwell, who managed Obama’s 1996 campaign for the Illinois Senate, as stating: “Barack did not solicit or seek the New Party endorsement for state senator in 1995.”

Fight the Smears conceded the New Party did support Obama in 1996 but denied that Obama had ever joined.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story


Today Is ‘Everybody KEEP Blogging About Brett Kimberlin’ Day… So Turn Off Your TVs And Spread The Word About The Most Vile, Left-Wing Terrorist To Come Down The Pike Since Bill Ayers

As many of you know, yesterday was ‘Everybody Blog About Brett Kimberlin’ day. I dug it. You dug it. Heck, even my cat Sniper dug it, and he hates EVERYTHING. Still, I woke up today with one nagging question on my mind: is a SINGLE DAY of collective, right-wing blogging about one of the most despicable scumbags to ever draw a breath really sufficient? Of course, my answer to that question was HELL NO, which is why I’ve decided to declare today ‘Everybody KEEP Blogging About Brett Kimberlin’ day.

Rock on, conservative patriots!

* Brett Kimberlin And The Hall Of Fame Of Leftist Terrorists – Front Page

* Convicted Bomber Brett Kimberlin, Neal Rauhauser, Ron Brynaert, And Their Campaign Of Political Terrorism – Patterico’s Pontifications

* Flashback: Progressives Embrace Convicted Terrorist – Breitbart

* The Left And Con Men – American Thinker

* It’s Lying Felon Brett Kimberlin’s Day In The Sun – PJ Tatler

* How Brett Kimberlin Tried To Frame Me For A Crime (And How You Can Help!) – Allergic 2 Bull

* Senator Hatch: ‘No Surprise’ Kimberlin Is Harassing Conservative Bloggers – Washington Times

* Calling All Conservative Bloggers, The Army Of Davids Needs You – Lonely Conservative

* If You Want To Understand The Risk Involved In Using Your 1st Amendment Rights… – DaTechGuy’s Blog

* Brett Kimberlin, Domestic Terrorist – Midwest Conservative Journal

* Violent Convicted Terrorist Bomber Given Million$ By Progressives Now Terrorizes Bloggers – Zilla Of The Resistance

* Expose Brett Kimberlin: We Won’t Be Bullied Anymore – Marathon Pundit

* Why Is KPFK A 501c3 Non-Profit When It Supports Progressive Candidates And Domestic Terrorists Like Brett Kimberlin? – Valley Of The Shadow

* Who Warned Us About Brett Kimberlin? – The Other McCain

* The Bizarre Tale Of Brett Kimberlin: Speedway Bomber And Left-Wing Activist – Gather News



Check out THIS interview with Kimberlin victim ROBERT STACY MCCAIN on the ANDREA SHEA KING BlogTalk radio program.

Then watch THIS video of MATTHEW VADUM explaining to EZRA LEVANT how the TIDES FOUNDATION is funding Kimberlin.

Your skin will crawl when you find out there is a “children’s book” on how to be an Anarchist

The terrorist, traitor, Communist ah some guy in Barack Obama’s neighborhood just LOVES him some of this.

Here’s Bill Ayers review of the children’s book (not a joke):

“. . . A delight to read! A children’s book on anarchy seems somehow just right: an instinctive, intuitive sense of fairness, community, and interdependence sits naturally enough with a desire for participatory democracy, feminism, queer-rights, environmental balance, self-determination, and peace and global justice.” — Bill Ayers, author (To Teach: The Journey in Comics and Fugitive Days), teacher, Barack Obama’s alleged terrorist pal, and grandpa.

I ever catch any Bill Ayers type near my niece Savannah, and I will most likely go to jail. These bastards are just as much enemies of our nation as the Soviets ever were. Do not forget it. They do not wish anything less than the complete destruction of America and the complete eradication of your liberty!

The Blaze has much more on the vile tactics of the Marxists and Anarchists be sure to read it.

Ron Paul, Bill Ayers, And ‘Implausible Deniability’ – David B. Cohen

Ron Paul, Bill Ayers, And ‘Implausible Deniability’ – DaDavid B. Cohen

I’ve received quite a response to my most recent column on these pages, entitled “Ron Paul is a bigot.” I’ve learned that Ron Paul supporters don’t take kindly to having their candidate criticized. Here’s a sampling of some of my fan mail:

“Cohen fits the template of those who are using the race card against Dr. Paul,” opined one Paul supporter. “It’s generally neocon, socialist-leaning Jews. It’s a shame Hitler didn’t gas all of you vermin.” As I told guest host Mark Isler on Dennis Prager’s radio show on Monday: It’s all well and good to call me vermin that should have been sent to the gas chamber. Reasonable people can debate that. But to accuse me of being “socialist-leaning”? That’s outside the bounds of civil discourse. How dare he!

Another gentleman named “Filthyjews” (and I suspect that’s not his real name) offered: “The author is yet another filthy scumbag parasite who should have been incinerated along with the rest of his scumbag parasitic family. [Paul] has stated countless times he had NOTHING to do with those comments. I on the other hand fully embrace the fact that all of you scumbag filthy ashkenazi parasites need to be eradicated from this earth! I hope I have been clear.” Indeed you have, Mr. Filthyjews. Indeed you have.

These are just a couple of examples. The comments (440 and counting at this writing) included scores of references to my religion – none of them complimentary, many of them not printable. Apparently, any American Jew who criticizes Paul must necessarily be a “zioturd” agent who would gladly commit treason against his own country out of loyalty to Israel. There were also many disparaging remarks about African-Americans. It makes one wonder why these commenters would be so upset that their candidate was accused of bigotry. After all, they don’t seem to think that bigotry is a bad thing. My advice to anyone with a Jewish name who is contemplating writing a column critical of Ron Paul: use a pseudonym. On second thought, it wouldn’t matter: It wouldn’t prevent them from accusing you of the crime of being Jewish.

I of course stand by my contention that the recent newsletter controversy demonstrates Ron Paul’s bigotry. Paul claims that he knew nothing about the racist, anti-Semitic and anti-gay nonsense that was published in his newsletters in the 1980s and 1990s. I’m reminded of the term “plausible deniability,” coined by Eisenhower-era CIA Director Allen Dulles. The term applies when a public figure’s handlers concoct a strategy to ensure that the public figure can plausibly deny previous knowledge of some incriminating fact (as in “I didn’t know about that and you can’t prove that I did”). Paul’s handling of the newsletter scandal suggests a new concept: implausible deniability. Is it really plausible that Paul would have no knowledge of the garbage that was going out in his name for over two decades in newsletters that earned Paul millions of dollars? For some, like Mr. Filthyjews, the fact that Paul “has stated countless times he had NOTHING to do with those comments” conclusively settles the matter once and for all. Any further inquiry can only be attributed to a conspiracy between neocons and liberals (who otherwise can’t agree on anything) to smear Paul. Others, like the Reason Foundation’s Nick Gillespie – who is generally supportive of Paul’s libertarian views — acknowledge that Paul needs to come up with a better explanation than the shoulder shrug that he has offered thus far. (“Shoulder shrug” is my term, not Gillespie’s.)

Even if we were to take Paul at his word that he had no idea what was going on, that still doesn’t absolve him of the bigotry charge. As I argued in my column, Paul has shown a disturbing willingness to associate with bigots, accept their support, and – if we are to believe that he really did not approve the newsletters – cover for them. For example, The New York Times reported that a major white supremacist group is supplying large numbers of volunteers for Paul’s campaign, and The Weekly Standard reported that Paul’s best source of congressional campaign contributions was the mailing list for a “conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid” published by a Holocaust denier. I argued in my column that anyone who has this much tolerance of bigots has got to be a bigot himself. If nothing else, Paul’s popularity among racists and anti-Semites explains many of the comments drawn by my last column. (And I in no way wish to impugn the many decent people, including some of my friends, who support Paul.)

Some have accused me of using “guilt by association” tactics to smear Paul. They point out that the mainstream media gave President Obama a pass on his long-time association with the unrepentant terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, the race-baiting preacher Rev. Jeremiah Wright, and other radicals. Indeed they did. But we conservatives are not the ones who gave Obama a pass. We rightly argued that it wasn’t enough for Obama to say that he did not share the views of his radical friends. We were rightly skeptical of Obama’s claim that he was unaware of Rev. Wright’s many incendiary comments over the years, despite having attended his church for two decades. And we now have every right, and indeed the obligation, to apply to Paul the same scrutiny we applied to Obama.

Obama’s friendships with terrorists and other radicals would of course not convict him of anything in a court of law. The same goes for Paul. But a presidential race is not a court of law. We, the voting public, have a right to make common-sense inferences about presidential candidates and the company they keep. The burden is not on the voting public to prove that birds of a feather flock together. The burden is on each presidential candidate to convince us that he or she is fit to lead our nation.

Many of us have a hard time believing that Paul could surround himself with such filth yet remain pure as the driven snow. Paul’s supporters are indignant that we would doubt their hero. I have to assume, however, that many of these same people joined us in attacking Obama for his unsavory associations, and scoffed at Obama’s protestations of ignorance of his friends’ pronouncements and activities. If liberals and the mainstream media are hypocritical for going after Paul but not Obama, then many of Paul’s supporters are equally hypocritical for going after Obama but not Paul.

I made light of some of the hateful comments that I drew for my last column, but there’s really nothing funny about them. Most of Paul’s supporters are good, idealistic people, but there is an odious element within his flock. Some of Paul’s followers behave as members of a cult, experiencing narcissistic injury whenever their leader is challenged. The extremist underbelly of Paul’s following has managed to unite the worst elements of right-wing and left-wing anti-Semitism – a difficult feat indeed.

A decent man would be mortified to have the support of the hatemongers who back Paul. Paul was only able to muster weakly to The New York Times that he “wouldn’t be happy” to have the support of racists and bigots. He has shown no inclination, though, to display his supposed displeasure to the racists and bigots who actually do support him. And while he claims to not share their views, Paul indeed seems “happy” to continue to accept their support. He wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Paul’s blithe indifference to the ugliness within his movement is not only morally reprehensible; it is also reckless, given the hateful passions to which some of his followers are prone. Whenever Paul encounters a setback, his more deranged followers will direct their rage at their usual litany of scapegoats: the Jews, the neocons (i.e. the Jews), the Zionists (i.e. the Jews), Israel-firsters (i.e. the Jews), the African-Americans, the gays. And Paul, while not publicly endorsing their bigotry, will do nothing to confront it – notwithstanding the tremendous influence that he has over his devotees. For that alone, Ron Paul is morally unfit to be president.

David B. Cohen served in the administration of President George W. Bush as U.S. Representative to the Pacific Community, as Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Interior, and as a member of the President’s Advisory Commission on Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders. He hosted the debate show “Beer Summit” for PBS Guam.

Click HERE For Rest Of Story

*VIDEO* Terrorist Bill Ayers Brags About Hosting Obama Fundraiser In His Home

H/T Gateway Pundit


*VIDEO* Everything You Need To Know About The Leftist ‘Occupy’ Movement In America

While we are on the subject of Obama’s radicalism………..

Check out this video of Bill Ayers, a terrorist and Communist and some young fools who actually admire him. Recall that Ayers is a BIG BUDDY of Obama. A man who loathes the United States, the Constitution, and your liberty! Listen carefully as Ayers brags about meeting with the North Vietnamese to plan a revolution in America.

Understand that this evil man admires the butchers that the North Vietnamese were. Just ask a Cambodian about the “Social Justice” Ayers so loves!

Khmer Rouge seized power in 1975, and in 1976 Khmer Rouge established a new constitution with the new flag under offical name, Democratic Kampuchea. As one of the most violent regimes of the 20th century, the Khmer Rouge regime was responsible for the deaths of approximately 1.7 million people by execution, starvation and forced labor.

Powered by the Vietnamese, the Cambodian communist movement was created to fight against French colonization during decade of 1940s.

In 1960, twenty one politicians formed Kampuchean (or Khmer) People’s Revolutionary Party (KPRP). The Khmer Rouge, organized by Pol Pot in the Cambodian jungle in the 1960s, advocated a radical Communist revolution that would wipe out Western influences in Cambodia and set up a solely agrarian society. In 1970, aided by North Vietnamese and Viet Cong troops, Khmer Rouge guerrillas began a large-scale insurgency against Cambodian government forces, soon gaining control of nearly a third of the country.

By 1973, secret U.S. bombings of Cambodian territory controlled by the Vietnamese Communists forced the Vietnamese out of the country, creating a power vacuum that was soon filled by Pol Pot’s rapidly growing Khmer Rouge movement. In April 1975, the Khmer Rouge captured Phnom Penh, the Cambodian capital, overthrew the pro-U.S. regime, and established a new government, the Kampuchean People’s Republic.

As the new ruler of Cambodia, Pol Pot set about transforming the country into his vision of an agrarian utopia. The cities were evacuated, factories and schools were closed, and currency and private property was abolished. Anyone believed to be an intellectual, such as someone who spoke a foreign language, was immediately killed. Skilled workers were also killed, in addition to anyone caught in possession of eyeglasses, a wristwatch, or any other modern technology. In forced marches punctuated with atrocities from the Khmer Rouge, the millions who failed to escape Cambodia were herded onto rural collective farms.

Between 1975 and 1978, an estimated two million Cambodians died by execution, forced labor, and famine. In 1978, Vietnamese troops invaded Cambodia, capturing Phnom Penh in early 1979. A moderate Communist government was established, and Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge retreated back into the jungle.

There is a special place in Hell for these evil bastards, and for evil bastards like Ayers that glorify them!

Yes, Obama really has an affinity for radicals

Obama’s launched his political career from Bill Ayer’s house. And here is a reminder of just how far left Ayers is.

Also consider that Obama has zero respect for the will of the people. Consider his deep affection for his czars

President Obama signed into law on Friday the hard-fought legislation to fund government and keep it running through the end of September. 

The president signed the legislation based on the deal he negotiated last week with House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) that cuts nearly $40 billion from the government through the end of this fiscal years and advances several policy goals.

But Obama took the key step of issuing a signing statement, a declaration of constitutional interpretation by a president of legislation he or she might sign into law. It essentially notified lawmakers that he would not abide by the section of the law defunding the establishment of so-called “czars.”

Obama has employed a good number of these informal policy advisers who aren’t subject to Senate confirmation, drawing the ire of congressional Republicans and prompting them to include in their spending bill a provision barring the use of federal funds for czars.

Well, so much for abiding by the deal he struck huh?