Thursday, October 23, 2008

Jack Winters: Marquette Professor Supports Terrorist Bill Ayers

From the blog Support Bill Ayers, the news that Jack Winters, Marquette University Professor of Biomedical Engineering, is supporting terrorist and University of Illinois-Chicago education school professor Bill Ayers.

Ayers, remember, is the former SDS Weatherman member who participated in terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and other sites. On September 11, 2001, the New York Times published an article quoting him as saying “I don’t regret setting bombs” and “I feel we didn’t do enough.”

His group’s terrorist activities resulted in the deaths of three fellow terrorists when a bomb they were building exploded. The bomb was a nail bomb intended to kill soldiers at a dance at Fort Dix. Ayers had supplied the building instructions for the bomb, knowing the purpose for which it was being built.

Happily, it killed three terrorists rather than American soldiers.

But why does Ayers need support? Apparently because people are saying bad things about him. He is in no danger of being fired from his tenured position. He is in no danger of being locked up (although he should have been locked up years ago for his terrorist activities).

Rather, people are criticizing him.

That, some leftist professors think, is an attack on academic freedom.

This from a class of people who feel free to launch any attack they want on anybody and everybody they dislike.

Winters, reached via e-mail, declined to discuss his support for Ayers. His personal web page, however, shows he is a supporter of numerous leftist organizations.

Labels: , ,


Anonymous awb said...

Is there really any difference between Bill Ayers and Timothy McVeigh? I mean, of course, besides the fact that McVeigh was sentenced to death for bombing a government building and Ayers is a college professor. It would seem that both men are terrorists but only one has been punished.

11:55 AM  
Blogger jimspice said...

Now please don't try to read too much into this, but seriously, how does the concept of "Innocent Until Proven Guilty" fit into the equation here? Certainly this instance, since the person in question has made no secret of his involvement, may stretch logical bounds here, but the man, in fact, has never been convicted of anything.


1:42 PM  
Anonymous GBR said...


A more accurate phrase is "not guilty until proven guilty."

Being "not guilty" and being "innocent" are two totally different things.

Ayers got a pass from the legal system because of illegal wiretaps. Not because he was "innocent" by any stretch of the imagination.

He was a thug when he tried to blow up the Pentagon. He was a thug when he kicked off St. Barack's political career in his living room. And he is a thug now.

1:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


He admitted it.

A confession works for me.

Even said he didn't do enough.

12:27 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home