Weatherman terrorists: Obama's centrism a 'smokescreen'

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • BloodEclipse

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Apr 3, 2008
    10,620
    38
    In the trenches for liberty!
    [FONT=Palatino,][SIZE=+1]Forecast a radical agenda that would impress Lenin coming[/SIZE][/FONT]

    [SIZE=-1]Posted: December 05, 2008[/SIZE]
    [SIZE=-1]12:15 am Eastern[/SIZE]



    [SIZE=-1]WorldNetDaily [/SIZE]

    0925markrudd.jpg

    Former Weathermen member Mark Rudd

    President-elect Barack Obama is "feigning" a centrist position on some issues so he can ultimately push through a radical agenda, including universal healthcare and trimming the military, according to analysis by a founder of the Weathermen terror group, Mark Rudd, who has ties to Obama mentors.
    Another top former Weathermen terrorist with ties to Obama mentors, Jeff Jones, concurred the president-elect will attempt major change, including "redistributing financial resources downward." He called Obama's "centrist" appointments a "smokescreen" to "co-opt the moderate center," declaring, "even Lenin would be impressed!"
    In an article on the radical leftist Rag Blog, Rudd commented, "Obama plays basketball. I'm not much of an athlete, barely know the game, but one thing I do know is that you have to be able to look like you're doing one thing but do another. That's why all these conservative appointments are important: the strategy is feint to the right, move left. Any other strategy invites sure defeat. It would be stupid to do otherwise in this environment."


    Rudd stressed what he called Obama's second-tier appointments to various agencies, claiming those individuals are far more "progressive."
    "Cheney was extremely effective at controlling policy by putting his people in at second-level positions," noted Rudd.
    The terror group founder outlined what he believes is Obama's domestic agenda:
    "What he's doing now is moving on the most popular issues – the environment, health care and the economy. He'll be progressive on the environment because that has broad popular support; health care will be extended to children, then made universal, but the medical, pharmaceutical, and insurance corporations will stay in place. ... The economic agenda will stress stimulation from the bottom sometimes and handouts to the top at other times. It will be pragmatic."
    He said Obama ultimately seeks to shrink the military but cannot make that goal public for some time.
    Find out all about Barack Obama's links to Weather Underground leader Bill Ayers and his entire agenda for "change" in Brad O'Leary's "The Audacity of Deceit," the virtual blueprint for the next administration's radical prescriptions.
    "Leave the military alone because they're way too powerful," writes Rudd. "For now, until enough momentum is raised. By the second or third year of this recession, when stimulus is needed at the bottom, people may begin to discuss cutting the military budget if security is being increased through diplomacy and application of nascent international law."
    On the same blog, former Weatherman terrorist Jones wrote Obama is "really SMART."
    "His centrist appointments are a smokescreen; they co-opt the moderate center, but he's still the commander in chief. Even Lenin would be impressed!" he declared.
    Jones wrote that Obama's various initiatives, "which will collectively set the nation on a path towards energy independence, ending the war and redistributing financial resources downward, are presented as unconnected pieces of legislation, but actually they are interlocking components of Obama's coherent multi-layered agenda."
    Both Jones and Rudd were active in Progressives for Obama, an independent organization acting to ensure the Illinois senator's election. The group includes among its ranks many former members of the 1960s radical organization Students for a Democratic Society, or SDS, from which the Weathermen splintered, as well as current and former members of other radical organizations, such as the Communist Party USA and the Black Radical Congress.
    Jones, according to his own website, was "elected, along with (Weathermen terrorist) Bill Ayers and Mark Rudd, to the SDS national office. Then, in the spring of 1970, he disappeared. As a leader of the Weather Underground, Jeff evaded an intense FBI manhunt for more than a decade. In 1981, they finally got him. Twenty special agents battered down the door of the Bronx apartment where he was living with his wife and four-year-old son."
    Jones' site says he traveled to Cambodia in 1966 to meet with high-level leaders of the anti-American National Liberation Front. In 1967 and 1968 he served as an SDS regional organizer for New York City.
    Rudd, a petition supporter as well as a main signatory to the Progressives for Obama group, was one of the main founders of the Weathermen terrorist organization. A biography published on his website explains Rudd worked to form the Weathermen as a radical alternative to the SDS and for white Americans to eject their "white skin privilege" and begin "armed struggle" against the U.S. government.
    Rudd went underground in 1970 when a bomb exploded in a townhouse in Greenwich Village in New York City, killing three of his comrades. He lived for seven and a half years in hiding as a fugitive, finally surrendering in 1977 and facing only low-level state charges after federal charges against Weathermen leaders had been dropped. He resurfaced as a teacher in New Mexico.
    As late as 2005, Rudd wrote an editorial in the Los Angeles Times lamenting the state of the anti-war movement in the U.S.
    "What's hard to understand – given the revelations about the rush to war, the use of torture and the loss of more than 2,000 soldiers – is why the antiwar movement isn't further along than it is," he wrote. "Given that President Bush is now talking about Iraq as only one skirmish in an unlimited struggle against a global Islamic enemy, a struggle comparable to the titanic, 40-year Cold War against communism, shouldn't a massive critique of the global war on terrorism already be underway?"
    In the piece, Rudd condemned the Weathermen's decision to embark on an "armed-struggle," calling it "stupid" since the violent acts led to the group's demise. But he didn't condemn the terrorism itself, only its contribution to the downfall of the Weathermen.
    The New Zeal blog noted both Rudd and Jones have connections to Obama through the radical Movement for a Democratic Society, where the two serve on the board alongside former Weathermen Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, whose deep connections to Obama sparked controversy during the presidential campaign.

    What do you think? Are they right in believing that this is just cover for a major move to the Left or did Obama just use them and has now tossed them aside?
    I sure hope it's the latter but I fear it's not.
     

    4sarge

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    21   0   0
    Mar 19, 2008
    5,897
    99
    FREEDONIA
    No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffusd and virtue is preservd. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauchd in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders." --Samuel Adams

    Stupid is as stupid does

    By Mark Alexander
    After the most recent presidential election, when, as you may recall, our once great nation exposed its collective flank -- unmitigated ignorance -- to the world, a reputable pollster, John Zogby, endeavored to determine how 66 million of us could be so profoundly stupid.


    We reported his findings in our "Non Compos Mentis" section two weeks ago, including, for example, that 56.1 percent of Obama supporters did not know his political career was launched by two former terrorists from the Weather Underground; that 57 percent did not know which political party controlled congress; that 72 percent did not know Joe Biden withdrew from a previous presidential campaign because of plagiarism in law school; and that 87 percent thought Sarah Palin said she could "see Russia from my house," even though that was "Saturday Night Live" comedian Tina Fey in a parody of Palin.

    The Zogby polling was designed to determine how much influence the media had on shaping public opinion, and, thus, the outcome of the election. Of course, establishing that the political landscape would look very different if the media were neutral is filed under "keen sense of the obvious."

    However, a report issued last week by the Intercollegiate Studies Institute is more relevant to understanding why Barack Obama received so much support from those between 18 and 30 years of age -- support that put him over the top.

    For the last two years, ISI has assessed the civil literacy of young people at American colleges and universities, testing both students and faculty. The civics test included a cross section of multiple-choice questions about our system of government, history and free enterprise -- questions to assess the knowledge that all Americans should possess in order to understand their civic responsibility and make informed decisions in matters such as elections.

    More than 14,000 freshmen and seniors at 50 schools nationwide were given the 60-question exam. More than 50 percent of freshmen and 54 percent of seniors failed the test. (So they get dumber?)

    This year, ISI went beyond the "institutions of higher learning" to assess civic literacy across demographic groups. The 2008 civics quiz asked similar questions to those asked to college and university students in previous years, but also included questions about civic participation and policy issues. The results were then subjected to multivariate regression analysis in order to determine if college and university graduates had a higher civic IQ than the rest of society.

    As you might expect, 71 percent of Americans failed the test, with an average score of 49. Educators did not fare much better, scoring an average of 55 percent. As the researchers noted, "Fewer than half of all Americans can name all three branches of government, a minimal requirement for understanding America's constitutional system."

    College grads flunked, answering 57 percent of the questions correctly, compared to 44 percent for high school grads.

    Less than 24 percent of those with college degrees knew that the First Amendment prohibits establishing an official religion for the United States. Further, only 54 percent can correctly identify the basic tenets of the free enterprise system.

    Would you be shocked to know that elected officials have a lower civic IQ than the public they ostensibly serve? Indeed, these paragons of representative government answered just 44 percent of the questions correctly. Almost a third of elected officials could not identify "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as the inalienable rights in our Declaration of Independence.

    Our Founders, those venerable Patriots who signed our Declaration of Independence and codified the liberty that is declared in our Constitution, understood that liberty could not long survive an epidemic of ignorance.

    According to George Washington: "The best means of forming a manly, virtuous, and happy people will be found in the right education of youth. Without this foundation, every other means, in my opinion, must fail."

    John Adams wrote: "Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right, from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator, who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know; but besides this, they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible, divine right to that most dreaded and envied kind of knowledge; I mean, of the characters and conduct of their rulers. ... Wisdom and knowledge, as well as virtue, diffused generally among the body of the people, being necessary for the preservation of their rights and liberties..."

    Thomas Jefferson insisted: "Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. ... If a nation expects to be ignorant -- and free -- in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

    James Madison agreed: "A people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. ... What spectacle can be more edifying or more seasonable, than that of Liberty and Learning, each leaning on the other for their mutual & surest support?"

    Today, however, it would seem that ignorance is not only blissful but virtuous.
     

    AllenM

    Diamond Collision Inc. Avon.
    Industry Partner
    Rating - 100%
    133   0   0
    Apr 20, 2008
    10,407
    113
    Avon
    Whats so evil and radical about universal healthcare?

    Follows right in there with the government owning everything ie: Banks, insurance companies, savings and loan. and even automotive manufacturers. All the big businesses. It starts with bailouts and regulation.
    then we basically get taxed to death and work for the government so they can provide for us.
    Socialism vs capitalism..IMHO!!!!
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    Whats so evil and radical about universal healthcare?

    When the government can produce anything like quality healthcare routinely in the areas that it already has control of (things like the military and VA) then and only then is it time to even talk about expanding coverage to the rest of the population.
     

    Indy_Guy_77

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    16   0   0
    Apr 30, 2008
    16,576
    48
    Whats so evil and radical about universal healthcare?

    Because it takes away our right, as healthcare consumers, to pick and choose as we see fit.

    Because it takes away the right of healthcare providers to charge what they wish to charge.

    Because it increases dependence upon The Government.

    Because socialised medicine will ultimately become a "whose health can most benefit society"-type situation. FYI, it's easier for a 30-something to get preventative care in the UK than it is for a 80-something.

    Because by putting healthcare in the hands of the government, you subject it to one of the most bloated and inefficient beaurocracies on the planet. Name me some things that The Government does better than Private Industry? (better = less expensively and/or more quickly)

    -J-
     

    03mustgt

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    404
    16
    There are many factors to consider when talking about universal health care. I completely see the socialism vs. capitalism argument here, however if you look at every other modern country they have socialized health care, and frankly their people live longer. In regards to the VA and the government run health care, the problem with the VA is why would a doctor want to work there and make significantly less money, when he could work for a hospital like Methodist and make considerably more. Do you know what they call the person who graduates in the bottom of his/her class in medical school, they call them doctor.

    I personally get tired of seeing people with insurance having their health care dictated by the insurance company, not a doctor.
     

    dcbark01

    Plinker
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 2, 2008
    17
    1
    Floyds Knobs, IN
    And just to add to whats been said, I have several friends in Canada that have complained about their universal healthcare there. Sure, you get "free" healthcare, which is fine as long as you can deal with the long waitlists and sub-par care. That would be fine for a checkup, but if I've got a brain tumor I'll probably seek help in the private sector. And as notorious as our government is for redtape and the like, it would probably take a 600 page report and a congressional hearing to get your tempature taken haha.
     

    dburkhead

    Master
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 18, 2008
    3,930
    36
    You might want to take a closer look at some of those other countries. One of the realities of life is that wants are unlimited while resources are limited. This means that any system is going to have to restrict people from getting all that they want. The question is how that restriction is accomplished. In any Universal program it's going to be some government bureaucrat making that decision. That[/] rather than the pay of doctors is the problem with things like the VA.

    Then you get things like mortality rates among (oh, say the Elderly) varying systematically with the budget cycle. "I'm sorry, we used up our medication budget last month, so you get to die." You also get folk who can afford it finding ways to circumvent the "Universal health care" to get care that's not available to the masses--which pretty much eliminates the whole "fairness" argument for "universal health care"; might as well base the argument on gnomes and fairies (the mythological kind).

    One of the first things any government run system does is ensure their own security which pretty much means insulating themselves against any recourse by the "common people." This is another problem with military and VA medicine. If you have problems with private insurance or a bad doctor in the private sector you have recourse up to and including lawsuits. Government run? Well, you might in theory be able to sue (although there's no guarantee you'll be left even that ability), when you're up against the State, they can keep you tied up in litigation until your main healthcare concerns are the price of Geritol and Preparation H.

    The "they have 'universal health care' and they live longer" argument is an example of the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. The situation is more complicated than that. For example, some sub-populations in the various contries involved are poorly recorded so the error bars on those "life expectancy" figures are rather broad. For example, do you know which elements of US society have the highest infant mortality (which tends to be a big draw-down on life expectancy figures). All it takes is our simply having better statistics on that group then other countries have on similar groups to make our official numbers lower.
     

    CarmelHP

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Mar 14, 2008
    7,633
    48
    Carmel
    I personally get tired of seeing people with insurance having their health care dictated by the insurance company, not a doctor.

    So instead we should let a bureaucrat dictate our healthcare. Like the BMV? You'll love universal healthcare?
     

    bartonmd

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Oct 11, 2008
    317
    18
    Mooresville/Camby
    I personally get tired of seeing people with insurance having their health care dictated by the insurance company, not a doctor.

    Yeah, and you can sue the insurance company if you need to, or just duck the payments and take a hit on your credit score (or whatever else happens if you do that)...

    You can also switch to a different provider for your health insurance, or get a better plan with the same provider...

    Ever try to sue the federal government? What happens if you can't pay your part of the bill, and the 'gov has to foot it? I'm guessing they don't just screw with your credit...

    Mike
     

    03mustgt

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    404
    16
    You might want to take a closer look at some of those other countries. One of the realities of life is that wants are unlimited while resources are limited. This means that any system is going to have to restrict people from getting all that they want. The question is how that restriction is accomplished. In any Universal program it's going to be some government bureaucrat making that decision. That[/] rather than the pay of doctors is the problem with things like the VA.


    That is understandable, but when your doctor writes you a prescription, and you have inusrance, your insurance should cover that prescription, not refuse to pay until the doctor changes it to a cheaper drug with less efficacy.


    Then you get things like mortality rates among (oh, say the Elderly) varying systematically with the budget cycle. "I'm sorry, we used up our medication budget last month, so you get to die." You also get folk who can afford it finding ways to circumvent the "Universal health care" to get care that's not available to the masses--which pretty much eliminates the whole "fairness" argument for "universal health care"; might as well base the argument on gnomes and fairies (the mythological kind).
    The government already takes care of the majority of the elderly, have you heard of MEDICARE? I do not see elderly people dying because the budget has been used up. There will always be people who take advantage of the system, thats a fact. Let me ask you this, who do you think is paying for said person's healthcare right now? You are, through medicaid.

    One of the first things any government run system does is ensure their own security which pretty much means insulating themselves against any recourse by the "common people." This is another problem with military and VA medicine. If you have problems with private insurance or a bad doctor in the private sector you have recourse up to and including lawsuits. Government run? Well, you might in theory be able to sue (although there's no guarantee you'll be left even that ability), when you're up against the State, they can keep you tied up in litigation until your main healthcare concerns are the price of Geritol and Preparation H.
    Again, do you honestly believe our current system is any better in this regard? Your attorney is going to be eaten alive by the legal teams of the big insurance companies. Not to mention they will employ the same stall tactics as the gov.

    The "they have 'universal health care' and they live longer" argument is an example of the "Post hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. The situation is more complicated than that. For example, some sub-populations in the various contries involved are poorly recorded so the error bars on those "life expectancy" figures are rather broad. For example, do you know which elements of US society have the highest infant mortality (which tends to be a big draw-down on life expectancy figures). All it takes is our simply having better statistics on that group then other countries have on similar groups to make our official numbers lower.
    Is it more complicated than that? The United States is one of the richest countries in the world. Yes I am aware of Infant mortality rate, which for the united states it happens to be around 6.3/1,000 live births. That does not account for why the USA with our great healthcare is #45 on the list of countries for life expectancy.
    List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    List of countries by infant mortality rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     

    03mustgt

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    404
    16
    And just to add to whats been said, I have several friends in Canada that have complained about their universal healthcare there. Sure, you get "free" healthcare, which is fine as long as you can deal with the long waitlists and sub-par care. That would be fine for a checkup, but if I've got a brain tumor I'll probably seek help in the private sector. And as notorious as our government is for redtape and the like, it would probably take a 600 page report and a congressional hearing to get your tempature taken haha.

    Do we not experience those same problems here?
     

    ATF Consumer

    Shooter
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 23, 2008
    4,628
    36
    South Side Indy
    Government controlled health care will only add to the restrictions we have as a free people.

    Imagine what all would become illegal if their main focus was "the health of society"?

    Too obese? Mandatory physical conditioning...
    Too old? Mandatory termination???(think Logan's Run)
    Too young? Mandatory termination. (Obama supports this already)
    Need a hip replacement? Not a necessity...NEXT!
    High blood pressure? Mandatory diet with log for monitoring food intake.

    If you want the government to control and regulate how you live your life, then universal health care is the way to go.

    I prefer capitalistic style of health care, where I can pick and choose how I live, and if I can afford certain types of treatment, then I may do so.

    Look at particular types of treatment, such as lasic eye surgery. This is an area where the price keeps coming down, as technology improves and most insurance does not cover.

    Doctors are currently driven to be good at their practice by profit..not always, but mostly.
    Working for the Gov. there would most likely be caps on income for healthcare providers and what kind of incentive is that for them to do a good job? Which kind of doctor would you want working on you?
     

    03mustgt

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    Jan 16, 2008
    404
    16
    Government controlled health care will only add to the restrictions we have as a free people.

    Imagine what all would become illegal if their main focus was "the health of society"?

    Too obese? Mandatory physical conditioning...
    Too old? Mandatory termination???(think Logan's Run)
    Too young? Mandatory termination. (Obama supports this already)
    Need a hip replacement? Not a necessity...NEXT!
    High blood pressure? Mandatory diet with log for monitoring food intake.

    If you want the government to control and regulate how you live your life, then universal health care is the way to go.

    I prefer capitalistic style of health care, where I can pick and choose how I live, and if I can afford certain types of treatment, then I may do so.

    Look at particular types of treatment, such as lasic eye surgery. This is an area where the price keeps coming down, as technology improves and most insurance does not cover.

    Doctors are currently driven to be good at their practice by profit..not always, but mostly.
    Working for the Gov. there would most likely be caps on income for healthcare providers and what kind of incentive is that for them to do a good job? Which kind of doctor would you want working on you?

    That is not what universal health care is, that is an anti-government myth that the tin foils and lobbyists have created. Why do you think the price is going down on Lasic eye surgery? Because people cannot afford it. I say tough **** that the doctors cannot make 1.4 million dollars a year by exploiting people. Welcome to the real world, millions of people have jobs with salary caps on them and they still do their job. I would want a doctor that cares more about helping people than getting rich working on me, but thats just IMO.
    You can still pick and choose how you live in a universal health care system as well.
     

    schwaky18

    Sharpshooter
    Rating - 100%
    7   0   0
    Nov 7, 2008
    362
    34
    Lizton, IN (Hendricks County)
    Whats so evil and radical about universal healthcare?

    Simple, you are relying on the government. The more you rely on them the more power they have. The governement wasn't supposed to be set up like this, but the more people relyed on it the stronger it become (the Great Depression did most of this).

    Now it can control anything and everything it wants to because we think its suppose to (i.g. banks, guns, health care, S.S., welfare). Congress is only suppose to be able to regulate Interstate commerce. What does any of these things have to do with trade between states. NOTHING, but we have forgotten that and just let the government do whatever it wants as long as we get something in return.

    We give up our liberties and the government gives us hand-outs. We are happy because we think we got something for nothing and the governement is happy because it has more power. Only a long time later do we realize we gave up the most vauleable thing we have in order to get crappy governement hand-outs.

    Remember "there is not such thing as a free lunch" Yea health care may seem cheaper and/or better but there will be a cost in the end.
     
    Top Bottom